Naked Sky Entertainment's RoboBlitz for Xbox 360 and PC
In Round 1 of our Vs. Mode exchange on short session games with MTV News reporter Stephen Totilo, which is also being posted on Totilo's blog MTV News: Multiplayer, we explained that our twilight years had brought on an increased impatience with the pacing and structure of AAA games, prompting us to spend more of our time on small games. Totilo argued that longform games, not our graying dreadlocks, were to blame, and speculated that the existence of high-end short session games on Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 were the accidental byproduct of machines designed for epics like Halo 3 and Metal Gear Solid 4. In today's installment, we set Totilo straight on the scope of the 360 and PS3's short session ambitions while making a case for the crucial importance of PR and marketing in nurturing the success of small games. Meanwhile, Totilo puts on his Man of the People hat, declaring that in the age of YouTube, the viral distribution and word of mouth are all that short session games need to thrive. See below for the full exchange.
***
To: Stephen Totilo
Fr: N'Gai Croal
Date: August 6, 2007
Re: Are Small Games Being Sent to Die?
Stephen,
Your small games theories are giving me a minor headache.
In your first entry, you wrote, "The only games that achieve mainstream success are those that can be played casually--narrative is unnecessary and maybe even a detriment." How are you defining casual? Because games like Madden and Gran Turismo are extremely hardcore: Madden for its slew of options and its requirement of split-second decision-making; GT for its unforgiving driving simulation that privileges rigorous braking and handling over reckless acceleration. You're combining two axes: one of mechanics or accessibility (the hardcore-casual axis) and another of play session duration (the short-session game-long game axis.) So while there's some overlap, let's not conflate the two.
When you say, "I don’t think the PS3 and 360 were engineered to run small games," you're taking a narrow view of the two consoles. Both were designed with networking and downloadable content in mind, upon which Microsoft did a lot of pioneering work on the first Xbox. Look at the original file size limitations for arcade on 360; look at Sony's slate for Playstation Network. These systems were clearly engineered to support small games.
You wonder why many these newer short-session games like RoboBlitz and Super Stardust HD are graphically rich; it's because they're trying to stay competitive on high-end consoles. A $10 game doesn't necessarily get a pass on its graphics. (In Sony's case, a lot of its graphics emphasis has to do with the company pushing its 1080p/True HD talking points.) Small games don't get magazine covers; they don't generate many headlines; and other than a few exceptions--like flOw during the PS3 launch window and Microsoft and Namco's Pac-Man CE event in NYC--these games don't get much marketing or PR support. You and I both know small games developers who've been told by Microsoft PR to curtail their own promotional efforts. We also know that Sony PR wasn't even aware that they had a small hit on their hands with SSHD until we forwarded them the NeoGAF thread; separately, we only got access to a review build of Blast Factor Advanced Research a day or two before it shipped.
This nascent small games revolution is triggering a gold rush mentality as veteran studios and startups alike chase The Next Big Thing. Just as Geometry Wars revived the twin-stick shooter, we could see a renaissance of rail shooters; light gun games; graphic adventure games; turn-based strategy games; even text adventure games. Experimental games like Braid (rumored to have been picked up by Microsoft) and echochrome could find a home and an audience. WiiWare could open up radical new uses for the Wiimote, the Balance Board and the Zapper. But without a committed, creative approach to PR and marketing, it could all disappear without a trace.
Cheers,
N'Gai
P.S. "Vs. Mode: The Movie" sounds intriguing. You could be Anakin Skywalker to my Obi-Wan Kenobi; Clarice Starling to my Hannibal Lecter; Antonio Salieri to my Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Think about it.
***
To: N'Gai Croal
Fr: Stephen Totilo
Date: August 6, 2007
Re: Small Games Don't Need PR
N'Gai,
Sorry about your headache.
Correct my conflations of casual and short session if you want, but let's look at the point I arrived at: the oddity of a game like Super Stardust HD, a decidedly non-cinematic, non-epic game beautifully benefiting from the power of Cell.
This simple, arcadey, short-session experience was rendered with technical muscle that I do believe was designed with things more like Final Fantasy XII and Metal Gear Solid 4 in mind. Whether this game was made to advertise 1080p or not is less interesting to me than the potential ramification of its existence: the effect it and similar games could have in showing the promise of small games that are built, as SSHD is, on technology that is, arguably, luxuriously over-powered for the current ambitions of small game designers.
