Hey guys,
This is my second draft of the Ice Climbers review that I am doing as a part of my assessment for my university work. This version has a few more sources on which the content of the article is based on and draws information from and therefore has a better academic basis behind it. Here it is:-
----
Ice Climbers is platforming developed and published by Nintendo made in 1985 for their Nintendo Entertainment System (commonly know as a NES). It is a game with 25 years behind it and as such can be considered a ‘Retro Game’ and in comparison to mainstream games that are made today can be considered very basic. However, it is because it is basic that it is a good starting point to review a game critically, analyse its key gameplay aspects and see what makes them good or bad.
There are several ways that Ice Climbers could be analysed as games have been analysed in different ways by numerous writers. However, due to the sheer number of works that there are, to apply them all would make this either a very long review or one with too many unexplained points. Therefore, I have chosen to review Ice Climbers primarily using the work of Greg Costikyan’s article ‘I Have No Words & I Must Design’ and back it up now and then with other authors works. Costikyan breaks down all games into 5 key areas, ‘Interaction’, ‘Goals’, ‘Struggle’, ‘Structure’ and ‘Endogenous Meaning’ and it is this basis with which I will begin my review.
Costikyan begins his article talking about what Interaction means within a game and ultimately he defines it as the player’s ability to make choices. He says about games that “If it isn’t interactive, it’s a puzzle, not a game.”, therefore saying that a game must have good interactive choices to help shape it otherwise it will be something you just have to work out and then you can do it all the time, any time. If a game has choices it means there are elements of chance, it adds replayability and this leads to the game being good fun.
So how does interaction link in with Ice Climbers? Well the most obvious way is that the player controls their character and chooses their path up the mountain. The path up the mountain is whatever the player wants; they can break through any part they wish to get to the top, making it easy for themselves by avoiding enemies or deliberately heading towards them to challenge themselves – it is their choice and thus interaction is present in the game.
This is the limit of the interaction in the game as the player does nothing else except climb up the mountain avoiding the enemies – other elements of the game change but this doesn’t effect the interaction. Ice Climbers does an OK job of giving the player a choice but ultimately there could be more in this regard, they could choose different characters to play as, different difficulty levels, etc.
The interaction cannot be completely criticised though as moving up the mountain is the key mechanic of the game and, as outlined in ‘MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research’ by Robin Hunicke, Marc Leblanc and Robert Zubek, mechanics lead to dynamics and aesthetics which, in their terms makes up a game. The authors state that designers work this way around but the player sees the game in the reverse order. Therefore, although moving up the mountain is the only main mechanic in the game, as it has so much attention on it the end look of the game will benefit too and draw the player in.
Onto Goals, Costikyan defines goals as something that gives choices purpose: he says ‘But what makes A better than B? Or is B better than A at some times but not at others? What factors go into the decision? What resources are to be managed? What’s the eventual goal?’ Goals links into interaction, it takes the players ability to choose to do something and put a purpose behind it.
Ice Climbers is a strange game really in regards to goals as, unless you are playing with a friend, there is only one clear goal in the game – get to the top of the mountain. The player’s choices in-game are so restricted due to the simplicity of how the game works that ultimately Costikyan’s definition of goals being choices with defined outcomes never comes into effect. If there were two set routes up the mountain with one being better than the other or a choice of character with different abilities then the player would have a choice with an outcome that would affect the gameplay. As there is not this, Ice Climbers is a game where the player ultimately does the same thing over and over with the only variable being determined by the game itself – there is no freedom.
Next comes ‘Struggle’ which is apparent even before we look at what Costikyan makes it to be – the challenge the player experiences. Costikyan specifically says ‘We want games to challenge us. We want to work at them. They aren’t any fun if they’re too simple, too easy, if we zip through them and get to the endscreen without being challenged.’ It can’t be clearer than that – games should be challenging to make them enjoyable, this however, should be within boundaries (not too hard).
Ice Climbers is a game with a strong sense of struggle and is, in my opinion, the main driving force behind the game. What Ice Climbers lacks in its goals and interaction it makes up for in the elements of the game that make it a struggle for the player. As like many games, it has enemies and these are the main components that the player must try to overcome to complete the game. Ice Climber incorporates them well into the struggle of the game, giving the enemies variety in what harm they can do, increasing the numbers that appear as you progress up the mountain and altering the stage layouts to make the enemies appear in more hazardous locations. These enemies are the only real components for struggle in the game but they help make the game what it is as a whole, a challenging race to the top of a mountain.
An article by Doug Church entitled ‘Formal Abstract Design Tools’ details his own 3 design tools that appear in games and help make them work; perceivable consequence, intention and story. Intention and perceivable consequence tie in very closely with struggle, perceivable consequence is where the player can see that their actions have an outcome and intention is the player planning ahead and thinking about their actions. This appears evidently in Ice Climbers through the player overcoming the game’s enemies. It is clearly shown that if the player touches an enemy, they will hurt them and the player will lose a life – the loss of lives is a part of struggle but also structure, the next part of this review.
