Six Days in Fallujah

Recently there has been a bit of controversy over the game Six Days in Fallujah. The game is meant to chronicle the Second Battle of Fallujah that took place in 2004 during the still going Iraq war. Konami agreed to publish it earlier this month, but announced yesterday that they were backing out due to a large public outcry. I, and apparently others, find it strange that a game about World War II can be so popular and rehashed so many times, but changing the setting to Iraq causes a huge uproar. Though, on some level I agree and I’m not entirely sure why.

First, the obvious difference between the Iraq war and WWII is time. One is still very much a part of our lives. It’s in the news fairly regularly, people are still dying every day and it doesn’t show much signs of stopping in the near future. The other ended over sixty years ago, the pain it caused has eased over time, and the majority of people playing games based off it are the grandchildren of the men who fought in it. This seems like kind of a lousy reason, especially considering the smaller scale outcry over Call of Duty 5 taking place in Japan. Despite WWII being so long ago, several people still had problems indiscriminately killing Japanese soldiers.

That leads to my second possibility that WWII is more suitable for games. If you ignore the Japanese side of the war, like most games do, then the fight is solely against the Nazis. They are one of the few groups in history that almost fit as a comic book style villain. They were essentially trying to take over Europe and eradicate an entire group of people from the planet. They were practically the embodiment of evil so the fight against them has been glorified and turned into one of the epic struggles of mankind. Most other wars of the last century have been a bit more convoluted than that to say the least. You could say feeling bad about the Japanese, but mowing down hordes of Germans is hypocritical, but like James says in the CoD5 piece I linked earlier, we draw a disconnect between Germans and Nazis. They aren’t the same two groups of people in our minds anymore.

This seems like the real reason WWII works so much better as entertainment. It would also explain the lack of games set during all the other wars in history. There have been a few here and there, but nothing compared to the sheer number of WWII games out there.

A game like Six Days in Fallujah could work if it took an approach more like Full Metal Jacket or Platoon. It even sounds like that was their original intent, capturing like no war game ever has before the feelings and emotions the soldiers during Fallujah experienced. Konami was definitely advertising the game like that, but once the gameplay footage rolled out it was clear that somewhere along the line they lost their way.

Emergent versus Scripted Experiences

Leigh Alexander, author of Sexy Videogameland recently posted an article about user-created experiences versus designed authorship in video games. She says she finds it to be “one of the most interesting issues emerging in next-gen games” and I have to agree with her. I found her stance on the whole thing a little confusing however.

Leigh references Warren Spectors’ talk at NYU and seems to side with his stance on games. Warren Spector is of course best known for his game Deus Ex, a game that falls wonderfully into the user-created category, or at least my definition of it. I was under the impression that user-created experiences or emergent gameplay referred to games like Deus Ex, while designed authorship referred to most other linear games with a story and a strict set guidelines the player needs to follow in order to progress. Leigh on the other hand makes it sound like user-created refers to multiplayer games while designed authorship is everything else (aside from storyless puzzle games and what not). Nels Anderson, developer at Hothead Games and frequent contributor to the blogosphere, commented (about five posts down) on her article saying, “It seems like this isn't about single player vs. multiplayer games, it's about narrative games vs. ludic games (i.e. two legs of Michael's gaming tripod).” So for the rest of this article I’m just going to agree with Nels though I’ll comment on her multiplayer stance later too. Also, to help ease further confusion, ludic, emergent narrative and user-created all refer to the same thing.

Ignoring the whole multiplayer aspect of her article for now, I have to agree with her and Warren Spector. Games like Deus Ex do a wonderful job of combining an intriguing story with the interactivity that make games so unique in their storytelling ability. One such game I played recently I think stands as a wonderful poster child for the potential of the idea. The game is Far Cry 2, it has a story, it unfolds the same way no matter how you play, but the real experience is created by the player. Every encounter can be meticulously planned in a million different ways, and they can all go wrong and play out in another million ways. This leads to a unique experience while still telling the same story. Another good example would be GTA4. Being able to discuss the same part of the same game with a friend, but describing entirely different experiences is what makes emergent gameplay so interesting. Sometimes you’ll even stumble upon a solution that even the designer didn’t plan for.

Problems however arise from the dreaded ludonarrative dissonance that’s been talked about so much lately. The biggest problem a lot of people had in GTA4 was dealing with it’s darker conflicted narrative, while still trying to play the game like previous GTA’s. All the tools to go on a crazy killing rampage were still there, but this time the setting wasn’t a quirky cartoony version of a mob/gang story. The game dealt with the protagonist making difficult choices about killing while players were still used to running over prostitutes if only because they could. This is the dissonance between narrative and gameplay that is a very difficult hurdle to overcome when trying to tell certain stories. Far Cry 2 didn’t really have this problem because it’s narrative allowed for the player to be just about any type of person he or she wanted to be. Though you could argue it falters a bit during its ending.

