So I've Been Thinking... : Best Games P1

Let's get this clear at the start: I play video games like I get paid to play them; I easily put in 20+ hours a week into the vast library of games that I own. With years of experience in the gaming world, you (YES, YOU!) would think I would have a well thought-out list of, according to me, the best games I've played.

But I don't.

"Well why don't you have such a list, Michael?" The answer is simple: I just haven't thought about it that much... until now (kinda)!

I asked myself the very same question 10 minutes ago before I sat down and started typing away at this piece. What I'm going to do is scribble down some of the best games I have ever played, throw some reasons behind them, and then add what could have been better.

Ready?

1) Pokemon Gold/Silver

I could easily put any of the Pokemon games here (up to Gen 3). I loved each and every game as a kid. Even today, I'll load up some old save files and enjoy reliving some of the fun that I had as a kid.

This particular version stood out the most to me, because it did so many things right without detracting from the Pokemon experience. 

Firstly, the social aspect of playing alongside my brother, but at our own paces, was so key to not only my enjoyment of the game but my relationship with my brother. The game promoted playful rivalries through battling and cooperation through trading for version-exclusive (Matthew, if you're reading this, I will never forget that Alakazam you had in Ruby/Sapphire. To this day, I regret making that trade with you required for the evolution into that Pokemon.).

Secondly, the designers at Game Freak did a fantastic job of improving on their original concept. They made the right choice of keeping the original Pokemon around while managing to add a good number of new, unique Pokemon to the new game. On top of this, they made a few quality of life changes that made the game play much better. Namely, they adjusted some stat types (ie: Bug became "not very effective" against Poison) and made the inventory much easier to use. On top of adjusting current content, the brand-new content was done well. Of the many additions to the series, my favorite few features were the addition of time, the breeding system, Bug-catching contest, and the ability for Pokemon to hold items.

Finally, the communication of these new features were communicated perfectly to the players. Let's take breeding, for example. At the very beginning of the game, Game Freak introduces the concept but it is unknown to the players at the time. The tree-named Professor (Elm) gives you your first Pokemon and sends you on your way to retrieve this egg. He then encourages you to hold onto the egg in your party. Sure, this sounds like a neat little plot point, but what are the designers actually doing? They are teaching you, very subtly, how to properly breed your Pokemon. They tell you that it came from the Daycare center and that it is VERY IMPORTANT. Not only this, but you receive the egg at a time where you'll only have around three Pokemon. This fact makes it so you'll hold onto the egg without sacrificing a party slot. All in all, breeding was communicated perfectly.

Now, what could have been done better?

I honestly cannot think of anything other than I dislike how the designers effectively made Poison type worthless by only making it super effective against Grass type and including the new type Steel that it could not harm.

So there it is, my first look back at one of my favorite games! I'll be sure to add to this blog more often with my thoughts.

It has been awhile

Hello again, Internet!

I'm taking some time out of my normal sleep schedule to bring a little update on my life endeavors.

Firstly, I am leaving Santa Clara University after this quarter. Many of you will ask, "why?" but I must assure you that it is completely your fault! In all seriousness, though, it is just time for me to move on. Up until very recently, SCU was the place for me. This is just not the case anymore. For the sake of my happiness and personal sanity, I must move on.

So what's next? I have a couple of plans. Right now, I am looking into jobs in the video game industry. There is one in particular that has really caught my eye. Carbine Studios, an NCSoft Studio, is hiring QA Testers for their upcoming game "Wildstar."

But why this studio?

Firstly, I have been playing NCSoft games since I was 11. Yes, that means I have been investing my time and money into MMORPGs for close to 10 years now. To work at Carbine Studios would be an absolute dream of mine. Not only would I be working with video games (my one, true love) but I would also be contributing to a company that has held a special part in my life.

If this opportunity of a life time were to not play out, I would most likely continue to work on my degree at community college and then finish it at UCI or Cal State Fullerton.

Either way I go, I will certainly be indulging into my hobby of game-making and furthering my skills as a game designer. I will also be better on updating this blog with more design-related topics!

Also, feel free to leave some love in the comments or just email me. I love to hear feedback from those who partake in my little section of the Internet.

~Michael

03 Fire Emblem

Let's start this review off right: Fire Emblem is one of my favorite games of all time. I have found myself over the years busting out this wonderful game to get yet another play-through done. The gameplay is rich and deep, the wonderfully-told story is meaningful and memorable, and the art is spot-on for the game. These aspects mesh so well together that getting lost in this world is guaranteed. Yet even with these aspects, this game's greatness is found in the very basics. The core mechanics of Fire Emblem are so in-tune with the rest of the design of the game that these fore-mentioned elements end up serving each other perfectly. I'm going to highlight a few parts of the game that separate Fire Emblem from other strategy games: permanent death, the emphasis on limited units and resources, and the decision to make this game turn-based.

