Some Thoughts About Final Fantasy 13-2

After finishing Final Fantasy 13, I moved right along to its sequel, Final Fantasy 13-2. Direct sequels aren't very common in the Final Fantasy series and 13 is of particular note because it has two. Considering the ways in which FF13 deviated from the series' conventions I was excited to see how these direct sequels would learn from and iterate upon its predecessor. Today we're talking about Final Fantasy 13-2, a direct sequel that takes place two years after Final Fantasy 13.

Timeless Beauty (Presentation)

The environments in Final Fantasy 13 could really take your breath away, and 13-2 is no different. As a matter of fact, you visit so many locations at so many points in time that it has greater visual variety. You'll be exploring the usual valleys and fields, but highly technologically advanced locations as well - and just about anything in between. I found myself constantly distracted by the dozens of beautiful views this game has to offer.

A lot of the enemies and music are re-used from Final Fantasy 13. It makes sense, considering it takes place in the same world, but it's still something to consider. We'll get into the gameplay side of this later, but 13-2 has a lot more optional content and a lot more NPCs to talk to for sidequests. Their voice acting is generally fine, but there's a very limited amount of different models with very limited animation. It can be a little bit grating to watch the repetitive mouth flapping of the same face you've seen a few dozen times after watching the truly gorgeous cutscenes reserved for the game's important characters.

13-2's soundtrack can be described as having higher highs and lower lows than its predecessor. Most of the battle themes you'll hear are excellent, combining synth with orchestra to emphasize the game's journey through different time periods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdframgnBVE

But some tracks have an almost 'grunge metal' feel to them, with screaming vocals that absolutely do not fit the beautiful landscapes and emotional story of a Final Fantasy game. The track that plays when you ride a red Chocobo, 'Crazy Chocobo' is infamous at this point. Listen at your own risk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEUOOgNzOv4

In short, FF13-2 offers more visual variety, especially in environments, but NPC and enemy designs are still regularly re-used and not particularly impressive in the former's case. The soundtrack recycles some tracks from 13, but the original pieces are mostly excellent. A few of the tracks are bad.

Time's Teachings (Gameplay)

Final Fantasy 13-2 is an evolution of Final Fantasy 13 in many ways. In this segment, I'll focus on the ways 13-2 differentiates itself in its exploration and battle system.

The endless complaints about Final Fantasy 13's overly linear nature were clearly heard and applied to 13-2.  While there are still linear segments, the game opens up almost immediately and many of its environments feature branching paths or are completely wide open. Not only that, there are many optional locations and time periods to visit for players who explore thoroughly. As free and open as the exploration is, though, the areas and time periods can feel a little disjointed because you access them from a somewhat disorganized level select screen referred to as the 'Historia Crux.' This is a small price to pay for the sheer amount of freedom and optional content, however.

Some small things were added to the exploration in 13-2 as well. You can now jump at will, and you can find secret treasures hidden in the environment by using your companion Moogle's special detecting ability or by throwing him to treasures out of your reach, an act that he very much doesn't appreciate. Enemy encounters have also been reworked; FF13 did away with random encounters entirely with enemies simply existing in the overworld. 13-2 partially returns to the traditional system, with enemy encounters appearing at random in the overworld, but not necessarily initiating a battle like the JRPGs of old. Once an enemy appears, the player can choose to try to run away, or deal a first strike on the enemy to gain an advantage in battle. This system allows you to grind certain types of enemy more easily, but can be frustrating in cramped areas when faster enemies that can actually chase you down spawn. 

In FF13's linear environments, there weren't many NPCs you could actually interact with. In 13-2, however, there are a boatload of NPCs with sidequests and lore, although most sidequests boil down to finding an item in the area or killing a specific enemy. The best sidequests play with the game's theme of time travel and have you visit an area in multiple different time periods to figure out what to do. The game even has a lot of dialogue options, but we'll discuss those in more detail under the story segment.

One final thing to mention about the exploration is that sometimes, to progress, you need to resolve a 'paradox' by solving a puzzle. These puzzles offer some welcome variation when done on occasion, but can often overstay their welcome by either being simple and repetitive or frustratingly hard. As an example of the former, there are puzzles where you just connect crystals of the same color over and over again. As an example of the latter, there are complex clock puzzles that would take more time to explain than they're really worth, but basically, you move the arms of a clock to numbers which then decide how many steps you can move the arms of the clock again, and using this method, you need to find a way to have the clock stop at every point without ever landing on the same point again. If that sounds confusing, that's because it is.

So, all in all, the exploration has changed a lot. But what about the battles?

Final Fantasy 13 shifted a lot of the focus in battles from actively choosing options to preparing and switching between 'paradigms,' where you assign each character a role like Commando or Medic. Final Fantasy 13-2 uses the same system but expands upon it in a few ways. For starters, your characters throughout the entire game are Serah and Noel, and you decide which Roles to teach them when as you level them up. This means that you not only need to think about which paradigms to use, you also need to choose between improving your current roles/paradigms or learning new ones. 

It is a little disappointing to only have 2 characters instead of Final Fantasy 13's six, but the other addition to the battle system makes up for it: monster taming. Most monsters you encounter can be tamed and acquired for use in battle. The third party member in any paradigm is a tamed monster of your choice and there are dozens upon dozens of monsters you can tame, level up, combine with each other for powerful passive abilities and even name and equip with cute cosmetics. 

Unlike Noel and Serah, tamed monsters only ever have one Role, but that makes sense considering the sheer amount of tameable monsters you can acquire.

Next to the major additions, there are also minor conveniences. A paradigm shift now happens without a small cutscene demonstrating to which role each character has switched, and if the character the player is controlling gets knocked out, you automatically switch to the other instead of getting an instant game over.

You'll notice that these additions do indeed expand on the system that was present 13, but don't fundamentally change it. I have a lot of respect for the decision to not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. A lot of people complained about the streamlined battle system in 13 because it was different, not because it was actually fundamentally flawed on a game design level. It's very satisfying to plan out some perfect paradigms and then watch your team destroy an enemy with little effort thanks to your thinking ahead, and this game pushes that system even further with added convenience and customization.