Now for multiplayer experiences, generally when thinking about multiplayer games, their narrative never really crosses my mind. Unless the game is co-op, which usually means it was designed with single player in mind as well, there really isn’t much of a story at all. That said, I still don’t think there aren’t interesting experiences to be had within that space. Leigh argues that no one is interested in hearing about your multiplayer experience aside from the players involved with you. I disagree, I see no difference between discussing what you did in a single player game with someone else who has played it versus discussing what you did in a multiplayer game with someone who has played it. I do this all the time. My friends and I regularly play shooters on Xbox Live and whenever one of us pull off some crazy stunt the others are more than willing to hear the story. They’ve played the game enough to understand the context and what made the event so awesome. If this wasn’t the case than why would Halo 3’s multiplayer movie capture mode be so popular?

For me at least, multiplayer games are a social experience and don’t really need a story. Very few games even come to mind when thinking of multiplayer narratives and all of them are cooperative games. MMO’s come to mind, but they are generally not about the story, even the ones I thought had cool stories didn’t matter because the world never changed. Completing an epic chain of quests and exposing the secret ruler of Stormwind as the giant evil dragon that she really was didn’t matter because fifteen minutes later someone else would probably be doing the exact same thing. Another that comes to mind is the GameCube version of Legend of Zelda: Four Swords, which I’ve been playing with some friends recently. I think it has a similar story to Link to the Past, but honestly we’ve been so distracted competing for Force Gems and just having a good time that we haven’t paid a single bit of attention to it. If there is a narrative to be had we clearly don’t care about it. Other than that I guess Left4Dead has a pretty bare bones story, but I suppose it shows potential. I’ll never say multiplayer games can’t have meaningful narratives, it just hasn’t been done well yet and it isn’t something I’m yearning for.

Hopefully that wasn't too confusing, seeing as how I essentially disagreed with and then altered and re-agreed (regreed?) with the original article that spawned this one. If it was too confusing then feel free to stop reading now. ;)

Valkyria Chronicles

I finally finished Valkyria Chronicles yesterday. I don’t think I’ve taken this long to beat a game since Lost Odyssey, and I logged twice the time on that one. Something about Valkyria, despite not being too huge takes a very deceptively long time to play through. Each mission is at least an hour ordeal. Every time I sat down to play I knew it was going to be a time consuming ordeal so I put it off more than other games. In fact, I think I beat four other games while working my way through VC.

For those that don’t know, Valkyria Chronicles is a Tactical JRPG that I described in some detail here. They give you a book to page through and each page has a series of episodes to select. One, and sometimes two of these episodes are playable missions. The rest are short videos. There are around 22 missions and each one takes somewhere between an hour or two, but all the rest of the game is primarily cutscene. There’s a separate menu for leveling up, adjusting gear and whatnot, but the crux of the game is selecting episodes, most of which aren’t playable. This could be a turn off for some people, but the video to gameplay ratio is still way less than most JRPG’s. They are just presented in a misleading fashion.


The missions feel kind of like a board game, you have your turn, which gives you around 10 moves, and then the computer has theirs. You must accomplish a certain objective while keeping the main character alive. Sometimes there are other stipulations. The maps are laid out in clever ways to allow for a multitude of potential strategies to unfold. It is a fairly enjoyable system and it allows you to save often and encourages you to do so. This was quite nice for my playstyle because I was hardly playing it safe. Rarely would I eliminate all my opposition before proceeding forward. I would generally attempt to break through their defenses and manipulate the system in order to take the objective as quickly as possible. This of course backfired a lot, but when I found the strategy that worked it was way more efficient and quite rewarding. It also seemed to get me a pretty high rank for the mission most of the time. Without saving after each turn and sometimes each move, this would have been infinitely more frustrating.

The gameplay is not without it’s problems however. Several of the missions would start and it would seem like the enemy had every advantage they would need to easily win. They would start with larger numbers in positions that could easily wipe out the main character if only they were adhering to similar tactics as my own. It quickly became apparent on these missions, despite being horribly outgunned and invading well defended positions, that the enemy was too retarded to fully take advantage of their umm… advantage. This only proved to be annoying a few times though, eventually you’d learn the computers playstyle and be able to plan your strategies around how you would imagine they would react. It even fit in with the story a bit seeing as how the main character is supposed to be a tactical genius. Those few times however made the game look pretty bad. For instance, on the second to last level I left one guy protecting my base. On the enemy turn he was killed within their first two moves. They then proceeded to move every single guy they had closer to the base, using all their moves in the process. Any one of them could have taken the base causing me to lose the mission, but they didn’t. I completed my objective on my next turn and won instead. It was pretty ridiculous.


