Reflecting on the PS3/Wii/Xbox 360 generation

Phew...I feel really terrible for leaving my readers alone without an update for over a month.  I really do apologize for that.  I've been going through hell with work, school, and numerous other projects.  But I do want to support this blog, so I'm working towards getting more published.  I know this sounds like the same speech I give forever and for always, but I do mean it.  I want share with everyone.  Anyway, enough of the depressing apologies.  Let's get into some reflections on the previous console generation now that the PS4, Xbone, and Wii U have been released.

Reflecting on the PS3/Wii/Xbox 360 generation

            Hello, all.  It's near the end of 2013, we've officially started the next generation of gaming with three brand new consoles, and the start of a new era has begun.  As such, I think I'd like to take a short break from my typical analysis and do a bit of reflecting on the previous generation.  For me, there is one word that perfectly sums up the PS3/Wii/Xbox 360 generation.  Abject disappointment.  Coming off the PS2 era, this generation was a massive heel turn on three aspects.  The last generation disappointed me.  I was disappointed in the publishers, in the media, and in the game industry as a whole.  This could just be me being an old man...of almost 26...but let me explain my position.

Rest in peace, the last genuinely good generation of gaming.

            Let's start with the publishers.  The advent of a console which could regularly connect to the internet was, in my opinion, one of the biggest blows to quality control in the world of console gaming since the Video Game Crash of 1979.  In previous generations, PS2, PSone, SNES, NES, etc. when you bought a console, it had to work straight out of the box.  If it didn't the company which made it had problems, as they'd have to do a massive recall to fix the problem and waste millions of dollars, if not more.  However, in modern gaming, if a game or a console is of terrible quality, the mentality is not to fix it before it goes out but rather to "patch it" to try and fix the problems online.  Sometimes these patches can make things even worse, as reports of Wii bricking after certain firmware updates early in its life cycle.  Games no longer have any need for quality control because regardless of bugs, failings, or what have you, the mentality is that it can be fixed later, so long as we give them the money now.

Last generation was punctuated by laziness, glitches, and failure on the part of publishers.  RROD.  Need I say more?

            That's not the only disappointing aspect of game publishers by any means, however.  The age of the internet also became the age of DLC.  Many features in video games which were included to be unlocked in previous generations through gameplay are now sold piecemeal to try and make more money off the fan base.  Truthfully, publishers abusing their customer base has been a staple of this generation.  Piecemeal DLC, season passes with content that may never appear, online passes, paywalls for certain games, updates which hurt a game more than fixing it, releasing "better" versions of their game a short period of time after the initial release, the list goes on and on.  The publishers have abused their power to a large degree.  Worse is that they have increased the costs of developing games so that they are prohibitively expensive, meaning that fewer games can be released unless they appeal to a much wider demographic, which waters down games.  They are forced to try and appeal to everyone, ultimately making them less appealing to those who might have given it a look to begin with.  Video game publishers continue to make mistakes with gleeful abandon, when if they simply respected their customers and did away with certain shoddy practices they would rake in not only money, but brand loyalty.

Surely game developers wouldn't released watered down glitchy games to their loyal fan-ohhhh...

            In regards to publishers, this feels like the age of shortcuts, scams, and betrayals.  Capcom epitomizes this with their scummy on disc DLC practices, their release of a broken version of Marvel Vs. Capcom 3, which they did not patch and instead released a new version of the game with no consideration given to early adopters, myself included.  Game manuals have gotten shorter to save on printing costs, to the point where they can be as thin as two pages.  At that point, why bother even printing it?  Some games don't even come with manuals to save on the cost.  The increase in price for the decrease in quality is one of the most disappointing parts of this generation.  Game developers and publishers play the pauper for us, but they demand more and more money.  This generation the price for almost all games, regardless of length, quality, or anything else is usually $60.  Budget titles are almost nonexistent.  Worse, support for the burgeoning idea of digital distribution has been crippled by this same principal, where the costs for making physical copies have been eliminated, but the same amount of money is charged regardless.  This is what destroyed the PSPgo.  The costs were the same for digital games, not all games were supported, and support in general seemed limited.  Greed has defined this generation.  Don't misunderstand me.  I know that all game companies want money and in my precious SNES era, many games were sold at a premium of $60-$80, but this was the exception, not the norm.  The norm now is for publishers to squeeze their fans for as much money as possible until they abandon them.  And that's just sad.

This generation showed just how low game publishers could go to make money off their fans.

            Moving on to games media, what I find most disappointing is the out of control hype machine that it has become, the vitriolic editorialist nature of it, of which I freely admit that I too am a part, a general lack of internal ethics, and the often times conflicting nature of game reviews and game press.  I do believe a huge part of this is simply growing pains as our burgeoning hobby is coming into its own, hence the title of my blog, however it is more clear to me now than ever that the media is a lot more flash than substance.  I was told that games were great from magazines when in fact they were horrible.  The flashy covers and interviews and coverage of magazines or websites get us excited to a degree that we cannot match.

Anyone else remember the hype machine on this?  Remember how it crashed and burned horribly?

            The hype machine in particular is bringing more and more disappointment all around because everyone wants to try and be largely positive before a review is out so that they can get more coverage, fill pages of magazines, fill websites, etc.  however it creates an unreasonable expectation, feeding a gamer's glee and desire for a game to be good regardless of the actual substance of the game in question.  Ironically, this largely feeds into the second disappointing aspect of gaming media, the vitriolic editorialistic nature of it.  I love Bioshock.  I also love Bioshock 2.  In the lead up to Bioshock 2, the hype machine was huge, the return to Rapture was going to be a triumphant new adventure as a Big Daddy.  Then, when it came out, people began to shit on the game for being a disappointment.  The hype machine built up a game that could not be and then capitalized on it by treating it with polarizing views of angry dismissal or angry defense.  I also admit to this, having expressed my anger at games like Demons Souls, Bioshock Infinite, and even Skyrim.  I'm disappointed just as much in myself as others because rather than trying to find the good in moderately fun games or even flawed titles, if they do not merit a solid 9/10 or 10/10, it seems like we are content to get upset at them.  We live in a culture that largely responds to game criticism, hype, or even general discussion with anger and games media has helped that along.  Worse though is when people start being rude, angry, or generally cruel when they could have avoided it.  Jason Schrier's flame war with George Kamitani over the portrayal of women in Dragon's Crown or Marcus Beer's attacks on Phil fish are good examples of this.

