A Closer Look - Permanence and Decision Making in Video Games
A couple of weeks ago I was reading a very interesting round-table discussion in the October issue of Edge magazine concerning the role of traditional narrative and the author in modern video games. At one point they touched upon games trying to impose a sense of permanence upon the gamer’s decisions, and they highlighted an individual, his name escapes me, who decided to play Far Cry 2 with permanent death, i.e. if he died, it was permanent game over. This got me thinking about ways in which games attempt to impose a sense of irreversibility onto the player, and as an extension of that, decision making in games (sorry for the meandering nature of this post, things kept popping to mind!).
I can imagine, and am slightly intrigued by the thought of revisiting a game while applying a sense of finality. Taking the Far Cry 2 example, which I have completed, dying many times in the process, I can see how this would add an entirely new dimension to the game. You would creep around every corner, exercise caution where you would usually just run in blindly, and spend a lot of time running away around the nearest corner to pull bullets out of your body. Writing it out, it doesn’t sound like as much fun as I initially thought!
MMORPG have long exhibited a near absolute sense of finality in gamer decisions. Aside from resetting your character, there are few ways to undo your choices, as game data is saved on the server and is not user malleable. However, games such as Final Fantasy XI are not entirely narrative driven. Although a decision may effect the direction or growth of your character, it’s not liable to lead to an end game narrative outcome.
A sense of permanence and divergent choices are nothing new in console gaming. Chrono Trigger is a perfect example of a title well ahead of its time that presented options that would effect how the narrative played out. The way it pressed you to carefully consider your next move was both exhilarating but also worrisome. I played Chrono Trigger for the first time earlier this year on the DS, and I’m not ashamed to admit that in an attempt to achieve a “good” ending I found myself constantly referring to online game guides, which did dampen the experience somewhat.
Dead Rising, which plays out in pseudo real-time, is a good example of a game which features an irreversible narrative littered with choices. Story arcs start and finish within a limited time period, and if you don’t act upon them within the given time, those characters and story lines are fed to the zombies. Much like Chrono Trigger, I embraced the fact that this game world was constantly moving forward, and I didn’t have the power to completely control it, yet at the same time I felt like I was missing out on vast chunks of the intended experience.
Going back a little further, Metal Gear Solid successfully added weight to actions and choices. Your decision to endure or give into torture dictated the fates of two of your closest allies, although you were not made aware of this at the time. Going into the game with knowledge of this twist presented a dilemma of who to save, but by now any fan of the MGS series would know that both the characters in question re-appear alive and well in subsequent instalments. In most cases, any real degree of finality in outcome-defining choices is lost when there is a direct sequel. Only one result can truly be cannon, and thus any sense of power bestowed upon the gamer is merely a carefully constructed illusion. Besides, you would probably just make the wrong choice and fuck things up for the sequel. But, the forthcoming Mass Effect 2 is set to buck this trend by taking game-to-game permanence to a new level. Apparently, game saves, and more importantly, decisions made during the first game are transferable and directly affect the characters and narrative of the sequel.
Another upcoming title that is set to challenge the idea of final and divergent narrative paths is Heavy Rain. The director has voiced his desire that gamers only play through once, in the hope that it will provide all decisions with a real sense of permanence. If your actions lead to the death of a character, that event will shape the narrative and ultimately affect, and make unique, your time with Heavy Rain. To me, this seems to go against one of the key aspects of video games; being an infinitely recyclable experience.
Personally, I do enjoy games where your actions carry consequences and decisions weigh heavy, but just not too heavy. I think most gamers embrace the fact that decisions can be re-made, cherishing the ability to erase their mistakes. I think it would be very dreary and unappealing to play a game too grounded in reality, where every action carries a consequence that is out of our hands. If we want to manipulate our games to introduce a degree of finality, just like the Far Cry 2 example, then that’s great. But it’s a decision best left to the player, not dictated by a developer who only wants us to experience their game once.
Mistakes, or unwanted decisions, are inevitably a load or a checkpoint away from being reversed. I enjoy the illusion of my gaming choices carrying meaning, but I can rest safe in the knowledge that it is, after all, just a game, and unlike real-life, most things are reversible. That is, as long as your’ game saves aren’t corrupted, because then you’re screwed.
ODDS & ENDS
Anyone seen the first Assassin’s Creed Lineage short? Ubisoft are releasing a series of short films created by the effects house behind 300 and Sin City, to coincide with the release of Assassin’s Creed 2. The first one is really rather good and got me in the mood for AC2 after becoming a bit indifferent to its impending release. Check it out on youtube.