Where the game really shines is with its story. I am pretty much completely burnt out on all things World War II, be it video games, movies, or HBO series, but this was a very refreshing take. The game takes place in an alternate reality where three different “Europan” factions fight it out. You take control of a milita squad from the small neutral country of Gallia that only wants to defend against the incoming invaders. The game presents some very interesting and mature ideas about war. It is a little naïve and contradictory at times, but overall it was a much welcomed change of pace. The story strays farther and farther from the source material later in the game as well. Almost to the point where I wouldn't reference WWII at all. I also have to applaud it for being damn near making me cry at one point. I can’t think of any other game that has come remotely close to doing that. :)

The game also looks absolutely gorgeous. As you can see by the screenshots I’ve blatantly taken from a quick image search, it really sticks to the storybook feel. I suppose you could describe it as cel shading, comparable to Eternal Sonata. It manages to stands on its own by using scratchy filters, and frames around cutscenes that really just look fantastic in motion. It’s games like this and the new Prince of Persia that get me most excited when thinking about the current generations graphic potential. MGS4 and Gears 2 both look amazing in their own right, but I’ll take the colorful unrealistic game any day.

Valkyria Chronicles is a great game that every PS3 owner should be proud to brag about. Sadly, like most inventive, but somewhat different games, I fear it is doomed to become a cult classic among the westerners. Luckily, from what I understand it spawned quite a following in Japan, enough to warrant a manga and an anime series at the very least. If you have a PS3 I highly recommend you check it out. If you are anything like me, you aren’t using your PS3 for much else.

I Still Think it's a Lame Acronym

Ever since I read Steve Gaynor’s incredibly illuminating article about FPS encounter design I’ve been paying closer attention to level design and how my battles play out. I agree with every one of his points in retrospect, though I don’t think I would have ever came up with what I liked about FPS encounters on my own. After reading his article I was especially interested in playing F.E.A.R. 2, despite Steve using it as his example of what not to do, if only to see exactly what he was talking about.


Well, I played through F.E.A.R. 2 this week and only agree with him halfway. I still agree with all his points about what makes an interesting encounter, but I think F.E.A.R. 2 does a better job of adhering to these rules than he gives it credit for. I definitely see what he is talking about; especially early on most fights start with the player walking through a doorway and immediately being assaulted with gunfire. These skirmishes result in exactly what you would expect, taking potshots from the doorway, which leads to a boring and tedious fight.

However, there are also several encounters that adhere to Gaynor’s suggestions almost verbatim. Such as:

An alternate approach is the ambush-- the player observes a quiet arena, and advances into the middle, only for the enemy to pop out of hiding and attack (rappel down through skylights, jump down off of balconies, swarm in through multiple entry doors, burst through a wall, etc.) This is a fair approach in the back half of the campaign, as the player should be experienced fighting his enemy and could use some variety to encounter setups. However, the ambushing enemies should nonetheless have terrible reflexes-- enemies that pop out guns blazing will merely frustrate the player. Rappelling/door-bashing/balcony-diving/wall-busting ambushers should take a while to ready their weapons and draw a bead on the player, allowing him to make it to cover and get the first shot off. The idea is for the player to retain some initial advantage while still being thrust suddenly into the middle of an encounter.

Sorry for the long quote, but this describes a few encounters about a third of the way through the game so accurately it’s like he was thinking about them when he wrote it. One part specifically landed me in what looks like a paintball arena, it was a large circular room with tons of various cover sizes. As I walked in I instantly knew I wouldn’t be leaving without a fight, but nothing happened while a giant monitor in the room displayed an angry Colonel threatening me. Of course I was ambushed by tons of guys popping out of tubes in the ground. These took a few seconds for them to emerge from. This fight goes along with Gaynor’s circular arena suggestion, his ambush idea and the slow reflexes that are necessary to make the fight fair perfectly. I found it odd that a few of his good design points were incorporated into the game that inspired the article about bad design.

What seemed to be the biggest complaint within the article was how often the fights took place in a hallway with varied cover. This leads to a slow advance down the hallway moving forward as the foes are eliminated. That would be boring, but the part of the game that comes to mind when I think hallways is the elementary school levels. Most of the encounters in this section did have hallways, but all of them had doors on either sides leading to classrooms and various other halls with overturned tables and what not to hide behind. They also lent themselves nicely to flanking by having multiple exits farther down the hallways. I found these fights to be among the most enjoyable in the game. It didn’t hurt that it was the only section I found to be genuinely creepy either.

