Posts Tagged ea
Jason Rohrer Gets a Job, and the Bitching Begins
Posted by The Management in miscellaneous on June 18, 2009

Jason Rohrer made a big name for himself at the gamma 256 event with the release of Passage. It was a great use of the videogame medium, conveying a message and evoking emotions. It also created enough mainstream buzz to garner Jason a very interesting article in Esquire. His humble and spiritual lifestyle made him an indie darling, and no one very few people dared to say anything negative about him.
Not too many people seemed to notice that Jason wasn’t just a gentle “hippie” developer, though. For example, his article on non-randomized, “infinitely replayable” single-player games was a cold, hard look at game mechanics. The piece was almost an antithesis to the game that made him famous, showcasing his range as a designer.
In recent days, it was announced that Jason would be joining Tool, an advertising agency. At first glance, this seemed like a good fit. Jason has proven himself a very creative individual, capable of using a medium in unique and unexplored ways. Logically speaking, this makes him a potentially great fit for advertising, and kudos to Tool for recognizing it.
However, what I failed to initially grasp is that this also makes him a sellout.
The grumbling in the indie community has already begun, with the most notable bit coming from auntie pixelante. On her Twitter feed, Anna posted these three consecutive messages:
“http://bit.ly/TOOLROHRER jason rohrer your parents are rich you don’t have to sell out. i’m sure TOOL will be a good fit for you though”
““i see video games not as addicting time-wasters, but…tools for communication and expression” you’re going to make ads for fucking verizon”
“jason rohrer won’t plug in a refrigerator for fear of killing chinese children but he apparently has no qualms about selling refrigerators.”
Really?
OK, let’s break down this vitriol a bit:
- First of all, glad to know some of us are not above the low-hanging fruit that is calling Jason Rohrer a sellout by referencing “TOOL,” the name of his new employer.
- How is not mooching off your parents a bad thing?
- What does Verizon have to do with Jason’s view of videogames?
- Where is it stated that Jason will be creating ads for refrigerators? Isn’t that a bit presumptuous? Also, when did he state that ridding the world of refrigerators was his life goal? Maybe he’s just someone who follows his own personal beliefs without shoving them down the throats of others?
I mean, isn’t this all just a bit silly? The guy has made a modest living off of creating small — and for the most part — freeware games. Obviously the donations he received for these titles have not kept him financially secure. Wanting to improve his monetary situation, he’s found a gig at a company that seems to value his skill-set. The details of this job are unknown, and Jason has not stated anything about the future of his games.
And yet, this is enough to crucify him?
Seriously, get off your high-horse people and stop shitting on a talented guy who’s done nothing but try to enrich the culture you hold so dear.
3 on 3 NHL Arcade Bits
Posted by The Management in games on May 25, 2009