I think most of the changes made in 13-2 are for the better, but there are a few bad ideas mixed in. One of those is the quick time events in cutscenes. Usually the finishing blow against a boss is handled by awkwardly performing a series of timed button presses over a cutscene, which feels unnecessary and pretty tedious. It feels completely contradictory to how the battle system works - you've spent all this time planning ahead, setting up your Paradigms and switching between them - now watch an elaborate cutscene where Noel and Serah destroy the boss while you press the buttons it tells you to. Considering this only happens after major boss battles, though, it's not too much of a bother.

All in all, Final Fantasy 13-2 is a shining example of listening to feedback while maintaining your vision. Exploration was massively expanded, with huge open areas and optional content to explore. Random enemy encounters in the overworld generally allow for easier grinding and monster taming, but can be tedious if faster enemies spawn in enclosed areas. The 'paradox' puzzles add nice variety but outstay their welcome if you're trying for full completion.

13-2's battle system is fundamentally like 13's but with more customization. The quality of life improvements and extensive monster taming system make this one of the most fun and addictive JRPGs I've played, though the QTEs tacked at the end of some boss battles can sour the mood a little bit.

Broken Timeline (Story)

As its name implies, Final Fantasy 13-2 is a direct sequel to Final Fantasy 13. As such, there will be Final Fantasy 13 spoilers in this segment.

The Premise

The story of Final Fantasy 13-2 takes place a few years after Final Fantasy 13. It's immediately apparent that something is different from what we remember. Lightning survived the events of FF13, but when the story begins in 13-2, it's believed by everyone that she died in the battle to save Cocoon and disappeared alongside Vanille and Fang. The only person who remembers otherwise is her sister, Serah, who is one of the two main characters in this game. This premise is immediately quite interesting and it's hard not to feel sympathy for Serah. She's spent a few years knowing her sister ought to be alive because she actually remembers it happening, but almost everyone else thinks she's just been in denial all this time, incapable of accepting the simple truth.

She finally sees her memories validated when Lightning, who is now stuck in a place outside time known as Valhalla, sends a person called Noel her way. Noel is the second main character in FF13-2, a hunter from a horrific future where all of humanity has died out and he is the last remaining person. Noel brings Serah a message from Lighting; that the timeline has been messed with, leading to Lightning's disappearance and the existence of this awful future. Noel and Serah set off on a journey through time together to find Lightning and prevent this apocalyptic future from ever taking place. To help, Noel has also brought Mog to help Serah. Mog is a Moogle who can transform into a bowsword and be wielded as a weapon.

After Serah time travels for the first time the story structure goes on a little bit like this: Serah and Noel enter a new area and time period and discover there is a 'paradox' to resolve before they can move on. Paradoxes are things that don't belong in that specific time or location but have ended up there due to the damage the timeline has suffered. They resolve the paradox, open one of the 'time gates' in the area, move on to a new time/location and the cycle repeats. Along the way, they gather clues as to what caused the timeline to change the way it did in hopes of ultimately saving Lightning and the future itself.

The Characters

The protagonists of the story are Serah Farron and Noel Kreiss. Serah is a returning character from FF13, where she played a central role in the story as Lightning's sister and Snow's fiancée. A major goal in the story of FF13 was to save Serah from her crystallized state, which makes it interesting that the roles are reversed in this game, with Serah setting out to save her sister Lightning. Noel Kreiss is a new character, a time traveler from a distant future he wants to prevent from ever happening. They're accompanied by Mog, a Moogle sent by Lightning to help Serah. Serah is a very likeable and sympathetic character and we can empathize with her goal of reuniting with her sister. She does have some character flaws, like a dangerous temper, but this unfortunately doesn't come up very much in the story, which may lead some people to feel she's a bit too perfect as a person. Even though the premise of the story very much makes it look like this is all about Serah, I actually felt Noel was the real 'central' character. The journey to reunite with Lightning often feels like it takes a back seat to the journey to save the future he's from, and most character relations and interactions revolve around him. For example, Caius and Yeul (more on them later) have a connection to Noel, and when returning characters like Snow appear, they mostly clash with Noel while Serah stays in the background. To push this point further, the leitmotif that appears in all the battle themes comes from 'The Last Hunter,' which is Noel's theme. I'm conflicted about this because I think it's great they brought a new, well fleshed out character to the table but it's disappointing to see Serah fall into the background again after she spent most of the last game frozen as well. Mog is a cute character, but he's mostly there for comedy and doesn't have much to learn or achieve in the story outside of an optional quest about his home. But the victory animation where Serah hugs him is heart meltingly adorable, so at least there is that.

The antagonist of the story is a mysterious man called Caius Ballad. He fights with Lightning at the very beginning and follows the protagonists through their time travels, fighting them or hindering them at every opportunity, proclaiming that changing the timeline is a 'sin.' He's accompanied by a mysterious girl called Yeul. Caius is easily the most sympathetic and interesting villain from these three games. I can't fully explain why without getting into spoilers, but to give a brief overview: he's been made immortal to serve as Yeul's guardian, but Yeul is not immortal. She, instead, dies and is reborn as a new person time and time again. Witnessing this girl die over and over and over is what drives Caius to do the things he does in the story and paints his otherwise horrible actions in a sympathetic light. Yeul herself doesn't really have the opportunity to become an established character because every time you encounter Caius, he's with a different Yeul from a different timeline. As a result, who I'm calling 'Yeul' is actually a group of several different characters with the same voice and appearance, none of whom get very much time to be developed. It makes for an interesting character concept, though, and some Yeuls get more screentime than others.

The returning characters from FF13 are a mixed bag. Lightning provides a strong opening for the story but then passes the torch on to Noel and mostly stays in the background for the rest of the game. Characters like Fang, Sazh and Vanille barely appear at all. 

