I’m strutting once again down the dangerous streets of dream projects as I reflect on another Capcom classic. This game from my early days in the industry. A game that came out as my engagement with gaming was waning, just moments before I would jump into it fully and feet-first–a place I remain to this very day. Pull on your boots, strap on your helmet, and get ready for your close-up because I’m gonna talk about the iconic adventures of media-obsessed super fanboy Viewtiful Joe.
Taking down baddies with a bright red suit and the power of movie magic.
Announced as part of the “Capcom Five,” alongside games like Resident Evil 4 and Killer 7, Viewtiful Joe was part of a plan by Capcom to boost the sales of Nintendo’s struggling GameCube. (I wouldn’t come to the game until it was ported to the PlayStation 2, despite owning a GameCube first, so I suppose I was part of the problem.) While the GameCube forever remained in the shadow of Sony’s titan, the game itself was well-received.
A love letter to Japanese culture, Viewtiful Joe leans hard into that country’s unique fandom. The game centers on Joe, a teenage otaku infatuated with sentai superheroes. While catching a movie with his girlfriend Silvia, Joe helplessly watches as the main villain reaches out of the screen and kidnaps his date. Following her into Movieland, Joe sets out to take down the shadowy organization knowns as Jadow and save his girlfriend. Able to adopt the alter ego of the titular hero, Joe gains VFX Powers that allow him to perform camera tricks. By slowing time, speeding himself up, and even zooming in on himself, Joe can stun enemies, unleash devastating attacks, and solve puzzles. If his VFX juice is allowed to fully drain, the Viewtiful persona will disappear, leaving Joe to fight in his civvies until his powers replenish. The VFX Powers are fun and add a thick layer of theme and aesthetic every time they’re deployed. Viewtiful Joe is a masterclass on incorporating your game’s Big Idea into the mechanics and the contextual wrapper alike.
Just as Joe looks like he burst from the screen of your favorite shonen series, Joe’s enemies follow suit with many looking like they raided Kamen Rider’s wardrobe on their way to fight the Power Rangers. From the knee-knocking Blankies to the football helmet-wearing boxers with spiked gloves for hands to butt-kicking ballerinas, Joe will face a variety of mooks that require you to utilize the VFX Powers to take the down.
I mean, just look at this guy. Magnificent.
The team responsible for Viewtiful Joe later became Clover Studio who would create a direct sequel, Viewtiful Joe 2 (which added Silvia as a playable character), the platformer fighter-esque Red Hot Rumble, and the portable beat-em-up Double Trouble for the Nintendo DS. The studio would also develop beloved fan favorites Ōkami and God Hand before being shuttered. All of this was done within the span of less than three years. Key people from Clover would then found studios that became the perhaps-even-more-legendary PlatinumGames who would give us MadWorld, Bayonetta, Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, Nier: Automata, and the spiritual successor to our main attraction, The Wonderful 101. The game was also adapted as an anime series. Joe himself appears in a handful of vs. Capcom fighting games and the mobile fighter Combo Crew.
Maybe it’s the fact they remind me of the hours I spent in department store lobbies dropping quarters as I waited for my parents to finish shopping, but I have mad love for sidescrolling beat-em-ups. From the original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles arcade cabinet to 2022’s Splinter’s Revenge, from River City Ransom to River City Girls, from Children of the Atom to Mother Russia Bleeds, beat-em-ups have survived every console generation, gaming fad, and paradigm shift and are still today giving life to original worlds and an array of external IPs from Power Rangers to Toxic Crusaders. So Viewtiful Joe was an easy pickup for me. While the PlayStation 2 would become one of my favorite consoles of all time, I was late to buy into that generation. So when I picked up a used PlayStation 2 in late 2005, I had a lot of catching up to do. The visuals, the attitude, the fun-looking gameplay put Viewtiful Joe near the top of the list.
With super saturated four-color art, striking cel-shading, and camera effects and accents galore, Viewtiful Joe was truly stunning for its time. The gameplay was tight, the VFX Powers were novel and useful, and the game’s attitude dripped from the screen. The life of the game series was short but magnificent and we haven’t seen anything like it since. And I think the gaming landscape is poorer for that fact.
I’ve pitched a good number of beat-em-ups over the years but, while some have gotten a lot of important people excited at the prospect, none have come to fruition. Such is the curse of creative industries. You gotta fire a hundred shots for every one you land.
A beat-em-up is tough but fair. It’s easy to get hit if you don’t act and react properly but solid hit execution is reward. Like a fighting game, it’s all about the moves you choose when you choose them. The burden of the developer is to make each action fun–even the standard punch the player will hit a thousand times in a level. Like a hero shooter, you need to a compelling basic set of actions, mid-tier specials to build toward, and an ult for long-term payoff. You need to clearly message
As I said above, beat-em-ups remain super popular to this day. Freed from the need to suck out as much money from players as quickly as possible, the genre is bringing in a lot of fun, new ideas while keeping the core front and center.
With a spiritual successor to the original studio being announced and the game’s director being clear about his desire to do so, maybe Viewtiful Joe will live again someday. Chances are near zero I’ll ever get to take a crack at it but I’m going to hold onto the hope of doing making a top-tier beat-em-up before some supervillain drags me away to the great Movieland in the sky.
While my dream projects tend to bounce around thematically, the “dark future” genre is a favored one and I’d love to do something in it. The katana-laded trenches and mirror shades, the rain-slicked streets and neon skies, the virtual surreality and hope amidst suffocating authority, the world of the dark future oozed urgency and style. It also, if you believed the source material, was dark. Not just thematically dark, not just conceptually dark, but actually, visibly dark. From Blade Runner to Altered Carbon, the dystopian world of tomorrow takes place primarily at night. If you know me at all—and, if you’re one the five people reading this, you probably do—you know I love a good shake-up. Which is exactly what Mirror’s Edge is: a fresh, bright take on an old, dark idea.
As far as genre conventions, the game was a real kick in the face.
Developed by DICE and published by EA, Mirror’s Edge was part of the same publisher push that gave us Army of Two and Dead Space. It was a concerted effort by EA to inject some new blood into its system. As someone who loves bold, new ideas, I was super excited for all of them for different reasons. While Army of Two promised badass third-person coop and Dead Space was all-in on tense, atmospheric third-person horror, Mirror’s Edge was first-person action-parkour. The game takes place in a near future of seemingly perfect bliss—a state of ignorance made possible by the oppressive machinations of a government dedicated to maintaining absolute control. The main character, Faith, is a Runner, a courier who subverts the system by delivering goods and data under the radar. Her ability to move through the city quickly is key to the story—she needs items and information to get from A to B fast without being detected—and it’s also key to the gameplay. Mirror’s Edge is all about movement. You navigate the environment using Runner’s Vision which is the developer’s reasoning for the stark look of the game world. The city is achingly sterile with most rooftops, walls, and other environmental elements presented as stark white. Color is used to deliver information to the player quickly and cleanly. After all, the goal is to achieve fluidity. If a player is in that zen-like flow state, you don’t want to unnecessarily draw them out of it. Using bright spots of green, blue, yellow, and red let you guide the player without breaking their stride. Mirror’s Edge had a lot of goals and, when it worked, man, it worked. You were running across rooftops, sliding down ramps, bouncing between billboards, and busting open doors like an Olympiad. It did occasionally draw you out for some forced combat or comic style cutscenes—both of which had their detractors.
A view of the city through the eyes of a Runner.
If you weren’t paying attention (or weren’t around) back in 2008 when the game hits shelves, you might not appreciate how far of a departure Mirror’s Edge was from everything else on the market. The game had a look singularly its own. This was the height of the PS3/360 era when AAA games were all competing to be the most brown. Drab earthtones ruled the day and, while I love that generation dearly, the titans of the AAA space felt a little too self-serious and sad. Yes, the Wii was still the hot thing and you could depend on Nintendo to bring the bright and colorful but Mirror’s Edge did so in a game that was first-person, action-focused, and targeted toward core gamers. You could tell a screenshot was from Mirror’s Edge at a glance from a far distance. Even now, over sixteen years later, a single screenshot pulls at something inside me.
Mirror’s Edge was followed by a mobile game and a Flash game (!!!) in 2010 but, unlike fellow classmates Army of Two and Dead Space, while originally planned as a trilogy, it didn’t launch a series. Rumors of a sequel abounded for a bit but nothing was announced until the reveal of 2016’s Mirror’s Edge: Catalyst. A soft reboot of the series, the game retooled some key concepts while retaining a lot of the core gameplay. It moved from tighter, more linear spaces to an open world complete with side missions. It introduced skill trees that allowed players to expand Faith’s moveset. The final big change is that it got rid of gunplay—at least for the player—which made Faith’s only choices in combat either evading or subduing enemies. Catalyst was accompanied by a tie-in comic subtitled Exordium. Sadly, that’s all there is for the series.
