Limitations: Why the 16-bit Generation has the Best Games Ever

            First, let me apologize for being away so long.  Work is stealing my soul as well as my time.  Anyway, somehow, I managed to get this piece composed this piece, so let’s talk video games!

            Okay, the title of this article may set off a few people’s alarm bells.  First, let me tell everyone to relax.  This isn’t going to be a rant about why the SNES or Sega Genesis is the best system ever and the game industry was better when during the 16-bit generation.  Some of my favorite games are from later generations, especially the PS2.  However, I think that in the rush to improve and make graphics more photo-realistic, music more symphonic, and gameplay more complex, that something important has been lost.  I think that many games have lost their way because there is just so much that can be done with modern technology.  Some people may argue against that.  That having a huge sandbox to explore is amazing for game development, offering near limitless possibilities.  However, in my mind, knowing ones limitations is just as important as having the boundless freedom to explore and do as one wish’s.

Okay, we've got all this space to design!  So, umm...where do we actually go?

            And really, that’s why I have such admiration for the 16-bit era.  Its limitations.  The games in the 16-bit era managed to gain enough power as opposed to the 8-bit that they could expand and push the boundaries of what games at the time could do, creating prettier sprite based graphics, gameplay and AI that was more complex, and music that was less pixelated and more symphonic.  However, there were still clear limits to what could be done and the game designers had to work within those limitations to get the best out of their games without making them impossible to fit onto the console.  This meant that programmers had to put a great deal more care into their game design. 

Most of the time a great deal of care was put into game design...translation...sometimes fell by the wayside.

             With increased space, stories could become more complex and scripts more well refined.  However, because of the limitations, the story was carried more on the weight of the script rather than the performance of those reading it.  It allowed the players to create their own voice or interpret the script in their own way.  Likewise, composers had some space to flex their musical muscle, however music couldn’t be ripped from outside sources and had to rely on the sound chip within the console, so most music had to be original or at least converted in such a way that was pleasing to hear.  Along that same line, it did not take scores of orchestras to record the music or dozens of composers, as what could be done was so limited.  And most importantly, the sprite based graphics of the 16-bit era used graphical tricks that were cheap and easy to implement as opposed to the time consuming process of 3d modeling.  A single 3d model can take days, or even weeks, to create, render, rig to look and act natural, and even more time if it needs to emote.  However, with sprite based gaming, a set of pixels just needed to be altered and the character could look like they were laughing, crying, in pain, exhausted, etc.  These graphics were pleasing to the eye and allowed much more expression than 8-bit sprites, which were limited in color and detail.  However, they were not so complicated that it took an excessively long time to create them.

Remember when games could look pretty without a billion polygons?  Yeah...those were good times...

             The point I am trying to make with this tirade is that instead of bloated budgets for gaming which focused more on graphical fidelity and realism or on game design that is complex and unwieldy, 16-bit games had to be lean, using simple tools to achieve great feats.  The two Lufia games on the SNES, for example, had some of the most devious logic puzzles in all of gaming and they managed to do it using a simple system of lifting, pushing, and pulling objects.  In modern games, however, a puzzle game without a physics engine would be laughed out of the room.  What is easier to design and less prone to hiccups?  A physics engine that has thousands of variables or a simple system of pushing, pulling, and lifting that is based on a simple grid based puzzle system?

Simple, devious, and without the need for a physics engine...Why aren't we making more puzzles like this again?

            If nothing else, modern games have also proven how advances in technology can make games more beautiful.  People have given Heavy Rain, Modern Warfare 3, and other games which focus on realism heavy props for their graphical power.  However, how many systems can use those without delays?  How many computers can play graphically taxing games like Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2 without significant upgrades?  And how ridiculous will these purported realistic graphics look in twenty years when graphics are even more advanced?  Worse yet, however, is the propensity for excessive cut scenes.  Now, there is nothing wrong with cut scenes in games.  They can move along the plot or pump up the player for a confrontation, however using them as a crutch, focusing on graphics over gameplay or storytelling, is folly.  I think that an emphasis on using the latest toys and making things look pretty has made people forget what the core of game design is all about.  Substance over graphical flair.

Yes, Metal Gear 4, you're very pretty...now how about some gameplay with my 30 minute cut scenes?