In an effort to keep this review concise, let's look at the latter two concepts that were just presented. The combination of limited resources and the fact that the game is turn-based presents the feeling of David versus Goliath. In every single encounter, you are outnumbered by the enemy. The odds are against you, but you preserver with what you have. This feeling of being up against something bigger and stronger than you (there has to be a more concise word for that phrase) persists with you throughout the game and is a big driving force in the overall experience.

Permanent death has to be the biggest difference from other strategy games that Fire Emblem possesses. By enabling permanent death, you, as the player, are more connected to the characters. Because of this connection caused by a game mechanic, you are not only more prone to making wiser decisions but also engulfed in this struggle to combat evil in the name of these characters. Somewhat related, the characters in the game break the fourth wall and address you! The combination of the previously mentioned design decision and this form of character development make the game so much more enjoyable and realistic. All of a sudden, you are no longer just a master tactician but a member of Lyn's and Eliwood's brigade for justice. Furthermore, these fighters are not just cute, little sprites that are tools that carry out your whim (like you would find in Advanced Wars) but characters in an ever-developing plot. Because of the existence of permanent death, you care a whole lot more if, hypothetically, Matt dies (spoiler alert: he's overpowered if you train him well). If you can separate the many layers of this game, remember that a lot of its importance came from a brilliant design decision.

Is Fire Emblem a perfect game? No. Take the companion system, for example. It is poorly introduced, clunky to use, and its benefits are difficult to observe quickly. What needs to be taken away from this game is the example it set. That example is what can happen when a game is created perfectly around its core mechanics. Complete understanding of the implications of minor details in the design allowed the developers, designers, artists, and other team members to give players a simply fantastic game. 

A Review of a (poor) Karthus guide

A while back, I was on the League of Legends forum. I noticed a post asking people to look at this guy's Karthus guide. I gave it a look and replied. Here is the guide: http://www.mobafire.com/league-of-legends/build/a-million-ways-to-be-cruel-225866. Here is my response:

SUMMONER SPELLS: 

Honestly, those are based off of personal preference. Personally, I prefer flash and ignite/exhaust (ignite for champs that heal ie: fiddle/swain). Exhaust has great synergy with the wall, landing Qs, and keeping them in the E radius.

RUNES:

 I have never used Spell Vamp quints, so I am not going to comment on that part because I know some people swear by them. What I do know about spell vamp however is that it is more valuable early game and starts to show diminishing returns the longer the game goes.

I have a big problem with your CDR yellows. Karthus has an extremely short cool-down on Q, an average one on W, virtually no CD on e, and a VERY long CD on his ult. By picking CDR yellows, you are only specing into his ultimate, essentially. Health, Armor, and Mana Regen/5per lvl are all better choices.

BUILD: 

Should be Boots/3 health pots to start. The mana pot is POINTLESS because of the mana sustain from E. Tear is a good item for Karthus. Revolver is also a good item for him, but at this point you are committed to staying in your lane and farming to high hell. You won't be as beefy as a Karthus who chose to go the boots>RoA route (a route that is good for early teamfights) and you won't be doing as much damage as a Karthus who went boots>double doran>deathcap (a route that is great for lane dominance, if you managed to get ahead early).

You make the mistake of recommending the purchase of AA Staff and WoTA in early/mid game. AA Staff is not worth the money early/mid game and neither is WoTA (unless you have chosen to run a double WoTA comp).

Also, I would prioritize Zhonya's over Deathcap if you are playing suicide bomber Karthus.

Furthermore, you do not have a single defensive item in the build. Abyssal and GA are both great items on Karthus.

ABILITY SEQUENCE: 

R>Q>E>W (I typically get a 2nd point in W at lvl 10) Fix your guide for this change.

MASTERY PAGE:

Yikes. 9-0-21 is NOT GOOD on Karthus. You need to be dealing damage to high hell. 21-0-9 or 21-9-0 would both be better options for you.

Like I said earlier, Karthus doesn't scale off of CDR well. I don't think anybody uses Good Hands, honestly. Awareness is pointless because you are in a solo lane. At best, you're going to beat the other mid champion to lvl 6 and get a kill faster than him. Then what? Nothing.

MATCH-UPS:
Impossible matchups: I agree with all of them except Vlad. Vlad shouldn't really be a problem.
Yellow range: Ahri should be moved up, Veigar should be moved up.
Easy: Annie should be yellow (avoid harass and her combo is a win for Karthus, but he will lose if he tries to fight her), Ryze has to go to impossible (See Annie... but Ryze is scarier), Swain to yellow.

SUMMONER SPELL SECTION:
Ghost is odd to me. Anything ghost can do, flash can do better (unless you are olaf or vlad).
Heal is a preference, not mine though. I don't recommend it though because most AP mids run ignite. Ignite > Heal.

TP is great for ganks.

You recommend Revive? NO! I repeat: NO!

FINAL THOUGHTS:
You're missing the point of Karthus. Spell vamp is fine and dandy in lane for farming/sustain but once you get out of lane where the teamfights happen in seconds, you will not be able to sustain the damage being done to you for the amount of damage you are putting out (because your build/mastery combo is bad).

