Fifth Post: Supporting Characters and their Importance to the Player in FPS games.

Sorry for the long hiatus. I had to pick myself up and move back to my old home after graduating.

Introduction

As a gamer, I've recently come to discover that I don't have many meaningful games that I want to play. Many of the FPS games I've played have had trouble staying in my library for a long period of time. I would enjoy them, but they never made a significant impact emotionally to me. Over the years of playing FPS games, I've come to realize that the reason why I don't keep a lot of my modern FPS games nowadays - I don't care. I've played some major FPS hits this year - Borderlands 2, Black Ops II, Modern Warfare III, Halo 4, and Battlefield 3. I find myself playing the game for a bit and then selling it back after I'm done with them. I found myself asking why I didn't care about games like this while I still have my copies of Star Wars Republic Commando, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, and Halo: ODST. I'm not much of a multi-player person either, so I'm not going to comment about that at all. After typing up a response to the CleverNoobs forum (I'm Delta_62, for those asking) about the prevalence and oversaturation of Console FPSs (they seem to be coming out of the trees or something), I realized why I find myself not caring about many of the FPSs in the market for very long: I don't feel connected to the world. Most of the games I've played are very beautiful, but, as the often silent protagonist, it feels very big...and very alone. While that alone isn't a bad thing, I don't feel as immersed and, therefore, emotionally connected to the world. The people in that world seem so far away from me that I just don't care...and that is presuming that there are people in the world to even care about. After writing my post in CleverNoobs, I have come to realize that a lot of the reason why I don't find myself too immersed in the world is because I don't have a personal connection to the supporting characters in that world. The supporting characters are really the chains that tether you to the world. If you do not feel that connection, the game feels more like work than an immersive experience.

Supporting Characters: What do they do?

Supporting characters fill the dual role of getting you to care about the world in-game while they try to get you acclimated to how to interact with the world through your controller. If done correctly, the supporting characters will make the awkward transition between real-world (controller) and game world (interaction) very seamless. As an example, I will be using the character of Gaz from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare to demonstrate how supporting characters fulfill both the role of immersing the player in the game world and while teaching you how to interact with it. The first level of the game starts the player out as a FNG character known to the outfit he is a part of as "Soap". The first person that Soap meets is his unit's second-in-command: Gaz. Gaz looks and acts noticeably annoyed at the player-character, and this is due to the previous cutscene explaining that even though the world is going to hell, the real bad news is that they have a new guy - you, the player. You, as the player, don't know what is going on in the world that makes it "just another day in the office", but you are already feeling immersed in the world around your outfit of elite SAS troopers. Already, in the first few minutes of the first level of the game, you feel like you need to prove your worth to your superior and more experienced squadmates by engaging the targets as quick as you can, switching between weapons, knifing a watermelon, and beating Gaz's squad record for the obstacle course. Gaz, along with Price later in the level, completes his role in immersing you in the game world while getting you acquainted with the controls to interact with it.

Joseph Stalin (yes...I can't believe I'm quoting him) once said that, "One death is a tragedy. A million lives is a statistic." In video game terms, he is right. In order to keep the player interested in the world and what is going on in it, a good writer would go to great lengths to make the goals personal. This either means that you make the supporting character persuade you that their objectives are something you should care about or take it one step further and make you emotionally invested in the outcome. The goal in Modern Warfare is to find Al-Asad, find Zakhaev, and stop a nuclear strike from hitting the United States. As you progress through the game, you fight alongside Gaz and Price in order to survive and complete the mission. Even though there is a war going on and millions of lives are at stake, the writers were smart to make the focus more on the squad completing big tasks that affect the story. Gaz is important as a supporting character because his character is relatable, rational, and funny. You, as a player, rely on the Gaz both in the game as a competent soldier and emotionally as a way to express your feelings about what is going on in the world. When the player sees that the supporting characters are reacting to a given situation the same way the player is, the player grows attached to the supporting character and, transitively, the world at large. An example of this occurs when the SAS team is fighting to exfiltrate from an area before getting overrun by an incoming force of Insurrectionists.  They fight uphill to the first Landing Zone and when they are told that they need to go down the hill and through more soldiers because the Landing Zone is too hot, Gaz complains, "Oh, he's gotta be taking a piss! We just busted our arses to this LZ, and now they want us to go all the way back down?!" I groaned along with him, after struggling up the hill with him. You feel this kinship with the supporting character that gets stronger as you interact with them in the game, directly or indirectly. It motivates you to complete the goal (survive and go to the second LZ) with them.

