Sometimes I can touch Game Design with my finger

by | 1 Comment

Sometimes I can distinctly FEEL it. I can sink my teeth into it. It’s meaty.

It happened in the case of the quote from Jpoku (here below, and I repeat it’s a wonderfully “pure” design lesson) and it happened again in a discussion on Oscuro’s mod.

You can read all of it here, or just this quote:

Let me say this bluntly. The concept of “rarity” in a single player game is STUPID. Because rarity can be perceived only if you play through a number of times to appreciate the differences. It works on games like Diablo because these games are relatively empty of content and the fun is to rinse and repeat. But in a game like Oblivion what truly matters is the “one time through”. And the design goal is to make this one time through as the very BEST possible. So you don’t allow random dice rolls to fuck the game. You don’t allow the “best of the worlds possible” to be generated in one between millions of cases. Instead you take that best case and make absolutely sure that it happens in the exact same way on everyone else’s computer.

Posted in: Uncategorized |

Mmorpg game design emergency: do something

by | Leave a comment

I was writing on F13 that the natural growth over time of Vanguard’s subscriptions will fall sooner compared to similar titles:

A side effect of an “hardcore” game is that it will age worse. The subscribers growth will fall sooner.

In WoW the solo friendly design helped the longevity a lot because the game is built so that you can have a good experience even if you aren’t part of the initial “rush” on the server. The fun experience is well preserved.

Vanguard will probably have a much harder time to grow subscribers in the mid/long term as the grind when there aren’t players around will feel much harsher. Being more “group friendly” makes the game vulnerable to lack of players, off-peaks and so on. The longer leveling curve will also build much bigger gaps and it will take ages for a new player to join his friends and play together.

These kinds of barriers are overlooked RIGHT NOW. But I’m sure they’ll become a major factor later on.

This is part of a bigger picture. The majority of the games out there and in development are showing obvious needs, the players are exposing them. These are cues that must be understood now. There must be answers at least to those problem that the majority of these games are showing.

So this is a design discussion common to ALL these games, not about a specific one. Game designers are LATE on providing valid alternatives and answers. I don’t consider “being innovative” giving a strong, valid answer to these main problems, but if this industry must proceed through incremental improvements then at least let’s DO SOMETHING. Narrow down some very simple and essential problems and tackle at least those. Define some strict goals that are *proven* as valid.

From my perspective these three are the priorities. The design principles to work toward even before the preliminary work on game design started:

1- Server structure. Brandon Reinhart recently wrote how “the fundamental server architecture has an impact on the game in a very real, money-in-the-pocket, subscribers-on-the-line kind of way”, as I also did a number of times in the past. Mmorpgs should develop as FIRST PRIORITY a flexible server structure that balances the server load, population and PvP factions, while avoiding to build barriers between players. For me this means “server travel” as a basic, exposed mechanic built in the game. I don’t care about the implementation. But your game MUST remove barriers between players, must let them meet together easily. If there are barriers these MUST be passable. Permeable. So if there are barriers they must be temporary. The “sharding” should never be a cage to separate players permanently.

2- Game structure. Let’s build games as worlds that can live and flourish. Let’s develop systems well connected between each other, with a solid function. And let’s develop them so that the whole structure is well developed and maintained, so that the game doesn’t become stale for new players who finish confined in forgotten and deserted parts of the game. A new player when starting the game should be presented with a vibrant, lively, active world and community. Not an abandoned zone. The game should be considered and developed cohesively, not just focusing on the last segment of a linear development scheme. Not toward a dispersive drift that will necessarily bring to a decline. Let’s not build these games so that they can be easily replaced, let’s build them so that they become solid structures on which you can capitalize. Solid foundations on which you continue to build and improve. Not castles of cards. Not perpetuating mistakes just so you can fuel and hype unnecessary sequels.

3- Remove gaps and barriers that prevent players to have fun together. Instead of FORCING grouping, let’s make grouping not a chore. Let’s keep the power differential between new and veteran players narrow so that they can join their friends, play and have fun within the first hours in the game, right as they are comfortable doing so after they learnt the ropes of the game. And not after months of grind/work. Let’s build a structure of the game to keep the community together and focused instead of scattered along an infinite treadmill. And let’s give player’s classes flexibility (for example directly through class switching and alternate paths, without having to relog new characters) so that a group can be put together quickly without having to waste time waiting for a specific class, letting players ADAPT their characters to the group.

