game design

2015 saw many terrific video games. From the moral complexity of Witcher 3 to the creative freedom of Super Mario Maker, and everywhere in between, 2015 was a strong year for the video game industry. Yet, as with any year: there were duds. Arguably the biggest flop of all was Godzilla for the PlayStation 4. Lumbering, unwieldy controls, boring past-generation map design, and a complete lack of any interesting fighting system (and local multiplayer) made this a challenge to call “fun.” This game was panned nearly across the entire board, with one small group providing the only positive spin. They were, of course, the Godzilla fans and they found a lot of good things to say.

Just to say upfront: Obviously, all art is subjective. No one is an idiot for liking this game. The following is just my opinion.

Now, I have watched every single Godzilla movie (in English and Japanese where applicable). I own an entire large crate full of action figures and collectibles. I am attending G-Fest in Chicago this summer. I have a tattoo of Godzilla on my body. Do I say all this to prove that I am the coolest guy in the universe – that’s besides the point. My point is, I am a huge Godzilla fan, I grew up on this stuff. Here is my message to other Godzilla fans: this game is garbage. It doesn’t matter if you love Godzilla or not. Please stop defending this piece of crap, we deserve better.

While the other art is the best it's ever been, that just acknowledges that graphics have gotten better in ten years. — While the monster model design is the best it’s ever been, that just acknowledges that graphics have gotten better in ten years.

A lot of the praise for this “game” comes from fans describing how faithful it is. Godzilla moves with purpose, like the large mass he is. Some fans have even contrasted it favorably against the three most recent Godzilla fighting games that were released for the GameCube, PlayStation 2, Xbox (original), and Wii. This is true. In those games, Godzilla moved a lot faster. He was agile, quick, and could run from one side of the map to another. All of these changes reflecting a desire to create a more fluid fighting game. Yes, Godzilla is slower and more like his movie self in the PS4 game… but is this a good thing from a game making perspective?

"It makes you think of how unauthentic previous Godzilla "fighter" games (Save the Earth, Unleashed..) were." - a poor, misguided Godzilla fan — “It makes you think of how unauthentic previous Godzilla ‘fighter’ games (*Save the Earth*, *Unleashed*..) were.” – a poor, misguided Godzilla fan

Let me give an example: In the PS4 game, you have to collect “data” from various points in the map. Let’s say I missed one on one side of the level and now I must walk back.

STOMP.

Here I come.

STOMP.

Getting closer.

STOMP

Almost there.

STOMP.

…. still almost there.

Does this sound fun? There is no way to run. There is a “charge” option where Godzilla lowers his head and plows forward for a few steps like a charging bull (or a blind football player) but this animation looks awkward to say the least. I can only imagine the commentary of the spectating citizens.

“Oh, there he goes! Nothing can stop him! Wait… what… what is he doing? Why is he doing that over and over again?”

So yeah, Godzilla walks like in the movie – kudos on making that happen, but it also illustrates exactly why it should be changed to create a good video game experience.

Another feature that Godzilla fans have praised is the focus of the game. As Godzilla, the player wrecks cities and fights monsters. This sounds awesome and exactly what a good Godzilla game needs to have. In this game, the city smashing takes front and center, with other monsters only showing up occasionally. This would be fun but here is the problem: the city smashing is really not satisfying. Godzilla hits the buildings a couple of times with one of four attacks (charge, weak attack, strong attack, or radiation breath) and then the building goes into a generic “fall” animation before disappearing entirely. It does the same “fall” animation no matter how Godzilla attacks it. There is nothing, no variation, no sense that your choice mattered. The same thing – over and over again.

Yeah, you don't have to spend time destroying ever single thing, but the game punishes you if you don't. Destruction makes Godzilla "bigger" and more powerful so... sigh, destroying a city should never be an obligation. — Yeah, you don’t have to spend time destroying ever single thing, but the game punishes you if you don’t. Destruction makes Godzilla “bigger” and more powerful so… sigh, destroying a city should never be an obligation.

