next »

[Guert]

Critic’s corner: Cave story
The cute terminator

   Nearly a year ago, I discovered the strange world of independent gaming. Lost and slightly confused, I stumbled from one website to another in search of original and interesting titles to palliate my craving for gameplay that the mainstream industry could not satisfy. One title kept coming back in blogs, discussion forums and chat rooms: Cave story. Doukutsu Monogatari to be precise. I downloaded it, tried it for a few minutes then tossed it aside with the thought of picking it up later once I finished a few projects gobbling up my free time. Last week, I finally took the game out of the “to play” pile and investigated what all the fuss was about. As you may know, I have a tendency toward criticism and of course, I could not resist the urge of taking notes as I played the game and, since I had them in hand, I figured it would be a good idea to share those criticism with fellow developers and see what they think.

   Before you keep on reading, I would like to remind you that I am in no mean a professional critic or writer and that my goal here is to stimulate a discussion and practice my criticism skills. Feel free to disagree but please, state why you do. In addition, I will refer to the player as he for simplicity sake only; the context applies for both male and female players. 

   Instead of using my usual grind structure that I have been elaborating for the past months, I will try to use a different approach, focused around my personal opinions rather than a rational and neutral look as I have been trying to do so far.

The doctor is in...

Who needs a million colors when a handful can create a world?
   First off, I would to start by stating that I enjoyed the game and that I found the graphics to be extremely well done. One of Cave story’s strong point lies in its simple representation. The graphics are smooth, pure and effective. All characters and elements are displayed as a mass of color baring few blocks of shadows while using only a few colors, four in most cases. Even while using so little colors, the clarity of the image is not diminished. The purification of shapes and details give a cute and innocent feel to the game’s elements. Even the nastiest looking creature can look somewhat huggable. The player’s avatar is always easy to recognize throughout the entire world, which is a hard feat to accomplish due to all the different environments found in the game. This soft feeling we get from looking at the artworks helps to tone down the various weak points of the title, making the game look like a beautiful child dream where nothing is never really threatening but that can still be dangerous.

Simple character design makes the game look smooth and friendly

This is not to say that all the graphics in Cave story are perfect. This lack of detail can sometimes lead to some confusion in the field of the tiles. At various occasions, the tiles used to indicate background details end up misleading the player. This usually occurrs when these tiles are placed out of their original context. For instance, background tiles used to indicate structure of houses in the mimiga village can cause some confusion when they are placed away from the houses. In general, the problem does not lie in the color of the tile, since they are darker than front tiles, but rather in their details and color count. Since the tiles in the background have almost as many colors then tiles in front and have the same amount of details, the feeling of depth is reduced and may lead to some questioning about if the tile is walk-able or not, especially when the player cannot easily compare them. Generaly, when elements are close by, they should bare more details than the elements away from the viewer’s eye, following the logic that when you see something up-close, you get to see more details than from afar.

The dark block causes confusion in terms of depth

   In addition, the simplicity of the graphics can also lead to some confusion in terms of character design. All characters, including friends and foes, have been designed in a simple and cute style that fits the game like a glove. The problem is that enemies and friends all look alike. For instance, the mushroom enemies found in the graveyard of the mimigas village do not look threatening and bare a striking resemblance to the friendly mimigas. Most enemies in the game, apart from the bosses and mini-bosses, all look like characters that could help the player during his journey. At the same time, characters that are here to help, like King or Jack, have nastier

It's hard to tell friends from foes

looking designs than most enemies, like the grave keeper or the dragons in the egg corridor. This character design direction causes the player to become paranoid and make him shoot every character he sees, just to be sure that they are not enemies. This, of course, breaks the logical continuity of the game. Most characters get shot at but still welcome the player with opened arms. The design logic of the main avatar could have been transported on the rest of the game: the main avatar is unique and no other characters look like him. The mimigas could have been unique, like being the only pure white creatures throughout the world. This way, when the player would have

spotted a white creature, he would have know right away that a friendly relationship was about to occur and not some savage shoot-out. Still, despite it’s low resolution, the game has fantastic graphical representation and is, I believe, a reference for other development teams who wish to use a low-color design while making the game extremely clear.

   In terms of sound and music, the game offers a great soundtrack and fitting sound effects. The general vibe of the music takes the player back in the early days of gaming when chip-tunes ruled the game world. Every song matched the general ambiance of their context and the sound effects evoke the right reactions: good rhythms in action scenes, slower paced melodies in tragic moments and good use of silence in appropriate time truly enlighten the experience. The only snag I found on this topic can be heard whenever the player finds a health upgrade. Although it is an homage to the classic NES title Metroid, the music played when acquiring the capsule feels more like a rip-off than an original sound effect. That is not to say that it is entirely bad, but it is always better to keep the inspiration subtle and not make a direct link to another game. First, you want the player to forget that he is playing a game so he can immerse himself in your universe. Second, you do not want the player to leave your game and play another one by reminding him how the inspirational work used to be, especially when it is considered a classic in its field.  Besides that little thing, the musical and auditory representation of Cave story is spotless.
 

