 |
|
|
| |
Analysis: How Assassin's Creed 2 Teaches Us To Make Our Own Fun
by Connor Cleary [PC, Console/PC, Exclusive]
|
|
| |
|
July 26, 2010
|
| |
[In this Gamasutra analysis piece, Connor Cleary discusses the importance of balancing logistical necessities with emotional engagement in gaming, using examples from Assassin's Creed and StarCraft to show that the ways players choose to personalize their game experiences greatly impacts their experience.]
I have heard several people complain that the combat system in the Assassin’s Creed franchise is too boring; anyone who has played either iteration will understand what I mean when I say that you can win any fight with one hand. But if you haven’t played them, here’s a quick explanation: you have the option of simply holding the block button and activating a parry against any incoming attacks, and since parries are also automatic counter-attacks there is no need to fully engage in any battle.
But it should be noted that Assassin’s Creed 2 offers a very wide variety of weapons and gimmicks and tactics to choose from which, if utilized, can produce some really interesting and epic battles. The drawback is that making use of that variety is not the most efficient way to fight.
So you might take some damage if you decide to try breaking the enemy’s arm to steal their spear, or if you try to jump up on a ledge and rain throwing knives down upon your pursuers. These are more risky than the simple block, parry, block, parry, block, parry—but they are also infinitely more fun, and making your own fun is important.
So where exactly does the division of responsibility lie between the game studio and the gamer in creating an entertaining experience? Clearly the game studio has to produce a quality title, and no amount of personal engagement can save a terrible game. But is it reasonable for us as gamers and consumers to expect every iota of entertainment to be served up on a platter with absolutely no involvement on our end?
The short answer is clearly “No.” That is not reasonable. Games are not movies; we are supposed to get involved.
Remembering The Real Sandbox
The longer answer, obviously, depends on the type of game being discussed. A highly linear game generally requires just a suspension of disbelief and a desire to keep playing. Simple silly-fun games—while great—are another story entirely. But as for the open-world type games, there is a reason we have attached the adjective “sandbox” to them.
Remember being a kid in an actual sandbox? An active imagination and a few simple toys were all you needed for hours of fun. That is essentially what the open-world design gives us. But in this case, our sandbox is a finely crafted alternate reality, and our toys are swords and bows and magic, or guns and bombs and gadgets.
We are given the ability to create our own events in these worlds, and to act out those events in ways that satisfy and entertain us on a deeper level. Did someone say something nice to you in Fable II? Go ahead, give them a jewel, or some chocolates. Did someone say something mean to you in Fallout 3? Go ahead, slip a live grenade in their pocket. But if there are no in-game benefits to doing such things, then why bother?
Because it makes you smile.
Sometimes these actions may come back to haunt you—like in Mass Effect or Heavy Rain—but this can also create a more engaging experience. If you’ve ever played Dungeons & Dragons or any similar pen-and-paper RPG system, you probably already know the satisfaction that comes with developing a complex character.
It involves exploring and detailing your invented character’s psychology and background, deciding his or her strengths and weaknesses. But it also means role playing both their virtues and their flaws, even to the potential detriment of yourself or your party—because it’s interactive fiction, and perfect heroes are boring.
Your Own Personal History
Take Dragon Age: Origins, for example: Maybe your Elf character has a seething hatred for Humans (because Humans enslaved the entire Elven race in the past) but is otherwise a good-natured hero. Your sharp tongue with Humans might cause you to miss out on certain opportunities, but it will also contribute to the feeling that this is your story, that you have created a unique experience for yourself.
But this kind of personal involvement actually isn’t limited to sandbox or character-driven games. Our imaginations are powerful story-crafters, and if we’re not afraid to use them we can add deeper immersion to all kinds of games.
A while back, I was playing StarCraft with a friend of mine—let’s call him Greg—and I found out something really interesting about how he plays. We were playing as Terrans (Humans) against computer opponents of unknown race. When we discovered they were Zerg (Bug-like monsters, think Starship Troopers’ arachnids meets the aliens from Aliens), he gasped and said “Zerg!” under his breath. He sounded genuinely scared, so naturally I laughed at him.
