Commoditise me!

Many of us (okay most of us) who have grown up in Western society end up seeing the world through a particular lense - that of capitalism. It's an ideology which informs the way in which we relate to objects, people and ideas that we encounter in our day to day life. It's something which we can't escape, through it being so firmly embedded in our societies and our modes of thinking. This isn't always a bad thing - any ideology provides you with a frame work for evaluating your experiences and provides a shared frame of reference - if it wasn't capitalism it would be something else performing the same role. It's present in almost all of our visual media and games are no exception.

In the 1960's Guy Debord wrote a book, Society of the Spectacle, which presented an argument about how this was the, "...historical moment at which the commodity completes its colonization of social life.". It's a somewhat cryptic comment but basically boils down to the idea that almost everything we experience becomes framed in terms of capitalism. It's also one of those ideas that, once you see it in action somewhere, you start seeing it everywhere. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as we all need some sort of shared frame work to make sense of the world, but understandably it can be seen as a cheapening of the experiences of life (which in of itself is a phrase framed in capitalism).

Rules of the Spectacle :

• The subject must be attentive enough for long enough to consume or comply.
• Vision is arranged, organised and disposed within various visual regimes, the most influential and pervasive of which is capitalism.
• Every part and activity of sociocultural life are made available for consumption and promoted as commodities.
• Subjects experience and understand the world and themselves more or less exclusively through commodities and acts of consumption. 

- Schiarto (et al), Understanding Media Studies

The cultural field of sports is an obvious example where it can be seen happening, but games, particularly digital games, present us with numerous examples as well. When I was playing through Fable 3 I couldn't help but notice it in action. I'm not sure why that particular game seemed to present it in such a glaring light, maybe it was just because I was seeing it in other places, maybe it was because of the games setting (an industrial revolution in a fantasy setting) - either way I often felt like I couldn't escape it. In particular I noticed it in terms of the relationships with other characters in the world - as you gained their friendship (through social actions) you gained a form of income which could be spent to improve you character. There was a direct equation between social links and commodities - and that made me somewhat uncomfortable. 

Fable 3 - You need to commoditise more people to gain their trust!

Obviously it makes sense for games to present familiar systems for players so that they can easily navigate through the presented world - and being a game produced by a Western powerhouse of production (Microsoft) they wanted a frame work which was familiar to their audience. This all makes sense (though again frame in the terms of capitalism). That didn't stop me feeling uncomfortable with it however. Those social interactions are always going to require some sort of system for the player to gauge where they stand - be it Fable 3 and its "social currency" or something like Fallout 3 with its "karma". Games have been slowly building the idea of a living world and a crucial component of this process is connecting the player to the other characters in the world. A world is more than just the environment through which the player navigates, it is also the inhabitants of that world and their varying relations to both the player, and other characters. 

Diverging back to the historical origins of the digital RPG, the table top game relied upon the gamesmaster building these relationships with the players. There was no "currency" that the players had except the bond the gamesmaster built for the characters. The bond between each of the players operated on the same rules that we experience in the physical world - social interaction, and I've played in parties where there were strong friendships and simmering dislikes (in some cases barely contained hatred - either based on the players or the characters themselves). This was always one of the great appeals of table top gaming, it uses the same rules and codes that we are already familiar with as part of the narrative construction - digital games don't have that same freedom and as such need to have other systems in place to try and replicate the experience. 

Sometimes games can manage this simply through a carefully constructed narrative, where the players become attached to the environmental characters just through the skill of the writing. The player creates an imagined bond through the narrative - when done well this often presents the strongest replication of the table top experience.  However in more open games there often needs to be a system for the player to gauge how they stand with individuals, groups, townships and even nations. Breaking these relationships down to a commodity nature has always been cumbersome at best, outright debasing at worst. It is, however, a necessity and the ideology of capitalism does present a framework that most players will be easily be able to grasp in an abstract sense. 

Alyx and Gordon Freeman from Half Life 2 - a strong narrative relationship in action.

It makes sense that game producers will use capitalism (and currency in particular) to provide players with a measure of abstract social concepts in games - everyone likes to know where they stand. However I often find it troubling when there is a direct link, between commodities (in terms of currency, like in Fable 3) and social relations. Perhaps it is something which I am just sensitive about - I just feel that it undermines some of the fantastic worlds which we, as players, get to experience through gaming. Of course not all games do it so obviously and many game producers place social interaction as a key component of their games without resorting to such obvious measures of social capital. It's a difficult area to try and simulate and I'm sure we'll see more and more complexity in the realm of social interaction in gaming.

