Why such a strong recommendation? Simple, because Patapon is both one of the best games on the PSP and one of the most original (and well designed) games I’ve played in a very long time. For the unaware, Patapon is a rhythm-RPG-strategy game based around a small tribe of eyeball people called Patapon. The Patapon have been driven into near obscurity by the Zigoton, and it is up to you as their noble god to guide them back to glory. How do you do it? By drumming the little guys into battle.

Patapon’s successful genre mixing reminds me of another genre buster, Puzzle Quest. Both are games with RPG elements in which battles are settled via atypical rhythm or puzzle sequences, respectively. From the design point of view, this is pretty interesting. We can all think of many games that integrate cross-genre elements into the core gameplay to limited success. For example, sokobanesque box puzzles in RPGs, or unique character RPG elements in RTSs. What is truly unique about Patapon and Puzzle Quest is the way that the cross genre elements become core elements instead of mere additions.

Take an RTS with RPG elements, such as Warcraft III, as example. Your unique hero units have stats, skills, and equipment ala RPG. This is acts as another level of depth to the standard RTS gameplay, but by no means is it necessary. While it takes utilization of these extra elements to maximize your effectiveness in the game, it is completely possible to beat the game and succeed in multiplayer dealing almost exclusively with the core RTS gameplay.

The difference in games like Patapon and Puzzle Quest is the way the introduced elements are included. You simply cannot play Puzzle Quest without dealing with the puzzle or RPG elements. They are both critical to the gameplay and must be utilized. The same goes for Patapon: there is no way to play the game without dealing with both rhythm and RPG elements. It even seems to be incorrect to refer to these games as RPGs with puzzle/rhythm elements; we have to say they are RPGs and puzzle/rhythm games all at once.

This whole idea of something that has more than one traditional gameplay mechanic at its core is something I would like to see a lot more of. I personally think that the less entrenched in stereotypical genres that a game is, the more opportunities there are for creativity, originality, and ultimately the creation of utility to gamers. While there will always be a place for the classic styles, one thing is for sure:

We need more Patapon!

The thought of a single console per generation is very intriguing, both to producers and consumers. Imagine only having to buy a single console to play every game that comes out. Developers would likely benefit from the fact that there would be only one platform to design for: instead of juggling multi-platform games or porting from one to another, the game could be made once and played by all home consoles.

If there was to be one single development platform, it would have to meet the needs of the majority of all video game consumers. The following is a list of five attributes that I consider to be of high importance regarding a console:

1. Full utilization of the most current storage medium

The console would need to use the most current widely accepted storage medium. For the past two generations, DVD has been this storage medium. In G6/G7, a full 57% couldn’t play DVDs out of the box. Given the low cost and high popularity of DVDs, it is unacceptable for a console not to be capable of playing them. Any console should use and play the most current medium; DVDs this generation, Bluray or HD-DVD next generation, whichever happens to win the HD war.

2. Wireless controls that are highly expandable

Wireless technology has progressed to the point that there is absolutely no reason for controllers to require wires. Additionally, with removal of the physical linkage limitations comes the removal of arbitrary limits on how many controls there can be. A designer shouldn’t have to consider the maximum number of controls a console can have when designing. The number of controls should be limited by the game itself, not the console. Game creators should have the option of creating anything from a two player fighting game to a full-on 10 player basketball game. The only physical limitations are output size and processing power; designers should base number of player positions available on this and not on control limitations.

3. Built-in storage

The days of memory cards are over. There is no reason why a console can’t have built in flash or hard-drive space to save games. Downloadable content has proven to be both in demand and feasible; this all but requires ample local storage space. Based on hardware prices, this should be easy to include. Extra points if the storage is available remotely, but this isn’t a complete necessity.

4. Centralized online capabilities

LIVE and PSN have shown the importance of strong centralized online capabilities. The ability to have a friends list, see what others are doing, and ping them (or be pinged by them) for games are all things that should be simple to implement and add tons of product value. PC has ruled online multiplayer for so long due to the ease of online matchmaking and communication; LIVE and PSN have competed by streamlining the process. Any new console must have a capable online network.

5. Peripheral expandability

With the introduction of Bluetooth and USB, the limits on peripherals for consoles have been removed. Cameras, motion sensors, microphones, and any other of the assortments of items available have opened new doors for developers. The more limitations on hardware that are removed, the more freedom developers and designers have in terms of what they can create. The inclusion of expandability technologies is critical to any new console.

