Well, well! I've typed the words "Mirror's Edge" so many times this week I can almost pretend that I played it. But no! As I look forward
Really, I'm exhausted of new games. I really am. And I refuse to rush through Fallout 3, for example, just because of all the people saying, with proper shock and outrage, "you're not done with Fallout 3 yet? When are you ever going to play [insert title of two week old game here]?!" So my vacation gift to myself is the luxury of doing one thing only, guilt-free -- yes, Chrono Trigger DS, the time for you is now, and let us give thanks.
Two more things about Mirror's Edge, though, and then I'll shut up about it until I actually put hands on it.
One, I received a really interesting letter from a designer pal of mine who is a little bit fatigued of hearing arguments that hinge on the flaws in the game mechanics. In fact, he says, the mechanics themselves are perfect, the controls work precisely how they're supposed to, and if players are finding the game frustrating, it's not because of that. It's the level design.
If players miss jumps, it's not because Faith isn't responding correctly, it's because the level design has made it difficult to gauge distances, and if the gameplay isn't flowing how it seems to intended to, it's because objectives are unclear, is what he tells me. The "trial and error" feel of it? Also level design. Again, I didn't play it, so I can't opine -- I'm just the messenger! -- but trust a designer, one supposes, to point out where the "blame," if you will, should be placed.
His explanation also highlighted what is perhaps a bigger issue: he feels reviewers often don't even understand enough about game design to attribute frustrations we encounter to the proper source, and what we call out as "the problem" sometimes isn't. When something isn't working, or isn't fun, we sometimes criticize the incorrect element.
"In fact, I find half my job as a designer is listening to what people don't find fun about the game and then figuring out what is REALLY not fun about the game (because it is almost never the thing they latched onto) so that I can fix it," he says.
Two, Stephen Totilo got a response from EA DICE about the fan-shopped Faith that motivated my column last month at Kotaku. They say they intended to move away from "the typical portrayal" of women in games, that proper Faith is meant to be "approachable and far more real," and the rendition of her as a "12 year old with a boob job" was "depressing." Check MTV Multiplayer for the whole comment.
I actually played Castlevania: Judgment with a friend last night. Alas, it is not well-executed at all. In a good fighting game, you should able to get by and still have a bit of fun through good old button mashing, and really rock it if you learn timing and techniques. Judgment doesn't let you do any mashing -- enemies will chain you mercilessly in a fashion that feels frustratingly cheap -- and yet the techniques don't seem to come together predictably either.
Granted, I spent much of my time with it using the Classic Controller hookup -- which all Wii games these days seem to require for me to have any patience at all for 'em. I am so, so over waggle, man. If it uses the Wii Remote any more than, say, Mario Galaxy does, count me out. I understand that this game mechanic is responsible for making a whole raft of controller-phobes into happy players, but man, I was raised on a D-pad, and I just have no patience for swinging those things around anymore. I am not gonna play a fighting game by flailing.
Okay, but while fighting games live and die on how playable they are and how well their systems work, I'm a major longtime fan of the Castlevania universe, and I disagree with the periphery I've heard saying that Judgment was a bad idea. It was a fantastic idea -- I think it's just amazing to see the characters this way, and hopefully I'll get a little time to explain in more detail when I get back from Thanksgiving break.
And! Tying up my loose ends before I take off on my Chrono Trigger, family and turkey binge, Variety's Ben Fritz also responded to N'Gai's post yesterday with a really awesome perspective -- innovation and mechanics are not different things.
Please have a happy Thanksgiving, and thanks to all of you for being here!
23 comments:
I'm thankful that this conversation sprung up around Mirror's Edge, because it's really forced me to hone my own thoughts about it. As I was lying awake in bed last night thinking about it (really), it struck me that the game's fatal flaw is insisting upon being an action game. I think it would have been much more enjoyable with exactly the same play control -- or mechanics, if you will -- but a completely different aim. If the purpose of the game were simply to transport a package from point A to point B, perhaps in a more open world, I think it could have been fantastic. You wouldn't even need a time limit, although maybe cutoffs for gold medal times, silver medal times, and bronze medal times would have worked. What's not needed is combat, gunplay, or action sequences with only one possible solution. Falling from a great height is incentive enough not to fail -- gunships and snipers are overkill. What should be a wide-open playground is shoehorned into a linear shooter, and that's a shame. Even if, admittedly, there are those fleeting instances where it all comes together and you see what this game might have been.