The fourth part of a game as defined by Costikyan is Structure, which he says as ‘To think of a game’s structure as akin to an economy, or an ecosystem; a complex, interacting system that does not dictate outcomes but guides behaviour through the need to achieve a single goal’. What he means by this is that structure is not the story of a game but rather the rules and restrictions that guide the player to the goal. If a game has no structure the player is allowed to use any means to beat it which not only removes the challenge but also the fun and everything that goes into it from a development point of view.
In Ice Climbers the structure is defined by the levels themselves and the elements of the game such as lives and continues. There are clear stages within the game as each new layer of the mountain is clearly separated from the other through the use of numbers and colours – this gives structure to the way the game progresses. This works well as it gives the player a clear sense of whereabouts they are and how much they have progressed, it makes it easy to see and recognise their achievement which can be very crucial to some players to getting the full enjoyment from the game.
Lives are a crucial part of almost any game as it makes it so the player can’t try endlessly at a game – this would remove any element of challenge that could be easily created this way. In Ice Climbers this is a key mechanic in increasing difficulty and adding challenge to the game as other than the enemies that can hinder the player’s progress of the game. Basically, in Ice Climbers the components of structure contribute to making the game work and enthralling players in the challenge of the game.
Finally, Endogenous meaning in a game means that something in the game creates its own meaning – it has no relevance anywhere but in the game. Costikyan attributes this to possessions or currency in a game, achievements or anything else related – they don’t exist in the real world and therefore hold no meaning or value. This is therefore a part of making games fun and making them work, a game must have components that players want to reach or obtain however these will ultimately not exist.
This is true in Ice Climbers, getting to the top of the mountain is the key sense of achievement one can get from the game, but the player has nothing to show for their efforts in the real world and doesn’t gain anything from doing it. Another gameplay element that holds meaning in-game but no meaning otherwise is the in-game score, the player will try to get the highest possible score for their own satisfaction and sense of enjoyment. The fact the player wants to do this though proves that the game works and has enough components and rewards that serve them some form of meaning.
As a whole, using the works of Costikyan as a base, Ice Climbers has all the elements required to make up what he defines as ‘a game’ and does so in such a way that the player can challenge themselves to beat the game and do better each time. What it lacks in certain areas (interaction and goals) it makes up for in other areas, particularly as this is a retro game which are known for their simplicity, and the game is ultimately fun to play through as a result of this.
As a final note on which I will end this review on, the simplicity of retro games is why they work. Modern games have numerous gameplay mechanics and in-game achievements, so much so that the reason people play them is different. James Newman in his book ‘What makes a videogame?’ sub-divides games into 2 types ‘Paidea’ and ‘Ludus’, the first being games the people play for fun alone and the second where people play games for an outcome. Retro games such as Ice Climber work despite their simplistic nature because, due to their simplicity, they are mostly paidea – people play them for fun. The player want an outcome but more often then not they do so purely because they enjoy it and nothing makes retro games more appealing than this.
----
So, 'til next time - that's all folks!
Tuesday 14 December 2010
Friday 10 December 2010
Narratives - The things I love most about games
nThe area of readings that we've looked at for the past two weeks have been to do with the stories in games and the story of the hero within the game - this is good for me as this is the part of games that I love the most. When some people buy games they think 'How's the online?', 'What's the gameplay like?', 'What achievements does it have?'; when I buy games I think 'What's the story of the game?' and 'What's the single player like?' - so looking at these readings I found to be quite a joy.
The first reading was 'What every game developer needs to know about story' by John Sutherland who covers the whole story within a game and the second was 'Into the woods: A practical guide to the hero's journey' by Bob Bates which focus more on the character/s in the story. As I'm gonna talk about both these things in detail (as it interests me) I'm gotta separate the articles so it's easier to see where one starts and the other ends.
------
So in the first article, the main point the writer mentions is that 'Story is conflict' which is true - no matter how big or small, or what style (an external battle or internal emotional conflict) there is always conflict in a story. He breaks this down into 3 types:- internal conflict, interpersonal conflict and external conflict. Internal conflict is about mental conflict, interpersonal is conflict between people, and external is conflict between physical things (2 countries destroying each other) - the writer then goes on to say that, for the most part, these types of conflict seperate themselves depending on the media.
By this, he means that conflict happens in stories but depending on how the story is told changes which one arises. For example, a story in a book will heavily feature internal conflict as the book details the story in first or third person, talking about the character's thoughts and feelings. In a play, the conflict is interpersonal, the watcher of the play sees the conflict through the characters on stage talking to one another. And finally, external occurs in movies and games, the story unfolds before our eyes and we watch it happen and is shown thorugh the act of seeing people fight each other. This is not to say films can't feature internal conflict, etc, it just means that these are the most common ways of splitting conflict.