Broken chopper fight

Stand still and look pretty
   One of the parts that disappointed me in this game was the lack of emotional involvement of the player within the game’s universe. Although it presents an interesting and tragic storyline, Cave story ruins the emotional side of the story events by locking the player into a mere witness when his help is needed. Every time something in the game happens where emotions of the characters are involved, most of the time when kidnapping and death occurs, the player is imprison in frustration as the game removes the control of the avatar who will remain immobile and speechless throughout the cut scene. During the dialogs between the avatar and the inhabitants of the world, the theme of the feelings and heart of the avatar is recurrent as the characters imply that the hero is a nice individual who actually cares about what happens on the island. But since the player cannot act in time of dire need, this makes the main character look like a cold and heartless monster. Whenever he watches a horrific scene, the main character simply stands there and waits for it all to be over but he does not mind shooting down weak creatures in the levels. Either the hero is a monster who enjoys watching misery or he is a coward that will only fight those who are weaker then him unless he is provoked directly by an opponent. In all cases, this behavior does not follow the intended storyline at all.

   Speaking of the storyline, another that I found annoying throughout the game experience was the numerous holes in the story. The general plot lacks details regarding the characters and their universe. Everything seems to exist only to exist; none of them truly feels like they have a purpose outside the game experience. Take the

The lovable evil toaster-tv Balrog

recursive mini-boss Balrog. Through his dialogs, this character feels like he has an interesting background and personality but he is never truly presented to the player. Balrog look like the kind of evil character that is not truly evil, much more of a thug who has a heart of gold hidden under a layer of coal. On many occasions, we can see that soft side shine through, such as when Balrog ask us to fight or not or when he decides to help us move the boulder in the labyrinth but we are never truly explained why he acts in such manner. Also, the player does not receive any reason why Balrog evolves every time he must battle him. How does he learn new moves after each fight? If he already knows those moves, why does he hold back on the player when he is clearly a threat to his life? All of those questions remain unanswered. Other characters, such as the

mimigas, the robots and the evil doctor could have used a lot more development. There are also elements that are left untouched by the story. For instance, the hermit gunsmith, the old woman with her dogs, the cthulthu folks, Malco the robot, doctor Gero and his nurse are all characters that are left behind by the hero and they are eventually killed by the destruction of the island even though they came to his help. I feel like it would have been better to be told that these characters were sacrificed for the greater good, or have them killed before my eyes than just forgotten by the main character.

   Another hole in the story lies in the game’s universe design. When we think of the island where the action unfolds, it is hard to tell exactly how big and complex it is. We get a vague idea of its size but in the end, we only explore a small fraction of it. The game does not need to allow us to go everywhere but it would have been a good idea to show us exactly how big this island is before it blows up. It would have also been quite interesting to know exactly why the island blew up because a skull in a cocoon got fried.  The island is only a part of the game’s universe. Where does it float? Where do the humans come from? How advance is their technology if they can build robots but still use military helicopters that are common today?  Did anyone noticed back in their homeland that a group of scientist had left to investigate a floating island and never came back? Answering these questions in some way during the experience will allow the player to understand the impact of his actions on the rest of the world. Even if the main character’s memory has been erased, the other inhabitants do remember about his kind and could have given hints about the universe. The multiple endings in this game patch up some of the holes one can find, especialy if he hasn't found all the possible endings, but even then, the "bad" endings should hint the player of the situation. Some questions do not need precise answers but the game should supply enough information to the player so he can fill intentional holes by himself. For instance, the game could give nebulous hints on a subject which would lead the player to imagine himself the details, involving the player in the process. It is unfortunately not the case in Cave story.   

A skull, frogs, ghosts and AN OWL!

On +3 missile > +1 mimiga_monster Goto NextScene Skip Emotions
   One of the worst weak points in Cave story is the total lack of player immersion. Every time the player makes a move, the game keeps reminding him that this whole world is imaginary. Damage points pictured over the characters, gauges constantly displayed on screen, disk icons placed over doors to indicate save points, invincible enemies while events are not triggered and a rigid storyline are just a handful of examples that break every attempt of the player to loose himself in the virtual world. It is sad to see that the design of the game took this statistic-driven approach. The game is trying really hard to make us feel emotions toward the characters found throughout the game but this “adding machine” direction completely messed up the emotional side.

