Sick Habit

I’ve been catching up on some games this thanksgiving weekend. I started playing Fatal Frame III: the Tormented. I am a big fan of the second game – as a matter of fact I thought it was the scariest narrative experience I ever went through (including all known media). Even though I thought some of the originality was lost in this latest entry, I was still enjoying it and digging the creepy atmosphere. However, I got to a mission that might make me not want to pick up the game ever again. Let me preface this by saying how the game elicits much of its emotional impact by having rigid cinematic camera angles. Yet, on this one mission the developers decided to introduce stealth gameplay. Now, stealth can work in game like Metal Gear Solid and Spliter Cell due to the simple fact that I can look around corners. Yet, in Fatal Frame I’m forced to use my static angles. How can I hide from something that I can’t see? The gameplay just feels completely broken and frustrating.

The other game I got into is the Warriors. The game has a pretty shitty camera and the basic movement for the characters is somewhat wonky. Yet, I found this game to be a blast for the simple reason that it’s co-op. It’s amazing how much fun a decent game can become when it is infused with the ability to run through it with one of your friends. Lego Star Wars is another example of such a game. Now that online gaming is becoming more prevalent I hope that many more games will implement co-op through the internet. We’re already seeing that with what Microsoft is doing with the Live Arcade – they are reimplementing old arcade games for download play with a newly infused online mode. I can’t wait to get my hands on some online Smash TV.

Well, I’m still thinking about story structures. Deviating from the classical approach, I was pondering whether a story can have a secondary character go through an arc in place of the main character? If so, what common pattern do these stories follow?

First, let’s find movies that follow this constraint of letting secondary characters go through a major arc. As Vogler mentions, Eddie Murphy’s character, Axle Foley, in Beverly Hills Cop doesn’t go through any type of arc; his two white-cop-sidekicks do though. By learning from Axle they go from being by-the-book cops to smarter, street-wise, cops. In Back to the Future, Marty, the main character, is pretty set in his ways. However, his father, George Mcfly, goes through a pretty drastic change. Due to Marty’s actions George makes a decision to stand up to Biff and prove to his future wife that he can stand up for her. Finally, let look at the Little Mermaid. The main character, Ariel, is fully developed. She wishes to be free from her old world and to live life outside of the sea, with her true love. It is her father, King Triton, which goes through an arc and learns to let go of his daughter.

As we look at these past examples a simple pattern emerges. Even though the main character doesn’t dramatically change, they facilitate an arc within another major character. Perhaps this is the universal truth that lies in these stories. We all wish to change others – to project our values on to them. Maybe if the main characters also went through a change, then, our universal truth would be diminished and our story would be about something else?

Lately I’ve been thinking about sequels to successful franchises. How does one make another entry in a franchise? The common response is of course to “go bigger”. There is definitely a truth to that statement. If we look at one of the most successful franchises of our time, Star Wars, we can easily see how the original trilogy went bigger with every entry. It wouldn’t be hard to argue that the final space battle in Return of the Jedi is bigger than the space battle at the end of A New Hope. Each successive entry in the Lord of the Rings series culminated on bigger and bigger battles. But, have there been franchises that went bigger and failed?

The Chronicles of Riddick is bigger in many respects than Pitch Black, its prequel. It has a bigger cast, more expansive locals, better special effects and a much greater threat from the antagonists (at least if we look at the number of people that would be effected by the threat). However, many reviewers and fans panned Chronicles. I would argue that the sequel to Pitch Black failed because it didn’t go deeper. Where Pitch Black was able to focus on a tight cast with a tight conflict, Chronicles grew so big that the conflict became thin for its characters. Also, Riddick goes through a much deeper arch in Pitch Black, he is a hardened criminal who learns to care, while in Chronicles it feels like he is simply going through the motions that take him through this large adventure.

What about the successful franchises we discussed earlier. Have they gone deeper? Absolutely! In the Empire Strikes Back we are introduced to a betrayel by Lando, Han is frozen in carbonite right when Leia professes her love for him, and by the end of the third movie we start caring for Luke and his inner struggle with the dark side. In fact, Luke’s character arch becomes more meaningful with each successive movie. In the Lord of the Rings, the ring consumes more of Frodo with each sequel. While the conflict does expand outward to become bigger, we also delve deeper into the recurring characters.

Since my focus is on games and not movies, I wonder if the same is true for them. Do players really care for deeper conflicts or will a more expansive adventure with bigger gameplay moments be sufficient? I’m sure the answer is somewhere in the middle.

There she is, my first comic:

Enjoy and let me know what you think.

I’ve been playing a lot of Call of Duty 2 for the past few days. After being under whelmed by F.E.A.R. it felt good to go kick ass in WWII. The game has several amazingly memorable moments. In one scenario you play as Russian soldier that, along with about 15 of your comrades, has to defend a recently conquered building. As you wait in a trench your fellow soldiers express their nervous anticipation about the oncoming German assault. Suddenly smoke grenades explode about 100 yards from your position. The game does a great job of rendering a wall of smoke. As the smoke becomes denser, you hear the distant screams of the approaching German soldiers. Moments later 10’s of Nazi’s emerge from the smoke screen. Gunfire erupts as bodies fall all around you. Words really don’t do this tense moment justice. The game was able to pull off a feeling of nervousness that I never felt before in a game. I was on that front line and I would be damned if I let a single Nazi get past my position.

Another great moment happened in the American campaign. During one intense level the German forces are so overwhelming that your squad is forced to retreat several times during the level. Because you are dependent on your squad, and the fact you are not a super soldier, you have to retreat with them. Again, the game was successful in creating a unique urgency in my play. There is a feeling of helplessness as you must give up ground to your enemy. A very well designed mission.