The Genius of Slowdown

Slowdown is certainly a relic of our past when video games used to push their processors to their limit and beyond. When there were simply too many explosions and bullets streaking across the screen the frame rate dropped and the game began to play is slow motion.

Many would like to believe that we are now currently in an age that has moved beyond slow down. Though the frame rate in our modern releases may hiccup (GTA4), sputter (MGS4), or even drop to a cinematic 24 frames per second (Shadow of the Colossus), all of these performance slips are far better than back in the day when the games used to slow to a crawl. With the advent of widespread online gaming, many gamers now find it strange when latency issues are resolved by slowing down or even temporarily pausing the action for all players until the information flow can be reestablished.

My recent exploration of Bangai-O Spirits for the Nintendo DS has caused me to think about the possible design benefits of slowdown. Unlike bullet time, where the game time is slowed usually by the player to enhance reaction time and accuracy, slowdown happens as a result of an excess of onscreen elements that require graphics and collision processing. In Bangai-O's case, when the player launches a counter attack of 100 homing missiles, the game automatically slows down. The benefits for the slower gameplay are the same as with bullet time. When the game is slowed down, the player has additional time to process and analyze the game. But unlike bullet time, the amount of slowdown that occurs is directly proportional to the amount of in game "chaos" on screen. Like the smart slow-mo from Perfect Dark that activates when two players in a multiplayer match move within a certain proximity of each other, slowdown makes the game time relative to action and position.

It's like Where's Waldo, but different.

Slowdown might have addition design benefits that may not be as obvious to discern. As it turns out, Bangi-O Spirts features 4 player simultaneous gameplay. Designing a system that can communicate hundreds of packets of data between two systems can be extremely tricky even for two consoles using high speed connections. Geometry Wars is a perfect example of a game is so smooth with so many individual items on the screen each with their own behaviors and patterns that react off of the player's position and attacks as well as other elements in the level, that trying to get the game to work online would invariably slow down the game speed. In other words, because there's simply so much chaos in Geometry Wars the Geometry Wars that we know and love would be impossible to make work online with our current technology.

So what about Bangai-O Spirits for the DS? One might initially think that the the DS processors and wifi connections aren't better suited than an Xbox360 for the task for communicating the chaos of battle in a multiplayer mode. But slowdown, once again, plays a very key role in Bangai-O's case. The player should already be used to the contextually fluctuating game speed in the single player mode. So if the game slows down just a bit more to maintain communication with 3 other DSs, the player probably wouldn't notice. Because slowdown is an integrated part of the normal gameplay, using it as a sort of shield/buffer for multiplayer wireless communications is quite genius.

Just a few missiles

Bangai-O Spirits is a rare case indeed. Not only does it get away with massive slowdown that can drop as low as 1 frame per second, but in many ways the slow down works better for the gamepaly and multiplayer. In the moments when everything slows down, I have an opportunity to analyze the battle field, look at the map, check enemy health or any of the other stats before thinks kick back up in speed again. And for a game that accurately captures anime action in a video game, I'll take all the help I can get.

As modern games continue to push the technical limits of video games while maintaining relatively smooth gameplay and high frame rates, it's interesting to see that slowdown, which many consider to be a technical flaw, can be successfully embraced and incorporated into the core design of a game.

Stay tuned for my explosive review of Bangai-O Spirits.

And if you're worried about the future of slowdown and/or the potential in relative game speed and design, then look no further than Drebin #1 Asynchronous Time.

Why Gamers Should Embrace Critical-Material

I have noticed the reactions from gamers and non-gamers alike when I utter the words "critique," "essay," "analysis," or any such term. Among the range of disinterested, repulsed, and condescending reactions, few becomes excited at the idea of reading an essay about any form of entertainment or art.

We've all written essays and book reports throughout our time in school, and perhaps we have grown to hate them over time. Some falsely associate reading a critical essay, which is very different from a review, with work, time consumption, and even flowery, filigree without any real substance. We are people who value our time and invest in our entertainment. So reading a thousand words of meretricious persiflage shouldn't excite us.

But a proper critical essay is not any of these things. A proper essay is clear, concise, and cogent in delivering its message and/or ideas. The reader who takes up such an essay has nothing to lose. With every turn of the page comes a deeper understanding. The writers of such material aren't masked magicians seeking to pull the curtains and reveal the secret inner workings of the world's favorite magic tricks. Such writers don't intend to break the illusion of a trick, but rather uncover a deeper truth in a work.

I've come across many people who squirm, fidget, and practically throw tantrums at the idea of thinking deeply about their favorite TV shows, movies, and video games; especially video games. It's as if all of a sudden, these individuals are transported from the comfort of their living rooms to the ridged, plastic, unyielding prisons of a desk in a dimly lit high school class room. But thinking deeply and obtaining a better understanding is not what they fear. Many times, it's explanation that such individuals seek.

To prove it, just look at any one of these examples: Death Note, Ocean's 11, or The Murders in the Rue Morgue. Each of these works feature an excellent blend of up front information, charismatic characters, and mystery that entices the viewers/readers to try and piece the solution together for themselves. Toward the end of each of these works, what actually happened behind the scenes is revealed and explained thoroughly. Some say "I knew it." Other might say, "I didn't see that coming." But all would rather know than be left in the dark having only a piece of their potential enjoyment.

To draw the analogy, everything preceding the explanation these works is analogous to any form of entertainment or art. The detail explanation that walks through all the steps and piecing together exactly how the elements come together is analogous to a critical essay. Knowing more about a work and how it works doesn't ruin the story/show/film/video game. Not only does it increase one's enjoyment of the work, but afterward it's hard to imagine being without it. Ask anyone who has read/seen Death Note, Ocean's 11, or The Murders in the Rue Morgue if they would rather have had the explanation removed from their experience.

The Sixth Sense is not popular because of the twist at the end. It's popular because when the twist is revealed it creates an "ah ha!" moment giving the viewer a unique opportunity to revisit the film in their mind with a new lens of understanding. Even when watching the film again, the viewer remembers their impressions from when they didn't know the twist in addition to developing a new set of impressions from the informed perspective. In this way, it's like watching two films!

Knowledge is power, and the more lenses one has to view a work of art the more interesting and entertaining it becomes. This is how it is for me at least.

So if you're the type of person who is warming up to the idea of reading critical-essays on your favorite video games, then the Critical-Gaming blog is the right place for you. I pour hours of work and research into each essay so that you don't have to. I know personally, I wouldn't like The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass as much as I do if I didn't write a few essays on it. It's no coincidence that it's my second favorite Zelda next to Majora's Mask.

If video games are the newest and most engaging/interactive art form, a gamer might never understand why unless they start asking questions, thinking more deeply, and tapping into the discourse of their favorite video games. Why wouldn't we want to get extra value from our games?

Greater than the (Riemann) Sum of Its Parts?

Listening to episode 47 of the Retronauts podcast I was reminded of common communication crutch that many use when trying to expound extemporaneously or otherwise about video games. "[insert game here] is greater than the sum of its parts."

How is it possible for a video game to be greater than the sum of its parts? All video games can be broken down into parts. Basically, a game is made up of various elements (audio, mechanical, visual, level, enemy, player, etc). So, if we start with a whole game, break it down into parts, then put it back together how is it possible to end up with more game than we started with?

More often than not, when "greater than the sum of its parts" (GTTSOIP) is used the speaker is unable to explain what the parts are or the composition of this greater "sum." Like reading a tricky poem or watching a convuluted film, the type of person who has yet to understand the work will opt to respond saying something along the lines of "that poem/movie was too deep for me." Unfortuantely, such a statement does nothing toward brining a works depth or other substantive content to light. And in the case of video games, instead of admitting that one doens't understand a game fully, many opt for the GTTSOIP phrase.

Perhaps I'm not giving these GTTOSIP users enough credit. What if "greater than the sum of its parts" was a way for someone to attempt to explain counterpoint a high level concept in and of itself? Take a look at this excerpt from wikipedia on counterpoint and development.