Another example of this strong kinship is in the ending levels, where Gaz has to open a blast door in the nuclear facility. As the blast door opens slowly, Price asks Gaz if that could open any faster, to which Gaz responds with, "Negative sir, but you could try pulling on it if it will you feel better." I laughed at the joke while Price groans, "Cheeky bastard." Interactions like this bolstered the emotional and psychological toll of the final moments of the game. I remember when I saw Gaz struggle to get up and then get shot by Zakhaev in cold blood. I remember how much my blood boiled when I saw the bullet go through Gaz's head. I remember screaming "NO" so loud it woke up my college roommate. I remember Price's black M1911 sliding over to me. I remember how true my shot was. I remember where I shot Zakhaev and how fast I shot his body guards. The events of the final moments of the ending are still a clear picture in my head, and I haven't played the end level since 2007, when the game came out. Even though one of the goals of the game was that Zakhaev needed to be taken out, I never cared about taking him out until I saw him take out my friend. The people I saved from a nuclear blast - statistic. The one guy I failed to save - tragedy.

Conclusion

The important thing to consider when gauging how great a support character can be is to look at how the character emotionally affected you. I can remember the names of a lot of supporting characters that have fought with me over the years I've played FPSs: Gaz, Capt. Price, Captain Foley, Sgt. Moody, Sev, Scorch, Fixer, Sgt. Johnson, Gunny Sgt. Buck, Mickey, Romeo, Dutch, Capt. Dare, and countless others. All of these characters have deep emotional ties to me and have helped me out through their respective games in good and bad times. I don't see this in modern games now, with the more serious tone cemented as a key component in a lot of modern FPSs. While I believe that having a serious tone in of itself is not bad, the serious tone itself is not an alternative or a substitute to befriending the support characters under fire in a game. As a developer, people need the occasional banter and humor between the characters to heighten the stakes in the game, or risk not caring about the world the developer created. When Gaz got killed, I honestly stopped caring that I saved millions of people in the East Coast of the United States, I cared that I did not save the one that was with me throughout all of it. If a game and game character can inflict the emotional impact I described in this post, imagine how many FPS games could transcend its boorish objectives and mind-numbing explosions to become a memorable title?

Fourth Post: My Suggestion for any Dev, that is Designing Star Wars Battlefront 3

The following post is from my thread post on the Gloom Walkers Guild, a forum run by famous Star Wars Battlefront news and rumors reporter, Tuggie. With rumors flying around about the current status of Star Wars Battlefront III, the would-be successor to the popular Battlefront II, I believe that there are a few things that can help to make the game even better than it was in the previous two games.

Soooo...let's get started!

(Quoted directly from the thread: Click Here)

Major Suggestions:

1) Stay true to the series - Do your research on the weapons and factions.

2) A class based system similar to Battlefield 3's system would benefit the game. - The idea is to design a class system that can allow for weapon/equipment customization but also help to encourage teamwork by making equipment and points complement the team. For Example (using a Battlefield3-esque class system):

• Assault Class: General purpose Grunt: Highly mobile and useful for attacking bases/enemies. Can heal buddies in the fight. Armed with Medium Ranged blasters and either grenade launchers, jetpacks/jumpjets, or medical supplies. (similar to Battlefront 2 Soldier Class)
• Support Class: Heavy Weapons specialists: Slow, but heavily armored soldiers capable of suppressing attackers. Useful for defending Command Posts and supplying troops. Armed with Heavy Repeating blasters and can equip Anti-Personnel mines, ammunition cannisters, or Area of Effect Gadgets (Rage, Concussion, EMP, Neuro Poison, Rally, etc). (similar in function to Heavy Class in Team Fortress 2 and Wookie Warrior/Clone Commander Classes in Battlefront 2)
• Marksman Class: Highly Accurate sharpshooters and stealth troops: Lightly armored troops trained to disappear and kill with precise fire. Useful for defending bases and suppressing enemies while also functioning as eyes, ears, and occasionally spawn points for their team. Armed with high-power sniper weapons, close-ranged weaponry (i.e. shotguns, light repeating blasters), and can either equip Individual Countermeasures (Motion Tracker, Radar Jammer, Invisibility, etc), mobile spawnpoints, or orbital strike designators. (similar to the Marksman and Bothan Spy classes in Battlefront 2)
• Engineer Class: Vehicle and Anti-Tank Specialists: Regular troops who are trained to maintain vehicles and destroy ordinance. They are useful in supporting attacking troops or defending acquired territory by maintaining, using, and, if need be, destroying support vehicles. They carry short to medium ranged weaponry and can equip anti-vehicle rocket launchers, plasma cutters, or Detpacks/Timebombs.(similar to the Engineer and Heavy Weapons Classes in Battlefront 2)

3) Have the units reflect the class - I suggest having set "skins" for each faction and class that can be customizable as the player gets more and more experience through kills or team-based/class-specific actions. There are unique and common variants of skins for every class and every faction. An Assault-class on the Republic can customize their standard clone trooper, for example, into a clone paratrooper.