So capitalism, as an ideology is present in many of the games that we play, and it frames how we interact with the digital environment. Again, this isn't always a bad thing, but it does have implications for how game worlds are built. There is an element of simulation in many games - and I can't help but wonder at the effect of experiencing worlds in which social interaction is framed in terms of a commodity. Certainly social capital is something which has value, but that value is not always related to commerce as we all know. Value is also in the experiences we share with other players and the digital creations which populate the game worlds in which we play.  

---Scott

Debord, G., and K. Knabb. Society of the Spectacle. Rebel Press, 2006. Print.

Schirato, Tony. Reading the Visual. Allen & Unwin, 2004. Print.

Schirato, Tony, et al. Understanding Media Studies. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. 

Open environment or tight narrative? The Dilemma of RPGs

It's a tough balancing act which modern RPG makers juggle - open environments and wide player choice or more closed environments and a tightly driven narrative. There's a joy in being able to just explore an environment in the ways that games like Skyrim or Grand Theft Auto allow the player - but this freedom can often undermine the narrative flow of a game. However a strong story is always a drawing point for a RPG but it often comes with the requirement of removing player choice which can undermine a players feeling of agency. This balancing act is a dilemma for producers embarking on the creation of a RPG gaming experience - and it's a tough one to crack.

CD Projekt Red seem to recognise this dilemma and have publicly stated that it is something that they are striving to engage with. Game Informer recently posted a snippet from a press release which shows that the producers are very aware of this issue.

"If we look at RPGs nowadays we find two approaches: one which emphasizes the story but limits the game world, and one that builds a vast open world but hampers and simplifies the story..."

"With the REDengine 3 we combine the positive aspects of both approaches for the first time, creating an open environment with a complex, multi-thread story." 
Adam Badowski - CD Projekt Red

The complexity of this sort of endeavour should not be underestimated - multiple story threads which exist in an open and unconstrained environment present a decision tree which would make the mind boggle. While games like Skyrim (in fact most Bethesda games) present incredible environments for the player to engage with they are often criticised for having weak narratives which fail to drive the player to the extent that more constrained games can provide. The Mass Effect series presents the opposite, a strong structured narrative which has been lauded for providing player immersion but restricts many aspects of player agency. In Mass Effect you are always on the rails of the narrative - it's a good narrative but at times you really do feel like you are not in control of your own actions - something which Skyrim gives the player with abandon. In fact many BioWare games have been described as having only the "illusion of choice" - it's a different approach from more open world games and yet it demonstrates perfectly the struggle between open worlds and strong narrative.

So the question is can the two actually be combined within one game or are they inherently pulling in different directions? CD Projekt Red think that they can be combined, and Cyberpunk 2077 is the game in which they intend to demonstrate this - and I really hope that they can do so. Why? Because it would bring digital RPGs one step closer to the flexibility present within table top games. When you have a human actor presenting the world to players the only limits are what that human can come up with, how they can respond to the players desires. It's always been the strength of table top games - true player agency. Sure running an already designed module places constraints on what players can do - but there's no digital god saying that you can't go off script. I've run games where the players chose to run away from the major plot point - and I was fine with that because their actions were a real reflection of the characters which they had built. The players decisions did throw a spanner in the works for me as a gamesmaster - but I couldn't deny the players their choices, that would have been a betrayal of all the work they'd put into developing their characters. As a gamesmaster it was my role to provide not only a compelling narrative but also to present an environment which allowed the players to do what they wanted - to be true to their characters. This is an experience I haven't had in a digital RPG before - for obvious reasons. 

Obviously with a digital RPG there are many more technical hurdles to overcome in trying to replicate the kind of experiences which make table top games so unique. There are limits to how much flexibility can be built into a game engine - both in terms of the actual processing power required but also in presenting a cohesive experience for those playing the game. Digital RPGs are a different beast to table top games, but underlying those differences there is also a recognition that it is a medium which is grounded in trying to replicate some of those experiences which their fore bearers, the human run table top game, gives players. As technology advances those gaps may narrow but it's still going to be a long road before the two mediums come into alignment - maybe only the development of AI will bridge that gap (at which point a cyberpunk game becomes an entirely meta-level endeavour!). 