I really find it interesting to have a designer's opinion on what is the issue with the game. I'd really need to play the game again with that in mind to see if I look at the game differently. I guess a lot of people will read the reviews, read that the controls are not so good, play the game with in the back of their mind and as the make mistake and die(often) they will blame it on controls instead of themselves or as it seems with this game, the level design. Mitch is probably right with his ideas on how to change the level design to make this game more enjoyable.
Well, I guess I learned something this morning. I guess I, and a lot of people, need to look deeper in games to see what their true flaws and not the usual suspect we always throw around like control issues.
That's an interesting response, Mitch, in that it seems like you're advocating that Mirror's Edge should have been more like Assassin's Creed in terms of the navigation.
I found the fan-shop at least as depressing as the EA source seems to have, and I think that's because I disagree with the notion that innovation is all about mechanics. While the less sexualized female protagonist and less combat-oriented notions may not be truly new, it certainly did tread less worn paths, and provided a nice breath of fresh air. What I found depressing about the fan-shop was that it represented a cultural reinforcement ("inertia" is too passive a term) of bad game cliches. I had previously believed that any gamer/designer culture that fostered bad cliches was passively decaying.
And now I've gone and made myself sad again.
I really think your advice applies to everyone, no matter how good a reviewer or writer he/she is.
On an interesting side-note about Fritz and misattribution: he criticizes the Bolt game for not mixing in well with the movie's plot, but guess what? Development began two years ago and they had no idea what the plot was.
Not the developers' fault, it's the fault of the Disney machine.
Stuff like that happens constantly, Mike, as a result of the fact that reviewers have absolutely zero understanding of development processes, especially when you throw in IP-holders/licensers/publishers and all kinds of other bureaucratic snags. It's partly our fault for not knowing, but really, I'm going to place the lion's share of the blame on an industry that never lets us talk to actual developers nor offers any transparency whatsoever on their work.
I wonder if the problem Mike pointed out is really more present in the gaming industry than in the movie industry ?
I'm kind of digging Castlevania: Judgment, but I can see how it's not necessarily a "good" game. It's pretty much just fanservice.
Since I got a copy for free, it's fair to say I don't have the same investment as if I'd spent my own money on it. Still, I think I'd enjoy it all the same (though I'd lament I didn't get it cheaper!).
I like that it's a different take on the Castlevania look, with the strange character designs and all. It definitely has its share of flaws, but overall I'm finding it to be a fun arcade-like experience.
Even though I don't usually care much for proper game reviews, I think Bozon's review for IGN is pretty spot-on. So, I give it a "yay" but I also don't recommend a purchase for anyone until it's bargain bin.
Chrono Trigger: Good choice. I'm a big fan of the Chrono series (yes, unlike most fans, I actually really liked Chrono Cross as well). Can't wait to see the new things added in the DS version first-hand. It seems I'll have to pick it up this week as well.
Can you hear it? The black wind howls...
=P
Yes, the level design is the culprit for the failures of Mirror's Edge. Runners up: the dumb story which ultimately dictates an incredibly unsatisfying conclusion to the game. Also: too much focus on combat in a game which is ostensibly escaping. (this is probably EA's fault).
The whole idea of "runner vision" basically guarantees lazy level design, and now that I've finished the game, I think that it would've gone much better if they had didn't base the design around that concept. It's basically a crutch.
Still worth playing. When the game is good (maybe... 30% of the time) it's really, really good. Shame about the other 70%.
Leigh, you have yet to make a single mention of Valkyria Chronicles. I would have thought you'd be all over that game. Cute anime girls with guns in a stategy RPG? No? Where's the Rosie hentai?
speaking of Mirror's Edge, they released an accompanying Remix EP. The focus will the the game's theme song, "Still Alive" and features 5 remixes from some of music's biggest names!
the Remix EP is digitally available NOW!
