Envlaved, Uncharted 2, and "Cinematic" Games

Ninja Theory probably hates this, but Enslaved can not be discussed without also mentioning Naughty Dog's Uncharted 2. The thing is, Enslaved is basically a reply to Naughty Dog's title. Naughty Dog says "This is the PS3. This is the kind of title one can only make on the PS3. This is the future of gaming, and every other console exists in the past." Ninja Theory's reply? "What's that? Sounds like bullshit, but I can't hear you with all that Sony dick in your mouth."

Despite this, Enslaved and Uncharted 2 are basically cut from the same cloth. They both come from the school of thought that believes that games are quite akin to movies. Titles like God of War, Call of Duty, and Metal Gear Solid also fall into this mold, but none seem to so exemplify it as these two titles. This school of thought claims that video games are simply movies, with the added element of interactivity. As such, they are less analogous to the "advance" from books to movies than they are to the additions of sound and color to movies. Note, for example, that nobody makes silent black and white films anymore, but more people are reading than have in years. These developers don't see games as alternatives to cinema, they see them as improvements to it, replacements of a bygone relic.

"An interesting crossover of the newspaper and political simulation genres."- IGN.com

This perspective on the industry has manifested itself in two basic strategies, but both have the same basic goal of making games more like movies. The first of these, having had its heyday in the PSX era and still being a perinatal favorite in Japan, is the cut-scene heavy game. What's the easiest way to make your game more like a movie? Put more movie in it. The result is a title like Final Fantasy XIII, where gameplay often feels like a way to break up the videos. You have periods of gameplay and, upon their completion, the player is "rewarded" with a cut scene. Metal Gear Solid 4 may be an even better example, as it's design is simply littered with the tropes of the American action movie. These are the games which brag about the total length of their cut scenes on the back of the box.

Pictured: SquareEnix's vision of streamlined gameplay

The second of theses strategies argues that the first is incredibly flawed. These developers believe, and I agree, that game developers get no credit for cut-scenes. They can be pretty ,well acted, what have you, but they are not actually part of the game. One can not improve a book by packing in a DVD intro sequence. This is compounded by when the protagonist's actions in cut-scenes are more impressive than those the player can actually perform. This only serves to highlight the shortcomings of the the game's actual gameplay.

Cool cut scene, but there's not an actual "roar" button. Unacceptable.

This second strategy aims to make games more like movies, but by having the actions taking place in those movies be fully initiated by players. Gameplay is another element of the whole, like video or audio. These devs would no more take gameplay out of sections of their game than they would audio.

Now, out of the two elements, I personally side with the latter. There is, however, a third argument. This would simply say that games are games. Chess doesn't necessarily need a story or sweeping vistas. They may still believe that games are art, but they don't believe emulating movies produces a superior product. In some ways, this view actually places video games on an even higher pedestal than the other theories.

In my next post, I'll post my reaction to the Enslaved demo, and discuss this concept of "cinematic" games in practice.

Plug and Play: In Places Deep

Okay, so, shameless plug time. One of my old buddies just started up his own blog, over at In Places Deep. Now, I will endeavor against my will to ignore the easy joke his title provides and simply tell you what it is and why you may care. I am, as you no doubt can tell, primarily a video game guy. My buddy Evan is, however, a tabletop guy. He was, in fact, my first DM and taught me the tabletop ropes. I'll cover tabletop on occasion, especially as I tend to think from a more universal perceptive (ie: what sucks and isn't fun on the screen is often the same at the table), but that's what he does 24/7. So, if that's your thing, check it out.

Steel Battalion 2 a Genius Move (Kinect?) by Microsoft

Just heard about Capcom's new Steel Battalion game from Angry Joe. Now, Joe's reaction was less than optimistic, but he was coming from the perspective of a long term fan of what will now be the Steel Battalion franchise. My reaction, having not played the original game and being only familiar with its infamous controller, has been somewhat different. The title itself seems less important here than what it represents in the ongoing struggle between Microsoft and Sony.

It's no secret that we are currently at the beginning of Microsoft and Sony's mounting motion war. The Nintendo let out the opening salvos with the Wii's surprise attack, but the overwhelming retaliations from Microsoft and Sony have left the big N a casualty of this war. Everyone but Nintendo seems to know this. The Move is, after all, essentially a Wiimote ++. That is, however, the recent past. Looking forward, the big question is who will win. It seems inevitable that one of these two very different approaches will eventually conquer the market, forcing the other side to return to the drawing board.

