#56: The Timeless Question: What is an RPG?

Most of you out there know that I love to talk about video games. I derive pleasure from discussing what makes certain games work, where they go wrong, whether or not their stories make sense, and so on. Out of all of the questions related to video games that one could asked, there exists two that I dread seeing. These two are “What is a game?” and “What is an Role Playing Game (RPG)?”. This week, I will be discussing the latter because the topic came up on Twitter the other day and the realization dawned on me that I would be unable to answer that question in a series of 140-character posts. The fact is that there are so many games under the umbrella term of RPG that a definition that is broad enough to include all of them, yet narrow enough to exclude other types of game. With that in mind, coming up with my own definition and then working it around all the kinds of games in the genre would be impossible. Instead, I think it would be best to analyze all the games, from Mass Effect, to Fallout, to Final Fantasy, to Kingdom Hearts, that people mostly agree fit under the term and create a definition of “RPG” based on what all of them have in common.

The first of these characteristics that I notice in all RPGs is an overall sense of progression. By that, I mean that as the game goes on, there is generally a sense that the protagonist is growing and getting better at certain feats. Most of these games accomplish this through an experience/leveling system. As players accomplish objectives and dispatch enemies, they gain experience. After enough experience, they level up and gain stats and/or skill points used to purchase abilities. This model is one of the most common, appearing in Final Fantasy, Persona, The Elder Scrolls, and many similar games. Other franchises like Fallout add perks to this to further a sense of growth. While this is the most common method of instilling a sense of progression, it is by no means the only way to go about it. Both Deus Ex and its modern sequel, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, employed different systems. The original Deus Ex gave players Ability Points directly, after completing objectives or finding certain locations, which they could spend on skills from different types of weaponry to more passive skills such as First Aid, Lockpicking, or Swimming (which I would not recommend). Deus Ex: Human Revolution had experience, but instead of ability points which increased certain skills, they allowed protagonist Adam Jensen to unlock the cybernetic augmentations he is equipped with. Regardless of what systems are in place to encourage it, an RPG always has some way to make the player feel like his/her character is growing in either skill or power.

Another very common characteristic in RPGs is that designers tend to place a very large focus on the world and its inhabitants when making them. If players take the time to talk to people and explore in an RPG, they can expect to learn about economies, cultures, society, geography, political struggles, and more regarding the world or region that it takes place in. Games like The Elder Scrolls and Fallout (both older and newer titles) can boast a very rich and detailed world just waiting to be explored. That is one of the biggest draws of those games, and a topic I have written about before. Also, Bioware games like Mass Effect, Baldur's Gate, or Knights of the Old Republic serve as good examples. Like it or hate it, a major part of what makes the Mass Effect franchise so popular is that Bioware took the time to envision and develop a very vivid lore that most of the fans fell in love with. Learning about all of the various races, their cultures, and beliefs is half the fun of the game to some players. This is also true for the Japanese side of the RPG moniker. While games like Final Fantasy and Persona do not necessarily need to have very detailed background information due to how linear those games tend to be, players of them are often treated to pretty interesting worlds like the land of Spira in Final Fantasy X or the rural town of Inaba in Persona 4. The people and places all have there own story. The church of Yevon and the story of its creation and internal corruption are as fascinating as the discovery of a world inside the TV and all of its mysteries. When it comes down to it, all RPGs have deep, interesting worlds to learn about and/or explore.

The last element that I have noticed in all Role Playing Games to some extent is a feeling that the player has some element of choice in how the player character/party develops. Admittedly, this one is going to be a bit of a hard sell, so hear me out. In most western-style RPGs, this characteristic is pretty obvious. Usually, the player gets to choose what skills the protagonist has and/or how they develop. This is usually tied into the development system, similarly to the sense of progression. Players can often be asked at the start what class they wish to play as, a tactic employed in Alpha Protocol and other games. This can either be used separately or in combination with a system that gives players Ability Points to spend on skills as they rank up. Another well known system in Western RPGs is Skyrim's system where skills develop as they are used. From the other side of the coin, in JRPGs, this characteristic may be less noticeable, but I feel that it is still present. Games like Final Fantasy usually have characters evolve on static and fairly predictable paths, at level X they acquire ability Y. However, all of these games have some form of customization. The very first Final Fantasy allowed players to choose their character classes at the start of the game. The second had abilities level up upon using them. The third and fifth had job class systems that allowed players to experiment with different classes and truly customize their characters to their own playstyle. And most others allowed players to pick their party from a very large group. All of these games have some element that allows players to pick their own way to play through the game. The other notable JRPG, Persona, is also extremely well known for this thanks to its system where the player character and hold and use different personae while the rest of the party can be chosen from a diverse cast of character, although earlier games in the franchise allowed all party members to switch personae. Every RPG allows for players to think for themselves and play through them in their own way.

