Mario Melodies: Counterpoint part.3

If mechanics give the player control, and interplay gives a game richness and depth by creating a dialog of action, then counterpoint and how it organizes layers of game ideas is a way of drawing attention to and from intricacies like interplay, which, as a result, further develops and defines the mechanics/functions/actions of a game. Being able to guide/focus a player in this way is a powerful tool because it doesn't compromise the player's freedom.

Knowing what the player is most likely going through by what the counterpoint focuses on can be used to highlight specific examples of interplay, teach the player a new technique, reveal a less than obvious facet of the game, even trick the player into falling for tricks that seem "simple" and avoidable. Even so, when a game is built up of layered parts that restrict freedom (as opposed to building options from nothing), the player usually retains the ability to isolate elements form the multi-element whole and tackle the challenge piecemeal.

Sometimes, a group of Goomba can become your worst enemy. Remember all the interesting Goomba interplay I diagrammed? If it wasn't for counterpoint, I probably wouldn't have realized how deep the interaction with this simple enemy is.

These enemies are plentiful at the beginning of the game, yet they are almost completely replaced with Buzzy Beetles by World 8.

This image displays areas featuring the Goomba in Super Mario Brothers. Notice how each occurrence is slightly different. From the mechanic, to interplay, to variation and counterpoint, the Goomba is defined over the course of a game. Because the Goomba's function as an enemy to Mario can only be realized when multiple game elements and game ideas are layered together and when the player is trying to successfully play the game, the Goomba's definition becomes greater than just a small squash-able brown lump that slowly walks in one direction. Whether they're dropping down from higher platforms, making block steps come "alive," or blocking off narrow passages from a hasty player, the Goomba's function in Super Mario Bros. is greater than the sum of its parameters/rules/parts.

Such is counterpoint. And with that, the theoretical investigations in the Mario Melodies series is finished. But we're not done quite yet. Stay tuned for the parts that will blow your mind.

If Wall-e (the movie) Was A Game

I'll keep this one brief and spoiler free. All images are taken from the online trailer of Wall-e.

If Wall-e, the fantastic new addition to Pixar's powerhouse of films for all ages, was a game it would be a perfect example of...

• visual storytelling
• form fits function
  
• characterization through action
• clean (virtually spotless) design/story telling

The dialog in Wall-e is sparse at first. Aside from the lyrics in the music and the audio track from a video feed shown early in the film, Wall-e starts off like a silent film. The crafters at Pixar truly took advantage of the freedom, power, and flexibility of visuals, the heart of films. Instead of bogging down the film with unnecessary explanatory dialog, Pixar let the images do the talking. Throughout the film just about everything the viewer needs to know can be extrapolated from the information easily gathered from the visuals, which are the most advanced and technically impressive computer generated visuals I've ever seen.

Such an unyielding dedication to the visuals in Wall-e allowed Pixar to create a film where the forms of the various robots, characters, and locations fit the function of the characters which, in turn, yield actions that make up the foundation of the story. In other words, Wall-e is filled with visual metaphors that are made to work for the film's story and themes.






From the dirty ground hugging robot in the first image, to the obese man, to the line of robots to the right in the third picture, to the red cable attached to the robot in the last image, all of these details are important to Wall-e's story and progression because of their function. That's all I'll say about that now as to avoid stepping into spoiler territory.



Once again, without dialog the characters in Wall-e can't simply explain their life stories or motivations to each other. Being able to gather each character's function/role in the story simply by observing their form can only go so far. Fortunately, Pixar fully embraced the idea of using action to characterize its characters. In the image above, the way this character flies around helps create and define her character while strengthening the visual metaphors within the film.

Also, there are many robots that are designed to do various tasks/functions throughout the film. Because these robots aren't humanoid, they're design typically locks them into only being able to do one task each. Even within these constraints, the various characters are able to define and express themselves to a large degree (especially the little guy in the picture below). Restricting options and variables can be a way of delivering a more clearly communicated product.


Most impressive of all is how clean a film Wall-e is. Remember my article on Reducing the Clutter? The cleanness of Wall-e is analogous to that. From the very opening of the film, I felt like not an image, word, or moment was too much or wasted. Every scene and every action was just long enough to convey an important part of the story and no longer.

Also, because of tight control over the visuals, forms, actions, and how that developed the characters and story, coming to the conclusion that Wall-e is the cleanest film I've ever scene is only a matter of connecting one scene to another as if drawing lines on the story board. If I had the story board I would show you what I mean. But I don't. So, you'll just have to watch the movie for yourself while keeping my comments in mind.

My Game is Better Than Your Game!

Recently, comments posted under the "Just Call it a Game" blog entry have spawned yet another tete-a-tete about videogames. A word of warning... this one gets ugly. Normally in a critical-correspondence both parties take turns countering each others points back and forth. Namekuseijin called for me to counter his points. I did in a clear and lengthly manner. And when it was his turn he decided to ignore all of my points, try to change the subject/issues, and attack my character. And that's not even the ugly part.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

namekuseijin said...

So, it's a game then. Big deal. It's not the kind of game I'm interested in. More likely your mother will be playing it rather than going to Curves.

Although the technology it brings to the table may eventually be put to good use in fighting games, indeed.

It seems to me Nintendo focused on bringing innovative hardware this generation, but mostly no good games to put such hardware to good use. It's a shame, because otherwise such hardware is just a gimmick.

Of course it doesn't matter for their huge casual, newcomer public which are just happy of playing Wii Fit or some other beginner Nintendo games. Let's see what happens once the novelty of playing a game for the first time wears off and the Tamagochi-like fad ends.

Long-time game fans, OTOH, are still waiting for ambitious titles that go beyond the mere fun and puerile diversion Nintendo offers. In that direction, I see MGS, Ico, SotC, Portal, Half-Life etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

KirbyKid said...

Nintendo not bringing good games?
I like the gameplay in WiiFit better than the gameplay in MGS4. It's definitely cleaner.

For anyone who thinks quality hardware paired with quality software will fade like a fad, such people need to open their eyes.

MGS, SoTC, Half-life, and even Portal can't match the level of design and the genius of Super Mario Bros. on the NES.

And if you don't think WiiFit, WiiSports, and Mario Galaxy are ambitious in 3 very different ways, then I can't help you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

namekuseijin said...

The blog title is intriguing, the banner is nice, the about box thoughtful.

Unfortunately, I can smell a fanatic when I see stupid nonsense statements like this one:
"MGS, SoTC, Half-life, and even Portal can't match the level of design and the genius of Super Mario Bros. on the NES."

SMB "genius" was far superceeded by even Nintendo's subsequent titles like SMB3, Super Metroid and Zelda: OoT. Why be so pedantic? And no, Wii Fit ain't in the same league by a good lightyears.

Best regards, good luck with the blog and happy fat burning. "

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

KirbyKid said...

Here's the deal Namekuseijin... Don't come to my blog with your caustic internet message board pugnacious edge and thoughtless blanket statements.

If you were trying to make a point in your first post, you didn't do a very good job.

Next time, try not to reference my "mother" in any way. I'm more than ok with you admiting that WiiFit is a game, and that it's not one you're interested in. But leave the rest of your bad attitude comments out of this: "Big deal," "rather than going to Curves."

Yes, the tech in the Wii Balance Board will be great in a properly designed fighting game. I should know, I've been designing one for a few years now. That comment was apt.

If you want to make a statement like Nintendo hasn't put "such hardware to good use" with good games, then you're going to have to back it up. Make a list and we'll debate from there. Otherwise...

You sound like every other whiny Nintendo fan on the net. You have a hard time accepting Wii Fit: "Big deal." You claim that there aren't a lot of good games on the Wii that use the new hardware, but there are many. And then you go on to make statements about how fickle the new "huge casual" consumers are.