A melodic fragment, heard alone, makes a particular impression; but when the fragment is heard simultaneously with other melodic ideas, or combined in unexpected ways with itself (as in a canon or fugue), greater depths of affective meaning are revealed. Through development of a musical idea, the fragments undergo a working out into something musically greater than sum of the parts, something conceptually more profound than a single pleasing melody.

So if counterpoint in video game theory is similar to counterpoint in music theory, then shouldn't this phrase be apt for describing games such as Super Mario Brothers, a game featuring counterpoint that I've already detailed here on this blog?

My response is still no. To assume quite a bit of credit onto whoever uses the "GTTSOIP" phrase, the multitudinous and unexpected ways a game can acheive depth through counterpoint is still a part of a game's elements. Emergence and counterpoint don't exist in a state removed from the game. They ARE a part of the game. Therefore, to pretend that they're distinct and separate for the purpose of making a statement about the overall "sum" of a game is counter intuitive, counter productive, and simply counter (to the) point.

Funtionally, "GTTSOIP" is analogous to "niggles aside" a phrase used when a reviewer attempts to reduce, trivialize, and skirt a game's shortcomings only to highlight a game's pros, which in turn bloats the credibility and valitdity of the statement/article in the end. The Mass Effect Game Informer review is just one example of many with "niggles aside" writing. If you listened to the eppisode of Retronauts, GTTSOIP was used in close proximity to honest statements that uncovered the bad gameplay elements of a game called ActRaiser. These gamers, having backed themselves into a corner, tried in one last attempt explaine their appreciation for a game they had just previously cut down by using the GTTSOIP phrase.

After reaching the above conclusions about the use of GTTSOIP, I began to wonder how so many people could so obviously overlook a game's faults to create a disporportionate play experience of a game in their own minds. That's when it hit me. More often than not, it's not that people are actively ignoring a game's faults when trying to piece together the experiential or emotional impact of a video game. Rather, they don't remember the shortcomings because of how the static space created from the game's shortcomings allowed the player to switch to "auto pilot" or as I like to say "turn their brains off."

It's not difficult to find a gamer who loves RPGs. In fact, most of the gamers I know reflect fondly on at least one RPG from their childhood. Final Fantasy 6 and Pokemon Pick-a-color are two of my favorites. Even as I think back on them now, a wide grin spreads accross my face. But the inescapable truth is, because these games are RPGs that feature random battles, I know that there was a lot of static space of attack-attack-healing random monsters that server neither to advance the story or as a distinct unqiue challenge. RPG's like this are designed to consume time. Of course I don't remember using Crono's Luminare attack or Mewtwo's Physic attack hundreds of times in every battle just so I could get from one area to the next. Of course I don't remember grinding on monster to level up my characters. Of course I don't remember getting lost and spending hours wondering what to do next. My brain was turned off. But I do remember when Frog split the mountain in half and when I fought my rival at the end of the elite 4. Such events placed special markers in my gaming childhood.

See what I mean? If I includ all that "mindless" static gameplay into my assesment of either game, my "sum of the parts" assessment wouldn't be as immaculate and as glowing compared to a cursory look through my memories.

Like in the recent Arby's commercial, when people say "you do the math" there usually isn't any math to be done. Likewise, the utterers of GTTSOIP, I assume, haven't done anything close to breaking down a game into it's parts and adding them together according to some kind of clear, stable value system. But what if they did?

Here's the point in the article when things get just a little bit graphic.

Figuring out what a video game is or what it's made of is like finding the area of a shape. But games are far from simple, and figuring out what constitutes a game is like finding the area under a curve.

The red arrows point out gaps. The blue chart is like the Gamer Informer Mass effect review I mentioned prevoiusly. Such a review obvious has some pretty big gaps. The Yellow graph is (hopefully) like a review here at Critical-Gaming.

See how the blue area has large gaps? These gaps represent inaccuracies in video game assessments. As the dividing bars get smaller and smaller, the gaps are reduced. In other words, as one's understanding and language of video games is broken down into smaller parts (like from functions to mechanics to qualities such as direct/dynamic/intuitive/individual) the accuracy and effectiveness of one's statements increases.

Problem solved.

Decay-Cycles and Natural Forms

Decay is a natural part of life. All things that live on Earth must also die at some point. And on one's journey through life a person experiences much decay. From one's mental/physical health to the accuracy of one's memories every tangible, quantifiable part of our being decays with time. And it's not just living creatures. Houses even grow old and crumble. The unrelenting wear and tear of nature can weaken and topple buildings never mind the storms that can rock entire cities at a time. Even the very atoms and particles in radioactive materials are known to just up and leave predictably.

We're all trapped on this planet in our respective biomes, and so is the decay. Fortunately everything we don't jettison out into space eventually gets recycled back into the realm of the living. Material is consumed, broken down, entered back into the cycle and consumed again. It may sound less than appetizing but this is a reality we've all gotten quite used to by now.

So if you think about it, in the quest to follow what is perhaps the most important tenet of Classical Game Design "form fits function," when using natural, organic forms designing some kind of decay system appropriate for the forms is only natural. If you're going to give the main character the ability to throw stones, then it only makes sense that the stones come from a limited supply as well as remain on the field for collecting. Such was the case for Neo*RPG.

As I have said before, my understanding of Classical Game Design wasn't nearly as clear in my head or articulated on paper when I developed Neo*RPG. Guided by instinct, I simply tweaked every facet of Neo*RPG's design one step at a time until I was satisfied. In this case, reducing the clutter and abstractions from the game was satisfying.

So, I started with a simple rock throwing mechanic. I had intially given the player infinite rock ammunition. Furthermore, after throwing a rock the projectile disappeared. After play testing the game and thinking about this particular mechanic, I developed the same kinds of thoughts that I imagine anyone would formulate. Where does the character get all of his rocks from, and when do they go after he throws them?

To fix this issue, I gave the player a limited number of rocks to throw in addition to programming the rocks so that they remain on the ground after colliding with an object or coming to a stop. After this adjustment, it naturally followed to give the player the ability to pick up rocks from the ground to add to their ammo supply.

From this point, it was easy to design the archer enemy that obeys the same rules of decay as the main character. Both have limited ammunition, and both must move through the environement to collect rocks to resupply themselves. In this way, the rock throwing mechanic is organically designed to decay and renew itself in a closed cycle.

Organic decay-cycles are difficult to come by. Most developers rely on some kind of spawning system to resupply the player whether its randomly dropped powerups from defeated enemies (Megaman, Metroid), supplies hidden in regenrating pots (Zelda), or merchant/shop transactions (RE4, RPGs). In all of these cases, the supplies are generated by the game in a cycle that is disconnected from the organic forms of the game.

Fortunately, some first-person shooters have ditched randomly scattered ammo crates forcing players to take enemy rounds to maintain supplies. After all, if the enemy is using the same gun you are, it only makes sense to be able to use their unused ammo. Halo does this very well. In Halo, players can only carry 2 weapons at a time. When the ammo runs out in one, players commonly swap the empy weapon out for another gun they find lying around in the field. The number of rounds in the new weapon is exactly the same amount that was left from previous use. This design may create some frustrating moments when you fight for a power weapon that in the end only has one more shot left, but the transfer of weapons and ammo orgnically from one player to the other not only creates an organic decay-cycle, but the design creates interplay as well.

Designing decay into a game system must be carefully balanced. Every form and mechanic doens't need to decay in a game. Finding the balance between which elements to add decay is a matter of how the designer wants to shape the depth, expression, and definition of the game's primary function. If the function of a game is to battle, then it makes sense to design decaying ammo and attacks. If the function is to live a life and communicate with others, then it probably isn't a good idea to have my furniture in Animal Crossing fall apart over time. Calling a repair man, and negotiating insurance polocies on my possessions would probably be a diversion from what Animal Crossing is all about. In other words, all games aren't trying to be simulations.

And this isn't even considering the fiction or conceit of a game. In Ikaruga, the main character flies a special air craft in an aerial war of some sort. This air craft has the ability to ABSORB (the primary mechanic) and SHOOT an infinite supply of polarized bullets. Everything in this game (minus the white birds at the end) reflect some kind of futuristic technology. It fits well within the fiction world that an air craft can shoot and absorb an endless assault of bullets. Adding decay to either of these mechanics is simply a matter of preference.