What Steel Battalion represents is a conscious marketing choice by Microsoft. They know why the Wii has begun to fail, and why the Move has thus far not had the phenomenal success that Sony had hoped for. It's all about the "casual" and "hardcore" markets.

While the Wii had a huge initial sales bubble, that was not fueled by the gaming market. While many eager gamers, including myself, did buy the system, the radical numbers where due to a second market. This market, commonly referred to as the "casual" gamer, does not care about video games. They don't self identify as gamers because it's not necessarily a hobby of theirs or even something they would, Wiimote in hand, even consider enjoying. The thing is that the Wii is, to them, not a video game console. It is toy. They don't play games on their Wii, they play Wii - meaning Wii Sports for the vast majority, aswell as Wii Play, Wii Fit, and a handful of other casual party games. The problem presented here is that this market is now dwindling. They bought their Wiis, yet have failed to buy games for them. They have their toy, and are satisfied. Developers have, however, continued to produce shelves full of low quality shovel-ware for the system, aiming at this evaporating market.

Meanwhile, the "hardcore" market, representing long term hobbyists, self identifying gamers, have largely felt ostracized by this practice. They've grown tired of the long waits between games marketed towards them, and the inevitable inferiority of these products to experiences offered on other consoles. After all, The Conduit is "the best shooter, on the Wii," not the best shooter. Many feel like Nintendo left their old friends out in the rain, and are now wary about returning to them as they begin to court old markets again. This has extended to an overall distaste with motion gaming throughout the gaming populace, as this market perceives the trend to have a deleterious effect on the quality of game releases.

For Sony, the problem lies with their release titles. Every one easily fits into that casual market niche which the "hardcore" market has grown so disdainful for. Much like the PS3's original audience, Sony is again seeing that gamers do not buy hardware unless there is software to support it. Gamers do not buy a PS3, then find games for it, they buy a game and whatever they need to play that title. Unfortunately for Sony, much of even their most devoted fanbase sees the Move and Wii as direct analogs.

Steel Battalion 2 is Microsoft's way of not simply shrugging off this casual mantle, but throwing it into the fire. They have taken one of the most "hardcore" titles ever, one that even most of "hardcore" crowd were not invested enough to get into, and made it a near launch title. It would be like casting Mike Tyson, George Carlin, and Bob Saget (warning, links extremely NSFW) because you were worried that people might think you're making a kids movie. It's a nuclear payload of "for gamers" marketing. Suddenly, something which may have been perceived as beneath the "hardcore" is thrown over their heads. Unlike the original Steel Battalion, however, Microsoft hopes that the lower initial investment won't scare away consumers.

Weather or not the title even sells, it should accomplish Microsoft's goals. With titles like this in the pipeline, though not likely at release, Kinect can not be perceived entirely as a casual experience. Microsoft has at least one complex, made for mainstream gamers title they can hold up as proof that Kinect is not a gimmick but a legitimate gaming peripheral. Furthermore, there is no more perfect a title to capitalize on the Kinect's other big selling point, the inherent removal of third party peripherals. Any bundle which could get

So, long story short, I wouldn't be surprised if it was Microsoft, not Capcom, that first approached the other about this project. I wonder if this sequel would have even ever come out if not for its viability as a Kinect proving ground. In this way, at least, Joe and his fellow Steel Battalion fans should be thankful for the Kinect support.

Sequelitis: Fable 2

Sequelitis is another in what will become the regular features of this blog. In these articles, I will examine a game with an implied, likely, or announced sequel, and discuss what changes, improvements, etc. are neccessarry in order for that sequel to be justified and successful.

___

With Fable 3 now clearly on everyone's collective radar, and soon approaching. I figured I might give some brief thoughts on my experience with Fable 2, and what improvements to the formula I believe should be made for the sequel.

While designer Peter Molyneux has a reputation for wild exaggerated claims, this title actually lived up to most of them. For those that were fans of the original Fable, there was little to be disappointed in.

 Fable 2 is set in the same world as the original, Albion, with the timeline advanced by 500 years. The game makes only passing references to the original, so one need not have played it to understand the plot of the latest chapter. Then again, this may not necessarily be a good thing. An opportunity was missed here to take the Mass Effect rout and deliver on some of Molyneux's promises about the original Fable. Choices made in the final acts of Fable 1 could have effected the world and player character, such as their lineage (assuming they descend from the original game's hero), the state of Albion (depending on the original player's alignment and influence in the world, and the existence of some NPCs (depending on weather or not you killed your sister and other NPCs.) This would have retroactively given the studio a bit  better favor over the perceived lies surrounded Fable 1, allowing them to spin these as very long term intentions.