Greg later explained that when he plays StarCraft, he prefers to conjure up a little fiction for each round. He says, for example, it’s more fun to pretend that he is the leader of a group of human settlers trying to colonize a new world—rather than thinking like a detached, calculating, omniscient overmind. Because he had invested in that little fiction, the discovery of a Zerg base provoked a sincere emotional response. In taking it upon himself to add another level to the game, he created a more fulfilling experience.
Let’s take another medium as a final example: A psychologically charged movie is going to be a far more compelling experience for the audience members who allow themselves to be fully immersed and emotionally invested—while intentionally ignoring the fourth wall.
The same can be said of games and gamers. Meanwhile, if we spend every moment of our in-game time focusing on game mechanics and calculating how to maximize power and minimize loss, we will be seriously stunting our capacity to be moved and entertained in a genuine and more deeply satisfying way.
To be fair, leveling is important, damage output is important, and having enough money is important—no one wants to be a weak hero who is also broke. But having a fulfilling experience is important too. I think that creating a truly excellent gaming experience for yourself means finding a balance between logistical necessities and emotional fulfillment—and come to think of it, same goes for real life.
|
| |
|
|
One of the thing that sold me the game, was the ability of actually creating my own mission structure for every assassination. I loved to climb every observation point, as I was making a short recon of the area, After that I tried to "liberate" the city (help the citizens)in order to make them back up my cause, after that I made the regular missions to get the information and only after that I would meet my mark. I Made 1 assassination per day, creating a story in my head for every assassination (not the assassination story itself, but how Altair got to his target) and I have to say that no game this year got to me as much as Assassins Creed did, it felt as good as Far Cry2.
It made me think on this matter exactly, the last time that I role played anything in a computer game was when my squad in XCOM would enter a mission. I was writing the story of my game, it was my OWN experience, and no one else. It was a completely unique game that I played that I could never share anyone. It was the story of Commander Spiegel and its squad against the invaders, the same way it was the story of Altair in which he alone stopped a conspiracy.
I've come to realize that games do not need stories.. games need plots, and you (as the player) fill out the blank spot through gameplay. And with this you create a unique game for yourself, and have fun.. lots and lots of fun..
I definitely prefer that style of game; one that doesn't require much at a base level, but then rewards you (intellectually / outside the game) for trying more difficult methods. I think too many gamers these days expect games to feed them complexity for entertainment rather than leaving it up them to choose how to enjoy the game.
That said, I'm glad they're upping the AI aggressiveness in Brotherhood. It'll make the combat a bit faster paced more fun because the counter-kills should roll in a bit faster.
From talking with a varied group of gamers, it seems to me that we have been trained to exploit systems for maximum efficiency and expect, often demand, that developers place constraints on their systems to keep us from doing so. I don't agree as I believe there's an important lesson inherent in the fact that, like in life, game systems can be exploited for greater external gain, but lesser personal satisfaction.
Just for comparison, Oblivion allowed me to think about my character that I was playing and give him his own backstory for moving forward. With all the exploration it was awesome. I bought the GOTY edition and I will start on Knights of the Nine after AC2. The game even allowed me to buy a house and literally put my sword down and just explore and help people without always resorting to violence. I felt like a TV character or a character from a novel that in each book, continues on their journey of self exploration.
In AC2, I have heard many complaints about combat, but there is so much variety that I love it. I was able to aggressively beat off one opponent while another attacked, and I was able to counter with my hidden daggers and stab him in his neck. Immediately after that I was able to break someone's arm and take their sword. After that I stabbed and killed them while another with a hammer attacked in which I countered and staked them to death. After I dropped their weapons, and I hoisted myself to the top of a roof and looked down while other soldiers asked who did it. I ran off as nightfall was approaching like a properly trained ninja.