Either way I'm interested to see the outcomes of Cyberpunk 2077, both as a fan of the genre (and the original table top game) and as a player of digital RPGs - hopefully they can bridge that gap and give the player a unique experience. 

I was hoping to post a bit earlier but have been busy with real life stuff, mostly job hunting. If anyone needs a freelance writer please feel free to send me a message (or leave a comment). 


   

Conflict without combat...

Many, you could say most, games these days have an element of conflict in them, usually framed in terms of some sort of combat mechanic. Conflict, in a game where you have multiple human players, is what makes the game competitive. Different styles of games deal with conflict in different ways and in recent years the German-style board game "school" has been on the rise.

"... [German-style] games emphasize strategy, downplay luck and conflict, lean towards economic rather than military themes, and usually keep all the players in the game until it ends." (Wikipedia)

While there may be a downplaying of conflict within German-style games there is no way to avoid the fact that with multiple human players (as opposed to human against AI, or the game itself) there is going to be conflict, even if the mechanics of the game (supposedly) play down these elements. Settlers of Catan, and Carcassonne represent two of the most popular games from this particular design school. For good reason too, they're both elegantly designed games, inclusive of all the players and easy to learn, but hard to master. 

Myself, and my partner, play a lot of Carcassonne. An awful lot. Mostly on the Xbox these days, but we still find time to play with people face to face every now and then. For me it's one of the most well designed games that I've ever come across and can be played in numerous different ways. You can always play friendly games, allowing the draw of tiles to define how the game evolves and who takes the eventual victory and it's fun. However, once you have the mechanics under your belt you can also be far more cut throat and bring the element of conflict into the game play far more. When we play on the Xbox cut throat tends to be the way we play - far easier to do when you don't have your opponent sitting across the table from you.

Carcassonne on Xbox Live - a great port of the board game.

At face value Carcassonne may play down the element of conflict but once you get deep into the mechanics it's apparent that conflict is actually built into those mechanics - if you choose to play that way. As it is a game of resource management and building the terms of conflict come from being able to restrict your opponents ability to build. In Carcassonne, when you finish a construction (road, cloister or city) you get your follower (or "meeple" as they have been nick named) back in your hand, able to be then placed on a different construction. Locking your opponents "meeples" on the board may be a somewhat anti-social move to make (usually done by placing a piece that would make their claimed construction unfinishable) but it does give you a distinct advantage in being able to take the victory. Making an opponents construction unable to be completed can be done by either placing a tile which requires them to draw a tile which there are none left of, or a tile which doesn't exist in the game. Surrounding a players "farm" (a follower placed into the field portion of a tile) with roads or cities to minimise the maximum score they can gain in the end scoring is also a valid (and widely used) tactic. Knowing how many of each tiles there are in the game becomes a key mechanic (for example there are only two cloister pieces which have roads on them) - much like card counting in a game of blackjack. 

The red player is in trouble, in the standard set of tiles they have no way to finish either their city or their road. 

Note this is not an actual game but a set-up to show how followers can be locked onto the board.

The conflict in Carcassonne comes from understanding the parameters of the rules and how to use the mechanics to undermine your opponents ability to utilise their followers. Conflict, in this way, is hard-wired into the games mechanics, despite claims that the conflict mechanic is downplayed in the game. If anything the game is grounded in conflict through understanding of its mechanics - in some ways more so than games which include specified combat mechanics. Conflict is not a separate mechanic like in some games but something which comes about from understanding how to maximise your outcomes as a player. Certainly conflict isn't framed in terms of combat, but that doesn't make it any less aggressive than games which have a specific conflict mechanic. 

Something should be said about the different format that you're playing on as well. As I said earlier, there is a difference between playing an opponent that you can't see and an opponent who is sitting across the table from you. Because the conflict mechanic is so deeply embedded in the game if you choose to play an aggressive game it can get somewhat uncomfortable if you opponent is right in front of you. Why? Because you are directly attacking their ability to play the game - it's not just an abstract removal of pieces from the board but an undermining of their opportunity to actually engage in game play. In some ways this type of conflict in a game is far more personal than those games where there is a separate combat mechanic. Of course if both players have a deep understanding of the rules, and an understanding of the conflict mechanic, then this type game play can still be satisfying, and not as personally attacking as I have described. Still, as a mechanic it is a deeply personal way to attack your opponent. 

