Videogames as Simon
April 17th, 2008When I read that the top-rated Ikaruga player said that the “XBLA version is horrible“, I figured that perhaps there was a problem with the graphics or the controls were somehow less responsive than they should be.
Instead, it turns out that the reason he believes it’s so bad is because of some slight tweaks made to some of the levels:
“I can confirm they screwed up Shigi. They swapped the colours of the initial position of the lasers and inverted the direction in which they rotate. The best strategy seems to start from the bottom left (which is now red), stay to the right of the laser as blue and release as red when you have no room left.
Unluckily, because Shigi initially moves to the left and the lasers rotate to the right, the laser trail is much more “vertical” and it’s a lot more difficult to shoot it as blue without freaking die.
This whole thing is SO SO SO annoying.
I also noticed some changes in the delay with which the ships come in in 4-1 and possibly the timing is more strict to make enemies coming from the background locked by our homing laser…”
Wow, that sounds pretty serious. How could the developers make these crucial and amazingly damaging changes to the game? It’d be like Nintendo changing the Super Mario Bros. 7-4 Castle pattern in a remake of that game, which would just be tragic.
In all seriousness, I can understand the player’s frustrations. Obviously, when you play a game and get really good at it, it’s annoying when something changes that suddenly makes you WORSE at the game. But it also brings up an interesting point about what we want in our games.
Like many games, particularly ones with an “old-school” vibe, Ikaruga depends on memorizing enemy patterns and placement and developing strategies around them. Since Ikaruga’s enemies and their attack patterns all follow pretty much an exact script every time you play them, it’s similarly possible to develop strategies that basically just depend on timing exactly where your ship is supposed to be, and exactly what it’s supposed to be shooting at any particular time. This isn’t necessarily a dig against the game, as it’s obviously still enjoyable to basically test your strategies and continue to improve your game. Still, in a strange sort of way, Ikaruga forces you to become nearly deterministic in the way you play the game, hence the frustration when changes are made that make it less deterministic (or at least, alternately deterministic).
With all the talk about “emergent” gameplay being the next-generation of gaming, this sort of response to an extremely slight change begs the question of whether this is something gamer’s actually want. Witness also the frustrations of MMO players whenever specific classes are perceivably “nerfed” or “buffed”. Certainly, valid criticisms can be made whether the changes are helpful or hurtful to the game overall, but generally the overriding criticism is that “I learned to play this way, and now I need to change.”
So, do gamers really want gameplay that changes with each encounter, or do they really just want the same game over and over again that allows them to essentially memorize a strategy and stick to it ad-nauseum? Or perhaps true gaming nirvana lies in striking just the right balance between the two?
Posted in Commentary, Jeff, Xbox 360 |
April 17th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
This is an awesome question and one best discussed in person, but I’ll give my 2 cents. I think gamers tend to want games that are inherently familiar without being clones. Most games don’t want to relearn HOW to do things, but want to be challenged by various ways of doing things they already know how to do. Like, once they perfect a headshot with a certain weapon, they then want the head to look different.
Seriously though, I think it comes down to gamers having a preconceived notion of how a game should play. Imagine the remaking Halo and changing which analog stick did what. When you consider the exacting way with which gamers play games like Ikaruga, I would say they changes they made probably feel like the same scale and swapping the analogs in Halo. Obviously you and I don’t feel its that big a deal, but to someone who’s entire strategy on certain levels is based on a predictable rotation of a certain colored laser, well it’s probably pretty serious.
I can speak from experience having been a competition level foosball player. The average player doesn’t even notice many of the variables involved with specific tables, things like how new the ball is make a huge difference in the pace of the game as well as shot potential. Throw old balls on the table and experienced players will groan, some may even quit playing altogether.
So, yeah, we want certain things to be predictable. What we want to be predictable is somewhat dictated by our skill and experience.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
That’s a good point… Obviously players expect to take certain things for granted, or rather, to behave as they expect when they play a game. On the other hand, does a game like Ikaruga become pointless once you’re good enough that your actions become deterministic? I realize there’s room for different kinds of games, but you’d think that experienced players might welcome a new challenge for a game they already mastered ages ago (especially in this case, where it sounds like the developers actually made the boss slightly more challenging).