Blasting the poor Igor

Sure, this design philosophy opens the door to fierce competitive play but it also replaces the feelings of sympathy to make way to rational thoughts.  The game ends up focusing the player’s mind on such things as how many damage points can be inflicted to an enemy with a missile launcher while making him forget about the fact that the enemy used to be a mimiga who got robbed of his life and free will to become monster driven by a murderous thirst for blood. This ends up with the player caring only about how much he is going to make the poor mimiga feel pain with his shiny new weapon instead of being

saddened by the terrible faith of the creature. It is quite unfortunate because the storyline involves many character sacrifices and each one of them could have enlightened the whole experience. Instead, their deaths only mean that the player can get a new upgrade or reach a new scene. It is not impossible for a game to offer a strong competitive gameplay while keeping the player immerse. For example, the early Megaman series delivered precise gameplay and good immersion given the technical limitations. The first titles, in particularly the second one, made an effort to keep the player focused on the gameplay and not on the statistic values of the player's action. Even if the game included statistic play, such as finding out which weapon dealt more damage to which boss, the general experience felt natural.  It's a shame that a modern title like Cave story, who flagrantly inspires itself from games from this era, has failed to at least capture the same emotional content.

Run and don't look back!

Something's wrong with the core...
   In my opinion, the game possesses two major flaws in the core of its design. First of all, I felt like the controls were rather sloppy. The jumping mechanism in itself is not that bad, but the floating effect in the jumps made controlling the position of the landing tricky. Since many jumping challenges found in the game are very precise, it made the controls feel sluggish. Shooting was easy to master but the lack of character movement, like ducking or running, made it feel slightly incomplete. This also raises the general difficulty of the game since the player knows what to do but the basic functions he can use do not seem to respond exactly as he planned. The controls are not impossible to master but they do require some time investment in order to learn the basics and start enjoying the game. This doesn't mean that the control scheme found in Cave story is bad, it simply means that it could have been tighter, especially since character control is crucial in a action game.

   The second flaw lies in the most crucial part of the game: the gameplay. Cave story offers a very shallow and stretched experience.  What the game offers is well crafted and entertaining but it does not deliver much in the long run. In fact, once you’ve played the game for about 20 minutes, you’ve seen pretty much what you’ll have to do for the rest of the game: shoot, jump, collect bouncing Doritos and run through the same level three or four times to get all the items needed to move on to the next cut-scene. Sure, the game offers a bit of gameplay development with the power-ups, such as the jetpack and new weapons, but the strategies and basic gameplay remains the same. The missions the player has to complete are usually elaborated fed-ex missions where the player will have to go through the same level numerous times in order to fetch items that are hidden throughout the play field. The last levels are a lot more interesting gameplay-wise then the entire first half of the game. These levels offer less fetch missions and a lot more exploration and continuous action. The game could have avoided this problem by simply adding a new gameplay mechanic after the first mission, such as the jetpack, and then focus some challenges in early levels around the new power. I feel like it would have made the first part of game feel less like a chore and  it would have added more exploration elements without breaking the evolution of the jet pack, which happens to upgrade relatively quickly compared to the guns. 

[Guert]

Just… A little… Longer…

When we look at the different goals found in Cave story, we can safely say that this is where the game truly excels. The game successfully includes tons of short-term and mid-term goals that just keep the player glued to his chair. In most cases, the goals are easy to reach, quickly achieved and once finished, another goal is given right away. For example, in the egg corridor section, the player is offered many different routes and at least three mission goals. It also feature secrets and hard to reach power-ups. While exploring this level, the player will face new enemies and even solve one puzzle. The game does a fine job in teasing the player during his voyage, showing the player regions and treasures he could explore if he just could find a way to reach it, such as putting an unreachable door in the mimiga graveyard that can only be reached once the jetpack or a special gun is acquired. The storyline seldom gives the player a break so there is always something to do. This has for effect to give a fast pace to the game which fits the action theme perfectly. From leveling up weapons to searching the level for power-ups, the game has the beautiful quality of making the player incapable of putting down his controller.

The game likes to tease the player

 
   Even if Cave story offers plenty of short-term goals, it does not mean that those goals are as interesting as they could be. The mid-term goals are extremely well crafted but the short-term goals become annoying with time. The first one that illustrates this point is the weapon leveling up goal. Usually, an element that must be leveled up becomes a mid-term goal since completing it requires time, but in Cave story, the player will loose weapon experience every time he looses health points. This means that the player receives a lot of negative feedback when failing and has to constantly search for experience points since those he gains are not secure. This strong negative feedback on failing makes the game feel slightly unfair and more difficult than what it really is.

   In addition, the long-term goals are lacking in number. Cave story offer only a handful of long-term goals, which lowers the game’s replay value. Besides finishing the game, the player is not given much more to look for. The storyline is rather rigid, meaning that there are no alternate paths to reaching the same ending or much ways to alter them. Even if the game offers three different ways to finish the game, in the end, it is not nearly enough to make the player come back to the game after he has seen them all.  It could have been interesting to see more goals based on exploration. For instance, having the hero save mimigas scattered around the island or save other creatures oppressed by the doctor could have added a lot of replay value. In fact, any other long-term goals besides finishing the game would truly enhance the experience.

