A Character's Departure Is Neither Unfair Nor Disruptive

So I was shown an article on Kotaku about an article that Masahiro Sakurai make in Famitsu (http://kotaku.com/5984189/kirbys-creator-shares-his-thoughts-on-game-writing). There is one part of that article specifically I wish to address:

"Take when a character you have spent time building up dies or leaves your party: for someone playing the game, it feels unfair." Sakurai explains. "The departure of a companion. In a standard story, this is a very basic plot point. But in games, it leads to a disruption."

So having characters leave your party is "unfair" and "leads to disruption"?

First of all I would like to point out that it is by definition impossible for a single-player game to be "unfair". Sure games can be dissatisfying at some points, but "fairness" is about how all the participants are given an equal opportunity. Since single-player games consist of one player, then it must follow that all the players get equal opportunity, it's not like a computer can be prejudice towards certain players. But by "unfair" it seems he doesn't mean that, rather he means that the players suffer a great loss from something outside of their own control. So from now on, I'll use the word "unfair" to mean that.

The "disruption" he mentions is really nothing more than an alteration presented by the game. I find it strange how RPGs can be blamed for being too repetitive and yet here they are being blamed for being "disruptive" (and we can see he is talking about RPGs here since he mentioned "spending time building up  characters").

So let's think about these two complaints.

When characters leave or enter the party its to set the game up as to present the player with a new scenario. Sure there's great games where you pretty much stick to one party the whole way through (like Final Fantasy V and Dragon Quest VIII) but we don't need to have that in every game.

Indeed, if the game gives us new party set-ups, it is up to us and our strategy to figure out how to effectively use that party. Equally the case, if the game gives us the choice of what characters to use then it is up to us to make strategic decisions on what party we should form.

Even if we do get to the case where you need a certain character that you have not leveled up. That does not mean you should fret from not having that character a certain level. As much as it means you do have to train that character you still have to figure out the best way of doing that. And besides, this also means you get some extra EXP that will help you later on.

There are all sorts of different examples of how you can mix up the party set up

and still have it a fun game. Let's think of some possible examples:

1. Games where you have set characters that never change:
 if your characters never change then that means you will always have your own custom set-up with you

2. Games where you can change to any characters at any time and it is advantageous to focus on a few:
here the strategy is trying to figure out which team is the best team in the long run whilst also taking into account what characters are worth taking in a certain situation. Is it worth holding back your final team back temporarily in order to make this section of the game easier? that's something you need to be strategic over.

3. Games where you can change to any characters at any time and it is advantageous to focus on a many:
In this case the strategy lies in not how unevenly to distribute the EXP, but rather when and where to distribute it with each character.

4. Games where you can change to any characters at any time and it is not strictly  advantageous to focus on a many or focus on a few:
Well in this case what you have to consider is how you want to distribute the EXP, as well as who works well at what points in the game. It may not be clear as to what the best thing to do is, but this means that the player has to figure it out.

5. Games where you can't change any characters at any time and the game keeps switching between them:
In this case the strategy lies in how you approach the individual parts of the game. How can you deal with what you are presented with.

These are just a few examples, and there are a lot more that can be explored (such as if the EXP is distributed in certain ways, if you have points where you create multiple parties, if certain characters grow at different rates, etc.). The point here is that all of these require the player to be strategic in some shape or form. These examples do not inherently result in the player having "wasted time" and the results do depend on the player using skill. Even if we try to think of extreme examples, they end up not being all that extreme. One reason is that we can't judge the loss of the purely on the loss of the characters. Let's use the most common example that everybody knows about: Aerith's death in Final Fantasy VII. Yes, she dies, and yes, you lose all the levels you built up for her. However:

1. In FF7, EXP is distributed 100% to all the alive party members and 50% to all the inactive ones. If what we are saying is that Aerith's death makes her EXP worthless, then lets consider how much EXP you get total depending on wheteher or not she is in your party. There are 9 characters overall, if an enemy gives 1000 EXP, thats 1000EXP to all alive party members and 500EXP to all out of party. That would be a total of 6000EXP (assuming all party members are alive). Running off the assumption that all Aerith's EXP is "worthless" and can be ruled out, then having her in your party nets you 5000EXP total and 5500EXP total if she is out. That difference is not so extreme. And yes I know you would also have to take into account all the stuff you would have to do for her such as buying weapons and building up limit breaks but I'm addressing just the leveling here for the sake of simplicity.

2. Secondly, it still would not be fair to claim all the EXP she does gain as "worthless". This is because you have to use her in the Temple Of The Ancients where the EXP she has accumulated helps you to get through. So even though it will be lost it does help.

So that is an example of where a character's death (or departure) does not result in a great loss for the player. The reason for this is because we are given context and the game is set up to fit the context. The second disc onwards was designed and released with the full knowlegde that Aerith would not be playable anymore. It is not reasonable to believe that the loss will make the game a lot harder because of this. A huge difficulty spike may be disruptive,
. A game that completely changes the gameplay at one point in time may be disruptive. Aerith's death is neither disruptive or unfair (regardless of what definition of "unfair" you want to use).

