Weapon Analysis

"It's dangerous to go alone! Take this." This famous quote from the original Legend of Zelda is what starts the journey of Link. The sword he acquires is used throughout the game to slay villains and assist him in dungeons. In later games, Link acquires a more iconic weapon, the Master Sword. To this day, when Link makes an appearance in a game, whether it is his own or a game like Super Smash Bros, he has his trusty weapon. This seem like trivial knowledge, but the Master Sword is not only used as a weapon, it is also used to further Link's image. A weapon, although just an inanimate object, can amplify the presence of a character, and is very important in the appearance of  a character.

If the Master Sword wasn't iconic enough, there is still the Buster Sword from Final Fantasy VII. By solely mentioning the name, a picture of Cloud (or Angeal, or Zack, depending on what games you've played) wielding that behemoth of a weapon pops into your head. Because of this sword, Cloud is considered physically strong, and the sword helps add to the "tough-guy" attitude he has. The sword is huge, so it sticks out like a sore thumb, and while their are other video game characters that fight with a greatsword, such as Ike (Fire Emblem), Sigfried (Soul Calibur), etc., the Buster Sword has a very distinct appearance. Unlike many greatswords, Cloud's is only sharp on one side, it also has a very broad base for the blade, and remains broad until it reaches the tip. Cloud's Buster Sword (top) looks more like a sharpened chunk of steel with holes than it does a sword (bottom).

Even in shooting games like Call of Duty, a character's presence can easily be felt by the appearance of a specific weapon. If only 1 player has a weapon with Gold Camo, everyone can recognize that player. Whether his name may be Xx420BlazeItSwagxX or ted42, everyone will know who who that player is without have to look at the name above the generic character. The weapon speaks louder than the character, and any time that weapon is seen, a player immediately can tell who is there. Other games like this include World of Warcraft and Guild Wars. Even though the characters in those games are built to the player's interest, the appearance of a unique weapon can say more than the character's physical appearance can.

However, not all weapons can point to a character. In games where party members can have any item at any time, it is hard to tell what belongs to whom. An example of this would be held items in Pokemon. While one can argue that these items aren't weapons, they aid the Pokemon in battle, much like a weapon. If I gave you a list of items, it would be impossible to tell which of the 719 Pokemon owned it. While it would make sense to have Lucario hold Lucarionite, a Lucario can also hold an Oran Berry, a silk scarf, etc., just like Hitmonchan could hold the Lucarionite.Again, the argument could be made that held items shouldn't count as weapons, but in that case, the "weapons" would be left in the Pokemon's attacks. Even on this level, there really isn't a lot of presence from an attack. While I agree seeing Flamethrower means the opponent has a strong attack, simply seeing the animation for the attack won't tell me who the user is. While the attack can't be used by all Pokemon, a large pool of them can, including Fire (obviously),Water, Steel, Fairy, Normal, Fighting, and other types of Pokemon.

In short, a character's weapon can really emphasize that character's appearance, but only if that character is the only one with such a weapon. When multiple characters can have the same epic-awesome-super-powerful weapon as you, it is no longer "your weapon".

Are You Afraid of the Dark?

The next-gen consoles on the market today are always capitalizing on their amazing 32 Million p HD+ Deluxe display for their games, showing how realistic the graphics can be, but does this hyper-realism matter? Without a doubt this technological advance is incredible, but what does this mean to games?

Art-style is incredibly important for creating a mood for a game. Aside from games, looking at the artwork of Tim Burton, it is easy to tell he wants to create a creepy kind of mood, even for something as light-hearted as The Nightmare Before Christmas. Games can have moods created for them in the same manner, an example of this would be BioShock. At the end of the day, BioShock is a shooter, but so are Halo, Call of Duty, and Battlefield. However, BioShock gives a creepy atmoshere, complete with dark scenery, characters with distorted faces, destroyed environment, etc. These all combine to give BioShock the "feel" is has. If the game had more sunshine and everything was nice an orderly, the game would feel far less dark, and the exerience of the game wouldn't be the same.
While BioShock is still rather realistic in its graphics, this helps compliment the mood. If an object is more realistic, people can relate to it more, making actions, such as turning their head backwards, far more creepy.