I ask you again, what kinds of amazing small games could we get with the power of Cell? What kind of Deep Blue A.I. could you program into a Cell-based Space Invaders? How about a photo-realistic Pac-Man on 360?
I think the current gaming moment presents a special opportunity for high-end small games. Yes, such a technological opportunity already exists on PC and, no, small games developers and publishers don't capitalize on it. But I'd go back to SSHD and how creatively successful it is and suggest that, hey, maybe an appetite--consumer, creative and financial--can be cultivated for high-end, high-tech small games.
Ah, but you rightly point out that this could be a fleeting moment, that the small games resurgence may abate. It may, but we disagree on the needed safety measures. I don't think the continued success of the movement requires creative PR and marketing. After all, PR and marketing have had relatively little to do with the surge of popularity in small entertainment outside of games. YouTube clips and downloadable songs get popular without the help of "the man" thanks to the viral hype of "the many." Such viral success occurs in those fields because the platforms involved are open. Theoretically--and maybe temporarily--anyone could create something and anyone could share that creation with anyone else.
Could it happen for games? With the right open platform, sure. But maybe you think the console makers wouldn't allow for open platforms. Probably not, but there are ways they can emerge almost even despite Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft's closed nature: 1) web-browser-based (so, not exactly high-end) small games coded for play on consoles, as seen via WiiCade, which, combined with the right community features, could do the trick and give every console-owner access to a broad palette of games; 2) more promising, to me, Sony's LittleBigPlanet, which, if dynamic enough, has a decent chance of housing the next user-generated Donkey Kong or next Tetris, albeit rendered with cutting-edge graphics.
Consider the high-end small game with me for a bit. And then let's talk about, I don't know, what's better: small games that make you twitch or small games that make you think.
-Stephen
***
To: Stephen Totilo
Fr: N'Gai Croal
Date: August 7, 2007
Re: Isn't It Pretty To Think So?
Stephen,
Why are you hung up on which games the Cell processor was designed for? A console is a fixed platform, so developers can take advantage of all its power and features knowing that anyone who owns that console is a potential customer. The same isn't true of the PC, whose dizzying array of configurations forces many developers to target the lowest common denominator. You're also failing to acknowledge the importance of the network and what it was designed for. Microsoft didn't start out with full movie downloads, and Sony didn't start out with large-scale games. They began with short-form content: trailers, demos and small games. Before digital distribution on consoles became possible, small games for those systems tended to be party games like Mario Party, collections like Namco Museum, or adjuncts to a larger title like Geometry Wars. Why? Because retailers and consumers--to say nothing of a publisher's sales and marketing departments--would resist an individual small game being sold in stores.
So what happens when you combine powerful CPUs and GPUs with built-in networking and online services on a fixed platform? You get something like Super Stardust HD. The hardware makes the graphics and physics possible; the network gives the developer and publisher the opportunity to reach an audience and recoup their investment. This is not an accident. It's not an oddity. It is the logical outgrowth of the feature sets of the Xbox 360 and the PS3.
You're also rather sanguine about the importance--or, according to you, the lack thereof--of PR and marketing in nurturing the success of small games on consoles. Sure, YouTube videos and downloadable songs have become hugely successful. They're also free, whether they're just being given away (YouTube) or pirated (downloadable music.) The companies behind flOw, Mutant Storm, Castle Crashers and Blast Factor aren't charitable ventures. If they and their publishers can't turn a profit on small games, the funding for these titles will eventually dry up. So unless you're talking about a very different business model than paid downloads, even with demos and free trials, small games still need marketing and PR just as do their bigger counterparts. They're competing for everyone's attention in an increasingly crowded entertainment landscape. To pretend otherwise is myopic. You can't spell viral marketing without marketing; and while word-of-mouth is even more necessary for small games than for disc-based titles, publishers' marketing and PR departments still have an important role to play. Right now, they're not doing a good job.