Uncharted 2 Platinum. Done and dusted. Bold prediction: there will be a third game and it will probably be quite good.
I can imagine, and am slightly intrigued by the thought of revisiting a game while applying a sense of finality. Taking the Far Cry 2 example, which I have completed, dying many times in the process, I can see how this would add an entirely new dimension to the game. You would creep around every corner, exercise caution where you would usually just run in blindly, and spend a lot of time running away around the nearest corner to pull bullets out of your body. Writing it out, it doesn’t sound like as much fun as I initially thought!
MMORPG have long exhibited a near absolute sense of finality in gamer decisions. Aside from resetting your character, there are few ways to undo your choices, as game data is saved on the server and is not user malleable. However, games such as Final Fantasy XI are not entirely narrative driven. Although a decision may effect the direction or growth of your character, it’s not liable to lead to an end game narrative outcome.
A sense of permanence and divergent choices are nothing new in console gaming. Chrono Trigger is a perfect example of a title well ahead of its time that presented options that would effect how the narrative played out. The way it pressed you to carefully consider your next move was both exhilarating but also worrisome. I played Chrono Trigger for the first time earlier this year on the DS, and I’m not ashamed to admit that in an attempt to achieve a “good” ending I found myself constantly referring to online game guides, which did dampen the experience somewhat.
Dead Rising, which plays out in pseudo real-time, is a good example of a game which features an irreversible narrative littered with choices. Story arcs start and finish within a limited time period, and if you don’t act upon them within the given time, those characters and story lines are fed to the zombies. Much like Chrono Trigger, I embraced the fact that this game world was constantly moving forward, and I didn’t have the power to completely control it, yet at the same time I felt like I was missing out on vast chunks of the intended experience.
Going back a little further, Metal Gear Solid successfully added weight to actions and choices. Your decision to endure or give into torture dictated the fates of two of your closest allies, although you were not made aware of this at the time. Going into the game with knowledge of this twist presented a dilemma of who to save, but by now any fan of the MGS series would know that both the characters in question re-appear alive and well in subsequent instalments. In most cases, any real degree of finality in outcome-defining choices is lost when there is a direct sequel. Only one result can truly be cannon, and thus any sense of power bestowed upon the gamer is merely a carefully constructed illusion. Besides, you would probably just make the wrong choice and fuck things up for the sequel. But, the forthcoming Mass Effect 2 is set to buck this trend by taking game-to-game permanence to a new level. Apparently, game saves, and more importantly, decisions made during the first game are transferable and directly affect the characters and narrative of the sequel.
Another upcoming title that is set to challenge the idea of final and divergent narrative paths is Heavy Rain. The director has voiced his desire that gamers only play through once, in the hope that it will provide all decisions with a real sense of permanence. If your actions lead to the death of a character, that event will shape the narrative and ultimately affect, and make unique, your time with Heavy Rain. To me, this seems to go against one of the key aspects of video games; being an infinitely recyclable experience.
Personally, I do enjoy games where your actions carry consequences and decisions weigh heavy, but just not too heavy. I think most gamers embrace the fact that decisions can be re-made, cherishing the ability to erase their mistakes. I think it would be very dreary and unappealing to play a game too grounded in reality, where every action carries a consequence that is out of our hands. If we want to manipulate our games to introduce a degree of finality, just like the Far Cry 2 example, then that’s great. But it’s a decision best left to the player, not dictated by a developer who only wants us to experience their game once.
Mistakes, or unwanted decisions, are inevitably a load or a checkpoint away from being reversed. I enjoy the illusion of my gaming choices carrying meaning, but I can rest safe in the knowledge that it is, after all, just a game, and unlike real-life, most things are reversible. That is, as long as your’ game saves aren’t corrupted, because then you’re screwed.
ODDS & ENDS
Anyone seen the first Assassin’s Creed Lineage short? Ubisoft are releasing a series of short films created by the effects house behind 300 and Sin City, to coincide with the release of Assassin’s Creed 2. The first one is really rather good and got me in the mood for AC2 after becoming a bit indifferent to its impending release. Check it out on youtube.
Uncharted 2 Platinum. Done and dusted. Bold prediction: there will be a third game and it will probably be quite good.
A Closer Look - PS3 Trophies – For Better or For Worse?
When I first became aware of PS3 trophies, it wasn’t something that piqued my interest. However, I have since been converted to collecting those shiny little emblems that occasionally grace the right hand side of my TV screen. I am a gaming magpie, if you will. I have been more than pleasantly surprised by how much such a simple feature has added to my gaming experience.
