ABOUT

For my Video Game Design class, we used Blogger for some of the assignments. Now that I'm heading to college, my high school is deleting the grad's Google accounts to make room for incoming freshmen. I may need to cite a blog I made in the future, so I decided to transfer them to my main Google account. The bracket date by each post is when it was initially published.

[5/9/2016] Capitalism Works

     The console wars was perhaps the best thing to happen to the video game industry. Without fierce competition, the monopoly producer company would likely not take much time to improve the way they make games, or how the games performed. We might have stayed in the 8-bit era if Sega hadn't given Nintendo a run for its money. Once the war for market share began, it became a game of who has the better technological magic. Genesis claimed "Blast Processing" and the unique slopping controls for Sonic the Hedgehog, whereas Nintendo had the Mode 7 marvel that was F-Zero and the pre-rendered computer graphics of Donkey Kong Country.
     Each company had to gain the tech advantage over the other, or else their sales would drop quickly. Not long after the SNES - Genesis era came commonplace 3D gaming, games with ten times more powerful processors, and games with cutscenes akin to movie quality. The console wars still rage on today, although for different companies. With the release of a new console, it's almost guaranteed to be more powerful than the consoles currently on the market, or else consumers won't flock to it. We're now starting to see innovative methods of gameplay such as motion controls, massive simultaneous Internet play, and virtual reality. The upcoming Nintendo NX is said to be radically different from any console currently on the market. Even with PC and smartphone gaming on the rise, these hardened console veterans will continue to find ways to capture our interest.

[4/21/2016] The King of Kong

     While The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters does a good job at portraying the events circulating the lives of Billy Mitchel and Steve Wiebe during the late 2000s surge in arcade record breaking, it obviously had to take some liberties to preserve a movie-like format. The high score of Donkey Kong did not just fluctuate between Billy and Steve between 1981 and the creation of the film, but also a third man, Tim Sczerby, who held the record from 2000 until Billy took it back in 2004. As the movie focuses primarily on Billy and Steve, it would probably be too much of a departure from the main narrative to include the parts relating to Tim. The creators of the movie also cited Tim's score to be "nearly impossible to verify."

     Of course, getting the highest score on a game in the world is quite the feat, but it also has more of a meaning behind the digits. As much as this movie describes the game, it instead focuses the effects the game has on the people it spotlights. When Billy first got his score in 1982, he became a celebrity of sorts, he became known because of his accomplishment. When Steve threatened to take his throne away from him, Steve was also kind of taking away what made Billy so popular. Naturally, Billy would need to defend this, resulting in a continuous clash between the two for the score of the game. For Steve, the story was much different. He constantly came short due to his OCD, despite being really good in the fields he studies in. Steve simply picked up a cabinet of Donkey Kong one day, as a pastime to relieve stress, but noticed that he was getting close to what the record at the time was. When he first got his record, he got a taste of what Billy received back in the 80s, and to Steve, it was an uplifting experience, after being laid off from his previous job. Perhaps Steve's performance in this game is his proof that he will continue onwards and successfully in life.

     

[3/7/2016] The Mysterious USD to Hours Exchange Rate

     Whenever I buy a video game, I don't usually consider game length. As long as the content is good quality stuff, I could care less about how long it is. I can beat Super Mario Bros. in about eight minutes if it's a good day for me, but I still find myself coming back to it. Of course, if an RPG game were only eight minutes long, I don't think anybody would enjoy it for long. Games should not require a strict length; the longevity of a game should be flexible, depending on what the game is based on, and what it offers in terms of content or difficulty. Many people base the game's price to its overall amount of content, e.g. "This game is $60, so it better have a lot in it for me to do." When Super Nintendo games came out, they were roughly the same price, if not more expensive, than modern new games. I don't associate game price with game length, I attribute my game purchases to either good word of mouth, or the brand who made the game. I would like to consider myself a completionist, but you will not find me raising all 721 Pokémon up to their maximum levels and give them each their best movepool and specific item. That could take upwards to 200 hours. As much as I love Pokémon, there's a limit as to how far I would go to literally complete the game. For me, I consider "completing" a Pokémon game to just be catching them all.
     There are a ton of different types of games, and they all have their fitting play times. RPGs, or Role Playing Games, take up the most time, but they have a reason for doing so. Games of this type are made to immerse the player into its story. While it is possible to pull off a 6 hour RPG, I wouldn't likely be as concerned with the events of the game as I would a game with ten times that length. Now what about a first person shooter with a simple storyline? After beating it once, likely a 7 hour experience, I am usually satisfied. However, that in turn raises another problem: when I'm completely satisfied with a game, I'm usually done playing with it. When I buy a game, something I look for most is replay value. RPGs excel at this, because there is always a different way to play. The player may wish to grind more to be better prepared, or not grind at all and face a more challenging adventure. Replay value is what keeps me coming back to old games. No matter how many times I play Super Metroid, I never play it exactly the same way, even if the end result is typically 100% item completion.

[2/24/2016] When a Few Buttons Doesn't Make the Cut

                                         

   I am quite content with just the simple controller with buttons and joysticks, but sometimes, that is not enough. Pressing a button doesn't really simulate real life jumping, and moving the joystick definitely does not feel like actual walking. This simulation of real movement is not necessary, but if done correctly, can really enhance the gaming experience. Of course, doing this incorrectly makes the experience just as bad as it would be good. I feel that games that come packaged with a peripheral should be experienced in that way. A light gun for a gun game? That makes sense. Using a Roll 'n Rocker to play a platforming game? Almost impossible. Things like the Roll 'n Rocker, a rocking surface for your feet that basically replaces the d-pad, never enhanced the gaming experience, and didn't really have a reason to exist, other than to challenge the player in a unique, but kind of unfair, way.