Playing Carcassonne face to face will certainly make you think about how you approach the conflict in the game. 

Conflict is fun and it frames so much of the game play which people engage in these days. Of course not all games have conflict built in - it's not always necessary to have fun, but when it's done well, and with the understanding of the players that it's inherit in the process of playing the game it can make for some thrilling gaming encounters.   

---Scott

Notes : Carcassonne is actually a real place, something I haven't even touched upon in this post, check out the picture below.

There are also a whole bundle of expansions available for the game - though personally I have always found the basic version to be my favourite.

 As a game it is available on most formats, table top, Xbox Live, Ipad / Iphone and numerous online versions. I highly recommend checking it out on your preferred platform!

Carcassonne in France - the inspiration for the game is incredibly clear!

Apocalypse You! Post-Apocalyptic Games and Morality

As I've touched on in a couple of previous blogs, the game environments that we, as players, inhabit can have a huge impact on how we play a game. Whether it is an urban city-scape or pastoral wilderness environment the spaces we play in frame the terms in how we play a game and how we make decisions within the frame work of the game. The post-apocalyptic setting has always been a favourite for game developers - a ruined world, bereft of the rules which we normally associated with civilization - it's an appealing setting for developing player agency for any developer.

Take away the usual frame-work of right and wrong away and you leave the player with the a powerful canvas for creating a character which allows them to explore what they, as a player, are morally comfortable with. Obviously the narrative of a game is still going to provide some structure for the morality of the choices which a player makes - but the post-apocalyptic environment itself is where the narrative is embedded and sets the terms for how that narrative evolves. The more open the narrative, the more the player can play with moral choices and create a unique character.

A great example of this is Fallout 3, another open world game from Bethesda, creators of Oblivion and Skyrim. As I mentioned back in my blog, "You Are Where You Play", the character development in most Bethesda games is fairly open (and hollow), the player is left to create their own details surrounding their character (outside of the game space). It is this sort of open-ended character development that really allows players to explore different moral positioning. The setting definitely lends itself to a sense of there being no hard and fast rules of society - a ruined (yet familiar) world where might is right holds sway - and Bethesda certainly layer in the opportunities for the player to align themselves with different moral stances.

A ruined world inhabited by a range of societies and creatures.

What I'm not saying is that the post-apocalyptic world of Fallout 3 is bereft of social rules. Instead the social rules that are present are localised to different societies within the game, and it is the players choice as to which of those societal rules they want their character to align themselves with. Does the player want to align themselves with the more traditional communities such as Megaton or do they want to embrace the anarchy of the slavers? Where do they want to position themselves in terms of cultural identity? All cultural identity is both inclusive and exclusive - through aligning yourself with one faction you also exclude yourself from other factions. This isn't just a factor of games, but something which you can observe occurring within the world around us - games simply allow us to experiment with these different positionings.   

[Small spoiler alert - I'm about to discuss a particular mission in Fallout 3 - if you haven't played it you may want to skip the next paragraph]

Early on in Fallout 3, one of the first missions the player is likely to come across presents this choice quite starkly. The town of Megaton represents a community which can be seen as a reflection of the more traditional moral stance is present in our world today - hard working people, law and order, freedom of religion and commerce. The player is soon presented with a lucrative opportunity which involves setting off the undetonated nuclear device which the town is built around - destroying not only the entire township but, of course, all of its inhabitants. This is a clear moral choice, and yet the player is given freedom to actually follow through with an action which in our time would be considered to be a crime against humanity. Straight from the get go you have to make a choice about what moral stance, what cultural identity, you want to adopt in the game - what sort of person are you?

Tenpenny Tower, a bastion for the morally ambiguous?

Of course these types of moral choices are not unique to post-apocalyptic games, but I do feel that the setting emphasises them. Tenpenny Tower presents its own set of moral choices, played out through the discourses embedded in the depiction of ghouls within the game. Some ghouls are simply rabid creatures, lacking in any of the characteristics which we would identify as human. Some, on the other hand, are definitely human, despite their mutated appearance - and there are some definite parallels to the civil rights movement present in the choices which the player must make. Do you support the xenophobic residents of Tenpenny Towers or embrace the humanity of the ghoul population? The moral choice again serves to frame what sort of identity you want to craft for your character.

  Not all ghouls in Fallout 3 are rabid caricatures of the human population.

