The release of modern Warfare 2 has been delayed for the PC, and as can be assumed this contentious issue has been met with much vitriol from the PC gaming crowd. Now from what I can see, one of three things is happening here, Activision are either Continue reading
It has recently come to my attention, and the attention of Australia’s gamers that OFLC has imposed “refusal of classification” (a loosely veiled ban) upon Left 4 Dead 2, the highly anticipated sequel of the 2008 zombie shootemup. Now we’ve all been over this situation before, the country doesn’t believe that adults are old enough to cross the road, and one conservative South Australian Attorney General rules with an iron fist from his impervious ivory tower on Continue reading
Hush little baby, don’t say a word, And never mind that noise you heard, It’s just the beasts under your bed, in your closet, in your head.
If there’s anything that annoys me with game design is when the writer believes that it is ok to treat the player as if he has the personality of a box of cereal, and Continue reading
Alright, this is the deal. Although I’m brimming with ideas of things to write about, I’m going to have to put the blog on hold until around the 19th of September, exams you see. Until then, attempt to keep your sanity in check by reading old posts and imagining where the industry will be heading, in your own mad words, although I do have an idea about how atmosphere, and horror as a gameplay device. etc.
Miles Newton – The Machination, Creative Director
Help the little old blind lady and her 17 ginger tabbies across the road, or blow up the kitten orphanage? Maybe I’m meddling with old lady hyperbole here, but when you examine the common trends moral choices within game plots, they are nothing short of outrageous, regardless of the emotional façade that they’re always trying to smother these absurdities in. I think everyone who has at least heard of today’s lineup of games should be more than just well acquainted with the concept since that it is often promoted as if it is running for president of the universe, and if they have experienced some of these games, can agree that they often feel arbitrary, disjointed or just unnecessary, and I think I know just why.
It would appear that the common structure for these moral choices goes somewhere along the lines of becoming a tree hugging hippie, or becoming an irrevocably evil hybrid of Hitler and Skeletor, and this is often without any further reason than “Because it makes the player feel like they’re involved in the world. Wrong, stupid bad, I hope you’re listening Ken Levine, because regardless of the commendable writing that went into Bioshock, I think we can all agree that the moral choices involving the Little Sisters might as well have not been there at all… but that’s old news, let’s talk about a solution. I can’t help but feel that it has become alright to push the player into the world where they MUST choose between joining the super sunshine flower rebels or Lord Doom in his ivory tower of malevolence, but that’s enough binary analogies for one year, I think they must be placed into a world where they can choose to take a certain route, or they can just leave it, allowing the story to dissolve into whatever the most prominent force in the game dictates, a bit like in Fallout 3, and even though the difference in moral choices was nothing short of outrageous, it handled the progression of the game quite well if the player just went off on their own tangent, ignoring whatever people insisted on you doing, and I can let it off this time because I believe it was a subtly satirical, and quite cynical game, but maybe only I picked up on that. First I think we must study how these sorts of situations arise in real life before we start insisting on how they should be implemented in games. Now, in real life, even though it may sometimes seem this way, overlords do not just sit in their castles of suffering, commanding their Legions of Doom throughout the world in order to bring tyranny for shits and giggles; they perform in, what everyone else would perceive as a classically evil way because they believe they are doing the right thing, for themselves, for their believes, for their vision of prosperity. This is where it gets interesting because a lot more avenues can be opened up once the idea for “What is right is not necessarily what is good” arises, because it can give vastly more depth to a moral choice in a game where the player is presented with a deeper range of arguments regarding the achievement of an outcome, where it be peaceful/ violent, harmful/ constructive. I think a brilliant example is in Watchmen, the novel of course **SPOILERS AHOY GENTLE READERS** In the end of Watchmen, Adrian Veidt AKA Ozymandias concludes his illusive machinations by unleashing a giant squid, imbued with the powers of telepathy, into the heart of Manhattan in order to strike the fear of an alien invasion into the people of the earth, who were engaged in somewhat of a nuclear stalemate. You could argue that Veidt’s method of killing half of New York’s citizens was radical and violent, but regardless, it was a conclusion. What was right is not necessarily what is good. **END SPOILERS** This is the kind of story writing that is more than deserving of attention in a game because it could be a serious strength in both providing a more thought provoking and morally ambiguous decision, and enhancing narrative through interesting and unexpected plot permutations that stray far from the cliché and downright black and white.