The biggest change from the first game lies in the streamlined combat system. Now the player has one button each to control melee, magic and ranged weapons, including guns. This sounds overly simplistic, but the system is build around context. Mashing a button as quickly as possible has one effect, holding it has another, and pressing it rhythmically has yet another. Making a melee attack against an attacking foe executes a riposte, while attacking an enemy near a ledge, wall, or other environmental feature produces another effect. This really works, providing a fun and cinematic game that's quite easy to get into regardless of skill level. It's reminiscent of Assassin's Creed, though less rewarding of your commitment than that somewhat more complex system. For Fable 3, I'm totally on board with these design philosophies. Just layer on more depth and you should be set. More contextual actions, interactive environments, variety in the moveset, etc. Some of what was shown in pre-release media (see screenshot below aswell) implied a bit more depth to the system, but there's no reason that couldn't be 100% accurate and then some for the follow up.

Looks pretty, but fence jumping is in no way integrated into combat. In the actual game, this was  a bad decision.

Molyneux has exaggerated on a few counts however. The world does not shift as dynamically as he suggested and the co-op play is serviceable, but poorly implemented.

At two particular points in the game's storyline, locally limited changes to the geography will occur. These are binary and determined solely by the player's choice of quests. When one of these changes occurs, the game explicitly points them out. Therefore, even if you haven't seen the alternative outcome, you'll know what it would have been. All of the possible outcomes can be seen in only two playthroughs. Nobody will ever be surprised by someone else's game world. I felt more control over my world in GTA: Vice City, buying up properties left and right, than I ever did here. Moloneux needs to go back to the drawing board and found where he hid all those wonderful acorns. For the sequel, I believe they should focus less on these huge overarching shifts and more on the details. Simple economic systems, based not only on what the player buys and sells but on their actions, would go far. If I kill a blacksmith, the town should be out of a blacksmith for a while. The prices of metal items should go up in the absence of a local distributor. His old shop will become devalued, and, though the player may buy the property himself, eventually a new smith will move in to fill the niche. Though this type of thing may be somewhat complex, Fable is quickly becoming outpaced as other RPGs are implementing these kinds of features. Fable will not be able to continue existing as a franchise if it's one shining, unfulfilled promise becomes overshadowed by the realities of the market.

In co-op play, the second player can import the stats of his own character, but not their avatar. Six pre-made avatars are available, none of which are aesthetically pleasing. The game tethers players together with an invisible rope, one that is often smaller than the battles, so you'll constantly bicker over control of your collective direction. The camera doesn't aid much either. I love co-op when it works, but here it feels rather tacked on. The game as a whole is an RPG - but the co-op experience is strictly hack n' slash. In several instances, I intentionally logged off of the game during story-heavy sections in order to make things easier on the primary player. Bad sign. We've already heard plenty of talk about the improvements to this system in the sequel, so I believe I can chalk up the obvious improvements to be made as taken care of.

What makes a Fable game are two things, a relatively simple setup easily acceptable to more casual audiences, and the ability to do many non-combat activities in town. Both are present and improved on here. There are more of these extra curricular activities available, but they remain minor distractions. The money earning mini games are absolute busy work - monotonous and ill-conceived. Those more enjoyable mini-games still feel somewhat tacked on and none of them will bring me back to the title. Contrast this with Red Dead Redemption's mini games which, while merely versions of classic gambling games, are handled with so much finesse and atmosphere that they are my go-to way to play blackjack, poker, and liar's dice when I lack human company. If it doesn't add to the game, it detracts. This was one of the few areas, for me, where the company's commitment to polish really seemed to fail. Hopefully, in Fable 3, everything you can do will be something someone might actually want to.

