#the latter two games were basically my main perception of link

[idolomantises]

I was replaying BOTW for the third time to play the DLC but I got bored halfway and decided to boot up Skyward Sword and play it for the first time…

I didn’t know Link was this expressive 😭

[igb220-n10063013-blog]

Asteroids Development

For this game I wanted to focus my efforts towards system dynamics as opposed to my prior core design theory of player centric design, which I attempted by facilitating player agency through in depth mechanics which allowed for multiple outcomes. Unfortunately my game did not entirely achieve this as the main mechanic was quite static and rigid/clunky in feel such as a thrown spear would always travel perpendicular to the player which would require rather awkward positioning to use effectively. Two additional contributing factors to this shortcoming can be attributed to my level design which upon review two weeks post development, was much more linear than I initially believed and effectively had one correct approach, another issue that my game lacked completeness due absent audio and visual feedback, this will be further explored at the end of this segment.

In Chapter 5 of the units textbook by Tracy Fullerton, she examines this very concept which is more aptly referred to as system dynamics and the importance of relationships between the various systems. She also articulates the very issue I experienced with my first game by displaying the contrasting number of outcomes between chess or tic-tac-toe, and how this is largely attributed to the vast number of systems (how each chess piece operates) which result in a branching network of outcomes rather than a relatively linear flow. (Fullerton, 2018)

A diagram representing the aforementioned phenomena (Fullerton, 2018).

Initial Development

In my elevator pitch I briefly discussed my two mechanics which would serve as complimentary systems in an inherently interconnected way. Developing both the thruster mechanic was quite simple while the laser was a bit trickier achieve visually, but was solved by using a linear red line particle effect of unlimited length and very short duration to create a constant beam, while the actual hit detection was performed by 1 pixel sized objects travelling at a very high speed. Once a collision with an enemy asteroid was detected I would simply add a permanent force towards the asteroid while the collision was true.

I also created the discussed fuel/energy system which was a large bar displaying the fuel amount, which would prevent activation of the thrusters when empty and begin a gradual recharge after 1 second of being innactive. This was as far as my initial thoughts on the game had led me, and while the tight feedback loop I had envisioned (hurtling towards an asteroid doing as much damage as possible before performing a 180 and rocketing away to prevent a collision) was there...it wasn't very engaging and lacked any of the fluidity and potential I was aiming for. It was at this time in development that I realised I had not fully comprehended Fullterons examples.

I believe that the discussed importance of system dynamics may also be applied to the potential outcomes within each system. Simply implementing additional mechanics, even supplementary ones which are inherently linked in their design, did not dramatically alter the perception of potential outcomes, regardless of the objective actuality. In reality I was designing my game as an emergent system, which can be surmised as a large quantity of simple systems creating more complex and unpredictable results (Fullerton, 2018), also discussed in Chapter 5 of Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games. My progress was still valuable and works well with what I was initially aiming for, to achieve my goal of developing a truly engaging and enjoyable play experience however I directly observed the relationship between my two systems to improve their dynamic through emergence (this thought procedure is similar to the feature design method in Chapter 6 (Fullerton, 2018)).

Momentum and Physics

Aftering pondering some potential solutions I concluded that adding a physics system to the players movement should remedy the linear game feel and facilitate an experience of metaphorically branching player inputs.

Below are two examples of the physics systems implementation.

Quite frankly this was an excellent decision and it vastly improved my concept. I believe the contrast between the former and latter versions of the movement showcase the importance of moment to moment gameplay (as discussed in the lectures), as tactile and enjoyable mechanics at the most basic level evidently have a very large impact on the overall feel of the game.

A very nice side effect of this improvement is that it allowed me to iterate upon other elements of my design, to keep things short these changes are:

Destroying an asteroid refills your fuel meter - allows the player very rapidly move from target to target in sprees

Hitting the border of the map will now bounce you towards the centre - preserves momentum and thus the games flow state as opposed to halting the player (i.e. avoiding stagnation, discussed Ch 10. Fullerton, T. (2018))

Similarly, hitting an asteroid will rebound the player away

Completeness

Chapter 10 of Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games saw Tracy Fullerton detailing completeness in a game, and how aspects such as reaching and exceeding goals, collectables, and impactful construction/destruction can transform a games polish (Fullerton, 2018). While these steps aren't necessarily required for a simple prototype, I wanted to explore this space regardless. Some implementations which I found effective were:

Score counter

Audio queues when destroying an enemy or taking damage

Destroying an asteroid will cause them to explode into up to 20 particles which are thrown across the screen

A visual goal where players are rewarded with additional lives when reaching score milestones

Personally I think these extra effects and goals significantly improved my game and it feels a lot closer to a more complete product, up next is playtesting.

