|
Too Much of a Good Thing
A friend of mine once sampled two action films to find the
percentage of action scenes contained in each movie, such as fistfights,
gunfights, pursuit (car and foot) and physical stunts. I estimated action
scenes made up 70% of each movie. What he showed me was surprising:
Minority Report
Action: 11 min
Length: 137 min
Action Content Ratio: 8%
Mission Impossible 2
Action: 28 min
Length: 120 min
Action Content Ratio: 23%
Conversely, most narrative driven action games feature a majority of the gameplay as action, whether is acrobatics, combat, taking cover or driving. If it’s not action, it’s a cinematic or a lull in the action as players move towards the next action zone. There are exceptions, but a majority of the action games overwhelmingly use action gameplay over other types of gameplay experiences. That’s too bad because I think games, especially their narratives could be improved if they used less action gameplay.
Tom Cross, who has written about dialog in games before and again recently, wrote, “While I think it’s admirable that a portion of the industry still strives to forward the puzzle/adventure genre, it’s exciting to witness the evolution of other, less popular alternatives to combat.” The less popular alternatives to combat he’s referring to are dialog based gameplay.
Generally western adventure games in the style of LucasArts and Sierra classics are avoided by publishers like the plague. But what about them pesky never-say-die adventure games? If action games were to reduce their use of action gameplay, what else besides dialog could be gameplay?
Passport Please
Last week I fired up Eco Quest II: Lost Secret of the Rainforest (Eco Quest series by Sierra was way ahead of its time, highly recommended) and the first bit of gameplay required me to show the customs agent my passport. I had to go into my inventory, select the passport and use it on the customs agent. After stamping it, he let me through. I thought that was kind of cool. Not that I think there should be an FPS where all you do is run around and shove passports in peoples faces, but it was cool, if only because it was different.
Why don’t I do this in other games outside the adventure genre? Why are the mechanics of using an inventory item on people or the environment largely monopolized by the red-haired-step-child-of-the-industry adventure genre? How dare they keep this potentially wide ranging and expressive gameplay for themselves!
Let’s see how using the tried and true inventory manipulation gameplay from adventure games could work in an FPS, like Half-Life 2. The beginning of HL2 has the player arrive at a train station and eventually meets a Combine security guard. The guard orders the player to pick up a can on the ground and put it in the trash. What if the security guard instead asked for a passport? If players didn’t show it, he’d take that electro-stick and swat them, same as before. But if they did show it, he’d accuse them of trying to use a fake passport and force them into detention, where they’d meet up with their old friend, Barney like before.
I think this would work well because of how closely it relates to the world of increased security we find ourselves in. Half-Life 2 does a great job of creating an Orwellian oppressive atmosphere, but gameplay requiring players to show a passport to the security guard could really hit home for a lot of people and help create a sense of oppression that transcends the game and enters reality.
The use of inventory objects on people and the environment is an extremely versatile and powerful gameplay mechanic. Give an NPC a flower to cheer them up or shove a piece of stone into the gears that control the crushing walls that are about to turn you into a pancake.
Snuggle and Watch To Kill a Mockingbird
The Darkness already has a segment of gameplay where players can sit on a couch with their girlfriend and watch To Kill a Mockingbird. If they stay long enough, they get achievements and eventually a kiss from the girl. This was a bold move by Starbreeze Studios to put this low-key, intimate gameplay in a high-octane action FPS. But it works, especially in service of the story because it allows players to connect with the girlfriend, setting up an emotional payoff that comes later in the game.
If our art form is to deal with adult subject matter and express the human condition, surely we could do less running, jumping and fighting and more hand holding, kissing, high-fiving, smiling, hugging, shitting and crying.
The Urinal Game
We game developers can’t seem to figure out how to implement dialog into our games very well. Characters can’t talk and walk at the same time. They absolutely must stand still and face each other, directly in the eye, like in Mass Effect and Prince of Persia. There’s no reason conversation can’t resemble actual conversation however.