Stories in games in my opinion do mostly focus on the external conflict, however, I feel that the genre and type of game also affects the conflict. For example, take a shooting game or a fighting game, most of the time people buy these games for competition with other plays and the gameplay, not the story - it is there and focus on external conflict between the combatants but as it is not the focus there doesn't need to be more than this. On the other hand, if you take an RPG, where story is more central to the flow of the game, there are more types of conflict as the characters take more to the stage and we see their interactions with each other and hear more about their lives and internal conflicts.
He also mentions other things in his article, he says that the actions of a character define him in the story and that it is down to the writer to create a character that the player can empathise with. He also goes on to say that dialogue is needed to contribute towards this, however, as I have said, the amount needed varies with the genre and style of game.
The final noteworthy part of this article is what he considers to be 'the classic story structure'. The writer breaks the strucute of stories into the following points:-
----
The second article I preferred somewhat as character development occurs more in RPGs and similar genres of game than others, so as I love these games the most it is more appealing. Anyway, the main point that the writer makes in this article (initially) is that stories are linked to myths - the stories told reflect good and bad moral decisions (as made by the characters) and the player plays the game to see and reaffirm these myths. He then goes on to state, what he believes the key steps are in creating the hero's journey.
The myth thing was interesting but not entirely accurate in my books - I agree that games show good and bad aspects of people and the choices that they make, but I don't agree that people play them to reaffirm this or that they get influenced at all by the games they play (it CAN happen but not often). There are things that are put in a story to get the player thinking about actions in real life but they don't guide us or anything and that isn't their purpose or why we play them - we play them for fun and because we enjoy them.
The steps that the writer outlines for the journey are as follows, 2 of which I will go into detail on as they are the most crucial part of this article in my opinion:-
I'll put next to each trait my thoughts on it. First is the hero's:-
----
I love stories, if I could write well and I didn't love video games as much as I do I would probably be better suited to being an author than a designer; my sketches aren't brilliant pieces of art, I can't code, I can't use digital drawing software but the one thing I can do is think up stories.
Stories are why I love the games that I do (half the time at least) - most of the games that I buy and play are RPGs because of their beautifully thought out stories, histories, worlds and characters, I also enjoy playing through these stories though which is why I prefer games to films (they last longer too, a film is over after 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours but a game can span 40 hours).
I also play games that don't have much story and they are fun too, but normally for different reasons and I never like them as much my RPGs. A game that has epic cutscenes full of emotion, feelings, and action, that convey the reality of a world that actually isn't real - they are the games that truely work; obviously they have to function as playable games too, but games like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid and Dragon Age have shown that cutscenes and story are just as important and gripping as any gameplay mechanic. Below are some videos of some of the best game cutscenes ever made, purely because they are gripping and envoke an emotional connection to the player...
The stories I think of are inspired by games I play and due to my love for games I make games up, thinking of the characters, the plot, everything about it - it's why I do games design. I have 4 completely full sketch pads of an RPG series of games that I have thought of the stories for from start to finish and I am currently working on the 5th - I also have ideas for another 4 in my head and, in all honestly, I have had them in my head for the past 4 years, I stopped thinking of more than this because... I had too basically.
Now these games may never get made, I obviously want them to but I know that in the games industry I will most likely work on other people's projects rather than my own but I don't care. I will always create and have the ideas of stories, especially as more and more nowadays games are coming out with a focus on on-line multilayer gaming.
The story in games are taken for granted, they need work to grip players but when done right it can connect more with people than any movie could and make for more of an experience than any gameplay mechanic could...
Anyway, 'til next time - that's all folks!
The first reading was 'What every game developer needs to know about story' by John Sutherland who covers the whole story within a game and the second was 'Into the woods: A practical guide to the hero's journey' by Bob Bates which focus more on the character/s in the story. As I'm gonna talk about both these things in detail (as it interests me) I'm gotta separate the articles so it's easier to see where one starts and the other ends.
------
So in the first article, the main point the writer mentions is that 'Story is conflict' which is true - no matter how big or small, or what style (an external battle or internal emotional conflict) there is always conflict in a story. He breaks this down into 3 types:- internal conflict, interpersonal conflict and external conflict. Internal conflict is about mental conflict, interpersonal is conflict between people, and external is conflict between physical things (2 countries destroying each other) - the writer then goes on to say that, for the most part, these types of conflict seperate themselves depending on the media.
By this, he means that conflict happens in stories but depending on how the story is told changes which one arises. For example, a story in a book will heavily feature internal conflict as the book details the story in first or third person, talking about the character's thoughts and feelings. In a play, the conflict is interpersonal, the watcher of the play sees the conflict through the characters on stage talking to one another. And finally, external occurs in movies and games, the story unfolds before our eyes and we watch it happen and is shown thorugh the act of seeing people fight each other. This is not to say films can't feature internal conflict, etc, it just means that these are the most common ways of splitting conflict.