At the end of the day, a game must work. Every element of a game can't be completely organic following form fits function and incorporating a complete decay system. If that were the case, we'd be flooded in simulation games. Even the stale-move negation in Super Smash Brothers Brawl, for the most part, only weakens moves that do damage to an enemy. So, all those attacks that don't connect are still at an undecayed level of strength. The general concept of moves weakening with repeated use is still intact, but it's carefully balanced to encourage play where players are free to attack as they please and hope for hits instead of worrying about weakening their characters.

Next-gen Fighters and the Flow of Combat pt. 4

Just a few points to wrap things up.

Simultaneous multiplayer. The core Smash design has the flexibility to support up to four players simultaneously. All of the mechanics, dynamics, and interplay possibilities are increased with each additional player. Some of the possible combinations for matches are team play (2v2), 3 for all (1v1v1), 4 for all (1v1v1v1), and even lopsided combinations like (2v1v1) and (3v1). By turning on team attack (friendly fire) in a 2v2 teams match, teammates must carefully coordinate their attacks as to avoid hitting each other. Because teammates can hit each other, players can also save each other from situations with attacks. If a Jigglypuff teammate is sleeping after using a rest attack, a teammate can step in and wake her with with a light, nonlethal "love tap." The highest levels of team play in Smash are the best the core design has to offer.

I had to 2v1 pretty hard at the end.

Stock. Another feature that is fairly unique to Smash is stock; the number of lives a player has in a single match. This feature seemds to be directly inspirited from Super Mario Brothers. Unlike the standard rounds in traditional fighting games, after a player loses a stock, the match carries on. This means the level state, the other player's damage, and any other elements on the stage continues to influence the match. By carrying over, these elements create momentum and flow for the match that gives Smash battles an expanded design compared to the start-stop-reset flow of traditional fighters.

The Spirit of the Game

Over the past week, I've been following the Olympic games closely. In preparation for watching the Taekwondo events, I looked up some Olympic qualifying matches. What I saw shocked and disappointed me. My perception of many games and sports often changes upon witnessing tournament level play or world class competition. For these players, winning is the absolute goal and their strategies and attitudes have been refined to help them reach that goal. In other words, they're playing to win. Operating under this banner can create "boring" matches where the same efficient strategy is used throughout a match. Excessively fouling at the end of a basketball game is playing to win. And what I saw in the Taekwondo matches is hardly what I consider an interesting fight.

Perhaps I simply don't understand the sport of Taekwondo well enough. But my dissappointement in the tournament level matches makes me think about the limitations of physical, real world sports and conversely the liberating power of game design. Video games can be designed so that "playing to win," "playing for fun," and even "playing most entertainingly" are one. Preserving and upholding the spirit of a game in high level competitive play is all about the details in the design.

Super Smash Brothers Melee and Brawl are far from perfect. Each have their problems, and each have advancements in the core Smash design that the other could really benefit from. Super Smash Brothers is my favorite game of all time not just becaues of it's next-gen design and Nintendo spirit, but also because of the people I've met through the game and the journey it took me on. Much of the designer that I am today I owe to this game, and this is why I've decided to fix it.

The ultimate repair project that B.E.S is currently working on is a revision of Brawl entitled Super Smash Brothers Tournament Perfect. As the name implies, we have a lot of work ahead of us. Though a perfectly balanced fighter is an unreachable dream for most designers, getting as close as possible is always the goal. I'll have more details on this project in the near future.

The Next Level

All of this effort, for a game that was next-gen a generation ago. This article series is slightly misleading. Every time I described Smash as having "next-gen" design elements, I was actually referring to last-gen design or the design trends from the GameCube era. The trends, breakthroughs, and technologies that make up the generation of design for the Wii-Xbox360-PS3 generation go beyond the elements detailed in this series.

If you want a glimpse into the future of fighting game design, then you might as well play it for yourself. The design of Wii Sports Boxing is the future.


And I'll close with a quote from a Critical-Correspondence I conducted a few months ago.

"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, and it has a clean design by sticking strictly to the design principle "form fits function." 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, as analog (variable inputs), has a character creator, as 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.

Next-gen Fighters and the Flow of Combat pt.3

In any game, it is important that each of the player's mechanics has a specific function that is unique to that mechanic. When mechanics aren't unique, or when they overlap with other mechanics, the core design begins to clutter itself. After all, why design a move that is only slightly different from another move?

When answering these questions, of course, the minimum degree of difference is taken into consideration. But pinning down the minimum degree of difference for a fighting game requires an unconventional perspective. Typically, in a fighting game, the only thing that matters is defeating one's opponent. Because the opponent is human (lets ignore computer AI for the purposes of this article) repeating the same move can yield different results because of the opponent's reactions. In other words, overcoming one's opponent mentally or via game rules is the only objective. Beyond this player dependent goal, fighters generally don't challenge the player or force them to use their mechanics in any specific way.

Establishing a set of mechanics that comprises the primary function(s) of a game as well as a set of supporting secondary and even tertiary mechanics is the first step to designing a well-rounded game. Well-rounded design is creating a set of mechanics that don't overlap or clutter each other in function. These mechanics must complement each other to create a method of expressing the spirit of the game.

It can be tricky to get a player to play using all of their mechanics (ie. in a well-rounded fashion). One way is to heavy handedly add abstract mechanics so that players are rewarded for mixing things up regardless of how unnatural it may be. Devil May Cry's style meter is a perject example of such an attenpt. Because the player character is over powered, the enemies/environments don't provide much of a threat to the player, and there's an excess of moves that overlap in function, the creators of DMC found it necessary to create an abstract system that informs the player of how styln/cool they're playing. The more variety players throw in, the cooler they are (or so the meter tells me).

The other method is by incorporating a decay system into a well-rounded core design. As players tighten up their game strategies, often times, they cut moves completely out of their repertoire. If a move isn't strong enough, fast enough, or special enough then it really isn't effective in a fight. Even in a well-rounded game, players might stick to only using a few of their best moves. While I highly value player freedom, there are ways to design a game so that the player is natrually/organically encouraged to branch out and use a variety of moves. Stale-move negation in Smash is such a design feature.

Stale-move negation in Smash is simply a decay system where moves are weakened when used repeatedly in succession. When a move is weakened, it not only does less damage, but it sends the opponent flying at a fraction of the distance/speed. In high level play, players carefully save their strongest attacks (kill moves) until their opponent is at a high enough damage or in the right position. By saving one's kill moves, the rest of one's move set becomes that much more important. This strategy naturally creates momentum from linking weak moves to strong moves to kill moves that highlight each move type's unique function. Such results from a decay system is only possible in games that are dynamic and well-rounded to begin with.

Designing an effective decay system is very tricky because the decay must be designed as dynamically as the core game itself. In Brawl, just having a move weaken in damage and knockback isn't enough. Because all the moves decay at the same rate, a super strong move is still quite strong when weakend to 80% of its full power. Furthermore, weaker moves only get weaker.

The damage and knockback of a move only can only decay to about 40% of their original strength. So, for the moves that are difficult to defend against and/or counter, stale-move negation isn't an effective deterrent. Damage and knockback may be the two main factors of attacks in Smash, but the game is far more dynamic than that. Positioning, animation lag, multi-hitting attacks, and stun are just a few factors that stale-move negation doens't affect. What's worse is that stale-move negation doesn't create interplay. In other words, I can't weaken my opponents moves without taking the hits. Take it from a tournament Smash player, willingly taking a series of hits isn't a good strategy. These two deficiencies hold back the decay design in Smash.

Some games have excellently design decay systems that are dynamic according to the game's core design and create interplay that uncovers the depth of the gameplay. Take Advance Wars: Days of Ruin as an example.

The red arrows point to the 3 decayable stats.