Gaynor is right, the level and encounter design aren’t as solid as the original game and what it does wrong is apparently a pretty amateur mistake, but it also has plenty of quality fights in there. Combine that with an overall better presentation, more coherent storytelling, classic F.E.A.R. atmosphere, and some stunning visual effects that messed with my head and I think you have a pretty damn good sequel.

God, I'm Such a Point Whore

Well this isn’t going to be much of a post at all, but the gamer in me can’t stay quiet. A few minutes ago, on April 15th 2009 I, Jebus, surpassed Slevin in achievement points. Read it over there on the right bitches, assuming of course I maintain this lead. :) As of now I'm 42 points ahead. I’ve been behind since sometime in 2007 when he blew my 1000 point lead out of the water by gaining a hefty 6000 point lead. It’s been a long time coming, but Slevin you got owned. Now write a damn blog post, its been two months.

Disconnected

I was playing some Left4Dead with some buddies of mine a couple weeks ago in a computer lab on campus. We got the wonderful idea to get a little inebriated first because honestly, what could possibly be better than shotgunning zombies while under the influence. Turns out shotgunning zombies while sober was the better option. This wasn’t the first time I’ve played video games while intoxicated so I knew I wasn’t going to like it, but I did anyway. For whatever reason I never really liked playing games without a clear head and I think I’ve finally figured out why.

Part of what makes games so interesting is feeling that I am the avatar I am controlling. This immersive feeling comes in large part due to my ability to control him or her without thinking about it. Generally the first few minutes of every game is awkward, or there is a boring tutorial to sit through, but good intuitive controls can be picked up quickly enough. Once I have them down I am no longer pressing A to jump and right trigger to fire, I no longer think about it in these terms. I can’t imagine any other avid gamer does either; you’d never be able to get remotely decent at these games while constantly thinking about what button you have to press next. Once everything falls into place my fingers subconsciously do what my mind wants, they know where the buttons are from hours of use and I can seamlessly control the avatar.

This is where the inebriation becomes a problem. While playing Left4Dead, for large parts of the night I could not get to that point. I had already played the game a few times before so the controls were committed to memory despite my general lack of PC gaming experience. I just couldn’t consistently play without thinking about my hands. Any time I had to crouch I thought Ctrl, when I went to heal a teammate I had to make sure I wasn’t actually healing myself right next to him. My aim was pretty terrible as well. I guess I have another rule to add to the list of things not to do/rely on during an actual zombie apocalypse. I’ll save the substance abuse until after we get to safety. ;)

Playing poorly isn’t what bothers me, I can still have a great time while failing miserably at something, especially if I’m drunk. :) What makes gaming like that so bad is the disconnect I feel from the avatar. I’m not playing as him, I’m controlling him through a keyboard or gamepad, and I’m doing it poorly at that. This leads me to feel like I’m doing some stunted version of gaming that doesn’t feel natural. I think that’s why I don’t enjoy gaming while plastered. Though I did have a pretty hilarious time chainsawing people while playing Gears 2 awhile back. Turns out you don’t have to be able to see straight to do that.

El Classico

I’ve recently been reading about the various talks at GDC this year. One that seemed to get a lot of attention around the blogosphere was about game developers still being adolescents by Heather Chaplin. I don’t necessarily care to discuss her controversial opinion; there is plenty of that already. One particular part stood out however; when she said that when film was this age it already had Citizen Kane. I’ve already mentioned my thoughts on comparing games progression as a medium to film, but this’ll be a slightly different and shorter rant.

I don’t get where people get off saying games should have a Citizen Kane or a Godfather by now. It’s a pretty common accusation that doesn’t really make sense. Great films come out all the time, but by definition to become a classic it has to be judged over time. Citizen Kane wasn’t immediately lauded for being the greatest film ever created, it took time for people to recognize it. When something good comes out we can appreciate it immediately, but it can’t be considered timeless until some time has passed. Games haven’t even been around long enough to create a classic.

I have a feeling we’ll be talking about games like Shadow of the Colossus and Deus Ex for years to come. If people ever start studying video games aside from the production side I imagine games like Mario 64 will definitely be covered for laying down the groundwork for the transition to 3D. There are plenty of important games, including some with uniquely presented and interesting stories.

To sum up, we don’t know what games will become the classics, whose to say there isn’t already a Citizen Kane?