Gooish level

World of Goo is an expectacular game. (period, in case you missed the last pixel). Its a game that seems to offer the whole package: great graphics, catchy tunes, easy-to-learn-hard-to-master gameplay, etc... In other words, the whole lot. Its one of the few independant games that made it to the top games of 2008. Its just that good. We could talk about the esay on the eye graphics, that makes this game recognizible from a mile away. Or about the gameplay-dependant tunes, that change as you play to highlight the actions, yet don't feel repetitive or boring. However, I'll focus this small article on one of the prime ascpets of this game... the level design.

Generally in a puzzle game we have a simple set of rules that control a simple set of movements that you can make in a simple environment. This is one of the pillars of repetitive gameplay. KISS (Keep it simple stoopid). World of Goo of course is no exception. However it does something really special, it actually changes the gameplay.

This game is made up of a ton of different levels which are grouped in 5 different areas. The first one is simple enough and one could be forgiven of thinking that it just is an extended tutorial. It teaches the basics of goo building and contains all the usual puzzles for a building game (bridges, skyscrapers the works). In the second area you start using slightly different goos (the game's smallest building unit). These change the gameplay, but only slightly. They allow you to cling to walls, to use balloons, etc... The posibilities of construction suddenly expands and so does the gameplay. New challenges emerge that force the player to use the new goos. Then come the third level, where you use even more different goo's that now let you burn threads and destroy barriers. Again the possibilities exapnd even more and so do the challenges. Basicaly, instead of using goos to create building you find yourself designing fuses. Believe me, reading it is not as fun as building it. The game changes drasticly while maintaining the same gameplay. Next, comes the fourth area. Here the rules change...big time. You still build stuff, however, now the goos behave differently, using vectors to shoot them around. This just spills over the expansion cup and a cascade of creativity pours down. However, as different as it is the basic gameplay is still recognizable; you're still connecting goos. Finally the last area(aptly called the epilogue) is more of a nostalgia zone with three (incredibly tough) levels that use the same simple mechanic you used in the first area (ie buildings and bridges).

Hence we come to the core of the article. The secret to World of Goo's greatness is that despite its simple gameplay, it is a dynamic one. The gameplay changes and fluctuates between levels. It evolves. Each area bends the rules only slightly, but enough to keep it fresh; after many iterations, this changes drasticly the game itself, but keeps it recognizable. If there's any level pattern that works for a game it is the one used by this one: tutorial, challenge, change (slightly) gameplay, challenge, change it some more, challenge, go back to the first gameplay (what I call the nostalgia levels). This keeps the game fresh, intresting and fun.

Mission variety in strategy games

If there are two genres to whom I owe my, ejem....let's call it affection to videogames, they are First Person Shooters and Real Time Strategy games. That might confuse some people as one is mindless destruction and the other is....well, mindfull destruction. However in the end they are about the same thing....destruction. However as fun as killing and utterly annhilating your enemy over and over is, I have lately been kind of annoyed by the repition of it all. It's specially true for RTS where create-a-base-destroy-a-base missions are the norm.

Ultimately RTS are war simulators. Be it at the tactical or strategic level, they simulate human conflict and appeal to our more primevial urge to come out superior in the battle for survival. However, let's be honest, most conflicts are NOT create-a-base-destroy-a-base..... as a matter of fact not everything in real world strategy involves destruction. They involve inteligence, planning, strategy, ambushes, guerrilla tactics, flanking, counter-intelligence and (...ok) a bit of destruction. However, most RTS games involve two types of missions: the aforementioned create-a-base-destroy-a-base type or the hold-an-area-while-hordes-of-enemies-come-towards-you.


One could argue that RTS are not real war simulators, yet this is not an excuse for the fact that there should be more variety in mission types and structure. Variety is good, it keeps the player engaged and adds to the replayability of a game. Then why oh why are we stuck with the same mission types and with the same enemy archetypes even if they are different games. Just to prove my point, how many times have you bought a new strategy game and started to identify the factions as zerg-like, protoss-like and terran-like and then use the same strategies you used back then to beat the game?

What can be done then to add variety to missions? One way cheap way is by putting a clicking clock that cuts your mission short. A timer is always an effective way to add preassure and make a simple mission an adrelanine rush. However this has already been done to death. A better way is by using the story to give more meaning to the mission. If base A serves basicly the same purpouse as base B (ie they are there simply to be destroyed) than there is nothing new and exciting breaching them. If destorying base A has an different overall consecuence for the story than destroying base B...than it get's intresting. It might not be in your immediate interest to destroy base B, or maybe it be better to destroy B before A. If you give the player th option to be a part of the inteligence, planning, strategy, ambushes, guerrilla tactics, flanking, counter-intelligence, than the whole game becomes much more meaningful.