Great Big War Game Review

Let's start with the basics

"Great Big War Game" is a turn-based strategy game that pits the player against other people or the computer, depending on game mode. The player versus player is pretty standard and the campaign is challenging. Not only is it challenging, but the game guides you along the learning curve of the game. More specifically, units are introduced logically, the missions increase in difficulty, and the A.I. behaves well.

The actual gameplay is designed and implemented seamlessly. As one would expect, there is a variety units each with strengths and weaknesses. Because each unit is balanced around the fact that another will better it in combat, intelligent unit purchasing and movement (as opposed to a war of attrition style game) is the key to this game. In the end, "Great Big War Game" is a technically sound turn-based strategy game; I just have nothing bad to say about the gameplay.



So what could have been done better?


As a sort of warning, I cannot help but compare and contrast this game to "Advanced Wars;" both games come from the same genre and have a militaristic theme. Both games are great in their own right, but in order to get a clearer picture of "Great Big War Game" some comparison is necessary.

In "Great Big War Game," the units are individuals as opposed to the five-man squad in "Advanced Wars." I bring this point up for two reasons: design logic and game feel. Like in some turn-based strategy games, a unit does less damage when the unit itself is damaged. "Great Big War Game" sticks to this mechanic, but it does not make sense, at least not as much sense as the same mechanic in "Advanced Wars." Because a unit in "Advanced Wars" was a five-man squad, it made sense that the unit dealt less damage when the unit was injured because there was less man-power in that specific unit.

This mechanic not only affects design logic but also the overall feel of the game. Simply put, "Great Big War Game" feels small in scale because each unit is an individual. Not only this, but the overall feel of the game is purposefully silly. In this way, the tone of "Great Big War Game" disengages the player from a war experience. By making the voice-overs silly, the briefing comical, and art style goofy, I did not feel like I was playing a war game.

In essence, do not play this game if you're expecting an epic war waged by geniuses of battle. Play this game knowing you will be entertained for a long while, get a handful of giggles, and be ready for a challenge. This game is not easy, but that makes it enjoyable. If you are like me and not a fan of the feel, try to step away from it (muting the music did the trick for me) and play it while only focusing on the mechanics.

I won!

For those very, very few that follow my progress on this blog, you'll know that I submitted into a design competition a week or so back.

Well, I won!

Check it out here with the other two winners: http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/1117/results_from_game_design_.php?page=1

What does this mean for me? Well I would love to keep putting in submissions for these competitions to work on my critical thinking skills. If you somehow come across any challenges or competitions of this sorts, please let me know!

Look for my review on "Great Big War Game" soon and more progress on the David Perry Challenge.

Design Challenge: The Next Step For Team Fortress 2 Submission

I recently submitted into a game design challenge over on gamecareerguide.com. Here's my submission! Feel free to leave feedback and critiques.

The Basics

Team Fortress 2 Tower Defense will take the classic tower defense genre and turn it into a fast-faced, multiplayer experience. Teams will be broken up into two teams: "Runners" and "Defenders." Like their titles suggest, Defenders will attempt to prevent the Runners from reaching their goal. Runners will be restricted to scouts and Defenders will be restricted to engineers.

Gameplay

Defenders place turrets to prevent the Runners from scoring. Like in regular Team Fortress 2 play, the turrets require metal to build and upgrade. Defenders will not be able to place supply stations, so the supply stations will be provided already on the map. Turrets are Team Fortress classes and are restricted by the level upon which they are placed on (see below). The Upper Level can only be accessed by the Defender team. The Lower Level can be accessed by both teams.

Upon starting a match, the Defenders will be allowed to set up appropriately. After a short period of time, the Runners will be set loose. The goal for the Runners is to reach specially marked areas that will reward them with points. The further the distance, the greater the risk but the Runner will earn more points for his team for reaching this further destination. Once a runner reaches a goal or is killed, he will be teleported back to the spawn for another attempt to score.

The match will consist of 2 rounds. After the first round is completed, the Runners will become Defenders and the Defenders will become Runners. Scoring can only take place when a team is playing as the Runners. Firing will be enabled for both teams. Turrets can be destroyed. Engineers can kill Runners and Runners can kill Engineers. Ammo will not be limited for either team.

With smart, tactical placement of the turrets, the Defenders have the potential to shut out the Runners completely. However, a complete shut-out will not happen often because the Runners have access to multiple ways of countering any turret combination through precise shooting, smart movements, and even an all-out group rush.

Turret Behavior

Upper Level:

            Soldier: Quick Fire Rate, small Area of Effect Damage, smaller knockback
            Sniper: High damage, low rate of fire, Piercing Bullets
            Medic: Slows a single target, chance for temporary freeze
            Demo: Mediocre Fire Rate, Large Area of Effect Damage

Lower Level:

            Heavy: High health, low damage.

            Pyro: Low Health, High Damage in a cone in front of the turret.

            Spy: Invisible to Runners, kills any Runner that passes through this turret.