#104: Far Cry Primal: Back to Basics

I have long bemoaned the “standard Ubisoft open-world game” that we've seen in most of the Assassin's Creed games, Watch_Dogs, and even The Crew. Far Cry is no exception to this pervasiveness, with Far Cry 3 and Far Cry 4 acting as prime examples. Too often, the vast number of petty tasks and collectibles fight for attention against whatever story these games are desperately trying to tell. On top of that, the sheer length and frequency of these beasts, left me with genre exhaustion. That's when I heard about Far Cry: Primal.

To me, the idea of Far Cry (which has traditionally been about first-person, mildly-stealthy shooters) quite literally going back to the Stone Age was very intriguing. I thought that it would make for a great Blood Dragon-esque $15 stand-alone. Then I learned that it was going to be a $60 game, and suddenly got very nervous. The idea of another full-fledged Ubisoft open-world game so soon was just not appealing to me. Since I remain part of the problem, I went ahead and -- despite my misgivings -- bought it anyway. As I played, my fears of another tired, drab, paint-by-numbers Far Cry experience were allayed. While there's no doubt that Far Cry: Primal is a tried and true Far Cry game, it demonstrates that there is merit to Ubisoft's signature open-world that has been overlooked until now.

The story of Far Cry: Primal almost hearkens back to the days where the plot to a video game was merely an excuse to go through the levels. The player character is a warrior from a tribe from 10,000 BCE. His clan is at war with the other two tribes in the region, a Northern cannibal clan that utilizes poison, and a group in the South that specializes in the use of fire. As the leader, the player character needs to strengthen his tribe and himself so that he can take out the leaders of the other two clans and claim the land of Oros, and its resources, for his people. In terms of the main story, that's it. Once the beginning tutorial sections are complete, the world opens up. At that point, by completing only a few mandatory missions, the player could, if they choose, almost immediately take out the other leaders and complete the main story. That said, doing so is extremely difficult, and most players won't be able to beat them with the equipment and skills they start out with. They must first grow stronger, and get to the point where they can comfortably defeat these chieftains. By participating in the open-world, players can acquire the experience, resources, and friends necessary to completing their ultimate objective.

Naturally, as a Far Cry game, the moment the world opens up, the map and UI reveal a ton of optional quests and objectives. By completing them, players earn experience and skill points. By spending skill points, they acquire new perks and skills and grow that much more capable. Though aside from the first few skill trees, most are locked from the start.

Among the many quests and events in the world are fellow tribesman who have been separated from the main group. Each of these tribesman specialize in a specific area, like hunting and craftsmanship. Once the player finds them and solves whatever problem they have, these specialists will relocate to the player's village. At that point, they will train the player in their talents, unlocking their skill tree in the upgrade menu.

More than skills, they also teach the player how to craft tools and weapons. Of course, knowing how to build them is one thing, but having the materials to do so is another. Building these items requires the player to scavenge and hunt for items like wood, stone, clay, and animal hides.

Those who have play previous Far Cry games are probably not surprised by this. Ubisoft has been using variants on these same mechanics for several years now. What separates Far Cry: Primal from the rest of their catalog is not the mechanics themselves. Rather, it is how they interact with each other and come together.

In other Ubisoft games, every element of the game is fighting for an ounce of attention. The story, the side quests, and the collectibles are all wholly distinct entities. None of them come together and they all demand that the player takes time away from the other elements to devote to them. As much as I praised it, Assassin's Creed: Unity had that problem in spades. There were so many objectives on the map that it was often hard to spot the architecture underneath the symbols.

This isn't the case in Far Cry: Primal. Rather than compete with the other elements, the story frames them. By presenting these two bosses as the ultimate end-game opponents, Primal immediately encourages players to acquire the skills to defeat them. Since these skills and are locked behind the specialists and reconstruction of the village, the first instinct will be to gather resources and recruit these experts. It is by allowing the story to exist largely in the background for most of the game, as this looming challenge to undertake, that the open world and the tasks within it are actually given their chance to shine.

More importantly, every element comes back together with the others at some point. By recruiting each expert, players unlock skills to purchase and items to craft. Unlocking new skill trees gives an incentive to travel the world and earn experience, and crafting gives a similar incentive to gather materials. The items and skills acquired then enable the player to tackle tougher challenger, until they are finally able to take down both rival tribes and end the game. Instead of fighting for the player's attention, each element of the game reinforces the desire and need for the player to engage with the other elements. This sense of design cohesion makes Far Cry: Primal a much stronger game than the previous two entries in the franchise.

The importance of all these elements coming together only occurred to me about 10 hours into my playthrough. At this point, I had finally worked up the courage to journey North and defeat the cannibal leader. That’s when I realized that this boss fight was the first genuine piece of main story content I had encountered since the beginning of the game.

If this was some other Ubisoft game, like Watch_Dogs, I would have been livid. Even though the side content exists for players to experience it, spending that much time without making forward progress would feel like a waste to me. That’s why in most of these open world games, I usually skip most of the side content, choosing to mainline the campaign. If I do optional objectives, it’s almost always in service of making my trek through the very next story beat easier, usually by revealing part of the map.

But I wasn’t angry. In fact, I looked back on those 8 or so hours of wandering Oros fondly. Everything I did felt like it had some purpose in preparing me for this, one of my 2 ultimate foes. And not only did I enjoy my time doing all of these tasks, but I was more engaged with them then I ever was in previous Ubisoft games. Before, I was actively avoiding the Shangri La hallucinations and stoner missions in Far Cry 4, or those accursed Eagle Feathers in Assassin’s Creed 2. Here, I was looking, actually looking, for animals to hunt, people to recruit, and things to do. This might not sounds like a big deal, but it’s more than I’ve gotten out most of the needless, pointless crap that litters so much square mileage of Far Cry: Primal’s ancestors.

I don't expect, or even necessarily desire, for Ubisoft to do what they did in Far Cry: Primal very often. Having an overarching story that frames the gameplay more than it stands out on its own works well in the context of primitive man fighting over resources in the Stone Age, but not so much other eras with more complicated themes and people. Having said that, Far Cry: Primal feels much more like a coherent whole than many other Ubisoft games. My final playtime was roughly 19.5 hours according to my save file, but that time was more fruitful and interesting than many of the 40-50 hours experiences I have had in the likes of Assassin's Creed, Watch_Dogs, and other Far Crys. Ironically, this caveman game is the most developed Ubisoft open world I've seen in a long time.

#100: Burgers and Fryes: The Protagonists of Assassin's Creed Syndicate

Long-time readers of my blog know that I routinely talk about Assassin's Creed games. Whenever a new one gets released, it rises to the top of my to-play list. And for good reason. Regardless of the quality of any one installment, each entry has something, a feature or a flaw, worth discussing. The latest game in Ubisoft's long-running alternate history franchise is no different.

Unlike past games, Syndicate features two lead characters, twins named Jacob and Evie Frye, who take London by storm. This use of two protagonists allows Assassin's Creed: Syndicate to do a number of interesting things with both its play and its plot. The most obvious being that it allowed Ubisoft to contrast and cater to the two major playstyles that players can generally be sorted into when playing Assassin's Creed.

As the more athletic of the two, Jacob loves a good brawl. He's more than content with attracting the attention of large groups of enemies and beating his targets, and anyone who looks like they might try to stop him, into a bloody pavement pulp. If ranged combat is needed, Jacob will just bring out a pistol and go in loud. Meanwhile, his sister takes a more silent approach. Though she can handle herself in a fight, Evie prefers to sneak around undetected. She isolates enemies and takes them out one-at-a-time, being careful not to attract too much detention. Rather than rely too heavily on her gun, she takes wields throwing knives that can kill ranged enemies quietly. While either character technically can perform in combat or stealth, they have clear preferences towards one or the other.

