Bad quest design: Things changing because you talked to someone

I like that most of the quests in Dragon Age: Origins are pretty easy to figure out. Go kill some guys or put a red X on their doors and then you're done. I also like it when I need to gather information, but I feel like this just sets up a bad situation.

One example is finding the cartel in the dwarf town. The bandits who have the key you need don't show up in their little room until after you've talked to the lady who knows their leader. Before you talk to her, you can go inside and it's just an empty room. There seems to be no logical connection between talking to the woman and the bandits appearing other than quest progression. The same thing happens a LOT in Touch Detective. If I'm stuck in Touch Detective, it's because I haven't talked to everyone twice. Sometimes someone I'm supposed to talk to doesn't even appear until after I've talked to someone else. It's way frustrating.

I've identified this problem, but I'm not sure what a good solution would be. Have all the pieces of the puzzle laid out already, and risk the player encountering them out-of-order? Put a little exclamation point over someone you need to talk to? A request where you need to gather more information before proceeding makes sense. The thing we need to get rid of is the empty rooms changing unnoticed. But if every change is visible, it damages the conception of the game world as a place that is changing even when the player isn't looking (for some reason this is important, right?).

Playing Dragon Age Origins!

Hey readers!  I'm going to start working as a part-time intern for the Killscreen, which is really close to my dream job! So I'm excited about that. I've already transcribed an interview, which doesn't sound glamorous, but it's still kind of fun to see the other side of a publication and be a part of that.

I wrote two articles for Nightmare Mode: an article on Journey's Parallels to the Mormon Temple Ceremony, and another on Pippinbarr's Pongs and how they criticize video game mechanics WITHIN a video game. I like writing for another site and working on an article until it's a lot better than something I'd just type out in an evening (like what I usually write here). But I still like the spontaneity of writing here. 

don't worry he is not actually as interesting as my husband

I started playing Dragon Age: Origins and I'm beginning to understand more of the Bioware fandom. I wanted to get Alistair to like my character, but in the process I ended up liking him more. I kind of like the dating sim part of the game! Sometimes the characters predictably like the "good" or "chaotic" choices, but you know, people in real life are like that sometimes. 

One thing I wasn't aware of was how the challenge scaling works in the game (basically, how the game determines how difficult the enemies are). I went to the big city as soon as I could, had difficulty beating the blood mages there, and just ratcheted the difficulty down so I could finish it, instead of figuring that I could come back when I was higher level. I thought it would work more like in Oblivion, but there's definitely an order that's best to follow for the enemies to match your level. I kind of wish I had stayed on the normal difficulty, but the casual difficulty is really easy and it's making it less likely for me to get stuck (and therefore I'm getting more time to spend on the parts of the game I like). Maybe it's going to injure my gamer cred, but oh well. Don't even worry, I'm going to get a grease/fire combo going at some point with my mage, even if I don't need to deal that much damage. 

I also regret leaving some things undone in Lothering (? that first town), not realizing it was going to be un-visitable with the encroaching blight. So I didn't get the bard or the prisoner dude in my party. I'm tempted to do another run through to do all the "bad" things (you know, like freeing the prisoner and making deals with demons) so I can see more of the story things. But I also want to get to Dragon Age 2! And all the other games on my shelf.  Those of you who have played DA:O, is it worth doing a second run? 

Devil Survivor 2's dramatic irony and stuff

After much strategizing and frustration I finally beat Devil Survivor 2 (DS2), the tactical JRPG for the DS. At first I was really impressed with the unrelenting difficulty that forced me to actually look at my battle and demon possibilities. I got to know the system better, but by the end I just wanted to be done. I was hoping to have some kind of awesome idea for an article while I played the game, and I took notes. However, no coherent theme emerged. So I'm writing you my thoughts on: 1) DS2's self-consciousness as J-horror, 2) DS2's reflection of Japanese ideals in endings and 3) the coolest in-game explanation for a new game+ I've ever seen (the last two parts will have spoilers).

w-why are all these ladies so busty

DS2 is trying really hard to think about how teenagers would TRULY react in a disaster situation. There are fights about who should get supplies. You friends frequently compare their situation to that of a horror movie: "If this was a monster movie it'd be a dumb cliche to go for landmarks like that" (Joe). Keita, speaking of communist idealism, says, "'comerade,' what fantasy are you living in?" Well Keita, this fantasy I'm living in is one where we're real people and completely aware of the absurdity of our situation as teenagers saving the world by summoning demons through our cell phones (fun side note: instead of killing dissenters, you take away their cell phones. It's basically the same!)!