One could also twich the gameplay rules in later missions to keep everything new. One should just be careful no to upset the player with this. Small changes that change the angle in which you have to play are the best. For example one mission could only give you resources if you kill an enemy unit, or if one of your units die. This changes the gameplay drasticly while not changing the whole game. If most missions have a special rule set, than each one will be memorable, and in the end the game will be a lot more fun.

Haven't I seen you around?

Can't seem to put a name on that oh so familiar face you see walking down the street? Maybe you have played too many videogames.... There's a surprisingly number of people who just look like videogame characters. This page has quite a few of them. Here are some of my favorites:

Is the future looking retro?

In an interesting article on gamasutra, videogame journalist Nayan Ramachandran asks the question, is this flood of retro-style games (which he calls neo-retro) just a fad or is it a new movement in gaming, maybe a new genre per se? It's undeniable that games like Braid, Mega Man 9, Contra 4, Geometry Wars are becoming a massive success both critically and in the players mind. They don't offer anything new, most of them are still use 2D graphics, however, even in a time when many games are becoming more complex, they are a smash hit. Why is this?

Many point to the cute well done 2D graphics, specially compared to those of the the early Playstation and N64 games. They have aged pretty well. This is not so much becasue of technological limitations, but becasue of the art design. Realistic games age baddly (period). Why? well beacue we have something to compare it with.....reality. As technology improves, new graphics come closer to our expexctations and basicly make old grahics look bad. This does not happen if the art does not strive in being realistic. Pacman, bomberman, mario....they will always look good because they fullfill their own standards (ie, being cartoony). Hence they don't age. If we made a remake of Donkey Kong for the Playstation 3, it will end up looking very much the same. Why? Because the art design said so.

However, graphics alone don't explain the neo-retro wave. Accesibility is the other keyword. We also have to look into the rise of casual games as to why neo-retro games are becoming popular. The games of yonder had an easy-going, pick-me-up-and-just-play attitude. You didn't have to learn all the combos, every inch of a map or a spreadsheet of data. They were simpler times, and for this new wave of casual gamers back to basics is just right. This explains the success of games like Geometry Wars. As the casual market rises, so will the quest for simple, fun games that aren't too hard to master and that can be played for short bursts at a time. This is why there are more retro games each year. What called to us back then (simple gameplay, easy on the eye graphics, intuitive mechanics) is still valid now, and for all those "new gamers" its just as appealing as it was for us back in the day. In the end, they are simply, still fun.

Super Kombat

Hi everybody. Well as you might have already heard there's a bunch of new fighters coming in. I'm talking about the big ones: Tekken 6, Soul Calibur 4 and Mortal Kombat.....oh but its not JUST Mortal Kombat, its Mortal Kombat vs DC comics!!!!

Yup that's right, if you've always wished to kick Superman's red spandex behind (as this humble writer has always dreamed of) now's your chance. This is part of the big DC plan to create more brand awareness and cash off on the new comic revival. I'm not just talking about movies, there are also new comic series and games (there's also a new MMO, DCU Online, in production). Of course this helps the nobel cause of brining back the comics into mainstream culture. However what's in it for MK?


One might think that this crossover is in the same vein as Marvel vs Capcom (or SNK vs Capcom or Tatsunoko vs Capcom or Namco vs Capcom [ok this last one was an rpg] ), however we must remember that Marvel already had a fighting game under their belt, and a successful one at that (Marvel Super Heroes, 1995). Both companies had succesful fighting games, the same target audience and a similar fighting style (quick and with tons of combos). The crossover didn't change that.

However DC is another story, not only has it never had a fighting game (which, lets face it, its not such a big deal), but it has a different target audience. This is the heart of the problem. Mortal Kombat is famous for blood, guts and gore. It was the height of videogame violence, the pinnacle of pure decapitated, heart pulling, spine ripping bliss. It was THE controvery of the early 90's (Bill Clinton aside). And so far the series has retained that spirit. Yet, in this new instalment the blood doesn't flow as often, guts don't fly around and heads stay in their place.