Example of starting skins for a new player (using BF3-esque classes):

• Assault Class: Stormtrooper, Clone Trooper, B1 Battle Droid, Rebel Trooper
• Support Class: Dark Trooper, ARC/Heavy Trooper, B2 Super Battle Droid, Wookie Warrior
• Marksman Class: Scout Trooper, ARF Trooper, Droid Assassin (Clone Wars series), Rebel Marksman
• Engineer Class: Imperial Marine, Clone Tank Trooper/Clone pilot, Droid Engineer, Rebel Vanguard

4) Create a thrilling storyline. - One suggestion is to work to incorporate the Clone Wars series battles. Now, I know people wouldn't like that because the Clone Wars series is not popular among fans, but the battles in the series were pretty intense things. On top of that, it would benefit the series as well. I put a more detailed idea of what other SPs storylines can work in the "Storylines" thread.

Quote from: Delta_62 on January 04, 2012, 05:29:57 AM
I have three recommendations for how I think it should go (in order from best/most feasible idea to best/least feasible idea):

• USE THE CLONE WARS SERIES: As weird as this sounds, I wouldn't mind having a SW Clone Wars Series storyline (except without the Jedi...). It would be even better if we got to see it from the point of view of all of the major clone characters (Rex, Cody, etc) and experience the battles alongside them, or with them in your commlink. This seems like the most feasible route to take for Spark Utd. and LucasArts because the VA's are readily available. The player can be one of Captain Rex's or Cmdr. Cody's Lieutenants/Sergeants and takes orders from them on the field, alongside them in a fight (similar to Capt. Price/Soap in CODMW series), or through the comms (like in Battlefront 2 with Sev's voice). The player would participate in major battles in the series (as well as covert ones that merge with other parts of the episodes) and would learn the basic mechanics of the game through the SP.
• THE REBEL CAMPAIGN: Why not expand on the storyline left by scenes in The Force Unleashed? We know that SPOILER: The Apprentice plays a pivotal part in the story END SPOILER. You could play a Rebel Vanguard/Commando tasked with sabotage/covert missions to cripple the Empire's grasp. As we find out in the movies and the game, the Rebel Alliance is a fledging one, to the point where some commanders don't take them seriously. Your character will strike fear into the hearts of even the hardest of Stormtroopers. The campaign could span from the beginning to major battles such as Hoth and end with the final battle for the Endor Base. You'll meet various major characters such as Han Solo, Chewbacca, Leia, and Luke as you fight with them and for them to victory! This has the advantage of being a true sequel to the SP in Battlefront 2, due to the fact that the SP in that game was based on the life of a clone, ending with the attack on the Hoth Base.
• WHY NOT ALL OF THE FACTIONS?: I thought that maybe having the SP be in separate episodes from all four points of view could be another valid idea for SP in the game. Why not do something similar to StarCraft II and introduce an episode system that would take the SP from every point of view. You don't even have to make separate SP games like what StarCraft does. All one has to do is make missions for each faction. I would like it if there was a solid story for each, but knowing the size of Spark Utd., it could be problematic to use this approach, although I would offer Kudos to them if they did. This approach is only for those devs that can really write four separate storylines for each faction.

5) Create space battles that have a usefulness in the capturing of command posts. - The PSP Battlefront games had a great idea in making the ground battle affect the outcome of the space battle, but I want more. Here are some suggestions:

