Difficulty : Irritating

It's human nature to want to improve in multiple areas, because by doing so we gain experience which can then use to adapt to various life scenarios and eventually overcome them. Essentially (and Darwinistically) it's what made us what we are now(yeah I admit we are not THAT great, but at least in Earth's domain I'd like to think that we are the most developped species :).

Games-wise that means that variety is more than just a fun factor of a game. It also helps improving our skills but more importantly, our inherent ability to adapt to various situations. Siituations that require us to use our acquired knowledge to overcome them, also known as problems. Problems vary in different factors and categories, but one common characteristic is most certainly the difficulty of the problem. As computer games are essentially consisted of problems variant in type, the game itself can be attributed the difficulty factor.

On that topic, I'd like to address the Demon's Souls difficulty hype all over the net. This is not a difficult game, but an irritating one. I'll just analyze my case.
I play for 30-35 minutes in a level defeating all the enemies along the way. Which proves my case that I posess the skills required to overcome the obstacles at hand. Then I encounter a boss for the first time. An enemy i know nothing of. To spice things up, he takes 3/4 of your health with one hit. Long story short - you die. Up to this moment I haven't found a statement on the internet that implies that someone defeated a boss first try(not before reading walkthroughs and strategy guides at least). So you're taken back from the beginning. Yes, you have to pass all the trials that you've proven that you're better than. Another 30-35 minutes of doing things you already did, solving a problem you already solved all for a CHANCE at the boss again. Which in 80% of the cases means that you'll die again, and go back from the beginning again. Imagine that you play FIFA and if you concede a goal you start at the bottom in the league table with 0 points, or each enemy's succesfull hit brings you back to level one. That does not improve your ability. That just makes you Sisyphus with a long way ahead of you. Not to mention the bossfights. Big healthbars and repeating the same attack pattern over and over. That's not a test of skill. That's a test of nerves.
And that's just the aspect of difficulty. I will not analyze the entertainment value, since it treads onto the grounds of subjectivity.(I mean , there are people with masochistic fetishes aren't there?)

So, to summarize what I'm meaning to say. Difficulty is essential in order to improve our skills (at everything, gaming included) but increasing to the severity of punishment does not increase difficulty, it only increases frustration. And frustration is the exact opposite of what games are about, at least for me.

The Fallout stories

What i really want to talk about this one is actually the plausability and yet the huge diversity of the world depicted in Fallout 3. To be honest I’ve never experienced such a variety of situations you can stumble upon. That’s due mostly to the brilliant scenario, IMO. The choice of the setting is allowing practically limitless directions of development. Before I indulge, I just want to briefly describe the state of the world the game’s main storyline is taking place.

USA is engaged in war with China, and in the war reaches it’s escalation point when nukes start to fly destroying all, irradiating the entire Earth’s surface with massive radiation. People were forced to retreat to Fallout shelters that were built all over USA. After a certain amount of time they’re opened and people resurface to find entire new situation on the surface. The player is put in a role of one of the guys who comes out of the shelters.

First, this scenario offers a world of possibilities. People who stayed are suffering severe radiation symptoms (decay of the skin) and are shunned by the people who were not affected by the radiation. This actually makes a lot of sense, since the people who could not afford/couldn’t get to the Vaults were mostly farmers and in general people with low financial standing so in the chaos that followed the bombing they called upon their primal survival skills and employ unethical methods to continue their lives. Most of them, anyways…

The pinnacles of power are always formed around the money wells. The Enclave , who are self-proclaimed descendants of the US Government , (basically politicians and part of military) who are using the current situation to perform multitude of testing for their variety of agendas (creating super soldiers, silencing the speakers of the people or everyone with a potentially harmful opinion, eradicating their failed experiments with mutation) and the Brotherhood of Steel , which are essentially well organized technology scavengers ( formed also by part military/scientists) with an honor code embedded in their beliefs. There is also the mutants, who were actually humans infected with a virus developed by the Enclave, and a lot of other fractions - various AI’s and androids/robots , aliens, Raider gangs and groups  and whatnot. Add that to the fact that the world is on a crossroad, there are ideals and there are tools so basically everyone forges the world in his own direction.

