Ownership of Digital Games: When the Servers Come Down

            I love my game collection.  All told, I’ve probably got over 300 game discs, cartridges, and the like.  Even more if you think about my collection of digital games.  But…are the games I “own” online really mine?  For that matter, digital distribution brings up a whole slew of issues that I think need to be addressed, especially in light of the idea that companies are no longer selling games but “licenses” to play games.  This may be a newsflash to some game companies…but that is one of the worst ways to market your games.

            I’ve grown to be quite fond of Steam and Good Old Games or GOG, in recent years and I think digital distribution can do wonders for bringing games to the masses.  That said…well, let me run a quick scenario by you.  Picture this: It’s long after society has ended and you’re holed up inside a tiny shack that’s about to be overrun by mutated humans and all you’ve got with you is a tiny generator, a TV, and enough gasoline for an hour of power.  If you still had a physical copy of Super Mario Bros and an NES, you could still get in one or two last speed runs before the end.  If you’d only bought digital games though, you’d be screwed, since the servers would have all collapsed.  This leads me to my first major issue with digital distribution services like Steam and GOG.  Server issues.

The best in digital distribution of video games

 I’m not referring to the kind of server issues such as overcrowding with Diablo 3 or cheaters on Battlefield 3.  I’m actually referring to the fact that when an online game server is taken down because it’s no longer profitable or active enough to make money the entire game becomes unplayable and all the hours and investment players have put in amounts to naught.  Ironically, this is an issue I have already discussed at Suite101, which can be found here.  So, rather than repeating myself, I’ve decided to delve into a deeper issue with severs that actually worries me a great deal and which not many people have addressed.  The servers that handle digital distribution.

Annoying, but not what we're talking about this time

 I love Steam and I’m not the only one.  It’s a platform for indie game developers to make a tidy profit off their work without having to bend over backward for corporate approval.  The frequent Steam sales are great for promoting lesser known games and DLC.  The ability for the service to remember games also helps with computer space as players can always delete a game they’ve beaten then re-download it later if they’re short on disc space.  Steam is a fantastic service that caters to its customers and has earned their loyalty because of it.  However…what happens when the servers go down?

I may be a big proponent of Steam, but I’m not so arrogant as to say that Valve and Steam will be around forever.  Someday they may go bankrupt, retire their service, or become subsumed by a larger corporation that wants to axe the gaming division.  All of these are real possibilities.  Or worse yet, there could be an act of cyber terrorism or a massive power failure which wipes out their servers.  So…if that ever occurs, what happens to the hundreds, nay, thousands of dollars that Steam patrons may have put into the service?  How will Valve know who has bought what?  How can people redeem their games if they’re no longer remembered?  And since a lot of Steam games require a connection to the Steam servers to update or play, this could leave people who still have games downloaded unable to play games they’ve paid for.  It’s a real issue that very few people seem to have addressed at length.  It covers the idea of owning a digital game and just what rights we have as consumers.

Well, at least Steam makes you FEEL like you own your digital games...

 I’m not trying to say Valve is at fault with this or that they’re unprepared.  Knowing Valve and their record of customer service, they probably have backup files to know which users bought what and will reimburse them if any calamity happens.  However…Steam isn’t the only game in town for digital distribution and re-downloadable titles.  EA’s Origin, GOG, Nintendo’s virtual console, the PSN, and dozens of other smaller stores employ a similar model to Steam’s.  Are they prepared for the worst?

Society keeps pushing towards digital distribution and live streaming of almost all our media and people like David Jaffe have gone on record stating that within the next ten years, video game consoles will be obsolete and all games will be streamed through computers or televisions.  While this does, on paper, seem like a great thing, I question the server issues.  Digital distribution means cheaper games, more space, and the possibility of no longer needing top of the line computers or consoles to actually play games.  It could revolutionize the gaming world.  But what happens when the servers crash?  Will we lose everything?  Will we be reimbursed?  These are real issues that some companies need to think about.

Behold digital distribution.  The future of gaming.