That leaves Snow and Hope, and I have a lot to say about both. I'm very disappointed in the way Snow is, or rather, isn't implemented in this story. After Serah confides in him that she remembers Lightning being alive, he proves himself the worthy fiancé by believing her without hesitation and going off to find Lightning, something that makes me like him even more than I already did. But then he just stayed away for 3 years, never coming back to Serah. When you run into him again, he's gained a stupid haircut and a new fal'Cie brand. Even weirder, there's barely any chemistry or interaction between him and Serah at this point. I really don't understand this, but the best I can think of is that the developers wanted to leave room for a Serah and Noel romance instead. Snow mostly just clashes with Noel and disappears from the story after you fight alongside him in one of the time periods, with much of what he did in the past years relegated to the data logs you can read. Most encounters afterwards are optional. Hope, on the other hand, plays a much better role in the story. He's grown up into a renowned scientist who is playing an important role in the recovery of society now that the fal'Cie are no longer functional. He believes Serah and Noel are indeed time travelers and is very eager to help them for the sake of the friends he fought alongside in FF13. He and his attempts to help facilitate a better future play a major part in the story across multiple time periods, and I only wish other characters from the first game had this kind of presence as well.

Thinking back on FF13-2 made me realize that the game's cast of important characters is pretty small. This might be a consequence of people complaining about how convoluted the story got in FF13. The only other significant side character I can think of is Alyssa, Hope's assistent. Because she's with Hope, she gets a lot of screentime, and she's actually an interesting character. The only other newcomer that sticks out to me is Chocolina, an enthusiastic Chocobo girl and trader, but she only really comments on the story rather than being part of it. Her origins aren't even explained in the main story. 

Pacing & Progression

FF13-2's story can often feel like many smaller stories stringed together. The overarching story has a strong presence near the beginning and end, but sometimes feels like it takes a backseat to the immediate threat or conflict in each given time and place. In a few words, the story feels episodic and disjointed. Many threats and enemies occur simply as a result of "meddling with the timeline," and don't really relate to Caius at all. Other conflicts do relate to Caius, but this is only explained if you happen to come across a specific bit of lore or an alternate ending. This problem only gets worse if you take the time to do all the optional content as it becomes available.

It should be said that just because parts of the story are disjointed, that doesn't mean each individual part is bad. I'll keep it vague to prevent spoilers, but at one point in the story, you enter a city in the future. This city is in a truly awful state, a miserable place to be for you and all its inhabitants. Due to some actions in the past, you then create an alternate 'good future' version of this city. Entering this 'good future' version was one of my favorite moments in the game because it communicates so clearly that the future can be changed. It's a hopeful thought that plays into the overarching story quite nicely and gives a clear sense of progression that most other areas lack. 

Quests & Optional Content

Due to the disjointed nature of the story we established earlier, it can sometimes be hard to follow. Many things are explained in the data logs, and a lot of lore is hidden within optional areas or quests. Some of the best character moments and interactions, especially between the FF13 original cast, are found in worlds that can be completely skipped over if you simply want to go straight to the end. This could've been a cool extra if the main story wasn't so starved of good interactions between the original FF13 cast to begin with. But with the caveat that some of the optional content probably should've been integrated in the main story, there is a lot of good optional content. Each unique location in the Historia Crux has its own story and its own problem to solve.

The Ending

This segment and article have already run on for much too long, so I can't fully do the discussion about FF13-2's ending justice here. But if you've heard anything about the game, you'll know that the way it ends is controversial and my opinion on it is very mixed as well. If people are interested, I may write an article just about the ending.

In Summary

FF13-2s story starts with a strong premise and characters with understandable and believable motivations, but the overarching story often falls into the background and ends up feeling disjointed in the middle. It may be disappointing to FF13 fans just how meager the presence of the original FF13 cast is and how few their interactions are. There are many highlights, however, like the antagonist Caius and several very compelling optional locations and quests.

After All (Conclusion)

Final Fantasy XIII-2 is, in most ways, a perfect example of how to make a sequel. It takes FF13's attempt at streamlining JRPG combat and makes it more involved, faster, more customizable and all-around more fun. The QTEs are a mistake, but they're rare enough that they don't ruin the experience. It allows for much more open exploration and has many hours of optional content to offer that doesn't just involve talking to a stone that asks you to kill some enemy.  Its presentation expands and experiments, and this is generally a success as well - I come back to its battle themes almost every day when I need something exciting to listen to. 

The only major disappointments the game presents are in its story. While its opening and arguably ending are strong, the main quest often falls into the background of only tangentially related conflicts. The cast from FF13 has a limited presence and many things are not well explained in actual dialogue and scenes, being resigned to data logs instead. That's not to say that the separate fragments of story are not good, but that they sometimes lack a proper connection to each other, and rarely ever connect back to Final Fantasy 13.

All in all, a great sequel - the story just wasn't what I hoped it would be.

_

Wow! It's been a few months since I wrote any articles. I've been stuck on this one for a while because I wanted to articulate how good 13-2 is, but also how many frustrations I have with the story. I hope it was a good read and I hope my next article won't take as long. Stayed tuned, and all feedback is appreciated!

Resident Evil: Code Veronica - The Horror of Losing Access to Resources

I've been making steady progress in my Resident Evil marathon and recently finished a lesser known installment in the RE series, Resident Evil: Code Veronica.  This classic-style survival horror adventure combines the static camera angles with some camera movement and focuses on Claire Redfield's journey to find her brother Chris. I've dedicated a few articles about interesting and frustrating parts of the Resident Evil series and I'd like to highlight an especially odd design choice in this one.

Up to Code

Code Veronica plays much the same as other Resident Evil games of its time, requiring you to navigate various locations with tank controls and managing your resources while dealing with the undead and solving puzzles. The moment-to-moment gameplay is identical to other RE games in that regard, but there are a few differences in the presentation and structure.

Like I mentioned in the intro, Code Veronica mostly uses static camera angles, but sometimes the camera moves with the character. On a few occasion, it's used effectively to build tension in a hallway where the camera slowly moves further away from you, or zooms in on a point of interest, but it usually feels unnecessary and unnatural. It doesn't add or detract much when it really comes down to it. The presentation itself is passable. It's clear what everything is supposed to be, but the colors are generally muddy and muted, with a fog hanging over almost everything. It's saved from being poor by some great music, character designs and a handful of interesting areas - the Private Residence comes to mind.

