Mike Danger Gaming

I didn't know why people were so into League of Legends, but this video piqued my interest and helped me to understand some fundamental ways of implementing game mechanics. 

Harmony of design means that all aspects of game play from mechanics, aesthetics, narrative and player input/output are all working with one another towards a specific goal or outcome. It is only achieved when, right from the very start, the developers have a very clear understanding of exactly what they want the game to do, and have built the game up around that specific ambition. The Banner Saga is an excellent example of this as the former Bioware developers have crafted a beautiful game based around one simple premise; choice and consequence.

Every time you pick up the game you are being challenged to make conscious choices and accept the consequences. From the turn based battle, to the dialogue options, right through to the inability to save at will, the game is forcing you to make a choice and stick with it. Some of these aspects can seem frustrating when looked at mechanically and without perspective. But all of them work well within the context of the game and conspire to create an atmosphere and an experience with significant emotional impact to warrant their inclusion.

Consider the battle phase; presented in a simple turn based form, the battles are deliberate affairs in which you must carefully and methodically eliminate a variety of opponents whilst considering multiple factors such as armour, abilities and the turn order. Something as simple as deciding who will move first in your party can have a major impact on how the battle plays out. And it is important that the battle plays out correctly. Make mistakes, fail to anticipate the enemy, leave your allies exposed, and you will suffer consequences. If your allies fall in battle, they will become wounded and endure a blow to their stats. This makes them less effective in combat, and means that you may be exposed in your next skirmish. You can rest them during the caravan sections, or whilst in town, but this will drain resources which may cause your population to become unhappy. They may die or desert, leaving you weaker (or better off, depending on how brutal you are).

Something as simple as deciding who will move first, or when to use your special ability, can have a drastic effect on your play through. As I mentioned, all of these mechanics could become frustrating, but the game places all this choice and consequence in context by delivering a consistent and believable narrative through its character development and plot, so it never feels like the game is being difficult for the sake of it. Instead it reinforces the central idea of making choices and living with the consequences.

His delivery is a little dry, but Smudboy does an otherwise excellent job of breaking down Mass Effect 2's plot in great depth. Check out the video below but be warned; any and all illusions you had about ME2 being a great game may be completely ruined. I had planned on holding ME2 up and saying "they don't make 'em like this anymore" when I became a jaded old man. Now I don't know what to think. If this is actually a bad game, what is a good one? Are there even any good games?

Of course there are. They just aren't AAA third person, cover-based shooters with an emphasis on narrative.

There was a moment in the Last of Us where I knocked down a hunter and disarmed him. On his hands and knees he begged me not to kill him. I must have hesitated for all of a second before I shot him in the face and went on my way. 

The problem with enemies in the game is that they have no humanity and simply exist as obstacles to be overcome. Consistently and vividly they are portrayed as ruthless, mindless monsters. Piles of mutilated corpses, stockpiles of stolen clothing and items, and a relentless pursuit across the country all paint them as unsympathetic and vile. 

But why should we have any sympathy for them? They're the bad guys, after all. The issue here is the way in which they are used. As the game drags on, enemies are increasingly used simply as a means of filler. They obstruct us from advancing the story which, in this particular game, is the whole point of playing. 

Remember when Ellie runs off on the horse, and Joel and his brother find her at an abandoned ranch? After a dramatic scene hunters burst into the house and are swiftly dispatched. Why? They are not mentioned later, they have no impact on the story. Arguably they could be reinforcing the idea that this is a dangerous world full of desperate people, but if that point hadn't already been hammered home by now, it was never going to stick. 

Instead they are used as filler, as a substitute for significant game play. That whole "Fall" section, including the fight at the dam, and later the fight at the University, is rife with instances of filler game play, encounters placed there almost purely to artificially ramp up the tension and extend playtime. 

So again, why should we sympathise or empathise with enemies? Why is it vital that they retain some humanity? Because when they are used repeatedly as filler in lieu of significant game play, we need a reason to keep fighting them, to keep struggling, or else it becomes routine. 

I dismiss the argument which says they are desperate for food and resources; their dogged pursuit and eventual decimation of and by Joel and Ellie indicates no desire for self-preservation. Vengeance might be a viable justification, but it makes no sense to us as players, who are not and never have been actively trying to engage with the hunters, who have always been the victims.

As well, to accept vengeance as a motivator, one would have to have sympathy for the avengers. When a loving brother is killed, you understand why his family wants blood. When a sadistic cannibal is foiled in the midst of an ambush, you don't understand why his sadistic cannibal friends throw their own lives away in pursuit of an old man and scrawny girl.