             I’m not saying that people need to be sent out an annual ticket with all the games they’ve bought up to that point so that they can redeem it in case of a disaster, as that could lead to dishonest practices amongst consumers, but there are alternatives.  Linking up these digital distribution sites to email, facebook, twitter, or the like could guarantee that there are multiple records on file for emergencies.  There is also some merit in old fashioned printed records which are not in danger of being destroyed by cyber terrorism or the like. 

These issues I’m bringing up will crop up sooner or later on a massive scale, such as the disaster Sony faced when they were hacked by Anonymous, and companies need to be prepared.  Some publishers might see such an incident as free money, as thousands if not millions of players would have to re-buy their favorite games.  But if they don’t feel like they own them, they probably won’t buy them again.  And worse, they won’t trust the publisher enough to buy any of their future games.  This will hurt the industry as a whole and in order to advance into the age of digital distribution, publishers and developers need to stop looking at games as “theirs” which they are selling the license to use.  Because if they don’t they’re not going to scare off pirates, win new customers, or retain their consumer base.  They’re going to create a new generation of people who distrust the publisher and feel it is their right to pirate a game simply because they’re going to be screwed out of their money eventually.

Yeah, EA?  Being evil and corporate is all well and good, but if you're not gonna value you your customers, you won't survive.

            Before I finish up my thoughts on this topic, I’d like to explore one more issue in relationship to digital ownership.  You see, most people view games that they’ve paid for as theirs and feel justified in having access to them at all times and control over how they are used.  So, when someone throws in the towel with gaming, they don’t usually don’t want to be left with a bunch of games they’ll never play.  In that situation, what can people do with their games?”  Well, if they have a storage room of game cartridges or discs, they can sell them online, give them to friends, bequeath them to their children, etc.  So…what happens with the digital games someone “owns” if they decide they want to quit gaming?  Can they resell them?  Probably not.  Get trade in credit towards the Steam store or its equivalent?  Again, also probably not since digital copies are able to be made with the press of a button rather than having to deal with the manufacturing process which is expensive and has made used games such an appealing proposition.  This hurts the idea of ownership, perhaps even more so than server issues, even if it might be far less widespread.

            This issue will inevitably need to be resolved, since not all gamers stay gamers until the day they die.  And many will want to find a way to deal with all their games that they have paid for when the time to stop playing rolls around.  Companies who can figure out a solution to this will likely hold customers in the palm of their hand and foster a fiercely loyal consumer base.  For example, if a grandfather decides to close out his Steam account for good and asks that his games be distributed to his family and friends, Steam should comply since at one point, the games were paid for and if he closes his account he can’t play them anymore anyway.  Likewise, if a person decides they want to sell the games they have stored on Steam, Steam should let them.  It can take a portion of the profit, certainly, but it would be a way to give more control to the consumers, and give more money back to gamers who have grown tired of gaming or have little money to begin with.

Gamers won't be gamers forever.  What happens when Grandma wants to put the wiimote down?

 Control is the name of the game.  And I have a feeling that Valve will be leading the charge in this area.  It’s similar to other gamers who don’t want to pay for a re-release of a game they already own simply because their new console isn’t backwards compatible.  They want to save money and have control over their own games.  Resolving the issues of ownership alongside the server issues will be the biggest hurdle, I believe, to the oncoming age of digital distribution.  And this issue can’t be swept under the rug or hidden within a service agreement for the digital service.  If companies start doing that, gamers will take notice and they will abandon the service in droves.

            The advent of digital distribution was slow in coming over the world, but it has become far more prolific in recent years and new services are being created everyday to offer digital games and movies that can be sold to people everywhere.  However, issues like those I’ve mentioned above are in the long term and don’t seem to be addressed by mainstream gaming.  The idea that someday Steam could go down and I could lose all my games terrifies me.  And the thought that someday I might want to bequeath my games to my kids from Steam but that they won’t just to squeeze a few extra dollars out of me(which I doubt Steam would do, but just saying) enrages me.  These kinds of down the line issues need to be addressed sooner rather than later, as gamers are getting older and digital distribution is becoming more prevalent by the day.  I’m not going to say that none of these issues have been tackled yet, as I don’t know what goes on in Valve, EA, GOG, or the like behind closes doors, but it seems like its received scant publication, so…this is my contribution to the server issue and the idea of owning a digital game.  I hope it gives people both inside and outside the industry something to think about.