You claim that Wii Fit is a "beginner Nintendo game." What a myopic claim. Just consider the design of Wii Fit and what kind of place it can have in a normal person's life. Exercising, and knowing more about one's body isn't a beginner step. Comparing Wii Fit to Tamagochi is rash.

Then you go on to talk about the "long-time [Nintendo] fans" are still waiting for the good stuff as if there's a definite difference between the people who like Wii Sports and Wii Fit and these fans.

You claim that the true fans want games that go beyond a Nintendo "diversion," then you list a bunch of non-Nintendo games. If you didn't sound like you have a chip on your shoulder before this point, then you certainly sealed the deal.

MGS, SotC, and Half-Life have some serious design issues. I can't get into them now, because this is not the place. Instead, I pointed out that Super Mario Bros. is better than such games.

"MGS, SoTC, Half-life, and even Portal can't match the level of design and the genius of Super Mario Bros. on the NES."

This is not a stupid nonsense statement. It's a valid claim, one that I can back up.

The funny thing is, I never said Super Mario Bros. was the pinnacle of design in Nintendo's games. I know that Bros. 3 is better designed.

And I never said Wii Fit was one the same level as Super Mario Bros.
Next time, read a little more closely.

Thanks for the compliments though. As I said before, if you really think you have something to say/prove then post/email me and back yourself up without using my "mother" this time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

namekuseijin said...

> Here's the deal Namekuseijin... Don't come to my blog with your caustic
> internet message board pugnacious edge and thoughtless blanket statements.

I'm sorry, but they're no more thoughtless than "MGS, SoTC, Half-life,
and even Portal can't match the level of design and the genius of
Super Mario Bros. on the NES."

> If you were trying to make a point in your first post, you didn't do a very
> good job.

My point is that current Nintendo games made for the casual public --
such as Wii Fit and Wii Sports -- are no more of a great game, neither
more fun, than past simplistic classics such as California Games,
Olympic Games, Balloon Fight etc. We've grown way past that era of
simplistic, unsophisticated gameplay and visual presentation. The
only difference is that now you sweat a lot more than just your hands.

> Next time, try not to reference my "mother" in any way..."rather than going to Curves."

You know, I think you have a point here. You're not the first person
that felt insulted for me to be putting "mother" in the argument about
the Wii.

But don't take it as an insult, because that was not my purpose. The
purpose is to show the kind of public Nintendo is trying to reach:
your parents, uncles etc. People who do not ordinarily would think of
playing a videogame. I took the example of "mother" because of that
and because Wii Fit, I'm sure, will be very successful among women.

Now on, I'm going to drop "mother" as an example, though.

> You claim that there aren't a lot of
> good games on the Wii that use the new hardware, but there are many.

Care to list them?

> You claim that Wii Fit is a "beginner Nintendo game." What a myopic claim.
> Just consider the design of Wii Fit and what kind of place it can have in a
> normal person's life. Exercising, and knowing more about one's body isn't a
> beginner step.

If I want to exercise and know about my body, I go to the gyms.
You're purposefully distorting what videogames are about to
accommodate Wii Fit in Nintendo videogaming.

> Comparing Wii Fit to Tamagochi is rash.

Both are novelty toys, fads unlikely to endure much time on the market
as the novelty wears off. None of the new casual, large public of
Nintendo is taking the toy too seriously, like old-time Nintendo fans.

> Then you go on to talk about the "long-time [Nintendo] fans"

I was actually referring to long-time videogame fans. You know, the
kind of which have already played all those simplistic,
fun-but-unsubstancial games of old Nintendo is pushing to the market
today in new flashy clothes?

> MGS, SotC, and Half-Life have some serious design issues. I can't get into
> them now, because this is not the place.

Well, email is a much better place then a public blog, so take your time.

> "MGS, SoTC, Half-life, and even Portal can't match the level of design and
> the genius of Super Mario Bros. on the NES."
>
> This is not a stupid nonsense statement. It's a valid claim, one that I can
> back up.

Ok, I'm waiting for when you're ready.

> The funny thing is, I never said Super Mario Bros. was the pinnacle of
> design in Nintendo's games. I know that Bros. 3 is better designed.

Good for you.

> And I never said Wii Fit was one the same level as Super Mario Bros.

Oh, at least you recognize it.

> Next time, read a little more closely.

Ok, my bad.

> Thanks for the compliments though.

I'm actually intrigued by the articles in the blog, but what really
pisses me off is the stubborn "Nintendo is better than anything" kind
of thinking I always see among Nintendo fans. I've got out of that
kind of thinking once I realized what utter piece of shit the N64 was,
despite the years of hype. So, I bought a Playstation and realized
there was life, thrilling life, in the console world beside Nintendo
after all. It's not all that hard to let go...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------


KirbyKid said...

"I'm sorry, but they're no more thoughtless than "MGS, SoTC, Half-life,
and even Portal can't match the level of design and the genius of
Super Mario Bros. on the NES."

If I prove my statement, I expect you to retract your statement, and I will do the same if I can't prove it for we are now engaged in a Critical-Correspondence. In our email exchanges, we are to be as civil and clear as possible. Assuming neither of us quits, we will reach a conclusion.

" My point is that current Nintendo games made for the casual public --
such as Wii Fit and Wii Sports -- are no more of a great game, neither
more fun, than past simplistic classics such as California Games,
Olympic Games, Balloon Fight etc. We've grown way past that era of
simplistic, unsophisticated gameplay and visual presentation. The
only difference is that now you sweat a lot more than just your hands."

From now on, I suggest that you don't generalize when you make statements like "current Nintendo games" unless you want to define what you mean by current Nintendo games including which dates define "current." Otherwise, we can't be on the same page.

First of all, it doesn't matter if a game is aimed for casual or hardcore audiences. What matters is what the game brings to the table at the end of the day. The way I, and I assume you too, critique games is based on principles of good game design. I look at how every element influences the way a player plays a game through a game's mechanics. If you are unwilling to go into a sufficient level of detail with your analysis and you refuse to at least acknowledge the research, methods, and language I have developed for critiquing videogames, then I'm afraid we cannot move further on this point.

Fun has no place in a proper critique (at least the kind I promote on critical-gaming). So from now on, let's leave fun out of the equation and replace it with "good design." Otherwise, we cannot move beyond restating and arguing subjective opinions and personal experiences.

Bottom line, Wii Sports and Wii Fit support the highest level of game mechanics: level.1 (see http://critical-gaming.blogspot.com/2008/05/mechanics-and-abstractions-part2.html) Though the controls are more intuitive, this does not make the games simplistic. The minimalist (if you can call it that) design of both games keep the player focused on playing the game. Forget spending hours in menus. Forget long load screens. Forget overly complicated features. The most innovative, interative, and important feature of these games is how you play them. In other words, the action/mechanic takes priority (as it should in all games.) Both Wii Sports and Wii Fit are deep in new ways because of their unique motion controls. If you thought the analog stick did wonders for videogames, well designed motion controls (like in these games) are the next level of analog control. Instead of being confined to a stick, developers can now design around 360 degrees of motion at various degrees of force.

Wii Boxing is a surprisingly deep fighter. And on top of that fact, it's perfectly balanced. Just like other fighting games, the negotiation of space and attacks between (at least) two players is key. In Wii Boxing, players have 3D analog control over their avatar's bodies. In other words, you can lean all the way to the left, all the way to the right, and every degree in between. You can also lean forward and backwards with analog controls. Positioning ones gloves to line up attacks is also analog on the vertical and horizontal axises. Players have at least 2 different speeds for executing jabs and special hook attacks. The game is fast paced, it has a clean design by sticking strictly to the design principle "form fits function" (see http://critical-gaming.blogspot.com/2008/02/reducing-clutter.html), it's balanced, it has a high degree of intuitive variability, and it does it all without using a single button.