     Duck Hunt with the NES Zapper completes the experience. Even if you could somehow play the game with the normal d-pad, it just wouldn't be as enjoyable. The light gun, although an existing technology since the 1930s, still manages to impress nearly 50 years later when it came out for the NES. Duck Hunt is the standard for what a gaming peripheral should do: bring the player to the game's world, and does a great job at that. It's all but unfortunate that the NES Zapper doesn't work with modern televisions.

     If the Nintendo NX would have anything, I would like it to have this feature: a plastic cartridge receiver that is USB powered directly from the console, that also has controller ports for the game it was made for.. There could be different models for each system, such as one that allowed to play NES games, and another for N64 games. This would really bring in the retro crowd, as it would allow them to play their original games on the brand new system without having to look for the original console and all of the limitations it may have.

[2/1/2016] What Defines a Game

          Game design is crucial in the success of any video game; this has been apparent since the beginning of the industry. The games we know and love today are known and loved for their unique and professional design. These games were likely user-friendly, and helped to show the player how to play the game. Things I took for granted in Super Mario Bros. and The Legend of Zelda actually turned out to be critical in how the game works, such as a safe realm for the player to explore and adjust to. Even the more difficult games at least told the player how to go about playing that game. Many modern video games have tutorials in-game to further drive this point home.
          One prime example of good game design is in Metroid (1986) for the Nintendo Entertainment System. Sure, the game is confusing, and it is easy to get lost without a guide or a map, but the game introduces its concepts really well. In the first room, the player will instantly see some enemies. However, Samus Aran, the hero, is positioned in such a way that the enemies cannot do harm unless they are approached. The game also does not allow very much progression until the player discovers the first item, the Morph Ball, which is only a screen's worth of pixels away from the starting point. In the item area itself, once the Morph Ball is obtained, the room is impossible to escape from without using it, further teaching the player the mechanics of the game. It is game design like this that continues to make Metroid a favorite franchise of mine.

          Game design can also have the exact opposite effect if not taken into serious consideration. Take Super Mario Maker (2015) for the Nintendo Wii U for example. A great game in concept and structure, but the meat of the game, the user-created levels, can be a complete pain to navigate. In order to unlock everything the game has to offer, the player needs to complete the 100 Mario Challenge, where the game throws the player 16 random user-created levels, and with only 100 lives to complete them all. The 100 lives may seem like a bunch, but it is no cakewalk. Nine times out of ten, I get a level called something similar to "haha u gonna die LEL" and almost instantly die as soon as the level loads. Levels like these are commonplace: they are trial and error levels, levels that only the creator would know how to defeat, unless the player spends a lot of time, and lives, figuring out the level (although to be fair, I am guilty of making such levels as well). Too many times I find a room that has 4 doors, 3 of which are death traps, and I have no way of knowing that until I step foot inside. If it wasn't for the fact that the player can skip these awful levels without a cost to him or her, I wouldn't even bother with this game. Only very rarely do I find well-designed levels that actually capture the official Nintendo feel, and those levels are what keep me coming back to Super Mario Maker. The video below shows a level that exemplifies how bad some of these levels can become; abuse of glitches likely unknown to the ordinary player, obnoxious enemy placement, elements that only work on the first try, and more:

 

          If you are planning to make your own video game, you need to prioritize making your game design as perfect as it possibly can be. If this element of gameplay falters even a little bit, your game will not meet with the success that it could have. There is good reason for games to take time before being produced: they need to have the capacity to be learned and enjoyed by the general public. Perhaps the best game design is the secret to success in the video game industry.

[12/11/2015] The Charm of Arcade Games

          I love arcade games. Every time I enter a restaurant of sorts and there are arcade games in there, especially the classic ones, I'm always looking forward to playing them. I'm not entirely sure what draws me to them, maybe it's the overall nostalgic mood surrounding them, or maybe just the fact that old video games always strike my fancy. I like to do some research on these games in my spare time, and it's almost always an interesting read. My face always brightens up a little when I walk into a room filled with arcade cabinets.

          The primarily simple and easy to pick up design of the vast majority of these games is just a great stress reliever for me. Even if I lose the game in question, I still have a good time during the session. I consider myself moderately-good at these types of games, and it seems to show when an audience sometimes forms behind me as I play. This sort of thing wouldn't happen with the latest home consoles or a computer game, only arcade games can really bring about this boost of self-esteem. Arcade games always seem to bring out the little, energetic child inside me.

         If I did have one nitpick about arcades, it's the way they accept currency. $0.25 at the minimum for one try does seem a little off-putting, seeing as though I really don't like spending my money, but strangely enough that is also kind of the draw to them. In this day and age, everything is very accessible. If I wanted to play Galaga for free, then I could play it on my PAC-MAN Plug n' Play console, on my Namco Museum for the Nintendo 64 or Nintendo DS, or I could literally just Google search "Galaga" and it wouldn't take me long to find the game emulated online. These versions of the game, however, only hold my interest for a short amount of time before I grow bored. I think that they lose their sense of challenge when one takes away the arcade buttons and the money incentive. When you pay to play, you only have one shot to give it your all, and that is what makes arcade cabinets so wonderful.

          If you were to ask me, I would say that arcade game will never fully phase out of restaurants and just places in general. No matter how far advanced our technology becomes, nothing can accurately replicate standing at a cabinet, hunched over at the commands, looking straight at that curved screen, and putting your reflexes to the test.