Cut Mechanics That Don't Help Your Game

You could ask the question of many game mechanics: Why are they there? I've heard death in games just in general questioned... but in this post I'm specifically looking at Super Mario 3D World and why lives are still a part of the game?

Donkey Kong and later Super Mario Brothers released in the arcade and arcade games make money by accepting quarters, so 1 quarter for 3 lives and fairly robust systems to gain more lives was a good mechanic for arcades and I assume this is where the idea of lives started in the Mario series


In 2013 however, Super Mario 3D World only released on consoles. The game saves after EVERY level so as long as you complete a level no progression is ever lost. (a good thing) 3D World also gives you unlimited continues as it should, so the only thing lives do in single player is give you x number of tries from the level's mid-level flag checkpoint if you need them.

You might not see a problem, indeed lives are a pretty useless mechanic at this point except for personal goals like you only used one life, or didn't use a continue. The problem is playing multiplayer especially with players of unbalanced skill levels. Specifically I've been playing with my 3 year old son quite a bit, and if he is on a level with challenging platforming or avoidance he will go through all of our shared lives and won't be able to play while I either finish the level or give into his please to kill myself so he can play with me again. This is a needlessly frustrating co-op game mechanic. The game gives you an invulnerable raccoon/fox suite that completely breaks most of the game's mechanics, but limits you to 5 lives per continue? So why not simply give unlimited lives in a multiplayer game? This doesn't even break any other game mechanics.

My speculations as to why lives are in the game:

The advantages to having lives: Lives do artificially limit the game and I can see how equally competent players could like this either by making the game more challenging or allowing for competitive griefing. This could be retained by making standard or free-play an option for multiplayer. There is also the since of urgency if you are at the half-way checkpoint to make it through the level before running out of lives. Lives give coins and green mushrooms meaning. (ways to get more lives)

The disadvantages of lives: The loss of a collectible: no more green mushrooms or they would have to do something different. Green mushrooms are often placed in precarious situations making your risk death for another life. Coins would also be effected: collecting 100 coins wouldn't really matter anymore. Really though the only disadvantage that matters is that they break multiplayer... multiplayer isn't multiplayer anymore if you can't play together because one player is dead and you're out of lives. If you're playing with a kid (it is a Mario game after all) you have to listen to them ask "where am I?" "get me back!" "where did I go?" "daddy fix it!" If you're playing with older kids/adults, while less vocal it is the SAME problem, someone is waiting around holding a controller that does nothing while the others have fun without them.

Anyway, it's interesting to take a look at game mechanics that have out lived their usefulness and try to figure out why they weren't cut in development. My best guess is multiplayer is somewhat tagged on to a lot of games and I'm considering writing a post just on this topic.

Like I said at the start Super Mario 3D World is still a good game, having lives just makes multiplayer frustrating. I'm looking forward to Super Mario Oddasy coming out here in a few days! I've avoided as much as I can about the game since I know I will be playing it at some point, but I really hope they eliminate lives at least in multiplayer and REALLY hope they bring back Yoshi!

Note about this blog post: It was written right before Mario Oddasy was released, Miiverse was taken down so I lost the ability to take screen shots. Oddasy also has probably the worst multiplayer ever. I hope Super Mario 3D World is released on the Nintendo Switch without lives in multiplayer so more people can experience this lost gem!

Life Before the Quest Journal or A Day in Zelda: Twilight Princess

First thing: There are spoilers from about 30 minutes into the game until about the hour, 1:15 mark. If you haven't played the game yet and don't want spoilers complete day 2 in the story and then read this.

This is mostly an observation post... Going back and playing games from years ago before we had what are now common game mechanics can be interesting! In this particular post it will be the Quest Journal. Modern games keep track for you: bullet point quest objectives, map way-points, etc, you don't have to even read the story text.

This was not always the case! As you can see in this example, to have any hope of progressing in a timely manner you have to read all the dialog and be a little bit lucky. It requires figuring out the order, how everything works together, and not forgetting about any of the parts while trying to solve the whole.

This is also an interesting consideration because a lot of times I ponder leaving popular mechanics out of some of my game ideas for a variety of reasons... but what impact would that really have?

So with no further adieu here is day 2 in the newly re-released The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess HD.

The only expectation I was given from the day before was one of the kids in the village was finishing a fishing pole and it would be ready for me today.

I climb down out of my house and find the kid that was suppose to give me the fishing pole, instead there are three kids and they are talking about a sling shot at one of their family's shops.

On the way into town I see a lady complaining she lost her baby cradle and expects it to be floating down the river? I get side tracked investigating this, but nothing really pops up... I do note a cat in the game because it looks a lot like my cat in real life. After a bit of searching I follow the river up stream and find a monkey and some land (visible on the map) I can't seem to get to. I try using adjacent zones, etc, nothing, so back looking for the sling shot.

