05. Ludonarrative Resonance/Dissonance

Ludonarrative resonance (or cohesion) is where the story told by the game is conveyed not just through the cutscenes or cinematics, but is also inherent in the game’s mechanics. Which is present in most real-time strategy (RTS) games. Take the Command & Conquer series for example, you have a mission to destroy the enemy’s base or enemy units and that is conveyed through not just the gameplay but also the cinematics before the mission starts. This formula works well in this example, but some games that consist of Ludonarrative resonance, just end up having empty worlds, the story just sucks, or maybe the game is just boring (just look at one of the hundreds of simulator games that are available).

Ludonarrative dissonance on the other hand, refers to conflicts between a video game’s narrative and its gameplay. An example would be in the game Watch_Dogs. The player takes control of Aiden Pearce, a hacker and vigilante. Spoilers ahead! – After a hacking job gone wrong, a hit is sent out on Pearce. While intending to kill him, hitmen accidently kill his niece, and Aiden seeks to bring his own kind of justice to the people responsible, all while protecting his sister Nicole and nephew Jackson. Cool story, but after reading all that you come to the conclusion that Aiden is a fairly good guy in that world (like a John Wick type of good guy), trying to do right avenging his niece’s death and protecting his family. But as soon as the gameplay starts, you can instantly kill innocent civilians, hack their phones and steal all their money, get the police after you, kill a ton of them while destroying the city, and then walk into the mission marker and all that is gone. You return to becoming the guy who just wants to protect his sister and her family.

There’s more discussion on ludonarrative dissonance in the world because it’s a more interesting topic to discuss. You might be thinking that Ludonarrative dissonance is a bad thing - but take this into consideration – while the story doesn’t match the overall gameplay mechanics, without the mechanics that are present say in Watch_Dogs, there wouldn’t be much to do in the open world of Chicago in the game. Ubisoft wanted to tell a story and wanted you to do whatever you wanted to do in the game – they wanted it to be up to the player. Without that freedom, it wouldn’t be a good game – some say Watch_Dogs wasn’t a good game anyway (I enjoyed it), but it also isn’t the point in this discussion. You can spend all the time you want on story, but if you don’t have a game that’s fun to play or have a hook to keep playing it, or the world feels empty - why make a game - just write a book. 

References
Ubisoft, 2014, Watch Dogs Open World Game – Features & Plot, Watch_Dogs, viewed 17 March 2017, <https://watchdogs.ubisoft.com/watchdogs/en-us/game-info/index.aspx>.

Cowen N, 2014, Watch Dogs – freedom and morality in open-world games, theguardian, viewed 17 March 2017, <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/06/watch-dogs-freedom-and-morality-in-open-world-games>.

04. Realistic vs Stylised

Should video games focus on realism or should they be more artsy – more stylised? Realism in games can produce fantastic environments and worlds that look photorealistic, but also may contain humans that just don’t look right. ahh yes, the uncanny valley situation. The uncanny valley is a common unsettling feeling people experience when androids – or in games – characters closely resemble humans in many respects but are not quite convincingly realistic. You get taken out of the experience when you see a character that’s been modelled to look realistic but just doesn’t come together or seem right. Then there are games that focus on a stylised look and feel – like Borderlands for example – yes, there are humans and human like beings, but its stylised in a way that makes it look cartoony, for lack of a better term, and the world has its own set of rules that may not apply in real life. It knows what it’s trying to go for and we as the player know what the developers were trying to go for style wise.

Generally, we see indie developers create stylised games and big companies focusing on realism. Of course, this isn’t always the case, as with the previous example of Borderlands. A factor that contributes to that is money. Its more expensive to create big action blockbusters or even any realistic looking game, with things like motion capture, voice recording, marketing, etc. Indie developers can have more artistic ideas come to fruition, they are not held back by AAA publishers telling them what to do and what sells. Indie developers have all artistic freedom of their game. There are many people/gamers, that only play AAA games, and never touch what is foreign to them – they never pick up an indie game and start playing nor do they want to, some just wait for big titles like Call of Duty and/or FIFA every year and only play them and there’s nothing wrong with that. Others play all kinds of games from Big AAA games to small indie or even one man team games.

Should we just choose one – Realistic or Stylised – for the video game industry? My opinion, why choose when we can have both. This art we call video games is just that – art. We need developers to strive for realism and realistic environments, to move forward with technology, to see what we can achieve, to see every piece of grass move on a windy day or to see the ocean move in realistic fashion, to have high resolution textures so you can’t tell the difference between in game or real life. And we also need games that focus on style from developers’ imaginations and dreams. We need push the boundaries of the human brain, we need to be imaginers, we need to look up to the sky and dream of other worlds, other possibilities, and if we don’t the video game industry will become old, stale, with the same games releasing year after year as the industry loses money and the interest from consumers. Realistic and Stylised games can co-exist forever and we shouldn’t want it any other way.

References

Borderlands, 2009, Gearbox Software, viewed 10 March 2017, <http://www.gearboxsoftware.com/games/>.