In terms of structure, there are larger separate areas like in Resident Evil 3 or 0, but the game makes you backtrack through earlier areas a lot like in Resident Evil 1. This is not too big of a problem if you know what you're doing, but increases the frustration tenfold if you're not sure where to go or what to do because the solution could be anywhere you've been up to this point.

With the exception of a very shoe-horned in Albert Wesker, the story is quite interesting. In her search for her brother, Claire Redfield is captured and brought to mysterious island that she has to escape from. The antagonist is an interesting and somewhat tragic character and the twists and turns along the path of this game's narrative might surprise you.

All in all, RE: Code Veronica is similar to other Resident Evil games, with some odd design choices in its structure and visuals.

From Claire to Chris

Some time after the midway point, the perspective switches and you take control of Chris, Claire's brother. He starts with his own resources, but I immediately noticed that he could access the items I put into the item box as Claire. This is a departure from the character switch in Resident Evil 3 where Carlos has his own item box and cannot access Jill's items. This gave me a headstart as Chris, but at the same time, I felt a little worried about carrying Claire's items around as Chris. If this character switch segment worked like any of the Resident Evil games so far, we would finish Chris' segment and switch back over to Claire for the finale.

To prevent a situation where Claire wouldn't have the necessary resources, I went out of my way to put all of Chris' items into the item box when the switch was about to happen - and I felt pretty smart about it when we did indeed switch back to Claire and she was fully equipped with enough firepower to knock down three final bosses and then some. So you can imagine my surprise when, after a brief segment as Claire, the game switched right back to Chris - instantly putting me in a boss fight with zero resources. To prevent an unwinnable situation like in Resident Evil 0, I had put myself in an unwinnable situation.

It required me to redo a segment, but I decided it was fair enough - this situation occurred because I overprepared for something that ultimately didn't happen. I let Chris keep most of his resources, went through Claire's segment again and defeated the boss when we switched to Chris. I was satisfied that I had given Chris enough to make it through the boss, while still leaving Claire with the most firepower. So imagine my surprise, again, when we never switched back to Claire and all her weapons were permanently out of my reach. For some reason, the entire finale is played as Chris, even though the game started out as a story about Claire. Story-wise, I thought it was a bit disappointing that Chris robbed the finale instead of letting Claire do it. Design-wise, it's just deeply flawed. To get the most out of all your resources, you need to put them in the box before switching characters, but doing that can get you locked into an unwinnable boss battle (both Claire and Chris have to fight a powerful boss in their segments). It's also just natural to assume that you'll finish the game with the character you started as, but that doesn't happen either - so if you gave up Chris' resources for Claire, too bad! You'll have to do the final boss with your knife and some scraps.

This problem was so easy to prevent, too. They could've just given you a prompt that you would not be playing as Claire again, or they could've automatically put everything in her pockets in the item box. Yes, it would reveal ahead of time that you're going to end the game as Chris, so I understand why you wouldn't want to do it for narrative reasons, but this is a situation where good game design should be valued over keeping secrets. A good compromise might be to put all of Claire's items in the item box if you die to the final boss a few times - at that point, there's nothing left to hide.

With all that said, the final boss was still manageable. It took me a few attempts, but it wasn't a brick wall like Resident Evil 0 - and if my resources had really proven completely inadequate to complete the final boss, I would've had to redo a far smaller segment than Resident Evil 0 made me redo.


Closing Thoughts

I enjoyed Resident Evil: Code Veronica. It's a lot longer than other Resident Evil games, to the point that its original release required two disks, and tries a few new things to varying degrees of success. Aside from the fatal design flaw I discussed in this article, I'd say it's a challenging but fine installment in the Resident Evil series. I'll remember the challenging bosses, story and music for a long time to come, but I've already forgotten the visuals.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxq5ymqPAsQ

_

It feels nice to be getting my thoughts out about some of the classics I've experienced lately. Thank you for reading! I hope you'll join me for whatever's next, and of course, your suggestions and feedback are always welcome.

Resident Evil - Saving as a Limited Resource

I recently started playing the Resident Evil games, starting with the HD Remake of the first installment in the series. The game is often discussed as a great example of survival horror, and most of its qualities have been thoroughly discussed. That's why I want to take the approach I did for my Mario Odyssey article and focus on something specific I thought was interesting about the game: The fact that there is a cost to saving, that keeping your progress is a finite resource. 

Running out of Ink

Resident Evil is possibly the biggest horror franchise in all of videogames. The first game didn't just define what the rest of the franchise would look like, but had an effect on the genre as a whole. One of the cornerstones of this survival horror classic is limited resources. There are only a finite amount of healing items and bullets, and only a few spots of inventory space to keep them in. I was aware of that, but I wasn't aware of one other resource the game limited.

In their journey to escape the zombie-infested mansion, Jill or Chris - depending on who you picked to play as - need to use typewriters to save their progress. But it's not as simple as approaching a typewriter and hitting the button; you actually need to use an Ink Ribbon to use the typewriter. And Ink Ribbons are a resource you need to find, put in your inventory and take with you just like bullets and healing items. And once you've used them, they're gone.

This idea really caught me off guard. I've seen games that reduce your ranking if you save, or games that have a super hard mode with finite save points like LISA: The Painful, but never a game that requires you to use a specific finite item for each time you save.

Inky Black Horror

Limited resources have a way of building the tension. You don't want to waste all your bullets, but being too stingy will just get you injured or slow you down a lot. It's the same for healing items, and in this case, for the Ink Ribbons as well. Waste too many Ink Ribbons and you'll have to go long periods of time without saving until you find more... but if you're too stingy and wait a long time before you save, you'll lose significant progress if you run into trouble and die. I both loved and hated this idea.

People with a passion for videogames often declare that the best games communicate their atmosphere or aesthetic with their mechanics, not just their presentation. To clarify, for example, a horror game shouldn't just be scary because it looks and sounds frightening - playing it should be a frightening experience in and of itself due to how the game actually works. The limited Ink Ribbons definitely made playing the game a lot scarier because every enemy was now a huge threat to my progress. In one of my streams of the game I ended up stuck for a few hours and wasted too many Ink Ribbons on small bits of progress - I ended up having to cross two new areas filled with new enemies before I could finally save, and that hour of excitement was one of the scariest experiences I've ever had with a videogame. Because your progress hangs in the balance, you need to be twice as careful about your other resources and be intimately familiar with the layout of each area - and even that won't protect you entirely, because some rooms in the mansion change over time.