Once again, the images used here were collected around the internet.  If anyone is offended or dissatisfied with how I have used their images, please let me know and I will take them down immediately.

The Problem with Final Fantasy

(There are no major spoilers in this section, so feel free to browse at your leisure)

            I love the Final Fantasy series.  I have since I was six years old and got my first taste of Final Fantasy 3/6 through my brother’s snes.  I’ve loved and collected the series for nearly twenty years and I can say with no small exaggeration, that the series I’ve loved is dead and gone.  Final fantasy’s 11-14, while by no means commercial flops, have been criticized by fans for deviating from the formula that made it so successful to begin with.  While there is one major deviation that I blame for my disenchantment with the series, it is not the one people would expect. 

For me, this was the start of an era and all future Final Fantasy games would be compared to this.  The brilliant, FF6.

 Many people argue about why exactly Final Fantasy started to go downhill.  Some speculate that losing Yoshitaka Amano as the character and monster designer hurt it, as Tetsuya Nomura was brought in to replace him and created characters that more closely represented Japanese fashion than actual fantasy characters.  Others believe that when Hironobu Sakaguchi left the franchise, it lost its voice for telling a story and creating characters that people cared about.  One of the most popular theories, however, is that when Nobuo Uematsu left Square Enix, the series lost its soul.  Without his stirring music, there was no fantasy in Final Fantasy.  While I admit that each of these changes has been difficult to deal with, I do not believe that they are the primary causes for Final Fantasy’s decrease in popularity with its fans.

Pretty much how fans view the newer Final Fantasy games.

 My theory lies with the changes to Final fantasy’s game design.  I believe that the mechanics governing the Final Fantasy series have become so overcomplicated and superfluous that to manage them all, the developers decided to take control away from the players.  The battle systems in particular focus less on simple button presses and lean more towards complex pre-battle preparation that ultimately makes the experience more bland and passive than it needs to be.  However, rather then delving straight into this issue, let me give a little bit of background first.

One of the key aspects of video games is their ability to immerse the player in the game’s world.  Part of immersion is a feeling of streamlined control within the game, a set of pre-defined parameters that players have the ability to influence and can manipulate quickly and easily.  This leads to the characters in the game feeling like an extension of the player.  When the player says attack, they attack.  When they players says use magic, they use magic.  When the players says use item, they use items.  Taking away this control through superfluous additions ruins a person’s immersion in the world and makes it very clear to them that they are playing a game.  Or in the worst case scenarios, it makes them feel like they are watching a movie, which negates the whole point of a game.  The less 1-to-1 control a player has over their party, the more cumbersome a battle system feels, as there is more out of battle micro management.

Streamlined, fast paced, fun...why did they change this again?!

 This change in the fundamental game design of Final Fantasy has roots in good intentions, but poor execution.  While I have never been the biggest supported of Final Fantasys 1-3, I love the Active Time Battle System that Final Fantasy 4 introduced and every Final Fantasy after up to 10-2 mimicked.  It gave full control of the party, but it didn’t feel like the characters and enemies were just swapping blows.  It felt like time was moving as the battle progressed, giving the world a sense of liveliness that aids in immersion.  However, most importantly, there was 1-to-1 control over the characters.  Players could control all of them and they responded immediately to player input.  I am not so arrogant as to say every Final Fantasy game should use this system but, for me at least, it created a sense of immersion and control, while being simple and streamlined.  This invested me in the games and allowed me to forget about time.  To just enjoy the game as it played out.

Final Fantasy always tries to innovate...sometimes with disastrous results.