This in itself is quite notable. The Wii Sports games are not only very deep, but they stay true to solid design principles. If you can find a fighter that's as balanced, analog (variable inputs), has a character creator, intuitive, and as clean as Wii Sports Boxing, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, you must admit that, when you compare the mechanics and the design, Wii Sports Boxing is quite deep.

You say we've grown past the era of simple, unsophisticated, gameplay with lackluster visual presentation. Well, sorry, but we haven't grown out of that era at all. It's not Nintendo's fault either. Here at critical-gaming, gameplay takes priority over everything else because interaction lies at the heart of the videogame medium. Sure, even I must admit that graphics in Wii Sports/Fit are pretty bland hearkening back to the age of the Gamecube and (dare I say it) the N64. That may be going too far, but you know what I'm taking about.

Nintendo (allow me to generalize for a moment) has always been about the gameplay. Miyamoto is constantly in pursuit of fun mechanics, that work with solid controls, that spawns a whole game from a solid start. It's games like the Metal Gear Series, BioShock, Mass Effect, and just about every RPG that missed the mark in the gameplay department. What's worse is these games push the graphics side of gaming very far at the expense of gameplay. I know this is the part where you want me to prove my bold statements. Well, I'm working on MGS4, I don't plan on writing anything about Mass Effect, but, for BioShock, I've already written a series essays. You can dive through this... http://critical-gaming.blogspot.com/2008/01/insert-game-here-discourse.html or go through each essay on my blog.

1. http://critical-gaming.blogspot.com/2008/01/aims-of-bioshock-shoddy-shooting.html
2. http://critical-gaming.blogspot.com/2008/01/bioshock-rpg-in-disguise.html
3. http://critical-gaming.blogspot.com/2008/01/death-milk-and-diving-suits.html
4. http://critical-gaming.blogspot.com/2008/01/sorry-sister-its-just-business.html
5. http://critical-gaming.blogspot.com/2008/01/look-dont-touch.html

Thanks for dropping the use of "mother." I understood what you were saying, but I decided to point it out anyway because I think there's a clearer way to get your point across. And I was right. You came back and clear everything right up.

Now for the list... "Care to list them?" Keep in mind that all of these games aren't worthy of essays, critical debate, and the highest esteem. Most of them are good to excellent with a few decent games sprinkled in. I only kept the decent ones in because of how they take advantage of the new controls.
Games with a * at the end are ones that I have no experience with.

A high variety and high degree of integrated motion controls. The motion/pointing/balance controls and the game are inseparable. Such games feature a majority of level.1 mechanics. See (http://critical-gaming.blogspot.com/2008/05/mechanics-and-abstractions-part2.html) for details.

• Wario Ware: Smooth Moves
  
• Wii Sports
• Wii Fit
• Rayman Raving Rabbids
• Boom Blox*

Some updated motion controls that have blended with the existing controls and breathed new life into the game/series.

• Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
• Excite Truck
• Resident Evil 4: Wii Edition
• Super Mario Galaxy

The possible implementation of new elements that are motion/pointing control specific. Otherwise, the motion/pointing controls have refined what was already present.

• Mario Strikers Charged
• The Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess

The new motion/pointing controls work very well, perhaps even better than standard control set ups. But the difference between styles is a matter of preference.

• Geometry Wars: Galaxies
• Trauma Center

These games wouldn't exist without the new controls.

• Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles
• Link's Crossbow Training*

That's a lot of games that do what they do in a lot of different ways. The list also runs the triangular gamut of hardcore games, to casual, to niche. The quality and variety here is irrefutable.

"If I want to exercise and know about my body, I go to the gyms.
You're purposefully distorting what videogames are about to
accommodate Wii Fit in Nintendo videogaming."

Jesper Juul wrote a book called Half-Real. He defined what a game is quite nicely. I agree with his definition. And videogames aren't anything beyond their definition. If you disagree with his definition, then that's another issue. But for now, you should know that I don't have to distort anything. I operate on strict definitions. Whether you play WiiFit with your feet, body, or nose, it's still a game (something you already admitted to). Super Mario Bros. has mechanics that operate according to the laws of motion and momentum. For example, if you run with Mario and you reverse directions, you'll skid to a halt while still traveling in the original direction. Your comment is the equivalent of saying "if I want to learn/play with realistic (or even semi-realistic) mechanics/results in a game, I'll just go outside/do something else." The fact that Wii Fit uses the body and it can teach you things doesn't detract from the quality of its game design at all. The bottom line is, according to the definition of what a game/videogame is, WiiFit fits well within the criteria.

Some wonder if there will be any additional quality software for the Wii Balance Board. I wonder too, but then again, I'm completely satisfied with Wii Fit. It's a complete package, not a step to anywhere else. You don't evolve from WiiFit into playing games like RE:4. That's not how the trend works at all. Wii Fit has some aerobics, yoga, strength training, and balance games. It tracks your progress over time. And, because the human body (the controller for this particular game) is unimaginably complex and dynamic, the game is always different. If you're the kind of person who doesn't want to be changed by your games/any experience in life, then this debate ends here. Whether you think of games are art or not, we play because they're interesting and they move/change us in plethora of ways. If you are still holding on to the arbitrary belief that the change in response to a game shouldn't effect the human body (ie. becoming more fit), then I suggest you rethink how you think. Track and Field, DDR, Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, even Rock Band and Guitar Hero all exercise/move the body in unique and strenuous ways.

"Both are novelty toys, fads unlikely to endure much time on the market
as the novelty wears off. None of the new casual, large public of
Nintendo is taking the toy too seriously, like old-time Nintendo fans."

I grabbed the definition of "toy" off dictionary.com. The definition that is the closest match according to how your used "toy" is in bold. It looks like this definition can apply to all videogames. But more interestingly, if there was a game that can be used for "serious practical use" then Wii Fit is that game. It's really like having a personal trainer to help you stay in shape. Either way, your statement is falling apart.

1.	an object, often a small representation of something familiar, as an animal or person, for children or others to play with; plaything.

2.	a thing or matter of little or no value or importance; a trifle.

3.	something that serves for or as if for diversion, rather than for serious practical use.

4.	a small article of little value but prized as a souvenir or for some other special reason; trinket; knickknack; bauble.

5.	something diminutive, esp. in comparison with like objects.

Furthermore, even if Wii Fit stops selling tomorrow, that doesn't diminish the quality of the game design.

If you haven't researched or polled the "casual, large public of Nintendo" then you shouldn't bother making statements like this. In this case, you made a bold claim that screams to be backed up with data. If you don't have any data, or if you were only exposed to a very small, biased group, then you should correct your statement.

"I was actually referring to long-time videogame fans. You know, the
kind of which have already played all those simplistic,
fun-but-unsubstancial games of old Nintendo is pushing to the market
today in new flashy clothes?"

Once again, if you haven't researched or polled all these videogame fans and if you can't defined how long "long-time" is, then this correspondence has no use for random, unfounded statements.

Also, once again, I can't help but think that the "simplistic,fun-but-unsubstanti

al" games you refer to are games like Super Mario Bros. which is deeper and better designed than most games. If you need convincing of this fact, just read the Mario Melodies series. (http://critical-gaming.blogspot.com/2008/06/mario-melodies-introduction.html). Keep in mind that there are a LOT of videogames out there. Being better than 50% of them isn't too hard. I don't think you'll have a problem with my statement.

Finally, once again, games like MGS4 are really just old unpolished games that have a new next-gen coating of graphics slapped on to them. Your statement applies far more to just about every other developer than it does to Nintendo.

My critique of MGS4 is coming, and (just for you) I'll write up something about SotC as well. Stay tuned to the blog.

As for backing up my bold claim, you'll have to wait until the Mario Melodies series is finished.

Keep in mind that I've constructed all of my statements very carefully so that my sentences only say what I mean for them too. Try not to assume one thing or another unless it's explicitly stated.