In Advance Wars every square counts. As players take turns engaing in warfare their units begin to decay. Every time a unit fires it loses a unit of ammunition. Every space a unit moves drains a point of gas. Every percentage of damage a unit sustains takes away HP. Ammo (attack), gas (movement), and HP (defense) make up the core mechanics of Advance Wars. And each of these stats decay in a unique way that dynamically changes the functions of a particular unit.

Without gas ground units can't move while air and sea units crash and burn. Without ammunition a unit cannot attack enemies or fire back when attacked. Additionally, every unit of HP determines a unit's attack power, defensive power, and for infantry units how quickly property can be captured. Because moving, defending, and attacking make up the bulk of the core gameplay of Advance wars, the decay system effectively influences the core gameplay according to the primary mechanics. In this case, the decay mechanics agree with the form of the game and are directly manipulated by both player's primary mechanics.

I've successfully run strategies where I force my opponent's strong units to waste their ammo by attacking them with several weak units (defend). Even a powerful tank like the one in the image above is useless without ammo. I've forced enemy sea and air units to explode after running them around the map until they ran out of gas (movement). And I've sacrificed small groups of units to push through enemy formations to damage their infantry unit so it couldn't capture my property as quickly (attack).

When the decay system is properly integrated with a game's core mechanics, playing around the dynamically changing situation uncovers a game's depth by making the properties, intricacies, and interconnections of their mechanics more apparent.

By property designing a decay system into a game players can be influenced into playing a dynamic well-rounded game in a more dynamic well-rounded fashion. When the core design of a game is constructed in the spirit of the game, "playing to win" can be synonymous with "playing for fun" or "playing in the spirit of the game." It is unfortunate that these seemingly contrary play attitudes weren't fused in Brawl's core design.

Next-gen Fighters and the Flow of Combat pt.2

In the struggle to incorporate new, and even next-gen features into a fighter, the developers are at great risk of creating a product that is neither here nor there. In other words, the final product can be something that doesn't work as well as last-gen conventions and falls short of the aims and goals of the next-gen design elements. What's even more dangerous is last-gen design elements often have a caustic, poisoning effect on the next-gen design elements when mixed together in the same game.

It is unfortunate that the creator of the Super Smash Brothers series failed to embrace the community of players that gathered around his games. Because Masahiro Sakurai created Super Smash Brothers Brawl completely on his own, often making decision out of negative reactions to the smash community, Brawl greatly suffers from mixed-generational design: when a game contains design elements from at least two different generations of design conventions/approaches that naturally conflict with each other.

The core next-gen design of Super Smash Brothers is essentially "everything is dynamic." Because the core of Smash centers around attack moves, we'll look at attacks and their effects to deliniate the mixed-generational design in Brawl.

Keeping the core of the game depedent on factors that both players control keeps the attack results varried enough to prevent universal combos or confining strategies from developing. The effectiveness of attacks is initially the result of two sets of factors.
1) How much damage the target has.
2) How much the attacker has weakened the attacking move.

Then there are a few more factors that come into play.
3) The targets can influence the trajectory of their flight by using DI.
4) The environment can create opportunities for the target to stop itself, rebound, for the attacker to pursue, and/or a variety of other outcomes.

Beyond these dynamic factors, the core of Smash is designed so that moves naturally decay with repeated use. For example, Mario's cape (side + B) floats him in the air upon initial use. But with each additional use of the cape, Mario floats less and less falling closer and closer to his normal fall speed. This decay property is designed so that players can't stall in the air with Mario while adding a dynamic property to the move. Marth's dancing blade in Melee behaves the same way.

Last-gen fighter design, which is the opposite of Smash's core design, typically doesn't have any dynamics in their hit stun system. No damage based variability. No stale-move negation. No DI. And certainly no level dynamics unless you count the invisible walls that characters sort of float against so that they can be comboed more easily. Such design at its most extreme can result in infinite combos that start from quick simple hits that, once started, are virtually impossible to stop. Not only does this design constrict competitive strategies to preventing these devastating, and at times game ending combos, but it doesn't leave room for any interplay. In fact, once these combos start, the only thing left for the second player to do is hope that their attacker messes up. In Smash, the dynamics of the level and the ability for the stunned player to DI in order to throw off their attacker's approach keeps things interesting and interactive.

In Smash, any element of the game that isn't as dynamic as the core design or that stems from the last-gen design, works to completely obliterate the next-gen core design of Smash. It's not a matter of preference where some players can prefer to use the last-gen elements and the two types of people simply have to fight out their differences. True leaps in design reflect leaps in perspective.

The way the core of Smash is designed teaches the player to think through problems to find a logical, visual solution. The core of Smash teaches players that when things look bad, there is always a way to influence the situation to your favor. But the glaring last-gen design elements in Smash flies in the face of these teachings. Infinite combos that ignore dynamics and variation. Invisible attacks that betray form fits function.

There are many last-gen element that corrupt the core design of Smash. Here's a list of a few.

• Falco's chain throw
  
• King Dedede chain throw
  
• Everything Snake
• Everything Iceclimbers
  
• Everything Metaknight
  
• Fox, Falco, Wolf
  
• Game & Watches up air, back air.
• Choke chain grabs on Ness/Lucas/Wario

It's a shame that these poorly designed characters and elements are dominant in the competitive tournament scene. It doesn't surprise me at all. Essentially, a character like Metaknight ignores the dynamics of the core of Smash in favor of unquestionable priority and unwavering ability. Give players a choice, and they'll probably pick the over powered characters even if they destroy most of the game in the process. These glaring mixed-generational design make Brawl play more like other fighters like the following....

Street Fighter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68tQ3qNQuRU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDYANa9a-mU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRK812jaJjI

Guilty Gear XX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUZb45qYEjY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLHOEfsWmGM

Marvel vs. Capcom 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avvrMO9Smao



What a shame.

Next-gen Fighters and the Flow of Combat pt1 continued

Next-gen Fighters and the Flow of Combat pt.1

Soul Calibur 4. Street Fighter 4. Virtual Fighter 5. Mortal Kombat 8. GuiltyGearXX Accent Core. All of these games have a few things in common. They're all fighters that have iterated on core gameplay of their series that was established in the last few generations of video gaming. The fighting game genre supports some of the most devoted, skilled, and competitive players around. "Playing to win" is a popular mindset for such players. Unlike traditional single player games where players are given advantages and superior abilities over computer controlled enemies that could never substitute for intelligent opponents, in a fighting game players are pitted against players each

I believe this same "do anything to win" attitude has created vocal groups of supporters that have essentially held back many fighting games from truly evolving. I understand where this resistant to change attitude comes from. For most fighters, becoming competent requires digesting an encyclopedia worth of data. If a sequel to a beloved fighting game completely changed things up, players would have to absorb another encyclopedia worth of data. Unfortunately, by making small changes to to the sequels of these fighting games, old design choices and philosophies are carried over and cemented into newer and newer generations.

While many think it's cool to finally be able to play Soul Calibur 4 online via their next-gen console (Xbox360/PS3), I couldn't help but feel like I was playing an updated Dreamcast game. Some would argue that it's the little changes that have a big impact on the way the game is actually played on a detailed level. But I'm not arguing about changes in the metagame across sequels. My point is the design decisions and mechanics at the core of such fighters could be designed better to create a cleaner playing experience for all types of players. Adhering to the tenet of form fits function, tightening mechanics, increasing depth while reducing unnecessary complexities, and reducing clutter are always ways to improve upon any game series.

A true next-gen fighting game wouldn't simply add more features to a previous game or like so many games, try and copy street fighter. A true next-gen fighting game would look at fighting in a new way inspired by the breakthroughs, trends, and new technologies of the times. Last generation (GameCube, PS2, Dreamcast, Xbox) we gained the experience, and technology to to render detailed 3D graphics in real time. Along with these graphics, combined physics interactions so that models can interact accurately and realistically. It's a shame that Street Fighter 4 changed their hit detection system from using the 3D models to using invisible 2D hit boxes.

I didn't have to look far for the game that I consider the most next-gen fighter. Super Smash Brothers. The first entrant into this series on the N64 simply set the foundation. For an N64 era fighter, Super Smash Brothers was still unlike any other. But, the two sequels together make up the core of what I consider to be the Super Smash Brothers fighting engine. And it is this engine that I will refer two for the remainder of this article.