So I agree with everyone in the comments as well that sometimes, you can't leave the developer to create immersion into a sandbox game. When I was a kid, I owned plenty of toys regardless of how I obtained them. :-) But I had all 7 characters from Star Trek the Next Generation. I also had the miniature ships that came 3 in a pack. I had about 10 of them with some repeat ships. I was able to carry my crew from the Enterprise to planets that they had never been to and use other figures that were not part of the Star Trek universe as my new breed of aliens. It was so much so that I used Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as a breed of creatures on a planet that was mostly water filled. And Data was chosen to fight their master of combat. Not sure if anyone even remembers the turtle that was mutated but was a combination of all 4 of the others.
Another example of using our own imagination to power our thoughts. AC2 was challenging in every to me because everything you were able to do, you can do according to how you saw fit. We have to think on our own at some point instead of always being force fed. :-)
I'd also say that part of what made games like Deus Ex and D&D so much fun was choosing less-than perfect ways of defeating your enemies. However, simply offering multiple routes or strategies is pointless if you don't provide the player with a few incentives to use those techniques. If it's too easy to parry all the time, and it's too hard to pull off other moves, you've created a bad gameplay situation. My guess (having not played it) is that AC2 makes it too difficult to try other techniques, so most players will find the combat boring. People may clear system shock 2 with only the wrench, but forcing the players to set meta-game constraints on themselves to have fun is clearly not the right way to solve the problem.
Yes.
Although I (like most of the commenters) would be inclined to use a more RPG-driven game than AC to make this point, I think the final point is excellent... with some tweaks. :)
Tweak 1: Why stop at logistical and diplomatic gameplay? How about tactical and strategic play as well? A phrase I've caught myself using lately is that a really balanced game exercises not just hands (logistics) and glands (tactics) but hearts (diplomacy) and minds (strategy) as well.
Tweak 2: While I agree that it's reasonable to expect the player to expend some effort in a sandbox gameworld to experience those diplomatic/strategic/logistical/tactical gameplay moments, the game developer has to provide the fundamental systems that allow players to express those playstyles. It's no good saying that players need to tell their own stories if tools for telling unique stories aren't implemented; likewise for the other playstyle preferences.
This was part of the grumpiness among roleplayers when substantial chunks of the RPG system in Mass Effect were deleted in the sequel: the tools needed to tell a unique story (through the abilities chosen for one's character, which affected the problem-solving approaches taken) were weakened. ME2 was still fun... it was just more like the same kind of fun that every other player had. Why was it necessary that my Shepard be very similar to your Shepard?
...
Those are just tweaks, albeit ones I think do matter. That said, excellent essay, and (FWIW) strong agreement on the conclusion.
For those who haven't seen it, a while back I wrote an article about how Red Dead Remption's pacing succeeds here: http://www.examiner.com/x-56957-Milwaukee-Video-Game-Examiner~y2010m7d7-Pacing-R
ed-Dead-Redemption-succeeds-where-GTA-IV-failed
And in my review, where that pacing failed (somewhat) at the end: http://www.examiner.com/x-56957-Milwaukee-Video-Game-Examiner~y2010m7d15-Red-Dea
d-Redemption-Final-Review
Great article!
For another, there aren't enough music tracks in the game. I hate how being notorious "takes over" the music; as in only that one track will play, even if other music would normally play that would better suit the mood. There are maybe 3 different tracks for normal city themes, and while the music is not bad, only 1 of those tracks seems to get played the entire game.
Also, I really despise how they cut out 2 chapters from the campaign so they could later sell it as a DLC. That's just bullshit. We paid $60, let us get the complete game. Invent some new content, instead of cutting it. Without the DLC, there's not a whole lot to do in Forli.
I hope in the next installment, they will make it possible to miss ledges, slip, or otherwise screw up your acrobatic manuvers, because that would make it more interesting, rather than being a master climber from the outset of the game. Or at least have some kind of trade-off for your abilities; if you want to be good at one thing, you have to be bad or mediocre at another. Rather than being the bomb at every single thing you can do. That would make "do things as you see fit" a lot more prevalent, since you could choose your abilities and actually have to use the strategies you picked out. Rather than being able to be successful using any strategy.