To me, all of these elements are what separate an RPG from other genres of video games. A strong sense of progression and customization along with a detailed world are ultimately what binds all of the games under this heading together. While this is the definition that I have reached, I will not claim that this definition is absolute by any means. Feel free to dispute and criticize my opinion on this subject all you like. I would welcome the conversation gladly. Whatever your own opinion is, I encourage you to discuss and share it with others.

#27: Deus Ex vs. Mass Effect 3: The Similarities Between the Endings

(Disclaimer: At the time of writing, I have not yet played the Extended Cut DLC because it has yet to be released. It may full well addressed the concerns I elaborate on here. Also, Spoiler Alert for both the original Deus Ex and Mass Effect 3. You have been warned.)

Recently, I played through the original Deus Ex, a game lauded for its incredible story and ability to cater to a variety of different playstyles. While I had a great time and would wholeheartedly recommend it, this article is not about that. What I want to focus on is the ending to Deus Ex. Specifically, I want to talk about its ending in comparison to the ending of another, more recent game that was very similar, yet altogether different ending: Mass Effect 3 (Because from the looks of my viewership, people are not sick of me bitching about Mass Effect 3 yet.). This week I will present my opinion on my matter. Though I am aware that this is not exactly treading new ground, I feel that it is worth talking about regardless, especially with the new Extended Cut DLC making it topical again.

But before we can into any of this, it is important to detail the endings and background information of both games so that viewers unfamiliar with either or both franchises can keep up with those that are familiar with them. Deus Ex takes place in the year 2052 and has transhumanism and government controlled conspiracies as major control themes of the plot. The player plays as JC Denton, the new nano-augmented agent of the United States branch of the United Nations Anti-Terrorist Coalition (UNATCO). The player begins by going against terrorists who are withholding the vaccine, called Ambrosia, for a new deadly virus called the Gray Death. When the player encounters the leader of the terrorist cell, the leader says that he was holding the vaccine from politicians to give to the people. After he has been apprehended, JC undertakes several missions and quickly learns that the people ordering him around might not be entirely honest with him. Once he was ordered to kill a prisoner (an order the player can choose to obey or not), he starts to go against UNATCO and work with the terrorists. Denton learns that the Gray Death is a manufactured virus and that UNATCO, along with many of the world's leaders, is involved in a conspiracy revolving around it. After being taken into the custody underneath the UNATCO base, Denton escapes with the help of an AI codenamed Daedalus, learns that an organization named the Majestic 12 is running the show, and heads to Hong Kong where Triad Leader Tracer Tong is trying to devise a way to cure the Grey Death.

After completing some errands for Tracer and getting a sample of the virus, they discover that the Grey Death is a man-made virus manufactured by the Illuminati. (As dumb as this may sound, this makes sense in context and works quite well.). Tracer sends Denton to Paris in order to enlist the Illuminati and their technical expertise in the battle against the Majestic 12. Upon making contact, JC learns that the Majestic 12 is led by Bob Page, a former member of the Illuminati, and that the Grey Death was nano-technology that Bob Page stole and repurposed for his own ends. The Illuminati leader, Morgan Everett, realizes that Bob Page no longer has the materials to build the virus and Ambrosia and figures that he will go to an Air Force Base with former Area 51 scientists in order to gain what he needs. (Yeah, this game is like a conspiracy kitchen soup, but it is still awesome.) Once there, Everett asks Denton to unleash Daedalus into the network in order to fight Bob Page. Upon completion of this task, Page unleashes his AI, Icarus, and the two merge to form the AI known as Helios. After completing addition tasks to prepare to defeat Page, Denton eventually tracks him down to Area 51, where he is being directed by Tracer Tong, Morgan Everett, and Helios, who each have a different strategy for defeating Bob Page. If Page is not stopped, he will merge with Helios and gain total control over the world's network and information, which is all being controlled from Area 51. Each of these tactics has with them different consequences on the world at hand and JC Denton has to choose who he will side with in the final battle.

As for Mass Effect 3, I have already covered most of the plot and premise of the series before, so I will just link to the article where I went over it here to catch up the unaware. As for the events leading up to the ending: The Alliance Navy and the other galactic military installations need to get the Crucible, which is a magical plot device whose blueprints have been added to with each passing Reaper death cycle by the space faring species of each respective cycle. In order to activate the Crucible, which everyone hopes will stop the Reapers and end the war, they need to attach it to the Catalyst, which is revealed to be the Citadel, which the Reapers moved to Earth and closed shut. The only way to get to the Citadel and open it back up is by using an energy beam that the Citadel is aiming at Earth in order to do something. To get inside the Citadel, Command Sheppard leads a final charge into the beam and most of the people involved die when hit by a Reaper death-ray.

Sheppard survives and keeps limping towards the energy beam. He/she ends up in a part of the Citadel that no one has seen before. Then Admiral Anderson contacts Sheppard through the radio and says that he followed Sheppard into the beacon when there was no trace of him during the limping scene. He somehow beats the player to the Citadel control console when the Illusive Man somehow arrives as well and paralyzes both Sheppard and Anderson in some biotic field. The player can have a conversation which ends up with both Anderson and Illusive Man being shot and killed. (Side-Note: While the scene is pretty poorly written in my opinion, the concept of having a final boss conversation over a final boss battle is a very good idea and quite clever on the count of Bioware's writers, especially considering that the dialogue is the most important part of Mass Effect.) Sheppard limps to the console and activates it, opening up the Citadel and allowing the Crucible to dock.

