Same Name Different Game

Every now and again we see games want to re-invent themselves. Maybe our favorite heroes want to become sports stars, maybe its time we switched out a gun for a sword, maybe a storyline isn't as important as an action-packed gameplay gem. However, with this changes, a fan base can be lost, as humans tend to be creatures of habit. Even if it is as simple as replacing the voice actor for a character no one liked (Raiden from the Metal Gear Solid series comes to mind), the internet is up in a fit. But sometimes, this can create an even larger audience for a game series.

Megaman.exe (leftmost) and Megaman (center) as
well as the other Megaman variants.

The first game that comes to my mind for a situation like this is the Game Boy Advance series Megaman Battle Network. This series shares the same name as the iconic blue bomber from the old NES Megaman games, but the only thing that carries over from NES Megaman to GBA Megaman is a blue helmet, arm cannon, and a few boss battles. The gameplay between the two games is nothing alike. Megaman Battle Network focused primarily on deck building and strategy, as the player could create a single 30 action deck that was used in all battles. Although some actions were staples for all players (Areagrab, Invis, Antidmg, etc.), they were not required to play. Everything was made by the player to fit his or her fighting style. Classic Megaman was focused primarily on getting through rooms of a level and defeating a boss. It tested the player's reflexes, rather than their strategy, in how they advanced through the game. While I understand that there is indeed strategy in the NES Megaman games, the type of strategy is different. NES Megaman would have a player observe an enemy's behavior and the player would act accordingly, usually by shooting the enemy or dodging them. GBA Megaman had this element as well as planning what the player would do; such as using certain actions in sequence to unleash a deadly combo or waiting for a powerful attack to break down a barrier. Overall, the two games are incredibly different, but at the same time, both have great mechanics that make the games work when they are put into action.

Some series, however, try to use an old concept with different execution. The series that comes to my mind is Digimon, namely 2 of the 3 "World" series games for PlayStation. Digimon has a simple concept, train your monster(s), defeat other monsters, get stronger, save the world. But each one of the Digimon World games took the titles literally and made each game have zero similarities as the others. The first Digimon World focused on the bond the player shared with his 1 single digital partner. If a Digimon was hungry, the player would feed it; if it was tired, the player would find a place for it to take a nap; if the Digimon had to go poop, the player would find a toilet for it (yes, this is part of the game). And while these actions seem small, they each made a huge impact on how the Digimon would grow up. Sure there was the merciless killing of other digital monsters, but at the end of the day, the player would love the little guy they raised from scratch. Digimon World 2 threw away this relationship. World 2, more or less, was focused on the battles the player had. The characters may have remained the same, but now, flashy effects were performed with every attack, Japanese voice acting was added, 3 additional attack types were added, and the player could control more than one Digimon. The majority of this game was level grinding and perfecting a team's synergy. This new style of Digimon doesn't mean it's better or worse by any means, it's made for players who like action and strategy, rather than raising a pet. Although the content is far different, the games can be appreciated by different people, making this series another successful reinvention.

The gaming universe is filled with Spin-offs and other non-canon games, (Sonic Spinball anyone?), but this doesn't mean they are a bad game. Maybe Mario Kart isn't the right game for someone who loves the old Super Mario World, perhaps Disney Infinity wasn't made for someone who loved the challenge of Lion King for SNES, or maybe a Pinball machine painted with Pokemon isn't what the card game or collector wants to play. There is a flavor of game and a series for everyone, and whether or not it is "a sucky version of Smash Bros" or "Spyro with no Spyro" may just depend on a player's preference. Change will always be happening, all we can do is hope for the best.

Boss Breakdown: The Importance of a Good Bad Guy

Boss battles. Just the thought and bring back memories of the epic fights you had with some of the games most terrifying (or not so terrifying) entities. There's something special about a boss battle that can't be replicated in a normal grunt, but of course, that's the way its supposed to be. But a boss can't just be a mostrosity with a scythe or a lightning speed beast with razor fangs, there is a lot that goes into the creation of a boss.

At no point during a game does a designer want the player to say "Screw this game, I can't get past this part, I quit.", but at the same time, a designer certainly doesn't want a player to be bored out of their mind with an overly simple game. This very concept applies to all aspects of a game, including bosses. Let's take King Koopa (or more recently, Bowser) from Super Mario Bros. for example. If you haven't played game, a screenshot of the arena is below. The axe on the right of the screen can be touched to drop the bridge and l send Bowser to his doom. Mario can also shoot several fireballs at his foe to take him out, although this method requires that Mario has a Fire Flower.

Although it may not seem like it, this design is fantastic. Bowser is far enough from Mario that the player doesn't die upon entering the battle. The spacing allows the player to see Bowser's fire and dodge it appropriately. The sharp fangs and spiky shell indicate to anyone that this dude isn't here to sell Girl Scout cookies, and the axe the right, although not shown, is blinking, driving the player's attention to it. To get to the axe, the player must jump over Bowser, and Bowser is just the right height to allow this manuever with a little room for the player to jump a bit early or late.

But what if the designers didn't plan this so well? If Bowser was too big, the player wouldn't be able to reach the other side, making the battle impossible to win for players without a fire flower. If the flame was slightly lower, the player wouldn't be able to duck. If the stage was too small, there would little room and time for dodging attacks. If the axe was on the left, there would be no boss battle since the player would win upon entering.

It is incredibly vital for a designer to be able to realize what they are doing when designing a boss. Without the ability to see what the player can do, what goals need to be achieved, and how an obstacle is designed an implmented, a boss can wind up being a terrible experience for the player. If a player has to rely on a strategy guide and cheat codes to beat any part of a game, then the game might not be worth playing at all. The tiny pixel sized changes the designer makes can make a boss memorable or regrettable.