• Adding a Fleet Commander - One suggestion is to utilize the "Commander" option from Battlefield 2. Whoever wants to can become the commander of each team (through voting or by being the only one who volunteers). The commander would be stationed in the capital ship and has access to the map of the ground battle as well. They are responsible for coordinating both the ground and space battle, while also supporting the troops using resources from the Capital Ship and the Frigates/Troop Transports. If one is not picked, the resources can still be used, but it will not be as theoretically centralized and efficient as having a Player-controlled Fleet Commander.
• Make players want to be Fleet Commander - For players looking at Battlefront 3 as a team game, this will enhance the experience and also be a huge advantage for Clans and players who want extra frontline support. Players will also have an incentive for becoming Commanders: Commanders are a pseudo-class. Although not a traditional class like the Assault Class, a commander can level up through experience. As they level up, a commander can unlock better class weaponry and equipment options on the ship. Possibilities include better blasters, reduced cooldown times for Orbital Stikes and other support roles, the ability to temporarily control the recon droid for combat uses, upgraded defending support AI, automated sentry drones etc. In short, an experienced commander could be a pain in the butt for boarding parties.
• Make the Capital Ships Valuable and Vulnerable - The commander will have options to support the team on the ground by providing orbital strikes (information that can be provided by the Marksman classes that have Orbital Strike designators). They can also provide support vehicles or defending support AI (such as null-ARC Troopers/Republic Commandos (Republic), Droidekas (CIS), Phase III Dark Troopers (Empire), and SpecForce HWS Gunners (Rebels)). This will be especially useful for the team that does not have many spawnpoints and thus, does not have access to said vehicles or reinforcements. The commander can also provide temporary LADAR sweeps of the entire map or temporary recon droid sweeps of small portions of the map. The commander would also have to defend the ship from invading forces and also keep the ship from being destroyed. The player would do that by defending and repairing major portions of the ship (i.e. shield generators/hyperdrive/engines/life support systems for ship health, heavy cannons for orbital strikes, Comm Tower/Bridge for LADAR sweeps, etc.), which is ideal for engineers who would earn points for defending and repairing. This would function as a Tower Defense game for the Commander and anyone in the ship.
• Re-purpose the frigates into something Starfighters will care about - Frigates should have a usefulness to them that makes players want to defend them. I will do this by having the frigates become troop transports. Troop Transports provide assistance by giving the Commander the option of deploying defending supporting AI and additional support vehicles. Defending Support AI are basically heavy hitting reinforcements deployed in open sky areas to literally defend an area. Once they are assigned an area, they will defend it to the last soldier or will get air lifted after the time is up (after which, the Commander can reassign another AI-team). They can be useful in defending Command Posts or ambushing choke points in the map. Due to their importance and the importance of additional support vehicles, Starfighters would feel the need to defend these Troop Transports so that the Commander can provide needed assistance on the ground. Bombers also have the option of taking out Troop Transports to temporarily cripple the Commander's ability to supply ground forces. Commanders have the option call in new Troop Transports, but at the cost of having to wait a period of time for the transports to get there, as well as a long cooldown period, should the second group of Troop Transports get destroyed.
• Have the ground battle help the space battle as well. - Using this system, Capital Ships become a primary target, due to the fact that the team without any fire support would be at a great disadvantage. This makes Starfighters and Surface-to-Space Ordinance (SSOs) more valuable for the fight. Starfighters both in space and planet side would have to defend against any attacking force to support the troops on the ground while SSOs can significantly weaken the shields of and destroy both Capital Ships and Frigates/Troop Transports. This suddenly makes the ground battle equally as important as the space battle. The Commander would be busy trying to locate and destroy the SSOs and possibly the shield generator for said SSOs. However, they may also take advantage of the option of using the SSOs against enemy ships as well, making the capture of Command Posts more important than ever. SSOs would be neutral bases when the battle starts.

6) Fix the Jedi Heroes or take them out of the game. - Link to explanation here. One of the biggest problems I had with Battlefront 3 was the ability to take control of major characters or "heroes" in the game. I don't mind them in the "Battle of the Heroes" option, but I hope Spark Utd. either finds a way to improve the controllable Jedi Heroes for balance or take it out of the game entirely. There are ways to fix the problems and I can list a few:

• Have a gameplay mechanic that makes capturing a spawnpoint unlock the heroes. - This can open up possibilities for gameplay. By having a AI hero be an incentive for capturing spawn points, this can make for intense firefights between factions. They will be available for a limited time and then will run off of the battle after that time limit (or until "killed").
• Make them available for Attack/Defend games. - Both attackers and defenders can have an incentive for attacking or defending. I suggest utilizing the Battlefield Bad Company 2 way by destroying objects of interest (similar to destroying the Shield Generator on Hoth in Battlefront 2). Let's use Hoth as an example. Have the Empire have objectives (such as destroying shield generator, ion cannon, other frontline defenses) while the Rebels are tasked with holding the line. As objectives get destroyed, the Rebel line is pushed back. This is where the Hero comes into play. They help to eliminate any defenders in the newly acquired territory upon the destruction of the objectives in the area. As a twist, the Rebels can call in a hero of their own to push the line back if the Empire fails to gain any territory (either by losing tickets or failing to capture/destroy something in time.

7) Weapon/vehicle leveling - Battlefront 2 was advanced for its time due to the fact that it was one of the first games to introduce a primitive weapon leveling system in the Medal system (i.e. Frenzy medal for 12 kills with Assault rifle in one life). I believe that the game should expand on that similar to how Battlefield and Modern Warfare have in more modern times. This customization system would reward players for using their weapon in a proficient and efficient manner. The rewards for using the weapon can allow a player to customize their weapons to better destroy objects or enemies and can range from better sights, adjusting the rate of fire/damage/accuracy/range, better or more efficient equipment, etc. The ranking system can also allow players to customize each class (with items for every faction depending on how much you use said faction and class). This system should also be applied to vehicles and added proficiency medals with vehicles allow you to access heavier, more damaging equipment in the vehicle's arsenal.