Arthur's home, the key location of the game

Robots don’t have feelings but have much to do
   When I take a look back, Cave story is a game that failed to grab me emotionally. It’s not that the game did not try to involve me inside its virtual world, it’s just that I always felt like it had a weird split personality. From the general immersion of the game to the avatar’s forced psychology, I kept having the feeling that the design direction of the game didn’t know where it wanted me to stand.  In fact, I ended up feeling like I was some sort of cute terminator. I played the role of a robot that came from the past, gifted with incredible killing skills, who then stole a weapon from a human and destroyed everything in his path, leaving a trail of dead behind until everything was destroyed. And when something terrible was happening to my friends, I watched in silence. The only thing missing was a monotone voice echoing “where is Sue the mimiga?” every time I encountered an enemy.

   On the other hand, Cave story hooked me as a technical game. Even with mechanisms that could have been better, the game successfully engaged me as a competitor. The tons of mid-term goals, the fast pace and it’s comfortable length kept me playing for hours straight. In fact, I have devoured the game twice in less than four days. In the end, the game’s strong points eclipsed its weakness and left me a strange satisfaction. I enjoyed it but the game failed to impress me even though I wish it would have. It is a bit sad to hear that the creator of the game, Pixel, doesn’t seem to want a sequel to his creation. I can only hope that others who loved his work will create games that will fix the weaknesses of Cave story while keeping its charms.

That's all folks!

[Guert]

Let the DISCUSS begin!
Hope you like my crit!
And special thx to Melly!

[Akhel]

Nice critic, Guert, though I must say none of these points ever occurred to me while playing the game. Surely that's at least partly because of, as you said, your tendency towards criticism (and mine away from it), but also because I see Cave Story as a simple, uncompromised and very personal game, rather than a carefully designed experience. If I recall correctly, Pixel said he didn't even plan things up ahead, preferring to come up with them on the fly instead.

Since the tiles in the background have almost as many colors then tiles in front and have the same amount of details, the feeling of depth is reduced and may lead to some questioning about if the tile is walk-able or not, especially when the player cannot easily compare them. Generaly, when elements are close by, they should bare more details than the elements away from the viewer’s eye, following the logic that when you see something up-close, you get to see more details than from afar.

The dark block causes confusion in terms of depth

That wasn't a problem to me – the darker tones served me right to differentiate foreground from background. Looking at this screenshot, though, I can see what you mean.

One of the parts that disappointed me in this game was the lack of emotional involvement of the player within the game’s universe. Although it presents an interesting and tragic storyline, Cave story ruins the emotional side of the story events by locking the player into a mere witness when his help is needed. Every time something in the game happens where emotions of the characters are involved, most of the time when kidnapping and death occurs, the player is imprison in frustration as the game removes the control of the avatar who will remain immobile and speechless throughout the cut scene.

You're very, very right. Again, I didn't notice that while I was playing, but looking back at it now I can see how that can deeply disturb the experience for some players.

[Comment on lack of elaboration in some of the details of the story and the universe of the game]

There I disagree. I actually liked the vagueness of these aspects – I think they help to maintain the overall mood of the game and the focus on the main story and the gameplay.

Also, about the core – someone on Wikipedia theorized about it existing to counterbalance Ballos's evil magic, which was making the island fall down. That would explain quite nicely why it starts to fall when the core is destroyed, but starts floating again once the player kills Ballos.

(Here it is. Also, another user has a different opinion)

One of the worst weak points in Cave story is the total lack of player immersion. Every time the player makes a move, the game keeps reminding him that this whole world is imaginary. Damage points pictured over the characters, gauges constantly displayed on screen, disk icons placed over doors to indicate save points, invincible enemies while events are not triggered and a rigid storyline are just a handful of examples that break every attempt of the player to loose himself in the virtual world.

I really didn't care about that. I don't see anything wrong with the game-like feel of Cave Story (heh, it feels funny to talk about the "game-like feel" of a game, but you know what I mean). I think Pixel focused mainly in entertaining the player with the gameplay rather than immersing him and telling a story. If it was the latter, I would agree with you – playing Half-Life (a story-oriented game) with little numbers flying around would be terribly lame. On the other side, nobody really cares about the "CRITICAL HIT" messages on Team Fortress 2 (a... uh, game-oriented game? :D).

The second flaw lies in the most crucial part of the game: the gameplay. Cave story offers a very shallow and stretched experience.  What the game offers is well crafted and entertaining but it does not deliver much in the long run. In fact, once you’ve played the game for about 20 minutes, you’ve seen pretty much what you’ll have to do for the rest of the game: shoot, jump, collect bouncing Doritos and run through the same level three or four times to get all the items needed to move on to the next cut-scene. Sure, the game offers a bit of gameplay development with the power-ups, such as the jetpack and new weapons, but the strategies and basic gameplay remains the same.