Not a bad game.  Please stop buying into the hype machine of what it was supposed to be, stop being angry, and just enjoy it for what it is.

            More distressing is the lack of ethics in games media.  Now, I'm not someone who believes that game reviewers or those who deal with the news of games are privileged because they get free games or consoles.  That is their work.  That is no different than a law book for a lawyer or an abacus for an actuary.  It is a tool.  However, when they abuse those tools, I start to get upset.  In the last generation, we received dozens of 9/10 and 10/10 review scores across the board for games like Bioshock Infinite, which was a remarkably flawed game, to Skyrim, which was released with a huge amount of bugs but which was declared a masterpiece regardless, to XCOM, which was so buggy at times that it was unplayable.  It seems like journalists either cannot separate personal feelings from issues of fault, bugginess, or flaws in the game design...or they've been paid off.  When I was younger, I played a game called Ephemeral Fantasia, which was panned on one game website, but which received more modest scores on others.  Each one noted its flaws or bugs, but highlighted different facets of the title, offering different opinions, one of which eventually made me buy the game.  These days, only independent reviewers, like those on Blistered Thumbs or Total Biscuit tend to be brutally honest about games, whereas larger publishers tend to have across the board either positive or negative reviews...a consensus.  It makes me raise an eyebrow.  And even those independent reviewers can make mistakes.  Someone on Blistered Thumbs gave Xenoblade Chronicles a 10/10 review score when I have already addressed at great length its many flaws.  This leads to my final disappointment.  The conflicting interests.  Publishers are the ones who give game journalists and media outlets review copies before the launch day.  If the media site or reviewer pans the title, the publisher is less likely to send them a game in the future.  This happened with Total Biscuit in regards to Garry's Incident on Steam, which was so buggy it was nearly unplayable.  However, to avoid bad publicity, the publisher tried to get his review pulled from Youtube.  While thhere is a large deal of ethics issues or ethical confusion, I'm not going to say all game reviewers or media outlets are morally bankrupt.  Some are probably just...in a tough situation.  Coupled with the conflicting interests, it makes games media a muddled thing indeed, as it's difficult to find the truth from the hype, the honest review from the fan boy review, and the heartfelt admiration from the corporate pay off.  I know that this has been an issue in the past, Nintendo Power was after all propaganda, however this generation has been rampant with it.  And that disappoints me.

One of the glitchiest games of the generation.  9.5 out of 10...see why I'm down on the media?

            Finally, let's discuss the games industry as a whole.  We are a bunch of sexist, entitled, fan boy bastards.  Not all of us and some not to as huge a degree as others, but we, as a culture and an industry, have problems.  These problems were made all too clear in this generation.  Sexism was a prime issue here.  The harassment of Anita Sarkeesian and women in the game industry, keeping women off video game covers unless they are half naked, ignoring or marginalizing the female gamer population, ala "the fake gamer girl" incidents...we have a lot of growing up to do.  And we're not helping our image with these ideas.  We're also highly self entitled.  We believe the world owes us something when really...it doesn't.  Game piracy is easily the biggest example of self entitlement in the game industry and it hurts everyone.  The truth is, I think we've blurred the lines between what we really are entitled as customers and what we believe we are entitled too.  Say what you want about the Mass Effect 3 ending, but the fact that gamers believed that, after paying for a finished product, they believed they were entitled to more...it is telling about our mindset and culture.  As customers, we do deserve a working product, which makes the Diablo 3 or Sim City incidents especially depressing as we did not even get that, however we are not owed anything unless we have plopped down the money for it.  Even then, we may not be owed a blasted thing.  But the game industry continually seems to think that because we want it, we deserve it.  Publishers, media, and gamers alike.

We deserve working games, for sure...but entitlement is a problem in our culture.  We deserve working games.  But we are not entitled to hurt others, in or out of the game industry, if we don't get them.

            My final problem with the game industry is the fan boy issue.  We have become so vitriolic and defensive about almost everything that we will angrily defend, even making an argument personal or threatening or harassing others just to prove our point.  We cannot continue on like this.  These are the efforts of children, screaming at parents and threatening their classmates without realizing the totality of their actions.  There have always been and likely will always be fan boys.  However, no matter how brutal, smarmy, or rude it could be in the past, it pales in comparison to the nastiness on open display in the games industry at the moment.  Developers blatantly insulting their customers to their detriment, fans berating anyone who steps out of line with their train of thought, media pundits harassing developers...we are getting worse and worse.  And it makes me sad.  It makes me want to distance myself from the industry and culture I once loved.

The parody of the fanboy has become so hilarious because the reality is so depressing. 

            So, yeah, to me this generation has been a huge disappointment for me.  Even putting aside those issues, the forced attempts at innovation played into the hype machine...we were promised full motion feed back with the Wii and got shoddy controls.  We were promised a controllerless perfect experience on Xbox 360 Kinect and got a useless peripheral.  The dual shock sixaxis was supposed to use tilt technology to improve game design, but the controllers were poorly made pieces of crap.  Games themselves also seem to be watered down and more flash than substance.  I really can't justify buying games that are 4 hours in length for $60 or even $40.

Forcing innovation was an expensive bomb last generation for the tentative promise of something better this generation.  I'm not holding my breath.