I’ve been a cyberpunk fan for over thirty years. R. Talsorian’s classic tabletop game, Cyberpunk 2020, is what turned me onto the genre and I was immediately hooked. This led me to William’s Gibson’s seminal work, Neuromancer (and Mona Lisa Overdrive, Virtual Light, and my favorite of his, Idoru). From there, I read books like Richard K. Morgan’s Altered Carbon, watched movies like Blade Runner (of course), got into the brilliant-but-canceled Max Headroom television series, and listened to any music that just felt “cyberpunky” to me. I’ve even made a few stabs at creating my own dark future worlds but never pushed anything across the finish line. To this day, I’ll dive into pretty much anything set in a dimly-lit version of the near future.
But I love Mirror’s Edge because it stands in stark contrast to cyberpunk’s aesthetic. It’s a world of hope where players aren’t sticking to the shadows but running through daylight. Where some dystopian worlds see their protagonists using the broken rules to their own ends or resisting oppression through violence, Mirror’s Edge takes a third approach: fighting the machine without being seen. Our hero moves out in the open yet under the radar, using the hubris and folly of the oppressors against themselves.
Because of both how it looked and how it played, Mirror’s Edge was unique upon its release. Its only real competitor was Assassin’s Creed, which debuted the year before and inFamous, which came out a year later. In both, though, parkour is a bullet point. In Mirror’s Edge, it’s the focus.
Nowadays, gamers can live out their parkour dreams in titles as varied as Ghostrunner, Dying Light, the underappreciated gem that is Sunset Overdrive, or countless other games. So, why oh why, would I bring it back now? Partially, because we have learned so much about what does and doesn’t work in that space thanks to those games. There are a lot of nuggets to mine for inspiration, from moment-to-moment to mission structure to combat integration to ability progression. Partially, because, after two valiant attempts, the game has yet to grasp its full potential. No slight against those who worked on the games. You all made two of my all-times and crafted some truly special titles. But the perfect expression of Mirror’s Edge has yet to be realized. I would not only love to explore the gameplay possibilities but the world as well. Yeah, there’s an OOP comic series but I want books, short videos, narrative games, action figures—everything! Now, I’m not so bold as to say I could realize Mirror’s Edge full potential alone. But, with a good team, I absolutely would love to make a run at it.
I just need EA to take a leap of Faith with me here.
As I think I’ve shown in my previous entries, my dream projects don’t follow a set format. There’s no consistent era or genre or design paradigm I’m looking to follow. I have a lot of great loves when it comes to video games. I have a mental vault full of beloved-yet-dormant titles I am aching to bring into the now. Some are games I have longed to make for decades. Some are more recent revelations. As is the case with this one. This game is an edutainment classic. It flipped the script and rewrote what word games could be. Take a seat, would you? And join me as I turn the page on one of my favorite games of all time, Bookworm Adventures.
A worm on the brink of adventure!
Previously in these dream project posts, I’ve called out the first entrant in a series that I’d like to reboot but I’m not doing so here. No mistake: the original Bookworm is a super fun game. But its sequel, Bookworm Adventures, gave the core word-building gameplay structure and freedom that are essential to a modern reboot. Developed by PopCap and published by EA, the first Bookworm hits shelves way back in 2003. It presented the player with a matrix of letter tiles. The player selected adjacent letters in an order that created words. Once the player had a word, they submitted it for points. The selected letters would disappear, letters would shift down appropriately and new letters would appear in the now empty slots. Like Boggle meets Tetris and you’re in the ballpark.
Maybe this screenshot will help spell things out.
As a word game nut, I love pretty much every kind of spelling, typing, and word search game out there. As an educational tool, it pushed players to test their pattern recognition and vocabulary skills. It rewarded you for finding big words and for using less common letters in your submission. I loved loading up Bookworm as an idle distraction, the same as others did with Minesweeper or Solitaire. I love words. I just do. Don’t judge me.
It’s fair to say that a game like this doesn’t really demand a sequel. English is always evolving but, really, you could just update the game’s built-in dictionary if you wanted to amp the app’s rizz. Or whatever. Look, I’m old. So I was happy that, when EA and PopCap did release a sequel in 2006, they pushed the core premise in a fresh direction.
A direction filled with danger!
Bookworm Adventure retains the core gameplay concept of the original but adds two very important changes. First, the letters you select don’t need to be adjacent. Any letter in the grid is valid. Tap any letters in the field to create your word. Second, it wrapped the gameplay inside larger gameplay. The game was played in a series of battles where the player, as Lex, entered classic works of literature and myth and faced down the monsters within to retrieve items and save characters. You fought the monsters by making words. The bigger the word, the rarer the letters used, the higher the damage. The player and the monster trade turns so, after you do your action, the monster gets to go. The monster can do damage to you through various attacks like biting and clawing. Lex has health just like the monsters and if his hearts drops to zero, he’s knocked back to the beginning of the current chapter. Monster use more than just damaging attacks though. They can stun you so you lose a turn, small tiles so they can be played but get no points, heal themselves, and other fun tricks. Along the way, the player gets treasure items that boost the scores of certain letters, increase Lex’s health limit, act as shields against damage, and other things. Lex also levels up, gaining bonuses to anything from health to defense to damage. New tile types will enter play that will deal extra damage, decrease enemy effectiveness, and give buffs to our invertebrate hero. Calling it “Adventures” wasn’t a shallow subtitle but an engaging, well-explored wrapper that adding loads of gameplay to already fun game.
In addition to the main mode, Adventures has mini-games and challenges, as well as comic intros and monster info you can unlock as you play. It’s a robust package—far more engaging and thought-out than folks expect from something sold as an educational game for children.
As I said above, Bookworm Adventures is technically the second game in the word game series, following the original Bookworm. It was successful enough to spawn a direct sequel with Bookworm Adventures: Volume 2 but that’s it. Volume 2 built on its predecessor by featuring new stories, wild card tiles, an Infinite Replay mode, and companions—characters such as Mother Goose, Monkey King, and H.G. Wells—who each with their own ability that aids Lex in his journey. The original Bookworm was ported from PC/Mac to mobile to XBLA to the Gameboy to the Nintendo DS—all over the place!—but that it’s the only series entrant that saw life outside the home computer.
My history with the game is pretty simple: I picked up Bookworm Adventures from a spinner rack at OfficeMax sometime in the late-00s. (That spinner rack was a trove of amazing finds, by the way, from educational to hidden object to classic point-and-click. If you took an MRI of my gamer heart, you’d see that spinner rack front and center.) It was an obvious buy for me. I liked the previous Bookworm and this sounded interested. I didn’t pick up the sequel until a long time after.
Now is a perfect time for a Bookworm Adventures reboot. The format is a slam dunk for mobile. I already play a bunch of word games on my phone. One that had a story, fun rewards, daily challenges, alternative play modes, and some non-predatory monetization? You kidding me? It is a straight-up crime that I can’t download a new Bookworm Adventures on my phone. In fact, the idea for this dream project came about after a search for “bookworm” on the app store returned a bunch of clones but nothing official.
If any of this has enticed you to check out Bookworm Adventures, that makes me incredibly happy. This game deserves to be played. Unfortunately, I can’t just drop a link here for you to easily obtain your own copy as, sadly, the games were removed from sale online back in 2016. hy was Bookworm erased from the digital shelves? What does the future hold for Lex and his myriad adventure buddies? I have no idea. Could a new Bookworm Adventures happen? See my previous answer. Obviously, I would love to see Lex crawl into the sun again—and I’d love to have a hand in writing his future. But that’s ultimately up to PopCap and EA who, as far as I know, still hold the rights yet haven’t said a word about the game in over a decade. If anyone knows of an initiative to turn a new leaf on Bookworm, I’d appreciate your putting a word in for me. Until then, I don’t mind rereading the stories yet again.
From sneaking around as an anthropomorphic animal thief to bumping fists with my bro in a PMC daydream to banging my oversized noggin on prehistoric eggheads, I’ve already spoken about a fair number of dream projects. In this installment, I’m going back to my second-favorite gaming era. (The era that coincides with the start of my video game career, no less.) Join me as we venture into the frigid wasteland of a far away world in a tale of ecological collapse, mini-mech suits, and giant freaking bugs. Welcome, traveler, to Lost Planet.
These bugs got weak points for days.
Lost Planet: Extreme Condition is a third-person shooter developed and published by Capcom. You play as Wayne Holden, a government soldier on E.D.N. III, a tundra planet populated by giant insects called Akrid. After suffering a serious injury, Wayne wakes up under the care of snow pirates trying to overthrow the corporation leading the colonization effort of the planet. Suffering from amnesia, Wayne only remembers two things: who he is and the name of the bug that killed his father. Yes, there’s more context and backstory but that is the thrust. And it’s glorious.
