I’ve been thinking about getting a new computer for quite a while, so I’m going to start saving up for that. In the mean time, I’m not going to get Apple or a certified shop to fix this broken laptop because it’s quite expensive. Instead, I’m going to order the fan and the tools and try to fix it myself! It doesn’t look too hard, looking at the instructions on iFixit – like Lego, but a bit smaller. Worst case scenario, I irreversibly damage my computer, and then I’ll go to my university to do emailing and word processing. Best case scenario, computer life extended by a bit!

I said “crises” because my Nintendo DS Lite is also broken. The right hinge completely broke, which apparently was common for some DS’s. It seems the DS then took damage on my flight back from France, so the top screen is broken. So the DS is completely out of commission! A shame because I had gotten two new games over vacation: INAZUMA ELEVEN and ANNO: CREATE A NEW WORLD. I requested INAZUMA ELEVEN because I had come across a wonderful NES football RPG about a month ago, so I was interested in seeing another approach to football games. I picked up ANNO after spotting it at a store and then reading up on it. It’s a sweet strategy/building game which has a really nice German feel to its design, which I like. I was thinking of writing a review or some sort of design discussion for both of them, but they will have to wait until after I get a new DS, or fix it myself!

I made a sizeable effort to optimize the speed so that I can start working on the 2-computer networked version. I increased the speed by approximately 20%… from 9 FPS to 11 FPS when drawing the most things possible. Not great, but it was still an interesting exercise to refactor code from one class to another in an effort to make drawing faster.

I’ve been busy with some other things for the past week or so, but now I’ll be getting back to working on this strategy game!

• Units are now represented by icons instead of a circle with their letter
• The Scout, a new unit, has great movement and range of vision, useful for gathering information on your opponent’s units. They are quite weak, however, so don’t leave them exposed to attack.
• When changing turns between players, there is a transition screen so that player information is hidden. So players can switch seats or hand the computer to each other or however they’re playing.
• The map can now zoom in and out, with everything scaling up and down as it should.
• The minimap updates according to what the player can see, and where units are, as well as what part of the map the player can currently see. The player can click on the minimap to center the screen somewhere in it. If the player moves the mouse near the edge of the map, it scrolls as well.
• The info boxes on terrain and units can show less detail, in order to give more space for the main view.
• The attack preview has been re-redesigned, following a redesign based on my friend’s feedback. Another friend saw it and said there was a small chance of misunderstanding it, so I changed it. It takes up a lot of space, but I think it’s clearest like this…
• The custom mouse changes color to show whose turn it is.

Those are more technical changes, based partly on feedback from playtesting and on conventions of strategy games (minimap, scrolling, etc). There are some intended gameplay changes, including the scout which has already been implemented.

The main one is moving away from the “one move per turn” idea and towards allowing players multiple moves per turn. I had originally thought that the chess-like idea would be interesting enough, but my playtester said she would like to do more in a turn. It also led to only one unit fighting at a time, of course – the other units would still be behind, since there was no way to move them all forward at a time.

There are two possible solutions to this. In the simpler one, each player gets 3 commands per turn to issue to any combination of their units, for example attack with one unit and move two others closer to support it in the next turn. In the more complex one, each player gets 12 command points per turn. Movement of any unit to any hex costs 1 command point, while attacking costs 3 command points. This would enable a player to move, for example, a group of units together in the same turn. I’m leaning towards this latter idea because it creates more possibility space for the player.

I’m trying to figure out how to make a standalone of the prototype in order to make it available to play, but I’m having some difficulty. I recently switched to Processing in Eclipse, which doesn’t have the nice simple exporter that the Processing IDE has. Must figure out some solution!

Both of these games’ main view, where most of the action takes place, is square. The UI is all bundled into one quarter of the screen. Compare it to the later installments of these series:

The main view is rectangular. The UI has retreated to the bottom of the screen. Is it to take advantage of wider, bigger monitors? Maybe it’s to give the player a more sweeping effect of the lands they explore. Our natural range of vision is similarly rectangular: perhaps it’s designed to take advantage of the fact that we can see quickly and easily from side to side.