            It's not all bad though.  Let me give a quick forecast of the next generation to try and lift some spirits, okay?  Honestly, I believe this new generation will either be the time of the Wii U or, what is more likely, the return to power of the PC.  The PS4 and Xbox One are basically over glorified, underpowered PCs with a few exclusive games like Killzone or Dead Rising 3.  Anything they can do, a PC can do better, more efficiently, and with less hassle.  Consoles seem to be moving more towards the PC, but without any of the benefits, so I predict either the PC will become the major gaming platform and supplant consoles, or the Wii U will gain steam and overtake them all.  Why?  Well, the Wii U has a number of things going for it other companies don't have.  While digital distribution on PS4 and Xbox One often have PC equivalents on Steam or GOG, the Wii U has the virtual console, which, short of emulation or trying to hunt down old cartridges, is the only legal way to play older console games from Nintendo and Sega.  Titles like Earthbound cannot be found anywhere else.  If that receives support, then the Wii U will have more power in the digital arena.  The Wii U is also the cheapest of the three consoles and a dedicated gaming machine rather than a multi-media platform.  The Wii U also is trying something new with the game pad, releasing it from the shackles of the television while opening up new venues of play with the television.  It also has the house Mario built, Nintendo, supporting it.  The Wii U is behind at the moment, but that could rapidly change.  I think that Sony and Microsoft will make decent sales with their consoles at first, but as more people become fed up with the watering down and PC-ification of their consoles, I think they'll either move to Wii U or to PC.

The one true savior.

            I also believe that this generation will not necessarily belong to large publishers, but to the smaller studios.  The indies.  Through crowd sourcing, they now have a means to get capital without groveling at the feet of giants, making releasing quality games on a budget, usually for the PC, child's play.  It releases many developers from the burden of the overpriced, exorbitance of the AAA industry.  Indies are the future, as far as I'm concerned.  I think that larger publishers, as budgets increase, will eventually implode when they cannot get enough money to cover their costs, while Indies, with their low costs and roots in the community, will survive.

The other true savior.

            In general, while I believe this generation to be a disappointment, this new generation or the one after it will be a bit of a shake up.  I honestly believe that things are going to change.  I don't fear becoming a PC gamer, thanks to my recent conversion to Steam and GOG, but I would weep for the loss of what I consider to be console culture.  It was my childhood, after all.  Regardless of what comes though, I think that the game industry as it is now will not be able to stay as it is.  Even now, we are seeing more acts of altruism in small ways.  Promoting a kickstarter for a game to try and get it off the ground for no other reason than the game looks fun.  Defending or discussing issues in a civil manner.  We all have our bigots, our sexists, our angry fan boys...but we also have people who have a great love of gaming.  And so, I predict that in spite of my disappointment with this last generation, I do believe the future will get brighter.

Seriously, everyone...thank you for reading.  It's been an honor and a privilege.

            I'd like to take a moment to thank all my wonderful readers.  All...4 of you.  I kid, I kid.  I do this for myself, but it's nice to know that some people do pay attention and enjoy, or at least are engaged by my work.  I hope to be less vitriolic in the coming year and to get more posts out on a regular basis.  I want to defend games rather than just sigh and shake my head at the industry.  So, see you in 2014...or sooner, if I get my act together!  Let's see if the Wii U, the PC, or something brand new takes center stage.

Diminutive Diatribes: Balance in a Developer’s Teams

            Let's talk about my favorite video game developer ever.  Vanillaware.  Vanillaware...is not necessarily the best off developer in the gaming world.  They have an incredibly unique art style and all of their games use beautiful hand drawn sprites.  Their gameplay also tends to be very solid.  However, not only are they a small developer, they are also...very unbalanced.  George Kamitani himself mentioned that the company consists largely of artists working together and that it was a great experience for him, as an artist and the director of most Vanillaware games, to work with them.  However, do you know what Vanillaware doesn't have a lot of?  Composers.  Sound designers.  Programmers.  Marketers.  The company is a repository of artistic talent...but of little else.  And this is a major problem, no matter how competent the developer.

A company of artists.  Great for visual flair, lacking in many other areas.

            Balance in a development team is remarkably important, both for indie developers and for professional developers.  When I say balance, I refer to two things.  The first is that you have a team with enough materials to finish a game on their own.  Even if the music is sub par or the art suffers, you have enough skill amongst your team that you can finish the game.  This is a balanced development staff, where they can do everything that is necessary for a game.  There are those who can program, compose, do sound design, do art, story boards, etc.  The second way of looking at balance in a developer's teams is recognizing their own weakness.  While I have given Vanillaware crap for their lack of sound design, that is the reason they outsource.  And outsourcing is not necessarily bad.  If you have a balanced team, but your balance leans more towards art rather than music or game design, then outsourcing can help bring your game itself back into balance.  The team plays to its strengths and the outsourced party helps to complement those strengths.  The important thing to recognize, however, is that these two ideas of balance do not exist in a vacuum.  Balance as I have laid it out means basically having the ability to finish a game and making the best game possible with the given materials.

Despite the fantastic art, Vanillaware frequently needs to outsource or receive assistance to finish their games.  This...is not a good thing.

            However, why is this idea of balance so important?  Well, Darwin stated that overspecialization leads to extinction.  Conversely, in game design, it's a good idea to know your strengths and play to it.  I love Vanillaware's art style, story, and often their gameplay.  Know what else I love?  The music of every Vanillaware game.  The music is done by an independent company, Basiscape.  This...isn't necessarily a big deal, due to the fact that many companies will outsource what they cannot do themselves.  However, let me ask a question.  What happens if Basiscape is bought out, goes out of business, or simply refuses to work with Vanillaware anymore?  Can they compose music on their own to match their games?  In the release of Dragon's Crown, they needed Atlus's help to finish the programming aspect of it and help with translation.  Could they have done it without Atlus there to back them up?  For the translation of their game Muramasa: The Demon Blade, Vanillaware needed the help of Ignition entertainment.  Do you see what I'm getting at?  In game design, overspecialization is desired to a large degree because it allows a company to be different from the crowd...the sad tragedy, however, is that the company may not be able to deliver a finished product specifically because it is different from the crowd.