The subtitle isn’t exaggerating. E.D.N. III is a planet of extreme cold. Playing the game, you feel it. The way Wayne trudges through the drift, the crunch of the snow under his boots, the blowing wind, and the constant threat of freezing to death create an atmosphere where I felt a pressing need to keep moving, find shelter, and collect heat to survive. To help with that last point, Wayne has a device on his back powered by thermal energy units called “T-Eng.” The T-Eng reserve in your device depletes when you’re outside, which you are for the majority of the game. In order to survive, you have to collect T-Eng capsules from Akrid corpses and by activating data posts that spit them out for reasons. If your T-Eng supply hits zero, you start to take damage. Management T-Eng is a key part of the game but it isn’t laborious. Keep moving and keep shooting and you’ll be just fine. It does mean you will need to prioritize enemies. You can’t focus all your fire on the big bad Akrid since you’ll need to pop smaller ones for their precious heat nuggets. You’ll also need to move around the map to find heat sources in the world so you can grab the pellets and keep fighting the hordes.
In addition to T-Eng management, one of the big bullet points are mechanized exoframes called Vital Suits. These VSes give you access to heavy weapons like chain guns and rocket launches but consume T-Eng. Still, they’re essential in some encounters—plus they look super cool. Vital Suits are such an identifying feature of the game that players got a tiny one for preordering the game.
Imagine Wayne screaming like a mad man while he shoots those guns. Aw yeah.
If you want to use their firepower outside the suit, you can by carrying an oversized gun in both hands. The trade off is that you’ll move slower—being more vulnerable to attack and less able to get that important T-Eng—but it’s still so cool. On foot, no only are you faster, but you have access to a grappling hook that you’ll use this to ascend cliffs, outside walls, and, yes, get into Vital Suits. Plus you have an array of weapons you use outside the suit.
On the enemy sides, bugs are the big selling point and there’s a nice variety. From under the earth and above, from giant insects full of glowing orange weak points to hidden hives that are the heart of the enemy, the Akrid are fantastic foes. But there are human ones as well. From rival snow pirates to NEVEC soldiers to an…unexpected final boss fight, there’s plenty of variety in who you will encounter out in the wilds.
From the giant bugs busting through the earth to the armies of human enemies trying to take me out to the environment to the Vital Suits, Lost Planet sells its world like so very few games do. Sitting down with Lost Planet: Extreme Condition remains one of my favorite gaming memories and I’m always excited when I find others who love the game just as much as I do.
But it’s not the only Lost Planet to be found. In addition to Extreme Condition, the series saw two sequels. Lost Planet 2 introduces both warmer biomes to E.D.N. III as well as a coop campaign for up to four players. Lost Planet 3 was developed outside of Japan by the now sadly-defunct Spark Unlimited. It returns to the first game’s single-player focus and introduces more narrative-driven elements like NPC conversations and side quests. Players also have upgrade paths for gear and player-built rigs replace Vital Suits. Both installments deprioritized T-Eng as an essential resource which diminished the sense of place within the game but I enjoyed both on their merits. Japan also got an anime-styled spin-off for the 3DS and PS3 called E.X. Troopers which I haven’t played.
At the time of Lost Planet: Extreme Condition‘s release, I had only recently gotten back into console gaming after a brief time away. I was stoked for the game and sitting down to play it did not disappoint. The 360-era was, for me, the golden age of third-person shooters with Gears of War, Army of Two, 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand, this game right here, and many others. When I think about what I’d like to see from a new Lost Planet game, I go back to the core of a hostile environment. In addition to the mechanics at play in the first game, adding dynamic elements like snow drifts, avalanches, ice storms, and more. I’d like to see the player have to consider other resources in addition to T-Eng. I can see a place for adding a shelter system that players need to build and advance as the world changes around them.
But not in a typical survivor game way. The core of Lost Planet should remain the shooting, the action, the thrill of the (bug) hunt. I like the idea of advancing and customizing gear (and thus gameplay). I like the idea of core missions and side quests that force you to balance what must be done with people you’d like to help, objectives you’d like to complete—but at a potential cost. In the near two decades since the first game’s release, the field has seen a lot of mechanical ideas that are worth exploring inside the Lost Planet bubble.
I have no clue if a new Lost Planet will ever happen. A quick Google search brings up a lot of clamoring for a remaster/reboot of the original but I have heard nothing official. I would absolutely play a remaster but a reboot is what I want. The core of the game brought into the modern era. If such a thing happened, I’m sure Capcom would keep it internal. But, man, I’d love a crack at it. It’s a game that I hold very dear and a new spin on the concept is one that I would be very hot to take on.
Back in the Summer of 2021, I taught two courses on Critical Game Analysis for Bradley University. My friend David got me connected there. I took over the classes he originally intended on teaching but couldn’t due to the workload he was already carrying. I had never taught before—not formally—but I was excited for the opportunity.
The course was split into lecture and lab with the majority of the grade weight coming from essay work. As someone with a lot of experience in writing and game development, I was a good fit on paper but I had never formalized my process for viewing and analyzing games. This opportunity forced me to do just that.
The core of any interactive experience.
Most game developers get to a point where they can’t help but analyze systems of interaction. Whether it’s playing a video game or navigating the menus of a streaming service or waiting in line for your favorite ride at Disney World, we are surrounded by interactivity. As a game developer, I trade in interactivity. My medium of choice is defined by it. Yet, most folks don’t think twice about it. Or do so passively. They just want to play the game. They just want to find something to watch. They just want to get on the ride.
But as someone making an interactive experience, I have to look. I have to analyze. I need to be able to design, sculpt, and polish the experience that’s right for whatever I’m making. But how would I express to others the weird machinery in my head that turned input into output, internalized experiences to externalized design?
I’m emotional and creative, yes, but also I’m an analytical, logical person. I think I balance the two fairly well and code switch ably though, certainly, there are many better at both. Still, I straddle the two okay. I think that’s why I’m (not to be immodest) good at my job. So I sat down, clicked into analytical mode, and jotted down every thought that came into my head. From there, I categorized and prioritized and, from there, came up with the skeleton of how I look at and break down not just games but all sorts of interactive media. I then flipped the toggle to creative and addressed each point with a contextual bent to make the points easier to grok and retain.
I figured, while I’ve been updating this blog, I may as well share the high levels of those thoughts for any who might be interested. While this process can be applied to any interactive experience, I am going to wrap all of this within the context of gaming. So, let’s break down some video games.
Not like this. I have no idea what’s happening here.
Beat Breakdown
No matter your game. No matter the genre. No matter the mechanics. No matter the story. If you are creating a piece of interactive media, you must be aware of four essential elements and how the size and shape of each informs the user experience. The decisions you make along these four points define the experience you are making. They inform how people will speak of your game. How friendly or unforgiving your game is. They are decisions you will make over and over and over throughout the course of a game’s development. They are an integral aspect of the design. They are the key beats of interactivity. In order, they are Prompt, Input, Feedback, and Reaction.
Size and Shape
Before we dig into the four beats, I want to define two specific terms: size and shape.
Size is how much time the beat takes up. It’s the window for response, it’s how long the player has to press the button, it’s how big the feedback is, and it’s how celebratory or condemning the reaction is.
Shape is how the beat is presented in-game. A beat can be auditory, visual, haptic, or any combination.
The direction and design of these elements informs the experience more than you can possibly imagine. The size and shape create the beat’s volume.
Beat 1: Prompt
A prompt is how the game tells the player something has changed. The prompt’s job is to tell the player, “hey, this specific thing happened. You need to be aware of it.” The louder a prompt’s volume, the more it’s trying to get the player’s attention. The higher the volume, the higher the priority.
Games have a lot of prompts. From notifications to events happening in the game world to a HUD that is responding to changes based on player input and reward. From the sudden appearance of a giant health bar at the top of the screen to some enemy shouting “There they are! Get ‘em!” If anything is changing in the game—especially if the player’s proximity to success is affected by their response—there must be a prompt.
A whole lotta prompts are popping off here in Jetpack Joyride 2.
The size and shape of the prompt, both how it’s presented and the window of time the player has to respond, is crucial to the experience. Seeing a large pulsing icon and hearing a woop-woop-WOOP sound effect for five seconds before a bomb goes off feels significantly different that seeing a faint flash of red light and hearing a tiny bee-bee-beep for half a second before the explosion. One speaks to a cartoony or arcadey experience. The other feels more like a military sim. One gives me more time to process and react to the possibility of danger. The other demands I act fast or suffer the consequences.
The prompt isn’t always alerting the player to something potentially negative. The game might be telling you where treasure is or that you are being healed by a teammate or that you leveled up and unlocked a new skill!