The same friend that I mentioned above also said to me once, “Don't underestimate the narrative power of taking a piss!” I’m not suggesting the kind of pissing gameplay found in Postal or running around in Duke Nukem 3D flushing toilets. Instead, what if you were having a conversation with an NPC who was on his way to the bathroom and you had to follow him in to continue it? He walks up to the urinal and you are faced with a daunting decision. Do I hang back? Do I stand next to him or skip a urinal to give him space? Decisions, decisions! My friend explained that a lot about a characters' relationship and comfort level with another can be communicated by how they interact in the bathroom.
You Want a Beef Tortilla Without the Tortilla?
I once asked for a Beef Tortilla, but because of my Crohn's disease, I asked not to have the Tortilla, which confused the waiter. While I'm not asking that all action be removed from action games, I do think a large reduction can improve the narrative. I assume this may be confusing for some, but there are reasons to use less action gameplay.
First, it can help break up the pacing. Action games that are relentless tend to overwhelm the psychic energy of the player and they get burned out quickly, even bored if the action isn’t revealing new surprises consistently, which is rare to maintain over a 10 – 20 hr stretch.
Second, I think the overwhelming use of action gameplay in narrative driven games devalues the narrative purpose of action. The action would mean a lot more if it were in contrast to lower adrenaline pumping gameplay experiences.
Have you ever known someone who was quiet, never swore, but then one day, they raise their voice and let slip a swear word? Contrasting their quiet side with the sudden hostile behavior greatly emphasizes their change in behavior and its meaning.
Action is frequently used as a metaphor for a characters’ internal struggle to grow as a character. In a narrative driven game, if characters start the game fighting and mission after mission continue fighting, despite the character growing in physical abilities, it says nothing about their psychological growth as a character.
Remember the start of Star Wars? Luke Skywalker is a farm boy who is committed to his family and can’t join the rebellion. Imagine Star Wars was first released as a videogame. The beginning would have started with Luke already a Jedi trying to bring down the evil empire. He'd go from being a great Jedi to an even greater Jedi! Frankly, that's rather boring to me.
Change in a characters’ psychological makeup can be much more powerful if the gameplay outside of action helps us see the transformation characters undergo. It would mean a lot more if a Gordon Freeman type character were someone who wanted to help the resistance effort by using his technical skills, but was too afraid to commit anything more, such as their life. Then over time the character is force into not only committing themselves mentally, but physically and, maybe even spiritually.
Through gameplay the player can easily experience the growth as they transition from intellectual gameplay to physical to spiritual. In the end, the player gains an unparalleled understanding of the character because they experienced the transformation for themselves. A character that is committed in mind, body and spirit has more depth than many action heroes in games today.
Conclusion
It’s unfortunate many games fill their gameplay experiences overwhelmingly with action gameplay. To create a compelling narrative experience, it’s important to allow players to experience a wide variety of gameplay with and without action. With less action, there is room for exploring a player character’s psychological or spiritual side and help give depth to the narrative experience. Adventure games and even non-traditional mini-games can offer gameplay solutions that help maintain narrative continuity with the action bits. What that will do is offer different facets of the experience that can lend greater meaning to the whole.
|
overally i definitely agree that more adventure gameplay could be invested and enhance stories in all genres to boost story telling.
Reid, your example of Eco Quest II's passport puzzle reminds me of a Medal of Honor: Allied Assault that had the player sneaking into a German sub pen. There was minimal combat (you could shoot everything in sight if you so chose) and most of the mission was spent exploring the facility, gathering intelligence, and shoving increasingly higher-ranking identification under the guards' noses.
Id like to know if you checked out Call of Duty 4, a few missions in that game really get you deep inside some of theses soldier's minds, such as the famous sniper mission where you get to sneak around a german camp in order to track down a target, so intense, you nearly get run over by a tank and its supporters as they go through a grass field without knowing of your existence. Its hard to explain but its a must play feeling that you will rarely get with your common shooter.
