Since I pretty much covered everything I wanted to talk about in the previous six posts, I just want to take some time to go over my opinion of some things in regards to the action genre and the video game medium as a whole, particularly with the AAA industry.
As I've said in previous posts, I don't find that a story in video games is necessary. I've said it in detail in relation to different things in this genre but I want to make it clear: you do not need much of a story in an action game.
Stories can be great if they're well executed and well presented, like with Devil May Cry 3 and how it presented the challenges Dante has to overcome. But at the same time, a bad or poorly presented story can get you some lower scores on some gaming sites which, if you're working at a AAA company, those scores will pose problems in terms of your overall compensation and general work environment.
While licensed games probably have no way around it, if you're working on an original IP, by which I mean intellectual property and not internet protocol (some people find that confusing for some reason) you only need enough of a premise to give context to what you're doing.
Why is Dante fighting demons? He's a demon hunter, that's his job.
Why is Ryu fighting demons? Super Ninja, just go with it.
Why is Bayonetta fighting Heaven and Hell? Because she's a Witch.
Why is Kratos fighting creatures from greek myths? He's a son of Zeus, either you believe it or you don't.
Why is Travis Touchdown fighting these laser-sword wielding super killers? He wants to get laid. Eh, many people have killed for less than that.
And the list goes on and on.
Most of these stories only give you enough plot to give context to why you're fighting the enemies you're fighting and just enough presentation of certain things to make you think more is going on than it actually is.
Action games don't need stories any more than a slice-of-life anime does. The only exception to that I would make of the ones I listed would probably be No More Heroes and anything by Suda 51 and Grasshopper Studios just because their combat systems tend to be pretty weak and, because of that, if they don't have any story or characters that you can latch onto they'll fall pretty flat, which is one reason why Killer is Dead isn't really all that popular in comparison to No More Heroes, Killer 7, or Lolipop Chainsaw.
That said, if you're going to have a story in your game, here are a few pointers just to get you in the right direction:
- Actions Define a Character: No matter what you say your character is about or what they're like, their actions speak for themselves. My favorite go-to example for this one is Kasumi from Dead or Alive. Kasumi is described by Tomonobu Itagaki as "A kind-hearted, gentle girl who really does not like fighting." And, many in the Dead or Alive community seem to believe this as well, so much so that her wikia profile has said things along those lines for years. However, when I actually observed her actions, I didn't see a kind-hearted girl who didn't like fighting. I saw a spoiled brat with a brother-complex. Granted, in all of the story stuff I've seen involving her, I never got the impression that she enjoys harming people, so at least that wasn't too far off, but at the same time, she never hesitated to use violence as her go-to solution for most problems either. And sure, all the other Ninjas in the series are pretty violent, too, particularly Ayane, who has it in for Kasumi and picks a fight with Hitomi just because she didn't like her. But at the same time, these characters were never referred to as gentle or kind-hearted in any interviews or dialogue so I don't think that's necessarily points against them. Of course, the Dead or Alive wikia also simultaneously listed Ryu as the winner of the 2nd DOA tournament where Jann Lee was his first opponent and that Jann Lee has never lost a match, so take from that what you will. My point is, if you have an idea for what your character's personality is like, their actions should reflect that.
- Two Rules: This one can technically be divided among two different parts but these two rules kind of go together so I'm listing them together. These rules are "Show, don't tell" when it comes to things like cutscenes and dialogue, and "Do, don't show" when it comes to gameplay and player interaction. Of course, most games tend to go for one or the other of these two rules, with varying degrees of success but for the most part, the way these rules interact is as follows: "Show the world and its rules, and then let the player interact with these things in a way that's consistent with what you presented." A lot of games get this wrong on some level but one of the worst offenders of both these rules is Metroid: Other M. During Gameplay, you don't really do a whole lot that moves the plot forward, which defies the "Do" rule but, when cutscenes are playing, which we assume would show us the plot, even then, it defies the "Show" rule by having the plot delivered by Samus' wooden monologue. Nothing really plot relevant happens during gameplay or cutscenes, which made Other M a pretty confused experience in terms of its story.
- Game Design is Paramount: This is something that should be obvious but any of you who have played a game by Suda 51 or Hideo Kojima knows that this rule can be forgotten quite easily. If you have a narrative that you want to tell, that's fine, a game can have a great story and be presented well if you do it right. However, such a narrative, no matter its message, should not come at the expense of good game design. Suda 51 is a big example, particularly when it came to Jasper Bat Jr. in No More Heroes 2, of someone who will sacrifice game design in order to get a message across, or at the very least, not contradict the fans who throw that defense around for him. Hideo Kojima is better but not by a whole lot. His games generally have good gameplay but, ever since Metal Gear Solid 1, he's always pushed the cinematic angle for story telling in video games. Metal Gear Solid 1 could be beaten in 2 hours if you skipped all the cutscenes, or at least the ones that could be skipped, Metal Gear Solid 2 was longer and had more gameplay overall, but the cutscene to gameplay ratio had not changed or gotten better at all, Metal Gear Solid 3 is widely considered the best in the series for having the largest focus on gameplay and arguably having the most realistic boss encounter ever, and Metal Gear Solid 4 was probably the worst offender for being a 10 hour game where 70% of that time was unskippable cutscenes. So if your narrative is going to get in the way of good game design, don't even bother with it.