Of course Fallout 3 has a narrative of reconstruction which is generally framed in moral terms which are reflective of our current world. However like most Bethesda games the player has the freedom to ignore the main quest if they want and forge their own path in the world. This freedom, combined with the setting, presents a powerful opportunity for players to explore different moral positions. It's through the moral choices that the player makes that the imagined character is fleshed out, mostly in the players mind. Sure there are repercussions for your actions, but much of the characterisation within Bethesda games take place within the mind of the player. 

Who will you be? How will you treat the worlds inhabitants?

Of course the post-apocalyptic setting isn't always the player against the computer generated population of the world. What moral alignment the setting brings to a game can be even more evident when the gaming experience is player against player. I've mentioned Darkwind in previous posts, a post-apocalyptic car warfare strategic MMO (now that's a mouthful!) and the setting within the game certainly frames how the players behave towards one another. It's a game where perma-death is a mechanic, meaning that when a players gang member dies, they are are gone for good. Despite this most people are not precious about their characters - the number of times I've heard the phrase, "...this is the apocalypse, people die!" is more than numerous, it's a mantra that the players live (and die) by. The setting, a ruined world where life is cheap and death is around every corner, seems to have imbued the player base with a rugged view towards their characters. This isn't to say that it's strictly dog eat dog, most players abide by gentlemanly rules when in organised events, there is an understanding of the work that players have put into developing their characters - and those who go out of their way to intentionally kill others quickly find themselves hunted by the player base. Accidents do happen however, and when they do it is rare for the players to take it personally, "this is the apocalypse, people die...". 

Resignations are generally honoured in Dark-wind... generally.

The post-apocalyptic setting presents some unique opportunities for game developers, both in terms of character building and for allowing players to situate themselves within different moral positions. It's a rich genre which has gone from strength to strength through recent years, and for good reason. Games allow us, as players, to inhabit different roles and explore different moral frameworks - something which I can't but feel is a positive experience. What's the old saying? "Before you judge a man, try walking a mile in their shoes" - games can let us do that, and the dusty shoes present in the post-apocalyptic games are a great setting in which to do so. 

---Scott 

Who you play with makes the game

A bit of a shift with this post, moving from the digital realms to the physical to look at some board games and the joy of actually sitting across the table from the other players. Being able to see, and judge, the players who you are engaged in a game with is a powerful difference that board games bring to the equation of play - and it's something which digital games try to replicate, but have never quite managed to nail in the same way.

"Cultural Literacy - a general familiarity with, and an ability to use, the official and unofficial rules, values, genres, knowledge and discourses that characterise cultural fields" (Schirato 194)

We all come to games (and everything else) with certain sets of knowledges associated with our culture - our up bringing imbues us with certain ways of interpreting the information which we are presented with. Some games draw heavily upon their cultural literacies - simply look at the differences between JRPGs and western RPGs - both have similar structures but draw upon different interpretative mechanisms to make sense to the players. However it is in board games, and a specific set of them, which can truly draw upon our shared connections.

I want to look at two particular games which use cultural literacy as key game play mechanisms - both of which are card based (and both of which make for great games for having a few drinks with!). The first one is a French game called Dixit, the second is a free game called Cards Against Humanity - both of these games rely on the players to have a shared knowledge of certain tropes and cultural fields, and to use those knowledges (and your experience of what the other players know) to create strategy's. Dixit, in particular, draws heavily upon the individual players fields of knowledge, be it art, music, literature or popular culture - but more importantly it forces you to play to the strengths, and weakness's, of the other players. You have to know the other players to make the most of your turn in Dixit, and having someone you don't know in the play group can really throw a spanner in the works - but you will very quickly build up a picture of what cultural fields that new player is familiar with.

A selection of the beautiful cards from Dixit.

"Each player starts the game with 6 random cards. Players then take turns being the storyteller. The player whose turn it is to be storyteller looks at the 6 images in his hand. From one of these, he makes up a sentence or phrase and says it out loud (without showing the card to the other players).

The other players then select among their 6 images the one that best matches the sentence made up by the storyteller.