Another example of mood creation is Conker's Bad Fur Day. Despite all of the innapropriate themes, the game still gives a light-hearted atmosphere thanks to the art style. With Conker's cartoony appearance, the bright and sunny evironment, and the upbeat, cheery music, it's hard to ever take any of the profanity and swimming in feces seriously. If the cast of Conker's Bad Fur Day was replaced with the cast of Uncharted or God of War, the threats may be taken a bit more seriously. They may cringe when their charater has to swim through realistic sewer water, etc. This game was meant to be crazy and off-the-wall, so it only makes sense that the characters are bright and cartoonish. (This may sound like it completely contradicts my arguments about Conker's appearance in my post "Are You Sure You Belong Here?", however, mood and theme have different attributes, so while a Cartoon squirrel shouldn't be in a game with mature themes, it can certainly be in a game that is meant to be absurd and off-the-wall.)

Some games, however, have moods that don't make sense for the game. Re:Kinder, for example is meant to be a horror RPG, so it would make sense to have some realistic creatures that have sharp teeth or otherwise look scary. A game like this could use a realistic and darker art-style, similar to BioShock. However, the game gives an art-style that suited more for a children's cartoon. There is very little "horror" feel in this game, as enemies include an evil teddy bear (on left), and the environment still has a lot of color. The gameplay itself may not be bad, but the experience of the game is greatly decreased due to the art style.

Even with the advances in technology that allow for incredible definition, sometimes that isn't what's best for the game. The mood desired is incredibly important when creating characters, evironments, and music.

It's My Character, and I Need It Now!

Variety is the spice of life. It may be just a saying, but it is also true. Meeting someone new at an event can be exciting, learning a new skill can be fun, something new can enhance the otherwise dull walkthrough of life. The games we play only confirm this fact, as many games offer a diverse cast of characters, and everyone has different tastes.

Many fighting games, whether it is Super Smash Bros or Tekken, offer a wide variety of characters, each with their own moveset to further their individual appearance. Mario, for example, has a far different moveset from Captain Falcon. While Mario uses objects like capes and fireballs, Captain Falcon uses a series of punches and kicks. Players of these types of games may choose characters they like or characters they are good with. If a player is more comfortable with Jin's moveset, but really like how Kuma looks, they may still choose Jin, simply because they will have a better chance of winning. This type of variety has both good and bad qualities for this reason. On the positive side, it opens a whole new dimension for gameplay, since no two players play the same, giving the game an incredible amount of variety. However, this can also discourage players from being who they really like, or even trying something new. A friend of mine only uses 3 characters in Super Smash Bros, and he refuses to use anyone else because he is not good with them. He may like other characters from different series, but because he does not know their quirks, he will not use them. Another issue with these kinds of games is balancing. If you read one of my previous posts, Gamer Circus Presents: Balancing Act, or have played games with "broken" characters, you may understand the importance of balancing in a game. In short, if a character is far better than many other characters, players may be discouraged from playing the game, since they have little chance of winning against an opponent who has a better moveset, and in turn, the upper hand, before the match even begins.

However, some games, such as Monopoly, only offer variety on a cosmetic level. A player has no advantage choosing the dog or the shoe. Players of these kinds of games can whichever character they like the best. Similar games include Mario Party, or Fuzion Frenzy, which are mini-game

oriented, and no player has advantage over the others. This type of variety helps with the issue of balance, as everyone is equal at the start of the game, and a player's ability is what "makes that character good". The problem, however, lies in the lack of depth for these characters. The cast of 6 in Fusion Frenzy all have the same running speed, strength, etc., so choosing Jet over Dub won't offer any advantage. However, it also will make the choice of character mean nothing, the character selection becomes a matter of "What is your favorite color?"

What's important here is the factor of choice. No matter which of these games you play, you are given choice of your character. Although it may seem trivial, choice is important to players. If we were going play Monopoloy and I made you be the thimble, without giving you any say, you might be upset about the "dictator" I would be in the game. Even if from there on, you could do what you wanted, the lack of choice would leave a bitter taste in your mouth. Whenever variety is present in a game, it is vital to include the power of choice, no matter how insignificant those choices it may be.

More Players, Less Interaction

With wireless technology being the staple of the world as we know it today, it's almost hard to remember a time when "2 player" was only an option if you had a brother or had a friend come over. Now, there is a plethora of games that have an online multiplayer feature available, all of which letting you play with any amount of friends (or people you've never met) at any time. While this seems great in the advancement of games, it also has its own flaws, as games are becoming less and less social.