These aren’t vague and abstract principles. These are founding values. These aren’t game “wishes” aimed toward a specific game or preference. These are actual EMERGENCIES in all today’s mmorpgs.

Design priorities. Everything else is subordinate. Setting, combat system, gameplay, these are all secondary. There may be millions of different and valid answers to those three problems. But we MUST provide answers to them. I don’t care what the answers are (mines or someone else’s), but I do care that they are aimed there.

So, dev people out there, lets agree on these basic principles and do something to start moving in that direction? Let’s at least have the will to go there.

More on Vanguard and world design

by | 11 Comments

Not trying to vehemently bash Vanguard, just explaining better what I mean for decent “world design”.

Since people say I’m deliberately picking horrid screenshots to ridicule Vanguard (the truth is that I picked those that illustrate better my point), here’s a good looking one that still shows what I pointed out. A lack of world design. There’s this bumpmap effect applied to all the terrain everywhere but it seems that the textures themselves are random noise patterns with a varied hue.

The lack of “world design” isn’t the fact that there aren’t many objects visible. But that those that there are, like the boulder, the fence and the tents, seem all completely estranged from the environment.

How would it look if there was an at least passable world design? It’s not that hard. The lines (textures) between objects shouldn’t look so definite. The areas around the tents should have probably used a different texture that shows there’s activity in that place and the sand near the fence would surely look different. Since there’s water, a possibility of high tide, along with the fact that the sand is soft, that big boulder would have likely sank more in the sand creating a hollow in the area, maybe even a small pond. And I also doubt that a cliff so close to the water would look like that and the same for the transition between the rock area and the beach.

EDIT: Credit to Jpoku for a much better “reading” of the scene (and this is a very good design lesson):

the connectivity is poor for whatever reason. It just doesn’t feel as alive. The fence, gate’s and tents look like they are about to fall down. The sea creature looks like it has just fallen out of the sky and landed on the ground rather than having led there for ages. Also someone could just swim round that fence. What’s it defending against? No signs of it being a real barricade. WoW here would have supplies behind the fence, strong supports holding it up. On the other side there would be bits of broken wood, swords or corpses (like a fight has happened there so a fence is needed)

Another example. If in the real world you make objects on the terrain invisible, you would still see many evident cues that something WAS there. Now imagine to remove all those objects you see in the screenshot. Well, There would be no sign at all that something was there. The terrain would look uniform.

Vanguard world design is this: a fractal terrain generator on which were then dropped with no real logic a number of trees, rocks and buildings of various type. It’s the opposite of an organic world design.

In general there’s always a glaring clash between the terrain and the objects/models. As if things were photoshopped into the scene. It gives a very “false” feeling (and this is the result half of the art quality of the textures and half the graphic render they coded, which sucks. See Black & White 2 for a terrain render that looks amazing).

Now take these other examples:

1- Transitions. Can you see how in this case the transition between the beach, the grass and then the rock areas is much smoother and organic (dithering aside)? And how the result is a believable, immersive scenery?

2- Detail. Notice how the terrain is painted to have some kind of trailing effect near the wooden planks, as if some water dribbled around them. Imagine to remove these planks and the terrain would still reflect that something was there.

Now go and see if you can find in Vanguard a similar example. WoW can deliver some organic scenery even with an empty landscape. In Vanguard the terrain looks as if it was colored with the airbrush in MS Paint.

Try to walk along the coast in Westfall and you’ll see plenty of wooden planks, barrels, tree trunks, shipwrecks and so on. That’s world design.

Please understand that this isn’t a Vanguard vs WoW. I’m just pointing out one of Vanguard’s flaws and using WoW because it offers descriptive examples of good world design.

And consider that I’m pointing out only one tiny aspect of what I consider world design, just because it was the easiest to explain. I hope it illustrates better the kind of point of view from where my comments were coming.

P.S.
I know very little of “world design” and I doubt I could do a better work, I don’t have any practice with it. But I see something that looks amazing and then something that feels like crap. What I do is just to ask myself why. I try to analyze and dig what I see and try to understand what makes the difference. So I’m trying to learn by myself. I compare things to learn the differences. It’s not simple but I expect that those who actually ARE WORKING in the game industry know these things I’m trying to teach myself.