He/she is then magically transported to the top of the Citadel where he meets a magic god-child. God-child explains that he is the true Catalyst and leader of the Reaper forces. He says that the Reapers were created to kill all space-faring organic life every 50,000 years and turn them into Reapers so that synthetic beings do not kill all organic life because the created always rebel against the creators. (Note: Depending on what the player did over the course of the game, he/she will have several ways to refute this claim.) Sheppard blindly accepts this, but tells god-child that he is taking away “their hope”. The catalyst tells Sheppard that he/she has up to three choices (depending on the player's galactic readiness) for ending the conflict and saving organic life from the Reapers. The player's choices are explained and Sheppard makes a decision that should have wide-reaching, galactic consequences.

Now that the stage is set for both games, I will now go over the possible ending choices, listing one from Deus Ex and then its Mass Effect 3 equivalent. The first ending option in Deus Ex is given to the player by Tracer Tong. He explains that as long as global communication remains a reality, the rich and powerful will always try to assert their will on the people and that even if Denton defeats Bob Page, someone else will take his place. Tong explains that all of the world communications are controlled and sent through Area 51. The only way to give the people freedom would be to destroy Area 51 and the network, plummeting humanity into a New Dark Age. This will bring government down to a small, local and much more manageable scale free of the ruling class. The cost is that global communication would be disabled meaning that humanity would be scattered without the ability to connect. When choosing this option, the game shows a scene of Area 51 blowing up with JC running to escape. It is unknown what happens passed that.

The equivalent option from Mass Effect 3 would be the Destroy option. As god-child explains, choosing this options destroys all synthetic life. The Reapers, the player's AI squadmate, even the race of AIs that the player may or may not have spared would be destroyed. Furthermore, since Sheppard is also partially synthetic (the beginning of Mass Effect 2 makes him/her a cyborg), it is implied that he/she may die as well once the power is unleashed. Making this choice also destroys the Mass Relays, disabling super long-range transportation and plummeting the galaxy into a sort of Dark Age. If the player chooses this option, Sheppard is seen destroying a red panel on the Crucible and the machine fires off a red, cherry-flavored explosion that spreads throughout the galaxy, leading to some nonsense scene with Joker trying to escape the Crucible's energy beam.

The second possible ending in Deus Ex is given to the player by Morgan Everett. The Illuminati's leader tells JC that it would be best to just kill Bob Page outright so that he cannot merge with Helios and even extends an invitation to Denton to join the shadow organization should he do this. When Denton questions this, Everett explains that it is ideal for humanity to be guided by the invisible hand of a benevolent dictatorship. If Denton chooses this option and kills Page, then the game cuts to a conversation between him and Everett. He says that worldwide Ambrosia shipments have been proceeding as scheduled, but it could be expedited by doing it directly. Everett explains to him that the Illuminati operate indirect, subtly influencing the world with an invisible hand. When JC asks what people will think of all that happened and how the Illuminati will say hidden, Everett goes into detail describing how people have short memories and that overtime they will begin to forget the events and move on.

The equivalent ending in Mass Effect 3 would be the Control option. As god-child explains, choosing this option means that Sheppard will sacrifice him/herself and “lose all the he/she has” (I am assuming this means that he/she downloads him/herself to the Reaper sub-conscience, but this is very ambiguous, so I do not know), but the Reapers would obey his/her will. The Catalyst also explains that overtime, Sheppard might come to accept that the Reapers were right all along and the cycle would continue, but he cannot confirm this. Making this choice also destroys the Mass Relays, disabling super long-range transportation and plummeting the galaxy into a sort of Dark Age. If the player chooses this option, Sheppard is seen grabbing to electrical conduits on the Crucible which appear to melt his/her flesh and give him/her glowing blue eyes before he/she disappears. The machine fires off a blue, blueberry-flavored explosion that spreads throughout the galaxy, leading to some nonsense scene with Joker trying to escape the Crucible's energy beam.

Lastly, the final possible ending for Deus Ex is the option given to JC Denton by Helios. Helios knows that Bob Page wants to merge with it and believes him to be insufficient. Its mission is to make the world as good and safe as it can and does not believe fusing with Page will give him the best ability to do that. By contrast, Helios thinks that by merging with JC that it will become better equipped to protect humanity and use its power over the world's network in the best, most efficient way possible. Helios shares Morgan Everett's belief that people will not be able to take control of their government and that the enlightened few would need to guide them, however it thinks that Morgan and the Illuminati are also not enlightened enough to guide humanity. It explains that since it is an AI designed to protect people and has no stake in anything beyond that directive (meaning it cannot be bribed or influenced), it is most equipped and prepared to keep humanity safe and secured at the cost of privacy and free speech. When choosing this option, Denton steps into Helios' AI core and fuses with it. They then say some cryptic stuff about having things to do before the scene ends.

