opposites attract: game comparison

8/14/2019 Opposites Attract: Game Comparison

1/7

Kye Harris GAT 21 September 28,2009

Opposites Attract: Game Comparison

Stable vs. Unstable: Mirrors Edge (EA, 2008)

I think Mirrors Edge serves as an interesting subject for discussing

stable versus unstable game systems. Quick review: Mirrors Edge puts the

player in control of a Runner, Faith, jumping from roof to roof, dashing

through buildings, and constantly trying to run from, or having to engage,

cops. Faith is not armed and is not built for combat, though she can manage

some quick punch combos or flying kicks to knock-out opponents. The goal,

regardless, is to avoid hostiles as much as possible and make it from point A

to point B as quickly as possible. Her opponents, the cops, have numbers,

guns, and occasionally helicopters at their disposal and the sole intent of

killing her.

So what makes Mirrors Edge an interesting subject here? Well,

according to the above description the game is stable. Anything Faith can do

she can do from the moment the tutorial level is complete; Faiths health,power, and speed do not change; no HUD elements or button commands are

ever added. Furthermore, what the cops, the enemies, can do does not

change much throughout the course of the game. They have guns that they

shoot at you with sometimes its an SMG, sometimes its a sniper rifle. But

Copyright 2009, DigiPen (USA) Corp.


2/7


they cant pick up ammo or health packs or skills during battle. Bottom line:

once a character shows up, that character does not change mechanics in any

way for its existence in the world. This explanation pins Mirrors Edge as

stable to a T.

Then Faith runs into a cop, does a quick maneuver, and knocks the guy

out while taking his gun. Now Faith has an SMG; now Faith has an added

power. This new Faith is not afraid of cops and cops do not overpower Faith.

The world is suddenly unstable. Taking a step further, the world, to the

player, now feels balanced because the player can now fight with the enemy

on the enemys level.

Whats the problem here? Once Faith gets a gun, the game feels

balanced. With an SMG, the player feels like he or she can fight off the cops

that pinned Faith rather than panicking and promptly dying. (Note that

promptly dying is a primary theme in Mirrors Edge. It happens a lot.) If the

game is balanced when Faith has a gun, then is it unbalanced when Faith

does not have a gun? This would mean that the mechanics are balanced

around an armed Faith, but Faith doesnt start any levels with a gun the

player has to engage in combat and pull off a timed button press in order to

procure a firearm. The most common state that the player is in is an

unarmed state. Does this mean that the player is most commonly at a

disadvantage? Thats bad design. On the other hand, the game is beatable

without ever using a firearm. This would suggest the game is balanced

around an unarmed Faith, but would imply that the game becomes

unbalanced, though in the players favor, once Faith is armed. This would,

Id think, be more desirable since the theme of the game is running. The

point is to avoid combat through speed and acrobatics parkouris the

proper term, I think.

The issue here is the confusion. Is the game balanced around an

armed or an unarmed avatar. Balance around the player not having a gun,

since this is the default state, is more desirable. However, the game feels

much more playable and balanced when the player has procured a weapon.



3/7


I suspect that the designers intended the game to be balanced in the latter

way (with a gun) and I think this primarily because completing the title

without a gun is an explicit achievement. If this is the case, I think they were

mistaken.

Taking a moment, lets look at similar unstable game: Super Mario

Bros. On the surface, Super Mario Bros. is stable: the mechanics are run and

jump and the ability to do these things does not change for the entirety of

the experience. The game would be playable like this; the game is balanced

and designed for this. However, the game world provides power-ups that

instantly change everything. What could beat Mario just as quickly as Mario

could be it now has half the strength (Super Mushrooms); when before the

player had to make contact to remove an obstacle, now it can be done from

across the screen (Fire Flower). The world is a less threatening place in an

instant and the player feels empowered. When that power goes away, the

player, at first, may panic thinking that his chance of survival has been lost,

but then he remembers that the playing field has only been leveled, reset.

The difference between these two is determined entirely by how the

player feels. In Super Mario Bros., I feel like I have, in every level, a valid

chance to win without a power-up. In Mirrors Edge, there are many times

when I feel that I cannot win without taking a gun from one of the enemies.

And a no power-up achievement would still be very applicable for Super

Mario Bros.

What would I do about it? Id either look at the numbers and decrease

the power of the guns (not the best way to handle it) or find some way to

give Faith a bit more of an edge a little more oomph or a bit more stamina.

The alternative is, if the designers want the games combat balanced with a

firearm, then give the player a chance to get a firearm without having to go

through combat. Leave a pistol or an SMG on the ground outside the room

with big combat. This doesnt have to happen every time, just for tenser

scenes. This also still gives the player the choice of having a firearm or not.



4/7


Balanced vs. Unbalanced: Metroid Prime

The Metroid games are well-known for expansive worlds full of power-

ups to find. For the most part, these power-ups simply provide Samus Aran,

the avatar and protagonist, with more power and abilities in a linear fashion.