So, back to my original point, basically just by providing a fruitful setting for the storyline quests and various situations the player can get himself into is tremendous. Every “what if” idea can sprawl a city/encounter on the map when that idea is brought to life ( and there are pretty awkward ones , like “What if I make my own state and name it after myself , where everyone does what I say” to the utopian ones like “What if we organized to defend people everywhere” ). To make the situation more real, every idealistic commune (a city or an organization) has individuals who think differently on the idea which they themselves are a part of. So you have a human-loving mutant, anti-slaver fighter with a knack for monetary, Brotherhood of steel member who does not share the zeal and enthusiasm of his fellows (a.k.a. he just works there) etc, etc..

All of the ideas implemented make sense and not seem “made up”.  But what’s more realistic is the painting of the humans as individuals in that big picture. For I think that in every human is the desire to be unique and at the same time the desire to be a part of something.  A game trait which for me (and whole lot of other people) is a solid base for building an immersive experience.     

Is immersiveness necessarily a good thing while reviewing a game?

Usually when I do the things I like, i involve myself deeply with them. In some of them more than others, but for every one at least to a degree to temporarily reduce the importance of every other thing. Playing games is one of the things I like, and I do it whenever I can with great passion.
But onto the question from the title (which essentially is the reason for this post.)

Let’s have an example with a more .. realistic nature. Since not every one likes video games ( although i like to think that the people who visit this blog - all 4 of them, DO :) I’ll make an analogy with everybody’s familiar topic - relationship and romance. So, let’s say I have a partner whom I love very much, I love myself for loving her and I love everything because of that. Let’s say I’m immersed in her. I’m lost in her personality, or I think it’s more suitable to say that I’m *found*. Anyways I like spending time with him/her A LOT. Let’s say I am forced to form an opinion about that person. If I go with my gut, and form an opinion coming from my feelings and state of mind my judgement will be flawed because I’m in a position when the good trhings greatly outweigh the bad. On the other hand, if I try to judge objectivelly, I will have to break the immersive bond and will have to watch over from a distance. But then I will not enjoy myself as when I’m immersed, because I’m into “analyze” mode.

Now let’s take the same example with games. There is a game that you love playing, a highly immersive game, and you wan’t to make a review about it. If we put things graphically, where does the reviewer stand ?

1 - Grants him objectiveness but deprives him from the fun. He studies the game instead of enjoying it.
2 - Vice versa.
Ideally he should be somewhere in between, but is that really possible?
Or maybe he’s supposed to shift between them at certain points. If so, when?

Super Mario is not one of the best games

I'm really annoyed when i see a top 10 or top 5 list with Super Mario in it. I really don't get all the hype. I mean - Yes , I've played it avidly when I was a kid but a top 5 best game ? Really?

It would be like forming a top 5 list of best superheros per se, and put the stuff I was watching when I was a kid like He-Man in there or god forbid - Captain Planet (and yes , I've seen people actually do that :). Super Mario is a great game, really fun platformer, but IMHO it does not have best game material compared to some of today's titles. Especially since there are so much more developed platformers which even for people with different tastes are better than Super Mario in several (if not all) aspects of the game. 
Trine, for example. You can do shitload of things there, with multiple characters, as opposed to mainly  jumping, kicking bricks,collecting coins and stepping on several types of enemies.


Super Mario will always have a special place in my heart, but if we decide about games by heart alone then it's bad judgement. As it is with all things in life. 

Thank you games

I've read many blogs about why games in general make you a better person, so I think it's time i gave myself an honest answer.
How games made ME, specifically a better person? What skill-set did they have an impact on?

