"Another Acidic Album" Is Now On Bandcamp

My album "Another Acidic Album" has (finally) been posted onto bandcamp, and is available to download for free

Is Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale Just A Super Smash Bros. Clone?

The footage for the new "Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale" (not sure about that name) does resemble Super Smash Bros. but is it fair to call it a "copy"? I really don't think so. I am sure Sony are well aware of how many people are going to make the comparison but I think the comparisons exists for two main reasons:

1. Lack of similar games
How many platforming-based fighting/party games are there? Not many. This is why PSASBR is commonly compared to Smash Bros. If there were more games of this style, people would just say "oh, Sony is releasing a game of X genre". These games are about as similar to each other as Street Fighter is to Tekken, Ridge Racer is to Sega Rally and Mario is to Rayman. Of course this is all based on the information we have at the moment.

2. Minor artificial similarities
Little things such as having the health bars at the bottom of the screen and the different coloured player arrows above the characters' heads. These things make the games "look" more similar without actually demonstrating similarity. When it comes to the user interface, it could very much just be that the designs are user-friendly in that specific way.

Another thing to add, is that I am noticing people are showing disliking for this game which confuses me. How would anybody know at this point whether this game is any better or worse than a Smash Bros. game? And even if it does turn out to be worse, it could still be good! If Smash Bros. is considered to be a good game, then a game that is similar may also be good.

The Benefits Of Palette Swaps

A palette swap is where an image is used multiple times but with the colours altered in order to distinguish them from each other. For example, you encounter a "wolf" which is a brown, then you encounter a "night wolf" which uses the same image, but is grey. Palette swaps can cover many things other than enemies, such as weapons or environments, but I shall use enemies as a prime example here. People love to hate on palette swaps, but why? They say "because it's lazy" or "because it lacks variety" but are palette swaps really all that bad? Not at all! and here's why...

To start off I think people look at palette swaps the wrong way round, they see a final goal and think of palette swaps as a means to fill in the blanks. This is how they perceive it:

Designer: Hey artist, we have 100 enemies planned for this game, can you make 100 models for us?
Artist: Yeah sure.
*Artist starts working on models*
Artist: Wow, making 100 models sure does take a lot of work, hm... I know! I'll just take the 70 that I've got and make a bunch of recolours!
*Artist shows the designer the models*
Designer: Artist! Y U NO MAKE 100 UNIQUE MODELS!?

Is that really how we should think of the design process? I think it is an inaccurate representation, so here are six alternatives that I propose:

(Disclaimer: ok, I have to say that all these examples I give are very simplified, they are not meant to represent any particular game company, or any specific business practises. Rather they are a small way of representing different ways to approach the situation.)

1. More non-art work can be done
Designer: Hey artist, Our observations tell us that you are skilled enough to make 70 models by the deadline, could you do that and make another 30 palette swaps? we need 100 enemies by the deadline.
Artist: Well, it's a challenge, but I can get the job done.

2. Easier to reach the goals
Designer: Hey artist, how many unique enemy models can you make by the deadline?
Artist: Well 70 if I put all my efforts into it.
Designer: 70? Great, we are hoping for 100 enemies, with 70 unique models we'll only need 30 palette swaps.

3. More flexibility
Artist: Hey designer, I can do 70 unique enemy models within this deadline.
Designer: Oh, with 70 models be could probably make up to 300 different enemies! We have 100 planned, but with that many unique models we now have the possibility of going much higher than that!

4. Not a wasted effort
Programmer: Hey artist, unfortunately I didn't hit my target of programming all 100 enemies, instead I only managed to do 80, so we are going to have to drop out 20 enemies from what we had planned, sorry you have to lose 20 of the models you worked on.
Artist: Oh, that's a shame, but 30 of the enemies were just palette swaps, so the ones you remove there are not a wasted effort.