Now an interesting experiment would be crossing over that kind of stealth/ pumping emotion and possibly having a few puzzles a-la-Zack and Wiki (which is somewhat of a throwback to the Punishing Sierra Quest games) or maybe mixing up the old " Flashback" game's adventure and exploration ambiance with a competent FPS engine. The tough call is, would the market appreciate it, that kind of game would appeal to the hardcore gamers who aren't too impatient or looking to simply blow up heads for a good 7 hours.
Overall, great posts, its really got me thinking, hope we get to see something similar soon or an integration of that kind of feature.
-Rom
@Reid: All of this discussion makes me wonder if "immersive action" is really an oxymoron. Perhaps the highest experience action can provide is "flow", where the visual scene is broken down into granular meta-objects ("enemy" "ammo" "cover") and processed at lightning speed... a complete divorce from the context and narrative. Interesting!
One of my favorite series of games is God of War, not only for the fun gameplay and brutal violence, but also because of my involvement in the character; I actually find myself caring about Kratos and wondering what his next adventure will bring. One of my favorite moments came when I had to protect my family from darker versions of myself. During the battle, I had the option of holding them close and giving them my strength, putting their lives above my own. That kind of stuff really makes an impact for me.
I do respectfully disagree with the movie ratio, and here's why- a movie requires a strong narrative and only has 90 to 120 minutes (typically) to fit in all the action and dialogue. If you look at most of the major action/adventure game releases in the last few yeras, there is probably over 90minutes between the CG and in-game dialogue, so I feel games actually give the consumer more narrative already. Also, movies are a passive activity requiring nothing more from the viewer than to sit and watch, where as games require interactivity (if that is even a word). Some new gameplay elements to drive the narrative are always welcome - as long as they are gameplay elements and not more reading/watching.
@Voivodul Vlad
-- "The example of yours about hl2 will not be as good as the original because "pick up the can" makes you feel you're under strict control of the combines and the player would feel himself a "toy" of the combine."
I interpreted the purpose of the original gameplay sequence to introduce who the antagonist force is, who the enemy is, not that the player is their "toy". Demanding the see a passport in a threatening manner and forcing the player into detention on false claims of a fake passport accomplishes the same thing.
I'm not sure why a designer would want to suggest to the player that the character they play as, in this case Gordon Freeman, is a "toy" that can be played with and mocked. Players know that's not the case, he's a physicist who knows how to split heads with a crowbar, someone not to be toyed with.
@CJ
-- "...that Half-Life 2, after the shooting and driving and talking, is about manipulating objects in the world."
I replayed the level in HL2 before I wrote the article and right before the "pick up the can" scene, the player is tasked with picking up a crate to escape. Players were already taught how to manipulate physics. I believe the core purpose of that scene was to setup who the enemy is.
BTW: There's no reason to have one or the other, both scenes can work in the game but ideally only would be used it to keep it tight. Maybe merge the two, as you take out the passport to hand to the guard, he swats your hands, making you drop the passport. Then orders you to pick it up, but you can't because your hands are numb (assuming the game would render the player's hands and use IK animation). That would be brutal, :)
Cool example with Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, I have played it, remember it vaguely but not the ID-ing part.
@Rom
I remember the mission where I had to lay down in the tall grass field and tanks and soldiers walked by. That was really frickin' intense. It's intriguing to me how many people call that out as a great experience but just as easily it could have failed and people complain the AI was so stupid it couldn't find the player under their noses.
But it didn’t fail, it rocked. It's the context that sells it. You know you are dressed to blend into the environment so you expect and hope you do.
To be clear, I consider the CoD4 sneak mission we're talking about to be an action sequence, related to pursuit by foot. You are being pursued and need to sneak by safely.
@Ted
That is interesting and there probably is that risk, that players get so pre-occupied with the mechanics of what they are trying to do, like aiming for a specific spot on the enemy to deal the most damage, that they lose connection to the overall narrative.