I am able to find a shop, but the lady running it is so distraught about her cat she won't sell me anything... I wonder if it is the same cat I saw earlier. I go back and try to herd it back towards the shop. (The game has taught me this is a mechanic, but the cat doesn't cross the water well, it won't use the bridge, it will swim or get stuck under it, but that seems to be it.) After trying for a while I give up on the cat too and start looking around.

This guy sitting on top of whatever this is who wasn't saying anything before starts talking to me...

About the cat...

And then about grass I can use to call my eagle... funny thing is the eagle can't do anything from here... however if I jump a couple more platforms there is more grass and I can call my eagle from there, and I have a better view of the monkey that was upstream but blocked off. And it looks like he was holding a basket.

So I send the hawk out from this 2nd spot at the monkey and the hawk brings the basket back to me!

I take the cradle to the mom of the kid who was suppose to have the fishing pole for me and after walking her back to her house she gives me a fishing pole. At this point I do put together that the missing cat had to do with a fish and so I go out and catch a fish and then look for it in my inventory and try to lure the cat back to the shop again with no lock. After trying a couple times I give up.

I had talked to a guy earlier that wanted a bee hive knocked down, so I found a spot I could send my owl out and knock it down... this seems to be purely optional, but hey, I was able to progress something.

Since the fish wasn't usable after catching it, I had a thought... maybe if I catch a fish by the cat?!?

So I caught a fish!

The cat stole the fish... and ran home!

So I follow the cat inside and good news! She is now ready to sell things!

So I head outside and collect 30 Rupees to pay for the sling shot that are scattered around the village.

I purchase the sling shot!

And try to take it back to the children, but I'm stopped just before them and told by on of their fathers that he dropped off a package for me... Now how old am I suppose to be? I play with the children, but have a job, but everyone mostly treats me like a child, but the children all act like I'm older, but all the adults act like I'm younger? idk...

Anyway, I finally get to the children with the sling shot.

They make me show off my skills with a sling shot...

before flat out demanding I bring back whatever the delivery was.

So I go back into my house, find a big shiny blue box and find a wooden sword in it... wooden...

Of course the children want to see me skills with the wooden sword... as soon as I'm finished showing off a monkey comes out of the woods and all three children chase after it... because...

I mount my trusty steed who drives more like a garbage truck than a horse and head off into the woods... with only that wooden sword.

I come across two of the children along the side of the road abandoning the third and leave them out in the cold to thing about what they have done...

I run across a merchant who gives me a lantern so he can over-charge me every time I want to re-fill it. And he sends me on my way into a dark cave where my horse won't follow with only a wooden stick and a lantern that doesn't hold enough oil.

After a fair amount of time in the caves I finally find the 3rd child and the monkey that started this trip caged up between two bad guys... I bust them out and bring the girl home.

I run into the father on the way back home and he tells me I'm going to take a present from the village to the castle the next day... after a short dialog and thanks for saving his son I apparently head to bed... that was Link's day off of work!

It will be interesting to play through a game from a time with less hand-holding and more puzzles even in ways we now take for-granted! I'm looking forward to what I can re-learn!

What goes into a Sequel? (Rise of the Tomb Raider)

First off a quick reminder, I really like Tomb Raider and my time so far playing Rise of the Tomb Raider. So anything negative is in service of making games better, not putting down Tomb Raider. The first (well remake) I finished (with 81%), and it's rare for me to finish a game. Even though I rushed through the end to get on to the next one, it was an enjoyable experience!

This seems like an appropriate day to post since Rise of the Tomb Raider is coming out today for PC. It looks like we got a good port too!

Kotaku: Rise of the Tomb Raider Can Really Push Your PC

(although his PC specs are pretty crazy, unless you just built your rig)

So what goes into a sequel? Well, fans have to feel like you put in enough effort to justify a sequel, but if you mess with the formula too many fans of the original will hate the sequel. Everything here will be opinion, but I'll try to give a small list of what worked and didn't for me. First off, will be the two changes I feel the strongest about:

The Expanded Crafting System:

Instead of a single crafting currency there are now many. In Tomb Raider (TR), I get currency from all locations and then I have enough and the upgrade is unlocked, I just spend it. In Rise of the Tomb Raider (RotTR), I have limited inventory (that's still unrealistic so why?) and have to watch out for the exact consumables I need. I'm at a point I need a bear pelt for the upgrade I want, but they are rare. So to keep from wasting materials (if you're over the cap you can't carry them), I've been crafting upgrades I care much less about. There is always the problem of getting the materials you need.