The following is a collection of the next-gen design features that make up up the core of the Super Smash Brothers engine. While some games have implemented some of these features, none come close to the number that Smash Brothers holds.

Controls

• Simplified controls/inputs. Unlike other fighting games that feature pages and pages of moves for each character that are often composed complex inputs, the moves in smash are composed of at most one direction and one button at at time. The simple controls reduce the core complexity of the game.
  

• Rumble Support. Unlike every arcade fighting cabinet and most fighters on consoles, Smash Brothers utilizes force feedback. In a well designed game like Smash Brothers, force feedback has a more useful function than simply providing a more immersive gaming experience. Because the controller rumbles when being pressured from enemy attacks, the player receives an additional source of information to help them time and calculate their next moves. Essentially, the rummble feature is like having an extra set of eyes locked to your character that allows the player's eyes to focus on other parts of the screen.

• Analog Controls. Most serious fighting game players prefer to use the D-pad or an arcade stick. Unfortunately, the D-pad and the arcade stick are like keyboard arrow eyes. They can only be on or off. And what's more unfortunate is that fighters continue to be designed around these digital controllers. Since the N64, the degree of control over character movement achieved the next-gen leap with the analog stick. Smash Brothers utilizes a wide range of analog controls.
  
• For moving, players can tip toe, walk, power walk, and dash all by moving the analog stick different degrees at different speeds.
  
• While shielding, players can shift and adjust the position of their shield using the soft and slight movements of the analog stick.
• In the air, players can move forward and backwards with the same high degree of analog control.
  
• The analog movement combined with attacks from the air and on the ground make the attacks analog. Unlike games like Soul Calibur where moves are designed to be jumping, stepping, tracking, or side stepping as well as high, med, or low, in Smash movement is independent from the attack animations. This allows players to adjust the timing and spacing of their attacks using the secondary analogy movement mechanics.
  

• Move-input categorization. In Smash, the simple inputs allow moves to be put into clear intuitive categories based on function. There are attacks with the A button, and attacks with the B combined with the four cardinal directions. What's useful about the simple controls is that all the A attacks input directions reflect their function. In other words, if you want to do an up attack, hit up and A. If you want to do a forward attack, hit forward and A. Even the special or B attacks are organized in general categories. This categorization couple with simple inputs allows players to quickly learn the moves of different characters as well as react to dynamically changing situations. If an opponent is approchcing from directly above you, chances are holding up and hitting either attack button will result in some kind of attack in the upward direction.

What it Means to Fight

• Platformer/Fighter. Smash Brothers is a fighting game that is set in the world of a platforming game, a unique design decision mostly likely inspired by the 2D Mario platforming games. Smashing through the limitations created from 2D stages with invisible walls, the stages in Smash are set floating in the middle of large rings. On these stages are platforms that players can fight on, over, or underneath. Now players can fight on the ground, up on top of platforms, on the edges of the stage, in the air, and even underneath the stage. Smash defines a fight as something that can happen in all directions at any time.
  

• The only way to win is with a ring out. Unlike every other fighter, in Smash the player can never be killed by sustaining damage alone. The only way to take out the opponent is by knocking them out through the extremities of the stage.
  
• This design gives moves a dual design purpose.
  
• 1) building damage. Most attacks do some amount of damage.
  
• 2) moving opponent around. Most attacks also knock the opponent around. The higher the opponents damage, the faster and farther they fly.
• Because players must knock opponents off the stage to kill, it's important to properly use strong attacks when the opponent is at a high damage %. Smash attacks generally do the trick. Some characters have killing throws and/or air attacks. These moves are known as "kill moves."
  
• In other fighters, whittling down the opponent's health is the only way to win. Because racking up damage is a means to an end, pokes, projectiles, and other low commitment attacks develop into effective and shallow strategies. In Street Fighter 2 Turbo, players can effectively trap opponents against the sides of a stage wtih a succession of projectiles.
• Having to always knock your opponents off the stage to win opens up the effective strategies for a variety of attacks and set ups. I developed as a part of my Kirby style in Melee. the most number of killing strategies without doing a single point of damage. By using strong stage positioning, and aggressive-defensive techniques, I was able to fight without fighting so to speak.
  

• Everything is variable and dynamic. In Smash, the attack strengths and player positions are determined by many factors.
  
• stage (edges, platforms, hazards, stage transformations)
  
• characters (attacks, damage %, stale-move negation, size, weight, air control)
  
• positioning: the exact pose or position of the players down to small details like character footing.

• Visually based fighter. Most of the information needed to play effectively can be deduced from the games visuals. This includes hit boxes, tech jumps, lag animations, general knock back trajectories, and move strength. If you want to know how strong a move is, just look at how far/quickly the target flies away after landing the attack. Smash plays like how it looks. Unlike games like Soul Calibur where there's a disconnect between a move's animation and its strength (damage dealt)/properties (high mid low), if a move looks like it hits low, it hits low. In other words, form fits function.

• Commitment. The animation system creates natural pauses in the player's offense and defense. When players land on the ground while doing attacks, they go through specific recovery animations that prevent the player doing doing anything else. Moves don't instantly cancel back into the neutral player state like in Street Fighter. Adding commitment animations and durations to the attacks helps create the flow of combat.

• The flow of combat is created in part by mechanics that generate push-pull gameplay. In general, stronger attacks require more of the player whether it's charge time, meter consumption, revving up animation, or cool down/recovery animation. The strategies that are available to the player take into account the vulnerability that comes with these moves.
  
• Interplay. Interplay is composed of back and forth counters between two game elements. In the case of Smash, just about every move/attack has some level of interplay.
• Directional Influence (DI). In Smash players can influence the direction their character travels after being hit to try and push themselves into less dangerous positions.
  
• Priority of attacks. Unlike most other fighters, the Smash engine allows for most attacks to interact with each other. If two players punch, swing, or kick at each other and their attack animations meet (match blows), both attacks are stopped and the players return to their neutral state at equal frame advantage. This property exists for most ground attacks as well as most projectiles.
  
• Ground attacks can match blows with other ground attacks.
• Air attack with either win or lose the priority battle against other air/ground based attacks.
  
• All attacks can match blows with thrown items (except explosive items).
  
• The duration of attack animations also determine the priority of attacks. Stopping a smash attack with a jab is possible, but very risky because the jab animation after matching blows will pull straight back while some smash attacks may continue to move after matching blows.
  

• Little to no auto moves or auto combos. In Smash, there are no simple strategies/move strings that are guaranteed combos because there are too many factors that determine the stun, knock back, and position of the attacked player let alone the condition and position of the attacker. Even the standard combo that Sakurai mentioned on his blog isn't a true combo. There are several factors and variables involve in the possible interactions to create holes in this "combo."

• Stale-move negation. In Smash, moves weaken when used in succession. The moves not only do less damage, but the knock back on the opponent is reduced to a fraction of it's original strength. Think of it as if the character's limbs get tired from repeatedly using their muscles in the same way without resting. To give the "muscles" a break, players have to land other moves on their opponent. This design element is significant to keep players from only using their strongest or most effective attacks only.
  

MISC. Design Elements

• CHARGE mechanic. I've already written about the genius of the CHARGE mechanic. Smash is designed with a variety of CHARGE like moves.
• Some special attacks can be charged and then released.
• All Smash attacks can be charged.
• Many air attacks have start up animation before the actual attack comes out. If the character lands on any platform/surface before the start up time is complete, the attack doesn't come out. In this way, some air attacks have to have adequate falling time (charge time) before they activate.

• Fighting Stances. Because Smash is an analog fighter where attacks and hazards can approached from any direction and hit any part of the character's body, every move the player makes changes their fighting stance. It's important to note that all of these stances are natural extensions of the normal gameplay created from the simple controls and precise attack calculations.
  