Rouse M, 2016, uncanny valley, WhatIs.com, viewed 10 March 2017,

<http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/uncanny-valley>.

03. First or Third Person? Who Cares? I Don’t.

A response to an article written by Mark Serrels at Kotaku. https://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/04/first-or-third-person-whats-your-perspective/

 Mark Serrels – the author of the article – goes into the differences in first person and third person games in the sense of how you feel towards the character’s story. Serrels posted on Facebook with the thought of a discussion, posting; “Putting this out there that I think my 'immersion' and/or level of empathy with my character is higher in a third-person game than a first-person game because I can recognise the motion of the body when I can see it than when I appear to be a floating camera-without-body skimming smoothly over the surface of the gameworld. This is opposite to the common wisdom that gets peddled in game theory.” Serrels then goes into what it feels like to play a game in first person taking Gordon Freeman from Half-Life as an example, and states that “we don’t really put ourselves in that character”, and that “first-person games want you to be that character.” Serrels feels that seeing the whole character in view brings you more into the story and the game.

Is Serrels right? Do we get immersed when we see the whole view of the character? Let me ask you this; does a camera view use magic and tell you what to be? No. We know we are playing as a character, and that character isn’t yourself, no matter how much time you put into a character creation to change its physical looks. Who really cares, just play the game that was meant to be played. When I play a game, whether its first-person or third I always know that I’m playing as that character and going through his/her story, it doesn’t matter if I’m looking through his/her eyes or above the shoulder. Serrels point is irrelevant in my eyes (in my first person, looking eyes). Games are an art form where anything can happen, the creators choose what’s in the game and what you do in the game.

Do I have to choose a side? Is Serrels point of view right? Is it wrong? It's his opinion and he is entitled to that. To be honest, I think I’ve already written too much about this article. Whether you play first or third person games, my feelings towards the characters are completely equal, what changes it is, and not limited to - the whole story and what that character goes through. Whether it’s a story driven game or not. Yeah, maybe the perspective is part of that feeling, or maybe its not. There are good games and bad games, but I don’t think that the perspective that you’re looking at or through is changing my feelings solely towards the character, or even for example having more sympathy for a third person games character than a first-person view character. Just play the games you want to play, enjoy them, and move on. (I’ve written too much on this, Dammit! I lose…)

02. Wolfenstein: Mediocre No More

The Wolfenstein franchise has had its ups and downs through the years. When we think of Wolfenstein we think of war and shooting Nazis. We don’t remember what each game’s story was about. We just knew there were Nazis, and it was time to shoot. Did you remember the story of Wolfenstein 3D? Or Return the Castle Wolfenstein? Yeah you probably knew that you were shooting Nazis (I’m guessing the swastikas gave it away and probably the German talk). Wolfenstein 3D was a hit and is praised for popularizing the first-person shooter genre. In the early 2000’s the rights to the franchise then went to Activision and the company published; Return to Castle Wolfenstein (2001), Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory (2003) and Wolfenstein (2009). The reception to these games were mostly average to good. Averaging a 7-8 out of 10 in its reviews from news sites like G4, GameSpot, IGN, GameTrailers and GamesRadar. These might sound like good scores from sites, but these companies that review games aren’t the be all and end all of the games reception and popularity. Just think of Wolfenstein as a video game series in your head (I’ll give you a moment…). Now if I say that Wolfenstein is one of the best video game series of all time, I’ll bet that there aren’t many people who would agree.

After a couple of Wolfenstein games, Wolfenstein has been a series that had just been around for a long time, with a great game like Wolfenstein 3D and mediocre ones like the early 2000s games. Wolfenstein hasn’t been relevant and popular to a large audience as it was since the Wolfenstein 3D days. That is, until Bethesda and MachineGames released Wolfenstein: The New Order.

MachineGames focused on a single-player only Wolfenstein game. In an interview with Newshub in 2013, Andreas Ojerfors (Senior gameplay designer) stated that “if we could take every bit of energy and sweat the studio has and pour all that into the single-player campaign, it gives us the resources to make something very, very cool, compared to if we would also have to divert some of our resources to making multiplayer.” In previous games William “B.J.” Blazkowicz (the main character) was, as Pete Hines from Bethesda Softworks put it, “just the guy that you play”. MachineGames were interested in exploring his story, which is what they later invested in. The story was mesmerizing and mattered in The New Order, it focused on an alternate history which the Nazis won World War II, and it also focused on William “B.J.” Blazkowicz’s story and experiences through the years fighting the Nazis. Colin Moriarty formerly of IGN, considered the narrative and characters one of the best features, stating that it’s where the game really shines.

Wolfenstein: The New Order received multiple nominations and awards from gaming publications. The game won Game of the Year from Classic Game Room, and received multiple nominations from the Golden Joystick Awards, Good Game, IGN Australia, and a ton more. Awards were close by when you mentioned Wolfenstein: The New Order. The game also sold well and a year later a standalone expansion set before the events of The New Order released called Wolfenstein: The Old Blood. With rumblings of a new Wolfenstein game by MachineGames releasing in the coming years, there’s no doubt that Wolfenstein is back on top and mediocre no more.