            A number of people may argue against the idea that limitations are a necessary part of good game design.  Like how such limitations will hamper a game’s fun factor by hurting atmosphere, gameplay, music, etc.  However, take a look back at the game industry during the early 2000s.  Many of the games which endure are not the realistic ones, but those that use cartoony, cel-shaded, or alternative graphical schemes to the more realistic ones.  Jim Sterling made a brilliant argument on the Escapist about this, saying that the best games for HD televisions were not the grim, gritty, and realistic, but the colorful, cel-shaded, and lively.  Games like Rogue Galaxy, Killer 7, and Final Fantasy Tactics still look as good today as the day they came out.  And many games thrive on limitations.  Horror games in particular.  In Silent Hill and Silent Hill 2, there were a huge amount of limitations that needed workarounds for the games to function properly.  Pop in graphics were common.  So, to hide the pop in, they world was draped in an eerie mist or in darkness or in snow that hid the monsters and made the players feel both alone, and surrounded, creating an atmosphere of crushing dread.  Forcing games to work within limitations often brings out the best in them.  By comparison, the modern Silent Hill games after Silent Hill 4 have been lacking some of the atmosphere of the previous ones, because the monsters have to be so well defined in their grotesqueness, the graphics need to pop and be eye catching, and the voice acting has to be spot on. There is no room left for the scary atmosphere created by the mist, snow and darkness of previous games.  Although, some people do seem to be learning from such mistakes, as games like Silent Hill: Shattered Memories or Silent Hill: Downpour indicates.

Would you believe one of the most terrifying experiences in gaming was born of necessity rather than graphical fidelity?

             Others may argue that it would be impossible to create 16-bit style games with the same sensibilities that we have now and that they are a relic because of their limitations.  However, I also dispute this claim as well.  Modern programming teams have created 16-bit style games using tools such as RPGmaker or other game engines to experiment with 16-bit games in ways that, while not implemented during the 16-bit generation itself, are still ground breaking and creatable without a bloated budget.  To the Moon, for example, is a game that looks, on the surface, like a Final Fantasy 6 style RPG.  However, it actually is a graphic novel style of game that is more closely related to a point and click adventure.  It focuses on tight writing and the emotional poignancy of the graphics and music to deliver a moving experience.  Lone Survivor, on the other hand, creates a claustrophobic 16-bit world that uses tricks learned from the 16-bit generation to inspire a world of surreal horror which is genuinely terrifying and unsettling.  So, one question I might ask is that, if these games are easier to create than mainstream games, can be just as much fun, can experiment more than their contemporaries, and are cheaper to both make and for customers to buy, then…why don’t we see more 16-bit revivals?  Lone Survivor is available on Steam and To the Moon from Freebirdgames.com but both are somewhat niche titles that have not met a huge level of financial success.  However, 16-bit games in the modern era that achieve success are growing less rare.

16-bit.  Modern Sensibilities.  Damn scary.  We need more of this.

             A number of 16-bit style games as well as other games that embrace their limitations have been created recently that are both innovative and successful.  And, perhaps most importantly, exist outside the bloated AAA games market.  Cthulhu Saves the World was a game that was built to look like a 16-bit RPG and was heavily praised for its writing, game design, graphics, and music, all of which used the same tricks of its forbearers, such as swapping out sprites to emote or create unique appearances and looped animations for walking or simple expressions.  Terraria is a beloved exploration based action RPG which uses a sprite based 16-bit aesthetic and game design to create an engrossing experience.  More surprisingly, it was crafted by only 2 people over 4 months.  Even the graphically impressive Dear Esther knew its limitations and gave people the freedom to move, but to find the story, left them with little else they could do.  These games, have met with critical and commercial success precisely because they used their limitations to create a unique experience and focus on a specific aspect of their game design, be it story with Dear Esther, customization and exploration with Terraria, or solid game mechanics with Cthulhu saves the world.

Four months in the making and 200,000 sold in its first week.  Take note, AAA developers.

             One of the reasons I love 16-bit games and games from the PS1 and PS2 over the PS3 or high end PC games is that they embraced their limitations to a degree and knew when to stop.  Their scripts had to be tighter, their game design more innovative, and their music less hackneyed and repetitious.  Often times, modern game design tries to do everything and fails to really stand out or fails to be enjoyable as a whole.  Granted, this is only my opinion, however, I think that to forget ones limitations is to invite folly.  You do need space to stretch.  My favorite game, Odin Sphere, uses sprites that could never fit on a 16-bit system and would only really be possible on the Playstation 2 or greater.  However, if you get too much space, you probably won’t know what to do with it all.

Bloated game design also raises the bar for entry.  In the days of the Commodore 64, people could create their own homebrew games that they could sell.  While I believe the Commodore 64 was very limited, it showed that regular people could learn programming and build games.  Modern AAA game design requires up to 4-6 years of school in a specific skill, such as modeling, photoshop, etc. to even get an entry level position.  However, if something like Terraria is any indication, it is possible to build and put a game on the market in less than half a year with simpler tools that anyone can use.