This neatly maps to the two common Assassin’s Creed player archetypes. Some people are just fine with rushing to a mission objective, killing everyone in sight, and completing their assigned task. Stealth or finesse isn't important. What matters is only that the mission is done at the end of the day. Others would willing redo the same mission over and over until they've “perfected” it by completing all the optional objectives and avoiding detection. It's not just about completing the mission. It's about keeping mistakes to an absolute minimum. Though these descriptions are more representatives of extremes on a sliding scale, and less hard-and-fast alternatives, it can be broadly said that most will gravitate towards one or the other.

By having Jacob and Evie together, both extremes can be catered to and defended in the game. Even in the story, both characters represent these playstyles through their conversations. Being the more detail-oriented of the two, Evie constantly admonishes her brother by pointing out the sloppiness of his work and the unexpected consequences of his actions, especially in comparison to how she carries out her assignments. But Jacob gets just as much opportunity to defend himself by pointing out that he gets things done, often faster and more efficiently than his sister. The game doesn't preach in favor of one style or the other. Rather, through these contrasting characters, it acknowledges that both extremes, and everything in between, are valid ways of doing what needs doing.

As a pair, the Frye twins also allowed Assassin's Creed: Syndicate to explore the same story through multiple viewpoints. Because he tends to be the go-getter of the two twins, Jacob performs most of the tasks often associated with a typical Assassin's Creed protagonist. He’s the one who goes after most the high-ranking Templars, by discovering who they are, sabotaging their operations, and ultimately assassinating them. In many ways, his missions offer the “typical” Assassin's Creed experience. While Evie gets in on the action with her own separate story-missions, Jacob takes the lion's share of these assassinations.

This frees Evie up to do something fairly unique in the context of the series. Usually, after the mission in which the main character kills one of the Templars, that target's influence on the world is suddenly rendered null and void. They no longer matter, and we can safely move on to the next target without exploring the potential effects of their removal. In Syndicate, in the next sequence following an assassination, Evie gets a moment where she revisits the scene of Jacob's crime, exploring the aftermath.

One early sequence has Jacob target a corrupt doctor who was brewing and distributing an hazardous and addictive “tonic” to the people of Victorian-era London. When Evie enters the situation later, she agrees that killing him and cutting off the supply of tonic is a good thing. However, Jacob failed to note that doing so only solves part of the problem, and creates others. This doctor wasn’t only responsible for the distribution of the tonic, but also for providing other, beneficial medicine needed by the poorer citizens. By removing him, Jacob has inadvertently made it possible for gangs to swoop in and take over both the distribution of medicine and the creation of tonic for people those still addicted. Though Evie does what she can to help in this mission, it is ultimately up to other characters, who aren't involved in the Assassin/Templar meta-narrative, to start setting up the infrastructure needed to truly solve the problem.

Through these post-assassination missions, Ubisoft appears to launch a subtle critique of their very own stock storyline. In almost every other Assassin's Creed game, assassinating every major Templar magically fixes every problem. By using Jacob and Evie to explore these assassinations from different perspectives (one before and during the kill, and the other afterwards) Syndicate posits that the actual kill is only the start of fixing the problem at best, and at worst makes it harder to come to a permanent solution. It's not enough to take down the existing economic and logistical frameworks without taking steps to replace them afterward. Otherwise, the situation can only get worse. Without Evie, it would be much more difficult to make this point in an elegant manner.

On their own merits, neither Jacob nor Evie would be particularly interesting characters. What makes them worth noting is what they allow Ubisoft to do in the context of an Assassin's Creed game. By throwing together two characters with different personalities, and making them work towards the same ends, there styles forced to clash with each other. Using their interactions, Assassin's Creed: Syndicate explores some of the franchises central gameplay and story tenets with an uncharacteristic self-analysis. Hopefully, with this insight, the series can continue to improve itself.

The Texture Pop: Episode 26: The Tastiest Plasma

And the whole group is back together again. Further, Garrett's friend Tyler stopped by to join us for most of the cast.

We tried to do something new by having all of us record our audio on Audacity. However, it fell through. We're going to try it again next week in an effort to improve the listener experience, so don't lose hope.



0:01:30 Viewer Questions
Adonisus's podcast is here, for those who are curious.

"Do you think that an AO game has any commercial viability?"
Honestly, there is a small, but potential market for an AO game. As much as I dislike Hatred, as an example, I believe that it can do well.
Retailers will not waste their time with AO games, for two reasons. First, there is not a big enough market. Secondly, they tend to present a family-friendly environment, which those games tend to detract from.
That said, I imagine with all the publicity, sales from the designers website will, while no where near as good as a dedicated retail store, will likely be enough to make a profit. In that sense, it could be commercially viable in those terms.
So, while it is not a big market, it does exist.

"What do you guys think of the news that Marvel intends to reboot their universe after the Secret Wars event?"
I am glad Chris is here to answer this question, because he knows so much more about comics than I do.
In general though, I am of the attitude that I am okay with whatever changes a developer wants to do, so long as the character can still be recognized as the character. We can only determine how good and bad changes are after they've been implemented.

If you wish to send us Viewer Questions, please e-mail us at thetexturepop@gmail.com.



0:17:13 Gaming News
The Elder Scrolls Online goes Buy-To-Play
I think this will attract more people to the game, since the barrier of entry is lessened. However, I feel that the next logical step is truly Free-To-Play, and this won't produce enough revenue to not go in this direction.
The game is still fundamentally flawed, and the initial bad taste it left in the mouth of many players is still there. They could do well, but it needs to reclaim a lot of its lost good will.

In a broader sense, I am not convinced that subscription is the way to go for specific games anymore. For $15 a month, I could get either a Netflix or a GameFly account. Those are just significantly more robust forms of entertainment.

Sega's reduction in staff, and renewed focus on mobile
It's actually how much I won't notice a change in my gaming at all. Aside from ATLUS, Sega does not interest me with the games it releases.

AOL is shutting down Joystiq
The way it was handled is pretty fucked up, if you ask me. I hope the staff bounces back from that.
Gaming journalism has accelerated in these past years. It used to take years for a publication to shut down, but now shut downs happen all the time.



0:34:00 Tyler played Dragon Age: Inquisition (because his save file was lost)
I feel bad, because I would be pissed off if all of my saves and data just vanished like that. Defeated by a power surge.
We then go into a somewhat random conversation about save features in remakes.
Then we discuss Dragon Age 2 and Origins, because of course we do.



0:46:55 Tyler played a bit of Call Of Duty: Black Ops 2.
He beat his old record in zombies. I can't really say if that's good or bad, because I'm terrible at those kinds of games.



0:48:10 Garrett installed a 2TB HDD in his computer.
It's a lot of memory. Even better, he has Windows 7 now, instead of Windows 8.



0:50:04 We talk about the Nationwide Super Bowl commercial.
In hindsight (since I watched it after the podcast), I can see why people reacted as strongly as they did. However, that's the entire point of the commercial. I actually thought it was really good.



0:51:50 Garrett played League of Legends
With a new season, the rankings reset, so Garrett needs to get good again.



0:52:55 Garrett talks about his game design class with Tyler.
The more I hear about GameMaker, the less I would ever want to use. I mostly just want to do the coding myself, so that I have more control over the final product.
Coding isn't as hard a people make it out to be. It mostly just takes practice, like any other discipline.