Of course this is going to happen, DC doesn't want Flash to be skinned alive, Green Lantern's great green heart to be squished or Batman's spine being ripped out (only broken and only if you're Bane). Why would Midway do this then? My best guess is that MK did it for the same reason that DC... to attract new players to the franchise. Let's face it, the last couple of instalments of the MK series weren't the best or more succesful (thou they did have some creative design decisions, Kombat Chess comes to mind). This crossover is certain to gain media and fan attention, and maybe make up for Midway's woes. But I ask you oh wise reader, is this still Mortal Kombat? Is this game the same one that we all learned to love, one roundhouse kick at a time? I guess the point I'm trying to make is....has the spirit of the game still here?



In a franchise one of the most important aspects to consider is to maintain the "spirit" of the original. This means that one has to take care to conserve all the aspects that make it unique. Any designer that works on a series must know this and must be very careful not to break that spirit. And here is the critique. Its a fine line Midway and DC are walking. More than its charctes, its moves and its combos (which started with Street Fighter), MK is recognizable for its ejem.... "mature content". Of course, gore isn't the game per se, it doesn't change the gameplay and the mecanics stay the same...and there are some new features in there that are really worth looking at (Free-Fall Kombat, I'm looking at you). However, innovation has to take care not to roll over the core of a series. I am giving the game the benefit of the doubt; maybe, just maybe, this change in the game doens't challenge the spirit of the game, and in the end we will retain the game we love and that gave us hours of fun.

Contraption of a game?

Hi everybody, the other day, while I was kind of bored and had nothing to do, a friend of mine told me about this little game he found on the net. I didn't know it at the time, but this was the beginning of this month's addiction (not as unhealthy as it sounds). The game was Fantastic Contraption. So, in honor of this great game, I've decided I'd take a critical look to see what make it great and what it could do better.

First of all, the good bits. Fantastic Contraption is an online physics simulator in which you're challenged with moving a red piece (the shape and size change between levles) to a certain area. To do this you have to build catapults, vehicles, whips (I swear I saw one) or any other mechanism you can come up with. The gameplay is tremendously addictive (specially for engineers as it has been known as the 2008 plague at my college) not only due to the simple game mechanics and infinite replayability, but also because of the great variety of designs the game allows you to build. However, this wouldn't be as much a deal if it weren't because the game let's you upload your designs and show 'em to the world.

Lately games have been trying to build a comunity around themselves in order to extend shelf life ( see Pascal Luban's article on megatrends). This is not a new trend, the blizzard community goes all the way back to the 1990's. However this trend has boomed lately, specially since the comming of online console gaming. This has expanded the community not just in the competitive sense (which has existed for years), but also as a way to simply share content (and if the sporopedia has shown us anything is that it'll be here for still some time). That's why I applaud this design desicion, as it really does help keep the game fresh, even after finishing it.

However, it does have its low points, and I'm talking most of all about its interface. Thou at first look it might seem of the nice, simple, minimalistic type (another trend, specially since the rise of casual gamers), it does have problems once you actually start building the contraption. If you have many elements in the machine (which you will once you get to the tougher levels) they are laid on top of each other, hiding the element below. This turns into a hassel once you have to analyze what went wrong with your machine, and its even worse once you have to make changes. There will be many times when you accidently erase the wrong element because you couldn't see the one you wanted to delete. This is worse with the water beams, becasue they're animation makes it hard to see where one ends and the others begin. The zoom in and out features help a little, but sometimes the machine's "density" is too much even for them.

But how to solve this? A simple colored outline of the machine elements that are behind would help distinguish them better. This has been done before (in Age of Empires II for example, when a unit was behind a building), and it is pretty effective. Being able to see where a beam leads to, or the connection points of the wheels behind a mass of other elements would allow for the quicker construction of more complex designs. If the problem persists thou, we could color the outlines differently using a darker/lighter hue if the element is further back. Though this is more difficult to implement than a single color outline, it would help see which element is where and save the player loads of frustration.

Nonetheless, this does not break the game. The gameplay is very solid and the mechanics work as they should each and every time. In the end, Fantastic Contrapiton is a brilliantly executed game which entices the "One more turn" dilema (that's why it's known at my college as Engineer crack). I encourage everyone, especially engineers who want to bid their social life good bye, to play it. You can find a free demo here. Have fun.

Welcome

Hi everybody! Welcome to my new blog. Here we're gonna analyze games from a game design point of view trying to point out the features that make or break a game. No these are not reviews, I don't give out scores and I do not get gifts (or angry calls) from publishers. Basically we take a design desicion made in a game and we see how it affects the gameplay. Some are good chocies, some are bad choices and some are....well those are the two main options. However, this is not a rave/rant blog; we consider why these were good/bad desicions from different perspectives. So with out further ado, I declare this blog officially open.