Sorry, I don't think this is a valid argument. Using the same logic, FPSs have flawed gameplay because, once you’ve played them for about 20 minutes, you’ve seen pretty much what you’ll have to do for the rest of the game: shoot, dodge and collect ammo (sure, they offer a bit of gameplay development with the new weapons you get but the strategies and basic gameplay remain the same). And don't even get me started on JRPGs

In my opinion, the game possesses two major flaws in the core of its design. First of all, I felt like the controls were rather sloppy. The jumping mechanism in itself is not that bad, but the floating effect in the jumps made controlling the position of the landing tricky. Since many jumping challenges found in the game are very precise, it made the controls feel sluggish. Shooting was easy to master but the lack of character movement, like ducking or running, made it feel slightly incomplete. This also raises the general difficulty of the game since the player knows what to do but the basic functions he can use do not seem to respond exactly as he planned.

I never missed the ability to run, and to duck only once or twice. I don't think these would fit the game very well. As for the "floatiness" of the character, I agree partly – while different from what most of us are used to, it was never a hindrance to me, and was very easy to adapt to.

Usually, an element that must be leveled up becomes a mid-term goal since completing it requires time, but in Cave story, the player will loose weapon experience every time he looses health points. This means that the player receives a lot of negative feedback when failing and has to constantly search for experience points since those he gains are not secure. This strong negative feedback on failing makes the game feel slightly unfair and more difficult than what it really is.

Well, I found the weapons very easy to level, meaning this "negative feedback" had very little impact during calm parts of the game, when you can "grind" to get that lost experience back, but contributed with the difficulty during battles, when, say, your favorite weapon loses all its levels and you are forced to use another one until the combat ends.

All in all, I thought it was very nice to hear read your opinions about Cave Story (probably my second favorite game). Looking forward to seeing more of the Critic's Corner

[Guert]

Hey!
First of all, thanks for reading Second, I think I have to add a bit of details around my thoughts. I totaly respect your opinion and it's quite interesting to read your thoughts about this game.

Now... I didn't know much about Cave story before playing it. When I picked it up, I just played it like any other game I play. So maybe I'm a bit hard on a title created by one guy just for the kick of it, but what matters to me is what the experience offered is all about. If Pixel had something to tell me before I played the game, then it should've been in the game itself. I believe that a game should speak for itself

When I talk about lack of universe detail, I'm not really saying to tell everything to the player and, as you mentionned, giving too much details would have probably ruined the "amnesia" concept. What bothered me is that at the end of the game, we could have had more. Lemme reference Megaman 2 again (sorry ). When the game ends, the game gives very little information about the events hapening but gives just enough so that the player can interpreted it in many ways. Megaman walks for a while and leaves his helmet behind and all that we see is a picture of a lovely village. Well, if you associate the fact that the game started in a big city and that it ends in a small village and we are not explained what happens, the player can then fill the gap to his liking. He could believe that megaman decided to leave the big city to live in a small village away from technology or that he decided to die somewhere peaceful. Who knows. That's the kind of touch I was expecting from Cave story. Instead, I got some pictures of events I already knew of. There's a good chance that the better endings fill more holes but I think that any ending should wrap up the experience before leaving the player. But I also understand your opinion

In terms of immersion, yes perhaps the game was built to be simply entertaining but, I feel like, if Pixel wanted to walk down the path of having an emotional story, he should've walked it all the way. Well, in my opinion...

As far as stretched gameplay goes, you probably don't want me to get started on FPS either, jrpgs or basicaly 90% of the games on the market. I may sound very rigid toward Cave story but believe me, if you feel I'm rough with this one then I usualy torture commercial games. Well, at least I know I torture my girlfriend and friends with my rants about that

I do agree with you about the fact that a weapon loosing its power through a battle makes the bosses more challenging... Perhaps this is the kind of thing that's double-edged. I think that, on that subject, it's really a matter of taste. Good point! I didn't think of that side while playing

Thanks again for sharing your views

[bigbossSNK]

"Enemies and friends could be color coded"
Yeah, but the game stands out over the rest in that it treads in ambiguity. E.g. you only become certain of King's true nature AFTER his self sacrifice. Until that time he is an ambiguous character, who could (theoretically, for you the ignorant gamer) end up fighting you if that would further his goals. This is a surprisingly efficient story telling method, that few novels utilize, let alone games.
Not being explicitly told what everyone's intentions are is a plus, not a minus.

"When I take a look back, Cave story is a game that failed to grab me emotionally"
There are a lot of emotional threads in Cave story: King's preexisting battle with his nemesis, and ultimate self-sacrifice, Balrog's journey from a mindless thug to an independent character, the Doctor's hunger for power, Curly and Quote bonding. But they aren't force fed to you, you have to read between the lines.

"When something terrible was happening to my friends, I watched in silence."
The player is a robot. You, the gamer, can have feelings, but the player does not. And so the player doesn't act on the gamer's feelings.

"Any ending should wrap up the experience before leaving the player"
I, on the other hand, like being awarded for my extra effort. Leaving a few threads loose begs me to go back in and tie them.

On as side note, Lust and Gluttony (from FullMetal Alchemist) are a possible inspiration for Misery and Balrog.