Fullerton, T. (2018). Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games.

[writingsofawanderingwonderer]

Right. So this is a response to @norbezdraws video, "Should We Fix Our Mad Geniuses?" 

Norbez, you asked me for my thoughts on Twitter, so I'm gonna go post a novel of an explanation here, so get comfy in a nice reading chair. :)

If there's anyone else reading this, go listen to the video first, it's really interesting and it poses a rather fascinating question.

Also, sorry for the long wait for my response. ^^;

Also note: Everything I write here is about and from a storytelling and media perspective. Not real life.

I’m gonna use bullet points for my thoughts.

- On a moral level, the character should want to change. This is why Rick's capture in Rick and Morty and the protagonist in A Clockwork Orange (I haven't seen this film) are considered tragic. Because even though their capture will save people from getting hurt, they don't want to be captured or changed.

- I feel like drugs and other forms of addiction should be separated from mental illness, and that abuse should also be separated in the character examples list of flaws, because audience members' views on those different subjects could be contradictory.

For example:

Drugs/addiction is self-harming (a character flaw), so viewers may likely say, "Yes, the character should be fixed and have this removed."

Abuse (emotional/physical--and quite honestly, I think these two type should also be sub-separated; they're so different) harms other people who are around that character. This can make characters who have this type of flaw more villainous (Gothel from Disney's Tangled has been cited as an emotional abuser to her daughter) because if they don't want to change, then we as the audience see that as bad and/or irredeemable because they’re hurting people they care about and/or are close to.

Mental illness affects the character's mind. The mind is linked with personality. Therefore, if you "fix" the character by removing their mental illness, do you make the character no longer "them"? Who do they become?

Additionally, many works (such as Hellblade--which I haven’t played) frame the main character’s mental illness as not something to be cured. Rather, the story frames it as a part of the character. The challenges in the story come more from the outside world not understanding the main character’s different perception of the world.

Particularly with mental illness, opinions will vary depending on the viewer (as well as the individual character), as to whether the character should be "fixed."

Also, some examples, like Sherlock, make the addiction a flaw rather than a trait that is required for them to still be themselves/a genius. Sherlock would still be a genius without drugs. The drugs are his flaw[1], not his strength (intelligence). Take away Sherlock’s addiction and he’s still Sherlock. He’s still a detective.

*Footnote: In the BBC series and in original novels' canon, Sherlock supposedly only uses drugs when he has no case to solve. So drugs actually equals "Sherlock is not acting like a genius." BBC Sherlock actually wrecked this idea with the plot holes in season 4, but I'm going off tangent at this point (and at this point, a lot of BBC Sherlock fans--myself included--are currently not considering season 4 to even be series canon, given the amount of plot holes, out-of-character moments, and retcon-ing it contained. Seriously, what was up with that last episode?! THAT GUN DIDN’T LOOK ANYTHING LIKE A TRANQUILLISER! ARE YOU KIDDING M--).

- When I read the title of the video, I at first thought you meant "eccentricity": Characters who act outside social norms and don't follow the status quo/expectations (in an unharmful manner). Quirky characters. Characters who walk to the beat of a different drum. I understand that's not what you meant, but I might as well say my opinion on eccentric characters: It takes all sorts to make a world. They do not need to be "fixed."

- I also think misanthropic characters don't need to be fixed. I have to be clear on this, because SO many writers get misanthropia wrong: It's disliking humanity. Not wanting harm towards humanity. They just don’t want to want to deal with humanity. It's like being a hardcore grump/hermit rather than a jerk/murderer/rude person. A misanthropic person can have strong bonds with other humans, they just don't like dealing with strangers (often because they have been "burnt" before in past experiences) and can be very caring, selfless individuals with healthy relationships. Misanthropes are often the way they are because they care a lot, rather than a little (the latter being the stereotype I see a lot in fiction). Often, you can’t even tell if someone’s a misanthrope just by looking for them. A misanthrope looks at a smoker and thinks, "Why do THEY get dibs on the clean air?", etc. There is a difference between a grump and a jerk.