Samuss ability goes up only, never branching. However, Metroid Prime

dares something a bit different. In Metroid Prime, unlike the other titles in

the series, beam weapons are acquired and used separately. Effectively,

each beam is a new gun, though all are used for offense, aside from some

instances of puzzle-solving. Each gun also has its own properties and uses:

the Power Beam shoots faster; the Wave Beam can stun and home-in; the

Ice Beam can freeze; the Plasma Beam incinerates.

The Plasma Beam is obtained last in the game and for good reason.

This fiery beam is easily the most powerful in combat a charged shot can

instantly immolate any standard enemy. This suggests the beam weapons

are rather obviously unbalanced. Once the Plasma Beam is obtained, there

is seldom a reason to not use it always. Occassionally enemies or puzzles

will show up forcing the use of another beam. So, the Plasma Beam isnt the

be-all-end-all of weapons. Since the other beams are still necessary, are

they not, then, balanced? Maybe.



5/7


I argue that the beams are unbalanced, still, simply because the player

sees no reason to use any other beam besides the Plasma Beam unless

otherwise explicitly forced to. The Plasma Beam is preferred and is hands-

down the best in combat (unless it doesnt work, of course). This preference

creates a weight towards the Plasma Beam, therefore unbalancing the

weapons.

Do we care, though, whether the weapons are technically unbalanced

or balanced? Metroid Prime is a fantastic game, no doubt. It all depends on

the players experience. If the weapons are unbalanced due to a preference

for one over the others, that preference affects the players interaction with

the world: he or she wants to use the Plasma Beam. This gun rocks! But

then the player is forced to swap to the much weaker Wave Beam and what

happens? Aw, this gun sucks. The pistol is great early game, but once you

have a shotgun you dont want to think about the pistol again.

I believe that this was known, and mostly intended, by the designers.

They intended each weapon to have its own uses defined by strengths and

weaknesses each has. They intended the Plasma Beam to be more powerful.

I dont think they intended this unbalanced feel that resulted.

This feel was fixed in Metroid Prime 3: Corruption where all beams

were one. In Corruption, each new weapon stacked on top of the previous

weapon. The Plasma Beam replaced the Power Beam while maintaining all

of the Power Beams properties necessary for combat or puzzle-solving. With

this, players never had to worry about switching back to the pistol only

upgrading linearly as in the previous games.



6/7


Symmetric vs. Asymmetric: Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance

(Intelligent Systems, 2005)

Fire Emblem is a game which represents war. When units die, theyre

gone. Its power and tactics pit against one another. Whats the easiest way

to show power on the battlefield? Numbers. 30 against 10 is pretty steep

and very intimidating. In Fire Emblem, however, its not unheard of to take

12 against 50 and win.

Symmetry is easy to notice and understand: 5 equals 5; one side looks

like others; I have what you have only. This is symmetry. 4 against 12 is not

symmetry. This logic makes Fire Emblems scenarios seem incredibly

weighted and unfair. The enemy army is always larger than the player army.

In Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance, in fact, the second level in the game puts

4 against 10. In spite of this, the fight doesnt seem unfair. These scenarios

are very much winnable. In fact, some of the hardest battles in Fire Emblem

games are the symmetric ones, not the steeply asymmetric fights. Why?

4 against 12 is asymmetrical unless each of the 1s in the 4,

individually, are equal to 3 from the 12. 1 equals 3? In some cases of the

games, actually, it feels more like 1 equals 5 or 6. Ike, the lead character in

Path of Radiance, in later levels, can easily take on five enemies. It makes

since: one Goomba is not equal to one Koopa or one Bullet Bill; Batman is not



7/7


equal to Thug #2. So, by creating asymmetrical army sizes, the army

powers are made symmetrical since the players characters are more

powerful heroes. Occasionally this falls apart because not all player-

controlled characters are equal. Some are weaker or stronger than others,

meaning some scenarios can, due to the players unknowing choice, are

made asymmetrical, being weighted against the player. As stated above,

the one-on-one fights are very difficult because the boss is usually stronger

than the players character. Or the two are equally matched and the bout is

based on luck or effectively predetermined. Neither instance is particularly

fun. 12 guys beating 50, though? Now thats a blast.

I think its quite apparent that this contrast of looking asymmetric and

feeling symmetric was intended. The designers must have spent a large

amount of time making sure this balanced out correctly. It makes the player

feel empowered, taking on the wave and overcoming the odds. Im sure

they intended the player to look at the enemy and feel like he needs a

miracle to win, but still knowing, thanks to previous experiences in the game,

that he can win. Its a delicate system that teeters back and forth

throughout each scenario until it finally tips and tumbles in one direction,

delivering the victory.


opposites attract: game comparison

Documents