I’m hoping that through these times of formulaic experimentation with game composition, a desirable and interesting outcome will emerge, consisting of this kind of choice that will in time enrich the accepting player’s experience, allowing them to deepen their immersive connection with the game, and feel as if the story has rewarded them for the time that they have invested into playing these sprawling multipath’d journeys that we voluntarily embark on. Moral choices are really stories too people, and when they grow up, you bloody well better have a big enough cage because I envision that they will assist in perfecting the game as the perfect story medium.
Miles Newton – The Machination, Creative Director
It is far too easy to look back upon past generations of games and game consoles with a patronising eye simply because they don’t possess the mind blazing, face melting processing power associated with nearly every current generation gaming console and gaming pc that would quite easily make the Washington Monument feel inadequate. This I simply believe is because it is far too easy to forget what was once the pinnacle of gaming since there is often quite a long amount of time between launches and generations, and during this time, the industry successfully coerces us to accept the current industry standards, and conditions us to discredit anything other than what is current and profitable to the industry. But this isn’t really the topic of my mad rantings, I think nostalgia was covered more than adequately in the previous blog entry. My issue is that the industry has conditioned us, against our knowledge and our will to accept a particular standard in gaming and game development that is single handedly making the notion of innovation, ambitious writing and experimental gameplay pursuits inaccessible and altogether undesirable to the mass public, whilst actively ignoring any advances previous generations made in these areas.
Throughout writing that first paragraph, I was thinking about how I intended to justify my point, but on the other hand I couldn’t stop thinking about Gears of War. To put it plainly Gears of War is an action shooter set in a generic sci-fi world filled with aliens that would have to wear several layers of clothing to be categorised as hideous and where you are denied your ability to live if you don’t possess a chin large enough to sink the Titanic. And that’s the issue, whilst the game may be a bit of mindless fun, I can’t help but feel it’s leeching the IQ points out of my skull whenever I have a game of it with a mate…but now I probably sound incredibly pretentious. Now Gears does have some credibility, and this is solely because it doesn’t take itself too seriously. It realises that its story was shite, so it uses it solely as a vehicle for more Locust face chainsawing. Now while this may appeal to a pretty large consumer market, I can’t help but feel it is responsible for encouraging a lot of backwards thinking about acceptable standards in game production.
A trend I see emerging here is that, although the games industry may have learned a lot from the mad experiments of developers going past, they seem more than eager to ignore them simply because it’s easier. Now I brought up the Gears analogy earlier, but I think the root of all of this honestly started with Halo. From what everybody undoubtedly knows, Halo was probably one of the most critically and publically successful games of the 6th generation game consoles selling 5 million copies, followed by two hugely anticipated sequels both grossing around 8 million sales. Halo was an entertaining little shooter set in an interesting sci-fi world backed by gratuitous amounts of patriotism. To be honest, I think the first Halo was probably the best of the three because it was evident that they did some research in the visual design department, notably the very human worlds melded with some interesting alien architecture and technology. That and it once again didn’t take itself too seriously, it was a bit of fun, and it proved that the first person shooter could be profitable. Well right about now I can’t help but feel that I’m going to head off one some wild sequel tangent as opposed to talking about how the industry has ignored its root principles and is conditioning the public to endure creative stagnation, but bear with me. Halo 2 set the benchmark for consumer success. To be honest, I think it was a bit of an omen for the industry when they essentially tune up the gameplay mechanics, throw in a story so pretentious you couldn’t cut it with a chainsaw, and shiny up the graphics a bit. Now regardless of whether it was fun or not is irrelevant… I’m not some horrible person, I’m speaking for the industry, but what it really was doing was emphasising that it is ok to accept something that neither pushes any envelopes, pats us on the back and tells us in a soothing voice that everything is going to be ok, just buy my third instalment complete with cat helmet. Bam, Halo 3 came out, followed by a nice row of spinoffs. But now I’m getting into another impassioned sequel rant. What I am really trying to say is, and I’m sure that a lot of people would disagree with me, is that by consistently producing titles over the platforms that pretty well follow the same formula, it is inevitable that gamers will become accustomed to a particular way of thinking, and thus they will form a rigid list of expectations which will essentially govern their interests and in turn their influence in the games industry.