0:59:50 Garrett tried out to be a voice-actor in an animated video for the Zoophobia web-comic.
'nuff said.



1:02:30 Sam tried the new and improved Warframe
Apparently it is a lot different than it was before.



1:05:00 Sam tricked convinced a co-worker to get Saya No Uta
It's again hard to comment on this without spoiling it, so we can't get into a big conversation.



1:07:00 Sam bought and played a bit of Dying Light
I initially was not terribly interested in getting Dying Light at first. Having seen a lot of it, I kinda want to get a copy of it now. It looks really interesting, and I'm a completely sucker for parkour-esque exploration in video games.



1:13:45 Sam played Forza Horizon 2.
Yeah. Racing games.... It is really hard to talk about them.
Also, talking about the show in the middle of recording.



1:19:25 Sam played Life is Strange: Episode 1
I do want to play this game, I really do. However, after playing all of those Telltale games, I am burnt out on the episodic model. I just want to wait for all the episodes to come out before I invest.
If Dontnod releases episodes 2 through 5 in a timely manner, I might change my mind. Until then, I am keeping my wallet guarded. It's also hard to talk about it because, like any episodic game, we cannot determine its quality until after every episode has been released.

That said, what I have heard about Life is Strange is promising. It is also really interesting to note how rare it is for games to take place in the modern world, without any sort of catastrophe or twist. It's just our world.

Sam's article on the game is here.



1:29:55 I finished Diablo 3: Reaper of Souls
I don't have much more to add here in the shownotes. In the coming weeks, I will release an article on my experiences with the game.

But it's worth talking about the challenges of moving an inherently PC game to a console. It's easier said than done.



1:38:25 I played and beat the first Bayonetta
I suck at this genre, but I loved playing the game. It's nice to play something that doesn't take itself too seriously. On top of that, it's very visually appealing.



1:42:45 I just finished Dead Space 2.
Like with Diablo 3, my article for it is coming. But the conversation we had on it was a good one.

In general though, it is a significantly, noticeably better game than Dead Space 3, to the point where I actively wonder what the hell happened between the two games.



1:52:40 I went with some friends to see The Imitation Game.
As a Computer Science major, this was a very interesting movie because it was basically a biopic of the guy who invented my entire discipline.
On top of that, it's a very good dramatic movie. This is one of the most unknown, yet interesting people in recent human history. I had a great time and would easily recommend a lot of fun watching it.



1:56:26 Chris did not play Assassin's Creed 3, and instead played Assassin's Creed: Liberation HD.
Aveline is such a good character, and the game is so much better paced. It really should have been the one Ubisoft focused more on. Definitely get it over Assassin's Creed 3, as it's much better in almost every way, especially with the stuff they added to the original Vita version.

There are ideas in Liberation, like Aveline's multiple disguises, that deserve to be revisited in other games in the franchise. There's a lot that mechanic could be used for. I'm also not kidding when I say that Aveline is the most interesting protagonist in  the Assassin's Creed franchise. Her background is interesting and I wish she was used more frequently.

I also find it amusing that Chris is having a bit of a "Season of Assassin's Creed" in a way that I had my "Season of ATLUS" a few months back. It's good that he's taking a hiatus for now.



2:15:45 Wrapping Up
My inFamous: Second Son article is here.
Sam's Life is Strange article is here.
Sam's videos are here and here.
Interactive Friction is still a thing. A new episode went up.
Adonisus's podcast is, once again, here.

There's also The Texture Pop e-mail and twitter.

The Texture Pop: Episode 12: Project Hate Zone

Sam was busy for this recording, so he had to miss out. At the same time, Garrett had some things to do, so he was a little late to the record. This left Chris and I to start the podcast by ourselves. If it sounds a little quieter than usual, that's why.

Also, the reason this podcast is as short as it is is because we were trying to cut out podcast down to a more manageable length. As a result, each of us only had a time limit of roughly 20 minutes for our respective segments. I really like this, as both a participant and viewer (after all, I have to watch the episodes myself to write the annotations), because it forces us to talk about our big topics first, streamlining the whole production. At the same time, there is more than enough room for our usual shenanigans.



0:00:00 Introduction
In which I teach Chris about geography.

0:03:25 I wanted to discuss GamerGate, because I felt like we had to.
Commenting on this story.

Honestly, I haven't much more to add to this whole thing. It's getting extremely ridiculous, and destroying the image the industry has spent years cultivating. I really don't know how it's gained this ability to persist as long as it has. We'll probably all be better off when it's finally over.
That said, I do regret my choice of the words "tag and bag" though. That wasn't the kind of image I meant to convey. I think the jerk deserves to be punished for terrorist threats, but that was an unnecessary hyperbole on my part.

As for discussions regarding ethics and games journalism, it is a very complicated issue. The thing that people do not seem to understand is that when the industry is so small, everyone knows each other. While this does leads credence to some arguments regarding game journalists and insiders getting too buddy-buddy with each other. At the same time, when those relationships go too far, it is extremely obvious. Fluff pieces read like fluff pieces. Anyone with a critical eye can detect them.

0:15:55 Chris has a bone to pick with Ubisoft.
Commenting on this story.

I think the problem with that story isn't that Ubisoft was running Unity at 900p, 30 FPS. The issue was that they used such a bullshit excuse for it. I think Chris would have been much less angry if Ubisoft just said "We can barely pull off 900p at 30 FPS, we can't do 60 FPS". It's not the technicality, it's the blatant disregard for the obvious truth of the matter.

0:21:35 We discuss Civil War in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Commenting on this story.

The Civil War will be coming to the Marvel movies. Whether or not you liked that plot line, it is hard to deny that it sold well. I personally loved it (even if I only learned about it via talks with friends and wikis), but Chris did not.

I think that kind of highlights an interesting discussion that could be had about how different types of audiences respond to the same stimuli in different ways. Chris, from what I gather about our conversations regarding Superman and the Marvel Civil War, really enjoys when comics are black and white, with easily distinguishable good and bad guys. I, on the other hand, love moral ambiguity in my fiction. I love scenes that show how somebody might think they are the hero, but fails to realize that the consequences for their actions make them out as villains to others. I love stories where everyone means well, but their actions result in a shitstorm that needs to be dealt with. Those are the kinds of stories and characters I like, because I kind them much more interesting.

We then discuss Marvel vs. DC in terms of movies, which is always a sad discussion to have, because DC sucks with regards to movies.

0:30:45 I have, after what seems like an incredibly long time, FINALLY beat Project X Zone.
An impressions piece on the game will be posted on this blog on Saturday, for those of you who want a more detailed write up on my opinions. Until then, I've think I said all that I wanted to say on that subject for now. Aside, of course, from the fact that I did not like this game at all.

And leave it up to Chris to mention Destiny in this discussion, somehow.

0:42:40 I am playing Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne.
On some level, I understand where all the talk about Nocturne being difficult stems from. At the same time, I think much of that talk is unwarranted. While it definitely does not hold your hand, the game can be made easy if players are smart about the demons the recruit and fuse to the party.

It's not so much hard as that it gives players a lot of room for customization, and counts on them being smart enough to use that room to make a well-balanced party. Otherwise, the game will punish them for poor decision making. The Press Turn System, which I elaborated on in my Digital Devil Saga pieces.

So far, I've really enjoyed the game so far. Expect an impressions piece when I do eventually finish it.

It is only in hindsight that I realize that I took entirely too long to say my points. So by the time I finished, we needed to move on to somebody else.

