Video Games Are the Rules

This a rebuttal to Yehuda's post: Why Don't Video Games Tell You the Rules?

Firstly, a declaration: I am a video gamer and a board gamer. I love to explore any system that has rules and systems. However, there are fundamental differences between the organization and execution of each type of game that alters not only how we perceve them, but also how we play them. Most of these have to do with the social spaces of the games.

Walking The Path
I am going to object to the use of The Path as an example of video games because it does not represent even a fraction of experimental (and I hate to have to make this particular distinction) "art" games. I have not had the chance to play The Path, but from eveything I have read it is less a game and more a narrative exploration of a theme with in a environmental framework. Like a living story.

The rules of the game are deliberately hidden because the entire game is about exploration of the space as part of the underlying metaphor. As you discover how the world works you are also discovering the narrative that has been hidden, and are able to piece together your experiences (fabula) into a cohesive story that is unique to your understanding of the game space. That includes how you understand the game world's rules.

The Path is to most video games what Mao is to most card games: a deliberate exploration of rules and game space.

(For those of you who don't know, Mao is a card game for a moderately large group of people that primarily involves making up and figuring out the rules without explaining them out loud. It can get very strange, be very confusing to someone who doesn't know how to play, and will always be different. You may not even understand all the rules in play during a single session until it ends.)

Reason 1: Don't Tell, Show
I love complicated rule systems in my games. I own one board game that has a 30 page rule book. It's so complicated that it comes with an 8 page comic as a Quick Start Guide. I would rather explain the rules first than (or at least the basics) than just jump in with a confused (and often bewildered, wide-eyed) new player. However, the thing I most often hear is, "Let's just get started and they can pick it up as we go". So I wind up explaining both rules and strategy periodically as we progress and new situations come up.

But what if I could not only explain as we went, but show you without pausing? What if I could make strategies easy to understand by putting them in context as we play? In a board game I'd have to explain that Unit X can move 3 spaces and Unit Y can move 4 (but only over water tiles), but in a video game you could see that when you clicked on Unit X that 3 spaces in every direction were lit and allowed you to move there and that 4 spaces were lit for Unit Y, but only over water. Sure, both games might have a little icon with a 3 or 4 and a little wave icon for Unit Y, but the video game enforces the rules whether you know them or not. But I suppose that leads to Reason 2...

Reason 2: Crunching the Math
In Settlers of Catan you know exactly what the probability of rolling to get resources from any single hex is every time you roll (so long as you understand some basic probability and statistics). That doesn't mean you understand how the math plays into the overall strategy of the game. 6s and 8s are mathematically the best tiles to own, but if you don't diversify you may wind up just as stuck as if you chose 2s and 11s. Of course, the rules don't explain that, you have to play the game to understand the strategy.

In a video game you may not know the exact probability of hitting an enemy, or the exact damage you will do. The math may be hidden or obsured by other numbers or mitigating factors (like resistance). Same games may show this, some may not. This does not mean that you cannot make educated guesses and intuit strategies that work. All the while, developing a deeper understanding of the systems that underlie the combat. Of course that can't happen until you start to play. Whether the rules are detailed and understood before or hidden and revealed later, strategy only develops from playing and experience.

Any game you play (video or otherwise) that has poorly defined goals, indications of progress, or insufficient feedback is squarely in the fault of the design and not the medium. However, that does not mean you have to understand the math or the entire underlying system to play (or even to win). As a new game player, I would only know all the cards in Pandemic if I looked at them first and read the rules on how they worked. Many games have similar resources, should you be interested enough to look.

Reason 3: Concession is a House Rule
I will freely admit that one drawback to playing a video game over a board game (especially when playing a video game remake of a board game) is that there is no support for house rules. The computer will always mediate the situation; it is immutable. Variations must be added by the designers, but even these cannot be strayed from.

Concession is one such variation. Is there a way to concede in the rules of Monopoly? Risk? Only if the players agree. Is there a way to concede in a video game? Only if it is programmed in. My suggestion: tell your designer friend that it is good option to add.

Are there thoughtful video games, with explicit rules and goals, where the game is played, round by round, to calculated victory?
Short answer: Yes, of course there are.

Long answer: I'm actually a little disappointed that this is even asked. Are there board games with any depth and strategy? Ones that don't just have a rule system with a theme slapped on them? Of course there are, if you care to look for them. But if all you've seen are Hasbo games at Toys-R-Us, then you're not seeing the whole picture.

Judging video games by a scant few on the edge (an Art/High Concept game, a web game in development, and some second-hand FPSs) is hardly fair to the depth and breadth of gaming.

What would you like to play? Tactical game, management game, action game, strategy game? Real-time, turn-based, online? How much time do you have?

$3 is a No-Brainer

I have purchased my first-ever micro game. Expect more of these in the next while, hopefully all with as simple a way to buy in.

The game is Windosill, a very simple Ambient Point-And-Click Puzzler. Describing the game is difficult. Each scene is a window into a strange world. The window sill has a block car and a locked door. You have to find the cube that unlocks the door so you can get the car to the next window.

There is lots of stuff to click on. Sometimes you have to solve a small puzzle to get the cube, sometimes not. Mostly it's just fun to interact with everything to see what it does.

The first half of the game is free. And it's a great hook. You get to the middle and the game asks you for an activation code to continue. The code is $3. I had that sitting in my PayPal account, chances are you might too. So I paid.