Let's take it back to the arcade days, back when Pac-Man was causing coin shortages. An arcade cabinet was only available in a public location, so if you wanted to blow your allowance on game, you had to go to the game, not just order it online. While there, you may have to wait in a line to play your favorite game, and you might meet some people, usually the ones waiting in line with you. This added a social element to games, as people were all gathered to play a few games and were interacting with each other. The important thing here is the number of players vs the amount of social interaction. Street Fighter let 2 people play at a time, while other games only allowed for 1 player, yet there was still a large amount of social interaction due to the atmosphere.

Now let's jump to your childhood, the original Playstation or Nintendo 64 was the hottest toy on the market; if your childhood dates back further than this, even better! The home console took away the hassle of driving or walking to an arcade and even cut down on the cost of games by letting customers purchase their own copy of a game, rather than requiring them to pay a small cost to play a game once. I started playing on an NES, and since I was too young to be any good at anything, whenever my dad came home from work, we would turn on the NES and play some Mario Bros 3. Up until the Playstation, only 2 players could play at a time, and many games still were exclusively 1 player. When the Playstation introduced the Multi-tap, games like Crash Bash sold like hotcakes because they encouraged the 4 person play. While the social element was cut down incredibly, as there was only the people in the household to socialize with, the multiplayer encouraged gamers to play with others.

Bringing it back to today, we see that online multiplayer is in nearly every game for the current-gen consoles. Even games that were originally single player, such as Uncharted 3 or Metal Gear Solid 4, had a multiplayer element thrown into them. Although we can have 16+ people playing a single game at the same time, the environment has changed so much, that there is hardly any social interaction at all. Even if there is interaction, it usually involves a child screaming profanities, racial slurs, etc. or a butt-hurt player blaming their team, their weapon, the other team, etc. as to why they are losing. Despite all the players available, the environment of game has changed, as it is mostly now in a bedroom or den of sorts, with only 1 person per room. Multiplayer isn't a social concept anymore, its become a way to play against a better AI character.

Even games that supposed to be social are suffering from the lack of interaction as well. Facebook games are known for their "Ask a Friend" button, allowing the player to post on their friend's wall that they need some sheep, a gem, extra lives, etc. While it may sound nice that the games are kept in a community closer to the player, it often proves to be annoying to anyone who receives these notifications. However, even if someone absolutely loves getting these notifications and sending their friends material and other goodies, there is still no social interaction, except for a possible "thx" in a Facebook message.

Does this mean all hope is lost for social gameplay with others in the future? Of course not. Is the lack of social factors going to sink the game industry? Nope. Many players prefer to have it as is, as it allows for a simple way of getting what a player wants, that is, a game and someone to play it with. Although I personally enjoy going out of my way to play a game with multiple people in the same room, there are still times where I want to play my games by myself or pseudo-socially. Technology changes constantly, as does society, so although it may be uncomfortable, change is inevitable, all we can do is adapt and overcome. There are still plenty of ways to play in the same room with a group of people, the sociality of games hasn't been obliterated, it has just become easier and more comfortable to stay in and use online multiplayer.

RIP Whoever You Were

Death in video games is a commonly seen trend. We watch grunts get decapitated by a hero's weapon in Dynasty Warriors, we watch a Goomba get stomped into oblivion when Mario jumps on top of it's head, we watch Aerith die in our hands as Sephiroth ambushes her with his sword. Were those chills that just ran down your spine on that last one? Why was it this death made you feel something?

Although death is not a light subject, how it is presented can be brushed aside easily. In games where killing leads to success, we will gladly shoot a lowly grunt, it doesn't seem so bad when we are rewarded for our killing behavior. Even when a character is killed in a grotesque way, we don't think to much of it. Dead Rising 2 is an excellent example of carefree killing. One of the main mechanics of this game is to use weapons (or combine them to form new weapons, such as Boomstick in the picture above), and use them to kill hordes of zombies to further the plot; the player also has plenty of killing methods, anything from guns to chainsaws to moose heads. But despite the gallons of blood and tons of lost limbs, this game doesn't make a player feel bad about killing any of the zombies, simply because they are enemies that stand in the players way, and the player is rewarded by killing them.

But sometimes it isn't so easy to kill off someone because out enemy isn't a run-of-the-mill grunt. Many boss battles demonstrate this fact, but the goal is still the same, they must be killed. Not because they are mindless zombies in the way that give us power-ups, but because they threaten our character. If an object in a game poses any sort of threat to the player, they will naturally want to fight back. In Megaman X, before the player even knows what is going on with the game's story, they are threatened by Vile, a purple Reploid (humanlike robot) inside a huge robot suit. If his presence alone wasn't enough to pose a threat to the player, Vile immediately begins attacking the player with the robot suit. The player can't run away, or even defeat Vile, but they will fight back to the best of their ability. Towards the end of the game, the player is able to kill Vile, and at that point, the killing is enjoyable, not because we are psychopaths, but because we can finish a struggle we had with someone who had threatened our survival.

From the topics stated above, it would seem that killing off an enemy is alway easy to do. If someone stands in our way, we should always blast them into the ground, but this isn't always the case either. If you have ever played Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater, you may understand the difficulty of killing off an enemy.

In Snake Eater, the player has to kill "The Boss", Snake's mentor who has turned her back on America and is fighting with the Russians. After the player knocks down The Boss's health to zero, a cutscene plays, where The Boss reveals everything to Snake. In the end, she tells Snake to shoot her with her gun. Snake picks up the gun, and the player decides when to shoot. Because The Boss was so close to Snake's heart, and someone he looked up to, it is hard for him to do the deed. The game also spends a lot of time developing characters, making the death even more dramatic. The difference between The Boss and Vile lies on a personal level, while Megaman and Vile are sworn enemies, The Boss and Snake are very close.

However, sometimes we don't do the killing. Scripted events in the game are sometimes the reason a character gets killed off. In The Witch's House, the player has to navigate through a house as a young girl named Viola, solving puzzles while feearing for their life, as any mistake can easily kill off the player. Once the player solves all the puzzles, they have to escape from the witch who created all of the deadly puzzles by running out of the house without the witch catching them. If a player manages to escape the house and grab a knife before they leave, the discover the heart-breaking truth of the game. At the end of the game, the player learns they were the witch the entire time, and the girl they thought they were saving has been put in the decaying body of the witch. Not only is this shocking in itself, but shortly after, when Viola's father comes to save her, she shoots the witch (actually her daughter) and makes sure his "daughter" is okay. The witch quickly assumes the role of the scared little girl, and the game ends, with the player in shock (and possibly tears) at the tragedy of the poor girl. This death, although physically similar to the Dead Rising scenario (a decaying body getting shot), is gut-wrenching and saddening, because we liked, who we though was, Viola, and thought we were helping her, only to have the game's reality slammed in our face.

Death is portrayed in such an odd manner in games. It is inevitable in some games, and even then, it can be heart-breaking or enjoyable, sometimes both in the same game. When a story is added to a character, we begin to develop feelings about that character, and when something like this happens, it can be a real tear jerker, even if it is a peaceful death. Presentation is everything in these digitalized deaths, as it can be the difference between killing a worthless grunt, or an innocent girl.

Today's Lesson: Imaginary Numbers, Without the Math

Any time you think about getting a game, what is the first thing you do? Do you rush down to WalMart try out a demo? Or ask your friends how they liked it? Maybe even rent the game? If you answered yes to any of these questions, you may be in the wrong decade. With today's technology, one can easily jump onto any browser (that isn't Internet Explorer), and find let's plays, reviews, and ratings for the game in consideration in less than 5 minutes. But what does that 1 to 10 scale even mean? If different games are meant for different people, how can we justify that "Grand Theft Auto IV" and "Mario Golf" are both "10 out of 10 masterpieces"?