The other half of the non-combat activity is intended to be your interaction with the world and it's people. This functions almost identically to how it had in the original Fable, with only a few extra bells and whistles to provide token improvement. I've felt far more connected to my character, the world, and the NPCs in games like the Mass Effect series than I ever did in any Fable game. This is largely because Fable's NPCs are a very predictable hoard of simplistic automatons. You know, absolutely, that, if you just keep spamming these three emotes, every identical woman in town will fall in love with you. Visually and emotionally, they are all alike. There is no mystery to it. It is for this reason that the only NPC with which I felt any empathy was my dog. While not perfect, they did get the essential element, to me, of NPC companions. They are not you. You do not control them. You can not ever fully know them. The dog, to some degree, has a mind of his own. He will take actions without orders and, while still rather predictable, is never entirely so. This logic needs to be applied to all NPCs in the Fable world.

All of these women find fart jokes hilarious.

I very much enjoyed Fable 2. There's no real replay value there though. After playing through the full story, which I did twice over my rental period, the remaining open-ended quests are pretty much busywork. It's not a game like "Oblivion" that takes weeks of play to fully experience. It's a great rent for RPG fans, but far from a must buy.

Going forward into Fable 3, what I'd really like to see is an overhaul of the clunky co-op system and some real depth added to the extra curricular activities. The first, which we have already been promised, is really the only objective gameplay problem in the title. The latter is what Moloneux, it seems, has always wanted to make Fable about - but, in my opinion, has yet to succeed in. The minor ways in which the world can be influenced are all very direct, predictable, and functional. It all feels so very sterile. Hopefully the next title will really dig in, get dirty, and provide us with a real playground.

My fear, however, is that Moloneux's wonderful tendency towards experimentation might bight him in the ass again. You see, he's big on new ideas. An important part of what makes Lionhead a unique development house is that they do a lot of experimentation. Mr. Moloneux encourages his team to prototype original ideas. These quick prototypes, however, are uncommon because a prototype that doesn't carry into an actual feature is essentially wasted money on the business level. More common with Moloneux, I think, is that what works ends up being these odd little quirky things which aren't necessarily what the audience was looking for. The dog in Fable 2, for example. I thought it was great, but I would have preferred that the promises about the interactive world to have been fulfilled.

This being said, I am looking forward to Fable 3. Many of the concepts the dev team have mentioned aren't so much based on improvements to the Fable 2 formula as referendums on standard gaming tropes as a whole. As a designer, it's hard not to love listening to the guys as Lionhead and to look forward to their new products.

If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe!

Outdated Game Reviews: Dead Space

 Dead Space is Fun, But Not Scary

    On October 14, Electronic Arts' Redwood Shores development house released the highly anticipated "Dead Space," now available for PC, PS3, and Xbox 360. This sets off the pre-holiday videogame release season. It's the first real big title in the series of blockbusters that will be hitting shelves over the next few months.
    "Dead Space" is a survival horror game that casts the player as Isaac Clarke, the engineer of a team sent to repair a damaged mining ship. As soon as you arrive, however, you find that there's more wrong on the Ishimura than a few blown fuses.
    What follows is a straightforward structure. You proceed through twelve levels, each requiring you to complete some ship fixing related puzzle. On the way, you will regularly be surprised by several varieties of alien zombie parasite monster.
    I say surprised, as opposed to frightened. Much of the game's horror reminds me of "Doom 3". It spends more time trying to surprise you than frighten you. Occasionally the game will give you a piece of truly unsettling imagery, and what is there is well done, but it never even approaches the psychological torment of "Silent Hill 2."
    Isaac is a big part of the problem. Like many game protagonists, he remains mute throughout the title. This is done so that the player can project emotions onto the character. However, the result is that when the plot requires Isaac to experience heart wrenching loss, he remains a blank canvas.
    Even if the horror aspect is a bit lacking, "Dead Space" is a very good action game. If you enjoyed the gameplay of "Resident Evil 4," then there's nothing not to love here. Most of the weapons are cutting tools designed to dismember your antagonists "Evil Dead" style. Even the most boring weapon in your arsenal is a futuristic flame thrower, a good sign. Add to that the zero gravity gameplay sections, and you've got a solid shooter.
    The user interface is the most innovative thing in the game, and I except to see it pop up in other games. The GUI consists of enhanced reality visualization, as seen in "Shadowrun" or "Minority Report." Holographic windows appear next to your character displaying menus, videos, text messages, etc. The only exceptions are the pause screen, which exists out of necessity, as well as save points and shopping terminals.
    The best part of this system is that it doesn't remove you from the experience. I can be watching a video recording and blasting monsters at the same time. The world never stops because the player needs to check his PDA.
    It boasts an acceptable running time at bout 11 hours, but after the twelfth chapter and final credits there's not much to bring you back for more. It is an enjoyable rental and I recommend playing it, but there's no reason to purchase "Deep Space."

