False Perspective: Auteur Poster Boys - Part 4

So we finally reach the conclusion of this brief four part series about game narrative and design from Jonathan Blow's Braid and Ken Levine's Bioshock. If you notice in this blog I have chosen probably the most cult endearing pictures of these two designers for this post because over the past months these two designers have been catapulted forcefully into auteur status by the gaming community. This should come to no surprise as we are in a media generation where the auteur label is placed on everyone whether it's mediocre film director Brett Ratner to single film director Richard Kelly. Especially in the gaming community, there is a need for auteurs to legitimize the form of the medium placing the responsibility on Sid Meier, Will Wright, or Peter Molneux.

Jonathan Blow has quickly become a poster boy because of his passion and encompassing role on Braid. When Blow discusses game design and player response he is talking about games on an extremely high level of thought. Blow is a very eccentric and intelligent designer and even before Braid was released he had garnered this sort of maverick status. Blow independently financed Braid costing about 180 thousand dollars and has refined the game to guide the player not toward the themes of Braid but more so the discussion of Braid and the medium it resides in.

Ken Levine is almost the opposite personality in that he is extremely humble when it comes to the development of Bioshock often placing much of the honor to his development team. But this is a game that has been a pet project for years. And if anyone has played the design and narrative structure of System Shock 2, the two games are almost identical. There is no doubt in the artistic merit that Levin has in Bioshock. Still, Blow has placed the honor of Braid's artistic aesthetic to artist David Hellman and Levin keeps reminding gamers of the efforts the 2K Boston team that worked with him on Bioshock.

Yet the majority of the acclaimed press for these games has gone toward these two designers. The reason I believe for this is because the designer and the developer has become synonymous with each other and thus eclipsing the role of the development team. This occurs with film as well and marks the first steps of providing authorship with the game. We want visionaries and authorship to place blame on the game's successes and failures.

1UP Specials: RSVP 05/30/08

There is a wonderful special called RSVP on the 1UP Show were Mark MacDonald interviewed Erik Wolpaw (writer on Portal), Dylan Cuthbert (president, Q Games), Jonathan Mak (designer, Everyday Shooter). Wolpaw and Mak have a wonderful discussion about the role of the designer and the developer and the philosophy of game design. While the philosophy Valve (the developer of Portal) is to release the utmost professional product by repeated game testing and refinement, Mak, on the otherhand, follows a very Japanese route presenting the player with the game that he wants the player the experience-faults and all. I will return to this debate about the auteur's role in games in future posts, but concluding this series on "False Perspective" whether Levine or Blow deserve this auteur label is inconsequential. The video game is a medium that yearns for intelligent authors and whether is comes from a developer or singular designer is growth that is more than welcome.

Isolationist Architectural Design in Sim City

With all the hubbub about Spore and it's supposed agenda against Creationist theory and support over intelligent design, I began to ponder to back to my Sim City days. Primarily the role of the various disasters and how little this aspect of Sim City has evolved in the series. Though I adore the Sim City series, I have a huge problem with the sort of isolationist architectural design philosophy in the game.

It is well known that Will Wright had taken inspiration from Christopher Alexander's book A Pattern Way which deals in city planning and its sociological effects on maintaining and building communities and wellness-- which influenced the premise more so in the Sim City: Societies -- this series seems to have widely ignored the ecological factors in city planning. This is where my issues with the disasters in Sim City emerge. The disasters in the series are not implemented in any logical fashion, tornadoes are highly unlikely to appear in metropolitan areas--not that UFOs are any more realistic. I feel that location and terrain should have a larger impact to the city. If a city is build in a valley there should be consequences of drought and if a city is built on top of a swamp consequences of a possible flood dangers should arise.

And this is what many of the Sim Series games inadvertently do, which is provide a very aggressive skew towards society. The Sims series was well known for it's extremely materialistic view of human wellness where a person's happiness would be determined through the things owned. This is not more apparent from the new IKEA expansion pack for The Sims. Even Spore is simplified as herbivores progress slowly through the game and eventually are forced to become religious zealots whereas carnivores breeze through the evolutionary stages and are forced to be vicious war mongering creatures. It is a problem of simplication without consideration to consequence that is a overarching theme in many of the games in this series.

Coming back to Sim City these valid ecological circumstances need to be considered in city planning. Though pollution has appeared in the Sim City series, this aspect of ecological effect has yet to be fully explored. And in terms of city planning, this should be a large factor to be considered. It is a very isolationist view of city building where the city itself is not part of the world it inhabits. However, on the plus side it does show that there is ample growth for the series and unexplored territory that reveals a bright future for these games and still the wide scope of responses and impressions that can be be provide to the player.