However, not everyone has been sold on the merits of trophies. A friend of mine once quipped, in reaction to some light hearted teasing about his paltry amount of trophies, that he “still plays games to enjoy them”. Clearly, the prevalence of trophies is not without its drawbacks. So, let’s have a closer look at trophies, as I attempt to present a balanced view on how they have affected how we play, for better or worse.
I think a good place to start would be the game I have spent the vast majority of the last month playing, Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood. After a fair bit of slogging to get the final multiplayer trophy, I finally got the platinum yesterday. I thoroughly enjoyed the single player campaign and the trophies provided a great reason to return and play through on the hardest setting. I got a great deal of satisfaction from ticking off the trophies, in a way that wasn’t intrusive to the overall game experience. For the most part, they came within the flow of the game, and with a few exceptions, I didn’t have to go out of my way to get them. But there were a couple of exceptions, and they contributed to my souring on the title somewhat.
The first was a bronze trophy, D Day, which requires you to prevent an entire brigade of soldiers from crossing a river on rafts, with only an inaccurate cannon at your disposal. You have to destroy every raft before they reach the bank, without exception. But, one raft is hidden behind a boulder on the near side of the shore, and is impossible to destroy unless you have pre-knowledge of its existence and at exactly what point during a 90 second sequence to shoot there. It’s virtually impossible to decipher yourself. I would estimate that I tried it 30-40 times before I finally fluked out. It wasn’t fun, but I stuck at it in my quest for platinum. These frustrations were further compounded by my quest for the loooong multiplayer trophies, which required a great deal of boosting. By the time the final trophy pinged, I was well and truly sick to death of the game.
A couple of days removed, and I have calmed down a little! But those slogging trophies most certainly tainted my overall view of a game, which if I had stopped playing after my first play through, I would have deemed excellent. (Ok, I promise I won’t write anything more in my blogs about Call of Juarez! It’s done and dusted).
Moving on, one of the main selling points of trophies is that they can expand a games appeal, ultimately providing a better value for money. A perfect example would be Uncharted, which I played through three times in the space of a week. I did so because the game was so effortlessly entertaining and also because I wanted the platinum. Without trophies, I would have enjoyed it just as much, but no way would I have played it so many times in such a short period. The shelf life of my games has increased dramatically since the advent of trophies, and I feel like I am getting far more out of them. Approaching this from a different perspective, this increased longevity also works for publishers. Metal Gear Solid 4 still receives its fair share of publicity every time Konami teases a possible trophy patch, more than a year since its release.
Conversely, trophies can also be used as a tool by shrewd publishers to make us part with our hard earned cash. As you may already be aware, Sony is repackaging God of War and its sequel on a blu-ray disc. The games are unchanged, aside from some visual tweaks and HD support, but they will be patched for trophies. As a fan of the series, I can envision myself buying this, but why when I already own them on the PS2? I suppose I am blinded by the trophies.
When considering trophies, it’s also important to highlight how exactly they are utilized. Some games intertwine them excellently within the gameplay, in a way that enriches the overall experience. The quick-fire trophies from Burnout Paradise immediately come to mind, as do those featured in the Sega Genesis Collection, which added an addictive new twist to some classic games and ensured that I tried every single title in the collection, discovering some gems that otherwise I probably wouldn’t have touched. On the other hand, some games are just taking the piss. A mish mash collection of challenges that add nothing to the game, demonstrate no gradient of difficulty and merely serve to frustrate. I’m thinking of Resistance 2’s 10,000 multiplayer kill trophy and Battlefield Bad Company’s level completion trophies. If you completed a level on hard, it wouldn’t unlock the normal level trophy.
One final drawback, and I’m starting to scrape the barrel here, is that it they can make older games seem oddly less appealing. I’m currently playing Ico for the first time, and although I’m enjoying it and playing fairly regularly, it’s just doesn’t pull me in and demand my unbridled attention. But, I know that if I was playing it on PS3 with trophies, I would be far more into it. It’s a shame, but I know what I like.
For my money, one of the biggest selling points for trophies is the challenge that they provide, and it’s an entirely optional one at that. Gamers love a challenge, and trophies are the ultimate reflection of that. Not only can we chose our preset levels of difficulty when gaming (easy, normal, hard, even harder), but now we can also chose to spice things up further if we so desire. Trophies allow us that added option, without intruding on the enjoyment of gamers who want to cruise through the game just once. You don’t have to chase trophies if you don’t want to.
In all honesty, with a very few exceptions, I don’t let trophies dictate what I will or wont play. However, they have undoubtedly altered the way I play and view my games. Trophies merely provide another way we that can connect with our games, and there is a satisfying sense of completion when you know that you have done everything you possibly could with your favourite games.