Ultimately, I don’t think the game industry needs to return to its 16-bit roots.  I love 16-bit games and I’d love to see more.  I’d love for Actraiser, or Terranigma, or Final Fantasy 6 to return to grace, but they’ve had their time in the sun.  We need to keep moving forward.  However, forcing people to create a game that needs a million units sold to make enough money to repay all the time and effort put into it is just not good business.  Limitations on what game developers can do or CHOOSE to do could lower the bar for entry into the games industry, allow innovation, as cheaper games give more opportunity to try new ideas, and give them a tidy profit that doesn’t require a huge team to work on.  This is why Indie games are so good for the industry.  They know their limits and work within them to create the best experience possible.  While I am not sure exactly where, I do recognize that the web series Extra Credit has tackled this issue far better than I from a business perspective, but it bears repeating.

These games had their time in the sun.  I don't think the world needs to return to 16-bit.

Yet, we can make games like this much easier now than in the 1990s.  Why don't we make more?

 On the whole, I think that 16-bit games exemplify this kind of ideal perfectly.  Most took no more than a year or two to create, as opposed to the abysmal 2-5 year cycle of modern AAA games, most used simple concepts, such as turn based combat or simple eight directional over head movement to experiment with established formulas and create new ones, and it gave aspiring artists and composers a chance to stretch their legs without having to work themselves half to death.  And if the game industry is to survive, major publishers need to start embracing these kinds of design practices.  They need to give AAA style attention and funding to smaller games which can be produced quickly, but which also have the necessary quality and fun factor behind them.  Games which embrace their limitations to do certain things very well.  I don’t think all games need to be like this, in fact the landscape of gaming would change for the worse if that were the case, but publishers should at least dabble in it.  Otherwise, the game industry will have a revolution where the AAA market is toppled by the indie developers and digital distributors.  Which…on second thought, might not be too bad for us, the consumers.

Once again, any material that people believe I have used inappropriately or without permission, please contact me and I will address the issue.  Otherwise, I hope some fun was had reading my take on games and their limitations.

Stupid, Pointless, Annoying, Frustrating, No Good, Lazy Deaths and Why They Don’t Need to be in Video Games

             Hello, everyone.  For those who enjoy these, sorry for the near constant delays.  I've started a new job that seriously eats up my time.  Working on keeping these posted at least once every week or two, but who knows how long that'll last.  Anyway, not here to complain.  Now, onto the discussion:

            In video games, death is an eventuality.  No matter how good a player is, he will eventually end up losing.  They may have to get the phone and be unable to pause a game, get distracted by family, or just lose their concentration.  There is no shame in dying or in losing a game.  Death can be an instrumental part of what makes a game fun.  It can offer challenge, replayability, or it can be a way for a player to learn and better themselves.  However, in recent years, this has too often become the exception, not the rule.

           Video games are meant to be fun.  And constantly dying for no good reason only to lose all your progress and start out at an arbitrary point several minutes, or hours, back is seriously not fun.  It can be made fun, but it usually isn’t.  Many game designers see death as a way to arbitrarily lengthen their game or be a hurdle that players need to get through.  Or worse, a way to lock them onto the plot rail road.  These kinds of choices smack of bad game design and will more often than not infuriate players rather than make them have a good time, hurting their game’s image and limiting their potential for customers to become repeat buyers down the line.

Dragon's Lair is the worst offender in this regard.  Plot railroad deaths, deaths to lengthen the game, unavoidable deaths...it's got it all.

            A perfect example of this is the game Silent Hill 3, a game I recently finished for the second time.  I applaud Silent Hill 3, because it wanted to do something special with deaths in it.  At certain points in the game, when the main character dies, usually to enemies, a strange figure emerges and drags her body away.  This is creepy, unsettling, and hints that there is more going on than we understand just from a surface examination.  It adds to the main character and the overall plot in a subtle, nuanced way.  However, there’s a problem.  I never saw these scenes my first time through, because all my deaths were caused, not by the game’s enemies, but by the game’s poor design.  If you get too close to a hole, the game arbitrarily kills you.  Certain scenes in the game will also arbitrarily kill you unless you do a specific action that is not always clear.  They lack poetry or meaning, they are just hurdles to keep a player from advancing.  And this is hugely disappointing, since Silent Hill 3 became less about the horror and more about how damn frustrating it was to keep dying because a train, that I was supposed to summon, kept running me over because I couldn’t figure out how to avoid it.

Don't get used to seeing a creepy monster drag off your body in Silent Hill 3.  Deaths that actually lead to this are rarer than first aid kits.