Judging games in five minutes

by | 12 Comments

I usually don’t need more than 5-10 minutes to know if a game is going to be bad or good.

This may sound very, very pretentious, but it works for me. It’s not something that I’m writing on a blog to impress, but it’s valid in my case. I don’t need more than 5-10 minutes to know if I’m going to like a game or not. You can ask me 10 hours later if I was right or not, I would probably have a lot more to say, more precise and reliable opinions and critics to make, but my general impression would be mostly unchanged.

Now the point is that I don’t think this is odd. I don’t think it’s my own thing. I think instead this is the NORM.

The real point is that in the first few minutes you expose already a good 80% of the game. The real point is that what required a large group of devs and constant work for years WILL BE spoiled in those five minutes. The great majority of it. Scary but true.

In sport games this is rather evident. You can just launch a quick match and at the end of those five minutes you would have experienced already the majority of the game. Gameplay, flow, interface, controls, art, animations, responsiveness and so on. But the same is valid for every game type. God of War is a masterpiece from the very first minute. It doesn’t take you more than 5 minutes to figure out it’s a masterpiece. Actually five minutes are too much because right after the first three zombies and the first flourish you are already loving controls, animations, camera and the flawless fluidity of it all. Oblivion may be a different case, you need more than five minutes just because you need to get out of the starting dungeon. But as you are finally out, you still need no more than 5 minutes to have a very good idea of the game.

Usually when I launch a game the first thing I do is skip the movies (if I can), and go straight in the options. Looking at the options already tells you a whole lot about the game. Giving a look at the controls completes this. Then you start to play. Just the first impact, the very first few seconds and you have already the interface, controls, graphic, the engine. All these aspects require years of work, but once they are ready and refined they all happen at the same time. Right away.

Today I can already have a good idea of a game by looking at a screenshot. I can see already the type of engine, its power, the art style and quality, maybe the UI and maybe guess the gameplay. I can even see the quality of the animations. You cannot figure out the movement, but the postures can already tell you a lot.

This is why people wait for screenshots. In a second you expose the game. It’s a very important test.

What Shild wrote about Vanguard and the “first impression” made me think. Because I don’t think it’s a problem of “creating an engaging experience from the first moment you log in”. It’s not a problem of presentation. The first five minutes aren’t important because the experience may “bias” your opinion about the game, the point is that those initial five minutes are the PEAK OF FUN in the whole game. The whole impact with a new game is the best part. If the game fails to amaze you on the first impact, then it never will.

So my guess is that it’s not a problem of “reaching the fun”. Shild could force himself to play the game for another twenty hours before writing down his opinion. What I’m sure about is that if he didn’t like the game right away, then his opinion just isn’t going to change.

The original discovery, the first impact is what matters because what you see is already the majority of the game. The game can go on then for 10 hours, 20, 50 or 100 and more. But all those hours will be *variations* on what you see in those first five minutes. And aside exceptional cases you aren’t going to like those millions of variations if you didn’t like the original one.

I think this is valid for everyone. The most fun you get out of the new game is when you boot it for the first time and a whole new world opens to your eyes. The rest is a drift.

—
Specifically about Vanguard. Use this screenshot as an example.

I’m not pointing to the damage bug (lol!) but the world design. Imho Vanguard is about on the same level of DAoC when it was first released. One thing that always sucked in DAoC is world design. The art quality improved with the time, but the world design remained pretty much mediocre. I like a more realistic style, but Vanguard is ugly and empty. It lacks personality.

Brad publicizes the game focusing on the word “immersion”. That’s good because that’s something absolutely fundamental. I would have the exact same founding principle if I was working on a game. Long clip range, seamless huge world. The problem is that the principle is badly executed.

The players continue to talk about in-game settings, ini config files, hardware. Instead I ask you to give a look to the screenshot I linked.

I don’t know at what settings that screenshot was taken, but I doubt that the configuration or hardware can change the essence of what you can see there. The textures may get crisper, you may see further away, but the point is that the world is empty. Featureless. It completely lacks “world design”. This isn’t going to magically change by moving up a slider in the options. You can see far away and in some cases you have these huge, fancy buildings far away. Impressive skylines. But all this space is not filled with something worthwhile. It lacks consistence. It’s just an envelope with nothing within. There are these huge spaces with featureless terrain and one texture patterned everywhere. These aren’t places carefully handcrafted that are going to be interesting to visit and walk through. The scale of things is awesome, but the player’s perspective SUCKS. Vanguard is supposed to be the explorator-type dream. But the world design is so lackluster that there’s not much to see.

