28
2009
Minstrels
An article by Gazimoff
It’s sometimes remarked that videogames are the most complex form of entertainment available. Some have been known to cost more to produce that a big Hollywood blockbuster movie, while others have managed to languish in development hell. But as the technology involved in videogame production begins to plateau (the next generation of consoles is estimated to launch in 2012), what methods do developers have to ensure their games manage to capture the attention of the marketplace and media?
Almost any videogame can be neatly divided into three discrete sections or domains. The first and probably the most understood from a computing perspective is the technology that underpins it. This includes components such as the graphics and physics engines, networking facilities and so on. Some developers tend to construct the technology themselves, while others use middleware and toolsets available from various third parties. The second component is the set of rules, mechanics and principles that make up the game, such as lining up blocks to make complete rows in Tetris or traversing a series of obstacles and enemies in Super Mario Bros. Rules and mechanics can govern how a player can interact with various aspects of the game, but crucially also involve how elements may behave reactively to player behaviour. Finally, videogames have a story, plot or setting that surrounds the game and provides meaning for why the game mechanics exist. Some game aspects, such as art, model work, music and so on may straddle more than one area, as they may have an impact on the technologies employed or the way the story is revealed to the player. It’s also fair to say that different games will have different weightings on one of the three aspects, with a first person shooter being more reliant on a strong game engine, while an RPG would be more focused on providing a strong game world and a cohesive set of quests for the player to work through.
While this is all well and good, what relevance does it have? Well, as is traditional at this time of the year, the great and good of videogaming journalism have been providing their feedback on the greatest games of 2008. But while the similarity between the titles is interesting in it’s own way, even more so are the reasons why the particular videogames have been chosen. Titles like Fallout 3, Fable II, LittleBigPlanet and World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King seem to be continually cited in “best of 2008″ lists not because they introduced new technologies but because of the stories they told (or in the case of LBP the stories it allows the players to tell). One quote I heard from the Custom PC Podcast was that 2008 was “the year of the story”, and while I’m not sure I feel as strongly about last year’s selection of releases, I can see where the quote was coming from. Technical aspects of a game can be rapidly developed through the use of off-the-shelf middleware and toolsets such as the Havok physics engine and the modeller/animator 3ds Max. Even entire game engines are available, with Valve offering Source, Crytek offering the CryEngine and id Software developing id Tech 5. Such an abundance of options available allow a developer to free up more resources developing and refining the game itself.
It’s difficult to say though if videogames are developing richer stories because they are able to spend more time on it, or if the industry as a whole is generally becoming more mature. Nowadays it’s not unusual to find a member of the development team responsible for the storyline or background of a new title. Professional writers are frequently consulted during development, from generating rough ideas or concepts through to penning the plot single-handed. As Clive Barker’s Jericho demonstrates, having a strong plotline and setting doesn’t guarantee an excellent game, just as Mirror’s Edge demonstrates a game where exposing more of Rhianna Pratchett’s story may have enhanced the game further. That said, there does feel to be a strong trend from technologically groundbreaking games such as Quake to more generally inspiring titles such as Grand Theft Auto 4 and Left 4 Dead.
There is one other striking feeling about the “Best of 2008″ lists – the domination of consoles as opposed to PC versions. Admittedly there’s the almost perennial argument about the death of PC gaming and the general failure of Microsoft’s “Games for Windows” initiative, or how Spore being the most pirated game of 2008 either demonstrates the folly of DRM protection or the folly of developing for the PC. That aside, the PC has traditionally been the traditional technology showcase for videogaming, being the platform where the newest concepts from industry stalwarts would be demonstrated. With consumers becoming less and less interested in the cutting edge of videogaming tech (as record sales of the Wii have shown), will the PC’s standing diminish? It almost feels as if the Xbox has done too well in encouraging PC developers to port to the console, as for me at least almost all the titles I’m getting excited about for 2009 are being launched either simultaneously or exclusively on the consoles. Could it be that providing the hardcore gaming community with a continually refreshed visual extravaganza is becoming less of a priority, and that instead developers are focusing on games that cater more for the middle road of gaming while letting the middleware developers provide the technological upgrades on a slower path?
For me, the videogaming industry will trend in similar ways to the cinematic one. By pulling away from being a direct innovator of technology but instead influencing technological development and direction and instead focusing on delivering a rich and entertaining product that many more of us can enjoy. Just like the minstrels from days gone by, who would seek to entertain us with the skills they had and the instruments available, so do I think today’s developers will share new tales with us with an altogether more modern ensemble.