0:55:45 Garrett does some programming in his game design class.
Again, it's interesting comparing Garrett's classes with my own. He is going for a dedicated game design degree. I, on the other hand, am going for a generalized Bachelor's of Science in Computer Science.

As a result, we learn a lot of same material, but it different ways. I didn't really get into the nitty-gritty of planning out systems and mechanics until later. For me, the coding came first. But for Garrett, the opposite is true. I've not much to say on the matter, but it could be worth further study by academics as to how each style affects the student being taught.

0:57:45 Garrett reveals his inner Japan/Korea-ophile.
In particular, we talk a bit about Gantz. I remember that I had a couple of friends from high school loving that series. I would only learn about it later by browsing TV Tropes. Seems like an interesting series, but like most manga, I do not have the time to decide to catching up.

1:08:30 Chris talks about upgrading his desktop.
The bottom line is that one should not cheap out on PC components. Just go whole hog and get the full upgrade. At that point, it'll save you massive headaches later.
Learn from Chris's mistakes as I intend too when I eventually have to go through this.

1:19:50 Chris talks about his internet troubles.
In which Chris and I pool our shared internet knowledge in what could be called the most informative segment we've ever had on this podcast.

1:25:00 We wrap up.
We'll a strange bunch, for sure.

#73: THIS GAME IS TOO LONG!: The Myth that Length is Objectively Good

As an amateur, avid game critic, I follow gaming news and releases religiously. As I read press statements, game descriptions, and reports on games soon to be released, there is a sentiment that I repeatedly see among them: One that I cannot agree with. There is a notion from publishers, developers, and their fans that the length of a game should be a compelling selling point. A game that has “50 hours of content” should be more compelling than a similar game with “20 hours of content”. I see why this is an easy mistake to make. Nonetheless, this assumption is incorrect. Length in games cannot, and will not, ever be an indicator of a game's overall value. This week, I aim to explain exactly why that is.

The biggest reason for this is that the amount of content says nothing about the overall quality of that content. I have mentioned this point a few times in earlier pieces, particular a few pertaining to Assassin's Creed 3, but it is one that bears both repeating and elaborating on. A game can claim that it contains “40/50 hours of content”, as Watch_Dogs and Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag both famously did. However, that point does not say how good or how bad that content is. For example, Assassin's Creed 3 is now infamous for how bad it was, especially in comparison to earlier entries in the franchise. Yet it sold itself partially on the claim that it had many untold hours of gameplay.

Hindsight has revealed it to be a pox on the franchise. The tale of Connor Kenway had terrible writing with laughably camp antagonists. Missions were overly linear to the point where even the exact path players took to their assassination was determined by the game. Collectibles and side content did not serve any purpose nor provide an adequate enough challenge/reward to be gathered for their own sake. Lastly, the ending is a standout for bad endings in games, even when the game was released in the same year as Mass Effect 3. Though the game has many, many hours of content, a lot of it is not particularly good. The only real standouts are the parts with Connor's father, Haytham. Were all, or even most, of the game's offerings up to snuff, many hours of it could be a fantastic selling point. However, in the context of the game, all that content ends up being a negative. Other games like Watch_Dogs can be said to suffer the same fate in different ways.

That being said, there are other dangers to relying on the length of a game as a measure for value. When it is, the temptation arises for developers to artificially add more content into the game. As a direct result of these additions, the game's pacing can be negatively affected. I posit that happened in the creation of Dragon Age: Origins. I already laid out the premise of The Fade in last week's post and discussed how it hurt the overall game, along with The Deep Roads. While I cannot be sure of it, I am willing to claim that at least The Fade was added in after the fact in order to reach some artificial length for an average playthrough. It is the kind of section that has almost no bearing on anything else in the game, not even in the Circle of Magi module that it is a part of. Modders have proven this to be true thanks to “Skip the Fade”. There are other such examples of content that feels artificial even in other games, like the Navajo scene in Beyond: Two Souls or latex nuns in Hitman: Absolution. Most of them contribute adversely to the narrative pacing.

My final reason for why length of a game does not make for a good measure of quality is that using it in such a way could end up lowering the overall quality of a game's content. My logic for this is as follows: A developer who believes that quantity is important will attempt to provide as much content for their consumers as they possibly can. Creating all this content requires the developer to spread their resources thin so that more content can be created. When content is created with such limited resources, it will be lesser in terms of quality. Therefore, creating as much content as possible will result in at least some of that content being not as good as it otherwise could have been. While treating length as the end-all-be-all does not necessarily imply that a game will be poor, I would be willing to make the claim that, using this logic, it is safe to conclude that it raises the odds of a lesser quality.

As a final note to this piece, I want to say that I do not mean to say that length should not be a factor in purchasing decisions. What I actually mean is that it should not be treated as the most, or even one of the most, important considerations. When a developer says that there is game “has X hours of play”, you should sit down and think for a second. You should wonder if the game's design was affected just so that the publisher could use that length as a talking point when discussing the final product. Marketers do count on us being easy to manipulate. That is just the nature of their job. It is the responsibility of us, the audience and the consumers, to be aware and to think about why and how our games were designed the way they are.

#53: Railroading: How it Doesn't Have to Suck

As many of you know, I am a very big fan of choices in games. I love it when a game allows me a degree of agency over the story and the way things unfold. To me, this is a major part of what helps gaming separate itself from other mediums, like books or movies. However, this does not mean that I am against the notion of linearity in video games. There is nothing wrong with games having players follow a path that is decided by the designers well before they gets their hands on it. Many of the better games and stories in this medium are of high-quality because of their linear nature. The key for developers to have well-executed plots that railroad players into one path is to carefully mask those rails as much as they possibly can. This can be done in a number of ways and with many different approaches. Today's article will be dedicated to outlining a couple of possible methods with which railroad-y plots can work.

The first of these methods is simply to create a large world and build the perception that there are many places and locations for the player to explore, while at the same blocking off areas until they have completed a significant enough portion of the story. Final Fantasy games, especially the earlier games in the franchise, are some of the most well known practitioners of this strategy. In many of this franchise's games, players start off in one town, but see that all around them there is a fairly large and expansive world map to explore when they depart that town. Most sections of the map are blocked off simply because the player requires certain means of transportation to get passed obstacles like mountains, rivers, oceans, and so on. After making significant enough progress in the story, the player is given some method with which to bypass the obstacle like a teleporter or some kind of vehicle (most famously the Airship). This tactic comes with its own strengths and weaknesses. On the positive side, it gives off the illusion of a massive world which the player can explore. Earlier Final Fantasy games always had the feeling of world-sprawling adventures that took players to varied, exotic locals. It also allows for strategic placement of locations and towns to give off the impression that players are exploring an actual place with people. Taken further, designers can also use this world to place side quests in deliberate locations that make them feel like natural extensions to the game and its lore. This can best be shown by contrasting early Final Fantasy games with a later game in the franchise that did not utilize such a mask, Final Fantasy XIII. That particular game is notorious for presenting the majority of itself as a long, linear corridor. Without the illusion of a large world, the game feels like a straight line and there is very little room for side content. On the other hand, there are downsides as well to this particular illusion. For one, it is fairly difficult to scale up. This worked well on small scale pixelated games because we accepted a degree of abstraction. We did not need to see other people using airships or traveling around, gathering resources and trading, to assume that it was happening. When we scaled up to high-fidelity 3D, this was no longer sufficient. For games to employ this tactic in modern AAA gaming, it requires a great deal of effort. The place has to look almost exactly like a living breathing world in the vein of an Elder Scrolls or Assassin's Creed game, especially an Assassin's Creed game, in order to maintain the illusion. Because of this, the blocks that prevent players from proceeding further into unexplored territory before advancing the story can seem increasingly artificial. In particular, the Assassin's Creed series is extremely bad at this. The barriers that determine how far players can explore are literal force fields that appear when they are going too far out of the designated free area. It justifies them by saying that the ancestor of the day did not explore those locations during the memory segment that the player is currently reliving via the Animus. While crafting natural blocks that make sense in the world can be difficult at times, Ubisoft did not even try and many games in the series feel decidedly linear because of it. That is not to say that this is a bad tactic to use, but we have to consider the weaknesses of doing things this way.

