Kye Harris GAT 21 September 28,

2009

Opposites Attract: Game Comparison

Stable vs. Unstable: Mirror’s Edge (EA, 2008)

I think Mirror’s Edge serves as an interesting subject for discussing

stable versus unstable game systems. Quick review: Mirror’s Edge puts the
player in control of a “Runner,” Faith, jumping from roof to roof, dashing
through buildings, and constantly trying to run from, or having to engage,
cops. Faith is not armed and is not built for combat, though she can manage
some quick punch combos or flying kicks to knock-out opponents. The goal,
regardless, is to avoid hostiles as much as possible and make it from point A
to point B as quickly as possible. Her opponents, the cops, have numbers,
guns, and occasionally helicopters at their disposal and the sole intent of
killing her.
So what makes Mirror’s Edge an interesting subject here? Well,
according to the above description the game is stable. Anything Faith can do
she can do from the moment the tutorial level is complete; Faith’s health,
power, and speed do not change; no HUD elements or button commands are
ever added. Furthermore, what the cops, the enemies, can do does not
change much throughout the course of the game. They have guns that they
shoot at you with – sometimes it’s an SMG, sometimes it’s a sniper rifle. But

Copyright © 2009, DigiPen (USA) Corp.

Kye Harris GAT 21 September 28,
2009

they can’t pick up ammo or health packs or skills during battle. Bottom line:
once a character shows up, that character does not change mechanics in any
way for its existence in the world. This explanation pins Mirror’s Edge as
stable to a T.
Then Faith runs into a cop, does a quick maneuver, and knocks the guy
out while taking his gun. Now Faith has an SMG; now Faith has an added
power. This new Faith is not afraid of cops and cops do not overpower Faith.
The world is suddenly unstable. Taking a step further, the world, to the
player, now feels balanced because the player can now fight with the enemy
on the enemy’s level.
What’s the problem here? Once Faith gets a gun, the game feels
balanced. With an SMG, the player feels like he or she can fight off the cops
that pinned Faith rather than panicking and promptly dying. (Note that
promptly dying is a primary theme in Mirror’s Edge. It happens a lot.) If the
game is balanced when Faith has a gun, then is it unbalanced when Faith
does not have a gun? This would mean that the mechanics are balanced
around an armed Faith, but Faith doesn’t start any levels with a gun – the
player has to engage in combat and pull off a timed button press in order to
procure a firearm. The most common state that the player is in is an
unarmed state. Does this mean that the player is most commonly at a
disadvantage? That’s bad design. On the other hand, the game is beatable
without ever using a firearm. This would suggest the game is balanced
around an unarmed Faith, but would imply that the game becomes
unbalanced, though in the player’s favor, once Faith is armed. This would,
I’d think, be more desirable since the theme of the game is running. The
point is to avoid combat through speed and acrobatics – parkour is the
proper term, I think.
The issue here is the confusion. Is the game balanced around an
armed or an unarmed avatar. Balance around the player not having a gun,
since this is the default state, is more desirable. However, the game feels
much more playable and balanced when the player has procured a weapon.

Copyright © 2009, DigiPen (USA) Corp.

Kye Harris GAT 21 September 28,
2009

I suspect that the designers intended the game to be balanced in the latter
way (with a gun) and I think this primarily because completing the title
without a gun is an explicit achievement. If this is the case, I think they were
mistaken.
Taking a moment, let’s look at similar unstable game: Super Mario
Bros. On the surface, Super Mario Bros. is stable: the mechanics are run and
jump and the ability to do these things does not change for the entirety of
the experience. The game would be playable like this; the game is balanced
and designed for this. However, the game world provides power-ups that
instantly change everything. What could beat Mario just as quickly as Mario
could be it now has half the strength (Super Mushrooms); when before the
player had to make contact to remove an obstacle, now it can be done from
across the screen (Fire Flower). The world is a less threatening place in an
instant and the player feels empowered. When that power goes away, the
player, at first, may panic thinking that his chance of survival has been lost,
but then he remembers that the playing field has only been leveled, reset.
The difference between these two is determined entirely by how the
player feels. In Super Mario Bros., I feel like I have, in every level, a valid
chance to win without a power-up. In Mirror’s Edge, there are many times
when I feel that I cannot win without taking a gun from one of the enemies.
And a “no power-up” achievement would still be very applicable for Super
Mario Bros.
What would I do about it? I’d either look at the numbers and decrease
the power of the guns (not the best way to handle it) or find some way to
give Faith a bit more of an edge – a little more oomph or a bit more stamina.
The alternative is, if the designers want the game’s combat balanced with a
firearm, then give the player a chance to get a firearm without having to go
through combat. Leave a pistol or an SMG on the ground outside the room
with big combat. This doesn’t have to happen every time, just for tenser
scenes. This also still gives the player the choice of having a firearm or not.

Copyright © 2009, DigiPen (USA) Corp.