I suppose I should’ve mentioned this in the post itself, but if you want to take a look at a game that basically throws all rules out the window, and thus becomes the ultimate “Simon” game of trying and retrying until you’ve mastered the entire sequence of a level, you should check this out:
http://www.kongregate.com/games/Eggy/the-unfair-platformer
I dunno what possessed me to play this through something like 6 or 7 levels the other night, but even going through the process of just memorizing a level is often times amusing enough, and despite it’s “unfairness”, basically makes it no different than a game like Ikaruga.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
“I realize there’s room for different kinds of games, but you’d think that experienced players might welcome a new challenge for a game they already mastered ages ago”
I agree in theory, but you’re assuming that once you’ve memorized a sequence that the execution of that sequence is then without challenge. In fact, I think that games like Ikaruga, while requiring memorization, really challenge the player in the perfect execution that is then required. Basically, the memorization in a shmup is analogous to learning the subtleties of controlling the crosshairs in specific FPS. Once you are intimate with the control (or have memorized the pattern in a shmup), you are then challenged to manipulate those controls (execute the pattern) to achieve the objectives of the game. Thus, changing the pattern is similar to changing the controls.
But yes, in general I do agree with you about looking for new challenges. But at the same time I can identify with the guy who’s bitching about the changes.
April 20th, 2008 at 4:24 am
bit offtopic here…
do you think MS is seriously conceding the World wide market to Sony? i.e. that they’re willing to cede market share and serious 1st, 3rd party effort, Live, online stuff, DLC, etc…..just because they want to make some profit instead of losing on their Entertainment Division [which includes the sales disappointing Zune]?
dont you think that MS’s RRod debacle is far serious than Sony’s $599 thing, which btw is largely gone, but the RRod isn’t?
I’m starting to believe that Sony will end up second place WW, and MS is second place in US with Sony not too far behind.
Regarding US, think:
PS2 vs xbox vs GC
becomes
wii vs 360 vs ps3, in market share.
THere is a strong report comming off CAG that MS wont drop their price for Gta4, WHICH they bragged on their recent NPD PR…
amazing. I wonder if Moore was really that pivotal to the xbox division?
April 20th, 2008 at 8:17 am
@laspy,
“do you think MS is seriously conceding the World wide market to Sony?”
Not intentionally, but with repeated colossal failures in Japan, it’s hard not to think it was inevitable. MS’s lead and strength in the US is impressive, but Japan is too big a market and Europe has a hardon for Sony. Their success in the US is just not enough to permanently outpace strong global sales from Sony.
“dont you think that MS’s RRod debacle is far serious than Sony’s $599 thing”
This is a tough one. I think with the way they handled it, (warranty extension without actually fixing the problem), yes, it’s more serious. If they had done a recall and immediately reengineered the box, they could have avoided the long lasting aura that now surrounds the Red box of death.
“I’m starting to believe that Sony will end up second place WW, and MS is second place in US with Sony not too far behind.”
Me too, but if Sony gets momentum globally, who knows what could happen in the US. That kind of momentum can make things happen.
“I wonder if Moore was really that pivotal to the xbox division?”
Could be, and possibly a negative, if he had anything to do with the decision to deny the RROD for almost a year. That was a huge mistake and I think he was part of that and that’s why he got the hell out of dodge.
April 20th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Laesp-
I wrote a column about exactly this a few weeks ago:
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/03/20/counting-rupees-the-year-of-the-ps3/
The gist is that Sony will overtake Microsoft this year worldwide, but that Microsoft’s US lead is somewhat difficult for them to overcome.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:11 am
ok, make fun of me if you must, but i was just told that Halo 3 rendered in 640p! i thought it was as high as 1080p, let alone 720P!!! pwahahahahahaha
apparently, the sacrifice was to include two frame buffers isntead of one….just for lighting, according to MS PR head, Luke Smith.
this is just hilarious, even though im rather LTTP
April 22nd, 2008 at 2:57 am
Laesp-
That story is so September ‘07. =)
April 23rd, 2008 at 7:22 am
Yeah Laspy what rock have you been hiding under and why is it you can’t even stick to a topic that YOU steered us onto?
Seriously though, the internet matlocks have discovered several 360 games are actually rendered at 640. As it turns out the 360 is not quite as capable as people think. Realistically no one notices expect on the largest screens which just goes to show that true HD is not as vital as people think. 640 is still plenty of resolution. Halo 3 looks great.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:24 am
I have a 61″ screen and Halo 3 looks fine.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:51 am
i guess you guys are taking a break from new articles….oh well. here’s one for ya:
http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3167513
April 24th, 2008 at 5:50 am
“I have a 61″ screen and Halo 3 looks fine.”
Exactly. And if you do the math, on a 61 in screen, with a rendered resolution of 640 lines, you’ve got a diagonal line density of 10.49, or 10.49 lines of resolution for every diagonal inch of screen realestate.
This equates to viewing a 480P rendered image on a 46in screen. So someone playing a game in 480P on a 46 in screen will have the same potential rendered line density as someone playing Halo 3 on your TV.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:09 am
@laspy,
I read that link.
It basically took the writer 4 long pages to say that the industry pays attention to forums like NeoGAF. Who knew.