"I'm actually intrigued by the articles in the blog, but what really
pisses me off is the stubborn "Nintendo is better than anything" kind
of thinking I always see among Nintendo fans. I've got out of that

kind of thinking once I realized what utter piece of s*** the N64 was,

despite the years of hype. So, I bought a Playstation and realized
there was life, thrilling life, in the console world beside Nintendo
after all. It's not all that hard to let go..."

In response to this last statement, I never said Nintendo is better than anything else. I understand where you're coming from. Nintendo fans can be stubborn, vicious, and blind. But, here at critical-gaming, as long as I can back myself up with evidence, then I hope you can accept my bold Nintendo inclined statements. At the end of this "battle" if we do find that the games you listed and/or any other non Nintendo game aren't better designed than Super Mario Bros. then that can only mean that Nintendo is better than anything. Admitting that this is a possibility (and for me.. not a possibility) is how we'll both move through this.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
namekuseijin said...

Richard,

I was going to write a long, thorough point-by-point response to your
claims and arguments. After reading some more of your articles and
some posts in brainygamer, though, I'll be as brief as possible:
there are gamers and gamers.

That's really all there is and is the major point of contempt in all
your posts: you seem not to believe games not dealing with pure
visual action under direct and irrestrict control by the player are
"good" games or even games at all. But, like I said, there are gamers
and gamers: some people enjoy games consisting solely of cerebral,
tactical options, others prefer sports, many dig resource management,
while a few others take their kick out of interactive role-playing
experiences more than anything.

Don't get mad at me for having you go into a whole essay and replying
this briefly. I enjoy reading about theories of good game design,
play mechanics and all. I do enjoy your articles in this blog. They
ooze with passion, even though perhaps a bit overanalytical, by a
young man in his 20s. Just don't think racionalizing too much about
it and wanting people to agree with them will lead anywhere: people
have different opinions on that. Little anecdote here: in my teens,
I discovered classical music and thought it was the best thing ever!
So, I thought it'd be a good idea to share it with my neighbours and
began playing Beethoven at a very loud stereo. It obviously didn't
work out as expected and I quickly reached a conclusion: everybody
sucks for not thinking like me.

So, in the end of the day theories about something as abstract as
music or gaming are just a set of opinions agreed upon by some people
that may look like common-sense at some particular time. This is the
best I've read on the subject and I wholeheartidly agree:

"What went wrong with humanities academia? From my position, I can
only attribute it to a severe and debilitating case of physics envy.
Humanities academics no doubt feel awed and belittled by the success
of their colleagues in science; and so, like desperate cargo cultists,
they have mimicked the form and procedure of the sciences, without
understanding that what is necessary in one field is entirely
meaningless in the other.

They bandy about 'theories', which give their works an air of
meticulousness and precision, but in truth these are poor parodies of
scientific theories. A scientific theory is a model of reality,
induced from precise and repeated observations of evidence, formally
stated, testable, falsifiable, and with useful predictive power. A
'literary theory' is just, like, your opinion, man. When you know the
theory of gravity, you know not only why an object falls to the
ground, but also how fast it will fall and how hard it will hit; and
you know this for any object and any ground in the universe. When you
know 'reader-response theory', you just know what some guy thinks
about books."

from http://plover.net/~bonds/physicsenvy.html
Smart guy, though perhaps a bit too bile-obsessed...

All this theoretical groundwork may discover winning patterns in
successful games and may indeed deliver useful rules to follow. But
they won't save a bad game from being a bad game. How can a
technically flawless game based around sound design principles be bad?
It sure happens, all the time. And if there was a solid,
bullet-proof theory which could answer that and allow you to make a
fortune in the game industry -- or any area of expertise, indeed --
you can bet many people would be following it and making games with
far wider appeal. As it stands currently, though, no matter how much
thought we put to it all we have as possible answers and sources of
criticism are vague notions such as "unispired", "not fun" and others
which in my book -- and in the pockets of developers -- are much more
important than sound theories.

Games have really only two ways to get us compelled enough to play and
continue playing them: by being a whole lot of fun, or by amusing us
in ways only art can. Since you don't think games are art and fun
factor was not invited to the discussion, I think I'll stop by now.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
KirbyKid said...

You have reached your limit. So I'll wrap this us.

"you seem not to believe games not dealing with pure visual action under direct and irrestrict control by the player are "good" games or even games at all. But, like I said, there are gamers and gamers: some people enjoy games consisting solely of cerebral, tactical options, others prefer sports, many dig resource management, while a few others take their kick out of interactive role-playing experiences more than anything."

The bold statement is incomplete. You didn't offer an alternative example of a game that doesn't deal with "pure visual action under direct and irrestrict control by the player." The fact that people enjoy different games for different reasons is irrelevant. Games, by definition, have elements that work together in a specific ways. Videogames are no exception.

"They ooze with passion, even though perhaps a bit overanalytical, by a young man in his 20s."

I'm not mad at you at all. But keep in mind, my age has no bearing on my points of argument. It would seem, like so many others, that you've run out of actual rebuttals and have started to phase into unnecessarily addressing my character. Strawman? Ad hominem? Case and point: " Just don't think racionalizing too much about it and wanting people to agree with them will lead anywhere." What does this have to do with any of the points raise previously. You don't know what I want, and that's all beside the point.

You classical music anecdote is damaging to the point you were trying to make. Music may be abstract, but the theory isn't. And before you dig yourself too deep, videogames are NOT abstract. The "video" part projects forms and most likely concrete forms. And the "game" part is made up of rules and goals which are explicitly defined, not abstract.

I wouldn't be so foolish as to try an educate me (and English major and scientist of sorts) about literary and scientific theory. You are really reaching very far with your limp rebuttal. If you read closely, I used literary and music theory and a jumping off point to try and secure the language necessary for talking about videogames. I didn't copy paste any concepts, but aligned and translated them.

"All this theoretical groundwork may discover winning patterns in
successful games and may indeed deliver useful rules to follow. But
they won't save a bad game from being a bad game. "

What a pointless statement. If a bad game is already bad, then of course nothing will save it from being what it is.

"How can a technically flawless game based around sound design principles be bad? It sure happens, all the time."

It does not happen at all. A technically sound game may not sell well, but that's a different issue entirely. You should have included examples.

"And if there was a solid, bullet-proof theory which could answer that and allow you to make a fortune in the game industry -- or any area of expertise, indeed -- you can bet many people would be following it and making games with far wider appeal."

Do I really need to remind you of Miyamoto and Nintendo? Nintendo is making a fortune even with the underpowered Wii and DS. Many people are following their path, very poorly but they're still following. If you want widening appeal, then Nintendo is the champion once again.

"As it stands currently, though, no matter how much thought we put to it all we have as possible answers and sources of criticism are vague notions such as "unispired", "not fun" and others which in my book -- and in the pockets of developers -- are much more important than sound theories."

No. As it stands now, I made a case to the contrary, and instead of countering my arguments with counter arguments, you've decided to become vague and dance away from the issues at hand and attack/address my character. You clearly didn't put enough thought into this, so your "book" is worthless.

"Games have really only two ways to get us compelled enough to play and continue playing them: by being a whole lot of fun, or by amusing us in ways only art can. Since you don't think games are art and fun factor was not invited to the discussion, I think I'll stop by now."

Now, you've lost your footing. In Mario Melodies: Counterpoint part.1, I dedicated an entire post to explain why videogames are art. Once again, your comments tell me that you're not a close reader, you're not a careful posted, and you haven't thought about the issues enough at all.

You should stop now because you're finished. You lost the debate. But instead of conceding, you did a lot unnecessary fighting. The interesting part is, throughout this debate, you never put together any cogent arguments. You made a lot of rash statements (rash because you couldn't back them up), and then you challenged me to counter them. I did in detail, and you still failed to step up.

Thanks,

-------------------------------------------------------------------
namekuseijin said...