I haven't played through all the endings, but one of the "happy" endings is when you join neither of your warring extremist friends and opt for a compromise position (trying to keep things the way they were). Daichi's philosophy is, "But even peons have a right to choose! Not to be bossed around like pawns on a chessboard!" The irony, of course, is that Daichi is a pawn on the player's chessboard, and he really has no say in what his battle actions are (besides his inherent stats).

 You have the option to defeat "the world's administrator" too. I'm interested in how so many Japanese games see the person in charge as malicious... well, malicious is too harsh. Many Japanese games have a deity that is kind of apathetic about humans, but annoyed that they are trying to have a say in things.

DS2 goes out of its way to make up some lore to explain save games and new game+s. It sees demons and the characters as part of an akashic record (yeah I had to look it up too, but I was pleased that it referred to a real thing). An akashic record is this idea that everything is data that can be deleted or edited (that is how the game explained it). Looking at the wikipedia page, everything being recorded is also a big part of it. What's weird to me is that with keyloggers and cloud storage etc. our digital lives can be basically an Akashic record (am I misunderstanding the concept?). It's like... technology can make this religious idea a reality. STRANGE THINGS.

The attractiveness of portable systems; the inscrutability of game addictions; the stupidity of trophies

I love portable gaming. There are at least two reasons for my preference: 1) It's easier for me to immerse myself in a screen that I'm holding and 2) I feel less anxiety about people watching me and judging my performance or the fact that I'm playing a video game.

I said it was immersion that made me prefer small screens, but I think it's also convenience and immediacy. I find it difficult to set aside time to play my PS3 games, but I usually bring along my phone/Vita/DS if I'm going somewhere. And if I'm waiting in line, I think playing a Kairosoft game is a perfectly good way to wait. And if there's a handiman or carpet cleaner around, I don't really want them to watch me suck at some game that is stereotypically for teenage guys anyway. Portable systems are much lower profile and it just seems in better taste to play something in my hands when other people are doing other things around me.

I wonder if the type of games for portable systems is significantly different than for console or PC games. I like playing adventure games, puzzle platformers, and strategy games, and I prefer them to look cute (as opposed to grisly or hardcore). It's possible that none of my PS3 games are cute enough (one can only play so much Katamari and Little Big Planet), and that portable systems are more likely to cater to my cuteness attraction. I'm mystified about why some games can hold my attention for weeks at a time and then I suddenly stop playing them, and why other games are only interesting for a demo's length of time. Am I just becoming so jaded with games that killing another guy in Assassin's Creed seems like a futile exercise, only to be repeated again?

I wonder if mood has something to do with game taste as well. Some days grinding feels like a relief, while other days I just want to get a move on with stories. I'm interested in how games succeed and fail in psychological reinforcement, and I want to understand what motivates me. I like playing games to see what they are--for the novelty of the act. But after the novelty wears off, sometimes I feel too lazy to keep playing. I think, "okay, I understand that this is going to get harder or go on for five more missions, but will it be worth it?"

I love and hate the trophies system. I love it because I think it's fun to try to do crazy things in games and to encourage experimentation, but I hate it because I feel really dumb when I have 0% of trophies for a game (like the ones I try out and don't really like, like inFamous). I believe I have the ability to finish these games, and I do not have the desire. Maybe I'm just getting old and I'm getting pickier about how I use my time, but beating a game to add to my "gamer cred" seems so stupid! Yet I'm strangely attracted to cultivating a levelled "gamer" trophy persona. I wish I had the dedication to be completest with trophies, but in some games it's just not fun.