Well the first one , and most obvious one is the language.
Since I'm not native english speaker, they familiarized me with a vast amount of words, not to mention the middle age English used in some of the old RPGs. Also, I remember playing some of the old adventures with a dictionary next to the keyboard :) Sigh , those days ( nights also )...
Thank you : Every game.

Second one is the sense of orientation and navigating a map.
The allmighty TAB ever since Doom (as one of the first game I've played) many of the games had it, and in pretty short time it comes natural to locate the vital points of the map, recognize the surroundings and discern my next course of action. Also , in cases of multiple routes to get to a point, to calculate the most effective(usually fastest) one.
Thank you : Every game with a map.

On to the pragmatical math skills and resource management.
Ranging from the basic buy/sell mechanics in many games to calculate the profit or the amount of funds needed to gain a certain item , the calculation of damage/hit-miss ratio to the more complex resource management in many turn-based strategies which enhanced my planning skills and also time management.
Thank you : Heroes of Might and Magic 2/3, Civilization 1/2/4, Colonization, Command and Conquer, Starcraft ...

Of course all the things that impact directly the character traits , like : Patience, Persistence, Reflexes, Problem solving, anger management :) ...

On RPG's : Open worlds and multiple choices

Open world, free roam and shit like that.
Many of the latest titles boast with this kind of stuff, but is it really worth it ? Does it impact the gameplay and overall improve the game?

IMHO, No. I get that there's plenty of stuff to do in an open world, but most of it due to unrelated-ness to the storyline or the lack of player motivation are deemed meaningless and kinda stupid. Let me elaborate, explaining some of the features of an open world.

1. You can go to any place in the map. I'm not even gonna elaborate the stupidness of this one . Yay, i climbed the mountain/ i reached top floor of that building / swam to that isle ... Bitch please.

2. You can kill random citizens. Yes you can. I can go on a killing spree and after 10 minutes of repeated massacres, I start to lose interest. Okay, it's very much possible, but it lacks purpose. I can kill enemies and get XP, or i can do that without the XP/get significantly less XP. What's the reasonable choice here?

3. Various mini-games. There are examples mostly present in rpg's . Poker Dice in Witcher , Quazi-blackjack in Mass Effect 2 , and many more. With these you can get monetary reward in terms on in-game currency , but due to the repetitive nature of the mini-games i never spend more than 30 mins AT BEST. The monetary reward was insignificant.

4. You can collect various in-game resources and afterwards sell them. That sounds awfully familiar. Farmville anyone ?

Not to be hater and all, but IMHO the openness of the world has 2 real benefits:

1. The possibility of making an error (Kill the wrong enemy , go to the wrong place, etc..) which is inherent ability of broadening the number of player choices. But due to the map navigation and automatic checkpoint marking that most games have, this possibility is effectively suppressed thus eliminating the purpose of the open game world.

2. The reward for exploring the unknown. Yes I'm talking about the Super-sword you get after going off the map and defeating/solving the puzzle of Demi-God X. Many of the old games had these moments, but nowadays, almost every game rewards the player with the best sword of the game after dealing with problems along the main storyline , so basically you don't need to waste time exploring, since you know that you'll get the real deal "by default". So the only real benefit from this is achieving it faster/easier. That's probably the best motivator when it comes to RPGs but i often feel cheated when i spend hour and a half for a piece of shit gear.


So for me at least , the open world implementations of modern games don't bring much to the table. I'm not into completely eliminating the open world option, just some adjustments need to be made here. Some other time ...

I rate thee ...

How do you rate games? How can you express your own personal opinion and yet , retain the objectivism?
Well for me, the answer is obvious, I isolate myself from the collective hive of gamers and make my own judgement. I don't really care about other reviews and though I still read them for informative reasons, I always make an effort for them not to influence my decission.

Anyways, I started this post with a different but yet related point in mind.
I've noticed that when I play games I get bored by them. Yeah, "Thanks Cpt. Obvious" you'd say, but wait. How does that relate to grading a specific game title? Let's take a look at this graph.