This company goes out of business or refuses to work with them and Vanillaware has no options for music.  Basiscape has done the music for almost 100% of Vanillaware's games.

            Vanillaware creates amazing games, however the stars have to be in perfect alignment for them to see the light of day.  They rely heavily on other companies for their sound design, assistance with programming, and for translation so that their games can reach any region outside of Japan.  If any of these elements are missing, it is unlikely a game will be finished, or at least that it will manage a world wide release.  Vanillaware is probably the most prominent example, but this is also pretty true of indie games as well as other major developers.  Mistwalker leans heavily on Smile Please for support with music.  Tri-Scape worked with Square-Enix for a while with games like Star Ocean and the Valkyrie Profile Series.  Gearbox outsourced Aliens: Colonial Marines to several studios, before having to do revisions on their own.  These studios would, and in some cases did, suffer greatly from their over reliance on outsourcing.  It is a tool, but not the only one.  I say that the bare minimum you need in a company is at least one person with the skills to do what you are outsourcing, just in case.

Outsourcing is not necessarily a bad thing.  I'll take music from Nobuo Uematsu's independent composition company over a homegrown developer any day.  However...you can't always count on that, so you need a fallback plan.

            If a company's support or outsourcing goes belly up, without any way to finish the game, the project may be abandoned and the studio closed.  However, indie developers tend to show that where there's a will, there's a way, some sitting on games for years until they can actually get the skills they personally need to finish them or finding those who can help.  If a development team has balance, namely that if they don't lean too heavily in one direction towards art, design, story, or music, but have at least one or two people in every area, they may eventually be able to finish a game.  If support does fall through, then the developer can work on their own to finish their game.  Perhaps the most balanced teams are those that rely on only one or two developers.  Aquaria only had two developers.  Derek Yu focused on art design and story while Alec Holowkwa focused on programming language and musical composition/sound design.  If either left, the game would have probably fallen through, however because of the closeness of their work and the size of their team, it would be feasible for one programmer to finish the work of the other.  Dean Dodrill is another good example, who built Dust: An Elysian Tail on his own for several years.  He was the only programmer, so he had to do all the work.  There was no way a departing team member or outsourcing would ruin his game since it hinged solely on him.  For bigger development teams, it's best to have at least one or two specialists who can do one thing really well, like music or programming, that have overlapping skills so if outsourcing is needed, they can still do work.  And if the outsourcing falls through, the company has a fall back plan.

Ironically, the developers with the most balance in their teams are the one man development companies.  Dean Dodrill built Dust: An Elysian Tail from scratch, all by himself.  No risk of failure if outsourcing or support fell through.

            The important thing to keep in mind, however, is that just because you have a balanced development team does not mean you should absolutely not outsource.  Remember, the other half of balance in game development is recognizing fallacies in your own team and working to correct them.  This often means that if you have a weak sound design team or no time to build cinematics, then you should outsource them so that the product looks good all around.  Outsourcing is a tool that game developers recognize has its uses.  Legend of Iya, for example, is built entirely by Darkfalz, a pixel artist who also works with game design and very amateur music.  He recognized his weakness in sound design and decided to outsource to someone who could give his game a more fitting soundtrack.  That's alright.  That's clever/important to recognize.  If this outsourcing falls through, he can still finish his game with the skills he possesses, however balance dictates that if music is not his strong suit, then perhaps it is wiser to outsource.  I say, it is important to use it when appropriate, but not be completely reliant on it.  Have a fallback plan, by having balance within your development team.

Legend of Iya is not at its strongest musically, so the creator is outsourcing for music.  But he himself CAN make some music for the game, just in case.  Balance is about making the game as good as possible...but also having a fallback plan

            So, to reiterate, balance in a developer's team can mean two things.  It means having enough team members with the skills necessary to finish a game all on their own.  However, since people often specialize rather than having general knowledge in all aspects of game design, they will more often than not play to their strengths, leaving one area of a game weaker than the others.  In this case, you want to bring balance to the game itself through outsourcing to people who specialize in what you lack.

            Whatever you do, don't go into game development completely reliant on the promises or the work of someone else, because things happen.  Contracts are breached, disasters happen, word comes down from corporate HQ, and sometimes outsourcing just falls through.  If you don't have a balanced team, your game may never see the light of day unless you shop around for another skilled group of people to help you.  This can lead to delays, wasted time and money, and eventual cancellation.  Balance goes both ways.  While you want to deliver the best product you can, you should not be so overspecialized that you cannot finish said project on your own, at least in my opinion.  It's fine to have specialized team members or even for a development company itself to specialize in certain things, but always try and remember to have a fallback.  Have balance in your team so that if you are backed into a corner and left without outside support, you can still deliver a game to us.

I just want to encourage developers to have balance.  More games means more options which means gamers have more choices for enjoyment.

            No matter how bad a game, I believe that it is better for something to be released rather than just outright cancelled.  Even terrible games have some merit in that they can be enjoyably flawed or they highlight the strength of other games.  So, even if you can't deliver a master piece, have the tools necessary to release a game at all.

Kid you not, this glitchy monstrosity of a game got released.  And yet Mega Man Legends 3 was cancelled...depressing.  At least be able to give us a game, developers.  No matter how terrible, I think it's better to have them then to not...even if it's just so we can point and laugh.

            I'd also like to take a moment and ponder the irony of my previous statements.  Many of us hate games like Big Rigs Over the Road Racing or Ride to Hell because they are egregious examples of a failure of fundamental game design.  However, they were at least released.  And even if they are terrible to play, they can be used as examples to help other developers learn.  So I stand by my statements.  I doubt these teams had proper balance, but they still managed to finish these products.  The gaming world, even if it is just due to the lack of something to mock, laugh at, or learn from, would be poorer if these had just been cancelled and quietly swept under the rug.

