“if dialogue can be skipped in games,
then why not combat?”
I cant help but wonder if perhaps another question should be asked, that if ANY element of a game can be skipped without
effect then why is it in the game at all?
When combat is totally meaningless
wanting to skip it is not only fine, but the rational
response.*
Any time I play a game and see a
character hacked down in combat one minute, and up good as new
spouting his life story the next, my heart sinks a little. It just
seems sloppy devaluing both the gameplay and the story, and gets
progressively more jarring more strictly delineated a game places
these elements.
It just seems so limiting, I need to
see more if I ever want this to stop skipping from being a rational choice for me.
What about companion npc's who are in danger when I enter
combat? or characters who expressed themselves through actions as
well as words? Perhaps even combat paced to allow for moments of calm
where dialogue can occur.
These don't seem like they should be unreasonable hopes, there
are already great examples in both traditional narrative media (such
as films and tv) and in games themselves.
Taking a quick trip
back to the year 2000 (& taking a moment to consider that isn't
it strange now we fully grown) Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
is a great example of actions speaking louder than words. I'm not
gonna attempt a full synopsis here but suffice to say I don't think
anyone who has seen stoic Li Mu Bai balanced effortlessly on top of a
swaying bamboo forest, would dispute that the way the protagonist
move and fight can say something about who they are and what they
feel.
Now you might counter 'But films can
completely control their protagonists! Games can't without devaluing
the experience !' While this is true games can control their
antagonists and side characters so there's still plenty developers
can do.
Then there's the cheap but effective
trick of a colleague in genuine danger(or at least seemingly so). For
most of Deus-ex: Human Revolution Malik was harmless helpful air
taxi/confident, with a side order of friends with bad taste in men
and then someone had to go blow us out of the air during a nice
routine trip to shanghai. So there I am with Malik doing the routine
'go on without me, the mission is more important!' routine and for
some reason something still clicked.
Seeing games embrace combat more often
as part of their arsenal of storytelling techniques would be a
welcome step forward,but before possibilities offered by engaging in
conflict as a storytelling device can be fully explored there's a
bigger issue to be dealt with.
Bravery isn't just choosing to fight,
but the choice to fight when you could run away.
Combat can't really mean anything until
its part of a game story that doesn't require violence to advance.
That doesn't just give me the ability to skip combat, but to actively
run away from it.
As long as there is no game in
existence where I can truly be a coward, and fundamentally that means
the opposite is true.
Don't let all this talk about combat
give you a impression that I think dialogue in games is some shining
paragon, in fact I think generally the way they have been used has
been getting progressively worse not better in the past few years.
I'd love to play a RPG game where
dialogue choices actually tested if you were paying attention to what
was said. Was there memorable dialogue in Mass Effect and Dragon Age?
Yep there sure was, but did it matter one jot if I paid attention to
it? Nope the game couldn't give a flying fuck. I feel like I'm part
of some dysfunctional couple in a terrible 1990's sitcom. There's a
lot of dialogue going on but no communication. Neither of us seem to
be expected to really pay attention to each others, we are just
waiting for the next queue to say our lines.
What if dialogue what something that
mattered towards achieving your goal?
There's two common ways you can use
dialogue, tests of understanding and test of recall.
Riddles are one age old way of testing
understanding, but they haven't really seen any use outside adventure
games. If traditional media like TV's Sherlock can tie one characters
understanding of a piece of dialogue to the life or death of another,
why can't a game do the same? Turns out all the encouragement a
developer needs is a character called the Riddler. Arkham Asylym gave
you a small amount of text and a big chunk of environment and left
the rest to you. To put it simply, It made me feel smart. What I hate
about most collectable system is that there is very rarely a way to
figure out their location on your own, AA made this their key virtue.
Its sequel Arkham City shifted to focus primarily to test of skill
and mastery and lost something in the process. There was never the
same little shot of adrenaline that came the with beating these
challenges that I got the original brain based riddles.
I can't recall many test of recall and
the ones I can are part of a particualry old school of game design,
their particular style of highly binary pass/fail word play seem to
have fallen out of fashion. Fortunately we have iPhone ports. King of
Dragon Pass is over a decade old, and its a game which forces players
to learn it mythology and punish people who didn't pay attention. It
takes the native american idea of a vision quest, transplants it to a
quasi Viking society and made recalling the details of their myths
and legends vital to your success. I lost count of the number of
times I've lost key members of my tribe or worse because I couldn't
recall the exact path a hero's journey took.
I'm not saying that games can't have
filler, or that ever action has to be meaningful, but the whole
skipping argument seems to just accept the current level of fidelity
in game storytelling as as good as things are going to get. Maybe I'm
naïve but I hope not.
-----------------------------------
* Whether or not i should be allowed to is another matter. You could call 'authorial intent!' but since I subscribe to the idea of games narrative's as often being a co-authored experience I guess I'll chicken out and say that as long as game are clear about what they are offering, people should be able to do as they please.
-----------------------------------
* Whether or not i should be allowed to is another matter. You could call 'authorial intent!' but since I subscribe to the idea of games narrative's as often being a co-authored experience I guess I'll chicken out and say that as long as game are clear about what they are offering, people should be able to do as they please.
No comments:
Post a Comment