On Cliffhangers and Sequels

The popular gaming media is quick to say it’s looking for new franchises. Fresh ideas seem to be in high demand, and games like Dead Space and Mirror’s Edge received a great deal of coverage last year for their efforts to push the envelope of new properties. We all love new ideas, new worlds to explore. That being said, sequels are where the real money’s at. Activison’s proven this with the Guitar Hero franchise. If you’re creating a new property, therefore, you want to leave yourself room to make a sequel if the numbers show merit. It’s the endings of these IP’s, the the beginnings which follow them, that I want to look at in this post.

The game which got me started on this is Half-Life 2. *SPOILER WARNING: I’m going to reveal the end of Half-Life 2* You see, Valve is well known for creating a great story in HL2 without having your character speak a single word or using any cutscenes which change your perspective. Towards the end of HL2 I felt compelled to play and finish the fight I started so many days before. And the end was satisfying, at least at first. I was ready for Freeman to die in a catastrophic explosion. He seems like the kind of guy to make such a sacrifice. Just when you expect the screen to fade to white, however, in steps the infamous “G-Man” to sweep you away to safety (or in step the vortigaunts if you’re looking at Episode 1). This mechanic serves to prolong Freeman’s life for another installment without eliminating the climax we have come to expect from videogame conclusions (you fight the last boss and you win). I found this moment, with the cryptic G-Man dialogue, made the ending feel flat. I felt like my final actions, those actions which destroyed the “ultimate” enemy, were inconsequential. After all, if I can slip away just before death why can’t he?

And that brings us to a tricky point: Should you have a cliffhanger at all? I mean, does leaving an ending open take away from the overall greatness of a game? In an industry sense, I really don’t think so. I hate to say it, but given the fact that the minority of gamers actually finish the games they play, it seems a little silly to get bent out of shape with respect to how those games end. But what about those of us who want to squeeze all that value out of those games, or better yet, what about those games who actually craft a narrative we long to see the ending to? To this day there are gamers who talk about how unfulfilling the ending of Halo 2 was. Simply getting to the end of x hours of gameplay and throwing up credits is a copout, and in my opinion makes for a crappy game. When I finish a game, I want to feel like I accomplished something (even though I really didn’t). I want some resolution to all that conflict you’ve spent hours telling me about. I want to feel like the tension I had over the fate of my characters can be dispelled since their fates are now assured. Without these things the game doesn’t really end. There are many times when I’ve found myself staring at credits rolling past thinking “But what about…”

That’s the idea, of course. That’s why you’re going to watch the shows and read the articles about the next title, and then you’ll be one of those gamers who buys the game in the first two weeks, helping to insure it’s continued life on retail shelves. But that sequel presents a number of other problems. The whole purpose behind having a sequel is to bring back fans of the first game for another taste. That means that you have to satiate their desires for something new out of the old. At the same time, since the gaming industry hopes for growth at every step, you have to also create a world that isn’t intimidating to new fans. If I pick up a game and don’t know what’s going on because I didn’t play its predecessor, I’m not likely to want to keep playing (let alone pay for DLC or another sequel). On top of those contradictory mandates, there’s also the need for innovation in the content of the game. It’s not simply about taking the first game and giving it a new story. No, now you have to refine the combat, introduce new weapons, environments, and enemies. If you stray too far from the first game, however, it’s no longer a sequel and it becomes another new IP. Then you’ve just alienated fans and actually start from a negative position.

It would appear that expectations defy the creation of sequels. How can developers possibly make something precisely the same and almost completely innovative at the same time? That’s a fine line to walk, though if done correctly it can pay off. If you slip … well then you get Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. I think Ubisoft learned a good lesson there. I think it’s great that they took a franchise, which had essentially become a quasi-new IP every few years, and started all over with a refresh for another series. They still didn’t eliminate any expectations from the fans, but at least they had a decent argument.

Another game-changer I didn’t cover is DLC. How do you create a sequel when you’re not even sure that the fans know about the second ending? That just creates a third group you have to cater to when designing such a complex creature. If history has taught us anything though, it’s that no matter how disappointed gamers are at sequels, they still make money. And so long as there’s money to be made, who cares about the writing?

My Review of Portal

I’d like to start by establishing that this is not Portal: Still Alive on XBLA. Nor is this the original Portal on the PC. The version of Portal I’m talking about is the one found in The Orange Box for the Xbox 360. I thought about reviewing The Orange Box as a whole, but given the fact that I wasn’t going to play Team Fortress 2 (just not my thing), I thought it would be unfair.