8] Create Ground Battle Games that encourage even more teamwork - Will elaborate later.[insert long explanation of game-type suggestions here]

9) Build upon the Galactic Conquest System - I enjoyed the Galactic Conquest System from Battlefront 2, but I had major problems with it: namely, that it was too easy and simplistic. Here are some ways that it can be improved upon.

• You can "liberate" a planet, but lose the fleet - Using the gameplay mechanics I outlined in Point 5, I believe that the Galactic Conquest mode would make gameplay more interesting and strategic. Every Space + Ground Battle will have two objectives: invade the planet and do not lose the invasion fleet. If the opposing force manages to destroy the fleet, it still does not guarantee a failure or success. Success in the invasion would depend on the objectives that are needed to defeat the defenders (eliminate tickets, take command posts, destroy objectives, steal files, etc). It would be a secondary objective (and a very important objective) to defend the fleet. If the fleet is destroyed, but the planet is taken, the planet would be yours but you will need to build a fleet to replace the one lost. (Will elaborate in a later time)
• Vary the objectives required to win a Ship-to-Ship space battle - One of the biggest mistakes made about Battlefront 2 was the fact that the Ship-to-Ship Space Battles were too cookie-cutter for my tastes. The original Battlefront space battles always required the same objective: gather enough points before the other team does. I would like a variation similar to the SP Space Battles n Battlefront 3 (like breaking through a line of frigates and Capital Ships in Yavin 4, etc). Each side will have a different objective that they will have to do in order to defeat the other team. The attacking team would be given an objective that they would need to complete in order to disable or destroy the Capital Ship. This will be a timed even and the defending fleet's objective is to defend their ship from getting too much damage. Once the time is up, the defending fleet will be given time to counter-attack in order to disable or destroy the ship. If the attacking fleet's capital ship is destroyed, disabled (important functions such as engines or life-support are not functional), or damaged significantly more than the defending fleet, the defending fleet will be given a chance to "escape" at the cost of losing the territory they recently held. If the defending fleet is destroyed (by destroying their capital ship) without much damage to the attacking fleet, the defending fleet will no longer appear on the map and the attacking fleet would then control the territory. If the defending fleet destroys the attacking fleet's capital ship, the attacking fleet disappears on the "battle map" and the defending fleet will keep their territory. If both fleets are destroyed (both capital ships have been eliminated), both fleets are lost and the territory will become "uncontested" or neutral. (Will elaborate at a later time)
• Have capital ships function as ships as well - Using the Commander function mentioned in Point 5, Capital Ships should also have a Commander to co-ordinate attacks in space as well. By giving a player a chance to control the ship (by way of using battery fire or torpedoes to hit the enemy fleet), he could also help to make the Captial Ships a more menacing force in the space-to-space fights. (Will elaborate at a later time)
• Vary the objectives needed to win an invasion - (Will elaborate at a later time)

Minor suggestions

1) Melee would be nice - Adding a melee system that can also be upgraded (through experience, of course) can also be a great addition for people. For example, a Clone Assault class can upgrade their melee, if leveled up enough, to the retracting vibroblade made famous by Republic Commandos.

2) Improved AI

3) DO NOT design your code so that CIS Droids can accept Bacta....I understand not allowing the Fusion Cutter to be a defibrillator, but I would love it if you gave them oil...or something...it's minor, I know.

4) ADS (Aiming Down the Sights) seems like a more familiar thing this day and age and I'm hoping that this game can be updated for current players. I'm curious with how the devs will approach FPS ADS.

5) No pressure...seriously, I hope people reading this don't feel intimidated by this forum poster, or by any poster. I am a fan, and I love this game so much.

Will put more later....

Third Post: Ezio’s Assassin’s Creed Trilogy is not Any Old Spinoff

To those few readers that actually kept up with this blog, I do apologize for not updating it. Finals were really bothersome and I’m glad to be over that for now. I know that E3 recently passed and that I should comment on that, but I’ll leave that to my next post. One thing from E3 that did stand out to me that I wanted to talk about was the unveiling of Assassin’s Creed Revelations, the third and final installment of the Ezio Storyline. This game is also the final installment for Altair’s storyline, as all of the main protagonists’, including Desmond’s, storylines converge in this last spinoff. When AC Brotherhood came out, most people were talking a storm about how Ubisoft is now cashing in on something that once was just a big creative gamble that looked like a Prince of Persia clone. Putting in a multiplayer for this game that was supposed to be a unique escape from multiplayer shooters like MW2 and Battlefield BC 2 made it seem even more tacked on. However, I felt differently about Ubisoft’s maneuver. I actually thought that it was a smart move and a well calculated gamble on the part of Ubisoft. I cited the spinoff trilogy as a smart move for two main reasons: 1) Developing-wise, this is a creative way to “beta” new ideas to add and perfect for the final installment, and 2) The smart marketing person in me would have the AC3 game (the final installment) come out in or around the time it would take place...on December 21, 2012....