I really can't find much fault in Mirror's Edge myself. The level design may be vague or given to trial and error, but I didn't really notice it as a fault in the design. I basically look at the game as a parkour simulation with a story wrapped around it, and the aim of parkour is to get from one place to another as fast as possible. That means being able to see openings for closing distance, and they're not always obvious.
As far as making it open-world, it's fine if someone wants to do that, but I've realised that I really don't like open-world games, so I would much rather have Mirror's Edge as presented. I also don't mind the combat segments, although I would have preferred a greater repertoire of melee moves, but that probably would have been difficult to fit into the movement-based control scheme.
Generally, Mirror's Edge is what I think the Matrix games should have been, and in fact would love to see a mod in that vein on the PC version if mod tools are eventually released.
I have to agree with your friend about the general lack of understanding of the actual game development process.
There's a good case to be made that the industry as a whole should be more transparent, in that respect I agree with you. I also think though, that most game critics would benefit a lot from studying game design just a little. There are a lot of resources out there about the iterative design process, design documents, etc. At the very least it would give critics a window into just what game developers are thinking and dealing with when they design a game.
like I said yesterday..... reviewers should not use words like level design etc.
The average gamer does not give a hoot.
So it doesn't matter if he has the words right or wrong... what matters is if he nailed why the game wasn't fun to play.
Have a great thanksgiving!
When something isn't working, or isn't fun, we sometimes criticize the incorrect element.
This is endemic to all software design, not just game design. It's the user's job to figure out what isn't right, and it's the engineer's job to figure out what the underlying problems are. Users inevitably point at the wrong widget, it's just part of being a user.
In all fairness, the fan-shop Faith does not look like a 12-year old with a boob job, she looks like an "Asian" woman in her early/mid twenties. Although with an unusual ample bosom.
Game reviews should not need to know anything about game design. Their job is to convey to their reader what they liked and disliked about the game they're reviewing in simple enough terms that readers can decide whether or not this game is worth playing.
Level design is certainly an interesting topic for the Sexy Videogameland audience, but not something the average gamer (or reviewer) should have to concisely think about.
Great Blog Keep It Up Enrich Your Blog With Some Blogger goodies Like Tips,Tricks & Widgets To Learn More Please Visit At Blogging in Web 2.0 Beta
I'm actually finding it remarkably hard to way in on the Mirror's Edge debate for one simple reason, I didn't think the platforming failed in any way.
Honestly, I don't see the problem, I enjoyed them through and through, I was never frustrated and never got stuck for too long, and I am terrible at platform games, literally the worst person I know at them.
Where is falls down is in swinging the balance between running and shooting dramatically towards the former in the final third (not unique by any means, how many combat light games have chickened out in search of an action packed finale before? I'm looking at you Thief). And the feeling that the story has been bolted on at the last minute, squeezed out into the edges of the game, largely in those awful 2d cutscenes (my God that animation was terrible).
The platforming largely works, it's just a shame they didn't seem to have confidence in it.
Take your time with Fallout 3, Leigh. It's such an amazing game that rushing it would be a crime.
Regarding Mirror's Edge, I agree with your developer friend about the level design. The mechanics were perfect, and the use of shoulder buttons was genius. The game failed with pacing (caused by lack of decent signposting - level design) which resulted in a game at its best when high-speed being constantly slowed down; and a bizarre desire on the developers' part of force-feeding you everything wrong with the game: the infuriating combat, the leaps of faith (ba-dum, tish!), the godawful animated plotscenes and so on.
Enjoy Chrono Trigger DS. I'm replaying Link's Awakening on my part this week.
This conversation was really interesting and I did appreciate an actual developer's opinion. I find that too quickly do gamers want to charge the game as being flawed because they think its the controls or the game is "cheating" I myself used to assume this, but this really showed me the importance of looking for the true flaws in the game. I downloaded the demo from PSN and absolutely loved the innovative experience Mirror's Edge provided me. Granted I haven't played the game, it's on my rental list, but for a game to capture me so completely with the first level of the game, I'm sure the game can't be that bad. The controls seemed fine in my opinion.
I've been following Sexy Videogame Developer Land and it's really interesting so far. It's always nice to put a face or two to the giant mass of people behind such an enjoyable hobby. Keep it up, Leigh!
Post a Comment