A Closer Look - How Far Do Reviews Dictate The Success Of Video Games?
I was reading an article earlier today concerning the projected sales of the highly anticipated Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 2. Analysts project that the multi platform title will sell 11.1 million copies within two months of its November 10th 2009 release. This carefully thought out prediction takes into account the developer’s high profile marketing campaign, the high quality of the original game and its existing user base, and the massive popularity of the franchise worldwide.
Although I’m in no position to comment upon the numbers, I’m sure that the analysts are bang on the money when they say that this will be an absolutely huge game. But it got me wondering, in the face of such forecasts, will the forthcoming reviews of the game have any effect upon on its sales. Even if the game is useless, unlikely as that sounds, will it still sell by the bucket loads? Ultimately, do gamers pay much attention to reviews?
I have written about this conundrum very briefly in the past. Universally panned games like the Imagine range of DS games or 50 cent Bullet-proof sell by the truckload, whilst a title like Okami has been unable to translate gushing reviews into commercial success.
Perhaps people are more attached to the franchise, wrapped up in the outward appearance of the title as opposed to actual gameplay. Numerous movie tie-ins stand witness to this. Time and time and again we see games of the movie hurriedly put on the shelves to coincide with a theatrical release, despite glaring issues, bugs and generally shoddy gameplay mechanics. One only need look back a couple of weeks at the game incarnation of this summer’s first blockbuster, Terminator Salvation. Aside from receiving lukewarm reviews, the PC version was entirely recalled due to an error that rendered it unplayable. Yet such games continue to generate revenue as fans of the movie rush out to buy them, either ignorant of, or choosing to ignore the damning reviews that they have received.
I have to admit that game reviews only influence my purchases to a very limited degree. If it’s a product that I believe I will enjoy, I will rarely be disheartened by a negative review, though a positive review has on occasion encouraged me to purchase a title that otherwise I wouldn’t have considered. Reviews only tend to reinforce my existing opinion about the game. When I read a review, I am looking for details that will enable me to shape my own reading of the games worth; what kind of game it is, the story, how many hours of gameplay are there, the level of difficulty etc. In this way I find a well written review a thoroughly worthwhile read, irrelevant of whether I concur with the final grade or not.
Of course when a game is critically acclaimed, its chance of commercial success dramatically increases. But actually being good doesn’t seem to be the be all and end all when it comes to sales. Hence we see an increasing number of bland, safe sequels and movie tie-ins, and why a well informed analyst can safely predict great things for a title that is months away from being reviewed.
A Closer Look - How History is Utilised in Video Games
As I have written about in the past, history can provide a rich source of video game narrative. But how exactly does the medium utilize history, and to what extent does the platform take liberties with, and perhaps misuse it?
The game that got me thinking about this is Metal Gear Solid 3. Set against the backdrop of the most turbulent years of the Cold War, it features some of the real life characters who helped to shape those times, namely U.S. President Lyndon Johnson and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. It refernces numerous real life events, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, and then fictionalizes aspects of it, suggesting that it lead to the American surrender of Nikolai Stepanovich, a fictional scientist who invents a nuclear equipped tank. It also includes the NSA, CIA and the KGB and plays upon the double crossing that was going on in those ultra secretive times. MGS 3 has one foot in the history books and the other set firmly in the realm of fiction.
Such a vibrant mix of historic truth and far fetched fiction makes for an unusual brew. Historical figures and real life events walk hand in hand with an antagonist who controls lightning, ghosts, a 100 and something year old sniper, and a completely over the top, entirely unbelievable plot. That the game switches between the historical, supported by documentary style footage, to the realm of outright fantasy may be seen as problematic. Any credibility that the Cold War setting provides is quickly swept aside by the somewhat ludicrous nature of the story. Which begs the question, why include such factual elements in the first place?
I can understand the allure of a factual setting, especially in the world of Metal Gear. By setting the fictionalized events of the game against a loose historical context, it enables you to suspend your disbelief, if only for a moment. Also, the years portrayed in the game are eminently mysterious in themselves. One may spend their whole life speculating as to what may or may not have happened during that period. Such events have a certain mystique about them that attracts interest.
Of course, one may argue that the melding of truth and fiction to such a degree is damaging, and I would agree with this to a certain extent. But honestly, the kind of person who cannot tell the difference between the most obvious historical elements of MGS3 and those that are fictionalized is probably not the sharpest tool in the shed. They are not the kind of person who is ever going to pick up a history book or go online to learn about the real events. At least the game introduces them to an important period in modern history, although they my think that it was waged in a Russian jungle between a Snake and soldiers with super powers. Oh well.