Companionship: Endearing vs Annoying

NO!  I'm not dead...but I have been very busy.  My attempts to keep two blogs, a job, school, and my personal work going, as well as finding time to unwind has been...difficult.  So, expect slower updates on this blog in the coming months, at least until I finish with my classes.  For now though, I do have a long update for people.  So, let's look into Companionship: Endearing vs Annoying.

            Something that a lot of developers seem to have trouble with is the idea of companionship in video games.  A lot of them want to make a deep, meaningful connection between two characters, so they tend to put them together so a bond can develop.  Problem.  Without another human brain, you run the risk of completely ruining this experience.  See, unless you or someone else can control another character, quite often they will become more of a burden than a friend or a lover or what have you.  The AI in video games, or even the circumstances surrounding another character, are often too weak to force that kind of bond.  So, that brings up a few interesting arguments on companionship.  How do you make a character endearing, when there isn't another human behind the steering wheel?  How do you avoid making them a burden or an annoyance?  Well, let's take a look at a few prominent games based around a system of companionship and see different approaches taken in the past, both good and bad.

Good game design and narrative can even make two silent robots endearing.

            Probably the most famous, and yet the most esoteric, companionship in past years has been Ico and Yorda from the game Ico.  Yorda is the very definition of what can be called a burden.  You die if she gets too far away from you, she can do nothing for herself, you literally have to hold her hand through most of the game, and she speaks very little.  Yet, people often cite Yorda as one of the great gaming companions of recent memory.  Why is this?  I tend to believe it is because of the circumstances.  You see, the world of Ico is bleak, lifeless, cold, and lonely.  Ico the character is hated by his fellow villagers and attacked by monsters within the castle.  Yet Yorda is not afraid of him.  She speaks very little, but does not abuse Ico, does not hate him, and is comfortable enough around him to let him guide her and to rest with him on a bench when saving the game.  Yorda seems like a burden, however the way the game is designed, burden or not, Yorda is all you've got.  Yorda is the one ray of light in the darkness.  Because of this, it feels almost like a fairytale, where a prince and a princess must escape an evil witch.  And all of this is conveyed through art and mechanics rather than through a lot of text or narrative.  Despite not having very good AI and being largely dependent on you, Yorda forms that meaningful bond of companionship by being the only hope you have for the future in a world that hates you.

The image of Ico and Yorda holding hands is immortal in gaming.  Two lost souls who depend on one another not just for puzzles or mechanics, but for the hope to keep going.

            Conversely, let's look at Resident Evil 4 and Ashley Graham.  Ashley is an attractive young woman in a cute sweater and a miniskirt.  She is often useful for puzzles and her death, like Yorda's, spells the end for you.  However, Ashley is looked upon in a far less kindly manner.  The circumstances surrounding Leon Kennedy, the main character in Resident Evil 4, are, arguably, far more hostile than in Ico, but a good deal less bleak.  Leon is taunted by his enemies, he is encouraged by allies and uncertain elements, he is frequently talked to and is far less feeble and helpless than Ico.  Leon is also far more well liked, as his allies care for him and his enemies even respect him somewhat.  In this situation, companionship is not something novel.  It is not a single ray of light in the darkness.  And because Ashley is not all that you have, because you meet other people, are able to talk with others, etc. her significance as an endearing companion is diminished and she just becomes annoying.  She becomes a weight around the player's neck because they know they're not alone, or hated, or reliant on Ashley for any other reason than the game says so.

Sums up the problems with Ashley in a single sentence.

            From these two cases, the importance of tone and circumstances is emphasized.  Ashley and Yorda play very similar roles in their respective games, but one is well liked and considered a true companion while the other is a weight around your neck.  At a very basic level, this is a good way to define endearing vs annoying.  Do you want to be with them.  Yorda, while frustrating at times to have due to the instant death one can suffer from her, is all the comfort you have in the game.  You want to be with her, just to relieve the crippling loneliness and feel like you are wanted or needed.  Ashely is not all you have.  You have Ada Wong, Ingrid Hunnigan, or even the villains who taunt you, like Ramon Salazar or Krauser.  Leon is not alone.  Beyond that, he also has other comforts, such as a feeling of superiority in besting enemies with various weapons.  Ashley, therefore, is more frustrating than comforting.  Rather than being endearing, she is annoying.

"Lonely?  Nah, I'm too busy fighting zombies with cool weapons to be lonely?  What was I doing, again?  Oh, right...President's daughter.  Ah, well, that can wait till after my knife fight with my rival."

            Now, with these concepts laid out, let's examine some ways around the Ashley scenario that don't rely so heavily on the bleak circumstances of Ico.  Ways to try and create an endearing companionship while avoiding the burdensome behavior we have seen in the past.  Silent Hill 2 and 4 have tried two different approaches at this.  At various times in the game, you will be forced to have a companion.  In Silent Hill 2, it is the character Maria.  Maria is not really a weight around your neck because she is not necessarily reliant on you.  She dies several times in the game as is, so her protection is not really the player's problem.  She will follow you regardless.  However, the problem with this is that the companionship itself is relatively pointless...she is a comfort in the horrors of Silent Hill, true, but outside of cut scenes, she does very little, so her presence could, in theory be excised without loosing much impact.  Silent Hill 4 takes a different approach, where you have a character who follows you, but her death means your death, like with Ashley, and if she takes too much damage, it will adversely affect the ending.  This encourages players to look after her, but begrudgingly at best.  There are attempts to make her feel necessary, by giving her the ability to wield weapons or make comments about the world around her, however the weaponry takes up precious spaces in your inventory and the comments are easy to miss.  Ultimately, Silent Hill 4's approach is a step in the right direction...but still more frustrating than the consequence free companionship of Silent Hill 2.