The equivalent option in Mass Effect 3 is the Synthesis ending. As god-child explains, Sheppard has the choice of throwing him/herself into a glowing energy beam. If he/she does this, then Sheppard's essence would be fused with the Crucible's energy. Unleashing this energy would imbue every life form, synthetic or organic, in the world with a “new DNA”, turning them into half-synthetic/half-organic hybrids. The catalyst explains that this is the final evolution of life and that doing this would force the Reapers to stop their attacks. Making this choice also destroys the Mass Relays, disabling super long-range transportation and plummeting the galaxy into a sort of Dark Age. If the player chooses this option, Sheppard is seen jumping into the energy beam. The player watches as Sheppard is torn apart on a molecular level and fused with the Crucible. The machine fires off a green, lime-flavored explosion that spreads throughout the galaxy, leading to some nonsense scene with Joker trying to escape the Crucible's energy beam. As you can no doubt see, there are parallels to be draw between these endings. They are similar in a number of ways. However, one was very well received and the other is known as perhaps one of the worst endings in video game history. Why is that? Well, there are a number of key differences in the games that explain the difference between fan reactions.

The first thing we need to go over are the key differences in the endings themselves and the lead up to them. In Deus Ex, the themes of control of a few over the masses and technology influencing the world are brought up again and again. The endings do not come out of nowhere and are a logical extension of the world in question. Tracer Tong and the terrorists play their role in the plot because they are sick of a few powerful people taking control. The Illuminati, while equally opposed to the Majestic 12, believe in an invisible hand guiding the world. Even the AIs that compose Helios give the player their viewpoints via transmissions well before the ending. There is a lead in to every choice. Take this in contrast with Mass Effect 3. In that game, the Reapers are always top priority. Synthetic and organic life opposing each other are not major themes in the main plot at hand. When god-child comes and asks Sheppard to resolve the situation, it comes out of left-field. The Crucible is never established to have any of these abilities. It is only thought to be a Reaper kill button. Never once was it hinted at that Sheppard would be able to fuse organic and synthetic life and while the Illusive Man thought he could control the Reapers, he was confirmed to be indoctrinated at not of the best mental health. The goal was always to destroy the Reapers and that was only one possible path to take at supposedly grave consequences.

Secondly, the endings in Mass Effect 3 are much more homogenous than the ones in Deus Ex. As you can no doubt see from my descriptions, the ending scenes that the player sees are nearly identical with minor variations. They lack any real contrast. This is particularly jarring when compared with Deus Ex. In each of Deus Ex's endings, the scene played is radically different. Furthermore, the thing Denton has to do in each ending is different as well. Tracer Tong directs the player to move passed Page and head to the reactor, turning it up to eleven and causing a meltdown. Everett advocates dropping Bob Page's shields by turning off his four power supplies and then finishing him off afterward. Helios tells the player to sneak passed Page and turn on the systems that allow it to merge with people, sneaking back afterward to complete the objective before Page's cybernetic upgrades are finished. This allows for a greater feeling of diversity with the endings because everything, including the objective, changes.

Another difference between the endings is that in the Deus Ex ending, there was not an obvious alternative to the solutions at hand. The three decisions cover the gambit of possibilities in this world. One allows for people to rule themselves, another allows a shadow organization to take control, and the last shifts rule away from humanity and lets technology take over (like a literal Deus Ex Machina, or “God from the machine”). On the other hand, Mass Effect 3 has one glaring alternative: Why is Sheppard unable to convince god-child to just call off the Reapers? God-child is confirmed to be the leader of the Reapers, thus he has control over them. The fact that the player cannot make the obvious choice results in an overall weaker ending.

This ties nicely into my next point: While JC Denton questions each choice, Sheppard blindly accepts the god-child's word. In Deus Ex, when each faction states what they want to do, Denton is skeptical, which is in character for him. He forces each faction to explain their reasoning and why their choice is the best. This forces them to not only explain their own logic but why the other two choices are not ideal solutions. All of them present their points well and the player's choice is tough because of it. In Mass Effect 3, all three options are explained by the god-child. While Sheppard does ask questions in the final scene, he/she accepts the answers given without a follow up question and just accepts that the god-child is sharing an unbiased opinion (which, as a side note, runs contrary to Sheppard's character). While Deus Ex leaves no doubt towards the intent and bias from each side as well as the logical consequences of each choice, Mass Effect 3 has a very ambiguous ending where the player is unsure of the consequences of what he/she did. Too many questions are left in the player's head, which is a problem. The ending should be a conclusion and tying up of the events at hand. Questions should be answered, not added to, which Deus Ex did very well.