Moving away from Metal Gear Solid 3, video games can also take reference from and mirror history in more indirect and subtle ways. For example, Call of Duty - Modern Warfare is a highly enjoyable game that reflects a lot of real world conflicts, without directly representing any of them. Such an abstract setting lends a degree of credibility to the game, yet does not hamper it in the way that trying to accurately recreate any one given conflict would have. Final Fantasy and other RPG series make good use of historical names and mythology and they seem right at home within the boundaries of a fantasy universe.
Video games may also take purposeful and very deliberate liberties with the facts by creating alternate histories. One of the finest examples would be the world of the Resistance games. Based in the 1950s and diverging from real history sometime after the First World War, it presents a Europe spared from the Great Depression and the rise of National Socialism, but one that succumbs to something much worse, near annihilation at the hands of the parasitic Chimera. The Fallout series and the Command & Conquer games famously feature timelines that diverge from the true course of history. Another recent game, Turning Point - Fall of Liberty, takes part within an alternate history. Winston Churchill dies well before his time, the Nazis over-run Europe and the US remains neutral. Such liberties, while having little historical worth, are infinitely entertaining. Everyone likes to speculate about “what if” scenarios, and video games are the closest thing we can get to actually playing them out. It demonstrates one of the best marriages between history and games, and one that I would like to see more of.
When it comes to developing a game, historical accuracy will often take a back seat to what makes a popular and playable game. This is entirely understandable, as developers are rarely trying to create an accurate historical document. Inaccuracies abound in games like the Medal of Honour series, or even the fantastically crafted Assassins Creed . However, without an in depth knowledge of the periods in question, the casual gamer is unlikely to notice. This is neither detrimental to the gaming experience, or the understanding of its historical background. Does it really matter that Gothic architecture is featured in Assassins Creed when it has no place in that time period? Of course not, and to quibble about such minor things is an exercise in futility.
However, some cases are far more worthy of attention. I saw this quote online, attributed to one Zero Punctuation. Talking about Medal of Honour Airborne – “As evil as the real Nazis were, it seems they weren't evil enough for the developers…..I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure there wasn't an elite branch of stormtroopers who wore gas masks, wielded miniguns, and could take three sniper bullets to the forehead before they died”. Couldn’t have put it better myself. Enough said.
Moving on, at what point is it acceptable to base a video game on a painful moment in history. When has enough time elapsed? How many years do we need? Army of Two is a fictionalized account of two mercenaries, active during the period 1993 – 2009 in political hot spots such as Afghanistan and Iraq. The way it handles this relevant, modern subject matter, and the way it depicts mercenaries drew criticism from all corners. Aside form its lack of tact, is it too soon to appropriate such conflicts into a video game?
Going back a little further into the history books, World War 2 has been unashamedly tapped by various franchises. Call of Duty 5 - World at War is absolutely ruthless in its depiction of war, and rightfully so. Yet, it fails to show Japanese and German forces as anything more than cruel villains to be swept aside by the “good guys”; macho Americans and vengeful rampaging Russians. I cannot recall reading any reviews that touched upon this important concern. Perhaps WW2 is so far removed from the consciousness of the current generation of gamers that developers may have carte blanche with the topic matter. If so, when will Iraq and Afghanistan be fair game?
I don’t believe that video games necessarily have an important role to play when it comes to teaching people about history. We shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that we should learn something factual each time we turn on Call of Duty. That isn’t what video games are for. But, if a gamer comes away from a session of Medal Of Honour feeling that they are little bit more knowledgeable about WW2, then good for them.
That being said, developers who chose to utilize historical fact in their games should be held accountable if and when they butcher the truth. They have a responsibility to at least present some sort of semblance of truth when making an “historical” game. Or at least make it blatantly obvious when they fictionalize history, as MGS3 so expertly does.
Whatever your take on the relationship between games and history, it’s difficult to deny that they make for interesting bedfellows.
The game that got me thinking about this is Metal Gear Solid 3. Set against the backdrop of the most turbulent years of the Cold War, it features some of the real life characters who helped to shape those times, namely U.S. President Lyndon Johnson and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. It refernces numerous real life events, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, and then fictionalizes aspects of it, suggesting that it lead to the American surrender of Nikolai Stepanovich, a fictional scientist who invents a nuclear equipped tank. It also includes the NSA, CIA and the KGB and plays upon the double crossing that was going on in those ultra secretive times. MGS 3 has one foot in the history books and the other set firmly in the realm of fiction.