Let's go, woman crippled by a beating from a serial killer, with your help we can kill those monsters!  Seriously, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but she does at least try to be useful...that's more than I can say for Ashley Graham.

            Resident Evil 5 actually comes relatively close to making a companion feel both necessary, useful, and even comforting.  The character Sheva wields weapons, just like Chris Redfield, the main character, and is capable not only of looking after herself, but also of protecting the player and assisting them with boss battles.  She can heal Chris or herself, give ammo, and offers both colorful commentary and a feeling of not being alone in a tough situation.  Yet, Sheva is also heavily criticized.  She does not always use the best weapon for the best situation, even if she has it in her possession.  She can waste healing items on minor wounds.  And Sheva also falls under the problematic approach of, if she dies, you die.  While useful and even at times enjoyable to have around, due to her beauty and her useful abilities, Sheva is still a problematic and at times annoying companion.  Sheva is a perfect example of good intentions limited by artificial intelligence.  She tries to act with prudency and humanity, but is limited by the designer's foresight.

Sassy, sultry, capable, and heavily armed...the perfect companion, right?  Err...right?

            I think this is a good time to mention that pretty much every companion I have mentioned is a female.  This is a rather sad trope in companionship in gaming.  Because the popular perception, which is flawed might I add, that most games are played by men, they think that a woman as a companion creates an instant endearment, either for sexual reasons or for reasons of chivalry.  This is, however, a rather pitiful attempt to make a character endearing without giving them any real substance.  Neverdead, for example, has what can only be described as a lascivious young woman accompanying the male character, who can fight and use guns, but still needs to be kept alive...the reason players are supposed to care for her is her looks.  This does not work.  She is frequently a burden and not well liked, due in part to her personality and her voice acting, and in part to the instant death which surrounds her.

Why are we supposed to care again?  Oh, right!  Cleavage!

            There are a few examples of male companions, such as in war games like Resistance: Fall of man, the warrior, dwarf, or wizard characters in Dragon's Crown, male body guards in Skyrim, etc. however they fall prey to a combination of the Silent Hill 2 and the Silent Hill 4 problem.  While they can be useful and helpful for clearing a level by attacking enemies, ala Silent Hill 4, we have no real reason to care, as they have almost no real personality and their deaths mean nothing to us.  This negates any possibility for companionship.  The one time I have seen male companionship done well is in Gears of War, where it is necessary to keep the male characters alive, but they do not die right away...they can bleed out and you can save them, giving you a bit of a buffer.  And likewise, not only do they fight with you, but they can also save you.  It is a nice feeling of camaraderie, only hindered by the generally weak character developments beyond the grizzled soldier stereotype.

Despite the grizzled soldier stereotype, Dom is pretty endearing, due to the brother's in arms-esque nature of Gears of War.

            Probably the best example of a companion character that I have ever seen does still have flaws.  Elizabeth in Bioshock Infinite is an interesting, attractive young lady who frequently gives you money, ammo, weapons, and can create new areas for you to use as cover or to restock your supplies or attack enemies using her unique powers.  The enemies never attack her because of the very good excuse that she is seen as something of a messiah and is respected, so they want to kill you and take her back unharmed.  She frequently talks to the main character, Booker Dewitt, and her absence is felt whenever she is not with you, because she is both a voice of innocence and idealism in a world that is very harsh.  What's more, not only is Elizabeth not a burden on you, but she can also save you from almost certain death.  And this gets into the biggest problem with Elizabeth.  While a beautifully fleshed out character, very useful, and one you do gain a genuine emotional attachment too, she does somewhat cripple the game.  When there is no fear of death, save for the loss of a few coins, it does not encourage the player to get better, nor does it afford the level of challenge one might want in such a game.  In trying to make an endearing companion that is not a burden, the game designers sacrificed challenge and, to a degree, balance.

Sweet and idealistic, helpful and likeable, beautiful and charming, Elizabeth is a great ally...pity she makes the game so blatantly easy.

            So, what do we do to resolve this dilemma?  Well, as far as I can tell, there are three ways to make characters endearing rather than annoying.  The first is circumstance.  Like with Yorda or Elizabeth, use the circumstances of the world to try and make them more endearing.  Yorda is your hope and the only compassion in a cruel world, so you care for her, while Elizabeth is fully fleshed out and is not an over glorified escort mission, due to the fact that she is meant to be captured and not harmed in the context of the game's story.  The second option is much more difficult, as it requires maintaining a balance between usefulness, emotional attachment, and frustration.  This option is to incorporate most of what we have previously discussed into a single character with the caveat that, while she cannot be killed to give you a game over, letting her get hurt will make you feel so bad that you will WANT to protect her.  Perhaps having a character collapse and softly weep in the background for a few minutes, like until you hug her or help her up, might be the needed balance between an escort quest and a genuine companionship story.  However, this requires a high level of polish, both in the AI and in the game design.  Pathfinding issues, idiotic choices, or overuse of said weeping or incapacitation mechanics could cripple it.  Most developers are unwilling to try and work that hard for the endearment.  The third option is the easiest and does not necessarily have to remove endearment from a game.  That option is to not require the character to be a part of battle.  Oh, certainly give them their own personality, their own AI, and things to do, but keep them in a strictly residential district.

Companionship is a delicate balance in gaming between circumstances, game design, and AI.  Sometimes, it's easier to say, "Wait for me, I'll be back" to your friends...it makes the game play better and doesn't sacrifice character development.