I think that the problem with plots is that many gamers are being lead into a belief (usually through the sort of review critics and magazines that look at Graphics and Plot over gameplay and actual FUN) that they want big long complicated plots with twists, backstories and even multiple endings as an option. Because if not they’re clearly being treated as idiots by a game designer who obviously thought a complicated story would be too much for them.
Constant throwback references to how the Final Fantasy series is an awesome story teller and an example of plot meets game. But in Final Fantasy the story is underlying and half the time leads to another almost instant encounter, or just keeps the action going. Most of these heavy plot story telling games today are cutscene after cutscene where if I can’t actually skip the damn thing I’m forced to stop play to watch.
Yes sometimes games probably lack enough plot and background as to explain a situation (ala Mirror’s Edge, you’re really not given enough explanation as to the why factor of it all) but to me the perfect idea of game meets plot is where it compliments the action, not overruns it, like Resident Evil or Command and Conquer style games. Red Alert 2 for example was awesome at plotlines and cutscenes (that skippable) that entertained. The same went for Westwood’s last roll of the dice with Emperor: Battle for Dune.
To me, games like Day of the Tentacle, Simon the Sorceror and Sam’n'Max were the kind of games that could get away with working a long plot, or constant story and dialog because that’s what the games were about. There were minigames in some of those titles but they didn’t force you to stop playing the main story. It’s the element of choice, something Bethesda do well with both FO3 and Oblivion, you can play the main story straight through and not touch a single side piece of content if you want to, or it’s always there and available if you do.
As for PC gaming being dead, well it will always struggle in an offline gaming world against console gaming, but there will always be PC only titles that will keep the system going. Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, Empire: Total War, Dawn of War 2 all spring to mind. Now while this means PC gaming is somewhat pigeonholed into RTS/Adventure style gaming it’s no different than the Wii’s style of family play/adventure or the XBox/PS3′s style of Shoot/Racer specialisations.
What the PC will always have is the MMO market, which will always keep people playing and pushing to improve their PC hardware and software in order to keep the best graphics running, the best performance and smoothness in what is essentially competitive gaming. The same can be said for Counterstrike: Source, four years old and still gets a large player following.
I think that in general you are right – Additionally, I am feeling like “Havoc engine – watch stuff break!” and “Choose your own storyline!” or “Sandbox world” is becoming an excuse not to actually make a decent game. Not saying that stories with impressive physic engines and a karma system of some kind can not be good – I hugely enjoyed portals and knights of the old republic, but I am getting a definite vibe of “Sure, I get it, you can make wood splinter in a cool way… Bravo.. Can we have some decent storytelling and some immersive gameplay soon?”.
I am feeling like games are getting posh… They have to be more than they are; You can not just make a FPS, you HAVE to have either “Impressive physics!” or “RPG-elements” and honestly I think that it is trying to be more than I want. I for one have a blast every time i play Serious Sam, though that most certainly not is the most difficult or plot-filled game. It is a shooter, it knows it, and it loves it – and that is what I think many game titles is lacking, the humilty to admit what they are and just run with it. I felt the same happened (And for me it was what killed this series) in GTA: San Andreas – suddenly they stuffed in these “RPG-elements” which effectively introduced grind in a game that was all about doing what the heck you wanted to. If I want to watch my diet or dress up my character (Which I don’t really do all too often) I would play The Sims.
I think both your opinions are valid. I feel that having a good story only helps to strengthen a game as it aids immersion and helps keep the player hooked. Having said that, the story shouldn’t get in the way of gameplay or prevent the player from having fun, just as gameplay shouldn’t prevent the story from being told. It’s all about maintaining the flow and pacing of a game, and avoiding choices that take away that feeling of playing a game instead of watching an interactive movie.
On the subject of PC gaming, I am even wary about the strength of the platform as an MMO option. On the Xbox 360 you already have voice chat built in as standard, with a keyboard accessory that clips into the joypad available for £20. Star Trek Online (an MMO) is being developed for both PC and console play. Halo Wars is an action RTS also coming out for the Xbox. I just get the feeling that content that’s been traditionally PC based is starting to drift towards consoles. I also think that people are less likely to shell out on upgrading their PC every six months while we’re in this recession, which makes tech-heavy games like Crysis seem even more like a pretty bad investment choice.
If you’re interested in hearing some more thoughts on gaming narrative from some professionals, pick up the latest copy of Rebel FM (episode 4). They have quite a large segment on techniques employed to explore narrative that you’ll probably find quite interesting:
http://www.eat-sleep-game.com/news/2009/01/28/rebel-fm-episode-4-012809/