Now, onto my first point. Knowing the way business tends to go with successful game franchises, big game companies want more. It was kind of inevitable that the spinoff, AC Brotherhood, was announced to the expected groaning by fans armed with the assumption that a great franchise was going to be milked to death. Ubisoft was smart in deciding to at least go with a character we liked and in spending the time and money to fund this spinoff and trying to make this cool. Instead of utilizing the same formula to just advance a mediocre story, the dev team decided to improve upon and take cautious risks.  I applaud Ubisoft for taking the risks, for example, with the multiplayer system. I’ve grown tired over the years of multiplayer shooters and I have longed for more interesting gameplay. Don’t get me wrong, I initially was hesitant about the multiplayer because I thought it may divert away from the storyline, but the dev team and writers at Ubisoft managed to not only make one of the most unique and interesting multiplayer games of that year, it also managed to integrate the overarching plot along with it – namely that everyone that uses the multiplayer system is a Templar agent training through the Animus to learn Assassin moves without losing an eye…or a finger in a “Inception” type function (referencing the promo ads talking about the function of the “dream machine” in Christopher Nolan’s “Inception”). Ultimately, the multiplayer ended up being a huge success mainly for its unique gameplay, but I posit that it was also successful because it did not feel tacked on. Even upon playing it, I realized that the multiplayer provided a foreboding foreshadow to the eventual AC3 – I realized that Desmond’s enemies are getting stronger. In previous AC games, run-ins with the modern day Templars happened during important portions of the game, but they are never really seen face-to-face. In AC1, a squad of Assassins fail to rescue you (and Lucy) and are gunned down by Templar forces. In AC2, you have a minor run-in with the Templar security agents in the beginning and end of the game but they are relatively easy to take down. Upon playing the multiplayer, you come to realize that the Templar have elite personnel that may be as experienced and well-trained as Desmond really is.

Another example of the beta-potential of the AC spinoff series is the implementation of the new combat system in AC Brotherhood. In the previous AC games, the combat system has been the most widely criticized part of the games, mainly for it being insanely boring, repetitive, and unforgiving, at times. I feel that utilizing new ideas in the spinoff was a good idea because it provided a testing ground for the improved version in the inevitable AC3 game, by adopting the combo styled fighting seen in Batman: Arkham Asylum. I believe this is a good idea because they could see how the community reacts to the new system before releasing their “final draft” in the form of the combat in AC3. In retrospect, this happened to be a success due to the overwhelming response from the community. Among the few critiques of the combat system was that it was too easy with the added bonus of additional companions from your handpicked Brotherhood. The addition of an improved combat system also lended itself well to the narrative that Ezio is improving with age and practice. With the new combat system in place, Ezio is able to prove his expertise as a Master of Assassins while Desmond can “flash-learn” Ezio’s moves as well.

Another point is the notion that, in terms of marketing, December 2012 would be the perfect time to release the upcoming AC3 game. With a two year mark between AC2 and said date, one would be wise to keep Ezio in the picture since he was 1) well-liked and 2) the most recent figurehead of the game. If marketing and sales would want to keep the AC3 date at around December 2012, then the next obvious question would be “why Ezio and not Desmond, the main protagonist of the entire series?” The simple answer would be that I believe that Desmond channels a lot of his character development through the other characters. While people have criticized Desmond for being flatter than a piece of paper, I have always believed that Desmond is living vicariously through the other protagonists: Altair and Ezio, because he is learning their thoughts, mind-sets, and move-sets. Also, the game AC Brotherhood and AC2 have done a great job in developing Ezio as an almost tragic character from his perfect teenage life to his revenge-filled experiences as a novice Assassin to his exploits as an almost Zen-like Master Assassin. AC Revelations will also help to flesh out his experiences of him going through his “mid-life crisis” when he thinks about what he has done and whether he accepts or regrets his fate as a man who lives by the sword.

These spinoff stories do turn to focus on the events that will unfold in the plot of AC3. AC Brotherhood reveals that those who lived before could prove to be a third party in the epic struggle between the Assassins and Templars while AC Revelations slates itself as the concluding game for both Altair and Ezio as their worlds, and in the process Desmond’s, collide. Along with the gameplay improvements and plot implications, the AC spinoff series prove to be more than mere spinoffs in the eyes of this VG blogger.

Over and Out.

Second Post: Mirror's Edge: Faith as a Revolutionary Character

Sorry I haven't posted in a while, I'm busy with finals....Here's one from my DeviantArt that I was meaning to put into a blog like this.