Another consideration when determining the size and shape of a prompt is accessibility. If audio is key to the prompt, how do you account for those who either cannot hear or play with no or low volume? Visualizers can help–telling players where footsteps or gunfire are with icons and arrows–but they create a very different prompt that must be balanced separately. Color processing issues must also be accounted for. Something as simple as a red barrel is bad and a green barrel is good can be difficult for certain types of “color blindness.” You needn’t account for all possible accessibility issues. Just be aware that whatever you don’t account for creates a barrier to entry for anyone who has that limitation.
Whatever the prompt, the game is asking the player to make a decision. That decision is made via input.
The goal of a prompt can be immediate—avoid the bullet!—or long-term—reach the bank vault!—and each will demand different messaging.
Counter-intuitively, the lack of a direct prompt is its own kind of prompt. Imagine you’re a detective standing in the middle of an abandoned house with no light. Nothing is moving. Nothing is making noise. The game is playing off my experience as a gamer with implicit prompting. I know I should be seeing something or hearing something or feeling something so I equip my flashlight and turn it on. I move my character around until I find different types of prompts that inspires different types of input.
Alan Wake, master of the flashlight, sees a prompt straight ahead.
Beat 2: Input
Input is what the player must do in response to the prompt in order to maintain or advance their proximity to success. The player might need to dodge or cross some distance quickly. They might need to tap a button or hold a key or swivel a stick or scroll a mouse wheel or waggle a motion control. The player needs to do something. And that something is the input.
Input size is how long they have to react. The shape is what they must physically do as the reaction. The ratio of those two things–small to small, large to large, large to small–create very different feeling experiences. If I have a long time for a single button press, that feels more relaxed, more casual. If I have a short time to input a long string of commands, that feels tense and exciting. If the ratios are more even, that feels steady, reliable. Games set one of those ratios as their base-level and vary it to create more casual sequences and more exciting moments. That ebb and flow, those peaks and valleys, create a game’s pace.
A simple input string—like tapping one button one time—is best for basic actions. Tap the B button to do a single jump. Push up to take a step forward. Press the trigger to shoot. The core verbs of a game—the most basic character actions—have the simplest inputs. Conversely, holding down the right trigger while rotating the left analog stick and tapping X speaks to a complex action. It’s a lot of input to demand out of a player and it creates an even greater physical barrier to success. (Keep in mind accessibility: The greater the physical barrier, the more narrow the audience that can complete it.) This could be picking a lock or defusing a bomb or hotwiring a car or performing surgery. This type of action takes more time, requires more physical movement by the player, and demands more of the player’s attention. In most games, these are special actions for special moments.
You can push any button to punch or kick in Killer Instinct but pulling off special moves requires more.
Input options can vary, meaning the player has more than one positive action they can take in response to the prompt. If a reticle appears in the middle of the screen that tells them an enemy is targeting them, the player might be able to roll-dodge, get behind cover, pop a shield, or cast a spell that makes them invulnerable. All are equivalent options—all proper to the prompt—that take the player experience down a different branch (and provide a different player story when they share it with their friends).
Failing to respond to the prompt properly—by not taking any action or taking an action that’s inappropriate to the prompt—also happens and is, in its way, a type of input. Whether your input did the thing you want it to do is expressed via feedback.
Beat 3: Feedback
In the simplest terms, feedback confirms the input. The player fires their gun? A blast of fire shoots from the barrel of the weapon, a tracer draws a yellow-white line toward the target, and the number of ready rounds ticks down by one. The player ingests a speed booster? The avatar yells “I can hear color!” as a whirring noise builds up and motion lines fill the edge of the screen. The player misses a note in the big solo? They hear a sharp skrrzt and the virtual fretboard flashes red. Hey, hitting the wrong input requires feedback too.
Perform the motion as prompted in the lower right and the avatar in the middle mimics you. That’s feedback.
Feedback can be for a single action or a gestalt action built by multiple successful inputs. Combo meters are a classic example of a gestalt action. A combo meter ticking upward doesn’t just help to reinforce a single action but tells the players they have been successful numerous times in a row. This taps into player drive to not break their streak. So, in a way, it’s acting as a prompt or at least incentive (which is kind of an internal prompt).
DmC: Devil May Cry rewards successive actions with a big combo meter.
In games, players are taking two actions: a physical one and a virtual one. The physical one is pushing the button or pressing the key or clicking the mouse or waggling their arms in front of the motion sensor. The virtual action happens in-game. The avatar moves, the gun fires, the potion is consumed, the dancer takes position. Feedback tells the player their physical action successfully actuated a virtual one. Whether that action helped them, hurt them, or did a bit of both is conveyed via reaction.
Beat 4: Reaction
Reaction tells the player whether they did something right or wrong. Or, more accurately, whether they did something that moved them closer to or farther away from success. And also how they are moving in that direction: effectively, inefficiently, with fire, with poison, whatever. Green numbers flying off an armored target is a reaction. So is a bunch of red Xes pulsing at the point of impact. The first tells the player they’re doing damage which is really reducing the time the target is in its current state (possibly moving the target into an inert or “dead” state, possibly moving them into a more active, aggressive state). The second tells them their current input is ineffective toward that end.
(Feedback and reaction often blur together. They’re often grouped together. And a single icon, visual effect, audio stinger, or rumble can serve both functions. Combining the two should be a deliberate choice and you should be aware that two separate bits of information are being sent—even if they’re being sent in the same message.)
At its core, reaction is a thumbs up or a thumbs down. The shape of the reaction has a lot of vectors to exploit when it comes to visual language, audio angles, force feedback. You can be economical or elaborate, whatever sells the feedback in the right way. In the above example, yellow numbers popping off an enemy might say “yes, you’re doing damage but you’re not exploiting a weakness. A different attack type would be more effective.” White numbers might tell the player “this damage is from a previous action whose effect is persisting and still doing Damage Over Time.” A simple color change can say a whole lot to the player. When attempting to pull off a stunt in a snowboarding game, you may get a few claps from an unseen audience and see the words “NICE!” appear on the middle right. This tells you that you completed the stunt and got points but not as many points as you could have gotten if you did the various inputs more quickly or accurately. If you had, the crowd would’ve gone wild and you’d have seen the word “TUBULAR!” dance across the screen.
A reaction can be an enemy player de-rezzing. It can be the reveal of a critical clue in an adventure game. It can be a puzzle master telling us we did a good job. It can be a row of tetrominoes disappearing and the entire remaining wall shifting downward. It can be the audience cheering. A reaction can be a Level Cleared screen or a death animation or the final cutscene and the elation that follows. A reaction can be our health bar dropping to 10% and the feeling of our heartbeat quickening. It can be our gunfire going into overdrive and shooting forth a hellstorm of metal bits. It can a unicorn doing the coffee grinder while Tag Team’s “Whoomp! (There It Is)” plays at full volume.
More elaborate reactions add messaging that speaks to the efficacy of the action. They add a “therefore” to the statement that often acts as further prompts. The player destroys the Gigante Turret but three smaller Poco Droids spawn from the wreckage. The player was successful in taking out the big threat but now the player has to contend with three smaller ones! The player lands a critical jab causing a rival boxer to double over in pain. The game is telling the player they pulled off their attack but also created an opening for a Mega Jawbuster if they press the right buttons at the right time.
Ah, the sweet science.
On the flip side, failed inputs can create prompts for new, possibly higher priority actions you must take. You missed your shot and hit a gas can and now the wall is on fire! You flubbed a safecracking check and alerted the guards who will one-shot you if you don’t find a place to hide. You hit one mailbox too many, now your escape vehicle is on fire, and you have to find a new ride before your current one blows you to high heaven.
Big positive reactions feel like celebrations. A commentator shouting “Nice job!” The blaring of trumpets! A giant number flying off an enemy after a minute and a half of seeing only single digits pop off! They feel like the game giving you a high-five. Small reactions speak more softly. They’re positive but not excited. A quiet nod. Flat. Direct. Stern. No celebration. They say “You did it” but they’re followed by an implicit “Now, do it again.”
Big negative reactions feel like challenges. They push us to try again, do something different, be faster and smarter and to hit harder. Smaller ones convey that the failure wasn’t that big of a deal. We’ve hit a minor setback and can easily recover.
The reaction should be sized to the magnitude of the in-game effect. Their shape should build and buoy the emotion you want to elicit in the player. Positive reactions done well keep us moving forward. If they’re done poorly, we feel like we wasted our time or didn’t do something right even if we did the best thing possible. Negative reactions done poorly make us feel like we can’t win so we put the controller down or load up something else.
Positive reactions are ultimately the carrots we gamers chase—just as a negative reaction is the very thing we fear and what we curse when we miss that critical jump or Hail Mary pass. Reactions are the condemnation for our failure, the gentle arm on our shoulder telling us to try again, the obstacle egging us on. Reactions are getting the top score, clearing the challenge, toppling the boss, or simply reloading the gun in time to rush forward again. Reactions are the mocking of our defeat and the celebration of our victory.