Good ideas and effective scares, however, can eventually turn into mere frustrations when you're exposed to them too often. We saw a bit of this in Silence of the Sleep, where a certain frightening monster appeared so often and reset your progress so often that it lost its impact and turned into an annoyance. The situation with the Ink Ribbons eventually became similar, though not quite as bad. You see, the fear that comes from limited Ink Ribbons is at its strongest when you haven't lost your progress yet. The true brilliance of the idea shines in those moments of tension where you decide to bite off just a bit more and see if it pays off, or when you're desperately going from room to room with zombies on your case. But once you've actually died and lost your progress, the tension is released and replaced with frustration and disappointment. Now you have to retrace your steps, and though you're more efficient about it, it gets old fast if it happens multiple times.

The Ink Ribbons really are a double edged sword in this regard. Ideally you'd have a situation with the same tension, but not the resulting frustration, but there's no way to change the Ink Ribbons that would make that a reality. The fear of losing your progress and the frustration of losing your progress are two sides of the same coin. If you died and you didn't lose your progress, then the tension wouldn't be there, but the fact that you do lose your progress inevitably leads to frustration and repetition. As a designer, a possible middle ground I could suggest is that the Ink Ribbons are required to save major story progress, but minor things like killing zombies and gaining resources are preserved. Of course, this could easily be exploited and break the game, so I understand why they didn't go for that.

All in all, Ink Ribbons really increase the tension and really put the survival AND horror in "survival horror." But having something as necessary and usually taken for granted as saving depend on a finite resource could be very frustrating for some people. The threat of losing progress is great for horror, but actually losing your progress can lead to repetition. I think how you feel about Ink Ribbons will ultimately come down to preference, but while it's a love-hate relationship for me, I love it more than I hate it because of the exciting experience it gave me. I'm excited to experience the rest of the Resident Evil franchise and see if the way resources are handled changes much throughout.

_

October's over, but I couldn't resist writing another article about a spooky game! Since I'm planning to do the whole franchise, you can probably expect more Resident Evil articles in the next few months. I hope you'll stick with me as I experience another series I missed out on. I want to thank the people on Steem again for all their support; you've made writing a lot more fun for me.

What do you think? Is it fair to have a function like saving your game depend on a finite in-game resource? Is that brilliant horror design or irritating artificial difficulty? Would love to hear your thoughts.

Some Thoughts About 'Cogs'

I stumbled on another game I've had for years and simply never took the time to start. Today, I'm sharing some thoughts about Cogs, a sliding puzzle game with a few twists.

Old Fashioned in a Good Way

Cogs' visuals have aged a little bit, but they still hold up surprisingly well. The game revolves around sliding puzzles - but instead of completing an image, you're completing a machine. On top of the sliding panels are cogs (of course) or pipes, and you're tasked with making sure all the cogs connect and make a specific cog move, or to guide flowing glas to a balloon.

Because the game is all about cogs and steam, its visuals consist entirely of wood and metals. This lends the game a pleasant old-fashioned atmosphere with some hints of steampunk, though purely aesthetically and not thematically. It's very satisfying to see it in motion; having a machine spring to life thanks to your efforts offers great feedback for your actions compared to just popping up a "stage clear!" message like so many puzzle games do. It gives the puzzles a "real" purpose instead of being a series of abstract pieces you put together in an arbitrary order.

The music also matches up perfectly, and is very relaxing and pleasant - though there isn't too much of it.

Let it Slide

The game's aeshetic is beautiful and the simple joy of watching a machine activate because you solved a puzzle is worthwhile, but what about the actual gameplay?

At its core, Cogs is a pretty basic slide puzzle game - but that doesn't mean it has no tricks up its sleeve. For example, many of the puzzles use 3D space, forcing you to think about how the moving parts will interact across multiple sides of the machine.

In the prior section, I gave praise to the game's use of moving parts as a way to make a sliding puzzle into a way to operate a machine. The game takes advantage of this on a gameplay level as well, with some of the harder puzzles requiring timing - for example, you may have to set up the cogs so that they activate two machines at the exact same time, forcing you to time when exactly you put the slides in place. This adds yet another dimension to the puzzles that your average sliding puzzle simply doesn't have.

The game is short, simple and sweet, so I don't really have any problems beside this minor nitpick: you have to pause to restart; I think games with short puzzles really benefit from having a quick restart button or option, as the game rewards you for completing puzzles with as few moves and in as little time as possible.

Those are my thoughts. Cogs is a simple but enjoyable sliding puzzle game with a charming presentation and a few twists that keep it interesting. Check it out if puzzles or intricate contraptions are your thing.

Some Thoughts About 'Ticket to Ride'

While digging through my backlog, I discovered I acquired turn-based strategy game 'Ticket to Ride' years ago, possibly from a Humble Bundle. I decided to give the game a quick look.

In Ticket to Ride, you and the other players take on the role of a railroad tycoon, connecting as many cities as possible by drawing cards with train carts and locomotives or building railroads each turn. When I opened the game and noted its fairly simplistic presentation, it was obvious: This is a digitized version of what was originally a traditional boardgame. Apparently it's pretty popular, but I hadn't heard of it before now.

Losing Charm

Now, the game is fun, and I'll talk a bit more about that later, but it's immediately apparent that a lot was lost in the transition from traditional to digital. One of the game's charms in its traditional form is placing the little train carts of your color down onto the routes between cities, clearly indicating that you've claimed them. Just look at how charming and appealing this looks:

In the digital version, the adorable train carts are replaced by colored squares on a flat map. It does the job, but it has no charm whatsoever:

If there is ever a new iteration of this game, adding a little depth could go a long way. Changing the perspective, or even having simple 3D models of the plastic pieces, would be perfect. There's a reason why engines like Tabletop Simulator have garnered an audience; the feeling of messing around with pieces on a board, even digital, has an appeal of its own that can't be underestimated.