Stories in games in my opinion do mostly focus on the external conflict, however, I feel that the genre and type of game also affects the conflict. For example, take a shooting game or a fighting game, most of the time people buy these games for competition with other plays and the gameplay, not the story - it is there and focus on external conflict between the combatants but as it is not the focus there doesn't need to be more than this. On the other hand, if you take an RPG, where story is more central to the flow of the game, there are more types of conflict as the characters take more to the stage and we see their interactions with each other and hear more about their lives and internal conflicts.
He also mentions other things in his article, he says that the actions of a character define him in the story and that it is down to the writer to create a character that the player can empathise with. He also goes on to say that dialogue is needed to contribute towards this, however, as I have said, the amount needed varies with the genre and style of game.
The final noteworthy part of this article is what he considers to be 'the classic story structure'. The writer breaks the strucute of stories into the following points:-
- Protagonist
- Inciting incident that triggers conflict
- Gap opens between hero and normal life
- Hero tries normal actions to overcome gap and fails
- Hero begins to venture out and take risks to try and overcome gap
- Reversal happens that triggers something new that the hero has to overcome
- Hero takes a greater risk to overcome new gap
- This cycle repeats until the hero resolves the conflict
----
The second article I preferred somewhat as character development occurs more in RPGs and similar genres of game than others, so as I love these games the most it is more appealing. Anyway, the main point that the writer makes in this article (initially) is that stories are linked to myths - the stories told reflect good and bad moral decisions (as made by the characters) and the player plays the game to see and reaffirm these myths. He then goes on to state, what he believes the key steps are in creating the hero's journey.
The myth thing was interesting but not entirely accurate in my books - I agree that games show good and bad aspects of people and the choices that they make, but I don't agree that people play them to reaffirm this or that they get influenced at all by the games they play (it CAN happen but not often). There are things that are put in a story to get the player thinking about actions in real life but they don't guide us or anything and that isn't their purpose or why we play them - we play them for fun and because we enjoy them.
The steps that the writer outlines for the journey are as follows, 2 of which I will go into detail on as they are the most crucial part of this article in my opinion:-
- Step 1 - Pick your premise (theme, myth)
- Step 2 - Create your hero - match hero to premise*
- Step 3 - Create a villain*
- Step 4 - Show hero's regular world
- Step 5 - Disrupt hero's world
- Step 6 - Enter the mythological woods
- Step 7 - Confront the evil one
- Step 8 - Aquire the prize
- Step 9 - The hero's return
I'll put next to each trait my thoughts on it. First is the hero's:-
- The Hero has courage -> Not always the case, sometimes the hero develops it in the game or gets by on dumb luck or just plain curiosity.
- The Hero is clear and resourceful -> This shouldn't be a trait, the hero can do what they want and sometime be the complete opposite of this.
- The Hero has a 'special' talent -> Again, not a trait; it sometimes adds to the story if the Hero is just an ordinary person that is driven to greatness.
- The Hero is an outlaw who lives by his own laws -> Kind of understand this one, but still...
- The Hero is good at what he or she does for a living -> What if the Hero has no job?
- The Hero is a Protagonist (leader) -> This one is just obvious...
- The Hero has been wounded -> This one makes sense, it can often be a drive and/or motivation.
- The Hero is motivated by idealism -> Comes up, but not necessarily true - the hero can be selfish but still ultimately be good.
- The Hero is sexually potent -> Um...no...
- Traits similar to the Hero -> This makes sense, the villain is often similar to the hero but better and on the opposite side.
- May be full of hubris (Pride, arrogance) -> Very often the case, can see where this comes from.
- May be an outlaw -> Again, often the case; a rebel against society.
- Traits dissimilar to the Hero -> Also makes sense, the villain can often be so unlike the hero that they contrast and conflict.
- Motivated by greed, avarice, lust for power, vanity and narcissism -> Similar to pride and arrogance, it happens a lot and makes sense.
- Never acts out of idealism, but may have an evil cause that they believe in -> Strongly disagree with this, if it had said 'Most of the time' I'd agree but as it is says never it is wrong. The villain can be a villain simply because he is on the other side of a conflict - both sides may have a just cause or just be fighting because they can, it depends on the viewpoint.
- Is often cruel -> Same as motivations.
- May win by luck -> Disagree here too, the villain is often better than the hero's and gets overcome due to the hero's actions - luck doesn't enter it...
- Is not forgiving -> Same as motivations.
- Might quit -> It can happen but I disagree, normally the villain tries to the end or ends up reforming themselves... they never just quit... not really...
- May whine and grovel, unlike hero -> Only disagree with 'unlike Hero'; hero's can whine if they wish...