This is an interesting one because I think my younger self with more time to game may have liked this change. I was the one playing World of Warcraft killing Onyxia and complaining that she dropped a ready-to-wear helm that fit my character without so much as an alteration... However, I'm not a fan of farming. If I kill something the size of a dozen buses, I shouldn't have to kill it a half dozen times to get enough materials to create armor for my puny human character. (I'm looking at you Monster Hunter!).

The Overuse of the Gating System:

From the very start of RotTR, it's clear their level designers knew what tools they had to work with from the beginning and did a much better job. A drawback to knowing their tools is the extensive use of gating in their early levels. Recognizable rope arrow points are used extensively from the original TR before they have been made available to you. A new mechanic of lock picking is also introduced along with all the returning mechanics: pry points you need a reinforced climbing axe, explosive walls, etc... The game shows so many places you'll be returning to later once all your gear is available.

As an explorer and completionist, this drives me insane! I like to take my time and comb the area for secrets and feel good when I find them. It seems as if I'll finish RotTR by rushing through the story to the point all "progression gear" is available. Then, I'll go back through the entire game like I normally would.

Okay, now for some other changes that are noteworthy, but don't carry the strong feelings of the two above:

Quick Time Events:

These are back, I played quite a while before I ran into them and thought they were replaced with slow-motion sequences (that use the same controls as real time), but they are there in smaller numbers. A big plus! The less QTE's the better!

Forced Gun Play:

These were points I struggled with in TR. When the game takes you out of cover and everyone sees you and starts shooting at you and you have to fight back. I feel both games are designed better for stealth take downs and spend the majority of my time using the bow and sneaking so mechanically, I haven't spent time with the "normal" guns. So these were difficulty spikes because the game mechanics were forced on me. So far RotTR hasn't done this, but I'm not done with the game yet.

Crafting Arrows & Instantly Healing:

This is a good thing about the new crafting system. Consuming a small amount of materials will allow you to craft your own arrows if you can't find any laying around as well as special arrows like poison arrows. Also, you can heal intently instead of ducking behind cover and waiting for re-gen to start. These are both welcome additions.

The Tombs and Puzzles are Much Better:

I already called out level design, but this is worth noting in it's own section. Level design in RotTR is much better than TR. I think this is almost entirely because game mechanics were mostly in place at the star of development so their team knew what they had to work with.

Changing Controls:

This one may not have been as big of a deal if I hadn't played TR and RotTR back to back. Having controls change between the two games for some of the most used features was annoying! Things like rope arrows (though they probably didn't need their own button) and whatever Laura's sense ability is (think Batman's detective mode) being remapped caused issues as I instinctively reached for the TR controls even after hours of play. I'm still playing Laura, who looks like the old Laura mostly, but controls differently.

The PC Port is Again the Definitive Version:

Granted it is releasing as I'm writing this, but everything points to the work being put in for the PC version of the game including improved graphics, shaders, new nVidia tech, hair simulation, etc. At the time of release, the PC version of TR was the best, but with the next gen update the PC version was left behind mostly (it had some advantages, but overall next gen was better). This is a big deal especially with questionable ports of things like Arkham Knight and Warner Brothers (again) recent announcement they are abandoning the PC port of Mortal Kombat X. It's nice to see some companies are still doing it right!

There are other differences not listed, but these are what stand out when I think about them as mentionable. I would recommend both games and they are both solid entries in your gaming library, but surprisingly I think I like Tomb Raider slightly above Rise of the Tomb Raider as I think a lot of the additions made were more about game play time padding. These days I don't have a lot of time and I don't want it wasted. If a game is beatable in 15 hours, but a solid game with a good story and progression, I'd rather play that game then the exact same game that takes 30 hours because there was 15 hours of padding thrown in. I'm not saying Rise of the Tomb Raider does this entirely, but my first two points I feel like are just for padding. Gating makes you return to areas for the completionist and while a more realistic list of crafting materials is logical, it basically ends up padding the crafting system and as a result, the progression system. I hope you enjoy both games, and I'm looking forward to the amazing looking visuals in the PC release!

Video Games Pricing Matrix - Working or Not?

Setting the Stage

This is going to be the most controversial post so far, so it's good to get a few under the belt in case anyone is reading these.

So the basic pricing matrix is something like this:

• AAA: $60
• Download only: $40-50
• Handheld (3DS, Vita): $40
• Independent: < $40 (some times way less)
• Titles a few years old don't normally leave retail below $30 but $20 is rock bottom for retail
• Mobile (Phone) Games < $5

It has been this way a long time! See the 1994 flying recently posted on Kotaku with Donkey Kong Country 3 (SNES) selling for $69.99 and nothing under $35.