So, Portal. Where to begin. The game itself is fairly simple. It’s a puzzle game revolving around a single mechanic: the ability to create two connected portals through which anything and everything may pass. It’s executed from a first-person perspective and it handles very much like Half-Life 2. At first I was a little apprehensive since I find platforming (which is how you solve the puzzles) tends to frustrate the hell out of me in FPS perspective, even in the Half-Life games. Valve, however, found some way to make Portal handle better. It’s either more precise or more forgiving. I seldom found myself dying because I didn’t quite know where my feet were.

The graphics are nice, but that’s not to say that they’re amazing. I think Portal is a good example of a game where the environment looks good because it is minimalistic. The sound is also good, but again there isn’t a lot to notice. The game keeps you immersed by leaving out the mood music. I didn’t notice the absence at all, but that’s probably because I was too caught up in enjoying the experience.

The game is a bit short. As in play-through-in-one-sitting short. I originally forgave this thinking “How much variety can you really create with these simple mechanics?”. Then I completed the game and saw the advanced levels, which seem totally fresh even though they’re just minor tweaks to original levels. The challenges also add fresh perspective to the puzzle solving (which is beyond me for the most part). In reality, then, the game isn’t really that short, and all the levels have the attention to detail that Valve use in their level design, providing the player with challenge without too much frustration. There’s lots of content there, and Valve has priced it really well.

I realize that others have already gushed about this game , but I found that most people simply praised the unique portal mechanics and immersive design, without really noting how technically proficient the game is. It is this technical aspect which allows Portal to really raise the bar. The precision of the platforming in this game makes me think that perhaps it can be done from a first-person perspective without the need to throw controllers. Unlike many others, I don’t crave a sequel to this game. No, instead I crave innovation taking this game forward. I think of a game like The Darkness, which took the FPS mechanics Halo perfected on the console and made an innovative game in a new world using those mechanics as a foundation. How long must we wait for a developer to take this new “FP” without the “S” and create something new?

Bottom Line:
Buy If: You like puzzling platformers and don’t get motion sick easily.
Rent If: I don’t really think this is an option here. Just buy it.
Pass If: Um … I guess if you’re not really a gamer and don’t want to ever experience anything new and fresh.

What Made Classic Games Great

Not long ago, Michael Abbott over at The Brainy Gamer asked some interesting questions about evergreen games. In particular, he examined the dissonance between the lasting appeal of Super Mario Bros. 3 and Ultima IV for the NES. While he does admit that comparing these two games from such different genres is akin to comparing apples to oranges, Mr. Abbott asks some interesting questions, and he got me thinking about those games from the days of yore which still maintain their appeal.

Just two days later, Lee Bradley over at his blog Collect examined what he called The Nostalgia Business. His article examines why classic games ought not to be crammed into new genres, but should be updated using their original genres and using the original mechanics in order to preserve that which made them great. This argument is often made by critics to explain why new iterations on a classic franchise fail to deliver that delicious flavour we experienced in the past.

In my opinion, however, mechanics aren’t the whole story. In fact, I think they’re only a small chapter. I’ve always loved the Super Mario franchise. I can’t count how many hours I spent with Super Mario World. When the games went 3D, however, my affinity dissipated, only to return with Super Paper Mario and later the advent of The New Super Mario Bros. on the DS. At first, it may seem like this example supports the argument that the original mechanics are what make those games great, but I believe that it was, in fact, the game design. While the 3D Mario games have had impeccable level design, they are still fundamentally different from the original 2D games.

Perhaps a better example is the Bionic Commando franchise. Bionic Command Rearmed was a recent game which gave the old game a fresh coat of paint, but kept the action in the original design. More recently, Bionic Commando was released for Xbox 360 and PS3 as a third-person action game. This change in perspective altered more than just a camera angle. If you look at the reviews of the new game, the negative comments are not that swinging and shooting don’t belong in a third-person game, but rather that the design of the game, it’s execution in level development, is what doesn’t stack up to the original.

If you go back to Super Mario Bros. 3 you can see exactly what I mean by design. Each of the eight worlds in the game had their own theme, whether it was desert, water, or liquid hot magma. Within each of these worlds the levels could often be divided into sub-genres. This design, a variation of the much-lauded Nintendo “garden” methodology, could have produced level after level which was essentially the same. Nintendo, however, insisted in making each level a perfectly unique flower. Each ice level in the water world had its own unique design and strategy for success. Few games these days are able to execute a similar design.* It’s for that reason that I can still enjoy playing Super Mario Bros. 3, not because it performs only in the two dimensions.