I don't think that would happen to all players though. Everyone is different, some play for a narrative experience and some play to achieve mastery over the mechanics. The narrative driven action games I am thinking of are made for people who want to experience the narrative rather than master the mechanics. Otherwise, why have the narrative at all? Give them Tetris, but with guns.
It's like the professional Quake players who turn the graphics to minimal setting so they can focus on the mechanics instead of how pretty everything looks.
@Edward
The scene with the player's family in God of War is action; a multi-layered and important action sequence, but still action at its core. I have seen others mention it as being memorable. It's too bad there aren't more types of gameplay like that sprinkled throughout God of War and not just at the end.
You hear that Sony? People loved that! Give 'em more.
@Tom
Maybe I misunderstand your point, but I'm not saying games need more narrative, just different kinds of experiences to give variety and spice to the overall narrative so it's not overwhelmingly based on action.
And movies aren’t the only example. Narratives in books and theater also express a wide range of experiences from their characters other than action from start to finish.
One game that did this a little better was Heavenly Sword. Unfortunately, it was also a very short game with little replay value, but I think this owes more to the combat system works than anything else.
a classic observation of characters talking. Why do you have to stand still and face them? So simple to change it.
I think this is a great article, all games aside I truely believe only "The Darkness" by Starbreeze Studios has achieved what you have raised. As you mentioned it is a a "high-octance action fps", however throughout the game it uses this "Action Content Ratio" consistently. For example the start of the game explores your theory perfectly, the game plays for three minutes (Youtube confirmed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA-yCKSRZAY = D) and after the build up the player is given control into what is a fantastic on the rails shooting experience. Following the car crashing through the wall, the play is once again contrasted through the player witnessing a friends death etc...
The cycle we have both described is played throughout whether its exploring the subways of the game, phoning random phone numbers or beating a street hustler at a cup game, the game is perfect in the way it flows from "Action to Character / Story Development". I'm interested would you agree with my point of view, that even though it is a FPS, it is relatively light in shooting and more of a adventure game?
Furthermore I believe your article is highly related to the recent Gamasutra "Opinion: The Breadth Of Game Design" by Jean-Paul LeBreton (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23312). In his article he mentions "that a game like BioShock is a meditation on free will, the dangers of ideological extremes, and whatever else… despite the fact that you spend about 90 percent of it shooting people in the face". I believe this article completely sums up your hypothesis. A game like the "The Darkness" delivered the "emotional payoff" you speak of because it managed this perfectly. While "Bioshock" was a great game it was lacking in dividing it "Action / Content ratio" you speak of. It would be great to hear your perespective on Jean-Paul LeBreton's article, because I really think you are both on a similar path.
Either way I look forward to your response
There is quite a bit of shooting gameplay in The Darkness. Though, one problem with talking about content ratios in games like The Darkness is that players have a choice in the ratio of content types they experience. There are a lot of side quests that aren't combat related, like helping to find items that other people lost or as you say, using the payphone. All of that is optional and does help to diversify the gameplay experience. But if a player ignores them, the game is still heavily dependent on action. What I'm asking for is that even if players ignore side quests, the main path of the game still offers a variety of gameplay experiences other than action. The Darkness mixes it up more than most games do, but I think it could mix it up even more.
I agree with Jean-Paul's piece. We are asking for the same thing. I liked what he said in his closing paragraphs:
"Whereas if you start with an expressive goal and realize along the way that you must create new things to attain that goal, then that's innovation as a means rather than an end."
This is key and I will be posting an article about the need to focus design around expression rather than technology or even core gameplay mechanics for the sake of having those mechanics.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Greg.
Thanks for the response. It's very true that if all the optional side quests of "The Darkness" are ignored the game is still heavily dependent on action. My only view is that Starbreeze while taking risks in putting as you call it "low-key, intimate gameplay in a high-octane action FPS" viewed these components as more of an experiment than anything. I hope Starbreeze Studios and other developers see these experiments as worthwhile and commit to "mixing up" their game play. Once again great article and it definitely opened my eyes to the need to mix up "Action to Character / Story Development" in action games.
I look forward to your next article