• Many fighters automatically face both players at each other. But in Smash, players are free to use a forward facing stance or a backward facing stance at any time. Because the attack animation accurately represent their hit boxes, the uses of attacks changes depending on which way the character is facing. Ducking is another stance that reduces the character's vertical space and limits them to low tiling attacks. Personally, I used a variety of stances in Melee, I used Kirby's backward stance for my offense, ducking stance for defense, and neutral stance to mix up my other two stances. Brawl added crawling, gliding, and wall clinging stances to Smash.
  
• Players can also use specific attacks to change their stances. Kirby's inhale attack is a stance that players can hold. Holding the charge on smash attacks are also stances because of how they change the character's pose while limiting their defensive and offensive options. Yoshi and Captain Falcon's forward smash rear backward before crashing forward. By charging these smash attacks, players can dodge incoming attacks and take advantage of small openings in their opponents defenses.
  
• Holding an item is another stance. While holding an item, players can't grab. Depending on the item, the players attacks may be swapped out for a new set of attacks. Grab the beam saber, and many of the player's A attacks are swapped with saber attacks. Dropping the stance is a simple as dropping the item.
  

• Nintendo Forms. Smash is a game that is filled to the brim with Nintendo characters, history, and nostalgia. More often than not, animations and attack functions can be traced back to older Nintendo games. Keeping true to the cannon/lore/fiction of Nintendo helps define the form of Smash. In this way, form fits function relies on the history of Nintendo's game to connect to the game's multitudinous functions .

• Limited clutter.
  
• Limited use of invincible frames. Fighters generally give players invincible frames in situations so they don't get completely run over by their opponent. From Street Fighter, to Marvel vs. Capcom, to Soul Calibur, fighters usually give invincible frames to players that are getting up off the ground. Unfortunately, many fighters artificially hamper attacks to prevent players from easily juggling their opponents. In Smash, invincible frames are use sparingly, and because attacks are so dynamic, the core design didn't need to artifically hamper player attacks.
  
• Limited use of flashy attacks and excessive graphics. The core of Smash follows "form fits function" very closely. Because the function of moves/attacks can be inferred from the game's visuals, there is no room for excessive graphics and flashy animations. Fighers like GuiltyGearXX, Marvel vs. Capcom 2, and Soul Calibur feature character animtations and attack forms that are often muddled and even swallowed up by visual effects. Though the colored tracers on the Soul Calibur weapons helps players understand how the attacks move through 3D space, it would make a cleaner game if the tracers weren't needed.
  
• Limited use of cancels. Move commitment helps create a natural give-take, push-pull style gameplay that makes up the flow of combat. In general, attempting a more powerful move is a greater risk than attempting a weaker move. Usually, the risk involved with stronger attacks consists of leaving yourself open to attack. When fighers employ CANCEL mechanics, this is essentially a destructive move that works against the form and commitment of moves which, in turn, disrupts the flow of combat. After all, why wouldn't a player choose to remove the shortcomings and weakness of their moves if they had a choice. When moves function according to their forms, then adding a CANCEL mechanic would be an abstract addition.
  

• Limited abstract mechanics: Smash only features a damage meter which is basically player heath. Stock, time, points, and coins are score keeping devices rather than mechanics that influence gameplay. Many other fighters incorporate abstract mechanis like super meters, tension meters, and guard meters. Depending on the game, these meters can be filled up in a variety of ways that aren't necessarily connected to the mechanics and forms of their gameplay.
  

• 3D Hit boxes. Even though Smash is a 2D fighter, the stage and character models are rendered in 3D. In order to keep a tight relationship between the 3D forms and their 2D functions, Smash calculates its hit boxes in 3D. This allows for the player to understand the nature of moves in 3D but then apply them to a simpler scenario by playing in a 2D space.
  

Drill Dozer and the Dangers of Static Space

• Before I get into today's post, I have a quick update to announce. I'm changing the term negative space to static space. Recently, I had a conversation with the B.E.S crew involving abstract direction, calculus, and semantics. To make a long story short, I lost the battle. So, it's time for a change. The critical-glossary will reflect the update soon.

A little over half a year ago, I wrote an essay on Drill Dozer using New Classical and Structuralist video game theory. While the essay covered the mechanics and structures of Drill Dozer, at the time there was still an offputting quality about the game that I couldn't quite put into words. Back then, I explained to B.E.S that the game's primary function "DRILL" wasn't very fun. Because I knew that using the word "fun" to describe the game was neither clear, nor critical, I put the issue out of my mind.

Now I understand exactly why the DRILL mechanic is the biggest factor holding back Drill Dozer. The way the game is designed, DRILLing creates a lot of static space. The mechanic itself is mechanized and almost digital. Just like a power drill, when you click the button, the drill spins one way. And if you click the other button, the drill spins the other way. This parallel makes clicking the L or R buttons on the GBA direct, intuitive, and dynamic (as far as electric drills go). The problem is, the action of holding a button to activate a power drill isn't very engaging. After a drill is activated, it practically does the work for you. While this quality makes working with power tools easier in real life, in a game world where DRILLing is the most profound and meaningful action (ie. the primary mechanic) the ease and sort of automated gameplay is why Drill Dozer ultimately falls short of greatness.

Most of the interactive/destructible elements in Drill Dozer have a health bar whether it's visible or not. When DRILLing, the drill locks into place as if it were magnetized. Functionally, these design choices creates "set it and forget it" gameplay. In other words, once player connects with a target, which isn't hard due to the ability to aim the drill in all 4 directions, players simply hold down one of the shoulder buttons and wait for the target to be destroyed or the drill to run out of spin power. During this time, static space is created where the player is neither advancing toward the goal nor experiencing an escalating through increased threats or incentives to stop drilling.

Check out the video and see for yourself.

Thinking back on it, it's no wonder a rumble pack was included inside every copy of Drill Dozer. The force feedback makes the static space a little more interesting for the player.

Games with health bars and/or projectiles tend to have static space issues as well. Everyday Shooter has this problem to a lesser degree compared to Drill Dozer. Enemies in this game generally take multiple shots, so shooting to kill involves aiming at the target and waiting for it to be destroyed. Of course, the often chaotic levels encourage the player to move around and mix things up.

If you're going to do health bars, then there are ways to incorporated mechanics that add momentum and dynamically changing strategies to counteract the static space. Some bosses/enemies have last resort attacks or techniques that they only bust out when they're below 30% health or so. In Pikmin, some enemies becomes more susceptible to stun attacks when their health bar dips into the yellow and red zones. Of course, because interplay is made up of counters, even the first level of interplay would shift any situation out of its static space.

Geometry Wars has a similar problem with its primary mechanic of SHOOT. Because the player can SHOOT in any direction independently of moving, players can back away safely from most approaching enemies while firing in their wake. The strategies involved in the core gameplay amounts to little more than 1) move away from enemy cluster and 2) shoot at the cluster. In this case, the cluster of enemies functions like one large enemy with a health bar.

Repeating any strategy too many times in a row without the situation escalating (increase of momentum/flow) creates static space. In these situations, players may often say things like "I have the winning strategy, but I still have to keep it up for 20-30 more rounds. What's the point?" My old orchestra director Kevin Lacefield stressed to us repeatedly that whenever a song repeats anything from a single note to a whole passage, we must play the two differently. Whether in dynamics, articulation, speed, energy, or a combination, creating such a difference between two similar musical moments creates motion, and it is this motion that makes music. If you don't believe me, click here, and scroll down to the entry entitled "Piano Concerto 21," and listen to all the subtle and not so subtle changes in the main theme. Trust me, you'll know the main theme when you hear it.

As I have mentioned previously on this blog, attack-attack-heal is a prevalent and often dominant strategy in RPG combat. Such a dominant strategy can easily create static space when fighting formidable enemies. But some RPGs have gotten quite carried away with another feature that undoubtedly increases the amount of static space in the gameplay. Lengthly, excessive, and/or over the top battle animations. This is a particularly infuriating feature in RPGs with random battles, long load times, and cinematic animations for just about everything including watching the combatants phase into the battle zone. After the first 20 times of watching the characters ruuuuuun up, draw their weapon, strike, and do a little pose, we get the picture.