Then, each of them gives their selected card to the storyteller, without showing it to the others. The storyteller shuffles his chosen card with all the cards he received from the other players. All pictures are then shown face up, randomly, and every player has to bet upon what picture was the storyteller's." (Wikipedia)

What makes Dixit competitive is that you loose, as the storyteller, if everyone guesses your card, or if no-one  correctly guesses your card. It is finding the balance of creating a clue which some of the players will get, but some of them won't. You have to know the other players and what sets of cultural literacies they have to be successful - and even then if someone has a card that matches your clue better you may well find them scoring more points. This means the people you are playing with really matter - peoples backgrounds really come into play. A game with a group of automotive mechanics would differ significantly to playing with a group of art historians - but the game would still work with either social group. Of course in most cases you'll be playing with people from a range of fields and a range of background - which is what makes the game fun. In some ways playing with people from similar backgrounds forces you to focus on the things you don't all have in common. It's a simple, yet amazingly powerful mechanism to base a game around - and it is a truly social game which allows you to learn more about the people you are playing with. 

 Cards Against Humanity : Hilarious, often obscene and the most fun you can have with bits of card.

On the other side of the coin is Cards Against Humanity - another simple, yet elegant game of cultural literacy. Funded through Kickstarter, published under a Creative Commons copyright license and available as a free download (for you to print) this game is possibly the most fun you can have with bits of cardboard and a few tipsy friends. Cards Against Humanity draws upon the most common of cultural literacies - humour. Humour isn't universal though, what one person finds funny another may find banal, or offensive and in this way it shares common ground with Dixit. The play works in a similar way to Dixit with players creating a narrative based upon a story card (the black one in the picture) - white cards are then played blind by all players (except the storyteller) and the most hilarious is picked as the winner (by the storyteller). We throw in a random draw when we play (dubbed as Rando Calrissian) - and you'd be surprised how often the random draw wins the round. Again it is a game which is all about the people you are playing with - I'm not sure I'd want to play it with my mother unless I could go through and remove a few of the white cards!

However cultural literacy isn't a mechanism which is only present in games like Dixit and Cards Against Humanity. Many games are based around popular literary worlds, be it A Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings, World of Warcraft, or, my favourite, the works of H.P Lovecraft. Arkham Horror places the players in the township of Arkham, one of the key sites in the world of H.P Lovecraft - and tasks them with working together to stop the awakening of a old one who will end the world. You can play the game without having any knowledge of the literary work, but if you have players who have a knowledge of the world (cultural literacy again) then the narrative elements of the game really come to the fore and help in creating a truly shared experience. It helps that the game is collaborative, the players are not working against each other but against the game creating a shared goal which binds the group together. More often than not (and very much in the vein of the literature) the game wins, but this doesn't diminish the joy of playing together, and if the players know the literature then losing can often feel more true to the source material than actually winning. 

I'm not sure what's more intimidating, the old one or just setting up the board!

A lot of game play, both in digital games and traditional table top, is about a shared experience. Being able to create an experience with friends is a thrill which can be hard to top. It's easy to focus on mechanics, environments and the other technical details of gaming - but more often what makes a good gaming experience is the people you are playing with and the joy of having a shared experience. 

Schirato, T. Reading the Visual. Allen & Unwin, 2004. Print.

I can strongly recommend downloading Cards Against Humanity - it'll only cost you a few dollars to print it and I can almost guarantee that you'll have fun with it - even your non-gamer friends will be able to enjoy this one!

You move me...

Recently Kotaku had an article on movement in games with Patricia Hernandez waxing lyrical on how she often wanted to move (in real life) like she can within different games. This got me thinking on the role of movement within the virtual environments presented in the games that we play.

I've focused on environment in the last two posts and how it can not only inform the narrative which players experience in a game but also actually position itself as a character in the narrative of a game. Game environments aren't static however, the player has to actually navigate through them, exploring the world and seeing them develop in the same way that characters develop. How a player/avatar negotiates their way through the environment can be a critical link to their immersion in the narrative, and of course the players enjoyment of the game.

Patricia's article focused on the more super-human aspects of movement within games, referencing titles such as Gravity Rush, Far Cry 3, Dishonored and Gears of War. Many of these titles present fantastical movement options for players (except maybe GoW) which is beyond what is possible in our world constrained by those pesky laws of physics. The fantastical movement options presented in these worlds imbue the player with a feeling of being above human - and that was her point, dreaming of being able to move like  those games let her.

Not all movement in Far Cry 3 is in the jungle.