Yes, I've reached my limit trying to argue with an arrogant pompous
a**. You wonder why there are no comments in your blog? I'm sure
it's not because you don't have interesting ideas nor because everyone
is stupid and hasn't taken the time to study in minute detail your
elaborate and ingenious articles before trying to beat you in your own
terms, but simply because you treat everyone like an a**. Tone your
headiness down a bit and you may come closer at gaining more
substantial support.

Let me show you examples where your edginess actually hurts your audience:

"And I was right."

"You have reached your limit."

"I wouldn't be so foolish as to try an educate me (and English major
and scientist of sorts) about literary and scientific theory."

"You clearly didn't put enough thought into this, so your 'book' is worthless."

"You lost the debate."

In other words, you're a young bright genious and I'm a complete moron
with terrible taste for games and incorrect personal opinions. Too
bad as a game designer you won't be receiving my hard-earned money,
nor your blog any more reads.

BTW, to make your victory more complete: I'm a white guy. Yes, you
just brought a white guy to the ground in your silly little game and
own rules. But that was to be expected, since you african-americans
really go a great deal of effort into being better than white trash.
I wasn't really expecting (black) racism to get into the picture, but
seemingly my anecdote of how stupid we all are in the youth wasn't
enough to make you wake up and smell the coffee. So, there.

bye.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

All I have to say is... wow. Just wow. Using racism to end a debate on videogames.

Mario Melodies: Counterpoint part.2

In music, counterpoint was used as a pedagogical tool. Students were put through a strict and rigorous regiment of exercises where they had to create lines of music according to the rules. The rules are incredibly detailed, governing everything from the space between notes, their direction (moving up a scale or down) and how the melody must end. This teaching method is divided into 5 species or levels of difficulty with the last being a culmination of the first four.

For our purposes, we don't have to create our own levels of a given game. However, organizing the arrangement of level elements by a criteria that is similar to the one that music students used with counterpoint will be very beneficial. Though these rules are still being formulated, keeping these ideas in mind is a step in the right direction.

1. The beginning and the end of a level must be easily identifiable to define the level.
   
2. Only use unison (a single game idea) at the beginning and/or end of a level.
   
3. Unison scenarios don't count as multiple game ideas. ie a Goomba at the bottom of a pit doesn't count. The pit would be jumped anyway. Therefore the Goomba's presence is then moot.
   
4. Have as much contrary motion as possible. ie if the Goombas are going down, then Mario should be going up. If Mario needs to move to the right, then enemies should be moving to the left. If gravity pulls Mario down, then his jump should send him up.
   
5. Game ideas should involve the primary function as much as possible.
   
6. If the player must combine secondary functions with primary functions to progress, then the game idea is considered to be expanded.

Lets look at world 1-1 as an example.

As you can see, each section of level contains level elements and sometimes enemies. The level elements themselves impose a direction or game idea on the player (assuming the player is trying to beat the level/game). Mario is trying to live and reach the end of the level. The enemies are trying to stop Mario. And the level can help or hurt them both. This is what is meant by having game ideas that are at odds or by contrary motion.

The pits, pipes, and blocks force Mario to jump. The Goombas and Koopas have a will and direction of their own as they move through a level without being tied to a stationary position within it. And Finally Mario (Small, Big, or Fire) has an independent direction as well. How these 3 types of game ideas layer and interact is the essence of videogame counterpoint.

For now let's say there are four species or levels to counterpoint.

1. two independent elements/game ideas at odds
2. three or more independent elements/game ideas at odds
3. elements/game ideas that are offset from each other with the ability to carry across sections: suspension.
   
4. A combination of all previous levels.
   

According to provided image, the first section (number1) doesn't have any counterpoint because there are no enemies and the level doesn't force Mario to Jump.

Sections 5, 10, and 12 are good examples of the first species counterpoint. The elements in these sections are at odds are Mario and the level.

The remaining sections are of the species 2 or 3 depending on the power-ups. A mushroom powerup (something that Mario wants) always runs off to the right. Because it's not affected by enemies, the Mushrooms pass right through them. A Mario in hot pursuit must maintain the chase while taking new paths by jumping in order to avoid getting hurt. So, Mario, enemies, the level, and the Mushroom (or Starman) make up the 3-4 game ideas that are at odds with each other. However, what's interesting about the mushroom is, it'll keep traveling as long as there's a stage to support it. So this one element can carry over into other parts of a level. Carrying over to other parts of a level is suspension.

World 1-1 is a classic example of a beginning level of a videogame. As the player gets used to Mario's mechanics, the counterpoint remains relatively simple as none of the parts are expanded, requiring players to combine the jump mechanic with running or ducking.

Next time, I'll discuss some of the types of combinations of elements/game ideas and why counterpoint is so important.

Mario Melodies: The Main Theme

The main theme of Super Mario Bros. is a good way to guarantee some hits on youtube. Mario is famous world wide and this theme helped him get there. Enjoy the variation.

Oh the Pages You'll Number

Last night, I exported a copy of this blog as a backup. While doing so, I took the opportunity to gather information on how many words I've written. The Critical-Gaming blog has amassed....

96,710. words for a total of 180 full pages (12pt font single spaced).

Before I started the Critical-Gaming blog, I wrote exclusively on Super Smash Brothers for smashboards.com the biggest online smash community site. One of my biggest posts was titled "What Kind of Smasher Are You?" and was one that asked each reader to determine what kind of smasher they were: casual, hardcore, pro, competitive. The post presented the information and the definitions needed for these gamers to better understand themselves and a common language to share that knowledge with others. This post alone received about 1000 replies and about 30,000 views. I stopped writing for that blog around last December. In the end the numbers looked like...

66,328. words for a total of 125 full pages.

But long before the days of the Smash Blog, I kept my ideas, articles, and essays about videogames in a file on my computer I titled "B.E.S." Since 2003, I've been slowly adding to the pages. Though I still add material to it, the kind of content that I would normally write for this file has a new home at critical-gaming. And the numbers are...

71,972. words for a total of 170 pages.

All together that's....

235,010 words for a grand total of 475 pages of material.

The material I write for the Critical-gaming blog is being pumped out at full capacity. I'm backed up with posts that I have yet to write, and my mind is overflowing with commentary, ideas, and essays. I wish I could work on Drebin more, and keep up with the Critical-casts podcasts, and continue all the other projects I've started. But I'm only one man, and I do what I can with the time that I have. I thought it would be nice to take a look at where I've come from.

I'll certainly look into publishing soon. Thanks for all the support thus far.

KirbyKid

Richard Hakem Terrell

Mario Melodies: Counterpoint part.1

At last, we come to Counterpoint; the subject that brings mechanics, interplay, and variation together. In music, Counterpoint is the writing of musical lines that sound different on their own, but harmonize when played together. How the melody of a song interacts with the other lines is the focus of Counterpoint. John Rahn puts it best:

"It is hard to write a beautiful song. It is harder to write several individually beautiful songs that, when sung simultaneously, sound as a more beautiful polyphonic whole. The internal structures that create each of the voices separately must contribute to the emergent structure of the polyphony, which in turn must reinforce and comment on the structures of the individual voices. The way that is accomplished in detail is...'counterpoint'"

Notice the words in bold. Though Rahn was only talking about music, his language can easily be apply to videogames with a few tweaks. Here's my version...

"It is hard to design an interesting game idea. It is harder to design several individually interesting game ideas that, when experienced simultaneously, influence a game's mechanics and gameplay into a deeper, richer multi-element whole. The internal structures (rules) that support each of the ideas separately must contribute to the emergent structure of the multi-element whole, which in turn must reinforce and comment on the structures of the individual ideas. The way that is accomplished in detail is...'counterpoint'"

• multi-element whole = emergent gameplay
  
• game idea = the influence of a game element or group of game elements on a game's mechanics
• emergent structure = the coming together of a few rules in "unexpected" ways.
  