There is one final difference between the endings of the two games and it is an important one. Mass Effect 3 only explains the direct effect of the player's choice of ending. On the other hand, Deus Ex not only explained the direct effect of what the player chose to do, but the aftermath and eventual consequences of the choice as well. This is a very important and very subtle distinction to make. God-child makes small hints towards what each ending would do, but never directly states what the galaxy at hand might look like as a result of what Sheppard does. What are the consequences to destroying all synthetic life? Also, if Sheppard might die to due being a cyborg, what about others with cybernetic implants like biotics or Quarians? What are the possible repercussion of gaining control of all the Reapers and could this new power corrupt Sheppard? How would society change as a result of everyone become synthetic/organic hybrids (ugh)? This is never explored or elaborated on. But in Deus Ex, all three factions go into express detail into what would come about. Tracer Tong's destruction of the network would lead to small city-states and local governments arising once more. While it would be difficult and many would struggle to survive, they would be free of the influence of the few. Joining the Illuminati would allow their reign to continue, but JC's influence would allow the group to stay together and continue to advance humanity into the future with nano-augmentation and new technologies. Merging with the AI would free the world from the Illuminati, but introduce a new ruler in its stead who is devoid of any directive besides “protect and advance humanity”, leading to a police state, albeit a benevolent one. These are all elaborated on, so the player can decide for themselves what they want to shape the world into. The ambiguity of Mass Effect 3 leaves much to be desired, which partially led to the backlash we saw.

Aside from the key differences in the endings, there are also to more abstract reasons why people respect Deus Ex and its ending more than Mass Effect 3 and its ending. The first one is that while both games have a huge emphasis on choice, they emphasize different types of choices. Deus Ex's plot is inherently linear. The player has little influence on the events at hand and how they play out. The choices are not involved in what happens and what the player does. Rather, and this is another very important distinction, the choice is in how the player does what he does. Every Deus Ex player will go through the same plot and complete the same objectives, but they can complete them in different ways. Does the player arrest a terrorist leader by killing all his guards, sneaking past them and catching him by surprise, finding a alternate path through lockpicking and hacking, or some other method entirely? This is an important distinction from Mass Effect. Mass Effect advertised itself as a series where the player affected the plot through choices with direct consequences on the events at hand. This is why Deus Ex players loved the ending because it allowed them to express their opinion and assert their will on the world whereas Mass Effect players were disappointed that the final choice did not have as much of a perceived impact.

The other non-ending reason people preferred Deus Ex's ending is that the audiences had altogether different expectations due to the time gap between the two games. When Deus Ex was released in June 2000. At that time, people did not have a very high expectation regarding games and their ability to comment on the world and express viewpoints as an art form. Back then, games were just fun things that people did in their spare time. Fast forward to March 2012, when Mass Effect 3 was released, and people have a different outlook on games. The audience for games expect good and interesting stories in AAA game releases. We expect the plot to make sense and contain few plot holes. We expect characters with interesting personalities and quirks that differentiate them from all the others. We are much harsher and scrutinize games more closely now than we ever did before and in the age of the internet, this scrutiny is magnified. While I personally believe that Deus Ex handled its ending better, this new environment can be directly linked to the sheer backlash we have seen with Mass Effect 3.

Upon reflection, I am not entirely sure what the take home message of this article is supposed to be. I just noticed the similarities and stark contrasts of the two endings and wanted to comment on them. So for my final message, I will say this with regards to the Mass Effect 3 ending and with the benefit of hindsight: Yes, the Mass Effect 3 ending was not really that good and it have very glaring plot holes and thematic inconsistencies. No, it did not give closure to the narrative. Yes, criticisms and analysis of the endings were a completely justified and necessary part of the process. No, with the benefit of hindsight, I cannot say that the sheer amount of hatred and backlash towards Bioware was warranted in the least bit. And while Bioware does not owe the fanbase anything, I do believe that expanding on the ending is very good idea. Most creative endeavors are never static and constantly in flux. Creators respond to critics and adjust all the time, changing details, redoing certain thing, and so on. This change that Bioware is promising (and that I am very optimistic for) is a sign that games ARE becoming more of a valid form of expression, not heading backwards as many people believe. Hopefully, we can all learn and grow from this.

Edit: Now that I have seen all of the Extended Cut endings, I will go through and discuss how it changes the thoughts presented in this article. 

• First, the endings still come out of nowhere when it comes to the ideas and themes behind them. There is still no buildup.
• Second, the added epilogues and monologues within them decrease how homogeneous the endings seemed. The epilogue also contains a slideshow that plays during the monologue. It changes depending on what the player did during the game, reflecting Sheppard's decisions and their consequences. This means that even if two players picked the same ending, they probably will not get the same epilogue. While there is still a degree of homogenization, each ending on it's own feels unique enough to stand out. Furthermore, they removed the part where the Mass Relays blow up on all three original endings.
• Third, the player still cannot take the obvious route of convincing the Catalyst to stop. This is a shame because it would have given players a good reason to build up their Reputation to Charm/Intimidate him. 
• Fourth, Sheppard does not have to blindly accept the god-child's word now. He/she can question the Catalyst and even express skepticism towards each option. The player can even openly reject all three choices if they wish, dooming the current space-faring denizens of the galaxy but guaranteeing success for the next ones.
• Fifth, due to the new investigative option, the aftermath and long-term consequences of each ending are much more clear, allowing the player to make a more informed choice.