I guess you could say that upon a pretty general examination, this really has very little impact upon gamers or the industry, but as I feel like I’m a bit of an advocate for the independent industry, an industry that tends to strive for innovation and creativity, this kind of trend and expectation is quite damaging to part of the industry that blossomed due to troubling economic times because of low production costs and will quite possibly continue to create an even stronger presence in the industry.
Miles Newton – The Machination, Creative Director
Dear fellow Machinators,
Don’t panic; if you’re the one guy who reads these then you mustn’t fear, for I am not going to be leaving this humble end of the internet any time soon for its murky depth or reality… not completely any way. So it seems like The Man has once again struck a heavy blow in the form of pending maths and English assignments, and the mother of all graphics exams, so it may be a while before I grace these halls again with my witty observations and default cynicism…but before you lose all hope, my fellow Machinator in Chief has expressed interest in adding to the blog (and he’s an arguably better writer), so sit tight and know that one day we will return to rain rainbow fires and chocolate missiles down upon the land of tangible bigotry and creative stagnation.
As always,
Happy gaming and may you always patronise those who look upon your hobby as a detriment to your character.
Miles Newton – The Machination, Creative Director
As a gamer and prospective game designer there are many observations I make when looking at trends in the industry. These trends come in many forms which can vary from simply what the gamers are demanding to what the industry is choosing to do, but my intentions aren’t to talk about trends in general today, but I am here to explain why the trends of the greater population of gamers is ruining the first person shooter.
This may have looked like a bit of a disjointed segue, but trust me, I’m not without purpose. Once again I found myself travelling down to Brisbane, and I was reading an article and PC Power Play that was talking about the freedom of indie games developers, and the ability they have to design games in ways that allow for the natural cycle of trial, error and experimentation to unfold within their branch of the industry. You would think that this formula would resonate with the industry as a whole, and to a degree it has. The industry has arrived at a point in which it is reasonably happy to rest its feet and play off the comfort of the player, but within I believe lays an inherent problem; if the industry stops taking risks, they how can innovation and change ever occur? This is a problem that is particularly prevalent within first person shooters; this may be because they have gradually sculpted an audience which expects certain things, and treats experimentation like some foreign object only deserving on blame and censure, and this is a problem.
Cast your memory back to 2000, the year when the critically acclaimed Deus Ex came out. Gaming was at a critical stage back then since today’s formalities and expectations had not been cemented into the minds of the obstinate and impressionable, and at this stage of technological advancement more experimental titles could be released due to the availability of increased memory and computing power. Deus Ex was a clever title insofar as it considered actually shooting things secondary, and focuses on an expansive array of tactics and character upgrades as a primary method of sculpting the game to the player’s style. This will probably sound like a simplistic synopsis of Deus Ex, but I hope it imparts a little bit of knowledge as to where I’m heading. It seems like these days, however, the roles have been reversed, and there was a long period (and it is still continuing) where gunplay has been pared down to a basic system, and additional features have been discarded completely. Let me state that this is not necessarily a bad thing; games, notably Call of Duty 4 made use of a very simple system, but strived in creating an engrossing and violent atmosphere, coupled with a simple, but decent story that propelled the game and came out as what I’d call “good”. But I wouldn’t make something like it. The main issue here is that with the continual change in game development tactics, games and in turn, gamers have come to expect titles that don’t take any risks because they know a formula works.
I know that it would be impossible to sway the minds of the masses, but I’d like to share a personally gripe, that was prefaced by my comment on the progression of indie games. My problem is that when gamers cry foul of developers when they developer tries something different in an attempt to take the critical risk in evolution. It’s fair enough for a game to be bad, this might not be wholly the developers fault, but I think that it is downright indecent of gamers to be so critical towards the developer when this happens, as opposed to being constructive and making clear just what exactly they didn’t like. The original “assaulting the developers standards” tact really gets nowhere because all it ultimately achieves is developers pulling in their heads and cutting their risks, the result is usually a mediocre title that preached great things, but was crushed by the creative stagnation the industry tends to suffer due to the lack of risks that are necessary in advancing design principals, and general thinking. The second tactic, which can be defined as the act of “supporting the industry through constructive criticism” is something that cannot necessarily be achieved by the gamers, but it is the responsibility of the journalists to justify their decisions and thoughts, an act that will reassure the developers, and an industry as a whole that what may have been a mistake was really just a step forward towards innovation and experimentation, creating a future where designers are more willing to take calculated risks, and observe the mistakes that have been made previously in order to enhance the gamers taste in games, and stimulate developers to expand their design capabilities.