• reinforce and comment on the structures of individual ideas = interplay

Counterpoint can be used to design gameplay with a high level of emergence and flow/momentum. At the same time, counterpoint can be used to evaluate, analyze, and even possibly measure the kinetics (emergence/flow) of a game.

Counterpoint, in gaming, is a word for the way gameplay develops past optimization and emerges into a medium of expression that reflects the individuality of a player and dynamics that reflect the complexity of the world we live in.

If you want to know why gamers cherish videogames so much, it's because of the action (what I've call the mechanic). There's something unique about actions. Known to speak louder than words, like music, actions are a universal language not just among people. Action is the language of how one thing affects another.

Then there are people. We do many creative things, pursuing these endeavors to great lengths, investing all the available energy of our beings to do. And to share. Some write stories. Some shoot movies. Some compose scores of music, or songs, or tunes, or diddies. Some dance. Some paint. All in effort to know by doing and by relating to each other. Such a strange idea; getting to know someone else to better understand yourself. Testing the world around you to figure out what you're made of. Peering into the ether like a forever mirror trying to prove that we're all like everyone else and simultaneously how we're different.

Someone once said, it's what we do that defines us.

So take that action. That whatever mechanic. That one thing, something you do, and tell me about it. I'm not asking for everything you do. I'm only asking for one thing. Just one because one is quite enough, believe me. I want to know how far this action goes. I want to know what it does and what it affects. I want to understand it inside and out so I can see the you that did it and possibly see the me that never could (at least in the same ways). Keep zooming in until all that matters are the things that are related to that action, because that's what stories are; zoomed focus. Every segue, distraction, and side attraction can wait. Build a world around us for that action so that everything responds to it. And let those reactions carry those conversations; the details that fill a story with richness.

Take that action. Build your world. And let me play in it. No consequences. No death. Let me have a million lives and a million tries per day and then some so I can know what you mean by "jump". A jump so save one's life. A jump to bridge a gap. A jump to squash. A jump to fly. A jump to save the princess. For an individual life is just one complex action bundled up and held back by skin, to do in the world you created is knowing.

From personal experience, I write. I play music. I compose. I sketch. I ink. I paint. I sculpt. I sing. I dance. I fight. I direct. I edit. I design. I game. Each is a language all to itself. I've always stayed out of the "videogames as art" debates/discussions/rants/fights. It's not that I couldn't put my point of view into words before. It's because for a person who's been a writer since learning cursive, a musician since being introduced to the piano, a painter since when fingers were better than brushes, a dancer since becoming stable on two legs, and a film maker since that first video camera, it never mattered to me how others categorized of my actions. I did those things because they interested me. Because something unique was reflected back at me with each. I did it because doing was what mattered. Not the applause, the compliments, or the acclaim. And videogames are no exception. So, for those of us who do, keep on doing what you do, and leave the job of sticking the "art" labels for someone else.

It is through counterpoint that videogames fulfill the medium and become art through play, expression, and interpretation through action. To reach this level, there must be forms that match concrete mechanics. The marriage of form and mechanics create reaction and interplay. And when these elements are properly arranged, the emergent result surpasses the diminishing returns of optimization and enters a space of expression, dialog, and life as action.

Counterpoint is the zenith of Classical Game Design, and we are on the verge of tackling it head on. It's all down hill from here. So for now, enjoy the view.

Mario Melodies: Variation part.3

Over the last week, I've covered strict variation thoroughly. By defining, isolating, and comparing similar sections from a game, trends of game mechanic influences and how these trends are created can be deduced. In this method of analysis, keeping the distinct sections in chronological or "game order" becomes increasingly difficult the less linear the game to be examined is. Fortunately open variation isn't bound by such limiting criteria.

Open variation is examining how any combination of game elements differ from one another. The analyst is free to group and compare any number of game elements and how they influence the game's mechanics. Naturally, this freedom will lead to the creation of combinations that may not exist in the game world. That's perfectly fine. This method is well suited for analyzing groups of similar game elements like enemies. Take Neo*RPG's enemies for example.

Click to Enlarge

The order of mechanics in Neo*RPG are....

• 1. Throw Rock, Shield, Push
• 2. Move

Because spacing (or positioning) is very important in Neo*RPG (and there is a significant amount of interplay/interaction between the player, enemies, and level elements) the important factors to consider consist of movement speed, relative position, attack speed, and recovery speed.

• Starting at the top, as you can see the positioning of the enemies relative to the player is unique between each type of enemy making up the close, medium, and long range positions.
• The player has some of the fastest offensive and defensive moves. This only makes sense. The player should have some advantage over the environment and enemies. The degree of imbalance in the player's abilities sets the pace of the game.
• Enemy.2 can't attack a second time faster than the player can recover from the first hit. The gap between the player's recovery time and the enemies attack time is offset enough so that other enemies can fill it in. Strength in numbers.
  
• Enemy.3 has the fastest attack speed at close range. However, it has a long recovery time when it is countered and pushed outside of its defensive circle.
  
• Though Enemy.4 has the greatest attack range, movement speed (when attacking) its slow retreating speed and large counter area (moving inside its circle) creates a need for other enemies to keep the player from countering it so easily. Also, because the rocks it throws can't hurt other enemies, enemy.4 has the only attack that can circumvent limitations of physical enemy bodies like enemy.2 and enemy.3.
  

The chart shows that every enemy has a unique way to move, attack, and recover from being attacked. Because of the enemies' variety and unique abilities, they are highly adaptive. Because the player and the enemies attack, move, and recover at different rates that are balanced offensively and defensively, it's clear that the variation designed in the enemies complement each other fitting together snugly.

Open variation doesn't need to be a complex as my Neo*RPG example. For a game like Super Mario Bros., the enemy attacks, and counters are all tied into their position and movement. So, representing the variation in the enemy design is as simple as drawing up this chart. For this example, I only picked the land enemies.

• The Buzzy Beetle, Spiny, Goomba, and Koopa all walk along the ground. However, the Spiny can't be jumped on (or bumped from underneath). Only a fireball will do away with this pest. The Goomba is easily squashed, while the Buzzy Beetle and the Koopa retreat into their shells for protection. The difference between the later two is that the Red Koopa turn around instead of walking off platforms or into pits.
  
• The Para Koopa each have a different pattern of motion taking up a unique space that only those who can defy gravity can hold.
  
• The Lakitu hangs out high in the sky throwing down Spinys to make Mario's life miserable. No other enemy sticks so religiously out of reach as this one. Its height gives it the freedom to follow Mario through a level.
  
• The Piranha Flowers turn useful platforms into dangers.
  
• The Cheep-Cheep and the Bullet Bills have a unique way of moving all to themselves. Unlike most of the other enemies, these guys can pass right through the solid elements of a level. The arc of flight the Cheep-Cheep takes depends on Mario's position and speed. But once they go up, their timing and path is set. The Bullet Bills can travel with Mario through the remainder of a stage in a straight path.
  
• Finally, the Hammer Bros. These guys can jump up (or down) through brick platforms. The arc of the flying hammers are tricky and unpredictable. These guys often are found in pairs. Two of them working together can set up quite an impassable wall against Mario.
  

Just stand back (or sit back) and look at the diagram. The whole area is filled up. Each enemy has a unique combination of movement and counters. After all, why design an enemy that is a copy of another? What function would it have?

It's important to keep a game's mechanics in mind when looking for variation. How the changing arrangements of a game's elements shape the player's choices (gameplay) is what variation is all about.

That wraps up variation. We've spent over a week talking about mechanics, interplay, and variation all in efforts to prepare for what's coming up next. Counterpoint is on the horizon.

Mario Melodies: Variation part.2

Last time in Mario Melodies: Variation part.1, I talked about the different types of variation. Before leaping into open variation, I wanted do a few more examples on strict variation using Super Mario Bros.

Remember, the mechanics of Super Mario Bros. are...