[Guert]

Note that I'm not looking for hand holding or spoon feeding in a game. All I'm saying is that the game should provide enough details to get my imagination running. It's one thing to add characters with intriguing back stories but when creating a game, a designer's focus should be on what the player feels, not on the side shows. The avatar is controlled by the player hence they become one. When the player feels something, the avatar does too. When a game freezes the avatar, it means that the player is removed from the game, telling him that he's not important anymore when he should be center stage. 

When wrapping up a story, you don't need to tie all the loose end, just make sure that the basics are covered and remind the player that something else can happen if he just looked a bit more. I like being rewarded for extra effort too, in fact all games should reward extra work, but I also like it when the game offers a complete experience and does not make me feel like I'm some accessory in a story made for the creator's pleasure. I'm here to be entertained, not witness the entertainment of someone else.

[bigbossSNK]

"The avatar is controlled by the player hence they become one. When the player feels something, the avatar does too"
No. The player (avatar/ sprite/ whachamacallit) is in the game world. The gamer (you) is only transported in the game world as long as the designer allows the gamer to map his intentions on the player.
As such, the avatar can have a mind of it's own on what I'm trying to make him do. One of the memorable moments in MGS was when the player (Snake) refuses to kill his ally (Grey Fox), even though the gamer instructs him to do so.
"It's no good, I can't do it"

"a designer's focus should be on what the player feels, not on the side shows"
That depends interely on what kind of flavor you want your game to leave on each target group of gamers.
A game can reveal 80% percent of it's content on the first play-through, meaning the average gamer will be satisfied.
Or, it can reveal 60 percent on the first play-through, leaving the average gamer slightly satisfied. But for the hardcore gamer, there's that 40% to come back for.
Both are valid options, with different target groups in mind.

[Guert]

 I'm a firm believer of the design philosophy where the player is all that matters. If the story isn't driven by the player's action, I don't think the experience has reached his first goal: entertain the player by making him live new emotions by involving him personaly within the game universe. I believe that emotional involvement of the player is key to create great games. There are many ways to achieve this and these methods usually all put the player under the spotlight. 

 Of course, a philosophy like the one you just explained can work, but I personaly feel that this avenue makes the player a tool: the player can only perform the task he is allowed too, mostly when emotions are not required, mostly in physical scenes. This, I believe, gives the game a strong competitive flavor that doesn't favor the emotional involvment of the player within the virtual world.

[bigbossSNK]

"I believe that emotional involvement of the player is key to create great games."
Emotional involvement can help, but it isn't a necessity. Most successful skill based games (let's say Super Mario) don't conjure any emotional involvement (though as you mentioned Megaman does).
Emotional involvement can be one of the hooks that reel you in, but it's not the only one. Hence, it's just another tool in the designer's discretion to use when and where he deems fit.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

I think a lot of the criticisms here are criticizing things Pixel was not trying to do. So even while I agree that it might be a better game if he did try to do those things, it's possible he, for example, cared less about emotional immersion than about being game-like.

[Zetetic Elench]

I'm a firm believer of the design philosophy where the player is all that matters. If the story isn't driven by the player's action, I don't think the experience has reached his first goal: entertain the player by making him live new emotions by involving him personaly within the game universe.

Could you elaborate on this? Even assuming that making the player "live new emotions by involving him personally" is the goal of the game designer, there's a degree of ambiguity here that is startling. What does it mean for the player to drive the story with their actions? If the player's actor is a main character in the game, the player cannot help but drive the story, even if her agency is mostly bound and gagged. I can only assume you mean that player choice should have a significant impact on the story - but this isn't necessary for the player's emotional involvement at all. If this were the case, a million JRPG fans would cry out in terror, and then be silenced. You may not feel emotional involvement with the game, but they do. And they're an audience.

This aside, I'm seeing no exclusive connection between the player's action driving the story and providing new emotions and experiences by involvement in the game universe. The player is involved in the game universe already because of the connection to an in-game actor. Though of course the degree of involvement can greatly differ from game to game, the player retains that base level of involvement always.

There are as many other ways to provide new emotions as there are games. Katamari Damacy, for example, where the player has zero impact on the story, yet the game certainly stirs new and interesting emotions. These emotions arise from a combination of the tone of the game and the pure design of the game's mechanics. Nothing more. I would scarcely call KD a "competitive" game, even when playing against your own scores - it's entirely about the joy of the experience, and a lot of the time you don't even think about scores until you hit the end of the level.

I believe that emotional involvement of the player is key to create great games. There are many ways to achieve this and these methods usually all put the player under the spotlight.

Could you provide a handful of examples of games which use these different ways? Just so that we know we're thinking of the same kind of thing.

Of course, a philosophy like the one you just explained can work, but I personaly feel that this avenue makes the player a tool: the player can only perform the task he is allowed too, mostly when emotions are not required, mostly in physical scenes. This, I believe, gives the game a strong competitive flavor that doesn't favor the emotional involvment of the player within the virtual world.

The player can always only perform the tasks she is allowed to. By definition.