References

Bramwell T. 2001, Return the Castle Wolfenstein, Eurogamer, viewed 23 February 2017, <http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/r_rtcw>.

Goldfarb A. 2013, The Potential of Wolfenstein: The New Order, IGN, viewed 24 February 2017, <http://au.ign.com/articles/2013/06/25/the-potential-of-wolfenstein-the-new-order>.

Moriarty C. 2014, Wolfenstein: The New Order Review, IGN, viewed 24 February 2017, <http://au.ign.com/articles/2014/05/20/wolfenstein-the-new-order-review>.

Newshub 2013, Wolfenstein: The New Order QuakeCon interview with Andreas Ojerfors, viewed 24 February 2017, <http://www.newshub.co.nz/entertainment/wolfenstein-the-new-order-quakecon-interview-with-andreas-ojerfors-2013081612>.

01. History of Video Games Pre 2K & Focus on DMA Design’s Grand Theft Auto

It is an industry built on a wartime era. Before this video game culture and phenomenon we all know today, governments were making games to predict the outcomes of war. Countries competed against each other, looking for the best technology to get ahead of one another. As technology advanced, these simulation games did the same. Soon after, video games as we know them today starting becoming available to the masses. There had been a game called ‘Tennis for Two’ which was exactly what the title suggests; two players, one ball, a simulation if you will, of the sport called Tennis. The Developer Atari, took elements from Tennis for Two and made their own game that was (and you may argue, still is) a global hit, a game called PONG. Fast forwarding through the years, Arcades started popping up around the world with games like Space Invaders, Tetris, and PacMan. People could now go to a local arcade, pop in a quarter and start playing games. Then came a game changer (pardon the pun), when games came to the living room. Consoles started to rule the Video Game industry.  And then, arguably the worst game of all time had released; E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial for the 2600, and then the Great Crash, where video games were not the ‘thing’ anymore. But let’s fast forward yet again, when the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) releases in America, video games become popular again. But in my opinion, the best decade of games pre-2000 were in the 90’s. That’s where shit gets real. Games like; Mortal Kombat, Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake, Tomb Raider, Duke Nukem 3D, Crash Bandicoot, Grand Theft Auto and a ton more came to our Consoles and PCs.

A game that I thought was fun and different in this Pre-2k era, was DMA Design’s (now Rockstar North's) Grand Theft Auto. Grand Theft Auto (GTA) is an open world action-adventure game released in 1997 in Europe, and 1998 in North America for the PlayStation. The story follows a group of criminals in fictionalised versions of American cities as they commit crimes in the world. The Game is played in a top-down view. Grand Theft Auto was going to be called Race’n’Chase originally and the idea for it was “to produce a fun, addictive, fast-paced multiplayer car racing and crashing game”. It was a cops and robbers game, but that evolved, because “nobody wanted to be the cop, it’s more fun to be bad”. That idea evolved into the Grand Theft Auto we all know it to be today. The game was wrapped up in controversy from the very start. Law suits and banning’s of future GTA titles in certain countries arose.

Grand Theft Auto was condemned in Britain, Germany, and France due to its “extreme violence”, and Brazil banned it outright. I mean, come on, just look at that picture above this paragraph, after seeing some 16-bit blood sprites and what you can do in the game makes countries ban what is essentially art. They should be praising DMA Design for making a game that had never been seen before and done before. But that one CD of GTA was enough for governments formed of non-gamers, wanting to bash something they didn’t understand, blame real world problems on video games. I’ll give them credit on one thing, every game must now go through classification. But even then, after having the MA15+ and the R18+ ratings in Australia, games that are classified ‘too much for us Australians to handle’ never release in Australia. In recent years, this video game violence issue has cooled down a little, but is still there. Just image how it was in the 90’s when games like Grand Theft Auto or Doom starting showing up.

Besides all that, Grand Theft Auto was pure fun. It focused on freedom of going anywhere you wanted in that world. You also had a score, and to increase it you had to complete missions, get a wanted level, or blow up vehicles. And no, after playing GTA I didn’t want to go kill people or go on a rampage in real life. I turned out fine (I think). The game was a best-seller in the UK, and was a commercial success. Grand Theft Auto (1997) became successful and DMA Design released a Mission Pack for the PlayStation called Grand Theft Auto: London 1969 and then the sequel to the original game released soon after. After multiple games over the years, the GTA series still sticks to its roots from the first game. Grand Theft Auto’s winning formula spawned an enormous franchise. Which in my opinion, will be talked about as one of the best and controversial franchises in video game history.

References
grandtheftwiki 2012, Race’n’Chase, viewed 16 February 2017, <http://www.grandtheftwiki.com/Race%27n%27Chase>.

Gullup 1998, UK PlayStation sales chart, Official UK PlayStation Magazine issue 32.

Orr L. 2015, Grand Theft Auto 1997: ‘Sick, deluded and beneath contempt’, The Register, viewed 17 February 2017, <https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/14/antique_code_show_grand_theft_auto_1997/>.