Whatever the reason, I think these more recent designs are indicative of the better solutions. I’m looking into UI resources for the prototype I’m working on – it’s time to make the UI work well and convey what needs to be conveyed, especially as I start to playtest it more. I’ve always been interested in UI, especially menu design, so it’s nice to get to learn by making and then testing.

I’ve added fog of war, which obstructs vision. The UI layout has changed as well, and it’s still in the works. I added some sketchy unit images that I made way back when I thought of the concept. Also the entire attack calculations are implemented, including range and damage.

Next is to have some effects for the attacks. Also the player should be able to enter their own custom movement path: a unit which moves through fog may encounter an enemy unit. If they were planning on moving through that hex, then the unit loses its attack. If the player has a guess as to where an enemy unit might be, they should be able to move within attack range and attack it, or circumvent it.

Which means, of course, that I started making a new game prototype. It’s a war strategy game, based on games like Advance Wars and Civilization V. The setup of the game is meant to be like Battleship: two players sitting and facing each other, with their laptops back-to-back, so they cannot see the other’s screen but they can see the other’s face. I’m hoping for moments of “What, where did that… You!!! I will decimate you!!”

I’ve been working on two prototypes for this idea. One is a physical prototype: a paper map where two players will sit and pit their little Lego units against each other. The other is a digital prototype, for figuring out hex-based terrrain, movement, simple pathfinding, and things like that. Screenshots of the digital prototype:

The BREATH OF FIRE series is largely unappreciated in the west, although I believe it is well received in its native Japan. I recently played through the 3rd one again, a game which I played in my tender youth, and which remains a very enjoyable experience (the nostalgia helps).

What sets this RPG series apart from others is that the whole saving-the-world aspect is secondary to another goal. RPG’s tend to imply an epic quest, and what is more epic than saving the world from an ancient evil and/or a person gone mad with power? (See FINAL FANTASY I-IX).

This is where the BREATH OF FIRE series stands apart. The main goal of BREATH OF FIRE III is to find the goddess of the dominant religion to ask her why she ordered the genocide of a race of dragon people. (This post is full of spoilers of BoF3! You have been warned. Go play it now if you want the unspoiled experience – it is worth it!)

As it turns out, she fears that their power could lead to the destruction of all life. Her solution, 500 years ago, was to create warriors who would slay the dragons. In the game, you play as the last survivor of the dragons (the blue haired fellow in the center of the above image) (you can transform into a dragon) (many different dragons, in fact). In the end of the game, when you finally meet the goddess, she offers you a choice:

• You can agree with her that the dragons are too powerful for the world. Consequently, you choose to remain in peaceful isolation in her garden for the rest of your life. Fin. Or,

• You can assert that the people of the world no longer need her babysitting services.  In which case, she tries to kill you in order to preserve the peace she wants for the rest of the world. You fight back, defeat her, and she remains in her lair as it blows up. Her sister appears to her and tells her that the people will be all right, that they are more able to take care of themselves than she gives them credit for. The world enters a new era of true freedom. Fin.

You get to pick which ending you get, and this is what makes this game interesting. The first time I played it, I chose the first ending, which leaves the world in certain, controlled peace. I then reloaded and chose the second ending, which leaves the world in uncertain, uncontrolled freedom. As in many games, there is a “good” ending and a “bad” ending. It is made clear by the developers which one is “good”, in terms of the story structure, the overall game structure, and how it’s all presented: choosing to fight the goddess leads to the big final boss fight, which leads to a satisfying ending cutscene (more satisfying than the alternative, at least), and end credits with a theme song.

But what if both endings had received an equal treatment? The game sets you up for a great choice. The goddess actually begs you to choose the peaceful option. If you chose this one and saw a slightly more satisfying resolution, for example of life continuing peacefully in the rest of the world, and then closing credits… would this not make the “bad” ending simply one of two alternatives?