Mass Effect: Future of PC Games

My brother, Lance, is a fan of the Mass Effect series, so he's doing some guest posting for me (also, I'm struggling a tiny bit to say something interesting about the games I've been playing, so his timing is perfect). This first post is a reminder about what makes the Mass Effect games awesome, which is sometimes easy to lose sight of. His post:

Now that Mass Effect 3 has finally come out and the outrage over its ending has subsided a little, this is an excellent time to reflect on what a great game series it has been and why. While Mass Effect has many elements of gameplay that attract a wide and varied audience, I believe the greatest strength of the Mass Effect series is that it captures the epic feel and prepared script of a movie while still giving the player a relatively wide range of narrative power and control over the events in the series.

I have been a fan of the series since I played the first game, and what really grabbed me about it is the story-centered nature of it and the narrative power it gives to the player. Shepard shoots aliens, there's no way around that, but you get to decide when, where, and how he does so. You get to decide what he looks like, who he's attracted to, and whether or not he's actually a she. This level of narrative power is not completely unprecedented, but it is rare in visual media. What's even more rare is that Shepard's lines are fully voice-acted, despite the fact that you get to choose what he says. You get to decide whether certain characters in the game live or die, even including some of your own team members.

Commander Shepard (center) prepares to enter Dantius Towers with Grunt (right) and some incredibly boring human male soldier (left).

One of the big strengths of this series is that we all ended up caring about most of these characters. All right, so I didn't think much about Kaidan Alenko from the first game or Jacob from the second. But then I got to chat with Tali and Wrex, hear Mordin sing, spar with James, and flirt like Captain Kirk. I cared about a lot of these characters, and I was emotionally invested in their well-being... even though I didn't do anything to think them up or bring them about! This gave the player a sense of really being a part of the game, even if you're just the angel and devil on Shepard's shoulders, telling him what to do. Once you're done talking to your crew members, you get to explore the world around you and the game even awards you with experience points and credits for doing so.

Even if he doesn't say so in game, the mercenary on the right definitely thanks you for playing Paragon.

Mass Effect crafted a detailed, unique, and interesting game world. Like Star Wars and Star Trek, Mass Effect includes many pages of details on the planets in its galaxy, the creatures that live in it, and the technologies that have been discovered by its peoples. While some of the races and creatures strain believability and other seem to lack depth, they are consistent much more often than not, and I forsee the Mass Effect universe will have plenty of spin-off merchandise. When you enter, you feel that there is still much more to see in this universe than has yet been seen, and that Shepard's journeys are but the tip of the iceberg. And when you feel you've reached the limit of your desire to explore, there's plenty of alien bad guys to blow up in creative ways.

There are lots of games in which you get to shoot monstrous creatures or save the world. Plenty in which you save humanity, the galaxy, or even the multiverse. None of that is new or particularly innovative. Some of these have rich and well thought-out worlds in which to play, although many don't. Some of these have reasonably well-written dialogue, and some of them have challenging yet engaging gameplay. Very, very few games have player choices that actually alter the flow of the game, or the story events. Most of the time, the player character's actions are effectively determined ahead of time by the game's writers and the game progresses along the only path they provide (and when you don't make progress on that line, you have to load an old game). In some of these games, that's not such a bad thing, but every now and then it's good to have something different. When Bioware made Mass Effect, they were prepared to write some lines, record some dialogue, and craft some missions that you, the player, would never see. And that means you have power, if only a little.

In most games, if the developers make something, they expect you to experience it. You progress through the levels at a predetermined order, and often through a predetermined path. This isn't bad or wrong, but it takes all the power out of the hands of the player, and tells the player that his or her decisions are completely irrelevant to the game itself. A few games break out of this mold completely, and all of these (that I know of) have been recognized as great in some way or another. Star Control 2, Deus Ex, and now Mass Effect all give you the sense that you are stepping into a very real and very large world, and that your actions will have consequences, sometimes far-reaching consequences you can't predict. This was an exhilirating experience for me in all three cases, and all three of these games occupy a very special place in my heart.

This is a loading screen from Mass Effect, cleverly disguised as an elevator. Some of these loading screens would actually give you missions that showed up on your journal via the news.

Personally, I believe that this is the future of computer games, and it is how these games will identify themselves as a unique medium with very special advantages. Games like Mass Effect could be made into movies or television shows, but the experience would be completely different. I believe no medium yet discovered can possibly capture the Mass Effect experience not because of its immersiveness, its rich characters or background, or even because of its action. The reason Mass Effect cannot be perfect duplicated elsewhere is because of its interactivity and player power.