            A few might cry sexism, as this is essentially saying that women need to be kept in the home, or what have you, but hear me out.  It's used to great effect in games like Rune Factory Frontier or Pandora's Tower where you have characters important to you and to the plot.  You have companions who do their own thing.  However, they don't need to be in battle.  Their personality, their contributions to you, and their story is what makes them endearing, rather than gameplay mechanics.  In Rune Factory Frontier, the character Mist is very strange, a bit silly, but also very likable.  She will give you gifts, but does not hang around her house.  She goes for errands in the village, tends to her flowers, follows a schedule, etc.  You don't need to worry about her, but at the same time when she gets kidnapped, you want to save her because...the world's just not the same without her.  Elena from Pandora's Tower is another example of this, where her presence is reassuring, she does a huge amount of things for the player, and while she isn't essential, when she is gone, her presence is missed.  This does fall apart a little since players are on a timer with Elena's life on the line, but in concept, it is a good idea.  And it does not have to be limited to domestic or female roles either.  In the early parts of Shining Force 2, characters are accompanied by their mentor, Sir Astral who is purely an adviser and does not take place in battle.  Then, he leaves the party and you spend several hours without him.  Once he rejoins the team, it feels...right, you might say.  You missed the character, even without him having participated in battle because his actions and his role in the story make players care.

Keep calm and eat turnips.  Seriously, without Mist, Rune Factory just isn't Rune Factory.  That's how endearing she is, even outside of battle.

            Ultimately, it is my belief that developers need to ask the Q&A testers one big question when designing a partner in either capacity.  "Does this improve the game?"  With Elizabeth, it does.  Bioshock Infinite would be very different, almost impossible, without her presence.  The same goes for Yorda.  However, think about Ashley Graham...if she was kidnapped and managed to either hide or escape, only reappearing in cut scenes, would that have been such a huge loss?  I'm not so sure, myself.  Developers are going to have to, at times, make compromises when trying to make endearing characters due to time or limitations on hardware, experience, or even by publisher mandate.  However, they can still make the experience enjoyable.  Is Sheva a problem in RE5?  Well, she has her flaws, but the game wouldn't be what it is without her.  And I dare say it might even be a little bit boring.  So, Sheva, despite being flawed is a decent partner.  Same for Dom in Gears of War, as he not only supports you, but can save you, just as you can save him.  Perfect?  No.  But still a part of the game that makes it special and, dare I say it, enjoyable.

A little bit of common sense in game design goes a long way when designing companionship.  Characters can't speak?  Well, let their actions speak louder than words.  Whatever you do, though, make sure it improves the game.

            Common sense is good here...it's great to make a game you love, but also think about who else you're making it for before you make partner death an instant game over, give them a bad personality, or hire an actress to voice them who just doesn't fit.

            Alot of the time, it's not endearing vs annoying.  It's which do we have more of?  Endearing or annoying?  The best most of us can do is try to tip the scale in favor of endearing, because no matter how hard you try, there is not going to be a character for everyone.  So, do your best to make them more fun or meaningful than they are tiresome or troubling.

Diminutive Diatribes: In Defense of Metroid: Other M. What can we learn from it?

Unlike a large majority of the Metroid fans, I'm one of the few people who actually enjoyed playing through Metroid: Other M on the Wii.  While I think it is remarkably flawed, I also saw flashes of brilliance in the narrative.  And while it failed on a number of levels I did enjoy PLAYING the game...for the most part.  So, with Metroid receiving some new attention due to the recent Kotaku article on thehistory of the series, minus Other M, I think it might be important to examine Other M, both what it did right and what we can learn from it about Metroid and video games in general.

Alright, let's do this.  Let's examine Other M, flaws and all.

            First, let's talk about what Metroid: Other M does very well.  Body language.  While the script and the internal monologues are...flawed at best, the body language of the series is actually done pretty well.  My favorite example of this is the epilogue, which has very little spoken or monologued speech.  However, near the end, our heroine, Samus Aran, finds the helmet of her former comrade, hugs it close and then carries it out with her before setting it on the seat of her gunship and leaving.  This speaks volumes about the respect and meaning this one person had for her.  Likewise, throughout the game, you will see subtle movements by the character, like a bowed head or reaching out in concern that, while different from previous Metroid games, speaks to the spirit of the series of showing rather than telling.  We learn Samus is compassionate or strong through her movements.

That pose and that expression say all we need.  Words at this point would only cheapen the moment.

            The script, while flawed, isn't necessarily as bad as people think.  The real problem with it is the internal monologue.  Throughout the series, Samus has spoken very little, giving her the feeling of a solemn, thoughtful individual.  She has spoken in Metroid Fusion and I don't mind her speaking in Other M, as real humans, especially those who have to interact with others, have to talk.  The real problem is that the internal monologue paints her as a submissive, weak, childish girl rather than a strong, solemn, mature woman.  Now, whether or not Samus has these thoughts in the midst of her hunting, I don't know, but if she does, we don't need to know it.  The dialogue itself is actually not that bad.  It's a bit dry, but it feels very much like the movie Alien, with a crew of people, some very close, exploring an abandoned/infested space station.  It plays to the environment.  Take away the internal monologue and the dialogue here is actually much closer to Metroid Fusion and not nearly as bad as people think.

When we're not listening to the dreadful internal monologues, we've actually got a decent script.  Samus and a group of soldiers exploring a hostile environment full of alien monsters and an unknown agenda...draws heavily from the Aliens series and that's not a bad thing by any means.

            The gameplay is stellar, for the most part.  The 2-d side scrolling uses 3-d models, but still holds very true to the feel of Super Metroid.  It's fast, fun, and very easy to pick up and play.  The controls are fluid and the shifting from 2-d to a 3-d viewpoint, while a bit clunky, makes excellent use of both control modes of the Wii-remote.  It offers a new dimension of gameplay, but still stays true to the spirit of the original.  The graphics are beautiful, with impressive particle effects and stellar designs overall for monsters and characters.  The environments also offer both familiar and unique environments that Metroid fans will eat up.  Music is also competently done, with a re-worked Metroid theme and sound effects as well as nice ambient sound and music throughout.