I suppose it is possible for the departure of a character or the introduction of new characters to be "unfair" or "disruptive". But they would be rarer and more specific cases and not simply "the departure of a character".

"Worse" Does Not Mean "Bad"

I don't really understand the idea that if you make something new, the whole purpose is for it to be better than the last. That makes sense in terms of functionality (a TV in 2013 should be better than a TV in 1995), but when it comes to creative pieces I'm not so sure. Sure you should always make something as good as you can, but should the creation of something new be dependent on it's quality compared to the previous?

Last September I released my album "The Eclectic Duck" and I believe it was an improvement over my previous album "Another Acidic Album". I have started (though not done much) of my next album (which I'm not revealing the title of yet :P ). To me, this album (so far) isn't as good as TED, and I don't suspect it will be (just being honest). Sure, I will try to make it as good as I can, but I really feel TED was a high-point for me. Even if I do complete the new album and still feel that TED is better than it, does that mean the new album is not good enough for release? I don't think so.

Even if the new album is (to me) worse than TED, somebody else who hates TED might like the new album. Likewise, it's possible for somebody to love AAA but to hate TED. I'm not trying to say that you shouldn't put effort into making things as good as you can, I'm not saying that at all. Even if (hypothetically) I release this new album and nobody prefers it to TED, that's still fine. You don't have to spend your life enjoying just your favourites. How many people (in all seriousness) would be happy enough listening to just their favourite album or playing just their favourite game? Sure I'd love to play Azure Dreams whilst listening to Rancid 2000, but to be limited to that?

All in all, I think its fine to indulge in that which is "above average" or "quite good". We should look forward to improvements but not demand it. We should try to improve our works but not be limited by them. When a series "isn't as good as it used to be", my question to you is: "well is it bad?". Should they end the series just because it's getting worse? Well, what good would it do if they did stop? Has the series become so bad that its continuation is a hindrance? If not, I don't see what the problem is.

"The Eclectic Duck" Is Now Available

My album "The Eclectic Duck" is now available to download on bandcamp

Final Fantasy VII Re-Released On The Square Enix Website

So Final Fantasy VII got re-released on the Square Enix website (as I'm sure you can tell by the title) and I will refer to it as the "new PC version". Admittedly I've never played the "original PC version" so I'm going to compare it to the PSX (Playstation) version.

Price
Like Super Meat Boy on XBox Live, the game is released "on offer" making it better to get it early (which is effective it seems).

Graphics
No this isn't a HD remake, it's the same game, but the new PC version looks so much smoother than the PSX version. Also I notice the characters have visual mouths on the new PC version, which can look really odd on characters like Wedge and Jessie where they always have their mouth open.

Speed
It may just be me, but the new PC version seems to run so much faster. That may be because I'm so used to playing a PAL copy of the PSX version.

Controls
The controls on the new PC version are a bit hard to get used to, but you can change them anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

Music
The music does sound different somewhat, I think worse on the new PC version, but that may be down to nostalgia.

Saving
Unless you have piles of PSX memory cards (or a PS3). The new PC version supplies loads more save slots. Whilst a PS1 memory card can hold 15 files, the new PC version has 10 separate lists of save files. Also the new PC version (and I know the old PC version didn't have this) is cloud saving (ay? ay!? get it!? "Cloud" saving!?"). This means that when you save your game it gets uploaded to the cloud, meaning you can access them online.

Achievements
Achievements are a really neat idea for a classic game, but they really could have been more creative. An achievement each for using the character's first limit break? Since the game is not on Steam or XBox Live. The achievements themselves don't accumulate to anything outside of the game itself, you have a separate profile online just for that game, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Also the achievements page on somebody's profile says "Aerith" when the game still translates it to "Aeris". There's an achievement to "get" her final limit break, so does that mean she has to learn it or can I just get the item? Some of the achievements are missable such as "master all materias" (I thought the plural of "materia" was "materia", then again it could be confused with mastering the "All" materia). So you need to be really careful if you want 100%. But that achievement could be rather ambiguous, does it mean master one of each type? do you need to have them all at the same time before "fusing" them? or do you need the "Master _____ Materia" too?

Character Booster
So on your online profile you can choose a save file and activate the "character booster" and it's irreversible (you can back up anyway so it doesnt matter really). Doing so takes your HP, MP and gil to "max". It doesn't cost anything, and it just happens. I find it really hard to accept that they would implement a "get super strong" button without any consequences. I have a feeling that achievements will be disabled, or you will be limited in other regards. There is an achivement for getting 99,999,999 gil, and the booster gets your gil to the "max" of 49,999,999 gil so maybe it just lowers the gil limit? There MUST be SOMETHING!

"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"