The Peggle series, with its iconic character reactions, fireworks, and orchestral bombardment is, like, the king of player celebration.
Beat Balance
The balance of all this—and the ratio of prompt to input and of simple action to complex action and of abundance of reaction to level of input—along with how this is all visualized and contextualized crafts the player experience. Games are often defined by the relative size and subtlety of their prompts, the demands of their inputs, and severity of their reactions. This is what we are talking about when we talk about a game’s difficulty and balance. They are the lessons we must learn, the problems we must solve, and our avenues to mastery.
“Bullet hell” games have an abundance of prompts. Every single bullet, rocket, fireball, and explosion is a prompt saying “Move! Avoid! Get away!” And the player has to! And they have to do it quickly, repeatedly, and usually within a narrow safe area in order to survive. A single bullet might take them out of the game and force them to start from zero.
Less obvious messaging mixed with narrow input windows, and punishing reactions demand higher attention from the player and quicker response or else they will fail. Think of the tension that Dead Space builds by using diegetic UI. The use of subtle audio to direct players. The sudden appearance of prompts with narrow response windows as some creature lunges out of the shadow directly at Isaac’s face.
Action management games ask the player to balance multiple prompts that aren’t demanding on their own—each requiring fairly simple inputs—but the sheer number of prompts and how you prioritize and balance the time allotted creates the difficulty. If you’ve played Overcooked!, you know just how frustrating a simple plate of pasta can be while four other orders are stacked up, two burners are on fire, and your coop partner is apparently AFK and OMG ARE WE OUT OF CLEAN PLATES ARE YOU SERIOUS?!
Failing actions in Catastronauts creates more prompts that require more immediate and complex input.
Fewer prompts that require more demanding input speak to a slow game that requires higher mastery. Imagine a game that teaches calligraphy. Each challenge is a different series of glyphs. You have all the time in the world but your accuracy must be impeccable. Puzzle games are often this. I have spent numerous hours staring at the screen of my DS while I attempt to solve a puzzle in order to save some quaint European village from calamity.
Fewer prompts with less demanding input and bigger reaction speak to casual experiences. Hidden Object Games and those intended for a younger audience often fall under these setting. (I love me some HOG games, by the way.)
Final Thought
These beats don’t determine the gameplay. These beats apply to puzzles games, rhythm games, platformers, and shooters. They apply to roguelites, Metroidvanias, 4X titles, and tower defense games. These beats are the foundation of interactivity, no matter the gameplay genre. No matter if it’s a game or not. Open up your favorite streaming app and you’ll see the same principles applied. Same with your banking app. Or grocery app. Or that big screen in the middle of your car’s dashboard. The beats may not be presented in as elaborate a fashion as video games but they’re there. They are the key beats of interactivity. For anyone working in the field, recognizing them and mastering them is how you take control of defining the player experience. Tune the knobs correctly, create the right prompt, and you’ll get the reaction you’re aiming for.
(Images found from around the web with many taken from GameUIDatabase.com, an excellent source for messaging, UI, and UX analyses. No copyright infringement is intended.)
I warned you all that I have a lot of dream projects but, for real and for serious, if I had to name the one that gnaws on my brain like a caveman climbing a steep wall with his teeth, I’d have to go with video gaming’s number one Neanderthal, Bonk. Paleolithic super dude Bonk is a carnivorous caveman who solves all of life’s problems with his head. By bashing the problems with his head to be specific. He made his debut stateside on the much-beloved (by me) TurboGrafx-16 with the excellent Bonk’s Adventure.
Bonk’s big breakthrough.
I can’t fully explain why, out of everything I could have asked for, I chose the TurboGrafx-16 as my fifteenth birthday present. From Keith Courage to Legendary Axe to Bloody Wolf to JJ and Jeff, everything on the TG-16 felt exciting and new and kinda weird, and I was just drawn to it. Of course, I had no idea that, when I excitedly plugged in the console for the first time in August 1991, the TurboGrafx was already on its last legs and would go on clearance just a year later. (Though it meant I could and did grab the TurboGrafx-CD add-on for 20% of MSRP soon after which, in turn, meant I could play The Addams Family and Sherlock Holmes: Consulting Detective. Score.) The console’s creator, NEC, just couldn’t compete with the Sega Genesis and the Super Nintendo. I still loved the little black console with the little flat cartridges though and I played as much as I could. My absolute favorite game on it was Bonk’s Adventure.
Developed by the astoundingly long-standing Red Company and published by the sadly defunct Hudson Soft, Bonk’s Adventure is a side-scrolling action-platformer with a…familiar premise. A giant lizard-looking monarch (King Drool) kidnaps a pink-clad royal (Princess Za) and it’s up to our hero (Bonk) to rescue her. A competing concept the advertisements aimed for directly. Well, the US commercials did. I don’t know what’s happening in the Japanese one.
While the story is pretty copy/paste, the gameplay is not. Bonk’s primary attack employs his giant noggin which he uses to bash a variety of (literally) egg-headed dinos who have fallen under evil King Drool’s control. Bashing enemies is fun–whether you’re sauntering up to them to do a quick “how do you doink” or jumping into the air and coming down dome-first into their personal space. The way the baddies shake and shudder–and their eyes do that wibble-wobble thing when you smack into them–felt good. How a game rewards player input is huge to overall experience, people. Success alone is not enough. Celebrate the player’s success. Bonk’s Adventure knew this.
Look at those eyes wibbling and wobbling.
Bonk could level up his offense by indulging in some good old-fashioned meat-eating. Chomping on a carne collectible increases Bonk’s brainpower. The sudden influx of protein gives him the ability to shake the ground at the lowest level and, at the highest, gives our big-headed hero temporary invulnerability. Eating meat also brings out Bonk’s primal nature by pushing our prehistoric hero further to the left on the evolutionary scale. (Again, the developers know the value of visual feedback.) Some images of the (d)evolution:
In addition to the jump I’ve mentioned, Bonk also had a mid-air spin mechanic players could spam to keep the caveman airborne in a perpetual spiral. You did this to slow your descent, aim falls to collect power-ups, and get to weak points on larger enemies.
The world of Bonk’s Adventure is a colorful prehistoric land full of bright and bouncy flowers, erupting volcanoes, vines, ice shards, dancing cacti, and screen-filling bosses. Everything about this game made me happy then and still makes me happy now. I beat the entire game…I don’t even know how many times. It was, hands down, my Game of the Year 1991 and has remained in my top ten gaming memories ever since.
How much do I love Bonk? I have used his monster-mashin’ melon as my avatar at one time or another on every platform you can imagine. Look at my about page and tell me you don’t see the resemblance.
The original Bonk’s Adventure was followed by direct sequels Bonk’s Revenge and Bonk’s Big Adventure. The second alters Bonk’s abilities by allowing him to freeze enemies when under meat’s influence. The third gives Bonk the ability to alter his size so he can make himself an even bigger threat (zing!). Nintendo got ports of the TG-16 games and then an original called Super Bonk which had the caveman bopping through time. (This saw a Japan-only sequel.) The version of the original found its way to the arcades and, heck, mobile saw some Bonk releases all the way up to 2008. (Once again, only in Japan.) A sci-fi spinoff series of side-scrolling shooters, Air Zonk and Super Air Zonk: Rockabilly-Paradise, brought our bald-headed boy into the future as a cybernetic superdude with a lightning bolt hairpiece and some radical shades. I haven’t played all of these, to be fair, though I did play the main three and Air Zonk (when it was released on Virtual Console back in 2007 or so). Look, the cavedude had a moment. I recommend checking out Game Sack’s video about him over at YouTube.
The last drawing on the wall this series got was the announcement of Bonk: Brink of Extinction back in 2009. A cinematic trailer was released followed by a handful of screenshots where you see Bonk with an array of noggin-focused abilities from a fire head to a literal block head and even hair (!!!). The game promised a coop campaign as well as alternate play modes. Brink of Extinction looked like exactly what I wanted from a new Bonk and then some. I was so ready to play that game the moment it hit Xbox Live Arcade. Alas, the game was ultimately cancelled. A build made its way into the wild though and you can view some gameplay here.
Platformers are evergreen and are often stacked with other features, from masocore difficulty to roguelite progression to amped up physics. Platforming has basically become a mother sauce that inventive developers are adding all kinds of tasty new spices into. Bonk already has a super fun foundation that we haven’t seen iterated on in the years since. Given the chance, I know what I’d do to bring Bonk into the modern age. I’m dying to do so–and may even have a design doc that I dabble in now and then.
As with all these dream projects, this concept crosses my mind A LOT. I mean, I’ll just say it: UNIVERSE, I WANT TO MAKE A NEW BONK. Last I dug into it, Konami owned the rights but they’ve been focused on only a handful of their original IPs lately. Still though, never say never, I suppose. If I had the chance, I’d happily bash my head against that wall in hopes of busting through. Until then–or until some other lucky soul gets a chance–Bonk remains in the (pre)history books.