- May not be stoical -> Can see this, the villain often doesn't show pleasure or pain, but it also works if they do.
- May not be loyal -> More often than not this is true.
- Usually not physically superior, sidekicks can be though -> VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THIS! The villain is normally more powerful than the Hero and the Hero struggles to overcome them as a result, sometimes the sidekick is more powerful and the main villain is weak I admit but normally if that is the case the villain will somehow empower themselves or reveal themselves to be more powerful than they let on... A weak villain? Psh...
- No special birth or destiny, though they may claim one -> Disagree, sometimes the birth or destiny causes them to be villainous...
----
I love stories, if I could write well and I didn't love video games as much as I do I would probably be better suited to being an author than a designer; my sketches aren't brilliant pieces of art, I can't code, I can't use digital drawing software but the one thing I can do is think up stories.
Stories are why I love the games that I do (half the time at least) - most of the games that I buy and play are RPGs because of their beautifully thought out stories, histories, worlds and characters, I also enjoy playing through these stories though which is why I prefer games to films (they last longer too, a film is over after 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours but a game can span 40 hours).
I also play games that don't have much story and they are fun too, but normally for different reasons and I never like them as much my RPGs. A game that has epic cutscenes full of emotion, feelings, and action, that convey the reality of a world that actually isn't real - they are the games that truely work; obviously they have to function as playable games too, but games like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid and Dragon Age have shown that cutscenes and story are just as important and gripping as any gameplay mechanic. Below are some videos of some of the best game cutscenes ever made, purely because they are gripping and envoke an emotional connection to the player...
The stories I think of are inspired by games I play and due to my love for games I make games up, thinking of the characters, the plot, everything about it - it's why I do games design. I have 4 completely full sketch pads of an RPG series of games that I have thought of the stories for from start to finish and I am currently working on the 5th - I also have ideas for another 4 in my head and, in all honestly, I have had them in my head for the past 4 years, I stopped thinking of more than this because... I had too basically.
Now these games may never get made, I obviously want them to but I know that in the games industry I will most likely work on other people's projects rather than my own but I don't care. I will always create and have the ideas of stories, especially as more and more nowadays games are coming out with a focus on on-line multilayer gaming.
The story in games are taken for granted, they need work to grip players but when done right it can connect more with people than any movie could and make for more of an experience than any gameplay mechanic could...
Anyway, 'til next time - that's all folks!
Tuesday 7 December 2010
Long Blog Post - Full Ice Climbers Review
This is the first full version of my Ice Climbers critical game review - by that I mean I've reached almost 1500 words... It needs work, as would be expected, but I need to go back and change bits regardless as I don't talk about variety of people's work - I purely use Doug Church's article, etc. In that sense i'm not happy with it...
This post is purely to show the basic structure of what I am writing and see if I am doing is on the right track - if it is I know I don't need to re-write the whole thing and just need to edit it and clip and trim bits to make it work.
So... here it is... it's not brilliant as I've said but anyway...
----
As a whole, using the works of Costikyan as a base, Ice Climbers has all the elements required to make up what he defines as ‘a game’ and does so in such a way that the player can challenge themselves to beat the game and do better each time. What it lacks in certain areas (interaction and goals) it makes up for in other areas, particularly as this is a retro game which are known for their simplicity, and the game is ultimately fun to play through as a result of this.
----
This post is purely to show the basic structure of what I am writing and see if I am doing is on the right track - if it is I know I don't need to re-write the whole thing and just need to edit it and clip and trim bits to make it work.
So... here it is... it's not brilliant as I've said but anyway...
----
Ice Climbers is platforming developed and published by Nintendo made in 1985 for their Nintendo Entertainment System (commonly know as a NES). It is a game with 25 years behind it and as such can be considered a ‘Retro Game’ and in comparison to mainstream games that are made today can be considered very basic. However, it is because it is basic that it is a good starting point to review a game critically, analyse its key gameplay aspects and see what makes them good or bad.
There are several ways that Ice Climbers could be analysed as games have been analysed in different ways by numerous writers. However, due to the sheer number of works that there are, to apply them all would make this either a very long review or one with too many unexplained points. Therefore, I have chosen to review Ice Climbers primarily using the work of Greg Costikyan’s article ‘I Have No Words & I Must Design’ and back it up now and then with other authors works. Costikyan breaks down all games into 5 key areas, ‘Interaction’, ‘Goals’, ‘Struggle’, ‘Structure’ and ‘Endogenous Meaning’ and it is this basis with which I will begin my review.
Costikyan begins his article talking about what Interaction means within a game and ultimately he defines it as the player’s ability to make choices. He says about games that “If it isn’t interactive, it’s a puzzle, not a game.”, therefore saying that a game must have good interactive choices to help shape it otherwise it will be something you just have to work out and then you can do it all the time, any time. If a game has choices it means there are elements of chance, it adds replayability and this leads to the game being good fun.