On a side note, it would be a small stretch to interpret the player’s second choice as revenge for the genocide of the dragons. And perhaps this is OK, since genocide is massively wrong. However, my general impression is that “revenge” is seen as a bad thing. It is often contrasted with “justice.” Is revenge a good reason to kill the goddess?

This is also asked by the game itself: near the end, you find the refuge of others of your race who fled the war. They waited for you, to entrust you with the true power of the dragon race. While many of the survivors hate the goddess and wish for you to exact revenge upon her, the Elder makes it very clear that the power is yours, as well as the choice of whether to use it or not. Another of your race says that he harbors no ill will towards anyone, and doesn’t care whether you strike down the goddess or not.

The game suggests room for ambiguity, but a player choosing the “bad” choice gets a very anticlimactic ending. There’s something interesting in this ability to choose, and I only wish the developers had provided equivalent levels of resolution in both endings. BoF3 goes a long way to creating a morally ambiguous scenario for the player to resolve, but there could be more, I believe… Still, it’s a great game, and I encourage story/narrative enthusiasts to play it!

COOL GAME STUFF

Besides its story, this game has some really nice design to it. It’s of course an RPG, which means turn-based battles where you input commands to your three party members. They level up as they gain experience, and their attributes increase with each level.

One of BoF3′s sweet features is the master system. By apprenticing under a master, a character’s growth is affected via their attributes. For example, one master provides boosts to growth in HP, Power and Defense, and penalties to growth in Agility and Intelligence. This means that when the character levels up, their HP, Power and Defense will increase by a few extra points, while their Agility and Intelligence will increase by fewer or perhaps no points at all. This affords customization of characters  through stat management over time.

For more immediate customization, there are Skills. Abilities are divided into two types: the innate ones which the character learns naturally by leveling up, and Skills. Skills can be learned by apprenticing under masters for a specified number of levels. Many can also be learned by observing monsters during battle! Skills can then be traded around between characters. This fast customization nicely complements the slower customization via the master system, enabling you to mold the six available characters to a party of your choice.

Fishing is, apparently, the pastime of choice for last scions of dragon people. This minigame returns in BoF3, complete with fishing spots with different kinds of fish, a variety of baits, and points racked up for the size of the fish you… fish. This minigame is fun on its own, and it’s made even more interesting via a race of fish men who are traditionally merchants. Catch one (they always make a bee line for the “coin” bait) and you can then trade fish for equipment and items. Fishing can quickly net you an awesome inventory!

The last great feature of the game is the dragon gene system. After you gain control of the power to transform into a dragon, you start with the basic Flame gene. You receive a few additional genes through the story, but most of them must be found through exploration. In battle, you can combine up to 3 dragon genes for transformation. The combinations aren’t endless, but enough to keep you trying them out! Certain genes have elemental properties, while others grant certain types of forms, such as Force granting a powerful warrior form. Furthermore, some combinations of genes create unique dragon forms. The Pygmy (right) is ridiculously cute, has some nice attacks like Magma Breath, and squeaks when hurt.

On the other hand, the Tiamat (left) is immune to bad status, is pretty powerful, and looks like a big freaky serpent thing. The dragon gene system provides many possibilities for experimentation, you could spend a lot of time just trying out combinations and seeing how they work – provided you can find the genes in the first place!

I feel I’ve gone on enough about BoF3… for now. Suffice to say, it’s a special game to me. I feel it does many things very well, and I’m still in the process of working out some of those things. I’ve tried to outline them here, and maybe others will be able to see what I see in it.

Until next time… I feel like continuing in the BREATH OF FIRE universe. It’s a nice one, with races of anthropomorphic people, ambiguous scenarios, and lots of interesting mechanics. Next one is IV!

This is one and the same game. The original Japanese box is on the left. The US version is on the right. The difference between the two covers is fantastic! Also, totally ridiculous.