Some review sites like IGN break a game down and give seperate reviews for individual parts. For example, they will give different scores for categories like Graphics, Music, Gameplay, etc., such as this snip of their review of Crash Boom Bang for DS:

While this may sound like a good rating system, this doesn't rate the actual game itself, except for 1 sentence that may seem completely out of context for someone new to this type of game. The review only touches on the specs of the the game, not the quality of the experience. If I have a hyper realistic man sitting in a hyper realistic chair with a soundtrack that came from Lord of the Rings in the background, the Graphics, Presentation and Music would get a 10 out of 10, but it's still just a man sitting in a chair, there is no gameplay, no one would have fun with this game, if it can even be considered as such. With their more recent reveiws, IGN will give a rating number with some positive and negative aspects, such as this screen snip from their review of Shantae and the Pirate's Curse for 3DS:

I feel this review is far more helpful than a breakdown of the graphics and music. By simply putting a plus or minus with 3 words or less on the side, a potential player can already get a feel for what to expect. I have never played this game, and by the name of it, I thought it was a dark, rogue-like dungeon crawler sort of game, but with this review, I can tell that it is a light-hearted platform game with some puzzles and exploration elements. For me, this game now sounds like something I would like to play (matter of fact, I'll probably buy this game when my next pay check comes in), but for someone who doesn't like Metroidvania-type games, they will stay away from it. But this "staying away" is a good thing. If that person were to only see the "8.5" on the side, or in the format of the Crash Boom Bang review, they may consider buying the game, after all, it got a good rating. But when they go to play the game, because it does not suit their tastes, they won't like it, despite the high rating.

If the rating system was completely abolished, we would have a better idea of what to expect from our games. If IGN only gave the middle and right sections of the review above as the review, readers would know what to expect. Games that are incomplete would still have this reflected when a review says things like "- Character consistently glitched out" or "- Level would crash the game", and games that would be for specific crowds would have important key features brought to light, it may even entice new people to play the game. If reviews were presented in this type of manner, the quality of the game wouldn't be quantified, and the experience would still be evaluated.

Gamer Circus Presents: The Balancing Act

Balance is the key to life. Whether you have to balance classes, a checkbook, or other responsibilities, this fact remains true. We all know too much of a good thing is not good, so it would only make sense that our games take this idea of 'balance' into creating a game, no matter what genre.

Balancing in fighting games is especially crucial. Fighting games are meant to test a player's skill with a character, and if a certain character is overpowered, the game's experience can be harshly affected. In PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale, there are 1 character in this game that has a moveset that is far greater than anyone else. Kat, from Gravity Rush, has incredible mobility in the game, very quick combos, and can gaurtee Super Move KO's by using a regular attack beforehand. With all of this put together, Kat can defeat many other characters without needing to use a lot of strategy or timing. Even with other high tier characters, such as Raiden or Nathan Drake, require some flavor skill to be played effectively. This game also had a problem with SackBoy from Little Big Planet, but shortly after the game's initial release, they released a balancing patch to balance out SackBoy's (at the time) incredible moveset. While Sackboy is no longer in the highest tier (currently ranking mid tier at best), Kat still seems to be an issue for competetive play.

In the same sense, balancing is just as important in single player games. If an adventure game gives too much advantage to either the player or the computer, players will not enjoy the game. In Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, the player and enemies are fairly balanced. Of course, in-game bosses have an initial upper hand, but this is because the player is supposed to be faced with a challenge when facing one of these opponents. To emphasize the importance of this balance, let's taken an average enemy, say, the Skulltula, and make it unbalanced. Skulltula now can now longer be Z-targeted, spends less time turned around, has more health, and has more attack range. Because of the new changes, a simple enemy can now take up to 5 minutes to battle, and since these enemies are often placed in areas where their fights cannot be avoided, a player may spend a good hour of gameplay just on destroying the "broken" Skulltulas. Players would be in a fit and Ocarina of Time wouldn't be the game we know it as today.

On the flipside, if Link was too powerful, the game would also be far less enjoyable. If every enemy Link attacked with the Master Sword died instantly, the game would be far less enjoyable. While the "almighty sword" theme would be emphasized with this new Master Sword, players would quickly become bored with "God-Mode" Legend of Zelda. Although it may not sound boring, games that do include this kind of mode show that there is a steep decline of enjoyment when a game is played this way. When players "break" a game, whether they fill their teams to all Level 100, have instant kill weapons, or use any other game-breaking mechanics, the enjoyment of the game is lost; players need a challenge.

This desire for balance isn't always easy to obtain, but with enough research and testing, it can be achieved. It may not seem important at a first glance, but to get the most out of a game, this balance is a must. Whether it be fighting a friend or facing an opponent, balance is needed to provide just the right of challenge to a player.