There are many games we remember with fond feelings because at the time they were the best there was. I think that’s what Ultima IV had going for it, and why Michael finds it not as great right now. Many other games, such as Super Mario Bros. 3, Bionic Commando, and even Pacman, maintain their splendour because they achieved a perfect storm of design which is seldom seen in modern gaming. I only hope that more developers go back to those early games in order to learn the lessons of how to develop a game which will stand the test of time.

_{*: Interestingly, the sub-par movie game Transformers: The Game did a good job executing a similar method of unique style from level to level.}

My Perspective on E3

This post isn’t going to cover everything from this year’s E3. Nor is it going to tell you the same things that everyone else is already saying (Assassin’s Creed 2 and Splinter Cell: Conviction both look great). I’m going to try and touch on a few things with a perspective that other people aren’t talking about. These are in no particular order.

Joy Ride: I know what you’re thinking. “Really? This looks like junk.” To most gamers you’d be correct, but there’s something important going on here no one seems to want to talk about. Microsoft is trying out a free-to-play MMO for the first time on a console. Until now, free-to-play on a console has meant pack-in. This game is a free-to-play XBLA game with aesthetic microtransactions. That could be a big deal. It’s clear Microsoft doesn’t need too much of a return on this game for it to be profitable (it doesn’t look like it took too long to create), and if it does well we may see something closer to Maple Story for the Xbox in the future.

Saboteur: I’d heard about this game before, and I wasn’t interested. As a general rule I don’t get going for WWII games. This game, however, looks really cool. I think of it kind of like an open-world stealth game. Like Assassin’s Creed, but in WWII. I did love Assassin’s Creed. This game just jumped onto my “must buy” list.

Wet: This is another game that I knew about before E3 (I’d actually seen it on X-Play) and wasn’t crazy about. I’m still not sold that this game has what it takes to be a AAA game, but I could still see myself enjoying it. After watching a demo on G4 with Eliza Dushku talking about voicing the character, I think that this game could have enough style to draw me in. I’m not expecting anything amazing, but sometimes low expectations can make for fun experiences.

Nintendo’s Press Conference: I won’t go through the whole thing, but I noticed a sharp contrast between this conference and the one last year. Last year Nintendo was packed full of smiles and laughs. Everyone at Nintendo wanted to be your friend. This year it was all business. Clearly Nintendo America was a little stung by their reception last year. I was quite impressed at how business-like this conference was, and how much they wanted to impress the value of Nintendo for the hardcore. I still don’t think the third-party games will do well, simply because hardcore gamers don’t like the console as much for hardcore games as they do others. But if you really want to see how Nintendo brought the big guns this year, don’t dwell on Metroid, look at FOUR Mario games. Consider it brought.

Sony’s Press Conference: A lot of people came out this year liking Sony, rather than last year’s debacle. What’s strange is that last year’s conference held more for me than this year. Last year, Sony showed why people who don’t have a PS3 ought to be interested in the console. This year, Sony firmly entrenched themselves in the pocket of the market they already have (with the exception of Hanna Montana on PSP). Guys like me, who’ve never been into the classic Playstation franchises, didn’t really have anything to sink their teeth into (Assassin’s Creed 2 doesn’t count because it’s multi-platform). The kart racer that’s similar to Little Big Planet looks vaguely interesting, but if it’s like LBP in the controls department (by which I mean shitty) then I’m again not sold. Sony didn’t drop their price as we all thought they would. They joked about the various leaks, but I have to say that if there was one message I got from Sony this year it’s “We like where we are and we’re not changing.” And just think, two weeks ago everyone was saying that if Sony wants to survive they need some big change (price drop, new UI, etc.). I’m curious to see how this pans out.

These few points are by no means everything that caught my eye at E3 this year, but they are the ones I thought I had something at least a little fresh to say about. Notice I didn’t mention Microsoft’s press conference? I’ll just say that I think they did the best job of melding the spectacle (Ringo and Paul anyone?) with the games. I can tell that there are a lot of games coming up in 2009 that I’ll be buying (special mentions for Brutal Legend and Halo 3: ODST, just because they’re not in the post yet). That being said, I’ve got to go play through my pile of shame to make room for some new titles.