Yes, this was a PlayStation 3 game originally but even so – this looks bad. The ones on PS2 and GameCube could do this, and there smashing buildings was not the primary objective but just a fun side option. Godzilla: Unleashed for the Wii had better building destruction than this. If my memory serves correctly, the player could occasionally knock pieces of the building off with basic melee attacks in that one.

Yep, the weak Wii had a game with better building destruction.

The level design is bare. While Bandai Namco and Natsume do deserve some credit for recreating environments from the movies, they are really small stages. Normally, I would complain more about this – but it takes ten minutes to walk across one as is. It’s not just the size, however. Gone are the power-ups and hidden secrets from the previous games. There is nothing to do but that boring smash and gathering “data” (which amounts to freezing in place for twenty seconds while the camera cuts to a more cinematic angle). Having the Smog Monster fly around or being able to summon in Mothra or Battra were cool options. Again – decisions that reflected actual game design as opposed to “well what did it look like in the movies?”

Last but not least, let’s talk about the monster fights. Well, first and foremost – this is a fighting game without a health bar. Yep. Curious as to how you’re doing? Too bad, you’d ruin the immersion with crap like that. The only indication you get is the screen starting to go red as you get close to death. Well, at least that helps right? Let’s you know when to start blocking attacks?

Health bars? We don't need no stinking health bars! — Health bars? We don’t need no stinking health bars!

You can’t block either.

Well, shit. Want to pick up a building and throw it at your enemy? Can’t do that.

Want to play with the person sitting next to you? Can’t do that.

Want a comprehensive system of fighting moves and clear differences between how the monsters handle? Try another game.

The “fighting” system was added into the PlayStation 4 version, to help justify the sixty-dollar (I bought this for $10 and felt cheated) price tag that this game released with. Some games add new modes with depth and meaning, and with some it feels quickly tacked on. Guess which this is.

John Ryan of IGN gave this game a negative review but said that “the spirit of the old-school monster movie is where Bandai Namco absolutely nails it.” I disagree, and frankly wonder what movies John is talking about. The original Godzilla is a work of art that is exceptional in quality and crafting – so this game isn’t it. The subsequent sequels were goofy fun that usually did not take themselves too seriously. This isn’t those either.

Fans looking for a genuine experience of a Godzilla movie should watch a Godzilla movie. The 29th Japanese film will be released later this year. There are a lot of these. This “game” feels like watching the very worst of Godzilla, and is even less fun to play. Godzilla fans have had better games in the past – and need to not allow crap like this to get a pass for being “authentic.” Batman fans were harsh and eventually got Arkham Asylum. Just saying.

The Mass Effect Trilogy stands as an unparallelled achievement in video game history. A closely joined story arch that spanned three games and included a multitude of different scenarios, characters and outcomes based on player action. On the whole there is little emotion I can express for this work other than admiration. However, Mass Effect was not perfect. Mistakes were clearly made. Many people out there will tell you that the largest failure came in the ending, with Mass Effect 3. I do not share this belief. Yes, Mass Effect 3 is likely the worst game in the series (which is not to label it “bad” by any stretch) however I will argue that the greatest failings, at least in terms of character and story development, came in Mass Effect 2. I know: the game that is the best in the series is also the worst.

The question of how that is possible is best broken into three parts: character, story, and construction. I will address them in that order. Anyone familiar with Mass Effect will tell you that one of the highlights of the trilogy is its characters. Commander Shepard is an incredible protagonist who maintained his/her own identity despite the player influence. The first Mass Effect also introduced its audience to an incredible squad makeup that included Garrus Vakarian, Liara T’Soni and Tali’Zorah nar Rayya (just Tali for short). The squad wasn’t large, only six members total: including one destined to not finish the game alive. The result created a very personal atmosphere with clearly defined characters who each made a powerful impact. This is the squad size in Mass Effect 2:

Clearly there are more to be counted. Compared to the six in the first game, twelve potential crew members filled out this roster. There were also certain decisions in the game that could be made to give the player alternatives to certain squad mates (Samara OR Morinth). Expanding the central cast is always a dangerous move when designing a story. Any writer will tell you that there should never be more characters than necessary. The characters in Mass Effect 2 are well-written, realistic and flushed out creations, they are in large part what made the second installment the best. However, when their place in the trilogy is determined, nearly every character introduced in Mass Effect 2 has little to no impact on the overall story. This is a failing in writing and has largely to do with Mass Effect 2‘s construction, so I’ll come back to it.