So part of what brought on this post was complaints about multiplayer only games also selling at the $60 mark and the big culprit: Battlefront!

Let's see you can guy the Ultimate Edition for $120 ($125 if you buy in parts, so props for not adding more to that price tag).

But let's look a this from a development stand point... games take longer with a MUCH larger team (roughly 10x), and multiplayer is so much harder to balance than single player that charging less for something that takes more time and has almost unlimited replay-ability for the target audience is a strange request. I do however see the arguments for paying $50 for unknown content and the allegations that the game was missing to much content to release as a "full game." But I'll save that for another time and focus on price points.

The Problem as I see it

So here is what I see as the actual problem... people pay $60 for a very short game: The Order 1886 was criticized heavily for it's length (didn't personally play it).

And paying $40 for Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate that I've sunk 100+ hours into. Other good examples are the Souls' games, Skyrim, etc.

Thoughts About the Solution

The easy part is pointing out problems, the hard part is fixing them. I game for enjoyment, so games I enjoy more I would pay more for... i.e. Monster Hunter is worth at least $60. Nintendo came up with an interesting solution with it's branch of into mobile of treating them like coin-up's and you buy "plays" This works to some extent as you pay more for games you play more, and little to nothing for games you don't. The problem with this is at some point I want to flat out own my games. I still buy disk copies as at some point Microsoft and Sony will stop supporting downloads and I want to be able to play my console games.

Another possibility is pricing games based on the estimated average playtime. While this is probably the most reasonable it will lead to padding content in games again (something that has been getting better), and very high prices and hence bared entry to things like RPGs. Then you also have the multiplayer games that require a large player base to function and technically could have unlimited playing hours.

I think the actual solution will be fore the gaming consumers to be more open to a range of prices. Maybe DLC packs are the answer, but with a more defined description of the content you are paying for. The Batman game as an example was rated very well while the DLC was not.

It will be interesting to see what happens!

Genre Mashups in Video Games

I'm talking about genre mashups using Tomb Raider because I just finished the first one and am a few hours into the second so it is fresh on my mind, but this could be said about almost every game coming out. The Tomb Raider remakes are move of an answer to Uncharted than a throw back to the original, and this seems to dictate the genres they include.

The basic genres in Tomb Raider (broadly) are: Platformer/Collection, 3rd Person Shooter, and Quick-Time-Event. I haven't played the original Tomb Raider for many years, but I remember it being mostly an exploration/collection/platformer. The current Tomb Raider is fairly linear to be considered exploration and the puzzles are on the light side. As for collection, many of the collectibles are dropped in front of you and platforming is fairly light. I think you could say the game is trying primarily to be exploration and platforming, but it's linear enough you can't really miss much of the content and fail safes are put in for the platforming portions.


So where the game fails in my opinion is the other genres that are "forced" in. The first I will keep brief because I HATE quick-time events, so any inclusion is going to cause me grief and instantly be unhappy. The areas especially in the first game that included QTEs were the first road blocks I encountered. Luckily most of these were from the E3 Demo very early on and thinned out later in the game. Rise otTR did a better job, they are kinda there, but instead of true QTEs they are time slow downs requiring you to do normal gameplay operations... still annoying, but much better as knowing the controls are normally the worst part of QTEs.



The second mechanic kinda shoe-horned in is the forced 3rd person
shootouts. This won't be an issue for everyone, but I used the bow the rest of the game so when the sections they force you to do a shootout happens the bow isn't always viable and having no previous experience with the other weapons I got stuck on one of those sections for 2-3 play sessions trying to get past it. Forcing players to use one of your systems that has been optional for the majority of the game is okay, but then difficulty needs to be at a beginner level for it, not at a half way through the game expecting everyone to have been using it for hours of play.

Why this matters...
I don't have the time anymore to play games endlessly. Tomb Raider is a game I really like so I persisted, but any game that I'm borderline enjoying I won't pick back up if I hit a wall I can't complete in a few tries. Especially if it is because of a side game mechanic that I don't enjoy playing. I don't think I'm alone in my thinking at least in my demographic with a family and limited gaming time. I think meshing mechanics is possibly a good way to get people into a game, but if you use mechanics that don't mesh well together it was at least keep people from completing them.

Lastly I just want to reiterate that while I picked on Tomb Raider, it is a game I completed (though a little rushed at the end because Bloodborne was in the mail). That means a lot for me, I maybe only complete a dozen or so games a year, so holding my interest to the end is an accomplishment! And Rise of the Tomb Raider is my casual go-to-game right now when I don't want the difficulty of Bloodborne. So these are good games and the critique should in no way take away from that. With their faults they are still a worthy playthough!

Thanks for listening to my rambling.