Flash games and other browser-based games are a nice thought, but I think their natural home is on the PC, not PS3 or 360. But they could see more success on Wii because its gestural controls are still novel. LittleBigPlanet is intriguing, but if you need to own the game in order to play the user-generated content, then the game's sales will be the gating factor on the spread of its user's creations.
Back to the games: why do you like SSHD?
Cheers,
N'Gai
***
To: N'Gai Croal
Fr: Stephen Totilo
Date: August 7, 2007
Re: Answer The Question
Do you agree that, be it "accident" or "logical outgrowth" that SSHD feels like one of the first of a potential new strain of high-end small games? That's what I've been trying to get you to engage on.
Next: Which is more revolutionary for small games on high-end consoles: the graphics and processing power or the network?
***
The third level of EveryDay Shooter, titled "Lush Look Killer"
We hope you like cliffhangers. Because Round 2 of the current installment of our Vs. Mode exchange on short session games with MTV News reporter Stephen Totilo, which is also being posted on Totilo's blog MTV News: Multiplayer, ended rather abruptly with Totilo asking us whether Super Stardust HD "feels like one of the first of a potential new strain of high-end small games?" In today's entry, we respond to his question in the negative, while going on to sing the praises of EveryDay Shooter--and helpfully suggest some possibilities for a sequel. Unwilling to let us dream a little dream, Totilo declares his preference for a brand new game from the EDS creator rather than our much-longed for follow-up, before going on to champion the 500-channel universe that is his new small games existence. Read on.
***
To: Stephen Totilo
Fr: N'Gai Croal
Date: August 7, 2007
Re: Graphics, Si. Gameplay, No.
Not really, because the graphics are the only difference. This could presumably have been done on, say, Insomniac's Ratchet 2 engine. It wouldn't look the same, but it ought to play pretty much the same.
Cheers,
N'Gai
***
To: N'Gai Croal
Fr: Stephen Totilo
Date: August 7, 2007
Re: Once More...
That's the point! Recall the bit in my letter where I talked about the game being made on luxuriously over-powered (for small games) hardware. That's what I was trying to explore with you. What happens when, for whatever reasons, developers start making simple games for super-powered hardware? What can/will they do with the extra juice? And what kind of small games emerge from that? That's why I was suggesting things like Space Invaders with near-human enemy AI or photo-realistic Pac-Man. That, to me, is the logical extension of SSHD: a simple game design injected with high-end extras. And it got me wondering what kind of potential such high-end simple games have.
***
To: Stephen Totilo
Fr: N'Gai Croal
Date: August 7, 2007
Re: All Day I Dream Of EDS
I don't know how Space Invaders would benefit from near-human enemy AI, and I don't now how Pac-Man would benefit from photorealism. I guess this is where we're parting company: you're curious about what the tech can give us, and I'm more interested in what the network can bring us. In other words, short-session games delivered via digital distribution let developers take chances on riskier concepts without having to compromise them to satisfy the needs of traditional retailers. As a gamer, SSHD is one of the most joyful experiences I've had this year. But as a journalist and a critic, I think it's an evolutionary dead end. Any sequel would probably feel like more of the same thing, so that's why I don't spend much time thinking about the logical extension of SSHD.
EveryDay Shooter, on the other hand, is an inspired blend of twin-stick shooter mechanics, retro-futuristic art direction and an engaging interactive musical score; what's more the chaining system changes with each level. Jonathan Mak has barely scratched the surface of what EDS can do. Today, the game only uses guitar-based music. Imagine an EDS sequel built around other types of instruments: brass, woodwinds, stringed, percussive. Imagine an EDS built around choral voices, or a human beatbox like Rahzel from the Roots, or a DJ collective like the X-Ecutioners. Imagine an EDS with adjustable audio effects to go along with the visual effects that gamers can unlock in the current version, and new visual effects to boot. Imagine an EDS where you could mash up these different elements with new backgrounds and enemies. I'd love to play that.
Unfortunately, we may never get those games, as Mak didn't seem very interested in doing a sequel when I spoke with him at E3; it sounded as though he'd rather work on something new. But I hope this game does well enough to persuade Sony or another publisher to license EDS from Mak and take it into these other areas. Does EDS need the Cell or the RSX to pull this off? I'm not a developer, so I don't know. But I do know that without the network, we might never have seen this game on PS3. The tech helps developers realize their dreams, but the network lets them dream in the first place, console audience-wise. That's why I see the network as the more evolutionary part of the equation.
