#oneaday Day 67: Cultural Differences

Games are a fairly unique medium in that they allow pretty much anyone easy access to material from other cultures without the language barrier necessarily getting in the way. A book in a language you don’t understand, for example, is pretty much useless. A film can be appreciated for its direction and cinematography if not understood. Music can be enjoyed on a certain level. But a foreign game, assuming its not too story-heavy, can be enjoyed by anyone.

It’s here that we run into the East-West divide. Both parts of the world enjoy producing games with stories, though Western stories often tend to err on the side of “gritty” while Japanese tales tend for the most part to be more on the colourful, melodramatic side, often derided by people who don’t enjoy them as being “emo”. Let’s leave narrative-heavy games aside for a moment, though, and look at games that are “gameplay experiences” first and foremost.

For comparison purposes, I’m going to take dear departed Bizarre Creations’ Geometry Wars 2 for the Western front, and CAVE’s Deathsmiles for the Eastern front. Both are Xbox 360 titles, both released at a low price point, though Deathsmiles saw a retail release as opposed to Geometry Wars 2‘s Xbox LIVE Arcade-only release. This, in itself, is somewhat telling.

Let’s consider the games’ respective aesthetics first. Geometry Wars 2 is, as you may expect from the title, abstract in nature. There are no “characters”, there’s no “story”, it’s just a bunch of neon shapes against one little white abstract “ship”, and everything explodes into a shower of beautiful fireworks. It’s spectacular to behold (assuming the person playing is any good) and recognisably “next-gen” (or “current-gen” if you prefer, since it’s technically more accurate).

Deathsmiles, on the other hand, looks like a SNES game, albeit one with enough things on screen to make the little Nintendo box explode. It’s all sprite-based, it has chunky pixel-art backgrounds that have been upscaled to HD but not quite by enough, it has animations done by hand rather than generated procedurally and suffers from occasional slowdown due to the sheer amount of shit happening on screen at once.

Not only that, though, but Deathsmiles has “character”. Rather than the abstract appearance of Geometry Wars 2, the player “ship” in Deathsmiles is a person. Specifically, it’s one of four underage Gothic Lolita angels dressed in borderline-inappropriate costumes accompanied by a familiar. Similarly, all the enemies are recognisable as “monsters”, be they humanoid, dragons, flying eye things with bat wings, spiders or indeed the wonderfully named final boss, Tyrannosatan.

The key thing about the two games’ respective aesthetics, though, is that Geometry Wars 2 is consciously trying to look shiny and new, while Deathsmiles is more than happy to look like an arcade game from at least 10 years ago—the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” approach. Neither approach is necessarily more or less valid than the other, but it’s an interesting contrast.

Then we come to how the two games play. Geometry Wars 2 has a variety of modes, all of which can be explained very easily. They all involve killing things before they touch your ship, with only a couple of modes (King, in which you may only fire while sitting in certain temporary “zones”; and Pacifism, in which you can’t fire at all and can only destroy things by detonating “gates” by passing through them) varying even slightly from this formula.

Deathsmiles, on the other hand, should be a simple matter to explain. It’s a shoot ’em up, after all—how complicated can it be? But I attempted to explain it to a friend earlier and ended up confusing both myself and him. The game’s tutorial makes it sound rather straightforward—fire in either direction, use a smart bomb, charge up shots or use a lock-on attack—but in fact there’s a surprising amount of hidden depth.

Firstly, since it, like Geometry Wars 2, is a game about getting high scores, there’s a somewhat intricate method to attaining the highest scores that involves destroying the correct enemies with the correct type of shots. The game mentions this in passing, but it’s up to the player to determine what it actually means. Geometry Wars 2, on the other hand, is about shooting shit and using a bomb if you’re in an inescapable situation.

Secondly, there’s the key element of the “bullet hell” shooter—the hitbox. Graze any enemy in Geometry Wars 2 and your ship explodes. But the same isn’t true in Deathsmiles—mercifully, since the player sprite is relatively large. No, instead there’s a pulsing “heart” symbol in the middle of your characters chest and that—and only that—is the thing that can be damaged. Because this is so small, it means you can navigate your player character through intricate arrangements of bullets that initially seem impossible to avoid. Much of the game becomes about less about shooting things and more about learning how and when these patterns appear, and finding an appropriate path through them. The patterns are the same each time, too, so you certainly can “learn” the game, as opposed to Geometry Wars 2‘s more random chaos.

Then there’s the matter of replay value. Both games are designed to be replayed in a “score attack” style. But Geometry Wars 2‘s sessions tend to be rather short for the most part—a few minutes at most. In most modes, the game ends when you’re dead. More skilled players get to play for longer in most cases.

Deathsmiles, on the other hand, takes you through at least 6 levels, the order of which you can select to a certain degree, and offers you unlimited continues. The whole game takes about 20-30 minutes from start to finish. This means that “beating” the game is within the reach of absolutely anyone, even on the hardest difficulty settings. Sure, you’ll get crap scores, since your score resets to zero every time you continue, but you can at least reach the end and whore for Achievements if that’s your bag. The sign of a skilled Deathsmiles player, then, is not how long they play for, but how long they can survive without their score resetting. This doesn’t necessarily have to be from the beginning of the game, as tackling the levels in different orders can provide optimum bonus-point scoring potential, but then we get into a whole other order of depth.

It’s interesting to see two wildly different approaches to what is essentially the same genre—the shmup—and contrast them. I like both games very much, but I feel that most people will probably find themselves favouring one or the other, much like game design philosophy in general.