            Another example is Battletoads or Silver Surfer for the NES.  These games are notoriously hard, sometimes called the hardest in existence.  However, rather than being hard because of challenging gameplay or mechanics, they were made intentionally hard so that players couldn’t rent them and had to buy them, thus giving money to the developers rather than Blockbuster.  In these games, players need to completely memorize every aspect of gameplay, from the level layout to how each and every enemy reacts to avoid dying.  In games like this, death can be so arbitrary, usually involving one hit deaths and then having to replay the whole level.  These games used the concept of death ingame in an attempt to arbitrarily lengthen themselves to prevent players from beating them in one sitting.  However, even if death is a part of video games as we know it, it must be balanced by good game design that is not conducive to frustration, because if a game is frustrating, then people won’t really want to play it.  LordKat, a gamer notorious for beating the hardest games ever, made thispoint perfectly during his playthrough of Silver Surfer.  After giving several tips for surviving in Silver Surfer, he had one final piece of advice.  “Don’t buy this game.  I don’t know who it was made for but it certainly wasn’t for the average human being.”

This is why people don't play Silver Surfer.  More time is spent at the game over screen than actually playing the game.

             So, I thought it might be good to lay out a few ways death in video games has been done properly and some incredibly stupid ways that developers have utilized death that really needs to stop in this industry.

            First, the bad stuff.  Death ingame can be incredibly discouraging to players.  While some may take the chance to learn, others may see it as a waste of their time if the game is so ludicrously hard that people cannot beat it.  Most gamers have limited time to play and if a game is not rewarding or beating it seems impossible, they won’t spend their time on it.  While challenge is good, cheap deaths, deaths that are either unavoidable or are so common that players become frustrated rather than being challenged, are the bane of gaming.  Cheap deaths need to be avoided at all costs.  Random death because of something uncontrollable is bad game design.  Creating instant death traps that do not respawn you close to where you died is frustrating.  And having enemies you can usually defeat pull out an instant kill move that you are not prepared for and cannot forsee is a terrible way to make a foe more powerful.  It says “We couldn’t be bothered to make the enemy smarter, so instead we gave him this move you have to look out for.”

That about sums it up.  No matter how bad ass you are, the game will still screw you over.

These kinds of deaths were common during the NES era of gaming, which is understandable since the architecture of the Nintendo game console was somewhat limited.  This is why some of the most difficult and frustrating games ever made were on the NES.  Ninja Gaiden had poor programming to blame for ludicrously powerful enemies and instant kill birds which could knock players into a pit mid jump.  Castlevania had a problem where players were helpless on stairs and would fall to their deaths if they took a single hit.  In other games, like Silver Surfer, it was easy to simply program one hit deaths rather than make a life bar.  These were all issues surrounding death that were based around the hardware.

Ninja Gaiden was full of cheap deaths...Ninja Gaiden was also made in 1988.

However, times have changed since the 1980s and the amount of processing power in games has increased immensely.  There should be no excuse for the kind of cheap deaths that were common in the NES.  Programming in respawns or just health loss after instant death pits is simple now.  Avoiding unnecessary frustration through better programming has made it possible.  Yet, even in modern games like Splatterhouse for the Xbox 360 and PS3 or New Super Mario Bros. on the Wii, there are moments of archaic design, such as pre-scripted events where failure leads to death, quick time event deaths that are pointless at best and frustrating at worst, or a lives system, meant to justify the constant stream of instant death pits as a challenge.

However, death in gaming can be so much more than just cheap, frustrating and ultimately lazy way to lengthen a title.  While some people repeat the mistakes of the past, there are others who have learned from the mistakes of our forefathers and made death something special in games.  Here are just a few ways that death can and has been used to improve gameplay rather than frustrate gamers.

1.      Death can create a new experience for players.

2.      Death and rebirth can be an integral part of game design.

3.       Death doesn’t end a game, but does punish the players somewhat.

4.      Death can have true impact with the players.

Really innovative ways to handle death approach it not as a way of keeping a player from advancing, but as a way to instruct and help players to get stronger.  Examining these different takes on death shows that there are plenty of alternative to the frustrating, pointless, and stupid deaths we’re all familiar with.