Such a vibrant mix of historic truth and far fetched fiction makes for an unusual brew. Historical figures and real life events walk hand in hand with an antagonist who controls lightning, ghosts, a 100 and something year old sniper, and a completely over the top, entirely unbelievable plot. That the game switches between the historical, supported by documentary style footage, to the realm of outright fantasy may be seen as problematic. Any credibility that the Cold War setting provides is quickly swept aside by the somewhat ludicrous nature of the story. Which begs the question, why include such factual elements in the first place?
I can understand the allure of a factual setting, especially in the world of Metal Gear. By setting the fictionalized events of the game against a loose historical context, it enables you to suspend your disbelief, if only for a moment. Also, the years portrayed in the game are eminently mysterious in themselves. One may spend their whole life speculating as to what may or may not have happened during that period. Such events have a certain mystique about them that attracts interest.
Of course, one may argue that the melding of truth and fiction to such a degree is damaging, and I would agree with this to a certain extent. But honestly, the kind of person who cannot tell the difference between the most obvious historical elements of MGS3 and those that are fictionalized is probably not the sharpest tool in the shed. They are not the kind of person who is ever going to pick up a history book or go online to learn about the real events. At least the game introduces them to an important period in modern history, although they my think that it was waged in a Russian jungle between a Snake and soldiers with super powers. Oh well.
Moving away from Metal Gear Solid 3, video games can also take reference from and mirror history in more indirect and subtle ways. For example, Call of Duty - Modern Warfare is a highly enjoyable game that reflects a lot of real world conflicts, without directly representing any of them. Such an abstract setting lends a degree of credibility to the game, yet does not hamper it in the way that trying to accurately recreate any one given conflict would have. Final Fantasy and other RPG series make good use of historical names and mythology and they seem right at home within the boundaries of a fantasy universe.
Video games may also take purposeful and very deliberate liberties with the facts by creating alternate histories. One of the finest examples would be the world of the Resistance games. Based in the 1950s and diverging from real history sometime after the First World War, it presents a Europe spared from the Great Depression and the rise of National Socialism, but one that succumbs to something much worse, near annihilation at the hands of the parasitic Chimera. The Fallout series and the Command & Conquer games famously feature timelines that diverge from the true course of history. Another recent game, Turning Point - Fall of Liberty, takes part within an alternate history. Winston Churchill dies well before his time, the Nazis over-run Europe and the US remains neutral. Such liberties, while having little historical worth, are infinitely entertaining. Everyone likes to speculate about “what if” scenarios, and video games are the closest thing we can get to actually playing them out. It demonstrates one of the best marriages between history and games, and one that I would like to see more of.
When it comes to developing a game, historical accuracy will often take a back seat to what makes a popular and playable game. This is entirely understandable, as developers are rarely trying to create an accurate historical document. Inaccuracies abound in games like the Medal of Honour series, or even the fantastically crafted Assassins Creed . However, without an in depth knowledge of the periods in question, the casual gamer is unlikely to notice. This is neither detrimental to the gaming experience, or the understanding of its historical background. Does it really matter that Gothic architecture is featured in Assassins Creed when it has no place in that time period? Of course not, and to quibble about such minor things is an exercise in futility.
However, some cases are far more worthy of attention. I saw this quote online, attributed to one Zero Punctuation. Talking about Medal of Honour Airborne – “As evil as the real Nazis were, it seems they weren't evil enough for the developers…..I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure there wasn't an elite branch of stormtroopers who wore gas masks, wielded miniguns, and could take three sniper bullets to the forehead before they died”. Couldn’t have put it better myself. Enough said.
Moving on, at what point is it acceptable to base a video game on a painful moment in history. When has enough time elapsed? How many years do we need? Army of Two is a fictionalized account of two mercenaries, active during the period 1993 – 2009 in political hot spots such as Afghanistan and Iraq. The way it handles this relevant, modern subject matter, and the way it depicts mercenaries drew criticism from all corners. Aside form its lack of tact, is it too soon to appropriate such conflicts into a video game?
Going back a little further into the history books, World War 2 has been unashamedly tapped by various franchises. Call of Duty 5 - World at War is absolutely ruthless in its depiction of war, and rightfully so. Yet, it fails to show Japanese and German forces as anything more than cruel villains to be swept aside by the “good guys”; macho Americans and vengeful rampaging Russians. I cannot recall reading any reviews that touched upon this important concern. Perhaps WW2 is so far removed from the consciousness of the current generation of gamers that developers may have carte blanche with the topic matter. If so, when will Iraq and Afghanistan be fair game?