Featured Feature: Player Investment (Part 3)

Part 3: Reward Reduces Enthusiasm

In its simplest form, any player investment reward is simply a commendation. You did well, you get a pat on the back. Weather this takes the form of a new suit of armor, new gun, new ability, some aesthetic option, or simply a smiley face on a menu screen, they are all simply ways of telling the player "good job."

The problem here is that such commendations are not, in fact, a good thing. Picture a young child who gets good grades in math. His parents and teachers encourage him, giving him gold stars and plenty of positive reinforcement. Years go by, and the child continues to get good grades, make honor role, etc. The child graduates college with a wonderful GPA. The child is now an adult, in the real world, where there are no more gold stars. Many studies suggest that this individuals success will likely stop there. The kid has probably long since tired of math and academics, and now has no desire to put these things into actual use. He was originally good at math because the liked math. As the rewards came, however, math became a means to receive rewards. This individual, over time, came to see the thing he once enjoyed as work, an annoying task to be completed in exchange for reward. His motivation has fundamentally changed. Sound illogical? Well, how much do you like your job? How much does it pay? How much does that matter?

Actual market value may vary.

Possibly the most prominent and ubiquitous examples of the player investment reward systems in place today are Microsoft/Sony's Achievement/Trophy systems. Despite some backlash amongst games, the hard fact is that the two companies have made these systems mandatory for all titles because these systems make money. Consider a game that exists on all 3 of today's prominent consoles, the PS3, XBox 360, and Wii, all of which you own. Each version of the game has exactly the same features, capabilities, and graphical fidelity. Which system do you buy the game for? Theoretically, it should be a toss up. However, a huge number of players would prefer one of the systems that tracks achievements. After all, if you could add a pat on the back to everything, why wouldn't you? You woke up this morning, Congratulations! Took a shower? Good show!

Which brings us to the problem. Have you ever played a game, not having any fun, just trying for an achievement? Did you enjoy finally getting it? Was this experience preferable to having spent that time simply playing the game as you would have otherwise done? Or, worse, have you ever noticed yourself not play a game you know you enjoy simply because that system doesn't feature achievements? "Hey, I could actually finish the rest of Mario Galaxy, but I've already "beaten it" and it's not like I'm gonna get any achievements." I don't know about you, but I've been there - and it's scary. It seems that with there short term earnings strategies, Microsoft and Sony might accidentally be training their consumers to hate their products.

Of course, this is an article about how to properly integrate player investment rewards into games and, as I've already established, these aren't inherently bad things. The problem here is that these particular reward systems serve as goals in and of themselves. A large portion of those players that dislike achievements, for example, focus entirely on the existence of online achievements. Some players hate online achievements because they encourage players to prioritize these individual meta-goals before the actual cooperative game. One can not both focus on being the best player possible and getting a double kill with a spartan laser.

This problem extends beyond achievements and trophies and into some of the player investment strategies implemented as features within some prominent games. It is very easy, for example for a player to get so caught up in Modern Warfare's challenge/prestige system - getting in weeks of game time before they ever max out their stats - never have actually focused on winning the games in which they have competed. They were online with other players in what was ostensibly a death-match, but their goals had little to do with the actual game at hand. This is detrimental to the game's online environment in that it creates scenarios in which the minority of a game lobby might actually be attempting to fulfill the game's stated agenda. For the members of that minority, extreme frustration is likely to occur. (see: Modern Warfare's "Sabotage" playlist) This both undermines the design of your game mode and the quality of the online experience your players receive.

And this was the issue with our honor role student. The gold stars and blue ribbons became more important to him than the subject for which he had originally been so passionate. There, then, is our solution. Yes, do reward you players, but reward them for actually playing the game. In this way, a reward system could recognize achievement, rather than set up new, largely artificial, hurdles for players. As a rule of thumb, any time focus is taken off of the actual game, the reward system is imperfect. Any time the player is growing frustrated, wrestling for a reward not due to their skill level within the game but rather due to the design of the reward system, they are becoming disillusioned with the game. This should be avoided at all costs in order to ensure a positive long term relationship with both the individual title and gaming as a whole.

As gamers, however, the most important thing to keep in mind is that you simply should not allow yourself to become disenchanted with your hobby. If you're getting fed up with reaching level X or with attaining some achievement - stop. Take a break from that goal and go do something in the game purely for fun. The teachers can give you as many gold stars as they want, but it's up to you to retain perspective.