I’ll leave you with one of the most interesting things to ponder: whether Deathsmiles‘ character designs would have ever been green-lit by a Western developer, even knowing the fact that the arguably “sexualised” nature of them doesn’t factor into the game itself at all? I somehow doubt it. Don’t believe me? Take a look:

Cute, right? Bit of a stockings and thighs and boobs theme going on. We’ve seen self-consciously sexy Western female characters before, so surely nothing new there. How about if I tell you how old they’re all supposed to be?

Yeah. Pervert.

#oneaday, Day 329: Be A Dick Mode

With the increasing mechanical complexity and narrative ambitiousness of many modern games, it’s easy to forget the purity of how gaming used to be. Just a player, a joystick, and an arbitrary number representing how “good” the player was at the game. In other words, the score.

Games with scores aren’t dead, though. Far from it. And in this age of global communication thanks to the Internet, one could argue that games with scores are more relevant than they’ve ever been.

The reason for this? The hidden option that you won’t find on any game’s menu. The mode that allows you to compete against your friends and mercilessly taunt them when you prove yourself—with numbers—to be objectively better than them.

I am talking, of course, about Be A Dick Mode.

Be A Dick Mode crops up in many game, though it’s not just any game with a score and leaderboards that it works with. Shatter on PSN and Steam, for example, is not an example of a game featuring a Be A Dick Mode, despite being in possession of leaderboards and scores which frequently extend into the hundreds of millions. Geometry Wars 2, conversely, has Be A Dick Mode in spades. After Burner Climax? No dick action there. Pac-Man Championship Edition DX? Dickishness in spades.

There are few games with a more powerful, potent Be A Dick Mode than Adult Swim’s seminal two-button masterpiece Robot Unicorn Attack, however. It was bad enough when the game was first released on Adult Swim’s website. Twitter became awash with screenshots of everyone’s latest and greatest high scores.

But now, they’ve gone and embraced Be A Dick Mode with open, err, arms.

How have they done this, you may ask. Simple: put it on Facebook.

For all Facebook’s faults, privacy concerns and stupid, stupid UI redesigns, the one thing that it is magnificent at is promoting friendly (and not-so-friendly) competition between diverse friends across the globe. The ability for Facebook applications to access your name, profile picture and activity in applications you have in common with your friends was a masterstroke, privacy concerns aside. There’s nothing better than looking at a leaderboard filled with the real names and photographs (or avatars) of your friends and seeing yourself at the top of it.

And there’s nothing worse than seeing yourself in second place, with first place tantalisingly out of reach. There’s nothing worse than knowing that the next time you log onto Twitter, there will be an @mention in your direction inviting you to check out Facebook and suggesting you might want to play some Robot Unicorn Attack instead of whatever it was you were planning on doing.

And then you play Robot Unicorn Attack. And you fail to beat your friend. And then you play it again. And some more. And then you get annoyed, so you go and play Bejeweled Blitz instead, but then you realise that someone else has pipped you to the top of the scoreboard on that too, so you go back to Robot Unicorn Attack and play it until that Erasure song has burnt itself into your memory and you can’t see a field of horses without wanting to sing and fart rainbows at them.

In short, Be A Dick Mode will ruin your life and the lives of your friends. But you know you wouldn’t have it any other way.

#oneaday, Day 135: Blurred Socialization

“Social games” are crap. There, I’ve said it. Now everyone else can breathe a sigh of relief that the elephant in the room has been well and truly pointed out.

But why are they crap? Well, the main reason is that they just aren’t very fun to either play as games or use as a means of socialising. I’ve tried out Mafia Wars and We Rule in particular. And neither of them are very fun.

Both of them involve a lot of clicking and waiting. Click on a button to complete a task. Wait for something to happen… in real time. While you wait, why not spam your friends to “help” you by clicking on the same button that you did? You’ll both get XP! Yay XP! Of course your level means little more than how long you have bothered to waste your time playing what is basically an Access database, but that’s beside the point.

The social angle is flawed too. There’s no interaction. You can request “help” from other players but there’s no means of actually playing together concurrently. In some games you can’t even send messages to each other.

Then came Blur. Blur single-handedly shows the correct way to develop a good social game: by building a good game first, then a social network around it. Too many other titles do this the other way round, and that’s what causes them to be the shallow, meaningless garbage that they are.

Blur is different, though. Even without the social features it would be a great racer featuring the “why hasn’t anyone done this before?” combination of realistic racing and Mario Kart-style powerups. But add in the ability to taunt friends publicly via Facebook and Twitter, not to mention the incredibly solid “Friend Challenge” system, and you’ve got a winning experience on your hands.

Playing Blur is actually remarkably akin to logging into something like Facebook. Starting the game greets you with a “Previously on Blur” feature showing you the next milestones you might reach, a bit like Facebook’s News Feed shows you recent happenings. Then you might want to check your messages, so you look at the Friend Challenges screen. You see that three of your friends have challenged you to beat their times, so you while away a short while beating them senseless… or not. Then you take on some of the single-player, and achieve something you know none of your friends have, so you post it to Facebook. Then… the list goes on. All the while you’re having a good time playing a great game AND sharing the experience with friends.

So, social game developers? Please stop being satisfied with the derivative shit you’re coming out with. The shit you are deriving your new shit from wasn’t very good in the first place. So actually hire someone who has played a video game before to design your game, then build the social features around it.

Rant over. I’m off to play Blur.