With these requirements in mind, a few more important questions arise…

Noticeably absent from the above list are any specifications dealing with actual performance: processing power, memory, etc. These specifications, while important, are somewhat arbitrary and tied into the next question: who would make it? This is where the one console future truly becomes muddied. There are two scenarios:

A. One company pushes everyone else and builds it themselves
or
B. A unified platform is developed

I’ll address scenario A first as it is the simplest. There is almost no way that any single company could ever push everyone else out of the market. The gaming market is has already eclipsed many forms of traditional entertainment in terms of money spent. Unless a single company can concurrently create extremely high barriers to entry while pushing everyone else out, there will always be companies looking to tap into this growing market. Go to any toy or electronic store and you will see not only the big three consoles, but also a plethora of small-time consoles that are trying to get a piece of the market. In short, a single hardware company will never take over the gaming industry.

Scenario B has a lot more questions, but is also the scenario that could theoretically be implemented. The biggest question regarding scenario B is the decision on the specified requirements of the platform. This would have to be done by committee and involve representatives from all the major companies in the industry. This is likely the biggest stumbling block with scenario B: getting companies to agree not only on a single set of specifications, but agree as a large enough block that it would be useful. Any unified platform would be successful only if there was a large group that supported it; any dissent or outside competition from a major competitor could severely limit the effectiveness of a unified platform

Assuming that a single set of specifications could be reached, then what? For the sake of this article, let’s assume that the companies all got together and formed the One Console Future (OCF) joint venture. They decide that OCF will require the five items listed above; additional specifications include the equivalent of 6 GHz processing power, 2 GHz for graphics, 1 gigabyte of system memory, 512 megabytes of graphical memory, and 20 gigabytes of storage space. In addition, standard system architecture will be implemented. Any company who was involved in the OCF venture (in terms of both human and monetary resources) would have license to build around this platform and use the OCF marketing materials.

How would this work out for console makers? They would have the option to build any sort of project as long as the base requirements were met. Sony, following in the steps of PS3, may create the Playstation OCF which would have the base specs in addition to 80 gigabytes of memory, wireless and wired networking, and a sub-section beyond the base OCF network where gamers could video chat. Another company may make a completely barebones package including only the bare minimum but sell it for half the price of the Sony version. Regardless of any periphery additions, all consoles would play the same games.

The idea of a one console future is something that could be examined much more deeply, taking up pages and volumes in terms of theory and conjecture. For now, the best we can say is that while it is possible, it is unlikely based on current competition and business situations. Only time will tell if the OCF venture will ever exist.

First, a very, very brief introduction to video game history. Most consider the beginning of the home video game industry to be the late 1970s with introduction of the Magnavox Odyssey. Various other systems entered into the industry during this time with varying degrees of success. After two generations of consoles, the industry experienced a rapid downturn in 1983. This crash created doubt in the future of home video game systems. The crash of 1983 was precipitated largely by an influx of new competitors and questions of quality and competence. The third generation of consoles revived the industry, due largely to the success of the NES system. Since then, the industry has progressed technologically and socially to the point it is today.

The first thing that we can look at is where the video game industry is in its lifecycle. The industry lifecycle theory is a four stage cycle that can be used to describe most industries. While the exact stages vary depending on what source you refer to, the general concept can be found below:

1. Fragmentation
   During this stage, entrepreneurs begin to develop, innovate, and invent the foundations that will form the new industry. Required technology and the cognitive framework will be created at this point. Basic, unrefined products begin to enter the market. Monopoly and high profits are most likely at this point.

2. Shake-out
   The industry begins to grow as market demand is satisfied and more advanced products are demanded. Competition increases as many companies begin to enter the new market due to low barriers of entry and high growth potential. The end of this period is characterized by many companies exiting the industry due to the high degree of competition.

3. Maturity
   Consolidation of market power begins to occur as the most dominant business practices produce the greatest competitive advantage. Companies without a sustainable competitive advantage will exit the industry or be consumed during this stage. Oligopoly will be established by the largest companies.

4. Decline
   The industry begins to decline as businesses begin to lose competitive advantage due to market conditions as well as the rise of new substitute product. Companies will begin exit the industry as demand begins to decrease.

