“Can you
click/press X button fast enough? Great! Here’s more of what we made for you!”
I played Dead Space 2 for about three minutes
before I turned it off forever. At the point I realized how blatantly I was
facilitating cut scenes (in-engine or otherwise), I honestly felt a little
insulted. This “video game” that openly holds my hand for the sake of surprise,
shock, suspense, or really any other story-related element makes me feel like
the developer thinks I’m an idiot. Beyond that, it feels kind of like they just
really want to (as your article suggests) make the story itself the focal point
of your “gaming experience” and they will do what it takes to give you the best
narrative experience they can. I loathe that mindset and I loathe the idea that
their story is somehow superior to my story (I also loathe that they call
this a “video game,” but I’ll talk about that later).
For
instance, I could see myself sharing some crazy stupid thing I made happen in GTA4 or Dishonored with my friends – some weird anomalous event that,
thanks to the game’s underlying systems, I had the privilege to experience. However,
I would never find any point in sharing the fact that I escaped the PLR patrols
in Battlefield 3. Why? Well mostly
because if I didn’t escape said PLR patrols I would not be progressing through
the game’s “narrative” … and cut scenes (I’m speaking about the campaign of
course).
However, I
think this is where our perspectives on content itself diverge. I can deal with
a moderately linear story driven GAME (and I can’t emphasize this word enough) if
it provides me with enough substance elsewhere. For me, that usually means I
can deal with it if it satisfies my “environment” or “aesthetic” interests.
There is a limit, of course. For instance, I did enjoy the weird sci-fi setting
of Dead Space 2, but there was simply
no actual game. You end up walking around simply to hear this scary space ghost
story that EA’s best and brightest dreamed up (not fun).
I think the
best example of my limitations lie in the Mass
Effect franchise. The first game I loved and found to be extremely engaging
and playable. It, of course, might be considered a game that attempted to be story
driven much more than gameplay driven. When it was released a few years later,
I also found ME2 to be very playable and definitely enjoyed it (though it began
feeling a little more empty than the original). You see, the first had allowed
me to explore and conquer a new galaxy completely shrouded in mystery. Maybe
the dropship missions were stupidly repetitive, but it was neat to really feel
like I was discovering something new. Game two really started to do away with
that feeling. It started focusing primarily on one specific issue and the
illusion of freedom really didn’t do much to make up for the actual freedom it
was replacing from the original game, but there was still some aspect of “game”
in it. By ME3, I found myself playing simply in a futile attempt to recapture
my original enjoyment during ME1. The franchise had devolved into some weird
linear shooter that no longer held the intrigue of the first and even second
game. It was simply trying to tell its story.
Needless to
say, I still have not completed the third and truly don’t think I ever will.
But how is
it really different from the others? Can’t I still fly wherever I want? Eh,
yeah sort of, but it’s not like it could affect the story at all if I chose to go
one place over another. OH! But the narrative-oriented environments are really
fleshed out and cool looking! Great. No really, your story is great Bioware,
definitely worth being the cornerstone of your release. That’s why you rewrote
it after launch…
Basically,
as far as content goes, I guess you could say that I value aesthetics and freedom
just as much (if not slightly more) than actual gameplay. Therefore, the “playable
movie” does nothing for me, but it also means I continue to play Arkham Asylum after the third Scarecrow
minigame (and those things get really fucking irritating) just because I like
hearing Mark Hamill’s voice acting.
But I digress.
I’m getting really sidetracked here. Regardless of the intricacies of my own
taste, I really do think that video games (like film) need to be able to stand
on their own two feet simply based on what they can bring to the table as a
medium. Story is neat, but inevitably unessential to a “good game.” Can both
exist simultaneously? Of course, but, in my opinion, a game’s underlying systems
are truly what make it good.
So what if
you really want story in a videogame? Is it even possible?
Absolutely.
As far as
story coexisting with game mechanics, I agree that Dark Souls is a great example of how both can live harmoniously. Dark Souls gives you a gratuitous amount
of story elements in a world where it is ENTIRELY your choice whether you even
unearth them. THAT is how a video game’s story should be done. Regardless of
game mechanics themselves, if you really want palpable STORY in a game, the
player should be free to create that story. The developer’s job isn’t to TELL
the story, but is rather to create the world in which a story can be formed BY
THE PLAYER.
With enough
lore and general substance loaded into a video game world, a very real narrative
can easily take place and the game itself can be replayed with a very different
story in the future. Of course in most of these cases the goal is the same
between playthroughs (i.e. the original Mass
Effect or TES Skyrim), but the path
through which the player achieves this goal, how much they choose to diverge
from it, who they meet along their way, etc. will be utterly different. Instead
of spreading their resources creating bulk content, some of the largest game publishers
today spend all their resources on polishing the core narrative into a linear
train ride of plot. Granted, this approach creates some of the prettiest “games”
on the market, but the guise that this is a “cinematic video game experience”
falls flat for me. If I wanted to watch a film, I’d watch a film. These aren’t
video games. There’s nothing “game” about them.
So, as far
as my tastes go, though games like Mass
Effect, Skyrim, Knights of the Old Republic, Fallout 3, etc. might not be as deeply enriched
with discoverable content as a game like Dark
Souls, the sheer fact that they allow the player to make real choices and
progress at their own pace makes them (still in my own opinion) infinitely
better “games” than something like the Call
of Duty: Black Ops single player campaign.
However, I
do have one very real defense for these “bad games” (as I have all but flat out
called them). Perhaps we should accept that a new type of audience is emerging
that needs this new type of entertainment.
Follow me
here.
We’re
talking about publishers paying ungodly sums of money to developers to create
media that basically lets you (speaking broadly here) button mash your way
through a beautifully rendered environment of whatever it is you paid to do
(blow the heads off of terrorists, slice your way through medieval combat, rob
banks, ride through the wild west, etc.). These triple-A publishers are
cranking out content that takes no real thought to progress through and rewards
you with lush visualizations of whatever your heart desires – a lot like film
and TV, just under the guise of being more interactive.
Perhaps
there is now a new audience that wants to feel engaged without being engaged,
wants to sit on the couch and think they are more stimulated than any other, to
borrow a term from HK-47, “meat sack” in western civilization.
Perhaps they
never wanted a true GAME to begin with.
What do we
do then? Do we tell them they’re idiots? Do we call them lazy? Do we call them hypocrites?
I mean, they obviously want a very specific product and the publishers out
there are going to give it to them over and over and over and over again as
long as they’re willing to buy it.
And they
are.
I truly do
believe we aren’t looking at the merging of two mediums (film and video games),
but rather the emergence of one entirely new one from the realm of the video
game. I also find it erroneous to continue calling those games “games” as there
is nothing game-like about them.
Move
character. Center cursor. Press button. View story. Repeat.
These are
not the actions of a truly provocative interaction – a true “game.” This is
more akin to a menial 9-5 white collar job.
Pull file.
Organize contents. Staple. Collect money. Repeat.
In the
nicest way I can express this, it’s very straight-forward and requires no
actual thought. BUT THIS ISN’T WRONG! It’s just different!
The vast
majority of the western world enjoys that stability, that predictable
linearity. They enjoy knowing exactly what they have to do and knowing exactly
what their reward will be.
So my point?
We need to
stop thinking about these things as video games because they aren’t. They can’t
be compared to real video games because they will always be dramatically different
in both form and function (especially in the direction that triple-A publishers
are heading). However, they have and will continue to have a very real place in
entertainment.
Interactive
cinema is a real thing that Hollywood shuns and publishers can’t understand how
to market.
No comments:
Post a Comment