Dear lord is this game a feast for the eyes and a real treat to actually play.

            So, the game has a passable script, excellent graphics, gameplay, sound, and some blocking(character movement) that feels very close to the original series.  The game is enjoyable to play...but let's not give it too much credit.  The game, in Team Ninja's hands, made several key mistakes. 

No, really, they gave Metroid: Other M to Team Ninja.  The breast physics guys...oh dear...

            First, is the portrayal of Samus.  This includes the script and some specific moments of blocking.  Metroid has never been a series which relied heavily on cut-scenes, however Other M does to an extent...and this isn't necessarily a good thing.  Normally, a Metroid game focuses on organic gameplay for storytelling and character development.  We become closer to Samus by playing her.  However, the organic gameplay runs counter to the constant internal monologues and a few key scenes.  The most egregious of these is when Ridley appears and Samus freezes up, morphing out of her suit in a panic.  Samus has killed Ridley four times.  This runs counter to our knowledge and Samus's experiences.  Likewise, flashbacks showing Samus's past are not really necessary.  They use the internal monologues to try and build a set of traits to make it appear as if Samus has a deep relationship with another character, however, we don't need that.  We know who Samus is by now and trying to shoe horn anything in, after almost six adventures previously, will ring false.  For example, a thumbs down signal introduced in Other M is supposed to be endearing because of Samus's past...but it isn't, because it is shoe horned in and runs counter to what we know about Samus.

Yeah...not endearing, not charming, not relevant.  This character bit was never mentioned in previous Metroid games and is barely relevant here.  Samus has depth...you don't need to needlessly shoe horn any in.

            Next, trying to railroad the plot through interactive cut scenes.  Other Metroid games have railroaded the plot organically, by creating areas that cannot be accessed without powers from an area that will be easier to surmount.  However, in Other M, many elements of the plot cannot progress unless you go into first person mode and look at one specific patch of screen.  It's very difficult to actually find the right patch of screen, because there are no indicators and the game doesn't make it clear what you should be looking for.  This is a large problem because it not only breaks the flow of the game, it also can be game breaking, if someone does not find the exact spot the developer programmed to move the plot along.

While First Person Mode seems like a good idea on paper, forcing us to look at a very specific patch of grass to advance the game is...just stupid.  Be honest.  It is.

            Finally, just general laziness when it came to scripting and story development.  There are some interesting ideas in this game.  Making Mother Brain, a largely organic super computer, into a human is an intriguing idea.  The use of cloned Metroids by Samus's employers opens up new ground for emotional development through body language and initiating doubt or concern that could tie into Metroid Fusion, making the transition much smoother.  The inclusion of a character who's goal was to kill the others show shades of Metroid Prime 2 and Metroid Fusion and offered opportunities for inventive boss battles and tension...which were not used and feels completely wasted, as the plot thread is largely forgotten mid way through the game.  This kind of waste...of squandering potential...is rife throughout the game.   

This is what we could have gotten in Other M.  A pitched battle with an intelligent opponent on par with ourselves.

Instead, we got the Eraser...whom you never fight in-game and who only serves to pick off the less developed members of your group.  Huzzah...

         For example, all Metroid games need a reason for Samus, who at the start is very powerful, to be weak so the players can have a feeling of progression.  Some have Samus getting damaged in blasts or radiation, having to get new suits due to infection or what have you...Other M just has Samus deciding not to use her powers because a man she respects, but who has no power over her as she is an independent agent, might not want her to.  This is lazy.  Have her activate an EMP trap, or have the traitor attack her, or have something to make her lose her abilities and regain them.  It's not hard to write them in.  When you are making a Metroid game, you cannot afford to half ass it, as the series depends so much on organic gameplay and a good set up.

Hand to god, Samus has the ability to withstand lava but doesn't use it until her superior gives her permission, right at the start of this boss fight.  Seriously.  That's the best you could come up with, Team Ninja?  Making her get "permission?"

            So, what can we learn from this?  Well, for starters, do not take a character in a radically different direction because you want to "Appeal to a wider audience" or make them "Hip" or try and put your vision over a well established character.  Fans of that character will call bullshit and be very, very angry.  Also, rigorously test the game so that you do not find an area that is game breaking or which is too byzantine to understand.  You need to make a game flow smoothly and trying to force a detective section in an action game is just out of place and will break the flow.  Try and match the gameplay styles together rather than forcing something in where it doesn't belong.  Finally, if you are going to make a game, put your all into it.  Don't settle for a weak script due to deadlines, don't introduce an idea that has potential, then drop it down the line, don't try to reinvent the wheel...if you have a good formula, stick with it.  To that end, learn from your successes as well as from your flaws.  Body language can be used to great effect.  Merging styles can be an effective tool and you shouldn't be afraid to try, just don't implement it if it's going to break the flow.  Take the good parts of your script, such as those featuring Samus acting in character, and use those as building blocks for future scripts with her.

Dialogue in a Metroid game.  Metroid Fusion proved it can be done well.  Take what you learned from Other M and do it RIGHT next time.

            Now, I know all these things can be difficult to implement, but if another Metroid game were made, hell, even if it were put into Team Ninja's hands again, I think that if they learned from their mistakes, it could be a fantastic title.  Metroid: Other M plays very well and if you can get past the flaws, and ignore the internal monologues, then even hardened Metroid fans can still find the game enjoyable.  However, that doesn't excuse its flaws.  I say, Metroid: Other M is a decent and fun game, but it's important to take a game, even one we might enjoy, and hold up the flaws so that they can be learned from.

Don't give up on Metroid because of Other M, Nintendo.  Learn from it's flaws, build on it's successes, and you will have a WiiU game like no other.

For those who can't guess, I probably won't move into reviews in my spare time, because there doesn't seem to be an interest, however I may give certain games special examination if they have something that they can teach.  And, I think Other M can teach through its flaws as well as it's successes.