So how does interaction link in with Ice Climbers? Well the most obvious way is that the player controls their character and chooses their path up the mountain. The path up the mountain is whatever the player wants; they can break through any part they wish to get to the top, making it easy for themselves by avoiding enemies or deliberately heading towards them to challenge themselves – it is their choice and thus interaction is present in the game.
This is the limit of the interaction in the game as the player does nothing else except climb up the mountain avoiding the enemies – other elements of the game change but this doesn’t effect the interaction. Ice Climbers does an OK job of giving the player a choice but ultimately there could be more in this regard, they could choose different characters to play as, different difficulty levels, etc.
Onto Goals, Costikyan defines goals as something that gives choices purpose: he says ‘But what makes A better than B? Or is B better than A at some times but not at others? What factors go into the decision? What resources are to be managed? What’s the eventual goal?’ Goals links into interaction, it takes the players ability to choose to do something and put a purpose behind it.
Ice Climbers is a strange game really in regards to goals as, unless you are playing with a friend, there is only one clear goal in the game – get to the top of the mountain. The player’s choices in-game are so restricted due to the simplicity of how the game works that ultimately Costikyan’s definition of goals being choices with defined outcomes never comes into effect. If there were two set routes up the mountain with one being better than the other or a choice of character with different abilities then the player would have a choice with an outcome that would affect the gameplay. As there is not this, Ice Climbers is a game where the player ultimately does the same thing over and over with the only variable being determined by the game itself – there is no freedom.
Next comes ‘Struggle’ which is apparent even before we look at what Costikyan makes it to be – the challenge the player experiences. Costikyan specifically says ‘We want games to challenge us. We want to work at them. They aren’t any fun if they’re too simple, too easy, if we zip through them and get to the endscreen without being challenged.’ It can’t be clearer than that – games should be challenging to make them enjoyable, this however, should be within boundaries (not too hard).
Ice Climbers is a game with a strong sense of struggle and is, in my opinion, the main driving force behind the game. What Ice Climbers lacks in its goals and interaction it makes up for in the elements of the game that make it a struggle for the player. As like many games, it has enemies and these are the main components that the player must try to overcome to complete the game. Ice Climber incorporates them well into the struggle of the game, giving the enemies variety in what harm they can do, increasing the numbers that appear as you progress up the mountain and altering the stage layouts to make the enemies appear in more hazardous locations. These enemies are the only real components for struggle in the game but they help make the game what it is as a whole, a challenging race to the top of a mountain.
The fourth part of a game as defined by Costikyan is Structure, which he says as ‘To think of a game’s structure as akin to an economy, or an ecosystem; a complex, interacting system that does not dictate outcomes but guides behaviour through the need to achieve a single goal’. What he means by this is that structure is not the story of a game but rather the rules and restrictions that guide the player to the goal. If a game has no structure the player is allowed to use any means to beat it which not only removes the challenge but also the fun and everything that goes into it from a development point of view.
In Ice Climbers the structure is defined by the levels themselves and the elements of the game such as lives and continues. There are clear stages within the game as each new layer of the mountain is clearly separated from the other through the use of numbers and colours – this gives structure to the way the game progresses. This works well as it gives the player a clear sense of whereabouts they are and how much they have progressed, it makes it easy to see and recognise their achievement which can be very crucial to some players to getting the full enjoyment from the game.
Lives are a crucial part of almost any game as it makes it so the player can’t try endlessly at a game – this would remove any element of challenge that could be easily created this way. In Ice Climbers this is a key mechanic in increasing difficulty and adding challenge to the game as other than the enemies that can hinder the player’s progress of the game. Basically, in Ice Climbers the components of structure contribute to making the game work and enthralling players in the challenge of the game.
Finally, Endogenous meaning in a game means that something in the game creates its own meaning – it has no relevance anywhere but in the game. Costikyan attributes this to possessions or currency in a game, achievements or anything else related – they don’t exist in the real world and therefore hold no meaning or value. This is therefore a part of making games fun and making them work, a game must have components that players want to reach or obtain however these will ultimately not exist.
This is true in Ice Climbers, getting to the top of the mountain is the key sense of achievement one can get from the game, but the player has nothing to show for their efforts in the real world and doesn’t gain anything from doing it. Another gameplay element that holds meaning in-game but no meaning otherwise is the in-game score, the player will try to get the highest possible score for their own satisfaction and sense of enjoyment. The fact the player wants to do this though proves that the game works and has enough components and rewards that serve them some form of meaning.
----
Wednesday 1 December 2010
Short blog - Game review begining
Okay, this blog post is literally going to have the opening couple of paragraphs of my retro review in it - I've got myself stuck with a bit of writers block; I know what to write about but I'm having trouble getting it down so I thought I'd stop, think about it and put what I've got so far down here. It's not much and it doesn't even begin to go into gameplay, just introduces the game and my review.
