Gamethink

It’s easy to rave forever about Resident Evil 4 or demonstrate how sophisticated Grand Theft Auto games really are. Few will dispute that Ico is a masterpiece, or that New Super Mario Bros. is the ultimate DS platformer experience. All these games had it all right: they were based on an interesting concept, well-funded, well-developed, well-promoted and did well. So how about we pay attention to games that didn’t do that well? Games that were hugely anticipated, but which failed to deliver and which are seen, rightly or not, as some of the worst game disasters? Interestingly, these games have much in common. To the question, could this game have been better, the answer is a resounding yes. They were all based on a strong brand. The revolutionary game features which were put forward turned out to be nothing new, nothing much, or both. There were interface and camera glitches, and other similar things that tended to kill the player arbitrarily. Most of these games had an issue with their environments, or, more generally, content. Often, there was also a writing problem. But the most disheartening is that all of these games had many strong points and, although they did not as well as expected, it would be (it is)unfair to only remember them as disasters.

A strong brand

Daikatana’s infamous ad

This controversial ad gives a glimpse of the rockstar treatment given to John Romero, who spent most of his time on PR duties instead of supervising the game.

When I was working as a producer in small development houses, I just couldn’t stand reading interviews of project managers of big licensed games who complained about the constraints that came with that franchise. In this attention-based business, notoriety is everything. To be on the map, whatever it takes, is not just an option, but a matter of survival. Having a strong brand to back up a new game concept is a great asset. In our cases, what have we got? the most successful movie franchise of the game generation; the most prominent female game heroin of all times; the cooperation of acclaimed game designer American McGee and underground artists kozyndan; the follow-up to the most innovative and exciting action game on the PS2; and the much-delayed, very anticipated new project of George Romero, of Doom fame. Well, that brand can also be... quite a liability.

Bad Day LA, 2006, PC

Aesthetically, the game is pleasant and original.

In the case of Daikatana, the inner workings of the game project were over exposed. The number of announcements that were made, and not met, contributed to undermine the game credibility, and, coupled with ten times the pressure any normal game is under, the morale of the development team. Angel of Darkness was already the 6th episode of the Tomb Raider saga, which, until the previous one, delivered one new game each year. As sales were slowly eroding, this time around, developers took three whole years to polish what they announced to be the resurrection of the series. Needless to say that this was anticipated with much skepticism. Enter the Matrix relied on the momentum behind the two new episodes of the Matrix trilogy, which were highly anticipated movies in their own right, but which didn’t have as much impact as the first movie. The Matrix fans expectations, and the influence of the Wachowski brothers on the development, translated into rigid constraints.

The announced revolution did not take place

Devil May Cry 2, 2003, PS2

Don’t worry, Dante. All it takes to beat him is just mash a random button.

As if working with highly exposed brands wasn’t difficult enough, all of these games put forward some features which they presented as revolutionary, but in the end which were nothing special. Yes, we’re talking about the stylish attacks in DMC2 (who would bother when one can complete the game in a few hours using only the basic moves?), the RPG elements in Daikatana (so you can upgrade your speed and power. But you will hardly ever notice the difference!), the adventure elements in Angel of Darkness (which were mostly cosmetic - gameplay was fundamentally the same), the exclusive movie scenes shot for Enter the Matrix featuring the real cast (only scenes with secondary characters were shot specifically for the game), and the GTAesque freedom of action in Bad Day LA (which proved to be a very linear game). Now all of these games had some strong points (more about that later), but they were not the ones on which marketing communicated.

Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness, 2003, PS2

From this screenshot, one would tend to think that stealth would be really important in TR6 gameplay.

Clearly, there is a problem somewhere between the developers and the PR people, and a serious one indeed: when the publisher fails to live to its promises, the player will react very strongly. So who’s to blame? Marketing for having misunderstood the nature of the game, or development for having underestimated the expectations of the players? Probably the producers for not having established a clear vision of the game. The lesson is that once a feature is identified as a strong selling point, one that will be used to communicate about the game early on, it must receive as much development attention as possible. Marketing cannot (shouldn’t) pick a feature on which they think they can elaborate, if it is not something on which the value of the game is based.

Loss of control: interface and camera issues

Daikatana, 2000, PC

Wielding the "daikatana" obstrudes most of the screen. Great!

In a real-time game, interface and camera are critical because they represent the control a player has over the game. If the player has less than total control, their sensation of freedom is greatly reduced. This is something that they will immediately notice, even when it’s so slight they can’t put words on it. Virtually every 3D game suffers from it to some extent, but there is a threshold that any game should not go beyond: when the player loses because of those glitches. When the difference in the command for standing jump and long jump is so fickle, and that mixing up the two often results in immediate death (Angel of Darkness), when things that can hurt the player are outside the camera angles (DMC2, Daikatana), or when things on which the player have no influence cause their death (like the idiotic sidekicks in Daikatana). Framerate drops, although not directly related to interface design, cause the same feeling of loss of control, and are especially resented from PC owners who are used to tune their games so that this never happens on their system. Unfortunately, Bad Day LA, Angel of Darkness and Enter the Matrix are notorious for that. Finally, some game design choices can lead to the same results: making the player lose arbitrarily, which always causes frustration. Talking with NPCs in Angel of Darkness - where choosing the wrong line from a list of seemingly identical, inocuous replies - can kill Lara outright, especially comes to mind.

Vast, empty spaces, and other environmental problems

Enter the Matrix, 2003, PC

What an excitingly empty game environment!

When the Daikatana started, Romero envisionned a massive game with hundreds of levels. Fortunately, this vision never materialized - the game is already big enough as it is! And when I’m trying to reminisce the gameplay of DMC2, I don’t remember the few epic battles against bosses as neatly as running endlessly in seemingly empty levels. Angel of Darkness and Bad Day LA had a similar problem: while at first sight, the game world seemed huge, it quickly turns out to be very small, the freedom of exploration that we had hope for vanishes in these very linear games.

But... did they really fail?

All of these games did disappoint critics, all right. But did they disappoint customers? Enter the Matrix sold over 5 million copies, and DMC 2, 1.69 worldwide: interestingly, slightly more than the third edition, which obtained much more favorable reviews! Angel of Darkness did sell 500k units, which is certainly disappointing for a Tomb raider but definitely not bad. I don’t have reliable figures for Daikatana, but it did sell well (between 500k and 1m copies). Romero and Eidos representatives claimed that it broke even, which basically depends on how do your accounting... if it did, that would be without taking into account the damage done the developer, Ion Storm, which had to strip its other projects of their resources to eventually ship the game. I don’t have accurate figures for Bad Day L.A. either, but of all of these games this is the one which sold the least.

While it would be unfair to classify these games as disasters, it’s honest to admit that they could have sold much, much more if they lived up to their potential. How?
 by communicating on the game strong points, or rather, by making sure that players won’t be disappointed by what the elements of the games which are put forward.
 by providing satisfying game content. avoid empty environments, repetitive game situations; privilege diversity and density.
 by making sure that the player never loses control. the player must never lose because of elements outside of their direct control. Cameras must be tested for maximum comfort. Funny game mechanics that could cause the player to die outright should be carefully reviewed (and probably removed!)

When considering the huge communications budgets around those titles, the cost of making them "right" is very, very affordable. Curiously Blizzard never releases a game unless it’s perfectly polished. Strangely enough, it never managed to sell less than a few million copies of its PC games...