As a matter of fact, some fans have actually made Ticket to Ride in Tabletop Simulator, showing that the "official" version couldn't quite scratch the itch that the original boardgame did.

Source: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1636855953

That's the Ticket

In spite of some missing details, however, the game itself functions perfectly well. It's a turn-based strategy game that's easy to pick up and understand, and the digital version has the advantage of telling you when and why a certain action cannot be taken - for example, if you're trying to claim a route between two cities because you think you have enough train carts but you're missing the necessary locomotive to make it happen. If that happens, the game will stop you and explain why the move is against the rules without wasting your turn.

Another great advantage of this digital release: It has a thriving online community. Before I wanted to post my impressions, I really wanted to try an online game but I dreaded how long it might take to find one. But there were many games to join and you could just as easily start your own, much to my delight. I wanted to try a simple match with one other player, so I did just that - and in my home territory of Europe, of course.

The game may initially seem like you just need to get the right train carts and just keep building between the cities, but planning ahead is actually very important. You can choose which 'tickets' you're trying to validate (that is, which cities you are trying to create a route between). If you claim a ticket, you'll lose points if you fail to connect the cities by the end of the game, but if you wait too long, it can be too late; your opponent could claim the necessary tracks or you could run out of carts. There's a nice bit of risk/reward involved. 

Unfortunately, planning ahead isn't my strong suit, so my opponent proceeded to crush me into the ground.

But all in all, I had a good time with the game. It's a fun concept that's simple and easy to understand. I just wish they could've preserved some of that original board game charm. If you're into turn-based strategy or just really like trains, you might want to look into this game.

Some Thoughts About Mario Odyssey

I recently finished the latest installment in the 3D Mario series, Super Mario Odyssey, and I loved it! But I'd like to share some random thoughts about it. Sometimes, the 'Some Thoughts About' series of articles is structured much like a review, but since this game's been reviewed to death, I just want to touch on a few points that I think are worth discussing: How the game continues the series' recent use of motion controls, how cohesive its world feels and to what degree the game shifts the series back to a nonlinear, exploration-based style.

In Motion

Motion controls became an integral part of the Mario games on the Wii. It was genuinely impossible to beat Super Mario Galaxy and its sequel without shaking the Wii remote and using the pointer controls.

The Nintendo Switch, the Wii's "grandchild" as it were, also has motion controls - but those don't seem to be the focus. As such, you can use motion controls in Odyssey, but it's mostly optional. But though it's mostly a matter of convenience, the game still seems to want to make motion controls more relevant. For this reason, the motion control version of many actions is a better version. For example, you can move faster as a Bullet Bill by holding the button, but you can move even faster if you shake the Joycons. Personally, I would've preferred it if the motion controls were just another alternative and not a "superior" version.

Cohesive World

Super Mario Sunshine is probably the most controversial out of the 3D Marios, with most people ranking it at the top or the bottom of the series - usually not in between. One thing most of us can agree on, though, that it sets up the most cohesive world - that is to say, everything feels connected and like it's part of the same place.

This makes it completely distinct from other 3D Marios, where you enter various disconnected worlds that are connected by a hub - like Peach's Castle or Rosalina's Observatory. In spite of the developers placing Odyssey on Sunshine's side of the fence in the sense that they consider it an 'exploration' type platformer, it's the least cohesive 3D Mario yet. That is neither a positive nor a negative, but it's something to think about. Not only do the game's Kingdoms not really connect logically, they are completely different in terms of artstyle and music. If you were to take Mario out of the picture, you'd scarcely believe that New Donk City, Mt. Volbono, the Ruined Kingdom and Bonneton all exist within the same game and the same world.

It would be unfair to say this applies to the whole game, however. The worlds with more "traditional themes," like the ice-themed Shiveria, beach-themed Bubblaine and desert-themed Tostarena don't seem like an impossible fit in terms of style, though they still don't connect logically.

Exploring

In the time leading up to the release of Super Mario Odyssey, Nintendo made it very clear that they considered it a return to the formula of Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Sunshine. Unlike the Galaxy games and 3D World, this game would go back to having exploration-based levels instead of linear challenges. The strange thing is, this is true in some ways, but not in others.

Mario Odyssey's worlds are indeed large and open to be explored, that much is true, but there's still a very clear intended route to start with. Each world has its own set of story missions that must be played in order (with a rare exception occurring in Shiveria, where you can play 4 missions in any order) and until the story missions are complete, many of the optional Moons are inaccessible. In that sense, it can feel a little bit like Mario 64 or Sunshine; but once you complete a world's story missions, the way it opens up is more akin to Rare collectathons like Banjo-Kazooie. At that point, the worlds are exactly as open and explorable as promised.

But while the worlds eventually open up, the game as a whole does not. A beloved quality of Mario 64 and Super Mario Galaxy was that any Star was as good as another; if you had enough, you could move on to many new worlds at once. This allowed you to skip missions and even worlds you didn't like. In Odyssey, the Moons only ever serve the purpose of getting you to the next world. Sometimes the game allows you to pick which of two possible worlds to do first, but that's the only choice you're getting. You can't even skip over a level if you have enough Moons because the game specifically requires a certain amount of Moons from that particular level before it'll allow you to progress.

So while Odyssey's worlds do offer more room for exploration after you finish their story mission, the game's structure on a larger scale is much more linear than any 3D Mario so far. Even Super Mario 3D World, which is very linear, had more branching paths.

Conclusion

Super Mario Odyssey wants motion controls to be optional and yet relevant, so it allows greater conveniences and slightly better actions with the motion controls. I think committing to either making the motion controls integral, or completely optional, would have been better.

Super Mario Odyssey is not committed to making a cohesive world. In that regard, it is more like Mario Galaxy than Sunshine; variation over cohesion. It is up to the player to decide whether they prefer this or not.

Super Mario Odyssey's levels allow for exploration, but they are fairly linear until you complete the story missions. The game's actual structure is almost completely linear, even moreso than Galaxy 2 and 3D world and completely unlike Mario 64 and Mario Sunshine.