 However, Final Fantasy has always been a series that sought to innovate and improve on its battle systems.  Final Fantasy 4 added character specific commands which created a wild card ability for each character.  Final Fantasy 5 took a basic class system and allowed players to mix and match specific commands from each class.  Final Fantasy 6 took all of that and added in the ability for players to learn individual magic by equipping powerful Espers, rather than finding, buying, or just being gifted with spells, allowing any character to become a mage.  Final Fantasy 7 popularized the limit break, an ability that was character specific and trigged in emergencies, creating a way out for players in a tough situation.  Final Fantasy 8 allowed customizable skills and stats based on their equipped G.F.’s, like espers, but also retooled the magic system and added a number of non essential but fun minigames.  Final Fantasy 9 went further, allowing players to learn skills by equipping certain items.  These skills were unique to each of them.  Final Fantasy 10 created a battle system that allowed players to swap out characters mid battle, control summoned monsters, and see the flow of battle, both when their turns would end and when an enemy’s would begin.  Even Final Fantasy 10-2 created a job based system that encouraged players to use jobs that would combo well together.  And then, Final Fantasy 11 rolled around.

Final Fantasy 11 was a massively multiplayer online role playing game.  This shifted combat away from the active time battle system and had it retooled to work in a slower, more methodical way, to accommodate different players across different computers with different internet speeds.  The job classes were reintroduced to allow players to experiment with varying play styles, however because active time battling would not work in an MMORPG, auto attack became the default mode of combat.  This approach was more passive, but because of the MMO environment, it was acceptable.  However, when Final Fantasy returned to being a single player game, the passive battle system remained.  Final Fantasy 12 and 13 were built less as sprawling single player experiences and more like the MMO that preceded them.  And this is part of the problem.

Not as exciting as it looks, but it's an MMO.  It doesn't always have to be.

 In an MMO where things like lag and different play styles need to be accommodated for, it makes sense for auto attack to be the default and for players to only control one character.  It also eliminated the oft complained about random encounters that had been a staple of Final Fantasy games until Final Fantasy 11.  However, these accommodations complicated the game and removed control from the players.  This would not necessarily be a problem for an MMO, as players can learn gradually and repetitive grinding is expected.  For a single player game though, it was unwieldy and annoying.

Let me give a few examples.  In Final Fantasy 12, players control only one character and that character will auto attack when near an enemy.  Players can, to an extent, select abilities to use, like summoning or limit breaks, however much of their gameplay is determined by “gambits” a set of commands that tell the player’s character and his companions what to do in a set situation.  Such as, if life drops below 50%, use a potion, if ally is poisoned, use antidote, etc.  In an MMO, this forethought would be rewarded, as battle could be fast, fraught with lag, and players could only focus on one character.  However, in a single player game, it drastically limited control and hurt immersion, as the player could put their controller down and nothing would change.  The commands would already be set up for the computer to follow and the game would basically play itself.  Further complicating this battle system would be that players didn’t have class specific or character specific items.  All items could be used, so long as a “license” was bought for them.  It became cumbersome and unwieldy, and in truth, did not make a great deal of sense.  After all, who needs to buy a license to learn how to put on a hat?

Final Fantasy 12: It's like playing a boring MMO without the MMO.

Final Fantasy 13 was little better.  While in theory, the active time battle system returned, the system of using “gambits” to control a character’s actions and their allies was retooled and integrated into a new job system.  The player only controlled one character and the computer controlled the others.  The character’s jobs changed their abilities every time, so there was no baseline.  For some classes, there would not even be an “attack” command.  Worse yet, the interface for the battle system was so cumbersome, with spells and actions so neatly divided into different categories, that it was impossible to select an attack with any amount of speed.  And the battle system required several attacks to be queued up at one time, requiring further fiddling with the menu screens.  It seems that Square Enix knew this would be too complicated for most players to bother with, since every class has the “auto battle” command.  Once selected, the computer would choose the best action for the character to perform in any given situation.  With “auto battle” there was no room for error.  Players could only make a mistake if they were in the wrong job at the wrong time.  In effect, the computer controlled everything and the player controlled nothing.

Final Fantasy 13:  You see the image above?  Yeah, you don't do that.  That's all the computer.