Another good way to disguise linearity in games is to plan the player's actions and the level design so that the correct path to take feels like the one they are most likely to take anyway. This is easier said than done as it takes a fair amount of work, play testing, and knowledge to get right. One of the biggest problems with games and plots that railroad the player into doing certain things is that often the player is forced to take actions that are obviously stupid even without knowing what they will lead to later on. A good example of this is the start of Mass Effect 2, where Shepard decides to work with the organization Cerberus despite knowing already that they are a terrorist organization that is responsible for completely reprehensible crimes against humanity. Most players who are familiar with the events in the first game would NEVER want to join up with Cerberus, but are forced to anyway because the writers have already made that decision. Assassin's Creed 2 is also responsible for this by forcing Ezio to spare Rodrigo Borgia at the end of the game despite the fact that he is and will be responsible for thousands of deaths. These kinds of moments make it seem like the protagonist or designer of the game is attempting to troll the player, both acting illogically and placing the player in situations that could have easily been avoided. Simply put, neither the player nor the player character should ever be forced to take actions that are obviously stupid in service to a plot. If that does happen, then the players will often mark the game down for being overly-linear and “railroad-y.” Hiding a game's linear nature is easiest to pull off by reading and re-reading the script of the game with a critical eye. Designers need to think about logical actions that the player or protagonist might consider taking and either finding a way to explain why it would not work or rearranging the plot element or set piece in question around that. Play testing and bringing in fresh eyes can also help as watching what others do and asking why they make those choices can greatly help in planning scenarios in a way that they seem less linear. It is hard to point to games that do this particularly well because those are the kinds of games that are so well done that it is hard to notice that designers are funneling their audience towards one end. While I am an advocate of doing things this way, again one has to acknowledge that it is not easy and requires quite a bit of forethought and adaptability.

Lastly, one of the more ambitious ways to create a linear game is to actually enable players the ability to make choices as the plot goes on, but weave those choices into the story in a way where the player feels like they were making significant choices, when in actuality they were just being funneled into the tale that the designers wanted to tell. Out of all the possible tactics to employ, this is the most risky. Done well, it can give players a strong feeling of authorship over the narrative until playing through the game again. When poorly executed, players can feel like the game is invalidating their choice and forcing them into situations they would rather avoid. One example of the former is Telltale's The Walking Dead. While there are moments where it seems like the game is conveniently sweeping decisions players have made in the past under the rug (particularly in Episode 3), for the most part the game is pretty good about guiding players towards their intended paths while acknowledging and respecting the choices they made along the way. But of course, for every good example of a game doing something right there is a counter-example that demonstrates the worst way to implement the same thing. In this case, Mass Effect 3 serves as that counter-example. There were several moments in Mass Effect 3 where the script seemed to do what it wanted despite the choices players have made. In order to avoid spoilers in this article, I will instead point to my previous works that detail this phenomenon. This is something hard to talk about because in order to do it justice, I would have to prepared to go into massive spoiler territory and I am trying to keep this spoiler free for once. Nonetheless, such a skillful weaving is something that takes genuine effort. Players will notice and appreciate it.

Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with games being linear. Done well, a good linear story can make for quite an enjoyable game. It is worth noting that none of these strategies have to be done in isolation. In fact, it is ideal if a few of them overlap. This is also by no means a comprehensive article on the subject. I am sure that other tactics exist to help facilitate linear storytelling in video games. Lastly, my final disclaimer is that sometimes not hiding the rails can be a legitimate tactic if the game's story calls for it, as seen in games like Spec Ops: The Line or the first two-thirds of Bioshock. By no means is game design an exact science with hard and fast rules. The medium is still very much in its youth. Designers should feel free to experiment with and test other ways to improve how we tell stories.

#52: When Good Plots Go Bad: How “Those Who Came Before” Ruined Assassin's Creed

(A SPOILER WARNING is in effect for the entity of Assassin's Creed from the first game to the most recent outing. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!)

A week ago, a friend of mine finished playing Assassin's Creed 3, which sparked a pretty interesting discussion regarding the plot of the franchise and its somewhat controversial ending. While we were talking, I had made the statement that the inclusion of “Those Who Came Before” (which I will be abbreviating to TWCB) and the destruction of the entire world was the beginning of the end for the franchise's main plot. That is a fairly bold statement to make without providing proof, since it became a major element of the story from the second game onward, so this week's article is my defense of that claim. While I have addressed this series several times in the past, this is the first time I have discussed the larger over-arching story of the whole thing. I am going to assume at this point that you have at least a passing familiarity with the franchise. If you do not, please cease to read on if you are afraid of spoilers. This is going to contain a few of them. Anyway, the inclusion of TWCB/Apocalypse plot had a number of after-effects on the main plot that, taken as a whole, really restricted what they could otherwise do with it, which severely damaged the franchise.

The first of these after-effects is that Assassin's Creed began to move away from the Templars vs. Assassins plot and towards this new Mayan Apocalypse plot. It is a very subtle shift that one may not notice unless they look closely. In the first game and second Assassin's Creed games, the war between the Assassins and the Templars was the central guiding element of the plot and everything that happened was in service to that. In Assassin's Creed, the conflict and the morally/intrigue behind it was introduced. In the sequel, the war was further elaborated on both through the main story and Subject 16's recordings. Also, Desmond was being trained (via the Animus) to take part in it as an active participant. As we progress forward from here, we see that there is a subtle shift in how the plot begins to unfold. Instead, the main story begins to unfold around the impending apocalypse, which becomes the new driving force for the plot. For the events of Brotherhood, Desmond needs to find the Apple of Eden in order to learn what he needs to do to stop the apocalypse. During Revelations, our protagonist needs to wake up so that he can do what needs to be done. Lastly, in the most recent outing, the reason Desmond goes back into the Animus is to find the key to the ancient temple that contains the device capable of saving the world. Instead of the Assassins vs. Templar plot being the highest priority, the sub-plot of TWCB and their efforts to stop the world from being burned is at the forefront of the player's mind. Considering that the former and its moral ambiguity is at the center of what is interesting about the franchise, it is a bit of a mistake.