To punctuate the common RPG static space some RPG's like Lost Odyssey, Shadow Hearts, FF8, the Paper Mario RPGs, and the Mario & Luigi RPGs have features where players must carefully time button presses or other inputs methods to increase their attack power or move effectiveness. Simple additions like this go a long way toward keeping the player engaged and focused on the game.

Sometimes it's as easy as pondering, "How can we play this game instead of letting it play itself?"

Folded Level Design

Ever since Super Mario Brothers brought side scrolling levels to the masses, gamers have been running through the world without ever looking back. Kick a turtle shell to the left, and run away to the right for safety. Narrowly jump over a Hammer Brother and keep moving until he's off the screen and out of your life forever. Even though the majority of levels made nowadays aren't 2D side scrolling, they do have a starting point and an ending point with little to no backtracking.

Today I want to focus on the kind of level design that isn't about leaving things behind. I want to focus on a type of level design that is like climbing a tall tree to rescue a cat; going one way provides one kind of challenge (ie. climbing a tree), and getting back is a different challenge that builds upon the original challenge by adding a layer of depth/complexity (ie. climbing down a tree with a cat in one hand). I call this kind of level design folded level design.

Folded level design is different from back tracking, or playing new level/scenario that uses a familiar environement. Back tracking is simply traveling along previously visited paths and areas and usually involves the same challenging game elements as the original pass through. In other words, back tracking is simply going back without any significant changes or surprises. Likewise, reusing an environement from a previously visited environement is merely making a new level at a fraction of the effort.

Folded level design is like like folding a piece of paper; the two halves cover the same area but there's an addition layer to consider. For example... on your way to the kitchen you had to dodge all kinds of domestic objects that are now hazards in the dim lighting. But on your way back, you must to reconsider your approached due to the glass of water you are carrying in each hand.

The genius of folded level design is in how it develops a set of knowledge for the player and then manipulates it. In the cat tree rescue example, climbing up a tree is a challenge due to gravity, footing, and visibility. While ascending, one would gather knowledge about the arrangement and strength of the branches. Using both arms and legs, one would climb up the tree one step at a time. Upon reaching the top and with the cat (the crease) in hand, the challenge is folded. The crease is simply a term for the point at which a level folds upon itself. Now the climber has one less arm/hand to use, the pole like branches are transformed into downward steps, and the cat must be protected from stray branches. In this scenario, the knowledge of climbing branches is reanalyzed. A great path going up, could be a risky path going down.

In a video game, a level can be designed so that a player must perform certain actions before the level folds upon itself. Doing this is a safe way to ensure that the player has enough information to make the best decisions once the next layer is added. The clearest examples I can think of come from the Metroid series. Instead of using text boxes to explain what each power up does, the levels are design in a way so that the player "traps" themselves getting a powerup and then must use that powerup to escape thus self teaching the function of power up.

Perhaps it's best just to show some examples.

• Wario Land 4: Layer 1. Crease and Layer 2. In this game players delve deeper into each level searching for treasure and other monetary goodies. Upon reaching the end of the first half of the level, players must activate a switch that sets a timer for Wario's escape. The switch is the crease that folds the level back upon itself. The additional layer is the timer and the small blue bricks. These bricks will either switch on or off depending on their state before activation. The barriers created from these bricks help guide the player along their way back through the level.
  
• Boktai: Explanatory video. In this game, players journey deep into buildings/dungeons to retrieve sleeping bosses. The game can be played like an action game, but in true Kojima style stealth is the best course of action. Once inside the building, players must conserve their energy. At the boss, or the crease, players grab hold of the coffin and attempt to reverse stealth back outside the building. With coffin in hand, players travel extra slowly adding an extra layer to the mix.
  
• Pikmin 1 & 2. In Pikmin, like in most RTSs, players spend their time traveling away from their base to gather treasures/resources, fight battles, or scope out the area. Unlike in other RTSs though, Pikmin is designed to create dynamically folded gameplay in a more open world style. In general, players can seek out prized objects any way they want. If they so chose, players can sneak around enemies, climb over obstacles, and/9r jump down from higher platforms to reach treasure. The catch/crease occurs when players order their Pikmin to carry the treasure back to the base. Not only do the Pikmin carry the treasured object very slowly, but they're completely vulnerable as they take the shortest path back to base. If you're not careful, Pikmin can easily walk themselves into hazards or bump sleeping enemies. Even if the path the Pikmin take is completely clear, some enemies can be accidentally coerced out of their "zones" and wander into places you never expected them to be.
  
• What's even more dynamic though is, in the event that the player cuts their losses and calls their Pikmin back from carrying the treasure, the treasure will drop and stay in that location until the player moves it again the next time. Depending on how long the player waits to return to it, enemies can repopulate areas. So the next time you go back for that treasure, the challenge may have changed considerably with new enemies to guard it. For all these reason, the folded design in Pikmin is made up of dynamically intersecting folds upon folds thus achieving a multi-fold design or origami level design.
  
• Zelda Phantom Hourglass: This game is filled with folded level design probably because of how folded level design makes more use out of a limited space which is ideal when designing a handheld game. The battle mode is in essence an extension of the RTS style gameplay found in Pikmin. Furthermore, having to carry around the boss keys and switch gems to progress through the dungeons folds the level upon itself by adding the extra layer of Link's limited mobility and limited use of his weapons. The best example is probably the Temple of the Ocean King. Each time you visit this dungeon, Link's new abilities transform the strategies and possibilities for completing it. In some cases, they allow Link to reach new areas. In other cases, they allow Link to bypass sections reducing the progression time considerably. The notes players can write on the map are persistent which keeps the temple from completely resetting when the player leaves. Because the player must journey out of the temple to gather new items and abilities, playing the rest of the game can be thought of as the crease. Because the temple unlocks quests on the over world and visa versa, Phantom Hourglass as a whole achieves a multi-fold design or an accordion design.
  
• Zelda Twilight Princess: Temple of Time. Going up is a challenge/puzzle in itself. Once players obtain the Rod of Dominion and take control of the giant statue (the crease) at the top of the tower, the challenge is to get the statue back down. The descending challenge is more complex because of how Link controls the statue remotely with his own movements, the statue's limited mobility, and great weight. This temple is easily one of my most memorable Twilight Princess levels.
  
• The final castle in Zelda: OOT and 4 swords. You go up to do battle, and have to come back down with Zelda in your party. Protecting Zelda adds the additional layer in this folded design.
  
• Perfect Dark: mission 1,3. The first mission is all about infiltrating the dataDyne building using stealth. After retrieving the AI in the second mission, players must escape from the building by reversing the path they used to infiltrate it in mission 1. The new layer for the escape mission is that the whole building has been alerted to you presence and guards are waiting for you with traps. At the first step off the elevator, the lights are cut and players have to navigate in the dark while avoiding the barricade traps. The 2nd and 3rd mission in Area52 have a similar folded design.
• Super Metroid (and almost all other Metroid games): Speed Run. The design of Super Metroid's world involves a perfectly balanced amount of backtracking and discovery that is powered by Samus' transformative abilites that she gains along the way. With each power up, Samus gains a new way to dispense enemies with as well as a new way to move through the environement. Ball form can fit into small holes. Bombs and missiles can blast open new passage ways. The speed booster or super run can provides new ways to move through a space including straight up. This super run can also power through obstacles turning a bumpy road into a smooth track. Perhaps the most genius element of Super Metroid's folded level design is how these abilities create momentum and suspension between the game's distinct sections bringing what would other wise be independent level section into one cohesive flow of game ideas.
  
• Mario Kart Series: Because of the circular design of all race tracks in Mario Kart, items and traps left on any lap but the last lap are folded back into the game. Lay a bunch of bananas on the skinny bridge on DK Parkway and you might be the victim of your own deviousness. The layers are created from the "leftovers" on the track as well as the finish line. The pressure of finishing in first place puts a sort of fluid/dynamic timer on the gameplay experience that's relative to whoever is in first.
  