- I think series like Rick and Morty and BBC Sherlock have mad geniuses that treat their partner badly/questionably, yet we still like them as characters is less because of their “gifts,” and more because we see that when push comes to shove, Rick/Sherlock will act selflessly to protect Morty/John.

That’s how I interpret it anyway.

Rick is showing signs of being more caring (and hopefully less abusive) towards Morty. As Mycroft predicted, Sherlock is showing his heart more by being with John.

Their characters arcs are actually “fixing” them.

Another example of this type of relationship (or a similar type of relationship) is Eddy and her daughter Saffy’s relationship in Absolutely Fabulous. There’s an episode where Eddy protects her daughter from a guy who keeps bothering her (Saffy). Even though Eddy and Saffy constantly insult each other, at the end of the day, Eddy cares about her daughter. We don’t necessarily see their relationship as good, but we understand why they stay together.

And Eddy doesn’t even have “mad genius�� nor traditionally heroic qualities. She’s the epitome of a “UK Comedy Series’ Unsympathetic Protagonist.”

Okay, now some character examples:

I'll start off with examples of abuse/addiction that are either BAD, start off as bad/questionable, or in a grey area:

These examples don't inherently make the works bad. I like all of the works listed below. These are just examples of problematic portrayals that we should pause for thought and reflect on.

- Bullet in the Face (a Canadian-American series about a criminal mastermind helping cops track down a bigger criminal mastermind) has Gunter attacking other characters to help solve cases. Gunter is portrayed as a villain protagonist, and most if not all of the characters he attacks are villains as well, making the protagonist ironically less problematic than if the writers portrayed him as a heroic character. The series basically says, “He’s a villain. So he does villainous things.”

- Dirk Gently: (We're talking BBC-2010-TV-series!Dirk, not the original books/other adaptations, nor the 2016 series.) Dirk is a detective who can solve mysteries others can't because of his odd philosophies. He has a partner, named Richard, who he hypnotises into giving him money, uses as a guinea pig (he injects him with a computer chip without warning him), and steals money from him. Yet Richard still stays with him (which is considered to be one of the biggest plot holes the adaptation has).

- Rick and Morty: Rick still continues to be abusive towards Morty, his own grandson. Rick's selfless act at the end of season 2 hints that Rick may slowly be trying to change his ways. Unity's note to Rick when it dumps him also implies that the writers are self-aware that Rick's abusive traits are a flaw, not a "kooky trait," so Rick could be interpreted as a "good" example too, because the series shows the negative effects of his behaviour.

- BBC Sherlock: As I said above.

Okay, now some examples (you asked for) of GOOD examples of abuse/addiction being portrayed in a non-romantic/kooky/positive/problematic light: 

 - Captain Haddock: In The Adventures of Tintin: The Crab with the Golden Claws album, Tintin meets an alcoholic who is the captain of a ship. Together, they escape the ship's crew and solve a mystery together. Haddock wouldn't really be considered an archetypal "mad genius," but by being with Tintin, his alcoholism decreases (though never actually disappears completely--writer Hergé liked to portray things realistically). His alcoholism decreases because of Tintin's support and friendship, which is really heartwarming to me.

- Dirk Gently: Here, we're talking book!Dirk. Irony, eh? In the original novels, Dirk is still abusive to his crime-solving partners (he, again, hypnotises Richard into jumping into the River Thames--which is not a nice place to go swimming, unless you like plastic bags and abandoned shopping trolleys). What makes the books different than the BBC series however, are the endings: Every partner Dirk gets, in each book, dumps him by the end of each adventure/novel they have with him because of his abusive tendencies. They don't want to be with him. That paints Dirk’s abuse as a more negative thing, instead of a “quirky” thing.