• 0. Idle position (doing nothing)
• 1. Jump (a level.2 mechanic)
  
• 2. Run, Duck, Slide, Swim, Throw fireball
• 3. Starman powerup, Koopa shell attacks

Minimum difference: Super Mario Bros. is quantified by the unit brick. This means that all the attacks, level elements, enemies, and players are designed to take up space by the brick. Small Mario is about the size of a brick, and ducking Big Mario is a brick high as well. The shortest jump possible clears a distance of two bricks while Mario's largest jump clear a distance of 5 bricks. Little did I know when I first concluded that Super Mario Bros. was quantified by teh brick unit that the elements in the game are set into a grid system that is made up of units that are as large as a single brick. So, in this special case, the game really is quantified by the unit brick.

Things to note...

• Click to enlarge all images
• The world and level are displayed at the top of each example
• Unless explicitly stated, the strategies and possibilities discuss are based on the assumption that the player is small Mario and he/she can't simply take a hit and use the invincibility time to run through dangerous situations.
• For the bonus stages, assume that the player wants to get all the coins and secrets.
  

BOWSER BATTLES

• Elements: level = bridge, bricks, axe, and a floating platform. enemy = fire blasts, fire chain, fire balls, Bowser, and hammers
• Overall Trend: refining.
• Method: conceptual variation
• 1-4: This is the first encounter with the boss Bowser, and it is also the simplest. Bowser moves back and forth and mixes things up with fire blasts while the floating platform above him act as training wheels giving the player a large safety area where they don't have to worry about falling on Boswer and getting hurt. This platform also carries the player close to the axe at the right side of the stage. The player is in very little danger on this platform.
  
• 2-4: The set up for this battle is the same as 1-4 with one notable exception; the low brick "ceiling." This ceiling restricts movement for Small Mario. And when Bowser approaches from the right, it can turn the area into a death trap. Jumping over Bowser in such a situation is very tricky. Fortunately, if you're Big Mario, you can punch a hole in the ceiling, and perform a running jump to get on top of it. Once up in that area, overcoming Bowser is as easy as walking from the ceiling to the floating platform to the axe.
  
• 3-4: Like the set up in 2-4, the bricks function to restrict possible jump paths for Mario. This time, the bricks don't make a ceiling, but a hanging wall that hangs even lower that the ceiling in 2-4. As Big Mario, this wall can be destroyed transforming the stage into one that functions as 1-4. But because Small Mario can't break bricks, the window for the winning jump that is only possible during the limited time when Bowser backs up to the right side of the stage has been reduced.
  
• 4-4: This time the floating platform have been removed and the safe window for jumping over Bowser has been reduced. The player will have to coordinate the timing of 4 threats, each with their own unique timer, to successfully overcome this stage; the fire chain, fire balls, fire blast, and Bowser. Fortunately the fire ball comes up in the same place each time.
  
• 5-4: This stage is like 2-4 but with a fire ball placed in the perfect spot that Mario needs to keep his distance from Bower or to break through the ceiling as Big Mario. Just like my old orchestra director Mr. Lacefield used to say, "familiar" territory can be the most dangerous because you'll want to treat them like you did before. This can make the smallest changes the most deadly.
  
• 6-4: This is where Bowser starts to get down to business. The hammer projectiles are some of the most dangerous attacks in the game. Unlike the Hammer Bros., Bower throws a lot of them at once. Like the Bowser battle in 1-4, the player is given a chance to become acclimated to this new deadly approach. So, even though the set up has less enemy elements as previous battles, the trend is still refining. Also, it's important to note that Bowser does not shoot his fire blasts in this level. Overcoming the hammers and the fire ball is enough. And just to help the player out, the floating platform is there to increase the safe jumping zone.
  
• 7-4: This battle is identical to the battle in 6-4, but this time the floating platform is gone. Good luck.
  
• 8-4: This battle is like the battle in 7-4 except this time, instead of a fire ball mixing things up, Bowser resumes uses his fire blasts. Remember, his fire blasts can come out and level off at one of 3 different heights. Because these blasts move horizontally and they come from Bowser's mouth, the safe area underneath the arc of the flying hammers can easily be compromised. The hammers threaten passage over Bowser, and the fire blasts threaten passage underneath him when he jumps. Also, it's important to note that world 8 has very few opportunity to gain mushroom or fire flower power ups. What you have entering world 8-4 on your first try, is all you'll have to work with. The chances of being Big Mario at this point are slim. This is truly the hardest and ultimate battle between just you and Bowser. No additional platforms, fire balls, or fire chains this time. Winner takes all.
  

BONUS STAGES

• Elements: level = bricks, coins, secrets bricks.
  
• Overall Trend: refining.
• Method: linear variation
• Note: These levels are bonus levels because there is no threat to Mario (outside of running out of time) and the player is free to collect coins and powerups without fear of moving the camera too far. Also the exits are clearly marked.
  
• example 1: The platform is 3 bricks high. After landing on the platform, the coins are easily obtained. This bonus could hardly be simpler. By making the platform 3 bricks high, the player must hold down the jump button to surmount the obstacle. I guess Mario still lives in a world where he has to to work for free things.
  
• example 2: The jump for the upper area is 4 bricks high. Mario can also get the coins by punching the bricks from underneath. Either way, Mario has to use more advance techniques to get the coins. The last brick before the end contains coins. This is an interesting place to put a secret. Most players would simply run for the pipe after they cleared all the coins. But the player who nabs the upper coins from underneath, and thus using a more advanced, more efficient approach, has a higher chance of discovering this secret.
  
• example 3: The upper coins in this level are still on a platform that is 4 bricks high. For Small Mario, grabbing all the bricks and the powerup inside the lone brick that hangs over the pipe is an simple task. But for Big Mario, achieving the same level of success requires the use of some fairly advanced techniques. In order to get the coins underneath the structure, Mario must execute a perfect run-slide in the short distance between the left wall and the structure. Once underneath the structure, Big Mario can clear out all the bricks. The by performing a run-slide-ducking-jump, Big Mario can fit himself under the powerup brick and clear the level. This bonus level is an excellent example of a variable difficultly puzzle.
  
• example 4: Big and Small Mario must master mid air control and the concepts of momentum to get the coins in this stage. Using the run butting in mid air helps. Attempting to jump and pull back using the run button requires Mario to jump up off the top of the screen temporarily. This in itself tests the player's understand of timing due to the game's gravity. When I was a kid, I thought that the coins on this stage couldn't be obtained. Little did I know....
  
• example 5: In this final underground bonus stage, Big Mario is needed to destruct the structure and make it to the coins on top. To fit up into the spaces after specific bricks are destroyed, players have to use their knowledge of momentum, reversing direction, and the ultimate height of the run-jump. This series of bonus stages provides a great example of adding difficult in a variety of ways that test and require the player to use their knowledge in interesting ways.
  

ENDS OF LEVELS

• Elements: level = blocks, bricks, floating platforms, secrets bricks, pipes, platforms, pulley platforms, pits enemy = piranha flower, buzzy beetles, koopa, para koopa, bullet bill
  
• Overall Trend: refining.
• Method: conceptual and linear variation

As an exercise with these end of the level distinct sections, notice how the variation goes back and forth between linear variation, conceptual variation, and static/diminishing/refining trends. It should be obvious that in world 8, the segments are the most difficult. Once you start noticing the variation in a game like Mario, you'll begin to hear the "voice of the developers." More on that later.

Mario Melodies: Variation part.1

Repetition sits at the heart of music and videogames. Gamers naturally fall into sync with small repeated moments of gameplay in the same way that people sync with musical choruses, refrains, and melodies. But as a song moves forward, familiar melodies come and go only to return again slightly different. As a casual observer of music, it's hard to understand just how important repetition and changes to the repetitions are. Likewise, a game is just a series of repeated mechanics. Understanding how a game repeats and varies the use of its mechanics is the key to understanding the larger patterns and movements of a game. This is the essence of variation: how a game's elements influence the use of game mechanics over increasingly larger segments of the game.