For me it's the classic scenario. As I play I become more and more interested, till I reach some climax point and then I gradually become bored of the game. That's fine and it's pretty normal, because only unintelegent creatures laugh many times at the same joke and get excited by the same gameplay. Yeah , them and shooter-lovers (or they are the same ?!) :). Anyway, I look at the graph i ask myself :

WHEN do i form an opinion of the game ?
If the game is extremely enjoyable the first half , and then I become extremely bored, do I rate only the fun part or do I make some kind of median of all the fun I had ?
How exactly does the boring part influence my final judgement ?

As I grow older, It's only natural to raise my interest threshold, so basically this graph answers my question of "Why i don't finish my games, anymore?". :) When I rate a game, I always take the "boring part" into consideration to a .. let's say 2 point extent. So basically that means if a 10.0 title gets repetitive and boring after 50% of the game progress, I'd rate it 8.0 cause it still delivers a blast just not during the entire game. So, this means that that same game, will get the same treatment as the one who offers an 8.0 experience throughout it's entire walkthrough. 2 Points for consistence, that's not perfect, but that's how I roll. :)

Also , this poses another question :
What's the ideal duration of a game ?
How long do the game need to last , to keep you interested and make you enjoy youreself?

Well I can't answer myself that question, since I guess it's pretty subjective and in deep corelation with the reason I started to play. Sometimes it's a quickie, sometimes it's a desire for long and immersive experience (OMG , the double meanings :). Just as long as they're a perfect match, my want and the game's give.


What about you ?
How do you rate games in terms of the fun you had ?

A gamer's lament

I was trying to describe the feeling that was missing since i started gaming. You know , the thing that you barely find in today's games. Leigh Alexander gave me the answer.

"It was enough to pique our imaginations—hey, maybe that's it. The imagination. The more "realistic" games have gotten, the more "lifelike" they've strived to be, the less room they leave for our imaginations." Full article here

Read her blog . I know I will.

Games and movies, movies and games

I generally disapprove of the whole make-a-movie-and-a-game trend that's been going on this last several years, but i have an itch that needs scratching.



Samurai 7 is an anime from 2004 , and it's a variation of the plot from the movie from Kurosawa with the same name. Basically 7 guys get together to defend a village , and beat the shit out of giant mechas in the process.
Think about it :
- Samurai AND Giant Robots. That's a huge fan-base out there , with an enormous potential for awesomness.
- 7 Different characters. Whether it's a RPG stat-based character system , or a beat-them-up mechanics , there is a vast potential in stereotyping the characters, each with his own fighting style , strengths and weaknesses, or w/e.
- The setting and enviroment are a combination from japanese feudal age and modern technocracy setting . That's a huge space for experimenting right there.

Anyway , just an idea . You have one?

Mathematicians guide to alchemy.

(disclaimer : if you're a masochist, or a farmville junkie , please consult your doctor before reading this.On second thought , fuck you!)

"Heed this , Alchemists , crafter and weapon enchanters , in all the fantasy worlds out there!"

I've seen many games boast about their crafting/alchemy part of the game mechanism , and how much fun it is to explore the limitless potential of creating your own weapons and potions, but let's be frank here , i never , like n.e.v.e.r. had fun exploring that part of the game. And i assure you , i've played my fair share of RPG's.

Let's bring out the calculator for a moment.
Let's say the game has 30 base ingredients . Using them , you can craft 10 more .Let's say that you have to use 3 different components to craft a new one. Combining these 40 , you can produce 10 extra-super-ultra potions. So , mathematically speaking , you'd use 40 base components in crafting the extra-super-ultra potions.

So , we have the base ingredients , we use unique combination of 3 (the order is not important) of them to make a new one.
The first phase ,
30 base components
combinations of 3

30!
----------- = 4060 .
3!(30-3)!