Those were just some thoughts about the game, but I do have to stress that Mario Odyssey is an amazing Mario game and a must-buy for any Switch owner. If you have any thoughts about the game, good or bad, please feel free to share them in the comments.

_

Mario Odyssey footage by: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtyokkUwxwy0ef1f6TLYFLA
Mario Galaxy footage by: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCSQ1C82NLsVVGmi0ayYnh_w
Mario Sunshine footage by: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM8XzXipyTsylZ_WsGKmdKQ

Deltarune: The Fate of the "Genocide Route"

Disclaimer: This post will have heavy Undertale and Deltarune (Episode 1) spoilers. 

When Deltarune came out, I speculated on some of the future events that might happen in later episodes. Today, I'd like to present a theory about the design of Deltarune itself, and why Toby Fox killed the genocide route.

The Start of Genocide

When Undertale came out in 2015, it was deservedly praised for the many ways you could play it, and the many combinations of characters that could either live or die by the end. But by committing entirely to a pacifist or destructive approach, you could reach an ending entirely distinct from any of the 'neutral' ones. These routes are often referred to as the Pacifist and Genocide routes.

Undertale makes no secret of it; the Pacifist route is the "true" route. It is the only route that lasts beyond just a few lines of dialogue and has a full credits sequence. It's the only ending that offers closure for most (sorry, Asriel) characters. The game's trailer even made a point of emphasizing that you don't have to kill anyone.

On the other hand, the Genocide route is distinctly the "wrong" way to play. When you clear an area of monsters, the music becomes unsettling and slowed down. You are required to take increasingly malicious decisions, like attacking Papyrus when he instantly spares you. Characters like Sans berate you for your decisions and you miss out on a lot of charming dialogues and battles. And if you complete it, you can never get the true Pacifist ending again. All in all, the Genocide route is designed to feel distinctly unrewarding.

But it's not. The Genocide route actually has many rewards in store - it hides the two hardest boss battles in the game, Undyne the Undying and Sans, both of which have their own music track and dialogue. Additionally, you get to see dialogue and character interactions you don't on any other route, including backstory about Flowey. To see everything Undertale has to offer, you actually have to complete a Pacifist and Genocide route. The reason why I'm saying all this is because I think it sheds a new light on how Deltarune goes about its choices.

The End of Genocide

In October 2018, Toby Fox finally released the first episode of Deltarune. There is still some speculation as to where the game fits in compared to Undertale, but it's been confirmed that it is set in an alternate universe.

Just like Undertale, Deltarune's combat allows for either violent or diplomatic resolutions. However, you can't kill anyone in Deltarune even if you want to. If you reduce an enemy's HP to 0, they will simply fly off screen or run away. You never gain any EXP. Toby Fox has even revealed that Deltarune will not have multiple endings.

At a glance, one might thus believe that Deltarune is less committed to the idea of pacifism and resolving conflict without violence. One of the defining lines to hammer this home comes from Susie very near the end:

But I think that's only partially true. The game is clearly more 'lenient' on FIGHTing enemies, but it has removed your ability to kill them altogether. As a result, the "Genocide" route no longer exists. There is neither a reward nor a punishment for defeating every enemy. But there is still a reward for pacifism, and Ralsei repeatedly promotes the idea. Make it through Deltarune without hurting anyone, and you can speak to all the Darkners before moving on to the ending. You can choose to be pacifist or not, but you can't choose to be a murderer.

Conclusion

Undertale and Deltarune both offer, and even promote, finding nonviolent solutions to conflict. 

Undertale makes genocide an option, but makes it tedious, difficult and occasionally disturbing to get through. However, players choosing this route are still rewarded with unique battles and lore. 

In Deltarune, perhaps as a consequence of Undertale's genocide route, Toby Fox "killed" the genocide route altogether. It's no longer a valid, planned way to play the game. Only pacifism is rewarded with additional dialogue and character interactions.

It's hard to say which of these is the better solution - there are arguments for and against both. Undertale's genocide route having unique rewards might send a mixed signal, but the fact that killing enemies is an option makes the commitment to sparing them more meaningful.

Deltarune not allowing you to kill enemies and only rewarding pacifism might be more consistent, but it hardly makes a difference for the game's story.

I'd love you hear your thoughts on how each game approaches the "pacifism/genocide" choice. Please leave a comment or send me a message. Thank you for reading! 

Rakuen (Review)

I don't usually post 'traditional' reviews on this blog, but I really wanted to share my thoughts on this game with you. I posted this review on Steam first, but felt it would be worth uploading here as well.

Rakuen is a beautiful adventure/puzzle game about a Boy and his Mom. The Boy has to stay in the hospital, but using a special storybook, his Mom shows him the way into the magical world of Morizora's Forest. This game is played from a top down perspective like an RPG Maker game.

Story:

I don't want to spoil anything, but I will offer a general overview: The hospitalized Boy visits Morizora's Forest in hopes of getting a wish from the forest guardian Morizora. But to get his wish, he needs to help the other patients resolve their problems by going through their history and finding out what led them to where they are. As a result, the story is filled to the brim with charming and interesting characters who you really get to know as you work to help them out. And of course, there are plenty of emotional moments. There are lines that'll make you laugh, and there are lines that'll hit you like a punch in the gut. If you're looking for a story with powerful emotions across the board, look no further.

Presentation:

Having heard Laura Shigihara's work in Plants vs. Zombies and To The Moon, I had lofty expectations for the soundtrack, but even those were surpassed. The soundtrack is filled to the brim with beautiful tracks, from atmospheric pieces to melodies that will get the most stoic people teary eyed. Not only are Laura's amazing vocals present, she has also brought in several guest vocalists who all perform their pieces admirably as well.

The visuals are also strong, with plenty of recognizable character designs and vibrant areas. The visuals and story work together in smart ways, too; the colors in the hospital are much more desaturated than the bright colors of Morizora's Forest, for example.

My only minor problem, if you can even call it that, is that some characters in Morizora's Forest don't have many character portraits. Tony Bear could have used maybe one more portrait, just to shake it up. Not a completely unique pose, just a few more facial expressions, like his human counterpart.