This is one of the most pitiful attempts at a battle system because the game itself actively does not wish to be played.  And it does not require the player to input any data.  If a player taped down the select button on auto attack and had the right party set up, like one attacker and two healers, they could leave the game alone and it would play itself.  And because the computer controlled the player’s actions and always chose the best one in any given situation, the player would be unable to lose.  This passive approach to a combat system killed much of the game’s immersion by removing control from the player.

I believe this to be the real reason that Final Fantasy has fallen so far.  While the loss of its voice for storytelling was unfortunate, there are many great writers and story tellers in the world.  While the loss of its soul through its music was sad, they still had a few staple soundtracks to fall back on.  While the change in character design was jarring, it was no more offensive than any other JRPG on the market.  The real problem with Final Fantasy is that the battle systems have become so complicated that the players are no longer trusted to control their party.  They have to have a computer do it for them.

One of the reasons games like God of War, Devil May Cry, Ratchet and Clank, or any number of FPS games like Halo or Resistance are so popular is that they give 1-to-1 control to the players.  If a player pushes forward, they move forward.  If a player hits fire, their gun fires or clicks if its out of ammo.  If they hit the button to throw a grenade or swing their sword, the character does it.  What does not happen is the player presses a button and the computer does five moves in quick succession that the player has no control over.  These controls can evolve and gain complexity, but the simple act of pressing a button to do an action is kept sacred.  It keeps the players in control at all times and thusly keeps them invested in the game.

I don't like Halo, but it at least makes me feel in control of my own destiny.

Final Fantasy’s woes are not merely linked to combat, however.  In Final Fantasy 12 and 13, outside of battle their control is still highly limited.  In Final Fantasy 12, players could not freely choose what items to use.  They had to have a “license” before it could be used.  In Final Fantasy 13, the whole game is based around a lack of control.  Players are forced down a linear path, cannot buy new weapons, cannot explore their surroundings, have no towns to explore or look around and the only time when they are given freedom is after fifty hours in.  By then, most players would have given up or would just like the game to end.  This is remarkably clumsy.  Game developers can exercise these same levels of control, but still give the illusion of freedom.  For example, in Final Fantasy 4, the characters are, at one point, stranded on an island.  However, they can explore that island at their leisure.  They can go to the town or to the sacred mountain to the east of town.  When they go to the mountain they are sent back to town for supplies.  These choices are made by the player, not by the computer.  And perhaps most importantly, when the players clear the area, they can go back, to hunt monsters, visit the town, visit the mountain, etc.  They are forced along a linear path to complete the story, but are given the illusion of control because they can go and do their own thing if they do not wish to follow that path.  This illusion of control invests players in the game because it makes them feel like their actions have a genuine effect on the game world.

This pretty much says it all about Final Fantasy 13.  No control?  No thanks.

So, that is my theory on why Final Fantasy has gone down hill.  While these issues will not be as apparent in Final Fantasy 14 because it is an MMORPG, they still remain.  Players want more control, especially in single player games, and taking that control away from them to force them to play how the developers or the computer wants them to play will only frustrate them and break their immersion in the game.  So, allow me to offer this ultimatum to Square Enix.  No matter how beautiful a game you may create, no matter how jaw dropping the score, or the story, or the visuals of the next Final Fantasy, if you take away control from the players, all you will be doing is creating a 60 hour movie.  And no one wants to sit through a 60 hour movie.  You have been warned.

Once again, if anyone is uncomfortable with how I have used their images, please, simply contact me and I will remove them.

Replacing the Villain: Pratfalls of Making Twist Final Bosses

Greetings!  This is going to be a blog dedicated to examining issues in the video game industry, from pitfalls people fall into to how companies which are failing can be improved.  I know blogs like these are a dime a dozen on the internet, but I feel that I have a few things to say that others haven’t.  I’ll try to be mature about this though, so this doesn’t degenerate into nonsensical ranting.  That said, these posts will often include spoilers, so fair warning.