So here it is:
-----
So here it is:
-----
Ice Climbers is platforming developed and published by Nintendo made in 1985 for their Nintendo Entertainment System (commonly know as a NES). It is a game with 25 years behind it and as such can be considered a ‘Retro Game’ and in comparison to mainstream games that are made today can be considered very basic. However, despite this its development process would have been one that was well thought out and every gameplay aspect designed in relation to what the player could get out of it. It is with both these things in mind that retro games are for looking critically at how games are made and related design issues and this is the basis on which my review of Ice Climbers is written.
One way to look Ice Climbers is to break down the game and look at it in game defining terms as outlined in Greg Costikyan’s article ‘I Have No Words & I Must Design’ – the terms being interaction, goals, struggle, structure and endogenous meaning. The first thing to discuss in terms of gameplay is the basis of the whole game and its unique defining gameplay feature (at the time of its development) which is that it is a vertical platformer.
This one feature of the game essentially is the basis for the ‘goal’ of the game as the objective of the game is to get to the top of the mountain, avoiding enemies (though they are another element that will be discussed later) along the way.
-----
So, 'til next time - that's all folks!
BBFC and Machinima
Okay, I admit, this blog is somewhat a bit belated as the events in question occurred a week ago but I thought 'I'll do a blog about it at the weekend' and then my life was lost in a world of Photoshop and Illustrator annoyance preventing me from doing it - so here we go.
Last Wednesday we were lucky enough to have not one but two guest speakers come in to our university and talk to us about what they do. There is normally one guest speaker that comes in on a Wednesday afternoon to give their talk which we are 'advised' to go and see for the sake of 'broadening our influences' but most of the time the speakers are for things I really don't care for, thus why I haven't been before - may seem lazy but that's just me, I won't do something that doesn't interest me.
Anyway, one of the speakers this week was a man (who's name I never learnt...) from the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) that provides age ratings for films and, until recently at least, video games in the UK and a man called Johnnie Ingram who is the product manager at a company called Moviestorm that makes Machinima movies. The one I was most interested in was the Machinima one as that tied in closer with video games as Machinima is basically making movies using game software and engines, however, the BBFC one was a lot more interesting than I would have expected and, at the end of the day, everyone loves films.
The first talk was from the BBFC so I'll talk about that first. The man talked for a couple of hours about who the BBFC were and why they exist - basically they are a group of independant individuals who watch films as they are made and want to be released in the UK and give them an age rating (U, PG, 12, 15, 18 or R18) so that we as consumers know what to expect in the film and are restricted from seeing the film if we are not the appropriate age. It is now part of the law in the UK that EVERY film that wants to be released, at the cinmea or direct to DVD, HAS to have received a certified age rating from the BBFC - so they are quite important - and this is how they make their living as a company; film makers and companies give them a fee to watch and rate the movie.
The BBFC has become a necessity in the British entertainment industry so their work is very crucial and must be carried out in a logical and accurate manor so that films are given the ratings they deserve. To this end, the man told us and gave us copies to look at of the BBFC guidlines that they follow when rating films - if soemthing for an age rating comes up they can check to what it applies to, such as what level of violence can be displayed at a particular age rating.
To round off he then proceeded to show us some film clips and ask us to rate them, this allowed us to see what we make of films and, once we were informed what the age rating was, learn why the decision was made, etc. In summary, the lecture was informative about learning the amount of work the BBFC have to do each year and also how critical they must be at almost every moment of a film - it also works in reverse; how critical film makers must be if they are trying to achieve a particular age rating for their movie.
Now onto the Machinima speaker... well... it was different to say the least. Johnnie Ingram only had an hour to talk to us which made it more difficult right from the off but let's just say the guys a tad eccentric to say the least - in a good way mind you, it made the talk a lot of fun and easier to listen to and take in. Johnnie first explained what Machinima was and how it developed, as said above it is basically making movies using game software, engines, models, etc - they've been around for years but only really picked up in the past 5 years or so.
The thing to make clear is THEY ARE NOT GAMES, you don't play them, you watch them, they are just like any other CG movie (such as one by Dreamworks or Disney Pixar) except they LOOK like games because they are made from the same engines and models as them. We then watched a couple of these movies, one was about World of Warcraft and was made using the creator software for said game - I didn't really like this movie if I'm honest, I dunno why, I just didn't... maybe the pacing of it was off, the plot... I dunno. The second one though was... well brilliant. It was a gangster/noir film made using the Half-Life 2 engine and models about a man who was forced to become a gangster due to his skills and need for money but ultimately couldn't handle all the killing, rebelling and killing his old boss as an act of retribution for the slaughter of his sister. It was something you could imagine could be a film made in any other media but that's why it worked, just because it was made using game engines did nothing to harm it.