But this was not the only problem with the “end of the world” storyline. Another major issue invited by it is that it an even larger focus was placed on the present-day storyline that is set in 2012, stealing momentum from the story-lines of the ancestors in their periods of history. Again, this is antithetical to the strengths of the franchise. The other big draw of Assassin's Creed is that the Animus, the game's signature plot device, allows the writers to explore any period of history they choose. This has led to quite a few interesting, and relatively unused, settings being highlighted in the franchise from the Third Crusade, to the Italian Renaissance, and even the American Revolution. Many people come to the franchise specifically for this reason. Shifting the focus away from this and over to a grand, world-spanning apocalypse plot is a grave mistake as it takes away from what makes the game shine. In the original game and it's successor, the focus was squarely on the ancestors presented. While Desmond was there and he had an outside motivation for going through his ancestors' memories (and a debatably large amount of screen time), the real star was the ancestor presented, be it Altair or Ezio. Moving on past that point, Desmond and the modern day story surrounding him became much more important. Brotherhood allowed made him more involved, giving him several segments outside the Animus and giving the assassin crew a bit more of a showing, allowing players to interact with them and get to know them better. The entire point of Revelations was to get Desmond back into the real world after the plot twist of Brotherhood literally sent him into a coma. In that game, there is a whole five part side mission dedicated to Mr. Miles and getting to know him better. Lastly, the third main game had entire sections where Desmond used stealth to get around the real world and find artifacts that would prove useful to the main plot. The problem with all of this is that the real world/present day story have always been the weakest part of Assassin's Creed. As a character, Desmond has always been as bland as a leading man can get. Ubisoft tried to make him an “everyman” that people can relate to, but as a result he does not have anything that distinguishes him from any other protagonist. This is a problem that the series is notorious for and has been since the beginning. So to make a plot twist that would throw that element into the limelight seems like a very poor decision. Because someone needs to deal with the apocalypse in the modern day story, they were forced to make it more important instead of just regulating it to the side-lines as a vague justification for going through an ancestor's memory.

Lastly, one of the biggest problems with the inclusion of TWCB is that it codified the legendary “mind fuck” endings that the series would grow to be known for. The first game ended on a fairly surprising note with Desmond discovering that his room was covered in hidden symbols he could only see with Eagle Vision. This led to a number of fans speculating and trying to decipher what those symbols might mean for the lore of the series. It was an odd and surprising “WTF” ending, but it was not entirely out of place for the game as we knew it. When Assassin's Creed 2 introduced its plot twist at the end, that TWCB created humanity, but died in a solar flare that now threatens to come back, it came entirely out of left field and no one saw it coming. This set the trend going forward into Brotherhood with the death of Lucy, who was secretly a triple agent, joining the Templars after being sent to spy on them and then reintegrating herself into the Assassin order. Revelations would try for this with Altair's, Ezio's, and Desmond's stories, with Altair sealing himself and his Apple of Eden into a secret library and Ezio talking to Desmond directly in order for a member of the First Civilization to tell him about the apocalypse, but in general they did not elicit many strong reactions. And in the third main installment in the series, the plot twist was something that players could partly see coming and partly felt like it came from nowhere. As the game foreshadowed, Roman goddess Juno was planning to backstab the human race and Desmond decided triggering her trap was worth keeping the world intact. Every game past the second tried for a “mind screw” ending and for the most part failed. The whole concept of TWCB drove most of these plot twists and gave them fuel. Without this element, it seems less likely, though still entirely possible, that similar twists would have happened.

Ultimately, the inclusion of this one, singular element really derailed what could have an interesting game about a world-spanning, secret war between two shadow organizations with ambiguous stances on morality. Instead, it changed the franchise into an entirely different science-fiction apocalypse plot that seemed wildly divergent from its roots. As someone who is a massive fan of the series, it is perplexing to see how different it turned out from anything that could have possibly been predicted based on the original game. Truly, the game moved so far from what it originally promised that it can sometimes be hard to believe. It seems to have evolved and lost itself as it progressed. I admit that I am curious as to exactly how this happened...

#28: Why People Were Getting Sick of Ezio

Throughout this console generation, many companies have tried to create new IPs that successfully stick with audiences, feel fresh and unique, and generate income for other projects they wish to work on. While many of them failed due to a number of reasons, one of them stuck in a big way: Assassin's Creed. Thought the original game had its flaws, it was a unique type of game that innovated on several fronts and was more successful than Ubisoft imagined it could be. One common complaint, among the tedious investigation missions and seemingly psychic guards, was that Altair Ibn La-Ahad was a rather bland and boring protagonist that did not have much in the way of personality. When moving from third Crusade-era Syria into Renaissance-era Italy for the sequel, Ubisoft took steps in order to avoid making the same mistake again. The result was the very well-received Ezio Auditore da Firenze. While many people loved the Florentine murder-machine at first, the longer his contribution to the series went on (in both Brotherhood and Revelations), the less people took kindly to him. I wondered to myself why that was, which inspired this week's article.

One of the most obvious reasons for this is that as Ezio's contribution to the story went on, the gameplay became less and less fun. Assassin's Creed 2 gave Ezio plenty of ways to go through a mission and a variety of equipment types to use. The player could blend in with crowds in order to hide from guards on the way to a target. He/she could use parkour-style platforming to sneak across rooftops and alleyways in order to reach the target. Ezio was able to just storm in and fight his enemies head-on through swordplay, throwing knives, a gun, and/or a very offensive use of smoke bombs. The player could use any of these tactics and even combine them or switch them out on the fly thanks to Assassin's Creed 2's systems. While this was true in the original game, the sequel expanded on it with new moves like pulling someone over a ledge, pieces of equipment like smoke bombs and poison, and systems like notoriety. Many people would complain that the new additions made the game too easy, which was justified to a degree, but overall they were very well received.

Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood added even more to the game. Though Ezio was in his mid-forties at the time the game took place, he gained many new skill that made combat an even more viable option. He could now do chain executions. After killing an enemy he could immediately attack another one, killing the foe instantly regardless of health. This could go on until either Ezio got hit out of it or there were no more enemies left to kill. Another new addition which was well publicized before the games release was the Brotherhood system that allowed Ezio to recruit commoners to his cause, train them to become Assassins, and call on them for help during missions. His experience even gives him the ability to wield the gun at the same time as his sword and throwing knives at the same time as his shortblade. Lastly, he could purchase and use a crossbow that functioned like the gun, but was completely silent and did less damage when Ezio was detected and, if the player completes an optional quest chain, parachutes to move greater horizontal distances and descend slowly from tall buildings. While they tried to balance these new additions with more and stronger enemies, the result was still a game that was even easier than Assassin's Creed 2. It was still interesting, but it was noticeably less fun.

And then they released Assassin's Creed: Revelations. In addition to the thing from the second game and from Brotherhood, Revelations brought even more stuff to the table. The biggest things added to the game in Revelations were the addition of the hook-blade, which allowed Ezio to scale buildings even easier, use zip-lines throughout the city, and run past guards, using the hook to maintain momentum, and bomb crafting, which allowed Ezio to make up to three different bomb types (Lethal, Distraction, and Tactical) with different ranges, shell types, and effects. Ubisoft Montreal even changed the inventory into primary and secondary weapons to compensate for the vast quantities of armaments Ezio could have on his person at any given time. While they tried once again to compensate by making new, tougher enemies and again, the game was easier despite their best attempts. In fact, the game was so easy that it became almost boring. The new additions felt superfluous because Ezio was already on the verge of being overpowered in Brotherhood. There was never a need to go out and craft bombs because Ezio could shoot people with poison darts, bullets, or a crossbow, stab somebody with a hidden blade, a sword, or a dagger, blend in with crowds, parkour through the world, call Assassins to bail him out of tough situations, and chain executions together into a string of murder, despite the fact that he was in his sixties. The hook-blade seems worthless when Ezio was already a parkour god. There was no difficulty to the game no matter how skilled the player might or might not be. With each game, Ezio became stronger and stronger thus the game became easier and easier. Without a sufficient challenge, it is nearly impossible to get real enjoyment out of a video game's gameplay.