Replacing the Villain: Pratfalls of Making Twist Final Bosses

(SPOILER WARNING for Final Fantasy 4 and The After Years, Ninja Gaiden, and Castlevania: Lords of Shadow)

            A common trope of the video gaming world is replacing the final villain of a game with a “hidden” enemy that no one saw coming.  These types of bosses are meant to shock and screw with a player’s expectations.  While this kind of trope can be used to great effect, one must be incredibly careful when replacing the established villain.  The main bad guy in most video games is the cause of a hero being called to action.  The player can be a hero of prophecy who must save the world, a youth in search of revenge, an honor bound soldier, or just someone who’s being obstructed by the final villain.

For all heroes there must be obstacles to growth.  In video games, these usually take the form of villains

This creates a personal link between both the character and the player with the final boss.  The whole goal of the game from start to finish, once a final boss is known, is to become strong enough to take this ultimate foe down, as he is usually immensely powerful and could wipe out the characters if not for a few contrived events.  The players grow with the villain, learning about him and their own characters, coming to either sympathize to a degree with the villain or hate him for his barbarity.  However, all this growth, all this characterization, and the ultimate goal is rendered ultimately meaningless when this boss, that we have expected from the start, is replaced out of nowhere.

Heroes and villains grow together.  It hurts the story for this relationship to be disrupted

This kind of twist CAN be used to great effect if properly planned out.  It can create a sympathetic supporting character out of villains or at least add something to the story.  However, when poorly implemented, it leaves the player scratching their heads at just what in the hell the developers were thinking, at best.  At worst, it will leave the players angry and pissed off that some no name idiot came and replaced the person they were expecting to be the boss.

Wait, you're the final boss?!  Who or what are you?!  And why should we care?!

Over the past two decades, this idea has been used in video games a bit more than necessary and each time it is used it becomes more and more clumsy.  This kind of storytelling is easy enough to plan out before the actual work on the game starts, so it is baffling as to why people continue to make these same mistakes.  Let me show you three examples of this trope.  How it can be done effectively, how it can at least be used to help characterize someone or resolve their growth, and how it can be used to disastrous effect.

Final Fantasy 2/4 does an excellent bait and switch for the final boss

The first game we will be examining is Final Fantasy 4.  Final Fantasy 4, released to the U.S. as Final Fantasy 2 in 1991 for the Super Nintendo, is an excellent example of the villain being replaced at the last minute done effectively.  The main character, Cecil, learns a few hours into the game that his home, the country of Baron is being manipulated by the wicked sorcerer Golbez.  Worse yet, Cecil’s best friend, Kain is under the sorcerer’s mind control.  Golbez’s goal is to gather crystals from around the world, which he ultimately does.  However, just as he initiates his plan to use the crystals to power a doomsday weapon, a new character that Cecil discovered after finding his way onto the moon reveals that Golbez was, himself, under mind control.  And that he is Cecil’s brother.

You really can't choose your family, can you?

This offers several new dimensions to the story.  Suddenly, the main villain is seen as a victim and he ultimately aids the heroes in trying to stop the NEW main villain, Zemus.  He is not forgiven for his cruel actions and willingly exiles himself onto the moon to pay for his crimes.  He acts in a very human manner.  More than adding new dimensions to the plot, however, the transition to a new villain is handled excellently.  The introduction of mind control with Kain is subtle and it is hinted at that his own jealousy and dark impulses are the reason why he was able to be swayed.  In subsequent remakes of Final Fantasy 4, scenes are added showing that Golbez also suffered from jealousy of his younger brother, making him a prime candidate for manipulation.  Golbez is also shown to not be all powerful.  He is defeated several times before the reveal about Zemus is made.  He is defeated in a cutscene at first by the sage Tellah, then in battle by Cecil and his friends, severely undermining his threat.  If he isn’t strong enough to beat the main characters, then it can be assumed there might be someone stronger.  The bread crumbs are laid and when the reveal is made it is believable.  What’s more, in the sequel, the After Years, Golbez’s former henchman comment on how, even though the players saw him as evil, the only one who cared about them was Golbez.  The four fiends of the elements are shown to be sorrowful at being made to fight their former master.