It's unclear to me whether you're referring to bigboss's Metal Gear Solid example or his proposed ways of dealing with game content. The former seems to make more sense to me, so I'll just assume that. Even then, I'm unsure whether you reject it because you dislike the 'funneling' of players into strictly set story scenes, or just for its existence as a moment of zero influence on the game. Probably both.

The funneling of players into story scenes is a viable technique, and it can be done well, without making the player feel like she is being used as a tool. The MGS example excels at this by maintaining some tangible involvement with the player. It has some extremely strong beneficial effects on the game as well as its negatives, but I won't really get into that. That is a looong discussion.

If it's the latter, I guess what you're meaning to say is that the variety of actions is too far restricted in that case and that this is a bad design decision. But as with any artform, rules like these are deadly to the variety and vitality of a piece. The player accepts this scene precisely because it is emotionally involving, and because the player is aware that the game is exercising variety and playfulness with the player's freedom - and that this freedom of action will be restored to her later. It's an interesting moment because it is one of the points where the player understands that the game is aware of itself as just that; a game, with all the culture and history that implies.

Again, I assume your thinking is that allowing the player very little freedom of action encourages a more competitive attitude, because instead of exploring her options, she can only increase her skill at one or two mechanics - and that a competitive attitude reduces the emotional connection with the game. I'll leave as an aside the idea that competition is still an emotional spectrum of involvement, just not the one you wish to produce in your games. I'm sensing a little snobbishness there.

The game can only encourage a competitive attitude where it provides the tools to gauge that competition. Scores, grades, and rewards for especially skillful play are all ways of doing this to different degrees. Without these indicators, the player will treat the game exactly for what it is - an experience, with no incentive to spend time honing skills except when necessary to proceed. Were Katamari Damacy a 2d platforming game where getting bigger was only necessary insofar as it allows you to get further into the (single, linear) level, and no indication was given at the end as to score, players would genuinely not care about size or timing unless they were curious or already so inclined.

[Guert]

Alright, let's see if I can add more precision in my thoughts...

I think I'm gonna start off by defining what I mean by emotional involvment. Emotions is a very wide and open subject and it leaves alot to the interpretation of everyone. Perhaps I've been using the wrong word too which causes some nebulosity in my writting.

Ok, what I usualy call emotional involvment is when the game gives the player moral choices, without forcing an answer, and that the game will give an impact to the player's choice. Instead of making the player adapt his actions to the story, the story adapts to the player's choice. For example, Façade is a PC game where the experience is player-driven. The player is given many occasions on which he must decide moraly what to do and with each choices, the game will adapt in some way. The player knows how the story starts but he will decide how it will unfold, by choosing the topics of the conversations or changing them, and will try to guide the action to end the story the way he wants to.

Another example would be Ogre Battle 64 on the N64. There is a SNES version but I haven't had the chance to play it much. In OB64, the story is not as flexible as in Façade but still offers the player moral choices throughout the experience. Each time the player makes a choice, the game changes. The storyline doesn't change radicaly throughout the experience, except the ending and a few events, but many situations where the player is involved will be altered based on how the game universe interpretes the player's action. For example, at some point in the game, the player must decide if he will figth or not a partner. If he does fight him, the basic storyline goes unchanged except from the fact that the character you fought will not stand by your side and will eventualy leave you. This has for effect to create a strong and coherent story while still allowing modfifications of the details that make it up. And all those details are determined by the player's moral choices (such as fight back or forgive, betray or follow, kill or spare a life, etc). The idea behind the game's system is that whatever you do, the people around you will see this in a certain way and they will react accordingly. This has for effect to involve the player within the game's world because it sends the message that the player's thoughts and choices are important.

The Sims is another example where the player's actions have a direct effect on the story he is elaborating with his sims. The game also offers morale choices but they are a bit more tamed than in the other games. The player can decide the path of life that his sim will take and the way he will interact with others, such has making friends or lovers and how he will use them. The whole experience is centered around what the player thinks and observing someone play can tell alot about their morals and social background.

Fable is also a game that involves the player emotionaly because it strives to make the player take moral-based choices. Black and White is also another game that will take the player's morale choices in concideration. Alas, I have not played Fable or Black and White enough to go deeper within the subject. Quite a shame, I know, but they are both on my "to play" pile    

I must admit that the sentence I wrote, "entertain the player by making him live new emotions" should have been written like so: "Entertain the player by trying to make him feel the exact same emotion that his avatar is feeling". Humans get all sorts of emotions from all sorts of experience. What I was aiming to say was rather the fact that the game should try to make him feel the same emotions as the avatar when living the same experience. Think of it like when a movie creator tries to create a general emotion in his movie, like, let's say fear. The creator will try to choose the right camera angles, the right sound, the right lightning and the right information to make the player feel uncomfortable or stressed. He might not be able to create "fear" per see but he will atleast make the viewer feel an emotion that is close to it.  It's a rough example but that's a bit what I'm trying to say. The game designer should try to make the player feel an emotion that will be similar to the intended avatar emotion. The right motivational elements, the right graphics, the right sound and the right mechanism feedback would make the player feel what the designer would like to make him feel.