Gameplay:

Rakuen mostly revolves around exploration with some light puzzle solving. Fortunately, the puzzles generally tie into the story and history of the characters you are helping out. They are usually not very challenging but offer a nice change of pace. Some areas are reminiscent of classic RPG Maker horror games like Ib and The Crooked Man in how they require you to figure out the environment and its interacting pieces.

My one minor problem with the gameplay, I would say, is that the game asks if you want to look at or read something a bit too often. Sometimes you'll be looking at an item with two separate 'do you want to read it?' or 'do you want to look?' questions. I understand why this is - there are lots of things to read, and you don't want to accidentally read the same thing twice, but in that case it might have been better to separate it into two interactable items instead.

Conclusion: 


Rakuen is a beautiful game with amazing visuals and music as well as a powerful story, with plenty of fantastical and frightening places to explore. Any complaints I could have are too minor to make a difference. Recommended for everyone.

Try it here: https://store.steampowered.com/app/559210/Rakuen/

Paper Mario: Color Splash Critique #1 - Streamlined, Yet Cumbersome

I recently finally got a chance to try Paper Mario: Color Splash. I've been a fan of the series from the very beginning, so I was interested to see the changes and how informed they are (or aren't) by proper game design. I want to make it clear that Color Splash is a fun game with a beautiful presentation, and this critique isn't intended to condemn all the work that went into it. In this first article, I'll examine my main problem with the game, the battle system, and how it tries and fails to streamline the series' formula.

Paper Mario: Color Splash's battle system is, in a word, odd. Rather than allowing the character a set amount of moves to strategize with, the player instead relies on a finite set of cards acquired or bought in the overworld. In that sense this is very much an evolution of the battle system present in Paper Mario: Sticker Star.

source: Mario Party Legacy on YouTube

There really is no in game justification for why Mario requires cards to use the jump and hammer he is naturally armed with, but the lack of an in-world explanation doesn't necessarily condemn the battle system - only the degree to which it meets its intended goal does.

So what is its intended goal? It seems to me that Intelligent Systems attempted to streamline and simplify battles. Your average battle in Paper Mario: Color Splash takes one or two turns at most, for a few reasons: All attacks do a lot of damage (and that includes the enemies') and Mario can perform many actions in a one go. To name an extreme example: If you were two play 2 'worn-out hammer x 5' cards, you would be doing 10 hammer attacks in a single turn. You wouldn't be interrupted by any menus, everything would simply come down to your timing until your cards have run out of paint.

source: Mario Wiki

I understand and respect the basic idea of this system. You could potentially face down a tough group of enemies, and by choosing just the right cards in just the right order, defeat them before they land a hit on you. You can pack the strategy of what prior games would do in multiple turns, in just one. To further support this, the game always takes special note if you get through a battle without taking any damage and rewards you for it with a 'perfect bonus.'

source: BeardBear on YouTube

That doesn't sound so bad, does it? But that's just the concept. Let's talk about the execution.

To choose your cards in Paper Mario: Color Splash, you are required to look down at the Wii U Gamepad. From there, you can choose your cards from a list. Unfortunately, however, the UI for selecting cards was obviously not designed with the sheer number of cards in mind. You might find yourself awkwardly dragging past a dozen of the same kind of card before finally finding what you want, even if you use the game's 'organize' button. Next, you have to drag said card - and later, cards - up to its spot to confirm you want to use it. Sounds pretty cumbersome, right? But it only gets worse.

Once you have selected your cards and confirmed your selection as a separate action, the game then requires you to paint in the cards. Even if all cards you selected were pre-filled, which they thankfully can be, the game still shows this screen and requires you to confirm that you are done painting the cards. If they weren't, you are expected to hold down on each card for a while to paint it. It's slow and feels extremely unnecessary. Why have a step deciding the strength of your cards when the cards themselves already do this? You have worn-out hammers, ordinary hammers and even big and giant hammers; and you can find and buy them at will. Other cards, like the jump, are much the same. Was the extra variable and the extra time it costs to fill in the cards really necessary or useful? Most of the time, you'll want to fill the entire card, since you're unlikely to ever run out of paint anyway. On top of that, Mario's attacks don't do a clear number of damage, so it's impossible to use an "informed" amount of paint.

So after making you find, select, drag, confirm, color and confirm your cards again, the game decides to waste your time just once more by forcing you to drag the cards up. After that, you're finally in business, and can perform Mario's attacks with their Action Commands as you would in any other Paper Mario.*

The underlying thought of the dragging is cute - you're sliding the cards from your Wii U screen up to your television - but the sheer amount of dragging and selecting actions the game asks you to take every turn makes me think they never tested it for extended periods of time.

Compare this to Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door, where it'll never take more than three button presses to start an attack - and it lets you actually select the enemy you want to attack, whereas Color Splash simply attacks the enemies in order, with the first card attacking the first enemy, and so on. Regardless of how many cards are at your disposal, it ends up limiting the player's choices in the end. In the end, the vast majority of them are simple variations of the hammer and jump attack.

source: SullyPwnz on YouTube

In conclusion, Paper Mario: Color Splash had a good idea to streamline battles into intricately planned out turns, but the poor implementation of the Wii U Screen, cards and paint make it so cumbersome that each battle ends up taking an unnecessary amount of effort. The system absolutely does not lend itself for the amount of battles and how repetitive they are. Paper Mario: Color Splash, like its predecessor, tries and fails to streamline the perfectly convenient battle system of Paper Mario 1 and 2.

In the next article, 'Overworld Joys and Overworld Woes,' I'll discuss the overworld you navigate in Color Splash outside of battles. Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to your feedback.

* Update: On Reddit, I received a reaction about something I glossed over because I was too focused on the interface itself. In Paper Mario Color Splash, the Action Commands are almost exclusively timed button presses. In the first and second game, the Hammer Action Command worked by tilting the control stick, and there were a variation of Action Commands and stylish moves on top of that. This is another simplification that ends up making the battle system more tedious and monotonous than it could have been. Thanks for pointing this out, /u/rendumguy!