Characterization and Storytelling

So lets talk about games as art, which I guess is kind of the "theme" of this blog. Kinda. A little. It's pretty well accepted that games are, at least in part, a storytelling medium. Visual design is extremely important as well, of course, but we're talking about stories right now.

This is an extraordinary time to be interested in games. I believe we're living in a period where the industry is really finding itself as a storytelling medium. The big question of this era in gaming is, I believe, "What kind of stories can you tell with a game?" There are stories in movie form you wouldn't want to tell outside that medium, and there are stories in book form that don't work outside of that. It stands to reason that there are stories, and ways of telling stories, that are unique to games. A very short time ago (well less than a decade) a game's story could be considered to be a movie, interspersed with periods of game-play. While many games still hold to this (and there is nothing wrong with that, yet) it is becoming increasingly clear that the progress of games is now calling for innovations not only in game-play, but in the presentation of the story as well.

This is on the forefront of the minds of both developers and gamers these days, and the flavor du jour seems to be allowing the character to make choices which effect the plot. This is one of the more obvious choices. Interactivity is the defining factor of games, and putting the reins of the story in the hands of the player is an exciting thought. We've been seeing it in some degree for a long time now, particularly in the older Bioware games, but really it can be traced as far back as the original Fallout games. These days, though, it is becoming more and more popular. Games like Alpha Protocol, Mass Effect 2, and Heavy Rain are treating player-driven plot a significant advertising focus. Heavy Rain, in particular, seems to be all about the story, breaking away from the "kill hundreds of bad guys" premise which I've kvetched about earlier. It's a powerful tool, certainly, but is it the one and only future of gaming?

That was a rhetorical question. I wouldn't have asked it if my answer wasn't "probably not."

Another method, one that has largely been overlooked, to storytelling in games has been in play for a long time. Rather than focusing on the interactivity aspect of games to produce a storytelling platform, one can instead focus on the length of games. Games are in a unique position, where they offer up the visual appeal of a film, while taking as long (if not longer) to complete than a book. A really long movie will last three hours, whereas an action game's campaign will last for twelve, if it's short. Roleplaying Games can last upwards of forty hours, and usually are considerably upwards from it. This sort of time frame allows for a good writer to introduce an incredible level of characterization, and to incorporate grandiose themes into his story. It is a distinct style and, to my mind, nowhere is it seen better than in the last two games in the Shin Megami Tensei: Persona series.

In this regard, Persona 3 is the lesser of the two, but still considerably better than most. Persona games are long as hell, with the main character living a regular high school life, taking tests and joining teams and going to clubs, and then going home and fighting monsters. The relationships the player builds in his regular life have an effect on his ability to fight the monsters in his night life. While P3 certainly uses it's time well in terms of characters, each person the player forms a relationship with being well developed and having a compelling story, the overarching themes of the game are pretty shaky. Each character (appropriately) has their own real theme to deal with, some a bit more compelling than others. One character, for example, deals with sacrifice for the entirety of his story arc. The very idea of claiming victory is, at first, a sacrifice in itself for him, as victory would lead to the loss of his powers and, outside of the character's monster-fighting "night life" this particular character is unremarkable at best. The same character is forced to grow up fairly quickly when another important character makes a considerable sacrifice on his behalf, giving him a more mature outlook, and a sense of what's at stake. This doesn't really have much of a bearing on the overall plot, other than the specific part of the story it is engaged with, but when it is taken in tandem with the several other personal stories of loss and growth that are happening at the same time, the game becomes a fantastic storytelling experience unique to this medium.

Persona 4 does everything 3 does, only better. Characters still have individual plots, but P4 ties them all in with the main storyline through powerful themes, the most prominent of which is "confronting the truth." While P3's larger plot is somewhat unfocused, milling around for the first forty or so hours of the game, P4 keeps things rolling pretty briskly through the whole 60-80 hour experience. The main characters are much more involved in the circumstances, as they take the roles of investigators, trying to discover the cause behind a series of strange events in their small town. As investigators, their job is to uncover the truth, which is usually extremely unpleasant. As a result, the dominant theme is people casting away comforting illusions in favor of a harsher, but inherently noble, truth. This is expressed on several levels, with the actual unraveling of the mystery often taking a back seat to the character's need to confront their own darker traits (and their denial thereof), experiencing personal epiphanies, and coming to accept reality. This carries with it several other related themes, from people taking responsibility for their life, to people coming to peace with their past for the sake of their future. I could talk considerably longer about the specifics of this game's thematic nature but A) that would take forever and B) I've done a good job of avoiding spoilers thus far, so I'm going to quit while I'm ahead.