Cheers,
N'Gai
***
To: N'Gai Croal
Fr: Stephen Totilo
Date: August 10, 2007
Re: EDS vs. ADD
N'Gai,
I like your ideas about EveryDay Shooter sequels, but not as much as I like the idea of playing something entirely different from EDS creator Jon Mak. I'm restless for new stuff, and I think my own renewed love for short games is both the cause and the cure for that.
A couple of evenings ago I sat down at my computer to write you a Vs. Mode response. Unfortunately for you (I think), I checked my e-mail first and discovered there was yet another new small game available on the PS3 store, something called Piyotama. I downloaded it, tried it for a few minutes, decided I didn't like it (when Tetris meets Hexic, I don't need to be around, you know what I mean?) and that was that.
In the last two weeks I've also sampled Nucleus, EveryDay Shooter and PixelJunk Racer on the PSN store. My Xbox Live account is set to automatically download every new game on Xbox Live Arcade. I'm awash in small games and loving it. Note that none of this is driving me to the PC to download and play small games there. In fact, the anecdote I just shared had a small game driving me away from the PC. I prefer gaming on the couch (or via handheld), not in my desk chair.
Since I started covering games, I've had a huge variety of big new games at my fingertips. I've played a lot of those titles. But it's only now as I indulge in this newly available plethora of small games on non-PC hardware that I'm experiencing that kind of variety at this rapid pace. And you know what? I like this gaming lifestyle. I like the idea that every couple of days there is a new game for me to play on the 360 or PS3 that I can download in the blink of an eye, have embedded in an easy-to-navigate menu of games, and that I can sample and judge whether I like it in just a few minutes. I feel that this is a more exciting way to be a gamer.
I've argued that the cost and length of new retail games narrows most gamers' experience. Rentals and demos aside, they wind up playing just a few new titles a year and/or are unlikely to try many games outside of whatever genres they're comfortable with. The widespread availability of small games to console gamers can change that. I feel like we've all been given a new (or newly refined) mechanism to experiment with and enjoy a broader array of games. It's like we all just went from having broadcast TV to 500-channel cable.
This feels healthy to me, as it seems like it will speed the feedback loop of creativity and consumer reaction. And it's all hinging on getting new thing after new thing. Or am I going to get crushed if (when?) it all calcifies into services that only house a few proven hits?
-Stephen
Next: The small games we love--and some that just don't work.
***
Hand Drawn Games' Desktop Tower Defense
In Round 3 of our Vs. Mode exchange on short session games with MTV News reporter Stephen Totilo, which is also being posted on Totilo's blog MTV News: Multiplayer, we shared our thoughts on some interesting possibilities for an EveryDay Shooter sequel, while Totilo sang the praises of game consoles becoming more like cable TV, where there's always something new to check out and evaluate. In our final installment, we firmly express our beef with Totilo's bright line distinction between twitch-driven and thought-driven small games. But Totilo strikes the most vicious blow yet, making like Marlo Stanfield on "The Wire"--best currently-running show on TV, bar none--by dropping the most lethally addictive product we've consumed since, ironically, Dope Wars. What is it? We're speaking of Desktop Tower Defense. And if you value your life, your productivity, your every waking moment, do not play this absolutely brilliant gem of a game. You have been warned. Read on.
***
To: Stephen Totilo
Fr: N'Gai Croal
Date: August 15, 2007
Re: Twitch Like A Butterfly, Think Like A Bee
Stephen,
Your analysis of what makes Pac-Man CE great is spot on. I love the way it takes the empty spaces that I've already cleared--which would have been useful only for escaping the ghosts in the original game--and continually reconfigures and reloads the cleared half of the screen as you operate on the other side. It's a small but profound shift in gameplay that completely outclasses the original.