So basically, it nearly invalidates this entire article. I still have my complaints about the ending (even with the new explanations, it seems like space magic the way events unfold and the aforementioned inability to take the obvious route), but I am satisfied with Bioware's attempt to salvage the ending overall. Most of the problems were addressed.

#26: Stealth in Games and the Recent Shift it has Undergone

 Out of all the various styles of gameplay there are in video games, few are more likely to excite and delight me more than stealth. Whenever I play a game like Oblivion and Skyrim, I always play as a thief/assassin character. In both of the Deus Ex games, (because Invisible War, very fortunately, never saw release no matter how many times I am told it exists) I always try to sneak around all of my enemies completely undetected, silently picking them off one at a time. To me, there is nothing more satisfying than being able to accomplish my objective with discretion. Recently, stealth as a gameplay mechanic has seen a bit of resurgence. However, this resurgence is not in dedicated stealth games like Splinter Cell. Rather, lately we have seen games where stealth is an option among a choice of different playstyles. Some people have criticized this, saying that dedicated stealth games are much better, but I disagree. I believe that regulating stealth to being another tool in the player's repertoire is a good idea in the modern gaming climate for a couple of reasons.

The first reason is that a game dedicated to purely stealth simply would not sell as well. This is because compared to other gameplay types, stealth has a much greater demand on the player than just fighting it out with swords, gunplay, or magic. In order to be successful at sneaking around, the player needs to have a great deal of patience. The player has to take cover and stay out of line of sight. He/she has to take risks by popping out of cover every once and awhile to watch the guards and figure out their patrol routes. He/she has to wait for the right time to move and when he/she does, he/she has to do so quickly and have the next move planned out for when the guards come back for the next sweep in their patrol. Most gamers have the skill necessary to pull this off because, for the most part, it is just waiting and planing. However, not all of them have the patience to go through and sneak across an area. Even amongst the ones that do, they are even fewer who find that a fun way to spend their freetime. This is perfectly fine. Games, at their core, are supposed to be entertainment and if people do not want to use stealth or play stealth games, the ones the do have no right to force them to. Making it another in a choice of routes to take adds to the potential audience. This allows the developer to make more money and make more games that allow players to use stealth. Furthermore, non-stealth players of the game may even be tempted to try a sneaky and silent approach and see if they like it, potentially adding to the pool of people who want stealth games, increasing demand for it and causing developers to want to make more stealth games. For fans of the genre, this can only be a good thing.

Another good reason for having stealth as an option is that it makes choosing to use stealth much more gratifying. It is more satisfying to voluntarily choose to sneak through without harming the guards (or, if the particular player is anything like me, silently pick them off one at a time) in a game full of options than it is to be forced to sneak through a level, getting a game over upon being detected. The former is a conscious, self-imposed choice that is a natural extension of the game world, the later is the narrative forcing the player into an uncomfortable and railroad-y situation that leaves them feeling more and more irritated with each time they get detected. Having a stealth option over forced stealth is preferable. The knowledge that if being sneaky fails, the player has several more options he/she can fall back on makes sneaking in much more satisfying because it is usually the route which takes more finesse than any other. Successfully beating a stealth sequence demonstrates a greater level of mastery over the games systems and leads to the player feeling more like a badass than if he/she just charged in guns-blazing. Furthermore, the knowledge that the player can fall back on other options like fighting his/her way in alleviates the frustration that playing a game as a stealth character tends to invoke. Being seen and having to reload a save several times is much easier to bear if the player made the choice to do it than if the game forces the player to sneak in and gives the player a Game Over after being detected. Since making stealth only an option turns it into a more interesting and less annoying way to complete missions and quests, it only makes sense to do it.

I can understand the frustration of stealth fans when they want games that focus primarily on sneaking around. However, it is important to look beyond that and see why its transition from the focus in certain games to an option in many others is a good thing overall for them. It is a very rewarding type of gameplay, yet it has a very narrow audience compared to other playstyles. Making it another possible path among many other paths allows it to prosper in a gaming climate where it would otherwise be snuffed out in a sea of bland shooters that begin to feel like the exact same after awhile. Plus, just because it is not the primary focus of a game does not necessarily mean that its quality will be diminished. Indeed, if Deus Ex: Human Revolution and what I have seen of Dishonored are anything to go by, developers have become much better at designing levels to allow for stealth. Developers are beginning to take note that fans of the less conspicuous means of acquiring wealth exist and they want to cater to us as well.