5. Consistency and recognition
Designer: Hey artist, we have a forest area designed for the beginning of the game where we're going to have lots of wolves, but we also plan to have the player go back there later on. We don't want the player to think they're fighting the weak wolves again, nor do we want them to be confused as to why the wolves they're fighting are suddenly stronger. How can we fix this?
Artist: Hm, we could use a palette swap, that way it's clearly the same theme, but with a new challenge.

6. To accommodate for new or late ideas
Tester: Well I was testing out that cave area, and I found that after a few battles against those spiders, their attack patterns became too obvious. They were hard to start with but since I learned their attack pattern, the rest of the cave just became boring. Maybe if there were some variations on those spiders, the entire cave would be fun and not just the start.
Designer: Hm, I see...

All these scenarios lead to one main idea... that palette swaps may require less work, but it's work that would not be necessary anyway. The alternative to having palette swaps isn't "more work will be put into making the models", the alternative is "the same amount of work will be done, but with less content"

Good Grind Vs. Bad Grind

Any RPG fan should know about grind, but what is grind? Well, to put into simple terms, it's where the player repeats an action over and over in order to gain an overall advantage. An example of this would be killing wolves outside the first town of the game, to level up enough times, so that the boss that follows becomes easier. A game is never advertised as "x many hours of grind!" because in general, people don't like it. Is grinding a bad thing though? Can it be good? What ways could it be implemented in order to engage the player rather than repel them?

I think it's important to note that even though many players claim to dislike grinding, it's interesting how RPGs (by their very nature) still leave it there as an option. Just what exactly are the positives to grinding?:

1. A crutch
Truth be told, some players grind not because the game inherently requires it, but because certain people require it. Just because the first boss can in theory be defeated at level 3, some players may need to be level 5, or maybe even level 7. This is (in a way) great because the skilled players can rest assured that their skill has paid off (in not needing to grind at all). On the other hand, the unskilled player is just adapting to their own requirements, and succeeding in doing so.

2. Useful time waster
Sounds like an oxymoron, but what I mean by this is that players want to feel that their time is spent usefully when playing games. It may be that the player is in that certain mood, where they want to just relax. Grinding against easier enemies can really serve this purpose, because all the "lazy time" is chosen on that specific game, because it will eventually contribute to help with the "active time". There is always that feeling of moving forward.

3. Moulding the game to the player's mood
This is a branch off the previous point, but it basically means that the player will constantly (or at least often) have the choice to be playing the game actively or passively. If a player is forced to be active at a certain time, they may not play that game if they're not in an active mood. Being given the choice, they can switch their play style (to grind or not to grind) depending on their current mood.

4. Breaking the linearity
A need to level up does not particularly result in linearity. Grinding can be very engaging if there are alternatives. If for example the first mission in a game is to cross over a bridge, but the bridge is full of hard enemies that there needs to be some grinding done. Well, if the content is varied enough, the grinding can be very open and lead the player to many options. It could be (for example) that the player needs to be about level 7 to stand a chance against the enemies on the bridge. Well, if the area before the bridge has items scattered around for the player to find, encouraging the player to explore (whilst they are grinding the levels). If the player is earning money as they grind, maybe they could go to a shop and decide what items, weapons etc. are worth buying. Maybe they see a strong sword for 1000 gold, so they set out to get 1000 gold. But maybe in order to help them get the 1000 gold, they need to buy 5 potions for 50 gold each that will help them reach treasure chests that hold even more money. These are just some examples of how being required to grind can really open up the game and make it more interesting. If the bridge could be completed at level 1, the player may not have any motivation to do any of these "things on the side"

5. Effective grinding is a skill
Sometimes, being able to grind effectively is itself a skill. Mixing the right abilities with the correct enemies using the correct characters etc., to maximise the level up speed can be very satisfying. The moment that you realise that by tweaking some strategies, you can rack up the EXP at a faster rate. That can be just as satisfying (or even more satisfying) as beating a hard boss or solving a taxing puzzle. In essence, maximising your EXP growth rate is a puzzle to be solved. It can be even more satisfying with the knowledge that you didn't "need" to do it, but it was through your own discovery that you found something to help you through the game. 