One thing I want to clear up is that what I call a competitive game has nothing to do with the amount of mechanisms or the presence or not of a storyline. All games are by definition competitive: the player must surpass a sequence of challenges by making a sequence of choices based on the given feedback and his own goals. This means that the player wants to do something and an opponent won't allow him right away so there is a competition between them. An opponent could be another player, the game and even the player himself (trying to beat his past performances even though the game doesn't force him too). So, to me, a competitive game is a game that focuses mainly on the competition found within its experience and a non-competitive game is a game that focuses on what the player will feel and meaning he will give the game when he will reach an ending. Competitive games have fixed win and loose state while non-competitive have player defined winning or loosing conditions that will not be the same everytime he plays. Take "The Marriage". There is not really a way to win or loose in this game because the definition or winning and loosing depends on the user. What one interpretes as a win might be concidered a lost to another. It's still a game by definition (the player makes a serie of choices in order to reach his goal) but it's not one that tries to have a winner or a looser, just to make the player think and feel emotions toward what he just experienced.

A game with alot of freedom and mechanisms can be quite competitive. Chess for instance is a good example of having a game that is quite competitive and that allows thousands of strategies that can be altered by the player in some way. Unreal and other FPS in the same vein give the player alot of freedom and many differnet mechanism but remains a very competitive game. Katamari Damacy is a game based on competition since the core of the game is based on ambition. The player's goal, commonly trying to become the biggest thing in the world or grabbing as many thing as possible, is always blocked by the perspective of becoming bigger or adding more elements. For instance, the goal of snails, cats and dogs in the very first mission is to show the player that, even if he grows and become better, there is always something better than him.

A game encourages competition by giving, or not giving, certain types of feedback and using economical elements. Gauges and points are the basics, but ignoring feedback is also a very efficient way to favor competition. For example, if the game doesn't react if the player tries to perform a non-competitve act, such as choosing a side in a conflict, but reacts heavily when using a competitive act, such as destroying another character so you do not loose, well, you tell the player to master the mechanism of used to destroy because it is important and to succeed, you must use it. It will also tell the player that a non-competitve act such as choosing sides will not change anything hence discouraging it's use.     

Now, at this point, I realize that this post is huge and I have to take care of some business. I don't think I've answered all the questions you asked me but I hope this will have answered a few of them. I hope what I've written so far is clear enough, as mentionned earlier, writting is not my primary expressive tool and  english is not my first language, making it a bit hard for I to use the correct sentence structures and words, specialy in cases like this topic. I hope I haven't made things more nebulous... I'm also fairly new to game design so discussing like that is quite interesting and enriching to me and I hope it is the same thing for you guys too

Later!

Edit: Forgot to add... These are my personal opinions and interpretation of what game design should be, they are not a cold hard thruth and I could be completly off too Also, I don't think that all games should all follow the same design philosophy. Different games fit different people.

[DestronPrime]

makes the player a tool

:O

[Montoli]

I'm a firm believer of the design philosophy where the player is all that matters. If the story isn't driven by the player's action, I don't think the experience has reached his first goal: entertain the player by making him live new emotions by involving him personaly within the game universe. I believe that emotional involvement of the player is key to create great games. There are many ways to achieve this and these methods usually all put the player under the spotlight.

Two comments:

#1 - I think you could make a pretty good argument that while engendering emotion in the player is a path to making games great, there have been a lot of great games that have been great, even without this.  (Super Mario Bros comes to mind off-hand, although I'm sure there are others.)  So while I agree that that is one way of making great games, I'm not sure it's really what Pixel was going for, and I don't hold that design choice against him.


#2 - There actually are a couple of minor places where the story branches.  They take some work to find, and they don't change it tremendously, but they do change it based on player actions.




Sorry, trying to avoid coming across as a raving pixel fanboy.   I agree with several of your points, (The occasional problems with telling foreground from background for example) but on those two at least, I definitely disagree.  (Particularly the first one, because I tend to get nervous around statements like "the key to making X is Y!!!")

[Guert]

#1 - I think you could make a pretty good argument that while engendering emotion in the player is a path to making games great, there have been a lot of great games that have been great, even without this.  (Super Mario Bros comes to mind off-hand, although I'm sure there are others.)  So while I agree that that is one way of making great games, I'm not sure it's really what Pixel was going for, and I don't hold that design choice against him.
...
(Particularly the first one, because I tend to get nervous around statements like "the key to making X is Y!!!")

Agreed. There are as many ways to create a good game as there are creators. What counts is the final result, the one the player will experience. I think that some of my statements may sound sound too rigid, and for that I am sorry, it is not my intention, but it is my opinion to think that all games should involve the player emotionaly because that's what I like. And I also tend to become nervous with statements like "the key to making X is Y" so I'll make sure that I don't repeat this mistake next time I write something. Reading that quote over and over again, I understand that it sounds way too stiff for what I wanted to say.

Thanks!