Based on this framework, it is clear that the video game industry has been following a very typical industry lifecycle. The most apparent aspect where the video game industry deviated from the lifecycle was during the shake-out stage. The crash of 1983 was very atypical for an industry in the early-middle portion of the shake-out stage. This early glut of companies exiting came very close to causing the entire industry to crash.

From this graph we see two peaks: one before the crash of 1983, and one during the end of the shake-out stage at the end of the 4^th generation. Taking out the crash of 1983, a clear trend appears of rapid industry growth followed by slow stabilization. What does all of this talk of industry lifecycles and the history of video games have to do with the prospect of a single console future?

The video game industry is in its maturity stage. In terms of companies in the industry, we have seen it grow to a peak during the 2^nd generation, a crash, a rebound to a smaller peak during the 5^th generation, and slow contraction during each successive generation. If these trends hold, it is likely the industry will continue to contract until it is at a minimum size necessary to satisfy demand (in terms of how many competing companies are demanded).

Would it be possible for the industry to contract to a single company making a single console? Or would consumer demand for choice always be high enough to support two or more companies? This will all be addressed in Part II. Stay tuned.

Traditional games rely on only two (sometimes three) senses. Sight, sound, and in the case of certain games, touch. With so few channels of communicating the actions of the game to the player, it is interesting how sound is given such little attention. Try this: start a game you are familiar with and play through a small area. Now reload that same area, and mute your television. Does the game feel the same? Silence is unnerving for many reasons. It often makes people feel confined, confused, or muddled. In the case of a game, silent gameplay seems unreal no matter how it grapically looks. This due to the feedback (or lack of, in the case of silence) that sound provides.

Sound is the sense primarily used to fill in what we cannot see. Without sound, things that don’t happen in our immediate area often go unnoticed. In a medium that lacks taste and smell, such as television, sound is the only “remote” sense we have. While graphics are often the focus when talking about a games presentation, a game’s sounds are often just as critical to a success.

One of my favorite examples of good sound usage is Half-Life 2. While a great game all-around, HL2 has some of the best sound design I’ve ever heard. The sounds of the combine soldiers are alien in a way that is very realistic. The radio chatter and feedback sounds are excellent. The sounds of gunfire and ricochet are very convincing; a good gunfight sounds exactly like a slightly more modern junktown shootout should sound. All of the sounds are directional; this informs us of things which we cannot see but are still relevant to the experience. This mirrors the purpose of sound in our real lives.

Most apparent (and boyishly appealing) to me in my first play through was the sound of the explosions. Instead of the typical roaring explosions you hear in most games, the sounds of fuel barrels, grenades, and gas canisters all have a convincing pop. The explosions have as strong percussiveness that seems very real. In addition to the sound of the explosion itself, an audio affect of temporary sound dampening is used if you are too close to something that explodes. This takes the explosions from mere action eye-candy to events that you don’t just see, you hear and experience.

With the impact good sound design can bring to a game, it is curious how it isn’t a bigger focus of game design and review. Game designers who utilize excellent sound design should be commended. As the graphic curve begins to flatten off, sound design may become more relevant. Until then, this under appreciated element of design will be seen as a nice little bonus but nothing to be expected.

Game 1 - Dance Dance Revolution (DDR)

DDR appears to be a simple game, due to there being a set amount of moves and the gameplay being relatively constant. But with more examination, we will see that it is actually quite complex. First of all, let us define an event in this game as a single step or combination of steps. A song may contain something in the range of 200-400 steps, depending on song length, difficulty, etc. Each of these steps will require a combination of one or more button presses. With 4 buttons on the pad, this gives us 10 possible single or double button combinations. We can also assume that each single button press is relatively equal in utility to any other single press, just each double button press is relatively equal to any other double button press.

So we have a game that consists of many events of either two utility values (single or double), coming in high speed. At first glance, it would seem as though this game would have utility problems due to being so simple. But in this case, that isn’t son. The game creates utility by varying the events so that each time they are used, they lose no utility from repeat consumption. This game could be seen as a steady flow of utility with relatively low variation. Utility is gained steadily, at a fairly constant rate.