So I’m kicking off 2025 by talking about dream projects again. I’ve sung the praises of a couple modern game series previously with Army of Two and Sly Cooper but, for this one, I’m going back to the early days of gaming with an absolute all-time, Pitfall!
Gators and snakes and scorpions!
Designed by David Crane (who helped make the early life sim Little Computer People) and published by Activision, the original Pitfall! has so many interesting systems happening. The core objective is simple: take control of brave adventurer Pitfall Harry to navigate a treacherous map, avoid danger, and pick up treasure. Treasure gave you points and you had twenty minutes to get as many points as you could. Different treasures are worth a different amount of points and their placement is randomized—so you can’t memorize a best path. (I’ll get more into that soon.) Hazards and dangerous creatures abound. Sand pits, scorpions, fires, alligators, and more are eager to take one of Harry’s precious lives from him. But you can run, jump, swing on vines, jump on closed alligator mouths, and climb ladders to take shortcuts and get around challenges.
That gameplay alone—especially back then—would have been enough to hook most gamers. Whether you think of Indiana Jones or Tarzan, the idea of running through a hostile jungle filled with traps and creatures and bouncing on reptiles to get across water sounds pretty fantastic. The team added something truly special though: procedural screens. I won’t go into the details of why (though they’re pretty fascinating as a fan of early gaming history) but not only was animal and treasure and trap placement randomized, everything was. Well, proceduralized anyway. This write-up does a good job of breaking it down. The long and short is that, at a time when Adventure for the 2600 boasted 30 individual screens, Pitfall! shipped with 255 thanks to truly ingenious engineering.
In the decades since, the formula laid out in Pitfall! has gone in numerous directions. Tomb Raider, Uncharted, Spelunky, La Mulana, Temple Run, and countless other games drew inspiration from the escapades of Pitfall Harry but, as the game that laid out so many movement and enemy behavior standards, the entire platformer genre—from Super Mario, Alex Kidd, Bonk, and Sonic the Hedgehog and modern masterpieces like Super Meatboy and Celeste—owes a debt of gratitude as well.
Was Pitfall! successful? Did it spawn sequels? Did they make a portable version? Was the game ever turned into a Saturday Morning Cartoon? Let’s take a look.
This isn’t the history of Pitfall! though. It’s about what it means to me and what potential the game has for the modern era.
Pitfall! actually means a lot to me. I have vivid memories of playing the game on the Commodore 64. Pitfall! and Miner 2049er ate up more of my time on that machine than anything else. So I have an emotional connection. We all know though that nostalgia is not a business case.
Asking “does the world need a new Pitfall! game?” is a fair question. There have been many over the years. Lots of people have taken lots of runs at the game. And some major successes have come from that space (such as the aforementioned Spelunky). It stands to reason, since I’m writing this post, that I think there’s room for a new entry in the line.
From Dead Cells to Dungreed, from Noita to Neon Abyss to the games mentioned throughout this post already (do I have to mention Spelunky again?), roguelite action-platformers are an exciting (and popular!) genre. It’s one that I love playing and that I think has room for new ideas. Bringing in the classic Pitfall! elements along with some fun tweaks would make for a fantastic update that honors and advances the original. Activision is already juggling a lot of these days so I doubt an update to a forty-year old game is on the calendar but, man, I wish it was. I’d love the chance to make the case for it anyway.
I mean, maybe it’s just coincidence but Jack Black starred in a commercial for Pitfall! back in 1982 and then went on to global super stardom. Dude also starred in Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle and its sequel which are pretty much Pitfall! The Game: The Movie(s). So. I mean. C’mon.
From video gaming’s earliest days, designers have been imagining a dizzying array of worlds, play styles, and ways to entertain. From Pong to Zork to Adventure to Mega Man to Halo and far beyond, gaming has been a platform for interactive experiences across an array of design paradigms. Diversity in concept, from intimate narrative games to sprawling action epics to brain-twisting puzzle games to intense multiplayer battlers, has been a strength similar to other media but with an element of engagement unique to the medium.
I imagine some of the industry’s original luminaries could foresee a world when gamers around the globe were playing their creations together, in real time, sharing the experiences they made. But I wonder if any of those toiling in the digital mines forty years ago saw quite the world we live in today exactly how we live in it. A world always online, always connected in ways that are changing and evolving at an incredible pace. A world in which games are now played at home, on the go, from a couch or from a pocket! A world where all of that can be the same game! A world where playing one game can unlock goodies inside an entirely different game! A world where gamers have more options than ever before—with a dizzying amount of new games being released every single day. A world where some games are vying to be the only game that anyone ever plays.
I highly doubt Tōru Iwatani ever imagined his pizza-inspired maze runner would evolve into this.
Gaming and the internet have a love affair as old as time. I was playing games on dial-up bulletin boards when I was in junior high. I was connecting to friends to play the original Doom on my brother’s computer ages before you could play it on a calculator. But the advent of Xbox Live changed the rules of what playing online meant.
Friends lists gave me a convenient way to track those I wanted to play games with. Pairing up with friends for an online session became easier than ever. I could chat with friends while scrolling console settings before jumping into one game before loading up another. Achievements gave me carrots to chase that went beyond finishing level, defeating a boss, or getting a high score. I could easily update games with patches to fix issues or rebalance system and I could just as easily add content packs with new areas, game modes, characters, missions, and more. While other platforms followed suit, Xbox Live led the charge in hammering down a lot of boards upon which our modern house of gaming stands. (Fair note: MMOs played their role as well and have done so since the late 90s.)
Mobile and browser-based games, while often dismissed by “real gamers,” led innovations in free-to-play and community-based goals. You could start a farm for the cost of a Facebook login. Need 16 corn? Ask your friends. Friends aren’t playing? Invite them! Or befriend those who already are and build your online community. Don’t have time or don’t want more friends? Then you can circumvent the whole social aspect by dropping some real-world cash.
These ideas and others would eventually converge into what I call Forever Games. If you haven’t played one of these, you certainly have heard of them. Fortnite, Valorant, Overwatch, Destiny, and the newly-released Marvel Rivals all fit this bill. And while they may not want to be the only game you ever play, they are vying to dominate your investment—both time and money.
Forever Games are built around some simple but bold ideas:
They want to lower the barrier of entry so anyone can join.
They want you to play with your friends.
They want to offer a world that changes over time.
They want to offer rewards for engaging with their content.
They want to be the game you play forever.
They want to make money.
(Forever Games employ a lot of systems categorized under the “Games as a Service” umbrella but I don’t want to conflate the two. A game can have GaaS aspects without being a Forever Game but I’ll talk about that another time.)
Forever Games didn’t invent free-to-play but they often take advantage of it. If you have the hard drive space (or the bandwidth to stream it), you can play the game. Some games will gate characters or other elements to those who don’t chip in but you can play the game with zero monetary investment. Making access free fulfills the first bullet point and contributes significantly to the second. Love a game and want a friend to check it out? They can do so with no up-front cost.
These games want to be the place where you and your friends spend your time. They don’t want you at the movies, they want you playing the game. They don’t want you at the club, they want you playing the game. They want you to jump into Discord with your besties (or online streamer community), launch the game, and go. Chat, drink, eat, do whatever you want to parallel to gaming but continue gaming. Build camaraderie and enjoy the pleasure of shared experience inside their virtual world. Plus, the more people playing, the quicker lobbies fill and sessions launch—which minimizes a key frustration point for multiplayer games.
Matchmaking time—and thus time between sessions—can make or break player momentum.
Of course, no matter how big a game may be, game features lose shine over time. No one (well, very few) will play the same game over and over without something fundamental changing. So Forever Games add dynamic content. They change up the loot table so that different items, weapons, and gear drop during different playthroughs. They change the character balance and abilities to alter the meta and keep the community on their toes. They alter the literal playing field by adding new maps or map features. They add alternate modes that let you play with your toys in new ways. They do all of these as minor tweaks frequently, usually under the theme of a season or story arc. Then, when they introduce a new season or arc, they make major changes that really freshen things up. They also employ time-limited events where players must be butt-in-chair at specific times or miss out on exclusive drops or XP.
Forever Games wants you to know they see you, appreciate you, and want you to come back by offering rewards for your engaging with their content. They give you new cosmetics, XP to unlock perks, or currency for their in-game store. Even those who pay nothing will get tchotchkes for playing as a thank-you for filling out their lobby and keeping their concurrent user statistics above the line.
Because they want you to play this game forever. The game wants to be your lifelong buddy, your gaming bestie, and your favorite destination for online entertainment.