It’s empty, unfinished, ugly.

Look at this particular screenshot from WoW. See the tank on the left and the trail it leaves behind on the whole image? This is an example of a detail that you don’t easily notice from the player’s perspective, but it suddenly becomes evident when you are flying on a gryphon. WoW is built exceptionally from this point of view (and WoW is an unquestionable masterpiece of world design, there’s no competition), it’s built to please both from the eagle-eye perspective, with these impressive, imposing environments and details that can be truly appreciated when you look at them from way back, as well from the ground level with a carefully crafted world in every tiniest detail.

You cannot tell me it’s a matter of taste. If I didn’t know something like this was coming from Vanguard then I would mistake it for one of those amateurish, immature mmorpg engines. Not a recent major release that is expected to be loved by hundreds of thousands of players.

And that’s the EXACT opposite of immersion.

This is a quote from someone commenting NWN2 toolset:

Within days of starting to use the new toolset, I found myself actively noticing many more things about the natural world. How the reeds were growing only at the edges of a pond, but not in it. The way grass leading up to a heavily wooded area doesn’t just stop, but transitions from heavy growth to sparse shoots to nothing at all. How dirt trails and roads aren’t all one color, shape, or height. The way cobblestone in the ‘historic’ portion of the city was uneven and not of uniform color. The reason? For the first time, I had a toolset that was capable of reproducing these things.

THIS is immersion.

Posted in: Uncategorized |

Systemic games

by | 3 Comments

Tarn Adams posted a very fun graph.

It shows the development plan for Dwarf Fortress. The letters can be tracked from this page (I think). Green is “bloat”, light blue is core components, the rest I don’t know.

I’m pointing this out because that’s how things look when you build a systemic game. I wrote many times about this, opposing this scheme to a linear game. In this case all the elements have a precise role within the system. There’s no mudflation. And there’s lot of depth and interaction between all the elements. This builds a virtual and immersive world and it’s a model completely different from the linear games where what you do can be organized in a simple, one-directional sequence (consumed content).

Mmorpgs could of course learn more than one thing from this, because it’s a much more efficient model to use. And because the result is a game world planned to last for as long you desire without never becoming old and keep growing without alienating new and veteran players. A good place to be now and in the longer term.

His plans on the future of Dwarf Fortress are extremely cool:

After grinding away at temperature for a while, it’s time for a change of pace. The previous Future of the Fortress has been put on hiatus — the relevant material is still part of Core42, Core43 and Req96. Now we’re going to add armies.

There are a few goals. The first is to get overland civs to dislike each other, raise armies and destroy or capture each others cities. The next is to get them to do this to you in dwarf mode, rather than having them generate armies on top of you periodically. The third goal is to let you raise armies from your fortress and attack them. Adventurers will be able to be present during army battles, or be present in towns when unfortunate circumstances arise, but they won’t be able to affiliate with armies until later.

To achieve these goals, a few new items are up on dev: Core44, Core45, Core46 and Core47. Core44 and Core47, overland migrants and cleaning of worthless historical figures, are required to keep the world alive when wars start decreasing populations. Core45 and Core46 are the actual mechanics of starting wars, raising armies and attacking other armies and towns. The dwarf mode part was already established in Core26 (now narrowed) and Core27. The bulk of information formerly in Core26 is present in the Army Arc and will be re-Core’d as new goals come up.

Since the ability to send out patrols is linked to the Baron, I’ll add an option to keep the economy off so you don’t have to worry about the current issues that arise when you get the Bookkeeper. Sending out patrols sooner might be considered when it would matter. Right now the primary reason to send out armies would be to halt invasions from kobolds and goblins (or to attack the elves), which you won’t be worrying about or accomplishing until you have more dwarves. Because the armies used to attack you would actually be raised from the populations of the attacking civilizations (Core26), your attacks will have tangible effects on invasions (not that you need to worry if you are just crushing them with a drawbridge, but that’s a side issue). Whether or not the current pace of the game is maintained depends on the effectiveness of repopulation efforts (Core44) — these are adjustable so any problems can be corrected.