#10 : Games and Storytelling

This is a topic that I have touched on in the past, but recently, I have been given the opportunity to talk about it. A couple of weeks back, David Jaffe, creator of Twisted Metal and God of War, said, regarding to storytelling in video games, “If you've really got something inside of you that's so powerful, like a story you've got to share or a philosophy about man's place in the universe, why in the fuck would you choose the medium that has historically, continually been the worst medium to express philosophy, story and narrative?” While that sentence is taken only slightly out of context, and the underlying point that developers should focus more on gameplay is sound, I would have to partially disagree with Mr. Jaffe. If a developer wants to have a tightly woven, complex, extremely linear narrative, then I would agree that said developer would be significantly better off by writing a book or making a movie instead. However, if the developer wishes to explore a particular philosophy or a “What if?” scenario, then a video game would be the perfect method of expression, and here is why.

The main reason that a linear narrative does not work so well is also one of the main reasons that games continue to flourish: Games are interactive by their very nature. People who play games always make decisions and affect the game world, even in linear games. What type of weapons will I use? What is the best way to defeat all of these enemies? Should I play it safe or go all out? These decisions are constant being made, consciously or not. Games thrive on ability to thrust players into situations they are not used to and force them into the actions. Linear stories are the antithesis of this. Linearity suggests that there is only one, proper way to go through a player's journey and every other possibility is incorrect. Some games even have sections where there is a trap in the room that is dead obvious, but the player is forced to trigger it in order to advance the story. In an environment where interactivity and decisions are everything, this is the kiss of death of any serious story. Movies and books can get away with this because the readers/viewers are not insert themselves into the situation: They are passive observers watching a story play out. In a video game, this is not the case. Players of video games are active participants, affecting the outcome of events through their inputs. It is easy for a video game player to project their own emotions onto the protagonist of the game because, in a way, they are. The character becomes a culmination of the decisions and actions a player has made to that point. When somebody asks a reader of book how far into the book they are, they respond with “I'm at the part where the protagonist does X.” However, a gamer would respond to the same question about a video game with “I just did X, and I'm about to do Y.” For an interactive narrative that takes player choice into account, this is a huge boon and be taken advantage of to great effect. For a linear story, this can spell doom if, at any time, the player is forced to do anything that runs directly contrary to their logic or beliefs. There is a term for this: Railroading. It can even get worse when a story directly contradicts what is happening in the gameplay. Either of these circumstances can break immersion with the game and bring the player back into the real world. While I cannot be sure, I would imagine this is why Mr. Jaffe suggests that writers with sprawling narratives in mind should visit another medium.

Does this mean that I think video games should never have stories? NO! However, a game's story does need to keep the nature of the medium in mind. The most important thing to consider is that players will want to have a sense of agency. That is, they want to be a part of the world, they want to have their actions affect the world, and they want the world to respond to the effects of these actions. Again, if at any point a player loses his/her sense of agency on the events of the game, they go from active participants to passive observers, losing the one advantage the writer has: The fact that the player will care about the protagonist because the protagonist is an extension of the player and the ability of the player to assert his/her own will. The key is to use this concept of player choice and player influence to encourage the player to explore. I will use Fallout: New Vegas as an example.

While I have a few criticisms of New Vegas (chief among them how Caesar's Legion a little too evil and hard to sympathize with), this is one thing it did very well. In the game's first half, the player travels to New Vegas. Along the way, the player is introduced to all the major factions of the game at one point or another. The New California Republic(NCR) is the stand in for old school American politics, with all it pros and cons. Its leaders are shown to want the best for the people, yet they are incompetent on many levels and often do not understand the plight of the common folk. The opposition of the NCR, Caesar's Legion, has opposing ideals. The Legion subjugates tribes under its rule. The tribes lose all their heritage, the men forced to become soldiers, the women and children forced to become slaves. (The boys are conscripted when the come of age.) Furthermore, they reject all kinds of advanced technology, in favor of old school “Roman” ideals. However, they are all united and a sense of order can be found in the Legion. Between these two factions is Mr. House, the enigmatic leader of New Vegas. After the player has been given a chance to meet and learn about all three major factions, they are given a choice. He/she can choose to side with any of the three major factions, or reject all three ideals in favor of a completely independent New Vegas, overseen by the player character. The game and the ending radically change depending on both which of the major factions the player works with/against and how he/she deals with the other sub-factions in the game.

While it is far from perfect, this is an excellent example of how video games can tell good stories. Inform players of different ideologies and let them learn about and explore them. Once they feel like they know enough, allow them the chance to pass judgment. Let them say “I believe that X is the best choice, and as such I will support them.” It does not even have to be the grand, arching narrative. Even on a small-scale, such as with a side quest, this ability to choose is what makes games unique as a medium for storytelling. This is why so many people still laud Deus Ex as an excellent accomplishment in gaming, even though it was made all the way back in 2000. The main crux of the game was that it encouraged the player to make choices, both in the way the story unfolded and in the way they play the game. The game explores transhumanism, both in gameplay and in story. It the story, it talks about the positives of transhumanism, like how augmentations could drastically improve people's lives. However, it also explores the negatives, such as the fact that it can essentially render certain people obsolete when newer, better augments get released. The game ends by having multiple factions give you their opinion on what to do and having the player decide which is best. This sense of exploration and choice extends to the gameplay, allowing the player to go through the game as an expert in combat, stealth, hacking, conversation, or some combination of the four, and beat the game his/her own way.