I’m a big fan of hockey, and I’ve usually really enjoyed EA’s NHL series. I’ve even spent an embarrassing amount of time with the PC modding community that sprang up around the various NHL titles.
The modders not only updated the games with new textures and roster packs, but also with tweaks to the various statistics and physics settings. These included roughly 1000 players with 25+ stats each, and another 40+ variable game settings. I was particularly fond of Trent’s roster pack and suggested game settings. Using it, the checking became heavily based on velocities, the puck no longer bounced around like a rubber ball, and, most importantly, every player’s acceleration value was severely reduced providing a proper momentum-based breakaway mechanic with a nice risk/reward factor.
Now 3 on 3 NHL Arcade tries to be the opposite of a simulation — after all, “Arcade” is in its title — but, surprisingly, it falls somewhere in the middle between these two distinct approaches.
Its good (and bad) bits:
- The game features quick, 3 on 3 player matches (not including the goalies) in shortened shortened rings where the middle part is roughly cut in half.
- Goofy voice-overs accompany the UI with “Swooosh!” and “Click!” constantly sounding off as you navigate the menus. This approach is extended to the game as well with klaxons and cow bells playing in response to in-game actions such as hitting the post.
- The bobblehead visuals are a fairly iconic look that fits the game quite well.
- There are 36 forwards and defensemen to choose from, and 4 goalies. Considering these are real players — although not always the stars — it’s a bit surprising that EA didn’t use the NHL license to its full extent. There are no teams, and the game doesn’t remember which players you picked, forcing you to scroll through the whole list every time you want to change the lineup. What’s worse is that this scrolling is pretty slow and doesn’t wrap-around, i.e., when you get to Henrik Zetterberg, you can’t simply press down to skip to Nikolai Antropov. Personally I would’ve much preferred an NBA Jam like approach where you simply select a team and its star players, and also have the ability to save custom “All-Star” lineups.
- Each player falls into one of three categories: fast, strong or all around. This is reminiscent of Ice Hockey for the NES, but provides even less variety. The differences between fast and all around are negligible, and it’s impossible to tell the two apart.
- Much like in NBA Jam, there’s no turbo button, although a speed increase can be attained through a powerup.
- The powerups are pretty varied and are dispensed by hitting players from the opposing team. What’s interesting here is that if you knock a powerup out of an opposing player, only you can pick it up (and vice-versa). Unfortunately, this ownership is not explained anywhere, and it’s only indicators are small circular outlines (red for the red team and blue for the blue team) that are pretty difficult to spot. This mechanic does encourage aggressive play, though, and it creates a back-and-forth as defending players are more likely to obtain new powerups.
- There are no penalties or the usual game stoppages, e.g., offside, icing, high-stick, etc. This provides a nice flow, and power-play/penalty-kill modifiers are dynamically initiated by collecting the Freeze powerup.
- Since the game is an offshoot of EA’s annual NHL titles, stick controls are included, i.e., utilizing the right thumbstick to simulate actual movement of a player’s stick. I’m not sure this is a wise decision, though, as it makes the game feel more like a simulation instead of an arcade experience with clear-cut states.
- Physics actually play a big role in the game, also much to the detriment of the arcadish feel. Players behave as if they were like-charged magnets, harmlessly bouncing off of each other without any satisfying effects. Checking is better in scrums, but it’s extremely difficult to catch someone with a good hit (partly due to the high skating speed) unless they’re coming straight at you.
- Passing is fairly difficult, with little to no automatic assist. Also, I can’t count the number of times I made a perfect pass only to watch it slide right through the receiver. Even in simulation games passing isn’t this finicky, and it proves extremely frustrating when trying to set up one-timers. The goalies are even worse as it’s virtually impossible to pass the puck as a goalie. I’m assuming this is to force more turn-overs, but it’s so bad that I found myself simply dumping the puck to the sides and hoping one of my players would get there first.
- For some reason, moves such as the shot-block are not explicitly indicated in the button-controls setup. You can use them in the game, but, unlike the stick-controls setup, they’re purposefully (and perplexingly) omitted from the controller diagram.
- Once a goal is scored, the puck is quickly dropped behind the net. This is a nice feature that keeps the game going instead of stopping the action for faceoffs.
- For an arcade game, there’s a distinct lack of glass breaking, door benches being swung in, player fighting, etc. This might’ve been intentional in order to get a friendly ESRB rating, but the game suffers due to the lack of such effects.
- The selected-player indicator is a small triangle superimposed over the player’s head. When the selected player has the puck it’s a bright colour, but fades as he loses it. Once again, this is a fairly poor solution as it’s hard to make out, especially in a crowd where it becomes impossible to spot your selected player.
Time4Cat and Indie Tech Demos
Posted by The Management in games on February 22, 2009
I think the first time I saw time-rewinding in a videogame was in one of EA’s NHL titles back in the 16-bit era. Granted it wasn’t a vital part of the game — just a way to view replays — but it’s worth mentioning. No one really thought of tying it deeper into gameplay until Prince of Persia: Sands of Time rolled around. SoT not only presented the concept in an attractive wrapping, but also made it a crucial part of its gameplay and storytelling.
Then, of course, there was Braid.
I was a bit sceptical about Braid at first. It was getting lots of attention from the indie community after only a short demo that showcased a rewinding mechanic very similar to that of SoT. In the end, though, Braid turned out to be so much more. It tied numerous time-manipulation concepts into one of the most interesting and unique games to be released in the last couple of years.
As a result, it’s not too surprising that smaller-scale games have begun to pop up and try to experiment with similar concepts. Which brings us to Time4Cat.
It’s a relatively simple, single-screen game where the player’s mouse cursor is a cat. Moving the cat around sets random pedestrians in motion, while holding the mouse still stops them in their tracks. The main point of the game is to gather up leftovers that spawn on the playing field but don’t follow the cat-moving time mechanic; wait too long, and the leftovers disappear. Power-ups also sporadically show up and can aid you in not touching any of the pedestrians (which results in a game over screen).
It’s a casual experience reminiscent of Braid’s fourth world, but it’s not nearly as well executed. The reason for this is that it’s simply not tied into much of a game.
In Braid, the Time and Place world was a theme in a larger story, and its time mechanic was central to solving its puzzles. In addition, really good audio and visual effects accompanied the time manipulation (a particularly nice touch was the music playing normally when walking right, rewinding when walking left, and nothing playing while the player stood still). Being part of a larger game also meant that it had a role in its pacing and could be used to reference other parts of a larger experience, i.e., reusing the by-then familiar Donkey Kong level with an all new toolset.
Now Time4Cat and similar titles don’t have to shoot for the scope of Braid, but they’d benefit from being more complete games. After all, proof-of-concept tech demos tend to be forgettable (Tower of Goo), but well executed games are not (World of Goo).

The FOV in Mirror’s Edge
Posted by The Management in design on February 2, 2009
The pros and cons of Mirror’s Edge have been debated time and time again, but there hasn’t been much talk about its FOV.
In order to simulate a sans peripheral, stereoscopic view, FPS games tend to use a 90 degree window. The FOV in Mirror’s Edge, however, seems to be smaller. This might’ve been a result of wanting to achieve a more personal, zoomed-in feeling and a cleaner, flatter look (a smaller FOV tends to flatten the perspective of the projected image), but was it really necessary?
Now don’t get me wrong, DICE has created some really impressive visual effects in Mirror’s Edge. The motion blur, camera movement, body positioning and reactions, etc. were all a large jump ahead of the usual FPS fare where disembodied, chest-level cameras are a standard. Still, why shorten the FOV? After all, it tends to exaggerate camera movement which can lead to motion sickness, something that DICE had battled throughout the game’s development.
I myself never got motion sickness playing Mirror’s Edge, but the FOV still bugged me. Why? Well, at times it made everything seem too cramped up. Now this isn’t really noticable when overlooking a large vista, but it becomes quite apparent in tight hallways or in areas without an expansive view of the horizon. In a game that’s supposed to embody the spirit of parkour, it often caused me to feel boxed in and not adequately aware of my surroundings — probably not the sensation DICE intended.
Also — and this is completely unrelated — more of the music in Mirror’s Edge should’ve been as good as the title theme.