I want a Dwarf Fortress online.

Posted in: Uncategorized |

Vanguard day

by | 6 Comments

Woot! Five days without writing. I CAN resist!

Now, in honor of Vanguard’s launch, here’s my view.

—
I expect Vanguard to perform worse then EQ2 in the mid term, not because of game design, but because of execution. Bad production choices, bad focus, bad UI, bad engine, bad art, bad models and animations etc…

Bad pretty much down to the little things. Bad for example in something that shouldn’t be all that hard to achieve in a AAA title: fonts.

What saved EQ2 was the obstinacy and dedication of its devs. Despite the horrible premises the game improved considerably. It required time and work. I doubt Sigil will do the same, especially when Brad McQuaid was already talking about their second and third mmorpg when Vanguard wasn’t even in beta.

In the case I’m right and the game won’t perform well, I blame Brad for bad direction first, not for bad game design. I see the popular “hardcore vs casual” debate as secondary in this case.

The awful premises of EQ2 equal pretty much the bad premises of Vanguard. I don’t think Sigil will match the dedication of EQ2’s team, so this is why I believe it will perform worse. I had NO faith even in EQ2’s team, so this doesn’t mean that also the Vanguard guys cannot prove me wrong. We’ll see. At the same time I also think the two games will compete against each other and I just don’t see enough space for both. Either EQ2 or Vanguard will have to withdraw. It’s not a good scenario.

From a more general point of view I don’t think that having many MMO titles is going to payback, especially in the longer term. The increasing competition will contract the market and push the most strong titles. I don’t see as a very smart plan to disperse your resources too much. I think SOE should instead focus on fewer things and try *harder than ever*. This was already proven true when with EQ2 they decided to make less expansions and make them more polishes and well-rounded.

Scott Hartsman confirmed that the choice had a very positive impact. I believe the same principle is valid for SOE as a whole.

—
On the forums I see Darniaq and Geldon defending Vanguard rabidly (and in a few cases not even objectively), I respect and value their ideas, but I have to say they have terrible taste with games ;)

Now a few quotes. Haemish:

I’m pretty sure that no matter how many subscriptions VG gets, we’ll never hear a straight, true number of subscribers out of SOE anyway unless that number beats WoW.

Which it won’t.

What’s relevant is how profitable is VG, and those numbers we’ll never get. The rest is dick-waving for press releases, and I’m pretty sure the milimeter beater that will be VG’s subscriber numbers won’t be the subject of a press release. We might get the “X number of VG boxes sold!” back-patting press release, but that’s about it.

And Shild:

That’s exactly it. There’s nothing left to rant about in any way. If these fuckers don’t even want to try to create an engaging experience from the first moment you log in, then fuck’em. These people are never, ever, ever going to learn. And when I say these people, I mean MMOG devs. No one wants to think outside the goddamn box, and the people that do think outside the box almost never create any sort of cohesive experience. I realize f13 started off pretty MMOG-centric, and I realize I used to be a lot more tolerant of MMOGs. But it’s just not worth the expulsion of any sort of energy anymore. The most any shitty game is going to get out of me is some obscure joke and a photoshop. I just don’t have the sort of time to waste that I used to have on this sort of shit. There’s too many good games. When a _good_, from the get-go, MMOG comes out, I’ll gladly come back and talk about it ad nauseum. But until then? Meh. Waste of customer’s money. Waste of development money. Just a big waste of money. Want something positive? I’m sure there’s lots of good people at these companies, and I’m glad they have jobs. The videogame industry is a harsh place and those people are the glue that keeps it together. Too bad QA doesn’t get paid enough to have the cajones to call something as they see it. When that happens, we might see some positive change.

Posted in: Uncategorized | Tagged:

The collection quests

by | 3 Comments

The “collection quests” (meaning those that require you to loot “x” objects that may or may not drop) are a quest type that is often criticized by everyone because it feels grindy and frustrating. Many also wonder why they just don’t all get replaced with the more straightforward kill-quests.

I don’t think that collect quests are bad but the players don’t like them. Still I believe these types of quests shouldn’t be removed as they fill a different role than simple kill quests. They should be tweaked, though.