I don’t believe that video games necessarily have an important role to play when it comes to teaching people about history. We shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that we should learn something factual each time we turn on Call of Duty. That isn’t what video games are for. But, if a gamer comes away from a session of Medal Of Honour feeling that they are little bit more knowledgeable about WW2, then good for them.
That being said, developers who chose to utilize historical fact in their games should be held accountable if and when they butcher the truth. They have a responsibility to at least present some sort of semblance of truth when making an “historical” game. Or at least make it blatantly obvious when they fictionalize history, as MGS3 so expertly does.
Whatever your take on the relationship between games and history, it’s difficult to deny that they make for interesting bedfellows.
A Closer Look - Striking a Balance - Video Game Difficulty
Take a glance at any video game message board, and you will see a plethora of topics along the lines of “xxx is too difficult” or “Why is xxx so easy?”. Video games walk a fine line when it comes to level of difficulty. Make it too easy, and gamers may shun the title. Make it too challenging, and you will alienate the casual gamers, who make up the vast majority of the market.
One argument that has been flogged to death, is that older games are much more challenging than those of today. Of course, this is a massively sweeping statement, but one that many gamers hold true. I have no intention of discussing the validity of that argument here. But, I think the most interesting aspect of such a discussion is the implicit suggestion that more difficult equals better.
When considering this, one must look at different types of difficulty. For example, some games are difficult in a way that make them challenging, and ultimately more rewarding. Whereas some games are difficult in the frustrating sense, leading the gamer to prematurely finish with the game and possibly throw his/her controller at a wall/person/themselves. It’s very important to make this distinction when discussing the relationship between a games level of difficulty, and whether it’s actually any good or not.
One strategy game that I have been playing recently, Valkyria Chronicles (PS3), demonstrates an unusual balance between these two kinds of difficulty. On the one hand, this game really keeps you on your toes, forcing you to think multiple moves ahead, much like a game of chess. You only ever make the same mistake twice, as the game forces you to adjust your strategy accordingly to ensure victory. The result is a real sense of satisfaction when you complete, what can be, very time consuming battles.
However, Valkyria Chronicles also demonstrates some less enviable traits. A couple of the battles that I have experienced so far, have appeared impossible to complete on the first attempt, or without pre-existing knowledge of what to expect. Imagine my frustration, when nearing the end of a battle that had taken me the best part of an hour, without warning an enemy reinforcement arrives that proceeds to kill my main unit in one shot. Cue game over screen. My character was simply standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. Suffice to say, I didn’t make that mistake again. Introducing such random elements in a game of strategy, where the whole premise is to keep planning two steps ahead, is a prime example of frustrating, and ill thought out difficulty.
(Just for the record, Valkyria Chronicles is an outstanding game. To put it in very simple terms, the challenging and enjoyable elements far outweigh the unfortunate, frustrating aspects. It’s definitely worth checking out.)
Deciding on a level of difficulty when producing a game must be a thankless task. Hence, it would seem to be in everyone’s best interest to make games with selectable, highly customizable levels of difficulty. The arcade portion of the recently released Street Fighter IV is a great example of this. The player is allowed to choose from numerous levels of difficulty, ranging from easiest to the very hardest. This is an excellent idea in theory, allowing the gamer to customize their experience according to their skill level or what they hope to get from the game. However, in practice, I think Capcom got it wrong. Having played through the game a few times, there seems to be little to no difference between the final boss on easiest or normal settings. This seems to defeat the point of providing such exhaustive levels of difficulty. If you are going to include an easiest option, then make sure it’s easy.
If you mention this on a Street Fighter board, you are likely to be inundated with people moaning about your noob status, and inability to play video games. It’s all well and good having mastered the ins and outs of Street Fighter 4, or any game for that matter, but such gamers are very much in the minority. It’s the casual gamer who dictates whether a game will ultimately be a success or not. And they are likely to be put off by punishing levels of difficulty. Street Fighter 4 is an unusual case, as due to name recognition and a rich history, it is destined for huge success either way. However, I know that I will not be buying any downloadable content or playing the game much again, because I was so put off by the games inconsistent difficulty. And I’m anything but a casual gamer.
When discussing trends in the difficulty of video games, it’s vital to look at the success of the Wii and the rise of the casual gamer. The Wii has been more successful than even the most optimistic of commentator could have predicted, and has put a video game console into the hands of people who otherwise wouldn’t know Solid Snake from Link. It has also led to a rethink in game design and of course levels of difficulty. A casual gamer is much less likely to invest hours in trying to overcome a challenging boss, and I think that’s reflected somewhat in the kind of games we see being released. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as the more the video game industry diversifies its product, the more successful it will become.