Rise of Video Game Zinesters a demand for more amateur and individual expression in games

Anyone can make a video game, and it is a little harder than drawing a doodle. But amateurs should make games, because it's fun and fulfilling, and because we need more diversity in video games than the cautious, often predictable games big studios put out. These are Anna Antropy's ideas in Rise of the Video Game Zinesters: How Freaks, Normals, Amateurs, Dreamers, Dropouts, Queers, Housewives, and People Like You are Taking Back an Art Form.

Anthropy's book is related to academics, but it's written in an accessible style. The chapters don't build on each other for a linear, climactic thesis, but highlight different aspects of the history and present of self-published games and mods in a collage that makes for a bigger-picture understanding. Anthropy tells her own story of dropping out of college, struggling for a while, but succeeding to make games by herself like Lesbian Spider-Queens of Mars.

Her passion and self-confidence are infectious. The last section on how to make a game was filled with (what seemed to me, the currently non-programmer) excellent advice on storytelling and just getting something on screen.

I liked this book so much that it's hard for me to criticize it, but there were some things I found puzzling. None of the images had captions, though their relevance was usually intuitive. I was also annoyed by the inclusion of a certain ubiquitous Tolstoy quote. The history chapter seemed linear and obligatory, but paid special attention to the role of deep-pocketed publishers and shareware entrepreneurs. The book succeeded in heightening my awareness of how games can be so much more than men shooting things, and in inspiring me to make my own game (which I might describe as craptastic, and I'm proud of it!). If you don't read this book, at least go out and make a video game! Set aside two hours and just make something in Scratch (that's what I did)!

Designing games for 5-year-olds

Many five-year-olds can't read. They have smaller hands and attention spans. They hate dying. We know these things, but I think designing games for the kindergarten age group is more about making deathless constant action games. Children at this age are content to explore even if they aren't "winning." They play their favorite levels over and over. Because of these tendencies, I believe in some ways it's harder to design for small children and difficult to predict what they will like about video games.

about two years older than this. But still, tiny hands!

I have been babysitting a 5-year-old, whom I'll call Pepper, and he plays video games about half the time, sometimes with me. I'll use his experience to back up my suggestions for designing games for five-year-olds,  which can probably extend to 4 to 6-year-olds.

1. Have custom avatars: Kids want to pretend they are in the game, and they want to have an avatar that looks cool, preferably that they can change at will. Pepper's favorite part of Little Big Planet is selecting the "random costume" button and saving them, and decorating his pod. He was reluctant to play Kirby's Epic Yarn because Kirby is pink ("I want to be a guy" "He is a guy").

2. There doesn't have to be a big bad boss, it's good enough to just have a fantasy world to explore. Pepper's favorite LBP levels involve driving, roller-coaster riding, and pretending to swim with the sharks. The cantina in Lego Star Wars, where you can just run around attacking anyone at random, is also a favorite. I'm bored by roller coaster levels ("I'm just pressing down R1 this whole time..."), but he thinks they are fun. I think other kids are similarly motivated by fantasy in the video games they play.

3. Make it really easy. Kids this age can learn to do things more complicated than jumping, but they don't have a very high frustration tolerance. Many of the puzzles in Lego Star Wars are too hard for him to figure out without my help. Not just puzzles, but basic controls should be simple. I feel like the wii is a little nicer for this, but when you add in the nunchuck there are still lots of buttons, which might explain the popularity of ipad games with this group. Having the buttons doesn't mean you need to use them; point-and-click PC games are also really fun.

4. Potty jokes are hilarious, but it should also be exciting (but not actually dangerous)! Things like playing house, pretending to cook, eat, and sleep, come naturally to pretend play without a video game, so it feels natural in a game setting. That said, there should be something attention-catching about a game for this age group--something they already like, like monster trucks, dinosaurs, trains, roller coasters, Mario, sharks, jungles, etc. They want the feeling that the game is dangerous, but they don't want to die in the game (so, some kind of fire-y background is great).

It's easy for adult gamers to keep insisting that video games should be taken seriously and want more serious games, but I think it's also important to remember kids in video games. THEY LOVE THEM.