---------------------------------------
In the past, console video games were scrutinized as being a male-only kind of activity, with game characters like Lara Croft in the “Tomb Raider” series and Ivy from the “Soul Calibur” series representing what game developers thought of their gaming consumer audience: mostly male players. The existing male-only stereotype and the overly enticing and exotic female character design models produced a cycle that pushed and discouraged many women gamers into a minority population among the gamer population. Like overly muscle-developed men, really enticing women characters became a norm in video games. However, the introduction of Faith Connors, the main player/protagonist of the video game Mirror’s Edge, challenges this norm. Faith is a revolutionary female character in the video game world and this can be attributed to her appeal as a strong willed and independent character, her more realistic body curvature, and growing new social trends that dignify women more.

The character of Faith in Mirror’s Edge is described in the instruction manual as “Tough and self-reliant.” She is an individual, one who cherishes independence and despises total control. Faith scorns the city she lives and works in, as it is a totalitarian state. Faith describes the state as a “mirror” because of its apparent gloss, which is further emphasized in the numerous polished skyscrapers seen in the game. Faith works as a runner, a person who delivers classified goods to rebel groups and clients deemed enemies of the state. Faith describes this work as “running along the edge of the mirror,” as she accesses the less polished and grittier portions of the city in order to avoid the watchful eye of the police forces. The game “Mirror’s Edge” derives its name from the work that Faith does, and also describes Faith’s character as a free-thinking, unconventional, and radical individual. Faith is a very complex character, and although one could say that this is due to her lifestyle as a runner, much of her complexity attributes itself mostly to her past and current family situations. She dealt with the loss of her parents to a protest that turned violent and has to take care of her twin sister, Kate, who works as a police officer for the city Faith despises the most. Faith’s ties are very strained, as she must fight against the city and relieve it from its totalitarian control but look after the only family that she has, her twin sister Kate. Faith’s conflict in the storyline of “Mirror’s Edge” is the fact that she must juggle her life, her sister’s life, and her values through a city that seems to want all three of these needs to disappear. Unlike characters like Ivy and Lara Croft, who seek to find something glorious or powerful, Faith’s needs are more simplistic and achieving these needs require less glory and power and more underdog-like qualities. These simplistic, but overly complex (due to the controls of the state) desires make Faith a more ordinary character. Faith is revolutionary female character because the audience can identify with her more than Lara Croft or Ivy.

Let’s face it: Faith is not the archetypal big chested, hourglass shaped, and extremely proportioned model found in most video games with female character leads. However, this “setback” (for lack of better terms) actually fits Faith perfectly. Faith’s body structure as depicted in the game is more realistic for her talent: running. Faith’s body shape is a revolutionary leap in video gaming because her form fits her function. Her body type is perfect for her ability to run, leap, crawl, roll, and claw her way out of potentially hairy and risky situations. Unlike her counterparts Lara Croft and Ivy, Faith’s model type does not make gamers ask themselves, “How can she perform these kinds of actions with her bust size?” Faith was not made to be sexy. In fact, the game’s producer Tom Farrer verified this by saying that they “wanted her to be attractive, but [they] didn’t want her to be a supermodel. [They] wanted her to be approachable and far more real.” By editing her body type, they did in fact make her more approachable and more attractive. Unlike other characters that do almost the same kind of physical work, Faith’s body structure is more believable and approachable than the others. Lara Croft, for example, does a lot of the same things that Faith does, but it is difficult to eliminate any kind of erotic thoughts of her due to the fact that she has a big bust size and hour-glass figure. These thoughts eliminate any kind of “dignified” thoughts of her because Lara Croft would be (and is) hailed as a sex symbol. Ivy from Soul Calibur also faces this issue due to her classic costume. Her classic costume, along with her model-like body makes her look like a dominatrix. Faith is not like Lara or Ivy mainly because of her body structure. She is more approachable because of her body structure. Although people dignify and ogle at Sex symbols such as Lara Croft or Ivy, many people who look like those sex symbols are actually quite nervous and almost scared of meeting people who are about as attractive as Lara Croft or Ivy because sex symbols like Lara Croft or Ivy are placed on a pedestal. Faith is different. Faith’s body was not used as a marketing ploy to attract more customers.

The social atmosphere of the United States has changed significantly in the past decade. The perfect body is being redefined in the social scene. Plus-sized models are starting to appear more on television. More and more people are becoming more aware of the shallowness of just wanting a hot woman. Sophisticated and strong women are becoming more and more idolized as the new “hot.” Faith embodies this growing acceptance. Video game industries also know that men are not just the majority of the consumers in the market now. A growing number of women gamers have more publicly entered the fray. Video game producers of Mirror’s Edge probably wanted to appeal to that growing crowd by creating the strong character known as Faith. Ivy and Lara Croft were often target examples for women who took offense to video game. Faith redefines the image of the attractive woman by adding less physicality and more character.