The Hype Machine - 7th Generation

The rumor mill has stuck again with an insider source from Blizzard Entertainment stating that the development of Starcraft 2 will be postponed until the release of Diablo 3. Blizzard had announced Diablo 3 a year after Starcraft 2, which was speculated to have come out some time in 2009. Knowing Blizzard's track record, I would put money that these games may not even be out until 2010 though I am sure the final produce well be worth it. This isn't new for developers to postpone release dates, but seeing the latest models of Nintendo and EA announcing games within a shorter release window I am wondering what effect these press models will have to the gaming-world Hype Machine.

Hype can be a wonderful thing enticing the gaming community for products that they know doubt yearn. Showing the game early can help developers present material for the press to spread the word and also gain feedback on improvement towards the game and public response. Of course it is also a great marketing tool. This week, The Force Unleashed is released and I can already tell that this will be a divisive game. It has all the geekdom of the Star Wars universe and has drawn criticisms over its monotonous combat system and uninspired level design--this was gathered from the current reviews I've read. But the game will sell like gangbusters because it has just enough of that arcade playability and "wow factor" to pander to the masses. This was exactly the case with Assassin's Creed which proved to be one of the biggest hits of 2007.

This past year, EA and Nintendo seem to be taking the Apple route by announcing a game only months prior to its release. Being a long time PC fan where games are announced years before release, this is a welcome change. It also shows the amount of faith EA has placed on new franchises such as Dead Space. Of course, both these games are a huge risk as the foundation of the product is already set in stone and there is little a developer can really do by game test and tweak as much as possible. Too Human, which had a arguably poor early showing probably benefiting from being previewed early in terms of the game's development. I believe the controversy has more to do with the vocalic Dennis Dyack, god love him. The game's success is a whole other story.

The problem with this new Hype Machine press model is that it is basically finding success for this model is grasping straws. It is a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg? But it will be interesting to see long time developers and distributors decide which model works best for the product. It is clear that no one wants a Duke Nukem Forever, but I don't believe companies want to reveal their hand too early. Personally, I can wait for products such as Alan Wake or Half-Life Ep. 3, but the convenience of having Mirror's Edge right around the corner is a major step in the ways companies advertise and push their new games.

False Perspective: Limitations of the player – Part 3

Looking at Braid the biggest gripe I have with the game is its narrative design in relation to the game's level sequence. Through out the game the player is required to collect puzzle pieces which will invariably open up new levels for the player. This is aa acceptance of video game design which basically rewards for completion. However, for a game that plays with time and individual perspective, I don't believe that with holding certain levels against the player is necessary. Mainly because each level appears to be isolated an episodic because the player can only use one aspect of time manipulation for each level.

What this creates is a linear structure in Braid which takes pride in non-linearity in it's narrative. On the one hand the game promotes the subjectivity of time and space, while on the other sends the player down a fairly singular path. Yes, players are not required to solve puzzles in order but in order to unlock levels a pre-determined number of stages must be completed. For a game that attempts to break the mold of player response in games, it is odd that designer Jonathan Blow does not take more chances in this aspect. It's a very schizophrenic design philosophy and truthfully I would rather had the Alone in the Dark 5 model of choose any stage from the very beginning of the game for Braid than withholding the player's option on which levels he can play.

Bioshock does not have this problem because the story is meant to be told in a linear fashion. However, there are conflicting design philosophies in relation to the game's RPG elements and the level design of its world: Rapture. Bioshock was highly toted for the ability to play through levels in multiple ways. And it succeeds to an extent. Though players may overcome obstacles through numerous approached, the novelty of this aspect wears thin near the end of the game.

As the player progresses he will be able to gain more ADAM to spend for plasmids, various powers that the player can give himself to adapt his play approach. However, as the player progresses, all of these upgrades will become so stacked that virtually the end game will become the same experience for all players. Though there may be slight variation, it is clear that certain upgrades are more powerful than others or offer superficial differences to player approach toward obstacles. Just as the ending, the choices made in the game have little baring to ultimate results of player.

In my next installment I will conclude my discussion on Braid and Bioshock and the impact respective designers Jonathan Blow and Ken Levine has on the industry and medium.

Playing the Word Game - Spore Reviews and Response

Reading today's post of my blog cohort Michael Abbott (Brainy Gamer), he proposes the argument for the depth of Will Wright's latest opus Spore. Much of the contention is between the reviews and the actual product; mainly what seems to be the substitution of "complexity" and "depth."
The problem is that it's a word game. Both Michael Abbot and his prominent blog associate Leigh Alexander are playing the roles of message board posters justifying the game--which is perfectly fine. But many of the criticisms for the scores that the Spore reviews are that claims that they are reviewing the game to pander to the hardcore gamer rather than the game's intended demographic of the casual audience.

"Complexity" and "depth" as discussed by both Abbot and Alexander is a touchy subject and relies on too many subjective assumptions on the reviewer and the reader. I believe former Computer Gaming World/Games For Windows Magazine Editor-in-Chief Jeff Green put it best is that there is a lack of consistency in the various stages of Spore. This is where most of the contention for reviewers seem to have with the game.

The biggest gripe seems to be with the Tribal and Civilization stages of the game. Maybe this is because these genres of gameplay can be easily compared with equivocal games from other franchises. But I don't believe reviewers are that irresponsible or naive to simply place all fault on these stages because it is done better in other games. Rather the preference for other stages such as the Creature Creator or Space stage is so apparent it eclipses the other elements of the game.

Abbott writes:
"The achievement of Spore is just this. Its extraordinary complexity has been made invisible, and its depth has been hidden inside a menagerie of colorful creatures."

I do not believe the depth of the game remains hidden, it seems to be widely apparent on where the depth lies in Spore. In the reviewers' defense, the review scores that Spore has been recieving is nothing to be ashamed of. They may also be inconsequential to the casual market that does not follow these scores. What we have here is typical player contention with the reviewer on the content of the review. It's a word game as with translating any text. Regardless, Spore is an admirable achievement I am sure will not be forgotten.

False Perspective: Intertext and Dialect – Part 2

Continuing my discussion on Braid and Bioshock let me elaborate by the relation between these two games. The key here in intertext. Both games invest their narrative on the assumption that the player understands the design elements at work. Though Bioshock does not require the player to have any background on Objectivism and Braid does not require any familiarity with existential questions of time and space, both these games assume the player has a familiarity with the gaming genre and the basic knowledge of its game design.

One of the genius aspects of these two games is that their gameplay foundation stands on core genres of video games: The first-person shooter and the platformer. These are prime genres of gameplay that the majority gamers can recognize and pick up and play, understanding the rules and functions on how interactivity works in each facet. In fact, both games are essentially refined versions of what came before, Bioshock is basically its predecessor System Shock 2 and Braid is a typical sidescrolling, 2D platformer.

But my intent is not to diminish the quality of these games because of their similarities to its predecessor. These are games that have stood on the shoulders of giants that have come before. What this does is given both Bioshock and Braid the ability to expand what has been lacking in game, specific narrative that relies on the player's experience with the content in order to open up a dialect with the designer and the gamer.

To elaborate on this statement, Braid takes the gamer through an unobtrusive narrative about love, loss, and the error of choice. The ending of the game has the player essentially playing the narrative in reverse, showing that perspective is in the eye of the beholder and the player is meant to decode whether he is the hero or the villain. Though the player can choose whether to follow closely to the narrative of the game in the various texts that can be read before each level, the dialect of the game is dependent on how the player wishes to dig in to what designer Jonathan Blow is attempting to convey.

Bioshock is the inverse. Here the player is given the option to play the game freely. He can play the side of good by saving Little Sisters in the game or evil by taken advantage of these girls to increase his power. This choice is superficial for anyone that has reached the ending of the game. Instead the actual revelation of the game is revealed though its omnipresent creator, Andrew Ryan, that in fact the player never had any choice at all. Following in line with the themes of Objectivism, designer Ken Levine has brought to light the illusion choice in video games and that that dialect in Bioshock is actually one sided. The player can only converse with the text within the confines of the game's design and always remains at the will of the designer.

On my next post I will continue this series and discuss the successes and failures in the attempts of both these games to open a dialog with the player.

I love the Quick Time Event...and it needs to DIE

Sorry I have not contributed regularly to my Meta-game Narrative series, but now that school has finally started I should be able to set a regular schedule to post. Hopefully I can maintain this blog on a bi-daily basis or close to that if I am lucky. Do not fret, however, the Braid/Bioshock discussion will continue.

So if you have not figured it out from the seemingly dubious title of this blog post: I love the Quick Time Event. For the uninitiated, it is a scenario in a video game where the game goes into a cut-scene and the player must play a game of Simon Says in order to proceed. The design originated from Sega's Shenmue in 1999 and has become popularized in the game design lexicon through Resident Evil 4 and God of War.

QTEs are the most reductive form of interactivity in a video game and has become the crutch for game design. If an action is too complicated to program for a scenario, low-and-behold, the QTE will likely show up. Of course, for the player that are unaware with the layout of the controller, he is invariably screwed to repeat the cut-scene ad nauseum.

And yet I absolutely love the adrenaline when a QTE occurs. It is both transparently simple and undoubtedly frustration. This may be because it is arguably the most cinematic moment of the game. But at the same time is the the most non-interactive element of the game as well. It is a quagmire existing as an easy out for a scenario to give the designer the utmost control of the player for the intended experience. Having recently played the demo for the Bourne Conspiracy, it wonderfully captures the visceral experience of the films and while being one of the most mediocre game experiences I have had the joy of playing.

Maybe that is the genius of the QTE. Giving the player the ability to feel immersed in what is going on screen yet still technically qualifying as an interactive media. In fact, that is exactly what it is and it is retarded. And though I love the QTE, I am positive my brain activity drops exponentially every time I must execute these simplified repetitious sequences. The QTE is a de-evolution of video games and must be phased out.