I Think You're in Dangerous Territory, Capcom

I haven't really posted on Capcom's recent treatment of Mega Man, because I want to keep this blog focused on game design discussion and responses to goings on in the gaming community.

For the record (and disclosure), I was very sad and angry about the cancellation of Mega Man Legends 3. Mega Man Legends 2 is one of the most superbly polished 3d action games ever created, and it's sad Capcom felt the mostly complete demo did not meet the criteria for release.

The resulting fan backlash now wonders if Capcom is trying to kill off the Blue Bomber. When Ultimate Marvel Versus Capcom 3 was announced, a lot of people began hoping that maybe Mega Man would make an appearance. He sure did, but not in a way anyone expected.

Personally, I was waiting for them to port over Megaman Volnutt from Tatsunoko Versus Capcom. Viewtiful Joe and Zero were plucked almost verbatim from that game, so it seems like it'd be pretty easy to bring Volnutt along too. I'd expect at least one of Mega Man's incarnations to make it in though, Mega Man (original recipe) has been in the two previous Marvel Versus Capcom games, for crying loudly outside.

Instead we get this. If you don't want to read the story, UMvC3 has a level referencing a famous comic book cover, but instead of mutants, this poster has characters from Marvel Versus Capcom 2 who didn't make it into MvC3. It merges the game world and the gameplay together neatly. The problem here is that one character is listed as neither slain nor captured: Mega Man.

This is a massive tactical error. Capcom could have switched him with someone else (say, Amingo!), which would spread rumors of that character being DLC and when it didn't happen noone would care. Instead we're left wondering if this is a concerted trolling effort from Capcom.

But even THAT is not the point of this post. The point of this post is a recent response by Capcom's VP Chris Svensson to a comment from a fan. The fan wrote to Capcom complaining about the appearances of Mega Man in UMvC3. To Quote Svensson:

So to understand you correctly, we can't use Mega Man in any form or make any references (other than as a playable character) without pissing some folks off?

I think you need thicker skin. I'd also think as a fan, you should like to see any/all exposure for Mega Man to raise awareness for the brand in any form, even if you personally aren't satisfied by the execution

Is this where we are now? A fan is unhappy, so you're telling him to man up. Let's instead stretch his complaint to hyperbole as our counter arguement and throw context out the window! How does this make any sense? Even Segata Sanshiro knows better than that.

I really just don't understand why Svensson felt the need to put this fan in his place. Couldn't he have just said nothing? That's Capcom's problem these days. A lot of this Mega Man stuff would've blown over if it weren't for antagonizing inclusions like Days of Future Past, and relentless anti-pandering to fans. Mega Man fans are upset, how about we let it blow over?

On Board Games vs Video Games

I had a pretty interesting thought recently on the big differences between board games and video games.

Besides the mainstream stuff like Monopoly or Chutes and Ladders, my real introduction to board games came when I met some folks in college who showed me the meat and potatoes of board game geeks. Settlers of Catan, Carcassone, Dominion and the like. Initially I felt board games were substantially more strategic than video games, which was refreshing like a mint julep in a sauna. They also made the necessity of Schell's 4 Pillars of game design (my term) more obvious (particularly the pillar of "technology"), so analyzing them was a good exercise. But playing board games felt different from playing video games, and trying to figure out why was like trying to bob for apples in a shark tank, impossible using traditional techniques.

I believe now, that the difference is a matter of player approach. I'll put it this way: Board games encourage modeling, video games encourage discovery.

What do I mean by modeling? Making models, ala Mouse Trap? No. I mean mental models. Board games exist almost entirely in the players heads. I will argue that a box of Monopoly pieces is really just a set of physical mnemonics and a random number generator. You open the box and you begin to play using an agreed upon rule set, which you can modify on the spot (with bullshit rules like taxes go to Free Parking, for example). If someone makes an illegal move, someone has to notice that it doesn't fit the mental model that the players are supposed to share, and prove it with the rulebook if necessary (which actually adds a fun meta game to an already meta genre). Board games are to rules what Kinect is to video games. There's virtually no feedback from the game itself about any of the actions you take. Board games are the drunken father who let's his kids play with shotguns because it shuts them up for five minutes. I think this is also why board games seem more strategically focused. You're forced to absorb a set of logical premises for manipulation, which are more pointed and discrete to allow stronger mental modeling.

Compare this with video games: Video games I would say are discovery driven because only in the most simplistic of video games can the rules be conveyed with an adequate level of precision in less than 30 pages. Because you have a computer acting as ultimate arbiter of the model of the game (replete with large fluffy beard), you don't even have to bother memorizing the rules, and better yet, because of inherent flaws in computer software design, the game's creators might not even know all of the rules. They know the rules they wanted, but only the code knows (makes?) the real rules of the game. Furthermore then Bearded Judge allows players to "feel out" a solution to their problems by supplying feedback for whatever gameplay experiment they engage in. DISCOVERY.

Thinking about games this way does ignore the more tactile sense of video games, and the freedom inherent in board games (and incidentally, all non video games) which is another important distinction. Sometimes a video game is more than just a puzzle. Tricking the proprioceptive sense and putting the player in the game.If a board game is boring, you can easily change it to make it more exciting for your particular social blend. These are important differences if I were to host a real debate on board games versus video games. But I think this discussion of approach is interesting.

Why games may always be for kids

So I was pulling up Kotaku at work, like you do, when I found this article that feels like it might change my life: A Fresh Look at the Video Game Time Suck.

Did you read it? Good.

Let me get this rolling with a bit of a confession. Despite my deep, sub-sub-conscious love of video games, I actually haven't played them as much in recent years. I've always blamed it on a combination of not enough time and not enough games that are truly interesting, as the industry slowly stagnates and rehashes many of the same ideas.

But this article suggests that perhaps I'm accepting crybaby game fan rhetoric when something much more fundamental is at play! The article says that people more focused on the future play games less. Holy shit!

I think when you're adult you are forced by the responsibilities of being an adult (washing your bed sheets, buying cans of beans, sitting at desks for 30 hours a day), to focus and plan on what your day is going to be like, and what you're going to accomplish. By having goals and working towards them, you limit your game time subconsciously! What an amazing revelation! This explains why so many responsible adults virtually drop off the game playing spectrum. It's not a matter of maturity (at least, not being too mature for gaming), it's really a matter of responsibility forcing you to be predisposed to not playing games.

I wish the article had a guide on getting into a present focused state of mind.