The other reason people were getting sick of Ezio was that it seemed like the series was wasting its potential on him. This is because of the main plot device of the series: The Animus. The Animus is a device that allows people to relive the memories of their ancestors in a video game simulation. Using this device, the writers literally have the potential to set Assassin's Creed games and stories in any period of history they desire. All they have to do is plausibly explain the ancestry of the person in the Animus. Up to the point in time I wrote this article, the series has always used historical setting that are criminally underused in video games. In the first game, we explored Syria during the Third Crusade through the eyes of Altair. At the time, this was an incredibly unique setting which drew the interest of countless people. The second game was equally unique in that it was set during the Italian Renaissance and told from the perspective of Ezio, again drawing in interested eyes.

The fans were hooked by this point, wondering where and when the next Assassin's Creed game was going to be set and what would the new Assassin be like. Speculation was rampant when Ubisoft announced... the Italian Renaissance again starring... Ezio... again. While the fans were mostly disappointed with that announcement because they had expected to play as someone new in a new location in space/time, they were content to play as Ezio again because he was an interesting character that they had grown to love in Assassin's Creed 2. Then Revelations came and people were getting a little tired of Ezio. Not because he was a bad protagonist, but because they were eager to see a new face. Even though they moved to Istanbul and left Italy, Revelations still took place around the time of Renaissance. (It had to since Ezio was the protagonist.) While it was a setting that is not often used in video games, it was also eerily reminiscent of Syria from the first game. While the fans wanted a new Assassin in a new setting, we received the same old and tired (literally) Ezio in a seemingly even older setting.

Both of the above reasons are why Assassin's Creed fans are eagerly looking forward to the upcoming third main installment in the series. On one hand, we are hoping that with a new game, the developers trim the fat, reduce the amount of equipment the player has at his disposal and make the game slightly more difficult so that it becomes fun again. We also expect that the new Assassin will have his own style and his own skill set similar to how Ezio felt fundamentally different to Altair. On the other hand, we are eager to see the story move past the Renaissance so that we see a new take on Templars vs. Assassins from a new point of view in a new setting. And the American Revolution is indeed a new setting for video games. The protagonist is even more unique because he is half-Native American, a demographic rarely represented in video games, let alone as a protagonist character. Being able to reinvent itself while maintaining its core principals is the biggest strength of this series. The last few titles have not been utilizing this strength and thus felt weaker as a result. It is a lesson that is hopefully well learned.

#11: Games and Storytelling (Part the 2nd)

(Major Spoilers for the Assassin's Creed series and L.A. Noire abound.)

Last week, I discussed how games could be used as a storytelling medium. I talked about the benefits of using games to explore philosophies and scenarios in a free form way: That player choice was an important concept and that it is vital to show the consequences for those choices. After the article was posted, a friend of mine pointed out something to me. In hindsight, I may have unintentionally snubbed linearity in video games. It is absolutely possible to have a strong linear narrative using video games. I would argue that doing this well is much more difficult. It has to be done in a certain way. A developer must tailor the experience to the medium of video games in order to make it work.

Again, video games have strengths that can be played with. By default, video game players are more likely to sympathize with the protagonist because they are the protagonist, at least on a superficial level. The main character (at least a well-written one) has a good backstory and motivation for his/her actions. With that, they are allowed and encouraged to have preconceived notions of morality and ethics. A good way to help further define and flesh out the character would be to use the mechanics of the game. The original Assassin's Creed did this incredibly well. The player did not have a health bar, it instead had a “synchronization meter” which showed how much the player was in sync with Altair's, the protagonist, memory of what happened. This mechanic allowed the game to inform the player of Altair's morality without bogging him/her down with exposition or allowing for Gameplay and Story Segregation. When the player kills an innocent person, the synchronization bar is immediately reduced by 33% of its maximum value. This shows while Altair is an assassin and known for killing people, he still has a degree of morality and was not a complete psychopath. It is also possible to increase the maximum synchronization by doing things in line with what Altair would do like analyze the city from high building or by saving people from corrupt guards. This avoids Gameplay and Story Segregation as well because in the story the events of Altair's life occurred very long ago and the player is simply playing a simulation created using his memory.

In the case of Assassin's Creed, the mechanics are more than a way for the player to get from point A to point B. They are used to reinforce the characters and the situations in which they find themselves. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood also did this in a particularly powerful scene at the end of the game. At the end of the game, the player character, Desmond, finds and ancient artifact called the Apple of Eden with the help of his friends. Someone from behind the scenes uses the Apple's power to control Desmond's body and freeze time for the other three people with him. The cutscene has Desmond extend his hidden wrist-blade and begin to move toward his love interest, a fellow assassin named Lucy. When the player regains control, he/she (if they are anything like me) will try to steer Desmond away from her. However, when the player moves, no matter which direction they point to, Desmond will move towards Lucy. When Desmond is close enough, then the player will be directed to press attack and he/she will have no choice but to comply. This is a powerful scene because it helps the player to empathize with Desmond. It demonstrates his complete powerlessness and inability to stop his body no matter how hard he tries to. This moment is made powerful because the mechanics in play support the narrative and brings the player into the story.

While a linear story can be significantly bolstered if in a video game, there are dangers to attempting to do so. If one does not keep the story and its central themes in mind, there is a strong chance of the gameplay weakening the story. A storyteller can risk undercutting the whole story with the mechanics of the game if they are not extremely careful. As much as I love the Uncharted games, they are prime examples of this. Naughty Dog has constantly said that Nathan Drake, the protagonist of the series, is the everyman. He is the person that the player can relate to. This is very hard to take seriously. The reason for this is that the Uncharted series is a third-person cover-based shooter. For the uninitiated, that means that the player, as Nathan Drake, is almost always slaughtering tons of nameless, faceless pirates/soldiers. Furthermore, he has the tendency to talk... and snark... a lot... during each engagement. The overall image of him (at least during gameplay, the actual story is significantly better) is one of a murdering psychopath who has no concept of mercy or remorse. This runs contrary to the kind of character Naughty Dog wished to make and the type of narrative they intended to weave. While they are fortunate that the overall story and gameplay hold up, many more like them have similar problems in their games and fall into this trap.

Other pitfall in making a good, linear narrative in a video game is that players will be inherently more critical of the plot. This is because the strength of having instant sympathy with a protagonist can also be a weakness. When the players feel like they are the character, there is the potential for a disconnect with the character if, at any time, the character begins to exhibit unreasonable or irrational behavior. I had a personal example of this when I was playing L.A. Noire. In L.A. Noire, the protagonist is a man named Cole Phelps, a marine recently returned from World War 2 who decided to join the LA police force and quickly ascended to the rank of detective. He is shown to be a happily married man with two daughters. The game introduced Cole to a German singer who escaped to America before the war started. In the second half of the game, Cole visits the singer in her apartment for an undisclosed period of time at night. I did not think much of it when I saw the scene (I was being pretty dense there, admittedly) until later, when Cole is accused of cheating on his wife and is demoted to Arson as a result. At first, I thought he was set up. I thought that there was no possible way that Cole would do that because it seemed out of character. As it turns out, Cole really did “pork that German whore.” I was stunned. I sat there and thought “Cole! What the f**k were you thinking!? I saw you at the beginning! You f**king kissed your wife that morning! Are you KIDDING ME!?”. This one scene completely broke the game for me. I could care no longer about the story or what happened to the characters because I felt that the game betrayed both me and any conceivable notion of common scene. Finishing the game became more of an endurance test. That is the power of interactivity. When the story makes sense, it can bring players closer to the characters and the world. When it does not, then the player can feel betrayed by the plot and disconnect from the whole mess.