The perceived difficulty of a video game is always going to be a hot topic. But, when games successfully offer a range of difficulty levels that do cater for all abilities, it can become a relatively mute point. Like most gamers, I want to be challenged by my video games, and to have the ability to vary that challenge as I see fit. But, I don’t want to spend hours scouring through Gamefaqs, holding back the tears, looking for the best way to kill that impossible boss. I want to be pushed, but not too hard.
We want the moon on a stick, and that's why difficulty levels will always be a hot topic.
One argument that has been flogged to death, is that older games are much more challenging than those of today. Of course, this is a massively sweeping statement, but one that many gamers hold true. I have no intention of discussing the validity of that argument here. But, I think the most interesting aspect of such a discussion is the implicit suggestion that more difficult equals better.
When considering this, one must look at different types of difficulty. For example, some games are difficult in a way that make them challenging, and ultimately more rewarding. Whereas some games are difficult in the frustrating sense, leading the gamer to prematurely finish with the game and possibly throw his/her controller at a wall/person/themselves. It’s very important to make this distinction when discussing the relationship between a games level of difficulty, and whether it’s actually any good or not.
One strategy game that I have been playing recently, Valkyria Chronicles (PS3), demonstrates an unusual balance between these two kinds of difficulty. On the one hand, this game really keeps you on your toes, forcing you to think multiple moves ahead, much like a game of chess. You only ever make the same mistake twice, as the game forces you to adjust your strategy accordingly to ensure victory. The result is a real sense of satisfaction when you complete, what can be, very time consuming battles.
However, Valkyria Chronicles also demonstrates some less enviable traits. A couple of the battles that I have experienced so far, have appeared impossible to complete on the first attempt, or without pre-existing knowledge of what to expect. Imagine my frustration, when nearing the end of a battle that had taken me the best part of an hour, without warning an enemy reinforcement arrives that proceeds to kill my main unit in one shot. Cue game over screen. My character was simply standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. Suffice to say, I didn’t make that mistake again. Introducing such random elements in a game of strategy, where the whole premise is to keep planning two steps ahead, is a prime example of frustrating, and ill thought out difficulty.
(Just for the record, Valkyria Chronicles is an outstanding game. To put it in very simple terms, the challenging and enjoyable elements far outweigh the unfortunate, frustrating aspects. It’s definitely worth checking out.)
Deciding on a level of difficulty when producing a game must be a thankless task. Hence, it would seem to be in everyone’s best interest to make games with selectable, highly customizable levels of difficulty. The arcade portion of the recently released Street Fighter IV is a great example of this. The player is allowed to choose from numerous levels of difficulty, ranging from easiest to the very hardest. This is an excellent idea in theory, allowing the gamer to customize their experience according to their skill level or what they hope to get from the game. However, in practice, I think Capcom got it wrong. Having played through the game a few times, there seems to be little to no difference between the final boss on easiest or normal settings. This seems to defeat the point of providing such exhaustive levels of difficulty. If you are going to include an easiest option, then make sure it’s easy.
If you mention this on a Street Fighter board, you are likely to be inundated with people moaning about your noob status, and inability to play video games. It’s all well and good having mastered the ins and outs of Street Fighter 4, or any game for that matter, but such gamers are very much in the minority. It’s the casual gamer who dictates whether a game will ultimately be a success or not. And they are likely to be put off by punishing levels of difficulty. Street Fighter 4 is an unusual case, as due to name recognition and a rich history, it is destined for huge success either way. However, I know that I will not be buying any downloadable content or playing the game much again, because I was so put off by the games inconsistent difficulty. And I’m anything but a casual gamer.
When discussing trends in the difficulty of video games, it’s vital to look at the success of the Wii and the rise of the casual gamer. The Wii has been more successful than even the most optimistic of commentator could have predicted, and has put a video game console into the hands of people who otherwise wouldn’t know Solid Snake from Link. It has also led to a rethink in game design and of course levels of difficulty. A casual gamer is much less likely to invest hours in trying to overcome a challenging boss, and I think that’s reflected somewhat in the kind of games we see being released. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as the more the video game industry diversifies its product, the more successful it will become.
The perceived difficulty of a video game is always going to be a hot topic. But, when games successfully offer a range of difficulty levels that do cater for all abilities, it can become a relatively mute point. Like most gamers, I want to be challenged by my video games, and to have the ability to vary that challenge as I see fit. But, I don’t want to spend hours scouring through Gamefaqs, holding back the tears, looking for the best way to kill that impossible boss. I want to be pushed, but not too hard.
We want the moon on a stick, and that's why difficulty levels will always be a hot topic.
| Home |