- Croak: The main character or this novel, Lex, is introduced as a teenage girl who recently developed anger management issues. She lashes out at people, especially at her school. It’s portrayed in an untraditionally human way: She describes it as feelings she knows are harmful, and she doesn’t enjoy these feelings of charged anger. She struggles to stop herself from lashing out. She also takes great care in making sure she doesn’t hurt her sister. (I haven’t finished the first book yet, so I don’t know how her character arc ends.)

- The Jennifer Ann Group’s yearly game jam focuses on creating games that educate people on teen dating abuse. The game Grace’s Diary is a notable example.

I hope this answered your questions on what my thoughts were on this subject.

[archonreviews]

The Archon’s Opinion: What Does it Mean for Good Characters to Have Bad Games; or, the Curious Case of Sonic the Hedgehog

Hey, guess who can’t count to five? This Archon! Whoo!

Anyway, I wanted to discuss something that’s been on my mind since Sonic Mania came out a while back, and even since the Game Grumps (hi guys) began their playthrough of Sonic Unleashed. That thing is simply: why is it that though Sonic the Hedgehog is a good character, the games about him are... not so good. On this episode of The Archon’s Opinion, we’re going to determine the why, what, and how, of the atrociousness of Sonic games. Or maybe I’ll just ramble on about how awesome Shadow Sonic is. Who knows?

Let’s start out by defining what it is that makes Sonic a “good character”. What I mean by “good character” is one who is largely appealing, and one who is either deep or punchy, one you have to think a lot about or one you can immediately recognize and empathize with. In this case, Sonic is the latter; he’s got an easily-recognizable silhouette, and a fun and easy-to-memorize suite of powers (goes fast, can go super-saiyan, can roll good, spikes sharp). Also, while the particulars of his personality depend on the writer, he’s generally consistent in his carefree-but-righteous nature. Most people like to think of themselves as morally upright, and many people, I should think, prefer to think of themselves as being fun-loving and care-free, like Sonic in a way. So, Sonic the Hedgehog is both punchy and easy to follow, and broadly appealing.

Next, a little context about Sonic’s history in video games. Back in ye olden dayes, Sonic the Hedgehog came out for the SEGA Genesis. It was a pretty standard platforming game, with an emphasis on speed and semi-complex environments. It was meant as a direct competitor to the Mario Bros. series, and it sold like hotcakes on a cold morning, or something like that. Sonic’s 2 and 3, as well as 3 and Knuckles all also did really well, financially speaking. Things only began to run downhill when Sonic Adventure was released. Poor dialogue, mediocre plot, and annoying characters dragged down the game significantly. Things seemed to uptick with the release of Sonic Adventure 2, which had some problems, but in terms of plot, characters, controls, and graphics, it was a vast improvement. Sonic Heroes was largely a blank in terms of critical reception, getting average reviews among publications, and mixed reviews from individual critics. Sometime later... came the dark ages.

^(Ugh)^

^(Uuulgh)^

^(Bluuurgh, no.)^

^(Huh)^

^(Hey, okay.)^

^(Aaaargh! Ah Gottirn, nein!)^

While Sonic Colors and Generations provided brief, dim lights in the darkness that followed Adventure 2, they were not enough to save Sonic’s critically damaged reputation. Many people, players and critics alike, have gone on record as saying that Sonic should be put down for good, each individual having their own opinion as to when he should have been dropped.

So, we have a character who is consistently likable and eminently marketable, but who is the subject of a swath of poor video games. And yet, despite the utter abhorrence many Sonic titles languish in, he still has plenty of fans. Why is this?

Perhaps the answer lies in other media that Sonic has been in. For example, the Sonic the Hedgehog comic series has generally been received positively. One might very easily argue that this is because the comic series lacks the various elements that made the games really bad. After all, you don’t have to rely on shitty controls to make Sonic do his thing in a comic series, and the character’s voices can be as cool or as terrible as you imagine them to be. Also, the plots are written by people who’s job it is to write plots! Amazing! And the graphics are drawn by people who are trained to draw comic book art. Also amazing!

^(Pictured: Something I’d totally read)^

In this way, the comics make use of Sonic’s personality and abilities, without forcing you to wrestle with poorly implemented controls or terrible glitches. We get his character, without his game. The same goes for the television series; although, none of the television adaptations seem to sell quite as well as the comic. Possibly because of the voices of... certain characters.