The game wants you to play it forever, of course, because the publisher and developer(s) need to make money. Not want, need. Games cost money to stand up and then require additional money to keep going. Without income from the player base, the line goes down and the game is shuttered. Developers used to get money from you by selling you their game once but the Forever Game paradigm requires something more. So, while the game is often free to play and gives you no-cost rewards for playing, it also offers a line of premium goods. Standalone items, bundles, and battle passes are all common wrappers for premium content. None of this is required to play the game. It doesn’t alter the game or create a “play to win” situation. But it speaks to something primal within us. Some developers employ psychologists and economists along with skilled designers to create systems that tap into needs and wants deep within us. And those developers who don’t employ such specialists are often building upon the work of those developers who did.
Not sure I’d trust Lucy to consult on your upcoming competitive looter-skater, Sir.
You can find lots of vitriol online about this but you won’t find that here. This model isn’t a flaw and, honestly, I don’t see it as predatory by nature (though it can be by execution). Buying Valorant once doesn’t fit what the game is. Its payment model—or something like it—is necessary for the game as designed. (Whether such a payment model leads the design or vice versa depends not only on the game but the individual design.) A pay-once model simply doesn’t support a game as big, as varied, and as evolving as Forever Games strive to be.
For those on top, this model pays bank. You don’t need me to tell you how much cash Fortnite is raking in. But Epic’s burgeoning metaverse is not the only game that longs to be your forever. Lots of Forever Games are competing for your attention and time. And more are coming. Some will be successful. But most will not draw the user base, will not lock in the monetization, and will not recuperate their development cost much less turn a profit and generate a revenue stream. Even with a gamer base in the millions, people only have so much time. Which Forever Games need, more than any other type of game.
My fear is that more and more pocketbook-holders, salivating over the potential of the next big Forever Game, will think chasing that dragon is the only path to success. My fear—one that is already being realized—is that mid-tier games will disappear as publishers only fund small projects and big gambles. My fear is that the only way us game developers will be able to pay our bills doing what we love will be in a torturous cycle of studios and projects booming and busting. (Another strong argument for work-from-home.)
I like cooperative experiences. I like playing through campaigns with friends. I like murking monsters in horde modes with a couple buddies. I like dropping on the map and almost getting the crown. I like shared experiences. I like repeatable experiences. I have played and liked quite a few Forever Games. I worked on Fortnite for three years and had a blast doing so. During that time, I contributed to Save the World, Battle Royale, LTMs, competitive, Creative, seasonal events, and there are a lot of store items out there with names and descriptions by yours truly. Both working at High Voltage and with Epic and all the modes I contributed to was a real good time. So this isn’t a hit-piece on Forever Games. These are my thoughts on why the prospect of competing in that space scares the shit out of me.
From my perspective, any game attempting to nudge into that space faces three incredibly difficult challenges—obstacles that exist outside the quality of the game. You can make a great game and still not succeed. We’ve seen it before. These are hurdles that any game faces, yes, but especially any game whose stock in trade is “I want to be your next hobby.” You have to have a damn good argument that overcomes three key player hurdles. Areas where players have invested and where you are asking them to start anew: their expertise, their friends, and their stuff.
Player Hurdle 1: Their Expertise
Gamers don’t need to know the meta or best strats or prime team composition to have expertise. They don’t need to consider themselves “good at the game.” They don’t need to get top frag every match. If they’ve played enough Fortnite or Valorant or Overwatch or Apex Legends, they have internalized aspects of that game they may not even realize. From intuitive navigation of the controls to immediate read of the items or abilities to an understanding of where locations can be found on the map, they have a familiarity with the game that provides comfort and lets them slip right into a session with minimal anxiety or neophobia.
If I’m releasing a new game, I am asking players to learn a lot of new things. New controls, yes, even if they are built on familiar or common schema. New characters who will move at a different pace than they’re used to. Who will have different ways to engaging with an environment that has unique ways of messaging interactivity. Is that big? If they’re a gamer, no. They’re probably used to it and, honestly, those variances are rarely significantly divergent. But the variance exists. What’s really big are the new items and abilities they must use. Those things are usually the grandest expressions of a game’s big ideas. Those items are how the game’s verbs are usually expressed the loudest. I’m asking player to learn what each character’s abilities do and how they should be used. I’m asking them to learn the range, accuracy, recoil, damage, and reload speed of each weapon. I’m asking them to learn the layouts, vantage points, and secrets of each map. Your average player may not consider themselves an expert at their favorite game but each one of them has expertise. Convincing them to start at (or close to) zero is your first hurdle.
Player Hurdle 2: Their Friends
If I’m trying to bring someone over to my Forever Game, I need their friends to come with them. So much of online gaming is comfort-driven and a huge part of that is playing with people you know and trust. Some online gaming communities are notoriously toxic which drives the so-called casuals—who are the majority of players—to come in as a group. Having people you like chatting in your ear—and not some sweaty comp-beast criticizing your every shot, yelling slurs and threats, and being a complete aggro ass—makes for a more pleasant gaming experience.
Sure, they can chat with their friends on a private server while they play two very different games but then they’re missing out on sharing that common experience which so much of multiplayer gaming offers.
If I’m releasing a new Forever Game, I don’t just have to sell to one person, I have to sell to their friends too. If I don’t, I may get a person’s attention for a little while but they will eventually go back to where their friends are.
Player Hurdle 3: Their Stuff
Finally, there’s the very real dread of starting over. If some has played a Forever Game long enough, they have earned skins, emotes, character options, guns, skills, perks, and all sorts of trophies that signify and celebrate the time spent and the successes had. Gamers open their locker or trunk and they see their stuff. Whether earned by doing or paid for with cash, gamers have accumulated a big ol’ pile of stuff that is theirs. Even if they only ever play the same character with the same skins and same weapons, they have their Tickle Trunk of goodies I know they still look at now and then. It reinforces a sense of accomplishment and tells the player, “You haven’t wasted your time! Look at the fun you had! Look at the stuff you got!”
If I’m releasing a new Forever Game, I’m asking gamers to start fresh. Even if I give them freebies, they have no emotional connection to them because they invested neither time nor money in them. Even if the stuff looks cool, even if the characters and weapons are from their favorite fandom, they don’t have the same deep down connection as they do to the weapon skin they got for completing some difficult set of challenges, getting first place for the first time, or being present when they helped blow up the enemy headquarters three seasons ago.
In Sum
Forever Games will continue to happen. And some will break through. Some will jump over the hurdles and wow the crowd and get the gold. Good. Forever Games, as a concept, are fine. But the math doesn’t work for a hundred of them to be successful. Even with a wide array of gameplay genres—and I can name RPGs, MOBAs, hero shooters, battle royales, and more without even pausing to think—there’s only so much time in the day. For one to rise, another must fall. The clock only has twelve numbers. And saying “well, yes, but OUR GAME is better and OUR GAME will succeed” is a real cool guy thing to say but can be horribly irresponsible in some situations.
As a fan, there’s an appeal to having more games get released. More games is more games! As someone who works in the industry, I’m not confident we need more Forever Games. It’s fine to have them. I’m happy that movies have a few cinematic universes out there but I don’t want to have invest a hundred hours into film and show lore so I can understand the subplot of the eighth episode of the latest tie-in series.
Games, gamers, and gaming need room to breathe. We need new ideas, new paradigms, new activities, new perspectives, and new experiences. We need a world where Forever Games exist but don’t have all the gravity. Where publishers, developers, and players are all investing in that truth. (Don’t think I don’t see you, indie devs and pubs. You are, for my money, the most exciting thing in gaming and you have my heart absolutely; this is an appeal for the Big Boys.)
I have a lot more thoughts on this—and on the concept of a metaverse where a game client is a portal to varied experiences that share currency and assets and all that—but I’ll wrap up this post instead of going down that rabbit hole.
Anyway. All this to say that the games industry is messy right now. I think pushing millions-into-billions all to chase the dream of Forever Games is doing a big disservice to the gaming industry across all sectors. The sooner we accept diversity is the way to prosperity, the better off we all will be. As a small cog in a massive machine, I can only let the titans fight and hope for the best. I just want to make cool games.
Adrift and uncertain, trying desperately to steer the ship to shore.
In many ways, the past few years have been wonderful to me. Far beyond my dreams, in fact. A newfound love, an ever-strengthening bond with my kids, new friends and family, and new opportunities all provided light to me after many many dark days. As a partner, I feel blessed. As a father, I feel proud. As a son, I feel lucky. As a creative, I feel…unfulfilled.
And I am, for good or ill, a creative through and through. I have tried to quiet the drive–and it will dull to a whisper for a while–but it never rests for long and it comes back with ferocity. It is a part of me that I cannot deny. Instead, I must own. I must accept this inexorable truth: I have to create.
I have to. Whether it’s making powerpoints for projects that will never happen or stubbing ideas into a Google doc or writing up blog posts or drafting orphan paragraphs or prototyping simple video game concepts, I have to make stuff.