6. Not too linear, not too strict
If the level requirements are so strict, and there is no openness at all in the grind process, this is where grind becomes boring. Imagine a part of the game where the player "must" be level 10, there is a boss that causes instant death to anything less than level 10, so reaching level 10 is an absolute "must". Couple that with a completely linear grinding system, and that is where the boredom comes in. This 6th point is actually "don't ignore points 1-5". In this scenario, you are just doing something over and over again because the game says "you must do it" with no regards to how the player feels or what the player is capable of.

7. To keep playing once everything else is done
This is not so common, but even if the player has completed everything in the game, every secret boss, every hidden treasure etc., maybe they just want to keep levelling for the sake of levelling. Even though its uses have "expired", there are players who enjoy watching their character(s) become as powerful as can be. Disgaea games are prime examples of this.

Nobody Likes Water Levels

For some reason, people simply do not like water levels in games. Why is this? I have a few ideas:

1. "Flying"
I say "flying" in quotation marks because it's not strictly flying... but the idea of having vertical movement in ways other than jumping. It changes how the game is played and it distorts people's perception of how things "should work".

2. Scenery
The scenery in under-water segments are usually rather fixed and without much variation. This isn't always the case, but how often are under-water segments filled with just rocks? I guess it boils down to what actually exists underwater in reality, and putting that into the games

3. Mazes
Due to the "flying" and also due to how under-water scenery is so consistent, the segments can end up being quite maze-like. Especially true in 3D games, it can be very hard to know where you are, where you've been and where you're going.

4. Slowness
Underwater everything goes slower, Sonic games for example suffer from this, even though they do not suffer from the previous points, they are definitely slower. If you're able to play a game at a certain speed without any issues, slowing it down doesn't increase the fun levels, it just takes longer.

5. Time limits
Usually there's some sort of "breathing" that needs to be done, so the time spend under water is time that you're rushing for air. it's not so much that people dislike time limits in general, it's that time limits are less fun when they are mixed with forced slowness (as mentioned in the previous point).

6. Water is scary
Water is scary in general. We live above sea levels, the world as we know it is on land, we are aware of the creatures that roam the lands. But the ocean is where all the mystery lies, it's big, it's dark, and there's a lot of crazy stuff down there we don't know about. We can't breathe there either.

I would say a lot of the general disliking of water levels comes from the disliking of common features of the water levels, not the actual water itself. If we look at games that do not incorporate any of these features, we are not bothered by them (Pokemon for example).

What I Would've Changed In Rayman Origins

Rayman Origins is a great game, don't get me wrong, but sometimes I think a few minor tweaks would go a long way. Well here is a list of nine minor tweaks that I would've made:

1. Display total medallions and speed trophies
Why are the total medallions and speed trophies not displayed on the level select screen next to the electoon and teeth count? It would be nice to be able to see how much you've got without having to manually count. This is especially helpful when trying to check how close you are to reaching certain achievements/trophies.

2. Display medallions and speed trophies on world select screen
The world select screen does good in showing which electoons have been acquired and which are still left to get. This also works with the teeth too. But in terms of medallions and speed trophies, you have to enter the world and check all the levels individually. This would not be needed if they were shown on the world select screen.

3. Display lum requirements for electoons and medallion
In order to get the medallion (and 2 electoons), you must complete a level with a set amount of lums. The problem is that you don't know what the requirement is until after you complete the level. So you could end up either completing the level thinking you have enough only to have to restart the whole level, or, trying really hard to get every lum possible when a good portion of them end up doing nothing.

4. A self-destruct button
A button to instantly self-destruct would be ideal. For some unknown reason, restarting a level means the level has to reload, but not when you die and end up restarting anyway. When doing a level in attempt to get lums, sometimes you end up missing a chunk and want to reset to the previous checkpoint, so the only solution is to actively find something that you can use to kill yourself with. This is also the case of losing a heart, and then wanting to make sure you reset back to the last checkpoint so that the next checkpoint can register your heart and reset it there. A button to self-destruct would make that much easier, an obscure button such as select/back so it doesn't get pressed accidentally.