Miranda Lawson is one of many characters introduced as a major new presence, only to simply lose significance in Mass Effect 3. — Miranda Lawson is one of many characters introduced as a major new presence, only to simply lose significance in *Mass Effect 3*.

Let’s examine the story in Mass Effect 2: a suicide mission against the threat known as the Collectors. Commander Shepard must assemble the most dangerous people in the galaxy to stop the Collectors before it is too late for humanity. That’s a compelling story on its own but already there is a problem: no mention of the Reapers. The Reapers are the main threat of the Mass Effect Trilogy. They are hulking, nigh-indestructible ancient machines that have periodically extinguished all civilized life in the galaxy. Yes, the Collectors are working for the Reapers and yes, the Collectors pose a threat to humanity but the Reapers are bigger than that. The first Mass Effect concluded on a larger scale with one Reaper nearly eradicating the hub of galactic civilization. It was a bizarre move to lower the scale and try to tell a smaller story in Mass Effect 2. The result is that everything of real importance happens in Mass Effect 3, causing the final game of the trilogy to have to rush at a mad pace to try and resolve everything on its own.

The Collectors, even with the influence of Harbinger, are simply not vital to the main story in any way.

It isn’t that the story in Mass Effect 2 isn’t entertaining, it just doesn’t matter. Nothing, from the cybernetic rebirth of Commander Shepard, to the Tali mission concerning a dying star, to the reveal of a human Reaper, really impacts the trilogy. Every question raised in Mass Effect 2 goes unanswered. Worse still, most of the questions: such as how the galaxy will react to the Reaper invasion (a question raised at the end of the first Mass Effect) are left for Mass Effect 3.

Cool final boss fight: check. Adding significance to the plot: ... — Cool final boss fight: check. Adding significance to the plot: …

This all comes down to construction. The writers of Mass Effect 2 set out to tell a small story of a man who assembles a team and stops a threat. The game succeeds brilliantly at telling this story but, was it the story that should have been told? In many ways, Mass Effect 2 would have worked better as a first game rather than a middle installment. The “suicide mission” mechanic would ultimately prove disastrous for Mass Effect 3. In a game with the largest squad possible: any person could die. Even Commander Shepard, if the player did not prepare enough, could meet his/her end during the finale. The problem with “anyone could die” is that it leads to this: “everyone can live“. Meaning, from a game design perspective, that there are twelve what-ifs that people will care about in the final game. None of them can impact the story too drastically (because they might not be there) but all of them must be mentioned in some way. So everyone was treated to bizarre cameos in Mass Effect 3 where the character returned but never really did anything. The result was unsatisfying and sadly: easy to see coming. Rather than design an achievement structure which rewarded saving everyone, Mass Effect 2 should have instead opted for more scenarios like the first game: certain people have to die whether the player likes it or not. It was supposed to be a “suicide mission” after all.

On its own, Mass Effect 2 is a brilliant game. In the trilogy, it was a foolish mistake. Yes, one can argue that if EA had not rushed Bioware in the development of Mass Effect 3, the writing staff may have found a way to better rationalize the two. However, the writers at Bioware did nothing to help themselves out. Mass Effect 2 was simply too low scale in an epic trilogy. It’s great to personalize the characters but not at the price of the story. Its a fundamental problem that largely prevented one of the most towering achievements in video game history from reaching even greater heights.

The final Mass Effect 2 DLC "Arrival" had more to do with the main plot than anything in the central game: think about that. — The final *Mass Effect 2* DLC “Arrival” had more to do with the main plot than anything in the central game: think about that.

Dear Godzilla Fans: Please Stop Defending that PS4 Game

How Mass Effect 2 Failed the Trilogy