While I say that games can be used as storytelling devices, that is a little misleading. What I really mean is that games can be used to explore philosophies and concepts and give the player an environment in which he/she can discover the pros and cons of particular ideologies without causing any sort of real-world harm. If a game developer wished to do this, I would advise them to go for it, but to do his/her best to not insert their own biases into the game. The point is to let the players form their own opinions, not to feed them opinions. It is important to avoid veering into the unfortunate category of “propaganda”. For better or worse, games can be used as tools to learn and explore.

#4: Is the Boss Battle Outdated?

Games have evolved in a great variety of ways over the years. Graphically speaking, there is no comparison between the games of today versus the games of yesteryear. Voice Acting and Music have evolved from beeps and boops into amazing vocal performances and sweeping orchestral scores. The advent of motion capture technology has greatly improved animations. Games have also become a great and immersive medium for storytelling. And while gameplay has also evolved along these lines, one holdover from the old days may be beginning to overstay its welcome: Boss Battles.

Every person who plays video games knows about the Boss Battle. After the player has completed the level/dungeon, he/she encounters an enemy more powerful than any other seen before this point. The player is forced to defeat this challenger (whether a person or a creature) in order to advance through the story or on to the next level. Done well, these fights with larger than life enemies can be satisfying while keeping the player immersed in the game world. Poorly executed, they frustrate the player and break a games flow and immersion. These encounters should also serve as a test for all of the skills the player has learned, over the course of either the game or the level in question. The question remains: Has modern gaming outgrown the old Boss Battle, or is there still a place for them? Many games that have been released in the past few years have had poor Boss Battles, but I think that it is possible for Boss Battles to do well: The designers of the game simply have to take the type of game they are making into account.

In Deus Ex: Human Revolution, the player can play the game with a variety of styles. In any given situation, the player will usually be able to:

• Fight his/her way out by killing or knocking out the guards.
• Sneak his/her way out of the situation completely undetected.
• Hack through security, clearing out a path or obtaining vital information.
• Talk to people in order to gain information or clearance to explore.

This enables the player to tailor the game to his/her personality or preferred playstyle. In general, the game succeeds at letting any style get through any level. Then the game's boss battles happen. During a boss battle, the player had the following options:

• Fight the boss.
• Go back to a previous save and look for weapons, because he/she has to fight the boss.

The game has gone from four viable play styles, to one. The old school boss battle feels annoying and out-of-place to the vast majority of playstyles.

A boss battle could work in a game like Deus Ex, but it must allow for the breadth of approaches that a player might want to use. It should be possible for a player to sneak past the boss and seal the door behind him, forcing the boss to give up the chase. It should be possible to use hacking skills, either to disable the boss's equipment or to use the environment against him. Lastly, the player should have the option to convince the boss to let him go or even to side with him. These approaches are allowed to vary in difficulty, but they must all be viable methods of defeating/bypassing the boss. It requires significantly more effort to pull this off, but it transforms a frustrating and potentially difficult chore into gratifying test of skill. Other modern games like Alpha Protocol are equally guilty of similarly poor design choices.

Some other games have different problems with regards to bosses. In Assassin's Creed 2, the player character has been exceptionally trained in combat, stealth, free-running, and several different types of weapons such as hidden-blades, swords, smoke bombs, poison, a hidden-gun, throwing knives, and daggers. Throughout the game, even the most stealthy and merciful player will slaughter thousands of unnamed, faceless guards who get in his way. Then the game reaches the last part of the game where the player, for story reasons that make sense in context, fights an old man for control of a powerful, ancient artifact. This old man is fat and frail in the game's story. However, during the fight, he has the more health than any enemy in the game, he is immune to poison, the hidden-gun, and instant assassination using the hidden-blade. Also, he summons guards after the player beats him and then the player immediately has to fight him again at full health with the guards and is quite capable of dodging attacks on occasion. While the fact that the game pigeonholes the player into using the sword or the dagger is a problem, it is not the underlying issue as a decent player will have no trouble getting through this fight even with low-level weapons and armor. The problem in this case is that this fight makes no sense from a plot standpoint. The player is immediately thrown out of the experience and thinks “Ugh. This is a typical video game boss battle.”. A frail old man is stronger and more agile than someone who has trained from most of his life in order to kill the corrupt. No one could believe this. This could be fixed by a little preplanning on behalf of the writers and game designers, but this confrontation did not need to happen.

Boss Battles can work. With a bit of forethought, bosses can present an adequate challenge and test the abilities that the player has learned while making sense from a plot standpoint. That is the key: A boss has to be tailored to test the abilities taught to the player and it has to make sense that the boss would be challenging. Game designer should keep this is mind when making trying to think of boss battles in their games.