Separately, I'm not sure that the gap between twitching and thinking games is as wide as you've made it out to be. Some of the best games combine the two in engaging ways. Each new level of EveryDay Shooter first asks you to suss out its chain attack system, then exploit it to better eliminate enemies and rack up points, without ever downplaying its frantic twin-stick-and-move basics. The puzzle games Lumines and Gunpey out thinkishly (I may have to start trademarking these new words), but become more twitchy as time progresses and the pace picks up; ditto for Frequency/Amplitude, Guitar Hero and the forthcoming Rock Band. Wario Ware requires you to quickly recognize the situation at hand, then push, twist or gesture to solve it. And in order to maximize your high score in Super Stardust HD, you have to keep in mind multiple factors: avoiding elimination to maintain and increase your score multipliers; choosing the right weapon for the right asteroid or enemy; acquiring and conserving bombs for tough situations; keeping an eye out for power-ups and point pickups; boosting through point pickups to increase their scoring value, and more.
These aren't just my favorite short session games in recent years--they're some of my favorite games, period--in part because of the way they combine deliberate choice and reflexive response. I popped Diner Dash into my PSP for the first time earlier this week, and after a bit of initial frustration with the controls--and a bit of disappointment with the lo-fi graphics and mediocre soundtrack--I found myself pleasantly challenged by the same twitch-and-think dynamic. But during our Halo 3 multiplayer beta discussion, didn't I say that the combination of tactics and action in frantic, highly pressured situations "blow[s] past the outer limits of my gaming abilities"? I did, but give me permission to revise and extend my earlier remarks. The reason that twitch-and-think doesn't bother me in the games I cited in the first paragraph is that the gameplay in each title is 2-D, not 3-D. I never get disoriented. I never have to worry about something coming at me outside of my field of vision. I don't have to aim high or low. Because of this, I can at my best become one with these games, in a way that I can't with their 3-D gameplay counterparts.
There's so much more that I could say, but this is my final entry, and I'm about to hit the word limit. But we should consider revisiting small games in six months or so. It's fertile ground for discussion and debate.
Cheers,
N'Gai
***
To: N'Gai Croal
Fr: Stephen Totilo
Date: August 17, 2007
Re: Better Than BioShock?
N'Gai,
Another derailment, another dog-ate-my-homework excuse. I planned to write this final letter of our exchange last night, at around 6:30 PM. But first I wanted to try a quick little game a few developers from New York City development studio area/code raved to me about: Desktop Tower Defense. I understood that, like any good small game, a session could only last a few minutes. I'd give it a quick try, make a snap judgment and have something to say about it--maybe--in that final letter.
At 7:56 I was still playing it.
At 7:57 I considered bailing on evening plans I had so I could keep playing.
At 7:58 I decided Desktop Tower Defense might be better than BioShock.
Try the game yourself here. But be warned: It's free, can be played in a browser and is easy to grasp. There's no defense against this game, except maybe not liking it. But how could you not like it?
Stubbornly sticking to categories you rejected last letter, let me tell you that DTD is a thinking game, not one designed for twitch. The playing field is the top of a desk that has had its clutter push to the edges, where only one path is open on each side. Little enemy "creeps" stream through the openings in marches toward opposite ends of the desk. The player plants turrets on the desk to shoot them down. Different types of turrets cost different amounts of money, as do turret upgrades. You gain money for the purchase by shooting the creeps, but lose health if they bypass your defenses. A few wrinkles aside, that's it.
DTD doesn't look nearly as good as BioShock. It doesn't even have a story, let alone a narrative exploration about what it means to be in control a game. It doesn't have amazing water effects.
But if one of the key draws of the nearly perfectly reviewed BioShock is that it is designed for gamers to tackle and re-play its challenges with varying strategies, well, Desktop Tower Defense, then is at least as good at that. I think it might even be better. Because while I may have beaten BioShock using a few different approaches (more on my 16-hour run of the game in next month's first-person-adventure Vs. Mode), I've already played through DTD about 25 times, using almost as many different strategies. And I keep wanting to go back and try something else. The game has me hooked.
I agree with you that the accessibility of 2-D gaming can easily trump the immersion of a 3-D experience--even when the 2-D experience masquerades as 3-D, as in short-session Super Stardust HD. Best of all with these small game is that the gameplay can't hide. It's the core and the surface. A great short-session game has the chance to get it so right, it makes you wonder why anyone bothers to make anything more grand.
Talk to you next month.
-Stephen