I'd do it again too. Even though the game is short, and doesn't have much for replay, the price was right. At $3 and under it becomes an impulse buy. Like a chocolate bar or bag of chips at the gorcery store checkout, it's not something that you need but it is something easy to pick up with a cheap enough pricetag that it takes almost no justification.

You just buy it.

What's Your Rush?

I just played Blurst's newest release: Paper Moon. Go ahead, have a go, it's free. It's a very basic platformer. The twist is that you can pop select pieces of the scenery in and out. These bits are either behind, on level with, or in front of the scene.

This means that jumping puzzles can have an added element where you have to jump and then pop the next platform into place. The neat part comes when enemies start showing up. You can pop scenery in to bump the baddies out. bump them forward and they fly at the screen with a satisfying Bop! Be careful not to do it to yourself though.

Not that death really hurts. The game has no lives. You spend most of the time collecting fruit and navigating the simple areas. There are some physics puzzles, but they didn't seem too complicated. Being bumped off screen, touching baddies, or falling into bottomless pits makes you respawn at the last checkpoint you passed. These are fairly frequent, so any setback is minor.

The issue I have with the game is the completely unnecessary timer which results in Game Over when it runs out. There really isn't any story to the game (it's losely inspired by the song "It's Only a Paper Moon") so I don't know what the motivation to hurry is. I'd rather spend my time exploring and collecting fruit. And dying, I do that a lot.

Why are you making me hurry through your game? I want to play it again because I want to see more of it. But I also probably won't because my skill level means that I probably won't see that much more of it anyway.

This could have been a wonderful casual platformer with a slick graphics and a nice gameplay twist. I could have killed a couple of hours on it exploring every nook and cranny. As much content as you put into it, I would have searched out. But instead you timed me and only got my 5 minutes. It was only a paper moon.

µReview: Prince of Persia [+/-DLC]

**Warning: this post may contain spoilers as it talks about stuff that happens after the main game ends. Also it may digress into discussions paying for content.**

So far, the only downloadable content for PoP worth speaking of is the Epilogue. It picks up exactly where the ending left off and carries the prince and Elika away from Ahriman's immediate control and into new lands. It also serves as a way for the narrative to explore the now damaged relationships and changed positions of the characters. The prince has found a faith (of sorts) while Elika has lost hers. She's also a little ticked at him.

The DLC is a couple of hours long, introduces a new power, a new acrobatic combination, and a new combat move.

The power is a variation on the Red plate from the main game (purple now) that launches you and causes temporary wall sections to appear. This is oddly pointless because there is no other way through, and they always appear long enough for you to use them.

The new acrobatic combination tacks the wall grind onto the end of a wall run. Not that interesting, just never used in the main game.

The new combat move is a QTE that you can initiate to rush the enemy. I could only get it to work sometimes and didn't find it that useful, because I spent most of my time trying to lure the enemy to a cliff edge, not rush towards him in the middle.

Narrative-wise, the DLC felt fairly satisfying. It answered some questions, posed some new ones, and did a much better job of setting up a sequel. The layout, however, left something to be desired. The epilogue is entirely linear (except one small 3-way puzzle section). There is little exploration, and all of the false choices from the game that provided a feeling of openness are gone. The difficulty has also be increased a notch, with some acrobatic sequences having an excruciatingly long time between checkpoints.

I'm also a little conflicted about paying ~$12CAD for the last chapter. I'm not sure that's a good precedent to be setting. I don't want to have to pay for each installment of a full-price game. Sure, the game didn't actually need it, but I have a feeling that the sequel will probably assume that it's cannon. I'd probably recommend you buy it, if only for the story. Or at least play it at friend's place if they've bought it.

µReview: Prince of Persia [-Ending]

**Warning: there are spoilers in this post. If you want to stay blissfully ignorant about the ending of PoP until you play it, STOP READING NOW**

There have been a lot of complaints about the ending to PoP. If you haven't played it, but don't care about spoilers, here's the synopsis:

Elika's father, the last king of the Ahura, has released Ahriman, the dark god of corruption. He did it to bring Elika back to life after she took a nasty fall somewhere in the decaying city. She came back to life with the power to re-trap Ahriman; which you set about helping her to do. You become rather fond of her during your escapades. But, of course, she has to die (again) to defeat the god.

This really should be the end of the game. It fits quite nicely and, while bittersweet, concludes the tale. Ahriman is trapped, the land is saved, and you are left to rebuild or move on. The credits even start to play as you carry Elika's lifeless body from the restored tree in the temple garden to the altar on the steps outside. It feels ended here.

Only the game doesn't end. Ahriman is trapped, but not for ever. The Ahura are scattered, the cities are crumbling, the land is dying, and Ormazd, the god of light, is nowhere around. Also, you may love her. So you undo everything: you cut the tree, bring her back to life, and free Ahriman again.

I actually don't mind that ending. It fits too, and it opens the game for the Epilogue (via DLC) and sequels. What chafes me is the false sense of choice you are being given. The entire game has been about false or shallow choices. Which way to go. Who to fight, and when. When to talk. All meaningless in the face of the linear and driving narrative.

Should you save Elika, and release Ahriman? You must, the game has no other ending. I suppose you could turn off the console, put the game on the shelf. Walk away. That is a choice, of sorts. Only you can't, otherwise the rest of the story makes no sense.

Don't tell me there was no way to write it. Elika could have come to life by other means. Arhiman could have gotten free on his own. It didn't have to be at my hand. I should have had the choice.