So , you'll have to click/drag and drop 3 items , 4060 times . Oh , the sheer joy! (I saw that , Farmville junkies.)

But that's not all . With all the new ingredients (10 new ones) You'll have to get back to more of it. Let's say that in order to not repeat youreself , you'll combine 2 of the base ingredients , with each one of the 10 new ones.
So the formula is now

30!
------------ x 10 = 1450.
2!(30-2)!


There we have it. 5510 experiments of joy. Hmm , speaking of joy , you'll fail during crafting , which is roughly about 95% of the time. Your fun sense is (still) tingling?

And that's just this simple scenario , real life examples offer more of the fun .. khm ... I mean more base/cross ingredients , and a combination of potion making AND weapon-gem enchanting AND ingredients for weapon-making. My statistical analysis point out that Japanese RPG's have more of this , than other games , but there are exceptions.

I can honestly say for myself that i ALWAYS look for crafting guides on the net, and sincerely advise you to do the same, and skip all the "fun".

To be the controller ... or not to be?

It's some really kewl technology implemented in these new motion controllers , but i'll skip it . Call me old fashioned but i don't dig all the hype about "being the controller" .
Like ,
- i'm a gamer ,
- whatcha playin
- "kinectimals" , "just dance" .
Puh-lease!
If you're so into that stuff , go play shooteer's at a paintball court , or sports games at the playground or go dance in the club ...This is just stupid. Not to mention the one with caressing womens curves :P . Do the real thing! (It's better i can assure you :) ) I know my reason for playing games was , cause i found something that i couldn't have. An Immersive, plausable (more or less) world.
And i liked how i controlled my in-game impersonation , via eye-hand coordination , or more like eye-brain-hand. Because imho , a gamer needs the tools to control his avatar . A gamer is not supposed to BE the avatar. That ruins it. The fun , and the concept of video game.
And control IS fun. Like it's fun to operate remote-control choppers , cars. It's fun to make people run , jump , shoot and do stuff. At least for me. I'll always cherish having the controller in my hand.

No more Fun in games .. wait.

Recently i've encountered people with different opinions about the FUN-factor in the games.
This post , promotes game's excellence , over fun. I disagree.




Fun is a MUST in any game. It's what makes a game. So it's a variable not to be underestimated.
Let's look the other way. I find it the opposite of fun to be boring.
Would you play a boring game just for it's excellence ? Furthermore , Can an excellent game be boring?

IMHO , since the nature of fun is to be related to the subject (player) , people describe fun relative to their own opinions (ex. RPG gamers like storyline, customization, Driving game fans like speed , Action fans like , well , action :) ) .
So , in essence , let's say that an action fan will not enjoy an RPG , but will still think it has quality. So , he'll quit it after 4 hours of gameplay , not because the game lacks excellence , but because it's no fun.

Enjoy your games.

Less is More

Lately , i've been surprised of all the fun i had while playing "indie" games , downloaded from the PSN. I can honestly say that i haven't had such fun for a long time.Titles like Scott Pilgrim , Costume Quest , Deathspank .. truly a must-play for any PS3 owner.

I wondered how come that titles like this came in such (relatively) quick succession , and normally i started investigating the price of a Sony PS3 development kit.

After reading this, I found the cost of the licence kit it to be the most probable cause for the sudden rush of quality games to the PSN Store. It fits perfectly. Price cut spring/summer 2009. A year later - great games. Although , 2k $ is still a big price if you ask me , but it was significantly less than before. It's my opinion that the new wave of independent games on PSN , will determine the future of this console. Not to mention , raising the bar in means of quality . Just before this new year , there was an increase of PS3 's popularity (and sales , ofc ) so the initial "console with no games" ettiquette begins to fade.

I , as a XNA developer , and a PS3 owner , would very much like to contribute to the PS3 society , but still , the price is too high for me. If Sony continues the trend with reducing the cost of the Development Kit , I might just do.

I'm sure others would.