My point is that it would be a shame for this brand of storytelling to fall by the wayside. Hopefully game developers will bear in mind that there is no substitute for a well developed set of dynamic characters, and that with 15-100 hours to tell their story, they have no excuse for two dimensional or static characters.

E3 Second Hand Look Analysis Addenduuuuuuum!

Okay so that was a little harsh, but it's the truth. E3 doesn't matter in the way that it used to. Once upon a time, dedicated gamers got their news from journalists, and when that was the case, E3 was extremely important. It was one of the biggest platforms for developers to clue in the media as to what they're making. People used it to announce things, report on progress, and get any other messages out there they wanted to convey.

However, after the advent of easy, cheap video hosting, the dynamic shifted. By now, gamers don't need the middle man for information. Sure, sites like Kotaku are useful for providing context, but as far as the raw data goes, gamers can get it themselves. Gametrailers.com is possibly the biggest factor in the fall of E3. Developers don't have to release their trailers to the press along with everyone else's anymore. They can make all the trailers and marketing videos they want, and release them directly to the public whenever they damn well please. The information is out there and, unsurprisingly, everyone who is interested is finding it.

Now, to be fair, E3 isn't as boned as it looked like it was a few years ago. It's done a fairly good job of getting back on it's feet, but the show does not hold the cultural significance that it used to. It's still a good platform for making announcements and demoing their new technology, but that makes for far less than a comprehensive look at the future of the industry. This bears significance since a sizable portion of the fan reaction seems to be extreme dread about the future of the industry.

It's a similar, if not identical, reaction to people "expressing concern" about the industry's focus on casual games. And by "expressing concern" I mean "pissing and moaning." The fact of the matter is that, with gamers getting their information for themselves, most of the industry focuses it's marketing on different areas. Just because they're not actively courting you doesn't mean that they don't give a shit about you anymore. It really doesn't do much to break the negative stereotypes surrounding gaming when the so-called hardcore gamers throw a temper tantrum every time developers pay any amount of attention to anyone else. I have a dog that does that. You know what we do with her? We put her outside.

The complaining about the industry has been going on for years. People are up in arms about Kinect now, but before it was product placement, and before that it was casual games. Ultimately, though, to see if these concerns have any grounding in reality, the only question that really needs to be asked is whether there is a shortage of good- I mean really good- games.

I'll save you some time. No. No there isn't. For the last few years, quality games have been coming out with surprising regularity. Even this year, even now, during the summer. This might be the first summer in my life where the limiting factor for new games is my ability to afford them. So yeah, if reality is any indication, the industry isn't in any immediate danger of drying up.

As for E3, it wasn't a bad show this year. It yielded some demos for the Kinect and the 3DS, the former of which could be cool if A) it works and B) somebody actually does something with it. As for the 3DS, I am very excited. I've never regretted owning a Nintendo handheld, and I'm excited to see how they pull off 3D with goggles. People who've tried it say it works. I'm as confused as you are.

Other than that, I didn't glean much from the show. I guess Deus Ex 3 could be cool, and The Old Republic seems promising. They're both far enough away that we can expect to see a good deal more information outside of E3 that we got from the show itself.

E3 Second Hand Look Analysis Extravaganzaaaa!

I do not give two shits about E3.

On Final Fantasy

Dear god, how are people still whining about Final Fantasy XIII? What bothers me is that this isn't regular fanboy ranting. People who I consider to be reasonable are ragging on this game pretty incessantly. Obviously, I liked it, and I have nothing wrong with people criticizing things that I like, but for some reason people don't seem content to just not like this one and leave it at that. Square is absolutely in a no-win situation with these people. It's become extremely clear that the traditional JRPG style isn't working out. People are doing it better. It's as simple as that. It's not like this is something nobody could have seen coming. They've spent a long time now branching Final Fantasy out into new ideas, and this is what I think will be seen as the apex of their thinking.

What the game is, essentially, is an extremely stripped-down RPG. They've decided to cut to the chase and deal with the things they aren't doing well by surgically removing them from their game. People complain about the linearity, but what they are fighting over honestly is the illusion of choice. Can you really call FFVII non-linear? Really? They tell you what to do, and then you go and do it. They give you a world map, and then you go to the town they tell you to go to. Yeah, there were side-quests, I suppose, but are you really going to decry XIII because it has a severe lack of distractions from the world-threatening plot?