5. More consistent and visible checkpoints
Checkpoints are usually set between the different "rooms" (the doors with the eye), which is fine. But this also includes rooms with electoons in them. This can sometimes really make the mechanics abusive when attempting to collect lums. For example, you could go back to an electoon room after a while to activate a checkpoint that would fix certain lums to be collected, even passed the checkpoint-point. This is fine, but it's so obscurely hidden that it seems like a mistake and I'm not sure if I'm intended to be able to do it.

6. One-hit cage breaking
This is something I didn't understand in the original Rayman and I still don't understand it here. When you find a cage with electoons trapped inside, it takes multiple small hits or a charged attack to smash open the cage. Why? I can imagine if there were enemies around and there was difficulty in charging an attack or manoeuvring then it could pose somewhat of a challenge. But such is not the case. In order to have access to the cage, all the enemies guarding must be killed off first anyway. When there are no external threats, why can't a simple attack be enough?

7. A bit more manoeuvrability during suction
During the moskito levels, it can be so hard to suck in the enemies. What I mean by this is that doing so stops you from being able to move, but that doesn't take into account the automatic scrolling of the levels. It would be more effective if either you could move (but slowly, for example) or you came to an actual halt.

8. No co-op bonuses
This may just be me, but I hate the idea of using co-op for a net-gain. Why should people be able to leech off other people's skill? I'm not against co-op overall, I just hate the idea of needing to rely on other people's skill.

9. No touch screen bonuses (PSVita version)
On the PSVita version, you can touch the screen to burst bubbles and such... who thought it would be a good idea to have the player switching between 2D platforming to screen tapping spontaneously?

Review: Earth 2: Special Low Frequency Version (By Earth)

Earth 2: Special Low Frequency Version (AKA Earth 2) by Earth falls within the "Doom Drone" genre of music and is known as a pioneer of the genre, but what can we expect to hear from this album? The cover does a good job of portraying the feeling that is given by this album, vast emptiness and intense heat. "Vast emptiness" is actually a very good way of describing this album because even though there is clearly a large bombardment of heavy sound, not much actually happens... but that's the appeal (I guess). The album is divided into three tracks than spans over the course of 73 minutes. Each track is very heavy, very slow and very deep. This constant wave of sound that is produced in each of the tracks would make newcomers believe that the tracks may all sound exactly the same. Whilst it is true that each track does share a very similar sound, each track does have it's own features.

01. Seven Angels (15:35)
The shortest track (even though it is over 15 minutes) and the most musical. This track actually has a tune that you theoretically could get into your head and the tune isn't bad. The question is "Are you willing to listen through the wall of noise to hear it?" This is my favourite track, as it manages to supply at least some tune whilst also managing to leave enough space to incorporate the album's theme of "emptiness".


02. Teeth Of Lions Rule The Divine (27:05)
This is my least favourite track of the three. The main feature of this track is that even though there are sounds playing throughout, they don't seem to be memorable or prevalent in any way. Rather they seem to be there just to add to the atmosphere. This would usually be good, but I just don't feel they're doing as such a good job as the other tracks. They do start to have more of an effect later on in the track where they vibrate a bit more but that's not much


03. Like Gold And Faceted (30:21)
The final and least eventful of the three tracks, probably the most ambient of the three tracks as well. The sound of a single note being held for 30 minutes, with occasional drum sounds. The cymbals do add to that "heat" feeling. This is also the only track that fades out at the end but that's understandable as the other tracks blend into the one that follows.

So what can I say about this album overall? Well if I am totally honest the album is really boring, but it doesn't  have to be if you enter it with the correct mindset. If you're going into the album with the intent of "enjoying music" then you'll find that you'll be killed by the album's overwhelming presence or just die of boredom. If you enter the album with the mindset of "hearing sound" then you're in for a long tough ride.