Some games, however, present us with more realistic (even if it is in the realms of highly trained athletes) depictions of movement - and more importantly the possibilities of actual human movement. In recent years the discipline of Pakour (and the associated free running) has seen a rise in popularity - it has been used in film extensively and developed its own set of videos in a similar way to skateboarding. Of course it has also shown up in video games, the most obvious of which was the sleeper hit "Mirror's Edge", a game which turned the tables on the typical discourses of the first person "shooter". Mirror's Edge took the first person view point, privileged flight over fight and focused on the connection between the environment and the player/avatar. It mixed a strong narrative (with feminist overtones), placed it in a sterilised urban environment and presented the player with movement options which could be seen as totally plausible.

Hoping you're going to catch the ledge...

In many first person games, particularly those where combat is the main progression mechanism, the chain of kills on opponents is given pride of place - something we, as players, have become quite used to. In his paper, "Narrative, Cognition and Flow in Mirror's Edge", David Ciccoricco presents an examination of how Mirror's Edge takes our familiarity with the "kill chain" mechanism and replaces it with the concept of flow - or to put it simply the discourse of momentum. Not only does this mechanism end up privilege flight over fight (as fighting would require loosing your momentum) but it also reinforces the players connection with the environment they are navigating through.

"...the way in which the player experiences her fluidity - her movement - as a strategically privileged mode of play in itself is perhaps the clearest reflection of the game's procedural rhetoric. Simply stated, we discover that if we opt for flight over fight, we advance much further much fast through the games levels." (Ciccoricco 272)

Motion blur and legs, a typical view when playing Mirror's Edge

 Again, in Mirror's Edge, the player is presented with an environment which serves a narrative role - the plot of the game revolves around political change in the city and your interaction with the city is framed as a partnership to Faiths fluidity. It's a beautifully realised world - cyberpunk in an utopian disguise. That partnership between the city and Faith is cemented by her ability to traverse its cat-walks, construction zones and high rise roof tops. It is you and the city against the oppressive forces of the local law enforcement. The city helps you, the player, not your opponents.

As a game, Mirror's Edge presents movement that strives to be realistic, not only in terms of how her abilities are explained, but also through the way the camera bobs with her movement and your extended body can be seen as you move. Certainly some games do embrace these embodiments of the simulation of realistic movement, but none seem to take it quite to heart as much as Mirror's Edge does - it's almost a point of pride for the game to present the player with a realistic experience.

This focus on movement as the primary discursive element in the game sets it apart from most first person games. Surely some games have done this before, Thief , framed movement in terms of stealth instead of a simple mechanic from getting from A to B - but Mirror's Edge prides speed over invisibility, getting from A to B as fast, and gracefully, as possible.

"...more significant is what we can learn from the process of playing - from the procedural rhetoric that we glean from the fluidity of both Faith and the game itself. A first-person video game that privileges momentum above all else clearly demonstrates an investment in scripting a gaming experience that diverges from the monolithic task of targeting." (Ciccoricco 275)

Targeting in Mirror's Edge takes a distinct back seat.

As a side point Mirror's Edge also presented an interesting alternate mode, outside of the city and its contained narratives. The time-trial mode draws more upon the systems of racing games, rally games in particular, challenging the player to negotiate the environment in the most efficient manner possible. In the download pack the city itself is done away with, replaced with a virtual playground, bereft of any connection to the real world, distilling the experience down to pure movement and pushing the discourse of flow even further than the story line does.

The abstract environments of the Mirror's Edge DLC

Movement mechanics in a game can provide a vital link to the environment, both as a narrative tool and as a character to interacted with. The way you move, as a player, can change the entire discourse of a game, reorienting the players view of their goals, and of the environment in which their play is taking place.

---Scott

Ciccoricco, David. "Narrative, Cognition, and the Flow of Mirror’s Edge." Games and Culture 7.4 (2012): 263-80. Print.

[Sorry no direct link for the Ciccoricco article as it is subscription only]

Cyberpunk cities - playing with our future environment...

A vast majority of people live in urban environments these days, it's a feature of modernity and these human crafted landscapes form our view of the world. City scapes, for many of us, are what we visually encounter on a day to day basis, and living in cities influences how we form communities, view our natural environment and inform what we expect from life. The previous post focused more on the pastoral aspect of environments in games but just as many games present us with envisionings of how our urban environment could look - and more importantly how they could operate.