Linear storytelling is a perfectly valid form of narrative in video games. It relies much more on the writer's skill than free-form games do. The key is once again to use the mechanics to reinforce the narrative. Developers and writers need to get together and stay on the same page throughout development. It is difficulty simply because it requires a great deal of synergy between all departments of a game development studio. While an amazing story is difficult to pull off, when it is, it is extremely gratifying, both to the player and the developer. I would hope developers, either in the present or future, would take a minute to think about how a narrative can be woven into and reinforced by a great game.

#2: Story Versus Gameplay: An Assassin's Creed Anecdote

(Spoiler Warning: This article discusses the first two Assassin's Creed games in great detail.)

Story and gameplay are two essential parts to current generation games. People play games not only to have a good time, but also to be immerse in breathtaking narratives and interesting worlds. Many developers struggle to find a balance between these two core pillars of game design. Hideo Kojima has been criticized for his over-emphasis on the storyline of the Metal Gear Solid series and many people believe that the most recent games in Bioware's Mass Effect and Dragon Age series had weaker plots than their predecessors, in exchange for vast gameplay improvements. In this article, I will be using Assassin's Creed and Assassin's Creed 2 as my examples for story emphasis and gameplay emphasis because while I believe Assassin's Creed 2 is a better game, the first one had a much better plot.

But before I get into that, it is important to provide background information on the premise of Assassin's Creed. The series takes place in September of the year 2012. Most of the action takes place in a machine known as the Animus, which allows its user to relive the memories of his/her ancestor in a computer simulation program. In the first game, protagonist Desmond Miles is kidnapped by the Abstergo Corporation to access the memory of Altair Ibn La-Ahad, an Assassin who fought against the Knights Templar the Third Crusade, for an unknown purpose. Altair is at first shown to be an arrogant and egotistical Assassin with a blatant disregard for his order's ways. After his transgressions allow the Templars to find the location of the Assassin brotherhood and attack, Altair is disciplined and brought down from Master Assassin to Novice. To restore his rank and his honor, he is assigned nine targets who bring harm to the people of the Holy Land (modern-day Syria). These people are later on revealed to be Templar Knights on both sides of the Crusades and who have their own designs upon the Holy Land. During the game, it is revealed that Abstergo is the modern-day front for the Templars and that the war between the two factions never ended.

In the sequel, the modern-day Assassins rescue him and recruit him. To acquire Assassin training, Desmond relives the memory of Ezio Auditore da Firenze, an Italian noble who joined the Assassin order during the Italian Renaissance. His character arc begins with the death of his father and brothers as the cover up for some sort of conspiracy. Ezio embarks on a quest for revenge beginning with the men directly responsible. During his journey, he is made aware that his father and his ancestors were in the Assassin order and that his father's death had something to do with the Assassin/Templar war. Ezio's quest for revenge eventually becomes a quest for truth and he finds himself traveling to many major cities in Italy and bringing many cruel people to justice by killing them.

In my sincerest opinion, the first Assassin's Creed has an excellent story. One reason is that the player is given sufficient motivation to go after his targets. The way they do this is fairly interesting. Because Assassins are never allowed to just go out and kill their target, they first need to gather information on their target. Before each kill, the player learns both the why as well as the how: The crimes these people have committed as well as the method in which to dispatch them. This gives the player a context for their actions and begin to empathize with the Altair and the people whose lives are to be enriched with the death of his intended victim. This also highlights another reason I love this game's plot: There is a distinct moral ambiguity between the two factions. As Altair slays his targets, he learns many things from the conversations he has with them as they succumb to their wounds. What they say reveals the big dichotomy in the game. Both factions wish for world peace, yet they disagree with the methods with which to attain that peace. The Assassins believe that peace must be earned by educating the people and celebrating the diversity of the world while removing the arbitrary labels that separate us. To this end, they would murder prominent figures who seek to keep people divided and fan the flames of war. They will also vehemently protect those who would spread knowledge. The Templars, on the other hand, believe that it is impossible to dissolve the barriers between people through normal means. They believe that people cannot know true peace so long as free will exists. To that end, they try to find ways to force people to adhere to a strict order so that they might find peace. Because the player is an Assassin, the story will obviously be told from that viewpoint, but at no time is the player ever told that either side is right or wrong. In fact, it is made very clear that both sides are in the right. This allows the player to ask himself the question: Is it possible to obtain peace and if it is not, is it worth the price of free will? Any story that can get people to think has, at least in some way, succeeded in telling an interesting tale.

On the other hand, where I found that the first game had a strong story, the sequel's plot was much weaker in comparison. First of all, the Templars in Assassin's Creed 2 lack the ambiguity of their predecessors. While the Templars are seen committing many of the same crimes the Templars in the previous game, they are never given any redeeming qualities that justify their actions. Not once is it mentioned how these things further the cause of the Templar order. Furthermore, when Pope Alexander VI (He is the leader of the Templars and the final boss. Just go with it.) eventually tells Ezio why he is going to all this trouble, he tells him that he was hoping to open a vault underneath the Vatican and, using a super advanced mind-control device, bend God to his will and conquer the world under the Templar banner. This is a stupidly evil and ridiculous motivation that could never possibly make any sort of sense. Which transitions nicely into the other gripe, many plot points in the game are completely, ridiculously rife with plot holes. Take the Carnival segment for example. Ezio has to kill his target, but he will only come out during his party in Carnival. The party he is throwing is a masquerade ball with special golden masks. He cannot steal a mask because they have numbers on them (Which does not make sense, but I digress.), so he has to win a mask by winning four games. The games are stupid games like Capture the Flag and footraces (Which are not really fun either, but again, I digress.). When the games are rigged and someone else wins, he has to STEAL the mask to get into the party, which he should not be able to do, because they are numbered. And during the segment, Ezio is a wanted man, so he blends in by putting on a silver mask, despite not changing his absolutely, flamboyantly, bright white robes. It was the eyes that gave him away, not the distinct and very easy to see Assassin's robes. This is the most extreme example, but there are others like a fistfight with the pope, etc. Bottom line, I find the first game's story to be much better.

With that in mind, it is time to compare the gameplay of the two games. Assassin's Creed laid out a good groundwork for the game, but it was not perfect. The investigations, while they helped flesh out the story, began to grow repetitive around the time of the third assassination. The player quickly begins to realize that they are playing the same five or six missions over and over again, only in different locations. Players with low tolerance for repetition will be immensely turned off by these missions. This is not the only issue that crops up. Towards the end of the game, the combat system begins to grow tiring and the guards WILL attack the player at the slightest provocation. It can take a very long time to get through fights because the player can easily have over twenty guards fighting them at once. Fights like this can take several minutes and running away from them can be almost as long, if not longer because other guards will spot the player as he/she runs away. This is exacerbated by the end sequence where they throw waves of enemies at the player and enclose the area so that he/she cannot run away.

The sequel did well to improve many of these aspects. There is a variety of missions throughout the game so that it never feels repetitive to the player. There are platforming sections, chariot chases, theft missions, beat-up events, etc. Assassin's Creed 2 also improves the guard detection system of Assassin's Creed. The game features a notoriety system so that the player is not bombarded by guards unless he/she deliberately goes out of their way to attract attention. Items like smoke bombs can allow for quick escapes when the player feels overwhelmed and can also be used offensively to blind enemies, leaving them vulnerable. Other new tools like poison, throwing money, and a hidden gun also give the player options when dealing with encounters and assassinations. Combat has also been overhauled and the guards are far less likely to swarm the player. The sequel's gameplay is vastly superior to the first game's gameplay.

While Assassin's Creed has a much better story, Assassin's Creed 2 greatly improves upon the gameplay. While being in the same series and telling similar stories, the two games each have separate things to add to the table. Both are great games in their own right and future game designers should study these games to perfect their craft.