            This is the best way to handle replacing the main villain near the end of the game.  It helps to characterize both the heroes and the villains while giving new directions for the story to progress.  It is not entirely surprising, as the clues are left behind and finally make sense once the reveal is made, but it is hidden well enough that no one expected this.

One of last generation's hardest games has a deep, dark, secret

             Moving on, the next example is Ninja Gaiden, released in 2004 for the Xbox.  Ninja Gaiden handles switching villains with less finesse, but it at least adds some characterization to the story and explains the hero’s actions at the end.  The game focuses on Ryu Hayabusa, a ninja whose clan is charged with guarding the Dark Dragon Blade, a weapon of supreme power that is cursed and very dangerous.  Suddenly, Ryu's village is attacked and the blade is stolen by a fiend working for the Vigoor Empire.  Ryu fights his way through the Vigoor Empire, becoming cursed along the way, before coming face to face with the Vigoor Emperor, a demonic being who now holds the blade.  The Emperor’s death is the only thing that can cure Ryu of his curse and the only way he can secure the blade.  However, once Ryu finishes off the emperor a masked man steps out of the shadows and takes the Dark Dragon Blade.  This is the final boss.  A person Ryu has had almost no encounters with for the whole game.

The true villain!  Whom Ryu has...never even met...

            This is frustrating, however it does serve a purpose and it doesn’t come completely out of nowhere.  The start of the game features a character training Ryu who laments that the Dark Dragon Blade cannot be used, as it is incredibly powerful and elegant.  Then, throughout the game, the masked man and his assistant are occasionally cut to during cinematics where they are watching Ryu and monitoring his progress.  The masked man’s assistant even contacts Ryu to help him.  After Ryu destroys the Vigoor Emperor, they step out of the shadows to take hold of the Dark Dragon Blade, revealing that the masked man was Ryu’s mentor.  He kills his assistant, becomes possessed by the blade, then charges at Ryu.  This replacing of the main villains is annoying, but it does show how dangerous the Dark Dragon Blade can be and justifies Ryu’s decision to destroy it at the end of the game.  It is hinted at that there is someone in the shadows, however they have no real emotional attachment to the characters or players throughout the majority of the plot.  However, the final boss does at least justify Ryu’s actions.  There is a purpose to this switch up and it does not ruin the experience, especially since the difficulty of facing Ryu’s mentor in the first stage is redoubled for the final battle with his demonic form.

While superfluous on the surface, Murai's transformation into a demon shows just how dangerous the Dark Dragon Blade is

            While this method of switching villains is not ideal, it serves a purpose and even though it may annoy players, it will not alienate them from the plot.  It does not feel entirely like a cop out just to make the game harder or to throw in a new boss for no good reason.

Disappointment, they name is Lords of Shadow

            The final example in this little study is Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, released in 2010 for the Playstation 3 and the Xbox 360.  This game features what is easily the most pathetic and contrived attempt at replacing the main villain in recent memory and shows an incredibly flawed effort at shocking players to set up a sequel…and the most disappointing part of this is that the shock ending wasn’t even necessary for a sequel.  In fact, it is head scratching that the developers chose to do this.  All right, before I get ahead of myself, let’s start at the beginning.

            Gabriel Belmont has lost the love of his life and fights against evil in an attempt to find a way to revive her.  He finds that, through a powerful mask which has been split into three pieces and held by the most evil creatures in the world, the Lords of Shadow, he may revive his beloved.  To retrieve these mask pieces he must fight the lord of werewolves, the lord of vampires, and the lord of necromancers.  Throughout the journey, we find mysterious deaths and strange visions plague Gabriel and all the while he is guided towards his ultimate goal by Zobek, a warrior who works for the same order as Gabriel.  Zobek narrates the story and guides Gabriel to kill the lord of werewolves and the lord of vampires, gaining two pieces of the mask.  Then, foreshadowing begins.  We see more visions of Gabriel wearing an odd and demonic mask, while Zobek’s dialogue starts to hint at a hidden agenda and he appears to kill some of the people Gabriel encounters after he leaves them.  Finally, when Gabriel reaches the lord of necromancers it is revealed to be…Zobek!  Zobek manipulated Gabriel into killing his beloved through a demonic mask and has given him a dark artifact early on which Zobek can control, forcing Gabriel to wound himself while Zobek takes the mask.  Zobek has planned all this to gain the power of the divine mask and now, as the final boss, he is ready to take over the world.  Until Satan pops out of the ground and kills him.  No.  You did not misread that.  SATAN comes out of the ground and kills the final lord of shadow.  You, the player, DO NOT FIGHT ZOBEK.  No.  Your final boss is Satan.