There are a long recognised links between science fiction and the development of new technologies - from the cellphone / videophone through to mass transport. Literature is a powerful imaginative tool but it relies upon the audience to form a visual image of what is being described - games give us not only a visual depiction but also a practical (and interactive) demonstration of how these new technologies could work. To be able to imagine how an environment could appear is one thing, to be able to see, and interact with an environment is a step beyond this.

Cyberpunk, as a genre, presented a somewhat dystopian view how our future environments could appear, operate and most importantly, how they could influence the people who inhabit these environments. As a genre it had most of its influence through the 1980's and early 1990's, it then seemed to ebb in popularity - both as a genre and as an envisioning of our potential future. It would seem that cyberpunk is back on the rise, perhaps due to our world starting to appear somewhat more like what was envisioned by authors such as William Gibson and Bruce Sterling. The rise of information technology, a more interconnected world and the growing power of multi-national corporations can all be seen as reflections of what was depicted in typical cyberpunk discourses. As a genre it also seems to be coming back into prominence in the realm of games.

The 80's are back with a vengeance!

Image located from Bruce Sterling Tumblr

Many cyberpunk discourses present urban environments as part of the "urban sprawl" - a term which has stuck with us, both in terms of literature and now included in many discussions of urban planning. These environments present a rich play ground for game developers - not only in terms of the environments which players get to inhabit but also informing the types of communities (and thusly the stories) which a player gets to interact with. These environments can be just as powerful as the pastoral settings discussed in my previous post, in some ways they can be more powerful because cities are, in most cases, what we inhabit and live on a day to day basis. The technologies depicted in these worlds seem closer to what we experience every day and it makes one wonder how much of a link there is between the original envisions in the literature and how our technologies (and environments) have developed.

Recent examples of the resurgence of the cyberpunk genre can be seen games such as Deus-Ex: Human Revolution - a late off the mark follow-up (actually a prelude) to the renowned original Deus-Ex. Human Revolution presents a future which doesn't seem to distant from where we are now, both in terms of city-scapes and the technologies presented within those scapes (drones, personalised advertising, human augmentation). Human Revolution takes the player through extremes of urban environments, from the neon and plate glass of high-tech corporations to run down slums, left behind in the rush of technological development. These extremes of environment tell their own stories about the role of technology in our environment, and of course the role capitalism in how our environments develop. I found the transition between the "high-tech and low-life" to be an apt reflection of what I can experience in my city - although for some players in larger cities I imagine that transition would be even more pronounced.

There's beauty in both of these extremes of the urban environment - although I feel they come from different sources. There's a physical embodiment of beauty in the high-tech environments, the chrome and neon, glass and well dress suits, the obvious presence of wealth. The more dilapidated environments source their beauty from their inhabitants, the crush of the masses making their way in the world and a feeling of almost anarchy as people struggle to make their way in the world. An almost a palpable feeling of desperation to make the transition between these two world, contained within one environment, is present as well - the story which anyone living in a city is familiar with. Each of these environments frame their stories differently - and in presenting this juxtaposition a meta-narrative slowly emerges, one that the player can relate to their own lives.

However it is not simply a case of the environments telling stories. The stories that are told can also inform how our world develops, particularly in terms of (urban) technology. As I said earlier, imagining something is powerful, being able to interact with an imagining amplifies this, potentially by magnitudes. Games, and film present a unique way of embedding these imagined technologies in the consciousness of the public. Technology producers always struggle to get consumers to "buy into" their ideas and if consumers are already familiar with how a technology could work then their job is that much easier. Google Glass is possibly one of the most "cyberpunk" examples of this - almost all gamers are familiar with the idea of a heads-up display, and Google (and others) are certainly leveraging some of that familiarity present through games (and to a lesser extent film). Urban design also benefits from these futuristic imaginings, from buildings to transport - all feeding into how we live together in these shared spaces.

The urban environments we encounter through gaming are not just flights of fancy, they present a very real tool for reimagining how our cities (and thusly communities) work. How our urban environments are developing is a constant, and mutating, process - gaming gives us the tools to not only imagine what might come, but also interact with the future before it's upon us.

---Scott

CD Project RED (makers of The Witcher) have also just released the first trailer for Cyberpunk 2077, a game based on the pen and paper RPG. 

Also associated is a Harebrained Schemes project for Shadowrun Returns another adaptation of a pen and paper cyberpunk (and fantasy) RPG.