Game 2 - Final Fantasy X (FFX)

Final Fantasy X consists of two main parts, divided into many, many smaller and complex parts. Part 1 is combat, Part 2 is what we can call adventuring, or the activities leading up to combat. The interesting thing about this game’s genre (RPGs) is that the user has more control over the events than other styles of games. The game is full of choices, allowing the user to pick (within the game’s rules) the events that provide them the most utility. Within each of these types of events, there are subsets that vary the utility even more (i.e., normal vs. “boss” monsters), decreasing the chance of utility decreasing due to over-usage of an event. For example, a player may choose to kill monsters, then go back to town and do shopping, and once that is done they may play a minigame. By allowing the user to change events when the utility begins to dimish, the player is able to maximize the utility of all the events.

Compared to DDR (a long series of pre-set, stable events), FFX consists of many choices of events that the user can control. This could be seen as a series of events that are selected by the user for their utility value. This value will come in groups as the user transitions between various events and sub-events.

Using these two contrasting examples, it’s easy to see that utility via events can be obtained in different styles. Depending on the type of game, the expectations of the player, and the design of the game, different styles can deliver comparable results in radically different ways.

There aren’t many games that compare to Shadow of the Colossus.  This game comes at players offering utility in a way few other games have. Many games try to create utility by modifying a traditional mechanic of gameplay. For example, the recent Prince of Persia games tried to modify the action-adventure formula by adding in the concept of time manipulation. Shadow of the Colossus comes at this idea of modifying tradition in a completely different way. Instead of modifying the mechanics, they modified the premise.

The concept of the boss battle is a long-running gaming tradition, stretching all the way back to the beginning of gaming itself. Fight through a level full of lesser threats and obstacles to get to the boss, an enemy that is much more challenging and powerful than any other. These bosses exist in Shadow of the Colossus, in relatively standard forms. What has changed is the premise of how you get to these bosses. No longer do you have to slag your way through armies of weak minions and slight obstacles. The only obstacle between you and these massive enemies is the landscape you must travel to find them. This eliminates a part of the game that could be considered filler, and packs in more of the events that are traditionally seen as high utility.

II. Scale

This idea begs the question, “How can the enemies be considered ‘bosses’ if there are no ‘normal’ enemies to compare them to?” The answer to the question is the most interesting element of the game: the scale. We are used to enemies being larger than our characters. In almost every genre, size relationships between characters and enemies denote some type of challenge. In the case of Shadow of the Colossus, the designers have taken this relationship to the extreme.

So back to the question: how can these enemies be bosses if they are also the standard enemies? Simple, because they are utterly massive. I can’t think of any other game that portrays discrepancy in scale so strikingly. The smallest of the Colossus is larger than the ultimate enemies of most games. Even though the Colossi are the standard enemy, they are so mythically large that the battles take on a sense of intensity and heroism that is distinct to the traditional boss battle. This incredible sense of scale completely changes the way players see their foes in the game.

III. Summary

Shadow of the Colossus has an interesting blend of unique premise and massive scale. It is almost the antithesis of the traditional action-adventure in that it trades a lot of premise action for a few completely epic boss battle moments. It also goes to show that there is room for genre bending while still following the traditions that already exist. I would love to see more games challenge tradition as much as Shadow of the Colossus has.

To begin with, I should cover the one principle that makes researching this article possible. In economics, utility is the measurement term used when something provides satisfaction to its consumer. For example, if you like hamburgers twice as much as hotdogs, you could say that hamburgers provide you with two utility units while hotdogs provide you with one. You may also say that hamburgers provide you with 200 units while hotdogs provide you with 100. The numbers themselves are arbitrary; the only thing that really matters is the ratios between the various numbers. Utility has no absolute value; the utility of an entity can only have meaning if it is compared to other entities using the same scale.

How does this apply to a video game? Think of an event as a single serving product. A gamer gets satisfaction from an event by experiencing it: this may mean defeating it, experiencing it, obtaining it, etc. If event A is twice as rare as event B, players should gain twice the utility by experiencing it. Simple enough. But what about repeated consumption of event A? Will experiencing event A still be twice as satisfying? Probably not. It may only be ninety, fifty, or even ten percent as satisfying as before. There is a good chance that its utility value may decrease below event B, depending on the exact dynamics of the game.

What does all of this mean in terms of game design? It means that ideally, a game will consist of a series of events that are strategically ordered to provide the most utility from each event. Whether a game has three, ten, or a hundred different events to choose from, the difference between an engaging game and a boring game is how these events are used. Part II will look at a few well-known games and examine how these principles are applied.