While playing in WoW’s Outlands and even the starting zones I noticed plenty of quests that weren’t well balanced. In particular those that require you to collect different kinds of items are usually badly balanced. Often there is one object type that is ALL OVER THE PLACE, while the other much more rare. This tends to feel frustrating.

The point is: it’s not the quest type to be bad, it’s the balance. The quest type just exposes the quest to this vulnerability.

Rule for collection quest and non-grindy gameplay: It’s ok till you don’t push players to kill respawns.

That pretty much guarantees that a collect quest is a good one. It also feels better from the point of view of the immersion. “Respawn” is a workaround mechanic to refresh the world, but it should be as invisible as possible from the player’s perspective. In the case of collect quests the “respawn” becomes an ACTIVE mechanisms of the quest itself. This is all kinds of WRONG.

As an example, one of the first quests in the Outlands (Alliance side, but I guess mirrored even for Horde) asks you to collect 12 badges from the fel orcs in Zeth’Gor. The place is big enough, but with just a few players around and about a 50% (or less) chance of getting the badges you’ll HAVE TO kill respawns at some point. In my case I killed the orc in the forge five times before I was able to complete the quests. This is grindy. Players should be presented new challenges, even with minimal variations, but at least some. If I have to kill the exact same mob, in the exact same location, then the game starts to feel grindy. And I shouldn’t be put in the condition for this to be required.

This is bad. A quests that makes you kill respawns is bad. It’s a very simple rule. And in the classic game there are more than one quests where not only it happens that you kill respawns, but in some cases YOU HAVE TO. As there aren’t enough mobs to complete the quests if you don’t wait for respawns. It even happens that you exterminate a zone, but the quest requirements still aren’t complete (concrete example: it happened me two days ago collecting venom sacks in Stonetalon near the lake).

Come on. This kind of balance and game design is very easy to understand and to execute. WoW could use some tuning. It’s not hard.

Gaming Hegemony

by | 3 Comments

Many don’t see this as a very strong phenomenon.

Since Penny Arcade made a comics about it (can I direct link?):

Gabe keeps coming into the Goddamn office with his Goddamn tales of high adventure, telling me about how there’s tokens or some shit in Burning Crusade now, or maybe tiers, and other words I had scoured from my consciousness. He also says there is hot new five-man content, which initially sounded like pornography. The comic is correct – I purchased it in a moment of weakness. As I must often approach you, the cherished reader, to apologize for this or that indiscretion, it may be more appropriate to say that I have moments of strength which are suspended in cowardice and moral decay.

I’m going to repeat something I wrote on Q23:

—
The game doesn’t end when you log out. It’s like when there’s a huge release and Q23 is filled with threads. The desire to participate grows on you.

It happens even with TV series. Everyone talks everywhere about “Lost”, so the curiosity rises as well the desire to participate in those discussions. It’s a social thing. And after some point these mass successes influence A LOT how you’ll approach them.

Everyone is in love with something and then you’ll likely approach the thing with a very positive attitude.

It’s about processes of inclusion. You want to play the bigger game and be part of a big community. If you play a game no one knows then you cannot talk with anyone about it and are excluded from every discussion. You are marginalized. While instead people like to melt with the mass and feel like a group.

There was a big movie on TV and the day after everyone is talking about it. But you didn’t watch it and feel left out.

Or you go to school and all your friends talk of WoW. And if you don’t play it you are excluded from that group and just feel envious of them.

Then five years pass and you finally get WoW. To your eyes it’s the best thing EVAR. So you go to school all excited to give them the announce: “Hey guys! I bought WoW it’s AWESOME! We can play together now!” And they go: “What? WoW? Oh that, we stopped playing a year ago. It’s ANCIENT. Now we play this other new game that is SUPERCOOL, has realistic graphic, badass combat…” And suddenly that wonderful WoW in your hands isn’t anymore all that awesome and you are back at envying them.

There are kids who *cry* to no end because all their friends are doing (or have) something that they want TOO. No matter if they really want it. Everyone has it, so they want it as well to not be left “out”.

You can call it hegemony. After something grows past a certain point, then the stone keeps rolling on its own. It’s an inclusive phenomenon. It has the power to influence everyone.

P.S.
And if you don’t play a game while it’s its “momentum” then you’ll have far less fun (lag excluded). I assure you.