The final boss is...the Devil.  This is never hinted at, never mentioned before or after, and is ultimately a waste of what was a brilliant setup

            This reveal comes out of nowhere, is never hinted at, and, worse, destroys all the foreshadowing done earlier in the game.  Zobek’s cryptic dialogue, his dark word choices, his mysterious appearances alongside Gabriel’s strange visions all make perfect sense…and yet, he is killed by Satan in the last five minutes of the game.  This makes absolutely no sense.  The setup was brilliant, with an ally turning into an enemy, giving the final battle a personal touch, and putting Gabriel at a disadvantage, as he knew and trusted Zobek, only to be betrayed and revealed to be a murderer, not just of his wife, but of others, through Zobek’s manipulation.  However, Satan appears and destroys this setup.  There is absolutely no reason for this switch up and it cheats the players out of their revenge.  Worse yet, the supposed “reason” for the change was that Satan granted Zobek his power…which actually runs counter to the idea that Zobek is a darker version of a holy warrior in heaven, which the game goes out of its way to establish.  And the purpose of this switch up, to hint that the army of Satan is moving against Gabriel, who has somehow become a vampire and immortal in the epilogue, could easily be avoided, as Zobek is revealed to be alive.  He could have come to challenge Gabriel or any other enemy could have done things to the same effect.

            This is the most head scratching uses of swapping the main villain.  It adds nothing to the story and in fact cheats the players of their vengeance.  It contradicts the in game logic and really has no purpose in the game.  It is completely pointless.  There was no build up, no hinting that Satan was the mastermind, nothing…it was something that was pulled straight from the scriptwriter’s ass for no good reason other than “Satan is cool, people will love to fight the devil.”

            This is a problem with writing in video games in the modern age.  They constantly feel the need to shock or surprise the player, so they will often create twist ending villains who the players have no real attachment to.  It shows a type of laziness to plot out an adequate twist that would be laughed out of even the most rudimentary creative writing class.  When a major villain will be replaced, it needs to be hinted at, serve a purpose, and it needs to make sense within the context of the world which the game has created.  To simply shove a villain onto the stage for the “Coolness” factor or to make the player do a head turn is lazy and will ultimately alienate players from the story of the game and possibly the franchise as a whole.  While Final Fantasy 4’s twist actually makes for an interesting bit of characterization that is elaborated upon in the sequel and which actually makes a sequel possible, Lords of Shadow is a twist that is lazy, comes out of nowhere, and may actually alienate people from returning to the game out of pure frustration.  Ninja Gaiden’s twist is at least self contained and justified, so that it does not offend and ultimately adds to the experience even if it was unnecessary to the plot.

            It’s been suggested that ultimately, game developers and movie writers aren’t reading books when trying to write scripts.  They are watching movies and trying to emulate them.  I can understand this and it frustrates me to no end.  For a piece of fiction to be taken seriously, it must be properly laid out and make sense in context, which is a cornerstone of even the most basic writing courses.  People who keep writing these contrived and annoying shock villains and endings need to take a refresher course in basic plotting.  The games industry does not need shock endings that come out of nowhere.  People may not expect it, but nor do they want it.  Just tell a good story.  If a twist happens that makes sense, run with it.  But don’t shove in a character, villain or no, for the coolness factor or to appease the corporate side.  It will only hurt your final product.

All images used were appropriated for use under the Fair Use Act and is not meant to infringe on any copyrights.  If there are any complaints from the owners in regards to the use of pictures in this post, please contact me and I will remove them immediately.