If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe!

Featured Feature: Player Investment (Part 2)

Part 2: The Top Tier Problem

So, we've talked about what exactly "player investment rewards" are. Now, we're going to get into some of the current problems with prominent implementations of the feature. In this case, we're going to focus on rewards that aren't merely commendations, but rather tangible benefits within the game - ie: equipment and abilities.

In short, rewards designed to be the absolute best in their class pit players’ desire for uniqueness against their desire to accomplish and have their accomplishments recognized. This discourages customization for some and achievement for others. A title’s degree of variety and individual expression online is directly proportional to the number of equally valued customization options provided to players.

Prominent examples of this problem include Halo 3’s "hayabusa" & "recon" helmets, Modern Warfare’s weapon camouflage, and World of Warcraft's equipment.

Halo 3, for example, features 11 online armor variants available to most players. These variants are designed to provide players with a sense of individuality as they mix and match them, color them, and otherwise use them to form a unique persona online. Theoretically, this emphasis on individuality and the wide variety of tastes amongst the player base should result in a fairly even distribution of armor variants throughout the community.

This is, however, not the case. The “recon” and “hayabusa” variants, especially their helmets, seem to be far more common amongst those players who have unlocked them. The same is true of the other armor variants to degrees in direct proportion to the amount of work necessary to unlock them.This presents a problem, as the variety and individuality intended by the developer has been overshadowed by a second well intentioned feature, player investment rewards.

If you can look like this, you won't not.

The same problem can be seen in many other titles, most notably those which make heavy use of such player investment rewards. World of Warcraft, for example, features thousands of weapons, but only a very small fraction of those are actually desired by its most committed players. When new and better items are introduced, they do not increase variety but rather replace others as the now most desirable "top tier" options. Players invest a great deal of time in order to receive these rewards, only to be forced to sacrifice their avatar’s individuality for the ability to display them.

High level mages, or roving Warriors style street gang?

This problem is compounded by the fact that when a large portion of players display the same rewards, desiring recognition for their achievements, they, in fact, become less recognizable amongst the crowd of similarly outfitted characters. Thus, some may choose to forgo such challenges all together, knowing that they will not wish to display their rewards. Allowing the majority of the developer’s efforts to fall into such disuse seems not only to be contrary to the original design intent, but to also be poor financial investment.

These choices soon to be rendered moot by 200lbs of phat purple loot.

Solutions

The simplest solution to this problem might seem to be the elimination of “top tier” rewards all together. This, however, inherently depreciates their value as player investment rewards.

A better solution, it seems, is to eliminate the singular nature of the highest tier options. The Halo 3 armor variants, for example, might have been unlocked via multiple separate but equal progressions. Some armor variants might be unlocked by campaign player progress and achievements, while others would be unlocked by multi-player progress and achievements. This would result in two top tier armor variants, doubling variety while both equally rewarding player investment and providing more opportunities for such investment. A form of this strategy can be seen in World of Warcraft, in which players may gain the game’s highest tier armors either from raids or arena combat. These two alternative paths provide equal statistical reward to players who choose either rout, yet also present aesthetic differences from one another. Thus, players are able to feel as if they are displaying their prowess, while not necessarily becoming identical. Further, the more specific nature of these rewards more accurately portrays the nature of the player’s excellence.

Another option, and one which can be combined with other solutions, is to provide variety within a single reward. Halo 3’s armor system does, for example, allow players to mix and match amongst their armor variants and choose a unique color scheme. Thus, two individuals may have very different character models, despite sharing the same helmet. The problem this raises, however, is that the head, and face more specifically, is a physical feature very closely linked to identity. There is a biological tendency to notice a person’s face before examining them as a whole which extends to online avatars. Even if two character models are different in every other way, similar faces, or helmets in the case of Halo 3, can reduce the sense of variety. Variety could be added to individual helmets, however, by allowing players to further customize the helmet. This could include multiple visor colors, textures, the ability to choose glossy or matte finishes, smaller accessories such as antennae or eye pieces, what have you. In Modern Warfare, players could be rewarded not with “Red Tiger” and “Blue Tiger” camouflage, but with “Tiger” camouflage which they could set the tint of as they wish. Simply put, granularity increases variety.

If you enjoyed this post, please subscribe!