He then talked about himself and how he got into Machinima (which was a funny story in itself) and then moved onto his current position with Moviestorm, a Machinima movie making company. He demonstrated the companies software which was interesting to watch - I wouldn't get it personally because, although I find watching Machinima can be good and interesting I could never find the devotion to make one. This was ultimately the full one hour talk.
It was good to hear both these talks as they left me walking away knowing more than I did - knowledge is always a bonus - and they got me thinking more about the processes that all people go through when making... well anything. You have to consider so much, how the viewer might react to stuff differntly to you, how the production of games and films a collaboroative process that even ahs parts out of your control going into it, how games can ultimately lead to more things than the game alone can envisage.
So anyway, that's my post on these talks... they were fun. 'Til next time - that's all folks
Last Wednesday we were lucky enough to have not one but two guest speakers come in to our university and talk to us about what they do. There is normally one guest speaker that comes in on a Wednesday afternoon to give their talk which we are 'advised' to go and see for the sake of 'broadening our influences' but most of the time the speakers are for things I really don't care for, thus why I haven't been before - may seem lazy but that's just me, I won't do something that doesn't interest me.
Anyway, one of the speakers this week was a man (who's name I never learnt...) from the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) that provides age ratings for films and, until recently at least, video games in the UK and a man called Johnnie Ingram who is the product manager at a company called Moviestorm that makes Machinima movies. The one I was most interested in was the Machinima one as that tied in closer with video games as Machinima is basically making movies using game software and engines, however, the BBFC one was a lot more interesting than I would have expected and, at the end of the day, everyone loves films.
The first talk was from the BBFC so I'll talk about that first. The man talked for a couple of hours about who the BBFC were and why they exist - basically they are a group of independant individuals who watch films as they are made and want to be released in the UK and give them an age rating (U, PG, 12, 15, 18 or R18) so that we as consumers know what to expect in the film and are restricted from seeing the film if we are not the appropriate age. It is now part of the law in the UK that EVERY film that wants to be released, at the cinmea or direct to DVD, HAS to have received a certified age rating from the BBFC - so they are quite important - and this is how they make their living as a company; film makers and companies give them a fee to watch and rate the movie.
The BBFC has become a necessity in the British entertainment industry so their work is very crucial and must be carried out in a logical and accurate manor so that films are given the ratings they deserve. To this end, the man told us and gave us copies to look at of the BBFC guidlines that they follow when rating films - if soemthing for an age rating comes up they can check to what it applies to, such as what level of violence can be displayed at a particular age rating.
To round off he then proceeded to show us some film clips and ask us to rate them, this allowed us to see what we make of films and, once we were informed what the age rating was, learn why the decision was made, etc. In summary, the lecture was informative about learning the amount of work the BBFC have to do each year and also how critical they must be at almost every moment of a film - it also works in reverse; how critical film makers must be if they are trying to achieve a particular age rating for their movie.
Now onto the Machinima speaker... well... it was different to say the least. Johnnie Ingram only had an hour to talk to us which made it more difficult right from the off but let's just say the guys a tad eccentric to say the least - in a good way mind you, it made the talk a lot of fun and easier to listen to and take in. Johnnie first explained what Machinima was and how it developed, as said above it is basically making movies using game software, engines, models, etc - they've been around for years but only really picked up in the past 5 years or so.
The thing to make clear is THEY ARE NOT GAMES, you don't play them, you watch them, they are just like any other CG movie (such as one by Dreamworks or Disney Pixar) except they LOOK like games because they are made from the same engines and models as them. We then watched a couple of these movies, one was about World of Warcraft and was made using the creator software for said game - I didn't really like this movie if I'm honest, I dunno why, I just didn't... maybe the pacing of it was off, the plot... I dunno. The second one though was... well brilliant. It was a gangster/noir film made using the Half-Life 2 engine and models about a man who was forced to become a gangster due to his skills and need for money but ultimately couldn't handle all the killing, rebelling and killing his old boss as an act of retribution for the slaughter of his sister. It was something you could imagine could be a film made in any other media but that's why it worked, just because it was made using game engines did nothing to harm it.
He then talked about himself and how he got into Machinima (which was a funny story in itself) and then moved onto his current position with Moviestorm, a Machinima movie making company. He demonstrated the companies software which was interesting to watch - I wouldn't get it personally because, although I find watching Machinima can be good and interesting I could never find the devotion to make one. This was ultimately the full one hour talk.
It was good to hear both these talks as they left me walking away knowing more than I did - knowledge is always a bonus - and they got me thinking more about the processes that all people go through when making... well anything. You have to consider so much, how the viewer might react to stuff differntly to you, how the production of games and films a collaboroative process that even ahs parts out of your control going into it, how games can ultimately lead to more things than the game alone can envisage.
So anyway, that's my post on these talks... they were fun. 'Til next time - that's all folks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)