So how can Sonic Team and SEGA make Sonic games better while preserving Sonic’s character? What really is the deal with Sonic games? Well, game journalist and professional... Boglinwatcher, I guess... Jim Sterling, has actually made the point that after the relative failure of Sonic ‘06, SEGA kept trying different things to make the games good, many of which failed. He went on to say that each of the games presented an interesting concept, and that each could have been a great game, if it were refined. His argument was if SEGA had stuck to a single concept or idea long enough to make it good, then Sonic games could be good, Q.E.D.

To see that idea in action, we can take a look at SEGA’s direct competitor, Nintendo. In many ways, Nintendo’s flagship characters are much like Sonic the Hedgehog. Por exemple, Mario has a very basic set of abilities, an easily-recognizable silhouette, and his bright colors and blank-slate personality make it easy for us to project ourselves onto him as we play. Link from the Legend of Zelda games, is very similar, with a simple-ish design, a monotone color scheme, and a classic story arc.

Consider now, that Nintendo has, with few exceptions, been pumping out the same Mario and Zelda games for years. Mario has had plenty o’ platformers, and Link has a lot of adventure games. One does not create using the same formula over and over without becoming very good at it, and refining it to a razor polish. Mildly mixed metaphors aside, this is, essentially the main difference between Nintendo’s properties and Sonic the Hedgehog; Sonic games can have all the interesting ideas in the world, but if they’re not refined, they just won’t be very good as compared to a more polished experience.

Now, we’ve all heard the flagship complaints carried by Sonic’s detractors. The first is that because he’s too fast, and because depth perception in a 3d environment is difficult, Sonic simply cannot exist competently in a 3d space. Q.E.D. any 3d Sonic game will be bad. I disagree; I believe that 3d Sonic’s relative atrociousness isn’t an intrinsic property of 3d physics’ interaction with Sonic’s speed, but that Sonic Team simply don’t often design environments wherein the two elements play well. When stages are constructed to take advantage of Sonic’s characteristic speed, such as the first level in Sonic Adventure and some of the “Regular Sonic” stages in Unleashed, they’ve often been described as good, or even the best parts of those games. Really, the problem isn’t Sonic, it’s Sonic’s developers, who don’t seem to know how to handle him.

Another common complaint is that Sonic’s ever-expanding team of sapient animal friends is drawing the games away from their core focus. Such detractors will say that any stage in which you are you are, say, being Tails in a mech, instead of being Sonic and going fast, is somehow a detriment to the game’s quality. Again, I have to disagree; plenty of games have many different core mechanics that form the whole game, and I think maybe instead of insisting that every Sonic game be about going fast exclusively, we should look at any stage in which we get to play as a new character as an interesting new experience; even if we don’t personally like it; we can at least appreciate that the particular game in question isn’t monotone. That said, those critics who claim that the other character’s personalities and voices are irritating may have a point, at least in the grand generality of Sonic games.

Finally, I want to talk for a moment about the relative success of Sonic Mania, and the stigma that 3d Sonics have acquired. See, Mania has been hailed as this return to form for Sonic the Hedgehog, and that’s not without merit. The game essentially has classic Sonic’s turgid wang firmly in it’s mouth, and while that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, I feel like it could lead to a bad thing. A lot of the complaints about modern Sonics has been about the 3d aspects, and Mania is 2d, you see. What I’m worried about it that Sonic Team might see the success and praise for Mania and think that the number of dimensions is the problem, instead of the lack of polish, the glitches, the unlikable sidekicks, etc. And therein lies a risk of a return to the problem Jim Sterling mentioned, wherein Sonic Team simply abandons an aspect of Sonic games because they think that it specifically is the reason it didn’t do well, and thus, it may lead to merely another unpolished Sonic game, except in 2d.

فى الختام،, Sonic games suffer primarily from a severe lack of  polish, overall glitchiness, and a menagerie of annoying ancillary characters, truly. But they have not suffered from 3d, or from Sonic’s own character. To fix this, Sonic Team should stick to one or a few core elements for the games, at least for a while, until they get good at it, before trying to get fancy.

^(Or they could just release Shadow the Hedgehog 2 already. Whatever works for them.)^