• Super Mario Bros. 3: World 7 castle. World 8 castle. One of the revolutionary new features Mario Bros.3 added to the series was the ability to move left or right at any time. Gone are the days of not being able to go back to see if you missed something. There are a few levels that use this feature to the max. In these levels Mario is stuck in an small series of distinct sections that loop in some way back into themselves. The strategy involves utilizing the respawning power ups from multiple pass through the looping level to gain the flying abilities needed to escape.
  

Taking CHARGE

CHARGE should be a very familiar mechanic to us by now. Since the NES, with games like Mega Man players have been able to charge their attacks to make their next shot more powerful. More specifically, the CHARGE mechanic only applies to cases where a move's strength, speed, or other positive property can be augmented by not using the move for some period of time. Some moves get a wider range (Mega Man X). Some become slower but home in on enemies (Star Fox 64). Some moves gradually get more extravagant the longer they're charged (FF6 Cyan's Sword Tech, Secret of Mana). Others require a move to be charged to activate it in the first place (Halo's Spartan Laser). Whatever the game, the weapon, or the situation, the CHARGE mechanic is quite genius in how it develops flow, creates momentum, and effectively punctuates negative space while giving the player the ability to adjust their own difficultly level by relying on knowledge and timing. Let's look at an example.

I'll be using Mega Man X as the main example.

In Mega Man X, there are 4 different types of shots with 3 levels of charge. The standard shot is very small. All damage is quantified by this attack. Though each bullet only does 1 unit of damage, this shot can be fired about as rapidly as the player can push the fire button (faster than 13 shots per second). This attack is only limited by the player speed and how the game is limited to displaying 3 shots of any type on the screen at any one time.

The green shot does 2 units of damage and travels at the same speed as the standard shot. To charge, players must hold down the fire button for approximately .6 seconds and release.

The blue shot does 4 units of damage and travels slightly faster than all other shots. It takes approximately 2 seconds to charge.

The pink charge is a devastating attack. By doing 12 units of damage from a 3.5 second charge, for the additional charge time, this attack triples the damage and the range of the blue charge shot.

In my experience, I use every type of charge in the game. Unlike other games where the most powerful attack strategy is used in every situation to efficiently progress (RPGs - attack-attack-heal), the 4 levels of shots in Mega Man X are balanced by time and space. The rapid standard shot is most effective at close range and on stationary targets. The green and blue charge shots are effective on most targets, but the player must sacrifice time to build each charge. However, because shooting and moving are directly related (ie. Mega Man can only shoot in the direction he's facing) there will naturally be times where the standard shot would be completely ineffective as the player is dodging, getting into position, or aiming.

Because the blue charge shot is slightly faster than the standard shot, it's possible for the player to hit targets that the standard shot would not be fast enough to reach. And finally, the pink charge shot takes the longest to charge but does the most damage of any single shot. Though this attack is large and travels at the same speed as the standard shot, it takes the longest to active upon releasing the fire button. This slightly changes the timing needed for aiming unlike all the other shot attacks. Using the pink charge shot involves the most risk-reward out of all of the shot attacks. As the charge time increases, the pressure on aiming increases. After all, in the world of gunplay, victory and death are both either hit or miss.

Adjustable Difficulty

By investing in a charge shot, players put more weight into hitting the target with their next shot. To successfully land a charge shot, players have to rely more on their knowledge of their enemies and environement.With spamable unlimited rapid fire attacks, aiming is less emphasized because there is no penalty or drawback from filling the screen with bullets (especially if there isn't a limit to how many bullets can be on th screen at one time).

Punctuates Negative Space

With unlimited rapid fire attacks, negative space is created when destructible obstacles block the player's progress. When these obstacles have lots of health, the only option for the player is to shoot and shoot and shoot until the obstacle is destroyed. As the obstacle's health is being whittled down, the player is at a short of standstill. By repeating the same efficient strategy, the only thing for players to do is wait until they can move forward again. In addition to having lots of health, when such obstacles fight back and/or are only vulnerable for small windows to time, the negative space increases.


Look at this green enemy for example. As you can see, all shots are ineffective on all spots except its head. The only way to hit the head is by repeatedly jumping and shooting. Because the enemy claw attacks is so predictable and avoidable by jumping, the advantages gained by charging are diminished. In other words, the time it takes to charge and fire just about equals the damage players can inflict by repeatedly jumping and firing standard shots. Because this enemy has so much health, and the strategy doesn't change even when the battle speed increases, this battle contains a lot of negative space.


For most bosses and enemies, the increased range and damage from charge shots offers strategic alternatives to the player's offensive approach. Due to Mega Man's solid platforming elements, dodging attacks, jumping over enemies, and moving through the environment naturally creates opportunities where it is advantageous for the player to start charging. In the image above, when Mega Man jumps over the missile or the electric balls, the enemy is ducking too low for a standard shot to hit. In this situation, charging a shot turns the negative space where the player would have to wait into positive space by investing in the next attack opportunity. So, as the the player moves through ever changing situations, the advantages and difficulty of the different shot strategies changes dynamically.

Creates Momentum

The easiest way to understand how charging creates momentum is understanding that the range/damage increase over time only matters if the players connects with the charged attack. If the player misses, then the opportunity is lost. If the player hits, then the investment reaps benefits beyond simply using the standard shot.

Develops Flow

In Mega Man X, when moving from one distinct section to another, there are typically no enemies to shoot. With nothing to SHOOT (the primary function of Mega Man X), the player is only left to platform to the next area. However, by CHARGing before coming up to the next set of enemies, the player's actions/mechanics are linked across distinct sections creating suspensions or syncopation. This kind of flow has a very strong drive forward.


MegaMan is just one game series that has nailed the CHARGE mechanic. Let's look at some others.

• The Legend of Zelda Series: spin attack. By holding down the attack button, players can hold out their sword for a powerful 360 degree spin attack. While holding the charge, player mobility is limited to facing in one direction. Though the outstretched sword is an attack, if it hits anything the charge is lost. Also many attacks can be held and charged for additional speed/damage/effects.
  
• Team Fortress 2 sniper class: By saying in scope, the sniper shot slowly charges to maximum damage. When the player drops the scope view, the charge is lost. This mechanic helps keep snipers playing like snipers (ie. long range shooters with careful, patient positioning).
• Super Mario Strikers Charged: Skill Shots. The non-captain characters all have a special skill shot they can make on the goalie if they charge the ball long enough. Some charges are quick, but don't have high scoring abilities. Some charges are long with nearly guaranteed goals as certain ranges. You can tell when a character is charging because they have to stop moving to charge. When the blue energy comes out, the charge is nearly complete. In addition to skill shots, the captains can charge mega strikes for multiple goals. And chip shots can be charged as well.
  
• Super Smash Brothers Series: All smash attacks can be charged to increase their damage and knock back. Additionally, there are many projectiles and special moves that can be charged including Giant's Punch, Needle Storm, Spin Charge, Peanut Popgun, and of course the Wario Waft.
  
• Halo 3: Spartan Laser. This powerful gun is strong enough to destroy ground based vehicles and flying crafts in one blast not to mention completely eliminating human players. To activate, players much charge the shot. While charging, a warning laser is sent out of the gun to tell targets that they're in a danger zone.
• Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles. Players can charge their melee attacks and magical spells. After charging, a cursor will appear indicating where the attack will land. If multiple players line up their cursors and time the release of their charges, new combination attacks are made. The cursor system is similar to the warning laser in Halo 3. It shows the intent of a player visually on screen so others can react appropriately. In this case, the possible reactions are for cooperative attacks.
  
• Star Fox 64. Homing shot. By charging the laser attack, players gain a slower projectile that can home in on targets and explode in a powerful blast.
• Super Mario Bros. 2: Players can charge their jumps by holding down.
• Super Mario Bros. 3/Super Mario World: Players can charge their run by running for an extended period of time. Once at max speed, with the aid of specific powerups, Mario can take off and fly around.
  

That covers the CHARGE mechanic. Many games have used it well, and there are still many that could benefit from incorporating the CHARGE mechanic to help them reduce clutter and negative space in their core design. Geometry Wars... Everday Shooter.... I'm looking at you. More on those later.