- Voice Acting is not Mandatory: This one is also a bit of a no-brainer but one that I feel needs reiteration, this time much more so for aspiring game developers much more than people who are already in the industry. Voice Acting can be great, it can be awesome to hear what your favorite characters really sound like and what they really feel in the context of their world. However, games didn't really start using Voice Acting en masse until the PS1 and N64 era with Metal Gear Solid and its use of professional voice actors. After that, really popular games like Sly Cooper, Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, and other series started using voice acting and the presentation was improved significantly. However, that being said, The Legend of Zelda has proven time and time again that you can make a decent game and deliver a decent story without dialogue. Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, and even Twilight Princess to an extent, were all stories that were fairly well presented and used minimal voice acting. Likewise, series like Mario, Sonic, Metroid, and others that have gotten voice acting have proven that, it is possible and reasonable to wish that you never heard your favorite character's voice. Of course, in the former example, Mario himself never actually talks but other characters in Mario from Sunshine at least, have proven that voice acting is not in and of itself a universal benefit. I'm not even saying that you should spend all your budget on great voice actors either, if you're really in love with the idea. What I'm saying is that voice acting, like anything else, should either be good or nonexistent. Voice acting, just like story and presentation, can be a double edged sword. Just keep that in mind going forward.
Now that I've given you a good idea of what you should do for your story, if you really want one, next is time to talk about the final thing that I really spoke surprisingly little about in these past 7 posts: graphics and visual design.
Now, many in the AAA industry are obsessed with making their characters and setting looks as realistic and bland as possible but I am a man that believes that visual flare should be toned down. I am of course, for the most part, appealing to those of you who are looking to get into independent game design and development and, because of that, many of you probably already know that you're going to have to make sacrifices to fit your project within your budget and hardware restrictions.
If you watch theGamingBritShow on youtube, you've probably heard him talk about dialing back graphical fidelity to that of a PS2 level so you could make expansive worlds, bigger enemies or huge enemy waves, deep and engaging mechanics to interact with the worlds with, filled to the brim with content, and probably run it all at a sturdier framerate, too. Of course, if you saw that particular video, you are probably also aware that he acknowledges, and I will acknowledge, that this might not solve all your problems, since there are always going to be hardware limitations you work under no matter how toned down the visuals are but another benefit to PS2 graphics, especially for 3D games, is that you could probably crank out your games a lot faster and a lot cheaper since you're not spending so much time on bump mapping the pavement and are spending more time actually making the game part of the game.
I am very much a fan of using PS2 graphics to make a 3D game to be honest. PS2 games still look fine, I don't know about everyone else, but as long as the game plays well, the impact it'll have will be the same.
That said, if you really want your games to look pretty, I suggest picking a stylized art style. If you don't know a unique one in mind, that's fine, but cell-shading with caricatured art, or anime are art styles you can pick. You could also pick a painted art style, or, if you think your engine can handle it, you could try water colors.
If you do have a unique art style that you want to execute but can't for whatever reason, just go ahead and hire an artist to do it. It's entirely unheard of these days for a single person to make a game by themselves so there's no shame in hiring someone else to do some of the work that you just can't for whatever reason.
In terms of animation, though, you want to make certain that your attack animations have weight to them. They need to have good tension and release, they need to be crunchy, or at the very least wispy elegance. I know that may sound like a lot but, for the action genre, you're competing with quite a number of people.
You want to have a fair amount of wind-up on attacks that give them weight and also telegraph them well enough that they can be avoided just by looking at them.
Sound design and music are also important. I won't go into too much detail about that because it really depends on the game, but look at Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance for a good example of how music can be done well in action games.
That about covers this post, which is essentially just a conclusion to the rest of the series. Overall, you should do what you think is best for your game and try not to get hung up on things that other people are doing. As long as the game you make is fun, then that's all that matters.
If you stuck it all the way through this series, thank you, I hope it was worth your time. Thanks for reading.
I am very much a fan of using PS2 graphics to make a 3D game to be honest. PS2 games still look fine, I don't know about everyone else, but as long as the game plays well, the impact it'll have will be the same.
That said, if you really want your games to look pretty, I suggest picking a stylized art style. If you don't know a unique one in mind, that's fine, but cell-shading with caricatured art, or anime are art styles you can pick. You could also pick a painted art style, or, if you think your engine can handle it, you could try water colors.
If you do have a unique art style that you want to execute but can't for whatever reason, just go ahead and hire an artist to do it. It's entirely unheard of these days for a single person to make a game by themselves so there's no shame in hiring someone else to do some of the work that you just can't for whatever reason.
In terms of animation, though, you want to make certain that your attack animations have weight to them. They need to have good tension and release, they need to be crunchy, or at the very least wispy elegance. I know that may sound like a lot but, for the action genre, you're competing with quite a number of people.
You want to have a fair amount of wind-up on attacks that give them weight and also telegraph them well enough that they can be avoided just by looking at them.
Sound design and music are also important. I won't go into too much detail about that because it really depends on the game, but look at Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance for a good example of how music can be done well in action games.
That about covers this post, which is essentially just a conclusion to the rest of the series. Overall, you should do what you think is best for your game and try not to get hung up on things that other people are doing. As long as the game you make is fun, then that's all that matters.
If you stuck it all the way through this series, thank you, I hope it was worth your time. Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment