Enough with the camp

In continuing my diatribe against Gears of War 2--I'm actually joking--I have read a lot of reviews singling out the narrative elements in the game. Particularly that it is an improvement over the first game, but still fails to surpass the kinds of narrative we see in games today. A lot of people have mentioned the B-movie quality of the dialog and the story, that somehow this is acceptable in games. Are you serious? Do we not have enough B-movie schlock in games today to wet our pallet? This is not some trash media tour deforce the likes of John Waters, this is just crappy story.

Personally, I believe video games have ample amounts of games producing half-hazard passable narratives in games. We don't need more B-movie material. This was a huge problem I had with Uncharted: Drakes Fortune at it is clearly attempting to invoke this sort of B-movie rip-off of the film Romancing the Stone. Sure it is acceptable material and the production values are clearly there, but I don't think because games have set the bar so low in narrative that we must surrender to such material. And to be honest, the bar is not that low. We already have numerous examples of games that offer great stories and memorable stories like Grim Fandango, Silent Hill 2, Shadow of the Colossus, System Shock 2, Planetscape, KOTOR, Fallout, Beyond Good and Evil, Bioshock, and the list goes on. We do not need to succumb to accepting this continuous shovel of trite game plots in our medium.

It is a feat of the medium that gameplay, mechanics, and design can be considered the core experience that can make-up for a lacking narrative. But as video games and cinema continue to merge we should expect more as it becomes a mesh of the two. This a major problem I see with the gaming community as that they were willing to overlook this major deficiency their medium. Video games is a rare medium where developers can take ideas from one another whether it is design, mechanics, or even aesthetic. Though it is looked down upon, many people still view it as a sort of technological progression. If something works why not incorporate that same innovation into your product as well. It is accepted for the same of progression and user convenience. But creatively and narrative-ly, the video game industry has speedily evolved to the level of the film industry in that it is creatively bankrupt. What we get is the same product but in a different context from the majority of material released to the public.

What is basically comes down to is admiration for the production design over the substance. What is the value of these narrative interactive experiences when the narrative does not deliver in quality? There is an admiration for special effects, costume design, set design, acting, and all the production values in films but if the story sucks the movie won't be worth the time. Why? Because there are plenty of other movies to take its place that offer the same high level of production. We have come to a point in the games industry, especially now, where we have a multitude of games offering similar experiences and monopolizing our time. While design is of vast importance it is no longer enough. If a game's major selling point entails its narrative it should be placed to the high standards that have already been released in the medium.


It is vexing how accepting the gaming community is willing to overlook this issue. There is an impression that the bar is so low when in fact, once the bar is raised it is ignored. Gamers should be more vocal and critical on wanting not only a memorable interactive experience, but also a narrative experience in their narrative games. While games are excelling in the communal, social, and even artificial experience of games there is a huge lack in the singular experience. It is not surprising that players have become their own authors in their experience when it comes to sandbox gaming and open world gaming. So I implore you, whenever someone accepts below average narrative in their games call them out on it. This should no longer be accepted in the game space and we should push our developers to create memorable narrative experiences for us instead of providing the typical B-movie.

Greed is good.

Please note the ironic title. I have not been the biggest fan of Epic Games in the past few years. I played Gears of War a year after its release and realized I was in the minority of the crowd that was displease and unimpressed with the title. I have disagreed with numerous comments made by Cliff Bleszinski. And like many PC gamers I know, there is an unwarranted begrudging feud with Epic's output and perceived abandonment of the PC marketplace. With all the commotion for Gears of War 2 I can't help but feel hesitant to pick up the game--especially when many reviewers claim that if you disliked the first game this will do little to change your stance. But I have grown increasingly critical of the company's business model.

Epic boss Mike Capps commented in an interview from videogaming247.com about the company's stance on second-hand retail sales and its effect on the game market.

“The secondary market is a huge issue in the United States. Our primary retailer makes the majority of its money off of secondary sales, and so you’re starting to see games taking proactive steps toward that... I’ve talked to some developers who are saying ‘If you want to fight the final boss you go online and pay USD 20, but if you bought the retail version you got it for free’. We don’t make any money when someone rents it, and we don’t make any money when someone buys it used.”

For those that do now know, Gears of War 2 ships with exclusive DLC in the form of weapons for purchasers of the game. This is absolutely fine, but the exaggeration that Capps makes is a frightening future. Personally, I am surprised by the stance the enthusiast press has taken upon second-hand gaming. More often than not, I have come into contact with journalists supporting developers that "force" gamers to purchase games and deter them from renting or buying used games. While they are the most vocal advocates are games as art, they have no issues with this blatant attempt at taken advantage of the user. It may not be to the scale of Activision boss Bob Koteck's reliance on game franchises, but it is a similar philosophical sentiment.

It is confusing when the games industry is the fastest growing business market today, yet there is this perceived crisis of the second-hand market threatening games. The truth is, developers are getting greedy. This is a large factor in why Epic and many other PC developers have moved into the console space because it is widely more profitable for them. But they're stuck in a triple "A" business model that will eventually implode on itself--this is what happened to the music industry. When games take $300 million to make there is definitely something obscene for the amount of money to make a game. This will eventually become a fiscal nightmare for studios that want to remain in the blockbuster marketplace without the finance--Midway's gamble on Mortal Kombat vs. DC is the most recent example that comes to mind. Which is why second-hand gaming has grown to be such a large issue for developers that rely on million selling titles.

But my biggest issue with the current business model is that it is sacrificing content and convenience for the gamer in favor of the share holder, and it is doing it in a nontransparent fashion. Studios are stuck in this number of units shipped mentality that treats gamers as a statistic. And it is a relationship that I no longer want to be a part of. If you look today at the PC games market which has a mix of both the utmost hardcore players along with the largest number of casual players, companies are following different means of remaining a viable. Valve, Blizzard, Stardock, and PopCap have all created business models that not only provide quality content, but have a much more intimate relationship with its user base. Apart from continuous updates, user/developer interaction, transparent software, and arguable reasonable pricing for content, these developers have a better understanding of answering the demands of its users.

Currently, game studios have a tenuous relationship with its users. And that is a problem when the needs of its retailers and shareholder overshadow its customer base. We've seen this with EA's handling of Madden DLC and Activision's handling of Guitar Hero DLC. Criterion's handling of its DLC and Harmonix's approach to Rock Band song transfers are a step in the right direction. If you look at Phil Harrison's recent tenure at Atari I believe a lot of interesting approaches for game distribution will be immerging from that company. Technology breeds a mentality of convenience and percieved rights in regards to content. And we have learned from the music industry that if a business is unwilling to adapt they will reach a crisis--which is happening now with second-hand games. Gamers have survived decades with used and rented games and this demand will no disappear. And if studios continue to combat user demand they will eventually become left behind and forgotten for good reason.

The defining edge

While on my regular podcast runabout, I was listening to the Player One Podcast where CJ Johnston relayed a criticism about the Mirror’s Edge demo with the criticism, “It is a glorified series of Quick-Time-Events.” CJ was inclined to agree, but he was unable to elaborate a bit more about the comment.

I have previously discussed my own disdain for the QTE, both loving and loathing the simplicity of the mechanic. Omari Akil at Eat|Think|Game has informed me of his own manifesto for the QTE which includes: sparse usage, minimal button sequences, no game over on failure, never use it to end a boss battle, and use only when least suspected. These are all fair requests, though I do believe the QTE becomes confined into the horror-game arena under this itinerary.

It is not surprising that the QTE seems to work so well in horror-games because they can easily fit into this list. My major gripe with the QTE are in action games where it is much more difficult to integrate the mechanic into the genre because the player is already performing visually superior and rewarding actions. Which is why I became interested in this criticism for Mirror's Edge as it is promoted as less of a traditional action game and more of a platformer.

Of course I have only played the demo and both CJ and the commenter have only played the demo as well. There is the chance that this may merely be over analyzing the play mechanics because a jump button is a jump button and so forth. But there is clearly something different and special about Mirror’s Edge that has prompted players to question the presentation and execution of the game’s control scheme.

By describing Mirror’s Edge as a glorified QTE I have begun to ponder to what the QTE actually is. One game that had blurred the line for definition is Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones where a flicker would appear on enemies indicating the player to press a button to time a correct attack. A similar technique was used again by Ubisoft in the battle mechanic for Assassin’s Creed. The only difference is that it does not integrate the “Simon Says:” repeat the button sequence mechanic, but still follows the importance of timing to complete the desired event.

If we a following semantics, this rhythm gameplay is basically a QTE. There really is no discernible difference except one visual is replaced for another. The largest difference is one may visually be within the game while the other gives off the impression of an in-game cinematic. So what makes Mirror’s Edge a QTE instead of a platformer? I believe it is because the visual action of sliding, jumping, rolling, and landing presents the same animation every time it is executed in the first-person perspective. And though the environments may be varied, the animations are singular. From what I have seen of the game, the protagonist Faith does not seem to have a diverse repertoire animations to prove my suspicions otherwise.

So is Mirror’s Edge a glorified QTE or merely the control and visual aesthetic of the game? Heck, even Fallout 3’s V.A.T.S. can be considered a loose QTE. I don’t think the problem with Mirror’s Edge is that it is a glorified QTE, but that the definition of QTE can be misleading, because every aspect of control mechanic can be a QTE to some extent. Perhaps we should rename it an SIP: Sequence Input Progression. If anything, the parkour elements of Mirror's Edge can be equated to the QTE as purely a gimmick. Which, is what I believe, to be the largest criticism towards the QTE. Whether it will have the design and intelligence of last year's Portal has yet to be seen, but luckily we do not have too long of a wait to find out.