By far the thing that bothers me the most is the line you have undoubtedly already heard about the game. "It gets good after about 20 hours." The line is, unfortunately, completely true. Yeah, it's a long time to wait. I mean, I thought the opening to Kingdom Hearts II was tedious, but I can't imagine how painful it's going to be to start a new game for XIII. I'm not saying that the 20 hour mark is good, or reasonable, but it's worth remembering that it really does get good after that. Personally, I was able to enjoy the game before that point and just started to enjoy it more afterwards, but whether it's worth the wait or not is absolutely up to you. The part that annoys me is that people seem to go through it, complaining all the while about how long it's taking, and then when they do hit that point they clam up. It's not like anybody doesn't know about that aspect of the game by this point. Either play it until it's good, or don't. Kvetching the whole time isn't going to make it better, and just makes people wonder why you play it if you hate it so much.

I dunno, I'm probably over-reacting. The fact of the matter is that FF XIII represents change, which is necessary for the series. Yeah, I look back fondly on FF VII, but that's what nostalgia does. No remake or attempt to recapture that game is going to live up to the memory we have of it, and Final Fantasy does itself a disservice by trying. They recognize that they have a need to avoid stagnation, and between this and the early reactions to XII, it looks like they're getting fought on it every goddamned step of the way.

Introductions and Alan Wake

I've decided to start a blog to record the various weird ideas and rants I subject my friends and family to. Hopefully doing this will make life easier on said friends and family. A lot of these will be about games and gaming, specifically (as the title suggests) videogames as an artistic medium. It's an idea I am a huge proponent of, and one which colors a lot of my opinions on both the characters and politics of the gaming world, to say nothing of the actual games which are released. Other things I like may also slip in there. It's not really a blog "about" anything. I've decided to hit the ground running with my thoughts on Alan Wake.

I've spent the last few weeks talking up Alan Wake to anyone who'll care to listen. Part of my infatuation with it probably has something to do with the fact that it appears to have been custom-made for me. It's a plot-driven survival horror game about a writer's story about another writer. I think. It gets a little Metal Gear Solid 2 on you in the end, to be honest, but it is, none the less, an excellent game.

I say the game is a survival horror, but if I were, as a reviewer might be, judging it based on it's status as an entry to the genre, I would probably be less kind. The fact of the matter is that I call it a survival horror because that's the umbrella it falls under in our pre-designated genre mindset. It would be more accurately described as a suspense thriller of sorts. The story is intriguing and engaging throughout, but it seems to come at the expense of the visceral scares you get from, say, a Silent Hill game. I mention this because, for all the things Alan Wake does extremely well in terms of plot, character development, and even gameplay, it also seems to represent a handicap which is doing the industry, and the art form, a great disservice.

By far the weakest link in Alan Wake is the combat. Unlike other entries into this genre with unimpressive combat, the weakness doesn't stem from the controls, or the camera, or any sort of gameplay-related issue. The problem is, really, in enemy variety. Every enemy is killed the same way, some just easier than others. Bosses are underwhelming to the extent that you don't really know if you've killed one, and the "final boss" is incredibly easy and feels less like a climatic encounter and more like something the developers shoehorned in because "hey, we've got to have a final boss, right?" I'm not, believe it or not, saying that there should be a great deal of enemy variety in a game like this. What holds this game back are the arbitrary "rules" that come from being an entry into a pre-conceived genre, or from being a video game at all, for that matter.

The conventional wisdom of survival horror says that your humanlike zombie opponents need to be overwhelming in number, the conventional wisdom of being a game says that the entire experience needs to focus on combat. For all that Alan Wake does, and it does plenty, to excel in it's own character, and by it's own virtue, it is badly held back by elements which are rapidly becoming outdated. Not to say that there shouldn't be any combat in the game, or any mortal danger, but if this story were told through any other medium, it would be extremely out of place to spend the majority of it mowing down shadow-monsters. On the other hand, the game doesn't have to become a puzzle-based adventure game either. At this point, can we really not have an action game without constant violence? I'm not saying the shadow-monsters shouldn't exist, I'm saying that there should be fewer of them. Especially given the events beginning around the game's halfway point, there's a lot of room to make the game a struggle for survival without having to make the main character kill hundreds of (possible) human beings.

Bringing about mainstream acceptance of video games as an art form is going to require us to change our notions about what a game is, and should entail. I'm not calling for the end of violent games, far from it. I'm not even calling for the end of gratuitous violence. I'm just saying that a high body count should not be a necessity for a mature game. At this point it evidently is, and we are starting to see ourselves the worse for it.