First, death can create a new experience for players.  When a player dies, they are kicked back to a check point, but things change because of their death.  This can be something arbitrary, such as they are greeted upon waking up by a stranger who explains what they did wrong or elements of the stories changing or they can be more dynamic, with enemies changing or growing smarter.  Lots of games use pre-scripted deaths as a way to show how players have grown later, using death as a way to give them a new experience story wise.  This has been done in Xenogears, Final Fantasy, and countless other RPGs since the mid 90s.  However, death can also alter play for people.  Dungeons might be randomized after each death, similar to how Diablo 2 randomizes dungeons every time someone leaves a game, or enemies can alter their tactics, like in Demon’s Souls, where death makes enemies stronger and smarter.  This gives players new things to do after a death and keeps them coming back for more so they can see what has changed.

Death, especially story deaths, can drastically change a game's impact on players.

Next, death and rebirth can be an integral part of design.  If players are expected to die, they can play with the mechanics of death so that the next time through they are better prepared.  Roguelike games do this often, where death means going back to the first level and losing all your items and progress.  However, you can save certain items in store houses, so next time you have the leg up on the enemies.  This allows players to plan out how death will affect them and forces them to choose which items they want to save for the next death and which ones they want to keep with them to try and push forward with.  Shiren the wanderer and Azure Dreams do this very well, where death is annoying, but it is also a part of growing, as you can prepare better for each death the next time around.  It makes players think and plan for the future.

Death my be inevitable here, but that doesn't mean you can't prepare for it.

Moving on, Death doesn’t actually need to end a game.  This is fairly common in games like Dragon Quest or Dark Souls.  If a player dies, they return to a check point with no fewer items, no lost progress, and no less levels.  However, their money is decreased by half or they dropped something they have to go pick up again.  This kind of mechanic allows players to gradually get stronger, even if they die, and ensures that no one wants to reset, because then they’d lose their experience.  It’s a way to prevent players from feeling that death is cheap, because even in death you keep your progress and levels, meaning you can be stronger after dying than when you first loaded up the game.

Death doesn't have to be the end...it can be a new beginning

Finally, something that is taking on a more important role in gaming is the true impact of death.  That is, when a character dies, they can’t be saved or resurrected.  Players have to learn to live without them.  Or, if the player dies, the game wipes their saves.  These kinds of mechanics add tension and challenge to a game and, thankfully, are usually choices players can make.  They can be toggled on and off.  It gives weight to death, but also doesn’t make it frustrating, as very few games rely on permanent death as a regular mechanic.  Fire Emblem does, and it makes players really care about their characters and decide often about what is an acceptable loss as even if a character dies, the game itself will usually continue on without them.  Terraria also has a hardcore mode where one death means game over for good.  It offers a nice challenge that players can choose to indulge in rather than be forced to overcome.

Careful, guys.  Death here is permanent.

I wanted to bring up these ideas to show how cheap deaths in this day and age are pointless.  There are always better alternatives and death can actually be a really meaningful part of game design, if handled properly.  However, while I think I have shown that the kind of plot railroad deaths, where death is an invisible wall, or the cheap deaths meant to artificially lengthen games are pointless and out of place, there is one more issue that needs to be addressed.

Death and finality in games are important.  Taking away that finality can gravely hurt a game.  Bioshock, for all intents and purposes, is a great game, with a beautiful story and truly inspired game design.  However, when players die, they warp back to a respawn chamber, losing none of their weapons or ammo, and with no penalty.  This does not encourage them to be careful or plan, but rather to go full tilt into a battle because they know they will just respawn.  To remove death or cheapen it to the point where it doesn’t work with the game design is a huge misstep.  While some games can work fine without death, such as Harvest Moon, if a game is meant to have some degree of finality towards it, you cannot cheapen the idea of death.  Before it was patched, Terraria offered no penalty for death.  So, players would freely take on enemies they couldn’t beat, knowing that when they respawned they’d have all their life back and could just whittle enemies down.  This was fixed later, however it allowed players to abuse the death mechanic.  And really, while cheap deaths are frustrating, removing any finality from death makes games boring.  A careful balance must be made between challenge and frustration for a game to be truly enjoyable.

Congrats on finding your first Vita Chamber.  You are now immortal.

Death in video games needs to be examined with more finesse and detail in the modern games industry.  The concept of death continues being refined and changed in games to make them unique and more enjoyable to the player, which is how it should be, but every so often, there is a designer who is lazy or who doesn’t have time to program a game properly and we get cheap, annoying, pointless, unfair deaths.  And this really needs to stop.  With the advent of more powerful gaming machines, many of which can fit into a person’s phone, there is no excuse for lazy game design.  Not for games that make death cheap and frustrating and not for games that remove the threat of death entirely.  There needs to be balance.  Not every game has to be as unique as Dark Souls or Shiren in relation to how death is handled, but they need to at least make sure that it is treated with respect and programmed so as to make a game fun for players.  Games where even death can be fun are truly masterpieces of design.

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.