There are many angles to approach videogame variation from. I've broken the gamut of variable game elements into six simple categories.

• player: character(s), cursor, avatar, HUD
• level: non aggressive interactive (physical) pieces
• enemy: hostile/aggressive forces
• audio: sound effects, music
• visual: non-interactive on screen elements
• rumble: force feedback

Now that the elements have been identified, there is one last concept that needs to be covered before we can begin our investigation of variation: what constitutes a change. At first, the answer may seem obvious. Most would settle with something along the lines of ... any difference, even a slight difference, from one case to another constitutes a change. While this definition works, it isn't practice for our purposes. We have to be a bit more discerning than that. Here's why.

If I moved all the Goombas in Super Mario Bros. one pixel to the left, would that change the gameplay in a significant way? Better yet, if I create new battle animations for Advance Wars, will that change any of the strategies, especially for the player who plays with animations off? In both cases, the alterations aren't enough to change the gameplay in any significant way.

The minimum difference is the smallest degree of change needed for a change to be significant for a particular mechanic. This value will vary with each game and each mechanic. Finding the minimum difference will help quantify a mechanic for the purposes of analysis. In other words, it's necessary to outline and define the smallest unit of significant change to give structure to the rest of one's investigation. The minimum difference isn't an objective figure, but rather it's a way to keep the researcher and the reader on the same page. Because games are highly structured systems, chances are, there already exists units of measuring the game's mechanics.

The Advance Wars series is quantified by the turn and the square. Movement, vision range, and attackable targets are all determined by a specific numbers of squares. Factors like ammo, fuel, incoming funds, and moves per unit are quantified and regulated by each turn that pass between the players. Additionally, offensive and defensive bonuses are measured in stars. So, a change to Advance Wars would only be significant if it added or subtracted a square, turn, or a star from a unit.


After identifying which elements you want to focus on and defining the base unit of variation using the minimum difference, we can start working with the game elements. There are two main ways of analyzing variation in a video game. Strict and open variation. Strict variation examines the exact way the game "levels" are arranged or grouped. Open variation is a bit more complicated because it doesn't look at examples from the game, rather it focuses on arrangements and groupings that the researcher creates. Such an approach looks at possible scenarios than existing ones. Both of these methods share the same rules and procedures, so I'll start with strict variation because it's easier to explain, show, and relate to.

All games can be broken down into sub-sections or sections. Whether a game is broken down by rooms, loading sections, cut scenes, stages, levels, rounds, or turns, if a game has a mechanic that is repeated, then it can be divided into sections. When a section contains an individual gameplay idea that isn't significantly and directly related to another section, then that section is considered a distinct section. When some refer to moments of a game as set pieces, they are essentially recognizing that the bigger game experience is composes of smaller individual moments of gameplay. Set piece is defined as "a scene, action, or the like, having a conventional form and functioning as part of the structure of a work of art, literature, etc." According to the music-game analogy that was outlined in the introduction of this series, distinct sections/set pieces are analogous to the musical motif.

Comparing similar distinct sections based on the mechanics used in each section is the easiest way to understand variation. Gamers do this automatically. Even if an area in a game looks and sounds different, gamers are the quickest to recognize if the gameplay is exactly the same as a previous area they've played. I often find myself saying "oh, this is just like the other battle/part/level/videogame."

For similar distinct sections, there are only 3 possible trends and 2 methods of variation. When similar distinct sections are arranged in the order that they appear in the game (to a reasonable degree) the change between the sections can either be diminishing, static, or refining. A diminishing trend is one where game elements are either added or subtracted that reduce the amount of consequences and allow for mechanics to be executed less precisely. A static trend is where there is no change between sections, or when the changes are inconsequential because they fall short of meeting the minimum requirement for the quantified mechanic. And finally, the refining trend is one that increases consequences that force the use of mechanics in a more precise manner by adding or subtracting game elements.

Adding or subtracting game elements to create diminishing/refining trends can be done in two ways. The first method is linear variation: adding or subtracting a single game element or fixed group of elements in a specific arrangement. The second method is the conceptual/elemental variation: adding or subtracting a different elements than what was modified in the previous step.

If you're feeling lost at this point, don't worry. It's all easier than it sounds. It really helps to read through the examples. I believe I have found the game series that provides the best examples for learning about Variation: the Wario Ware series. The Wario Ware games are composed of hundreds of quick fire microgames that generally last no longer than 10 seconds each. At the beginning of each microgame a short message is displayed on the screen that clues the player into the primary mechanic and goal of the microgame. The microgames are simple at first, but the difficulty quickly ramps up. Besides increasing the speed, which decreases the amount of time the player has to understand and complete each microgame, each microgame is designed with 3 distinct levels of difficulty. Each difficulty level is a distinct section that's ready for analysis. With hundreds of games to draw from, clearly stated primary mechanics, distinct sections already provided, I can't think of a better game to illustrate variation.

Click Image to Englarge

From Left to Right...

• Elements: visual = food items, customers
  
• Primary mechanic: "Take when ready!" = pick up the Wiimote when the burger is complete, which is signified by a sesame seed bun on top. individual, intuitive, direct.
  
• Minimum difference: none. It's either on or off.
  
• Trend: static
  
• Method: conceptual variation = vertically falling ingredients, sideways flying ingredients, condiments, customers walking in front
• In this microgame, the same strategy works for all three levels: take the burger when you see the bun on top. The first level tests the players ability to recognize the different burger parts as they are assembled. The second level throws in "distractors" to try and make the player pick up the Wiimote prematurely, the most devious of which is the sesame bun that flies over the stack but doesn't land on top. The third level adds another type of distractor. Customers rudely walk in front of the counter obscuring the players view of the burger assembly process.
  
• Because the input for this game is one way or the other, and the elements involved are visual (non interactive), the variation trend can't be refining.
  

• Elements: player = blue reflecting mirror, level = white mirror, light beam, colored people
• Primary mechanic: "Reflect!" The angle of the Wiimote determines the angle of the blue mirror. individual, intuitive, direct, and dynamic.
• Minimum difference: 5 degrees of difference based on the possible angles to head size ratio. I reached this measure more or less arbitrarily.
  
• Trend: refining.
• Method: linear then conceptual variation = bouncing a light beam x1, bouncing a light beam x2, hitting a moving target.
• The first level tests the player's ability to reflect a beam of light and aim at a still target. The second level tests the player's ability to reflect a beam twice and hit a target. The final level adds on to the first by introducing a moving target. Also, the beam of light enters the field at a different angle to truly test if player can measure out the angles instead of simply memorizing the set up.

• Elements: visuals = various phones, sound = ringing, rumble = ringing
  
• Primary mechanic: "Answer it!" Pick up the Wiimote when the phone rings. Hit the A "talk" button for cell phones. individual, intuitive, direct.
  
• Minimum difference: none.
  
• Trend: static then refining.
• Method: linear then conceptual variation = wait for the phone to ring and then pick it up is the strategy that works for levels 1 and 2. However, on level 3, the cell phone requires the "talk" button to be pressed which further defines the mechanic "answer it" beyond simply picking up the receiver. The form of the cell phone was well implemented.

• Elements: level = shift stick
  
• Primary mechanic: "Shift!" move the Wiimote in the directions indicated as if it were an actual shift stick.
  
• Minimum difference: a single shift.
  
• Trend: refining.
• Method: linear = Level 1 has 2 shifts, and each subsequent level simply adds an additional shift.
  

If you want some practice, try analyzing these last two Wario Ware microgames on your own. The left column is from Wario Ware Smooth Moves, and the right column is from Wario Ware Inc. Mega Party Games$!. Send your answers my way and I'll be sure to give feedback.

Click to Englarge

In Variation part.2 we'll look at open variation and a summary technique called translation. Change is a good thing.