Kye Harris GAT 21 September 28,
2009

Balanced vs. Unbalanced: Metroid Prime

The Metroid games are well-known for expansive worlds full of power-
ups to find. For the most part, these power-ups simply provide Samus Aran,
the avatar and protagonist, with more power and abilities in a linear fashion.
Samus’s ability goes up only, never branching. However, Metroid Prime
dares something a bit different. In Metroid Prime, unlike the other titles in
the series, beam weapons are acquired and used separately. Effectively,
each beam is a new gun, though all are used for offense, aside from some
instances of puzzle-solving. Each gun also has its own properties and uses:
the Power Beam shoots faster; the Wave Beam can stun and home-in; the
Ice Beam can freeze; the Plasma Beam incinerates.
The Plasma Beam is obtained last in the game and for good reason.
This fiery beam is easily the most powerful in combat – a charged shot can
instantly immolate any standard enemy. This suggests the beam weapons
are rather obviously unbalanced. Once the Plasma Beam is obtained, there
is seldom a reason to not use it always. Occassionally enemies or puzzles
will show up forcing the use of another beam. So, the Plasma Beam isn’t the
be-all-end-all of weapons. Since the other beams are still necessary, are
they not, then, balanced? Maybe.

Copyright © 2009, DigiPen (USA) Corp.

Kye Harris GAT 21 September 28,
2009

I argue that the beams are unbalanced, still, simply because the player
sees no reason to use any other beam besides the Plasma Beam unless
otherwise explicitly forced to. The Plasma Beam is preferred and is hands-
down the best in combat (unless it doesn’t work, of course). This preference
creates a weight towards the Plasma Beam, therefore unbalancing the
weapons.
Do we care, though, whether the weapons are technically unbalanced
or balanced? Metroid Prime is a fantastic game, no doubt. It all depends on
the player’s experience. If the weapons are unbalanced due to a preference
for one over the others, that preference affects the player’s interaction with
the world: he or she wants to use the Plasma Beam. “This gun rocks!” But
then the player is forced to swap to the much weaker Wave Beam and what
happens? “Aw, this gun sucks.” The pistol is great early game, but once you
have a shotgun you don’t want to think about the pistol again.
I believe that this was known, and mostly intended, by the designers.
They intended each weapon to have its own uses defined by strengths and
weaknesses each has. They intended the Plasma Beam to be more powerful.
I don’t think they intended this unbalanced feel that resulted.
This feel was fixed in Metroid Prime 3: Corruption where all beams
were one. In Corruption, each new weapon stacked on top of the previous
weapon. The Plasma Beam replaced the Power Beam while maintaining all
of the Power Beam’s properties necessary for combat or puzzle-solving. With
this, players never had to worry about switching back to the pistol – only
upgrading linearly as in the previous games.

Copyright © 2009, DigiPen (USA) Corp.

Kye Harris GAT 21 September 28,
2009

Symmetric vs. Asymmetric: Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance

(Intelligent Systems, 2005)

Fire Emblem is a game which represents war. When units die, they’re
gone. It’s power and tactics pit against one another. What’s the easiest way
to show power on the battlefield? Numbers. 30 against 10 is pretty steep
and very intimidating. In Fire Emblem, however, it’s not unheard of to take
12 against 50 and win.
Symmetry is easy to notice and understand: 5 equals 5; one side looks
like others; I have what you have only. This is symmetry. 4 against 12 is not
symmetry. This logic makes Fire Emblem’s scenarios seem incredibly
weighted and unfair. The enemy army is always larger than the player army.
In Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance, in fact, the second level in the game puts
4 against 10. In spite of this, the fight doesn’t seem unfair. These scenarios
are very much winnable. In fact, some of the hardest battles in Fire Emblem
games are the “symmetric” ones, not the steeply “asymmetric” fights. Why?
4 against 12 is asymmetrical unless each of the 1’s in the 4,
individually, are equal to 3 from the 12. 1 equals 3? In some cases of the
games, actually, it feels more like 1 equals 5 or 6. Ike, the lead character in
Path of Radiance, in later levels, can easily take on five enemies. It makes
since: one Goomba is not equal to one Koopa or one Bullet Bill; Batman is not

Copyright © 2009, DigiPen (USA) Corp.

Kye Harris GAT 21 September 28,
2009

equal to “Thug #2.” So, by creating asymmetrical army sizes, the army
powers are made symmetrical since the player’s characters are more
powerful heroes. Occasionally this falls apart because not all player-
controlled characters are equal. Some are weaker or stronger than others,
meaning some scenarios can, due to the player’s unknowing choice, are
made asymmetrical, being weighted against the player. As stated above,
the one-on-one fights are very difficult because the boss is usually stronger
than the player’s character. Or the two are equally matched and the bout is
based on luck or effectively predetermined. Neither instance is particularly
fun. 12 guys beating 50, though? Now that’s a blast.
I think it’s quite apparent that this contrast of looking asymmetric and
feeling symmetric was intended. The designers must have spent a large
amount of time making sure this balanced out correctly. It makes the player
feel empowered, taking on the wave and overcoming the odds. I’m sure
they intended the player to look at the enemy and feel like he needs a
miracle to win, but still knowing, thanks to previous experiences in the game,
that he can win. It’s a delicate system that teeters back and forth
throughout each scenario until it finally tips and tumbles in one direction,
delivering the victory.

Copyright © 2009, DigiPen (USA) Corp.