The game is a mess, I'll establish that imediately. The title is plagued by low production costs, awful graphics, and terrible, terrible quick-time events. It's a tie-in game to it's inner core and I don't recommend anyone buy it but boy oh boy is it intruiging in concept.
(If you've not seen Bear Grylls: Man Versus Wild then there are various Lets Play's on Youtube with plenty of analysation of it's production values and exploitation of the piss drinking feature)
Essentially, the game explores an idea that's been floating around my head for a while now, an interactive documentary. All other mediums document locations, cultures, and history in some form; gaming? Not so much. I find this interesting as, in film documentaries, they have to be very carefully paced and heavily monitor how much information is presented to the viewer to avoid convolution and pointless exposition. In a game however, a player would be free to explore environments, time periods, or cultures at their leisure (Assassin's Creed features a hub from which the player can find out information from the places they're in, this is a good start). This could provide a whole new edge to documentaries, documenting what it's like to live in a tribe, rewarding players for finding out as much as possible.
The challenge wouldn't be making the experience worthwhile or even exciting for that matter, the challenge would be making something that sells. The trick would be first, picking a topic that gamers already find interesting and exploiting that interest in the game's marketing. Secondly, the product would need to be low risk for the consumer, spending £40/$60 on a game documentary would seem a little risky for the consumer as it'd be easier just to buy another shooter as it's a safer investment.
With these hurdles established, hurdles that Man Versus Wild not only failed to leap over but tripped on while wearing high heels, we can work out how to overcome them. Lets begin with audience, the obvious demographic would be the shooter fans, the guys and gals who'll buy anything with a U.S. soldier on the box. Both Medal Of Honor (*Honour because I'm a Brit) and Full Spectrum Warrior ventured, not just into what it's like in a war, but what it is to be a soldier. While I'll not go into my opinions of the quality to be found in each title, I will say that both felt extremely authentic at times, intelligent even.
With this topic in mind it would be very easy for a game documentary to study the life of a soldier. Rather than taking the player through a military campaign, show them what training is truly like, show the sort of respect people get as they rise through the ranks, show the emotional turmoil a soldier experiences as they watched the men and women they rained with die around them, show the mundanenity of normal life and the implications of injuries obtained on the battlefield.
In a lot of ways this would be easier to produce than a typical explosive war venture as the structure would be such that, within a few minutes, it wouldn't be expected by the player. Slower, deeper scenes would be on offer in earlier segments, meaning budget and time constraints wouldn't be as straining.
But the issue would be thus: it would be a single player experience, multiplayer would completely negate the atmosphere the single player narrative would work to create. Without including multiplayer the consumer would likely trade the game in, meaning the publisher and the developer would be out of pocket.
The way to fix this problem would be release the product on a digital distribution outlet like the App Store or XBLA. Seeing as XBLA game have mandatory trials (and a documentary game would likely not be adrenaline pumping enough for a successful trial game), I'd say the App Store would be the way to go. The App Store needn't promote the game with a demo, merely promotional screenshots displaying a modern war setting (*ahem* ka-ching). The game being developed as an App would also reduce development costs in comparison to a large AAA release and the marketplace is already home to a mature, game related documentary application in the form of The Final Hours of Portal 2.
What is the purpose of this particular post? I think that developers and publishers alike are scared to venture into game based documentaries out of fear that they won't sell and I want to express that making a game documentary not only is possible but potentially very successful.
Thanks.
24 May 2011
A discussion about subtext...
I was recently having a conversation with a writer friend of mine and our back and forth led us onto the discussion of subtext. A debate began regarding whether subtext is a good or bad thing as it is often assumed that subtext adds a another layer of depth to a narrative no matter the medium. My friend (lets call him The Doctor because of how gosh darned English I am) suggested that implementing subtext may be good for teaching the consumer something new but abandoning subtext all together leads readers, viewers, and players to search for it themselves and, in turn, discover something a lot more personal. Now this debate is interesting and all but ultimately, slightly pointless for me. This is because of the simple fact that, at least in my opinion, gamers don't look for subtext.
You could argue that this applies to all mediums, not just games. You could argue that most the people who watched Avatar didn't spot the glaringly obvious subject about the founding of America (despite the similarities to Pocahotas which presented the topic in a far more direct way). You could argue that most the people who read through Of Mice And Men didn't look for the various statements Steinbeck made about the time the book is set in. But connoisseurs of those mediums did.
The fact is that your typical game fanatic maybe have played Braid but did they know the entire game's a metaphor for the atomic bomb? Probably not, but you can't blame them. When our medium is littered with so many games featuring busty female objects and one dimensional badasses you can't expect the same audience who buys into those travesties to also observe Rapture's portrayal of a world where science has overruled morals in much depth. I'd ramble on about how more developers need to focus one creating more intelligent narratives but the fact is, it's not their fault either.
When writing a book you can go back and edit it at your leisure. When you produce a film there is a script to work by. In game development levels will be cut to meet deadlines, cinematics will have to be cut also, and any art assets that detail the worlds narrative will be the first on the chopping block if you're rushed for time. This means that often a lot of developers need to plan a narrative where parts can be cut and the main plot line will still make relative sense, subtext is just to awkward to put in a lot of the time.
Does this mean we shouldn't strive for subtext in games? Ofcourse not, but don't expect such rich narratives until the digital distribution revolution hits (more on that in another post).
P.S: To settle the debate with The Doctor, everything should have various forms of subtext, providing the subject is relatable to the target audience.
You could argue that this applies to all mediums, not just games. You could argue that most the people who watched Avatar didn't spot the glaringly obvious subject about the founding of America (despite the similarities to Pocahotas which presented the topic in a far more direct way). You could argue that most the people who read through Of Mice And Men didn't look for the various statements Steinbeck made about the time the book is set in. But connoisseurs of those mediums did.
The fact is that your typical game fanatic maybe have played Braid but did they know the entire game's a metaphor for the atomic bomb? Probably not, but you can't blame them. When our medium is littered with so many games featuring busty female objects and one dimensional badasses you can't expect the same audience who buys into those travesties to also observe Rapture's portrayal of a world where science has overruled morals in much depth. I'd ramble on about how more developers need to focus one creating more intelligent narratives but the fact is, it's not their fault either.
When writing a book you can go back and edit it at your leisure. When you produce a film there is a script to work by. In game development levels will be cut to meet deadlines, cinematics will have to be cut also, and any art assets that detail the worlds narrative will be the first on the chopping block if you're rushed for time. This means that often a lot of developers need to plan a narrative where parts can be cut and the main plot line will still make relative sense, subtext is just to awkward to put in a lot of the time.
Does this mean we shouldn't strive for subtext in games? Ofcourse not, but don't expect such rich narratives until the digital distribution revolution hits (more on that in another post).
P.S: To settle the debate with The Doctor, everything should have various forms of subtext, providing the subject is relatable to the target audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)