Faith is a rebel. Faith defies the controlling state she lives under by running and transporting precious cargo to her clients. Faith is also a rebel to our society as well. Her character is attempting to redefine the “attractive video game woman.” The makers of Mirror’s Edge have made Faith as revolutionary as the video game that she is the protagonist in. This revolution has opened more women into gaming and has told the world that the hottest women do not have to have the most perfect body. Faith’s rebellion against both her society and ours will earn her a place as one of the most influential female video game characters in the beginning of this century.

References:
“Faith’s Bio” <http://wiki.on-mirrors-edge.com/index.php?title=Faith>
“Faith’s character design”<http://kotaku.com/5099050/faith-is-not-a-12-year+old-with-a-boob-job>

First Post: The Rise of Video Game Narrative Story-Telling

Welcome to my first post. I am Francis and I hope to impart some of my opinions on video game politics, business, etc. I hope to gain a good set of readers to hopefully have people in the industry hear my (as well as your) voice so that we can better affect the industry in a positive way. My goal as a gamer first and blogger second is to take video games as an entertainment medium and transform it into the art form that it truly deserves to be.

We're currently, in my opinion, witnessing the rise of epic story-telling in video games. As a form of entertainment, games have undergone a rapid transformation in the mid to late-1990s in the form of improved and almost photo-realistic visual graphics and intense sound. Before then, stories in video games were limited by the graphics of the current game engine and the amount of pixels that can be generated on a screen at one time. With the big focus on graphics engines and improvements, video game writing was neglected due to the amount of resources and time that each development team needed in order to create better, more photo-realistic outfits. Writing was left in the dust and that and that ended up biting them in the butt.

However, that was in the past and I believe that the rise of story-telling in games came slowly as the graphics of video games became more cinematic. One of the biggest factors in gaming was the adoption of real-time cinematic cut-scenes and the abandoning of pre-rendered cut scenes. By making the cut scenes similar to the actual gameplay graphics, this kept the player immersed in the game. As graphics got better and more photo-realistic, cut scenes began to be cinematic and more movie-like. Writing began to improve as developer teams grew in size and resources. At this point, more resources could be poured into making games with relatively good narrative and writing without sacrificing resources for more realistic and cinematic cut-scenes. With games like Uncharted, Assassin's Creed, Fallout, and Mass Effect hitting the fray, games began to resemble high-budget films and started to require development teams that began to resemble high budget movie making teams.

The underlying problem is that video games still bear a stigma that was present with early movies, music, and visual media (paintings, drawings, etc): it is the notion that video games are not art and do not have proper narrative. Video Games, especially, get this kind of treatment due to the assumed notion that games are toys made for children (a false one, at best) and the notion that gamers are anti-social dorks or nerds who seek to be successful in their virtual life in order to compensate for a lack of a real one (not really true). This needs to be changed. These notions may have borne fruit in the past, but gaming has since evolved into a more mature state that has been generally accepted by the general public (much to the chagrin of hardcore gamers and people who believed the assumptions mentioned earlier in this paragraph). Video Games are not as alienating as they once were, and the general notions of "the gamer" are starting to lose their meaning (girl gamers, for example, are starting to rise in population, much to the disbelief of pre-pubescent aged and behaviored gamers...immature pricks).

However, for every bad news, there is good news. The good news is that the games industry is just getting started. Games like L.A. Noire are pushing the boundaries of video game writing and presentation, and, in the case of L.A. Noire, have been recognized by the Tribecca Film Festival, a big monumental leap for games as an art style (and a subsequent "F*%k you" to Roger Ebert). Narrative story-telling is beginning to rise and gaming as an art form will benefit from this. I feel that as narrative writing in video games gains more traction, the gamer, all in all, will benefit from this. Games with great narrative have influenced my thinking of the world and have made me question my thoughts and beliefs in numerous ways. Mass Effect 1, for example, made me think about whether or not I should execute a sapient race that, in the past, threatened some of the civilizations to the point where they needed to be taken out. On one hand, releasing the "queen" of this species could do just that: exact revenge on the galactic civilization for almost wiping her kind. However, on the other hand, I could take the queen's word and let her live a life of prosperity and peace to recuperate and repopulate. This kind of scenario forces the player (me) to put forth a moral question: Do we hold people accountable for their merits and demerits in the past, or judge them by their present intentions? This kind of questioning was faced by the victors of WWII who questioned what they should do with the Germans and the Japanese. Because of this, the Japanese only have a defense force and no sizeable military to this day for offensive capabilities. Imagine, if proper, well-developed narrative can influence this kind of thinking, what would become of gamers in the future? I believe that gamers will be well-informed and better thinking individuals because of gaming.

Over and out.

Links:
L.A. Noire recognized by Tribeca Film Festival (Reaction): Click Here
A show I recommend: Extra Credits (the guy here is better at talking about this kind of subject than I am): Extra Credits