It seems to underline some key differences between Japan and the West regarding playfulness and aesthetics. I think that in the West, and especially in the US, there is a fear of being silly, playful, and cute. The overwhelming majority of American games are about making the player feel badass in one way or another. Frankly, it gets very boring, very quickly. Japanese games, on the other hand, are cool with being not badass. There are games that do that, of course, but there are so many games that explore other aesthetics (just like there are manga about simply everything).

Back to the covers. The Japanese one is silly and cute, and even suggests some of the actual game mechanics: possessing people with different abilities in order to progress through the game. It shows great diversity in the characters present in the game, from ninjas to fakirs to baseball players to… dragon-men? Holy poo, this game is something I want to actually play!

The US version shows a gangster pleasuring himself by shooting a Tommy gun. The name of the game, as well as its font, suggests a superhero similar to the Shadow, which is totally not what the game is about. There seems little relation between the game itself and the US cover. My guess is that the gangster is one of the possible characters you can possess: at the top right of the Japanese version, the fellow in green seems to be a gangster. The US marketing team probably thought that was what American boys would go for, and made that the focus for the cover.

I find this a little frustrating, as a game designer, that the only thing that would appeal to a demographic is this base power fantasy sort of thing. It’s more of a marketing issue, yes, but I also believe that an audience, however young, should be a bit more discriminating when choosing what media they will consume. Hm, but that’s going into a whole other subject which I know little about.

Anyway, I thought this was a fantastic example of differences between the two cultures, broadly speaking. I had watched part of this video, Gamers <3 Japan, so this topic in relation to games has been on my mind.

SECRET OF EVERMORE is an action-RPG developed and published by Square USA in 1995. There are two particular things about this game that I find interesting:

1. It’s an action-RPG in the style of SECRET OF MANA, developed in the West.
2. It was developed by a team of newcomers hired by a big developer!

Brian Fehdrau, the lead programmer for the title, says in his interview with Corbie Dillard of super-nes.com that the team’s task was “to make an American-flavored Secret-of-Mana-like game.” Square had an interesting idea here: to create a Japanese-RPG-inspired game out in the West. The result is, in my opinion, a wonderful, quirky game.

EVERMORE is visually and aurally a wonderful universe. Compared with other SNES titles of the period, EVERMORE has a distinct muted look as it stays away from bright colors. Then 19-year-old Jeremy Soule created a soundtrack unlike anything before it for a game, and it remains one of my favorite scores today. Soule really created a sonic world for EVERMORE, taking sound design for games to a new level.

In terms of gameplay, EVERMORE play similarly to MANA, as intended. The main difference is in the magic system: EVERMORE introduces the alchemy system. Ingredients, which can be bought or simply found lying around, are combined to create spells. Playable characters are also reduced to two instead of three.

The game’s story is simple enough: a boy and his dog are transported to another world and must find their way back. This world is artificial, created by a scientist from the desires of three of his friends. So the boy and his dog travel through lands styled after prehistory, antiquity, the medieval ages, and the future. It’s an unusual take on a classic subject, and the game pushes it even further by having the dog transform in each land, eventually ending up as toaster dog firing laser beams of annihilation. The use of silly B movie references by the hero also adds a lot to the atmosphere and fun of the game!

EVERMORE definitely isn’t Japanese, yet it isn’t entirely American or Western either. It’s a nice mix of the two, and what I personally believe is one of the first in a trend of “crossover” games, although the movie term isn’t quite a perfect fit. Other games in this trend are Amanda Fitch’s AVEYOND series and BLACK SIGIL (from what I have seen, this Canadian title would fit into this trend, although I have yet to play it).

And the type of games I wish to create are also along this path. I think the next few years will see an increase in these “crossover” games (I should think up a better term), of course with some real gems and some disappointing titles. It’s all part of the growing pains! And I hope to contribute to this growth with my work! We’ll see how that goes over the next few years

LINKS

SUPER-NES.COM – Interview with Brian Fehdrau (Secret of Evermore)

The Armchair Empire – Interview: Jeremy Soule

Amaranth Games