I’m fortunate to make my living by doing what I love and what I’m best at. I have been working in video games–as a writer, as a designer, as a creative lead–for coming on 20 years. (It will be exactly 20 years on January 3rd of next year.)
As of this writing, I have numerous concepts swirling in my head. I have a novel at about 55% completion with many others at lesser levels of completion along with a veritable ocean of whatabouts and whatifs. I have a day job making video games. Still, I need more.
I know “creative satisfaction” is a cryptid. I know the goalpost of “I made it!” is ever-shifting. Like a certain determined coyote, I have fallen off many ledges, run into numerous cliffsides, and been flattened by countless trains in my pursuit of the Road Runner named “The Next Best Thing.” I am not pursuing the new for new’s sake. What is lacking in my creative self is putting something out there that I truly own and love. What’s also lacking–what’s far more important–is a sense of security.
I don’t feel secure. Sitting here, staring into the waning days of 2024, at the curvature of 2025 just ahead, my veins run cold with dread. I’m 48 years old. I feel unprepared financially for the future. The weight of past mistakes hunches my shoulders. My neck and back ache from this ever-present fear that the floor could give way at any moment. I am not James Gunn. I am not Leigh Whannel. I am not R.L. Stine. I am not Tim Schafer. I am not Sid Meier. I am not Your Favorite Creative. I am not a name many people have ever heard of.
Which is all fine. I mean, I’ve had the opportunities. I’ve had the years. I’ve had the same chances to do similar things to achieve similar success. And it didn’t happen for me. In all likelihood, it will never “happen” for me. I’ll remain like most creatives: doing the work I can on the opportunities afforded to me. I’m not bitter. If anything, I’m a bit disappointed (in myself) and I’m a bit scared.
I’m disappointed in myself because I can recall entire years where I had windows of time that I spent in a stupor. Yes, I was processing trauma and depression and myriad other mental health issues–but I was wallowing in it. I wasn’t trying to get through or get better. I was sitting on my couch, staring at social, and going nowhere. Prior–decades prior–I had youth and energy and wasted years talking but not doing. Dreaming but not trying. Hoping but not reaching.
I’m scared because I haven’t truly processed what being 48 means. I’m young to the old and old to the young, yeah yeah yeah. I have more time behind me than, reasonably, I have ahead of me. If I’m not over the hill, I’m certainly at the top and looking down. The sand in the hourglass is heavier at the bottom than the top. I’m afraid I’ll never feel fulfilled in this regard. Long gone are the wide eyes of youth. My vision is narrowed, concentrated, and I’m asking myself over and over “How?”
My only path to security is my creativity. I lack the skills or interest in creating the hot new gadget everybody needs. No shark in any tank is going to give me $3.5m for 35% stake in some health food company I found. The movement of money–stocks and hedges and all that capitalist machinery–confounds me. I have the talents I have. I have good ideas that I can execute well. I have good ideas. Hey–I have plenty of bad ideas too. But I have good ones. A few excellent ones even. I can execute them well. I don’t always do so but I can.
So I stand at the fork and the many paths ahead and wonder “which way do I go?” All seem exciting. All seem equally achievable (which is to say “equally unachievable”). I only have so much time though. How do I dedicate it? I can only make so much. What do I make?
How do I know which road leads to home?
Robert Frost knew what was up.
I want to make at least one video game that I truly own and love before I die. I want to walk into a bookstore and see my novel on its shelves. I want to not shake for a moment before I open a new bill. I want to not feel the stone in my heart when I imagine my golden years. That’s what I want. Those two things.
A video game that I am fully and completely proud to show the world and go “I made this.”
A want a novel to prove to myself that, yes, twelve-year old me wasn’t delusional. I do have what it takes.
But which video game? Which novel? My head is nothing if not creative static.
I work hard to shove aside the thousand different concepts rushing around my noggin. I am instead focusing on just a few. A project with my eldest child. And a novel I started back in 2019 that I’m working on finishing. Those are my writing pursuits.
The video game one is trickier. The industry is in weird shape. I hesitate to say it’s in bad shape–it’s not in good shape from a developer perspective to be clear–so I’ll stick with weird. The middle tier of gaming is basically gone. Indie is a big risk. Not indie seems, somehow, like a bigger risk. I also have less control of that. So that’s undetermined at this point. All I can say is that I’m going to keep leaning in, giving my all, and we shall see what happens.
Will either provide the sense of security my soul is screaming for? I only control the “make something good” part of that. The rest is reliant on things far beyond my control. But I can and will do what I do. I’ll work hard, I’ll finish, I’ll hold the work up to a standard. The rest I must leave in other hands.
Just so you don’t think I have lost perspective here, I know, of all the things in life, if one must have uncertainty, this is the one. I want my loved ones happy and healthy. I want love and laughter and longevity. But I cannot ignore the part of me that aches. The part that occupies my thoughts as I lay in bed each night. The part that lets me breathe when I look down the road of inevitable landscape.
I will be updating this site as milestones are hit. Should anything move with significance, I’ll paste it up here. I’ve already written up a handful of Dream Project articles for the new year so I hope folks show up for those. They’re fun to write. They help get the ideas out of my head and into the world plus they’re good exercise–just as this post right here is.
2024 was, overall, a very good year. The important parts were good which is really what matters. Obviously, I wish there had been more but that’s on me. So here’s to making sure I hold up my end in 2025. See you all then. Have happy holidays and I hope this next year is your very best yet.
I spoke last week about dream projects and my desire to reboot Army of Two. As I said then, that beloved bro-op shooter isn’t the only game series I’d love to bring back into the light. Another one that sits very high on the perch is Sly Cooper.
This iconic anti-hero is more of a treasure panda than a trash panda.
Set in a world of anthropomorphic animals, the original Sly Cooper follows the titular character—a raccoon thief who comes from a long line of such—and his buddies, Bentley the super smart turtle and Murray, a lovable hippo with more muscle than brainpower. As the series evolved, more characters—many playable—were added including love interest and foil Carmelita Fox, a police detective, and a veritable gaze of Sly’s ancestors.
Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus kicked off the series in 2002. Developed by the excellent Sucker Punch and published by Sony, it was—for obvious reasons—a PlayStation 2 exclusive. (This fact lent considerable weight when I later made the decision to jump into that console generation.) Players took on the role of the three main characters as Sly sets out to retrieve the pages of the thievius raccoonus, his family’s handbook on all things thieving, from a cadre of villains including a crafty bullfrog, a powerlifting bulldog, a mystic alligator, a fire-flinging panda, and the half-machine/half-owl head of the Fiendish Five, Clockwerk.
The game introduced the core gameplay of sneaking around good-sized maps, thwacking heavies with your crook, and picking the pockets of unsuspecting guards. Mission to mission, you revisit these maps, exploring new areas, confronting new challenges, and finding precious collectibles. The mix of enemies and opportunities—and that iconic “sneaky noise”—laid down a great formula on how to make a game about stealing stuff.
The game spawned three sequels. Band of Thieves and Honor Among Thieves quickly followed on the PlayStation 2. These games built on the origin with bigger maps, more abilities, and an escalating threat. The games were ported to the PlayStation 3 as the Sly Collectionin 2010. The final game, Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time, capped off the series three years later on for that same system as well as the Vita. (The main character also got a Funko POP! which isn’t, like, rare these days but it still real cool and, yes of course, I have one.)
Filled with tight stealth gameplay, bright and beautiful art direction, complex but sensible level design, whimsical dialogue, brilliant sound design, and great voice acting, the Sly Cooper series is an easy recommendation.
What’s not so easy is finding them. A few years ago, I signed up for the top PlayStation Plus tier just so I could play Thieves in Time. At least I didn’t have to break into some mechanical bird’s stronghold to grab a copy.
The Sly Cooper series blends the best of comic book thieving with afternoon cartoon visuals. Sly, Bentley, and Murray are a perfect trio in their attitudes as well as aptitudes. From sneaking into well-guarded fortresses to protecting Murray as he tries to get into top secret areas to hacking datafortresses as a digitized turtle, the games offered up a nice variety of gameplay. As new characters were added into the series, you employed new skills in new levels against bigger and badder challenges. The games had a clear vision of their strengths and built on them with each installment.
Sly Cooper is a colorful, fun, all ages stealth-action game featuring anthropomorphic creatures straight out of a cartoon and it is prime for a comeback. Not to be immodest but I think I have a pretty cool angle for just such a venture. It’s a concept I’ve dabbled with numerous times over the years because even playing make-believe in that world makes me happy. Unfortunately, I’ve never been able to make the connections necessary to have the conversations you need to have to make something like that happen.
Rumors of a Sly Cooper 5 have popped up numerous times over the years with no official confirmation. I hope Sly gets a chance to return. Obviously, I would love to be involved—this is a dream project after all—but I’d be happy just to play. I’ll take any opportunity to jump back into a world that stole my heart over twenty years ago.