Posted in: Uncategorized |

Age of Mythology

by | 1 Comment

I’m currently reading all that Marvel and DC have published in the last few years. It is taking a while but I’m reading some excellent stuff. I’m not one of those nostalgic readers who say that nothing will ever be as good as what we had. The style surely changed, but this is definitely an excellent moment for comics. Great artists, great writers. Sometimes you have to wade through some crap, but overall I’m having fun as a kid.

Still today Marvel is definitely ahead and still “connects” and “marvels” a lot more than DC. DC is more detached and abstract, a bit more classic. While Marvel really connects with our world. Comics could never be more actual than today.

Marvel still lives on the original, simple principle: super heroes with super problems. This is a very basic and distinct difference. Marvel has always been about the man behind the mask, while DC has always been about the mask. A DC mask can be worn by different characters. The mask, as a concept, persists. It’s abstract. While the “actor” can change. So DC is more about the essence of the mask, while Marvel has always been about the man, his problems, his life. Then sublimated to the level of the mask. The mask is only a modality.

This is why mutants became a predominant sub-universe. They connect to the readers and they connect to some essential symbols. If you are a comics reader you know how classic super-heroes like Captain America or the Fantastic Four are considered much differently from mutants. This may sound as an odd idea because both save the world, both have super-powers. So what’s the difference? The difference is that mutants are a mutation of a DNA code, you born as a mutant, while other super-heroes acquire their powers. Spider-man was bitten by a radioactive spider for example, he isn’t a mutant.

In the Marvel universe the difference goes beyond this superficial level. Classic heroes are celebrated. Mutants are FEARED. That’s the point. But why? Mutants are popular because of what they represent. Because of their symbol. It’s not a case that mutant powers manifest during adolescence. Adolescence is also the “commercial target” of comics and this is the first type of “connection”. The adolescence is also a critical moment in the life of everyone.

But why the fear? Because mutant powers manifest abruptly. Sometimes they explode out of control and they can become disasters. There are victims. One of the most awesome cycles I’m reading is Buffy’s Joss Whedon on Astonishing X-men. It’s really a masterpiece. What could happen if we find a cure for mutants? That simple idea is piercing. It goes right to the heart. If being a mutant is seen as a disease then there may be a cure. But this isn’t just a choice of the mutant. This is a choice of all the people. It’s a way to defend themselves. To defend from the monsters.

Mutants have always been the representation of racism. Yes, you can learn from comics. But you don’t read the superficial, apparent level. You learn what’s below. The shades of grey. The real conflicts that aren’t distinctly black or white. Comics go way past the appearance. What if we find the cure for gay and lesbians? Are these even diseases? Curses?

Mutants not only represent the “different”. But they are a DANGEROUS, menacing different. And that mobilizes people a lot more effectively. You aren’t left indifferent. The interesting point is that this overall theme is not anymore a mutant exclusive, but it’s becoming a leading one throughout the whole Marvel universe. Civil War (the latest crossover). I just finished to read “Illuminati”. It’s another masterpiece. But on the exact same line is the Mark Millar cycle on Spider-man (the one with Venom’s death, Osborne etc..).

Today, in our real world, the problem of “security” is the main one. How far you are willingly to go? How much freedom you are willingly to trade in the name of security? And who watches the Watchmen? We don’t know exactly from what or who, we are scared by everything, even ourselves. So I’m reading comics, but on comics I’m reading the exact same thing that you find on newspapers every day. With the difference than in a comics it is purged of all the frills and presented in all its metaphorical essence. And this is strong, because we don’t live a real life. As human beings we live of symbols.

Our world gives only importance to the conscious, the superficial level (tip of the iceberg) only because it’s the only part that the society can “transform” to its use. That can be influenced, conformed. While the symbols are mysterious, uncontrollable, fervent. And in the same way in Bendis’ “Illuminati” special, they recognize their role (in a very “meta” way):

The big themes of our world are fought by our heroes. They are metaphorical figures. They are both our conscience and our nightmares. Exactly as greek mythology was archetypal of that culture (and today geniuses like James Hillman study human psychology as a form of myth – archetypal psychology).

Reading comics today is like assisting a mass psychotherapy of an entire culture. And it’s damn fun.

Posted in: Uncategorized | Tagged: