It's a collector's item
Showing posts with label Batman: Arkham Knight. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Batman: Arkham Knight. Show all posts
Tuesday, 7 November 2023
Saturday, 20 August 2022
Arkham fans have lost it
How about another joke, Murray?
What do you get when you treat a rabid fanbase with years worth of cold shoulder before turning around and slapping them with a product that gets wrong most everything they were most excited about? Well, then you get a situation like that which has inflicted the Arkham series subreddit, a group of passionate fans of the stellar Batman Arkham series, a game who's lasting legacy set a new standard for games of it's ilk and genre. (Hell, Marvel's Spiderman's combat is a huge homage on it's own.) However when 'Arkham Knight' came about promising an end to the series... well, it seems that the devs really did take that seriously. Although, their fans certainly weren't ready for them to just walk away like that, and with old passions being stirred since the announcement of the follow-up to the Arkham games, which has nothing to do Batman, and Gotham Knights, where you play every bat family member except for Batman; something was going to give.
To be fair with the fans, their desires aren't totally out of left field. Afterall, WB apparently had a Project Sabbath in development which was a concept for an Arkham Knight sequel before that got scrapped. (The apparent reason why is deviously ironic.) The main theme of the game was all about legacy and passing the torch, as such the apparent Death of Batman from Arkham Knight would had led to the ascension of Damian Wayne as Bruce's successor. Concept art reveals a new generation Poison Ivy, after Pamela sacrificed her life during Arkham Knight, and a new Black Mask because the old one has a bullet in his head thanks to the Red Hood DLC for Arkham Knight which is apparently canon now? (I thought they were just bad challenge maps, to be honest.) It was going to be set in an apocalyptic Gotham which has fallen since Scarecrow's takeover and Batman's retirement, and the team weren't going to just throw up their hands and do 'The Dark Knight Returns' like everyone else who tackles an 'old Batman' story ends up trying. Frankly, it sounded bloody brilliant; so of course it was cancelled because WB weren't sure that a Batman game without Bruce in the cowl would sell... wait... then why are the hell are we getting Gotham Knights in it's stead?
I don't hate Gotham Knights, I just think it looks like a game caught between a concept and a execution that aren't shaking hands together as well as the team wants. They want some loot-based action game, but they also want a co-op fighting experience on-par with Arkham of old. By trying to compromise they've given us a little bit of column A and a lot less of column B. Also, in comparison to Knight this game looks uglier than first Sin; why in hell does this need to be a current gen exclusive game? Setting that game up as Knight's successor is dooming it to ignominy in exchange for some early sales boosts from the implied association. (Even though the associated team is actually busy working on 'Suicide Squad Kills the Justice League'. God, that's a mouthful.) All of which is probably why the Arkham Reddit fans rejected that game entirely and decided to celebrate their own.
That is, their own Arkham game that they pretend exists, all so that they can extol it's fictional, and often-contradictory, virtues to one another; Morbius-style. To their eyes 2019 was the year that Arkham World was released, a best selling follow-up to Knight that featured a boss fight with the Mandalorian, an upcoming Guy Fieri DLC, the Batcopter and the Batwing for some reason, and several dozen sequels already. It was obviously the best Arkham game ever realised, yet it also simultaneously seem to exacerbate every annoyance-point that everyone had about the vanilla series, such as overuse of vehicle sections. (Which I found to be an overblown criticism anyway once I finally got around to playing Knight. But that's just me.) Of course, the denizens of the Subbreddit have accepted this change in direction for the Sub gratefully considering that for the past five or so years the Reddit seems to have consisted of nothing but 'Hey guys, Arkham Origins got a bad wrap' posts. (Which- yeah obviously it did but you're really preaching to the choir there, you know?)
Apparently this is all a big reference to the Titanfall reddit community who, apparently dissatisfied with the allegedly in-universe spin off success Apex Legends (I've yet to see one person who can point out the connections between those franchises in a significant, not surface level, fashion) had taken to convincing themselves that Titanfall 3 had released and that it was god tier. To be fair, however, theirs is a sadder story because Titanfall 2 was apparently a total masterpiece that was screwed by EA through godawful release windows that benefitted nobody. Their game probably did deserve a sequel, as opposed to Arkham Knight which finished the franchise, and Bruce's story, satisfactorily enough on it's own. We don't really need ourselves an encore right now. (Although, again, I would have welcomed one if it was a concept as cool as how the late Project Sabbath sounded. Damian Bat would have rocked.)
This break from reality does highlight the fact that nothing on the current, inexplicable, busy slate of DC games really carries on the legacy of Knight. Gotham Knights is just... like a Ubisoft-brand version of the franchise, and Suicide Squad feels like an entirely different style of game altogether. I know it's intentionally designed not to be, but it kind of feels like a multiplayer only romping title to the point where I, huge Arkham fan that I am, don't feel like the target demographic anymore. (On account of having no friends.) Now to be fair, Marvel has pretty much picked up that baton and run with it on their ongoing Spiderman series; but sometimes you just want to be a guy in a batsuit, you know? Preppy and positive Spiderman doesn't have the same weight as non-nonsense thug-disabling Bruce Wayne on a bad day. The series' could comfortably exist being active in the same market, is what I'm saying.
But at the end of the day we always have to make do with the hand dealt to us, or slip into a fantasy land where everything we wanted to have happened did and much more. (I support either route, to be honest. Go with whatever's most real to you.) Maybe somewhere down the line, after Gotham Knights comes out to 'whelm' us all, and WB are done with their exploration into other DC properties; maybe we can convince the team to roll on back to Arkham with the lessons they learned to give the old Bat one last go around. Maybe they can go back to that Damian Wayne concept and use it to give Damian something of a real send-up of his own to launch that character into the heavy hitter he's totally capable of being. And maybe we'll get an Injustice 3 one day... Oh god, now I'm slipping into fantasy land, aren't I?
Monday, 21 September 2020
Is Arkham's driven narrative it's biggest problem?
Maybe Batman needs a rest every once and a while...
It's been a very long time since the Arkham series of Batman games have been relevant, so I haven't really had the excuse to talk about them; but with the impending release of two new Batman games, one directly related to the series and another inspired by it, I feel it's time to talk about the little bits which made up the greatest Batman games of all time. Although this wasn't all that inspired this particular blog, for you see I came across something which made me critically think about a key feature that all Arkham games share in a new light. It was actually a article covering some details about one of those new games in fact, Gotham Knights, which will change up a great many staples one has come to expect from their Batman games. As the article put it, the game would be 'fixing a common criticism of the Arkham games' by setting it's gameplay over a series of days rather than across one hectic night, and that got me to thinking; is Arkham's pacing one of it's biggest problems?
First let me specify what I'm talking about; in every single one of the popular Arkham games all of the action of the game, from the tutorial through to the post game, takes place on the same night which in which the game started. Of course, the series does shift days with different entries (and even years for some games) but every event in the main story will occur in roughly the same six hour stretch, with some games even noting the progression of the narrative as being concurrent with the progression of night. The developers play this up too, by having the battle damage system on Batman's suit which I positively adore, wherein the further you go into the game the more the Batsuit gets scuffed up. The wear and tear of this one particularly crazy night for Batman is written all over his person and although the legend never becomes tired (how could he, he's Batman) the bruises, scratches, bulletholes, popping poisoned veins and just destroyed gauntlets, all convey that sense beautifully.
But when we actually compare this to the way Batman's antics usually go in his many depictions on TV, film and in the comics, this is actually rather stand-out. Batman isn't usually the one to go duke out with every-single one of his villains in a single night of pugilism. I mean it does happen sometimes, sure, but for every single game to take place on that premise it does stretch the idea a little thin now that I come to think about it. The idea of having to fight one's entire rogue's gallery simultaneously is a pretty momentous one, but when you're literally doing that every other week it certainly does make Batman look a little overpowered, which has never been the idea when it comes to the Caped Crusader. But then if this is the case, why do all the video games thusfar circle around this idea? Well there's a few reasons.
Firstly come the convenience of it all, as Rocksteady themselves voiced when making Arkham City (as I recall) they weren't making a Bruce Wayne game, they wanted to make a Batman game, and Batman famously only usually comes out at night. Thus if the game takes place in the same night then there's no logistical transition that the team needs to figure out. Then there's the fact that with gaming, and the ability for adventure games to be as long as they really need to be, the team have the time and space to fit in these several villain storylines without the story feeling stretched at all. In fact, for gaming audiences we usually defer to the ideal of 'the more the merrier', as it were. Finally, and most resoundingly, when every single event is concurrent and not broken up by the passing of the idea, it creates a pace and rhythm that rides out to the final beat of the game. Pacing is a huge tool when it comes to storytelling and learning how to master it can be the difference between a breakneck adventure and a chilled stroll across action set-peices.
In fact, I keep coming back to the idea of the 'Pace' as likely being the key reason behind this design choice, maybe not even consciously, but it's influence is there. When Batman starts his night, whether that be through rolling up to Arkham Asylum or being thrown into Arkham City, a rubber band is set into the ground. From that point forth, as he unravels the mystery of his environment and get's deeper into the various factions involved or enters the sights of yet another assassin, the elastic band gets stretched, and for every moment Batman is active that tension is wound back. Breaking that up at any moment, even through a quick cutscene which shows of Bruce doing his day-to-day so that the player can get back to the action, immediately let's that rubberband snap back and makes it so that the narrative has to build up that tension and pacing all the way from the beginning again. Turning away from that and doubling down on the chaos of the one night allows for the tension to build into a towering crescendo where Batman's ultimate duels feel as weighty as they should, because they've been appropriately built up.
On the flipside; Gotham Knights approach of turning the events to more of a day-by-day affair does a good job of evoking the episodic nature of Comic books and really make the player feel like they're setting into the everyday life of a hero. As the overall story literally frames itself with Batman's protegees rising up to take his mantle, this neatly fits that mould as we see Barbara Gordon, and the Robins fill that mammal-shaped hole. This also allows the developers to simulate the daily lives of the citizens of Gotham which is something that we have, inexplicably, never got out of a Batman game before. Arkham City took place in an entire chunk of the City turned into a prison, Arkham Origins was on the same night as a blizzard warning, encouraging citizens to stay indoors, and Arkham Knight took place at a time when the city was getting bombarded with threats from a lunatic in a scarecrow costume; I wouldn't want to poke my head out the front door either!
Now to be clear there is no single better way to tell a story between the approach of many different days and a single night, in fact the 'man on fire' style of storytelling generally isn't done too much anymore, as it was done to death a while back. I'd say that John Wick was probably the best recent iteration of "All the events happening within a breath of each other." I think that Gotham Knights approach does fit the game a lot better, given that our villain appears to be The Court of Owls; A mysterious cabal of Gotham elites who specialise on being in the shadows and behind other schemes. Treated right this could even be as climatic as the Arkham games, it's all just a matter of execution.
In conclusion, I don't think that the narrative design of the Arkham series is at all one of it's problems, like that article would suggest, but rather one of it's strengths. But as this upcoming new title isn't even an Arkham game, why it's hardly the end of the world if that game frames it's narrative a little differently. (I welcome the diversity) When it's all said and done I will undoubtedly miss the whole 'progressive suit damage' as the story goes on, as well as the way that the environments you traversed seemed to become more chaotic as everything falls apart, but it's not going to ruin my day or anything. I yet remain excited for Gotham Knights and reverent of the Arkham series that helped spawn it.
It's been a very long time since the Arkham series of Batman games have been relevant, so I haven't really had the excuse to talk about them; but with the impending release of two new Batman games, one directly related to the series and another inspired by it, I feel it's time to talk about the little bits which made up the greatest Batman games of all time. Although this wasn't all that inspired this particular blog, for you see I came across something which made me critically think about a key feature that all Arkham games share in a new light. It was actually a article covering some details about one of those new games in fact, Gotham Knights, which will change up a great many staples one has come to expect from their Batman games. As the article put it, the game would be 'fixing a common criticism of the Arkham games' by setting it's gameplay over a series of days rather than across one hectic night, and that got me to thinking; is Arkham's pacing one of it's biggest problems?
First let me specify what I'm talking about; in every single one of the popular Arkham games all of the action of the game, from the tutorial through to the post game, takes place on the same night which in which the game started. Of course, the series does shift days with different entries (and even years for some games) but every event in the main story will occur in roughly the same six hour stretch, with some games even noting the progression of the narrative as being concurrent with the progression of night. The developers play this up too, by having the battle damage system on Batman's suit which I positively adore, wherein the further you go into the game the more the Batsuit gets scuffed up. The wear and tear of this one particularly crazy night for Batman is written all over his person and although the legend never becomes tired (how could he, he's Batman) the bruises, scratches, bulletholes, popping poisoned veins and just destroyed gauntlets, all convey that sense beautifully.
But when we actually compare this to the way Batman's antics usually go in his many depictions on TV, film and in the comics, this is actually rather stand-out. Batman isn't usually the one to go duke out with every-single one of his villains in a single night of pugilism. I mean it does happen sometimes, sure, but for every single game to take place on that premise it does stretch the idea a little thin now that I come to think about it. The idea of having to fight one's entire rogue's gallery simultaneously is a pretty momentous one, but when you're literally doing that every other week it certainly does make Batman look a little overpowered, which has never been the idea when it comes to the Caped Crusader. But then if this is the case, why do all the video games thusfar circle around this idea? Well there's a few reasons.
Firstly come the convenience of it all, as Rocksteady themselves voiced when making Arkham City (as I recall) they weren't making a Bruce Wayne game, they wanted to make a Batman game, and Batman famously only usually comes out at night. Thus if the game takes place in the same night then there's no logistical transition that the team needs to figure out. Then there's the fact that with gaming, and the ability for adventure games to be as long as they really need to be, the team have the time and space to fit in these several villain storylines without the story feeling stretched at all. In fact, for gaming audiences we usually defer to the ideal of 'the more the merrier', as it were. Finally, and most resoundingly, when every single event is concurrent and not broken up by the passing of the idea, it creates a pace and rhythm that rides out to the final beat of the game. Pacing is a huge tool when it comes to storytelling and learning how to master it can be the difference between a breakneck adventure and a chilled stroll across action set-peices.
In fact, I keep coming back to the idea of the 'Pace' as likely being the key reason behind this design choice, maybe not even consciously, but it's influence is there. When Batman starts his night, whether that be through rolling up to Arkham Asylum or being thrown into Arkham City, a rubber band is set into the ground. From that point forth, as he unravels the mystery of his environment and get's deeper into the various factions involved or enters the sights of yet another assassin, the elastic band gets stretched, and for every moment Batman is active that tension is wound back. Breaking that up at any moment, even through a quick cutscene which shows of Bruce doing his day-to-day so that the player can get back to the action, immediately let's that rubberband snap back and makes it so that the narrative has to build up that tension and pacing all the way from the beginning again. Turning away from that and doubling down on the chaos of the one night allows for the tension to build into a towering crescendo where Batman's ultimate duels feel as weighty as they should, because they've been appropriately built up.
On the flipside; Gotham Knights approach of turning the events to more of a day-by-day affair does a good job of evoking the episodic nature of Comic books and really make the player feel like they're setting into the everyday life of a hero. As the overall story literally frames itself with Batman's protegees rising up to take his mantle, this neatly fits that mould as we see Barbara Gordon, and the Robins fill that mammal-shaped hole. This also allows the developers to simulate the daily lives of the citizens of Gotham which is something that we have, inexplicably, never got out of a Batman game before. Arkham City took place in an entire chunk of the City turned into a prison, Arkham Origins was on the same night as a blizzard warning, encouraging citizens to stay indoors, and Arkham Knight took place at a time when the city was getting bombarded with threats from a lunatic in a scarecrow costume; I wouldn't want to poke my head out the front door either!
Now to be clear there is no single better way to tell a story between the approach of many different days and a single night, in fact the 'man on fire' style of storytelling generally isn't done too much anymore, as it was done to death a while back. I'd say that John Wick was probably the best recent iteration of "All the events happening within a breath of each other." I think that Gotham Knights approach does fit the game a lot better, given that our villain appears to be The Court of Owls; A mysterious cabal of Gotham elites who specialise on being in the shadows and behind other schemes. Treated right this could even be as climatic as the Arkham games, it's all just a matter of execution.
In conclusion, I don't think that the narrative design of the Arkham series is at all one of it's problems, like that article would suggest, but rather one of it's strengths. But as this upcoming new title isn't even an Arkham game, why it's hardly the end of the world if that game frames it's narrative a little differently. (I welcome the diversity) When it's all said and done I will undoubtedly miss the whole 'progressive suit damage' as the story goes on, as well as the way that the environments you traversed seemed to become more chaotic as everything falls apart, but it's not going to ruin my day or anything. I yet remain excited for Gotham Knights and reverent of the Arkham series that helped spawn it.
Monday, 22 July 2019
I guess they get tired too...
It's been a hard day's night.
Have you ever had that moment when you just can't stand to get up in the morning? When you wish that you could just hit the off button and come back tomorrow? I'm not just talking about feeling reluctant, I'm talking about feeling drained. Feeling fatigued. Of course you have, everyone has. It's a universal feeling that everyone can relate to, which is why it can be powerful tool in story telling. "What? Having the main character be tired?" Yes, indeed. How many fight scenes have you seen in movies where the hero dusts up with a room chock-full of bad guys and tears through them without breaking a sweat? Did you relate to him? Did you worry for his safety? Now think of that scene in episode 2 of Netflix's 'Daredevil' wherein Matt Murdock takes down that entire hallway of thugs. (A must-watch scene if you haven't!) Think about how tired he gets, how they tired they get, and how it looks like he barely takes that last one down. Did he look like he was getting hurt?
Pain and fatigue are inexorable elements of our everyday lives, (Or at least they are until those Transhumanists get their way.) and so when we see these feelings represented in our fiction it makes it easier to realise that fictional world in our minds. Storytellers must always nail the fundamentals of their worlds before they can establish any of the fantastical elements, no matter how wild and imaginative that world is. When the story fails to make you believe in the world, you don't feel the need to care about it's inhabitants. That is why something as simple as showing your focal character stop to take a breather can build a whole depth onto your story.
Video games have also had their hand in demonstrating fatigue through one of the longest running traits in gaming: Stamina bars. This is the bar that is usually present in the Hub and will drain as you get damaged; once it is depleted, you character falls down dead. or just defeated, depending on your game's rating. (I know I likely don't need to explain the basics of a health bar to you, but remember, I'm a narcissist. So I will anyway.) Health bars were born out of the need to solve one of the most universal questions of game design: What is the player's motivation? When high scores don't matter anymore and the game has no sports-like win/lose conditions, the last carrot that developers have to dangle over our heads is the most potent one of all: Our very lives! And so the most enduring and widespread system in gaming was born.
Over the years, as development technology has become more and more robust, game developers have found all different ways to demonstrate the remaining health of the player. Some games have even gone so far as to remove the health bar altogether. (The monsters!) One of my personal favourite methods is the way in which player's wellness can be linked to that character's animations. In some third person games, as your character becomes more poorly (That's British slang for 'infirm' by-the-by.) they'll start to show it in their stature and gait; meaning that they'll start slumping over and hobbling about. You'll notice this in games like Resident Evil 2, Tomb Raider (2013), Red Dead Redemption, Uncharted: Drakes Fortune, Max Payne 3, Final Fantasy 7, Yakuza, Assassins Creed, oh and every single modern third person action adventure game ever made. It is a little silly how these characters can usually be seen clutching their sides after being riddled with enough lead to make them float, but I guess that the characters need to look like they can shake off their injuries. If they were going around vomiting up blood it might start giving players pause.
Of course, that isn't the only alternative that Video game companies have come up with for representing the health bar. Afterall, how would first-person games pull it off, considering they are the games that started shedding traditional 'health bars' first? Well, Call of Duty started off something of a trend when they created the 'damage effects' that are now widespread in first-person games. This includes 'hit markers' (A small on screen indicator telling you from which direction you got hurt), blurred screen effects, and reddish overlays onto your vision. As your character is dragged ever closer to death your screen become more and more red until you die. This is supposed to represent an immersive way to display health without the use of ugly, HUD adorning, health bars. However, the side effect is that now players can recover from their injuries by merely waiting around and not being hit. You win some immersion and then you lose some.
Some games have very unique ways of showing of the players health that doesn't clutter up a HUD but is still built around the health bar formula. One of the most famous examples I can think of is the spine bar from Visceral's Dead Space. Dead Space was a horror game that was intent on integrating HUD elements into the world of the game, thus ensuring that players would never cut themselves off from the immersion by going into a menu. Inventory screens were handled through holographic projections emanating from the player's environment suit, ammo counts were shown through holographic displays on the guns themselves, and the health bar was prominently visible on the protagonist's back. One thing you instantly notice when you play Dead Space is the glowing blue tube up the players spine, and that is essentially your in-universe health bar which depletes as your take damage. Ingenious! Another game that tried a similar trick of integrating the HUD would be 1998's 'Trespasser'. A first-person Jurassic Park game that figured the best way to keep the audience aware of the main character's health was to feature a heart shaped tattoo on her left breast that would deplete with damage. Classy.
So far I've been following a very narrow subset of fatigue mechanics in how they pertain to gameplay, but there is another aspect to consider which is very important to crafting a memorable experience, how fatigue can relate to the story. I've already mentioned the way in which characters feel more real when they are pervious, but what I'm referring to here is more the way in which the character wears the strain of the adventure they've just been through. There's nothing quite as satisfying as seing your hero come through it all at the end of day covered in the bruises and scratches that represent the chaos that they just endured. A great example of this would be the Arkham games. (Which you might remember me mentioning a bit about not so long ago. Something about playing the demo for Arkham Asylum until it was seared into by subconscious.) We all know Batman. And we've all seen Batman roughed up; with the torn suit and the cuts and scratches. The Arkham took this one step further in that you lived through every bruise that Batman acquired throughout that night. That isn't to say that every counter you missed would result in a nasty welt a couple hours down the line, but rather that there were scripted encounters and sections which would result in 'wear and tear' for poor old Bruce Wayne. Moments like; the first air duct collapsing at the beginning of Arkham Asylum, deflecting Deathstroke's katana barrage at the end of his boss fight in Arkham Origins and surviving lungs full of potent fear toxin in Arkham Knight. All of these incidents left a 'scar' that last on your virtual avatar for the rest of the game; trophies of the battles that you fought.
Similar 'wear and tear' systems can be found in a few of the modern action adventure games of recent years. 2013's Tomb Raider had a system very similar to the Arkham games. As Lara travelled across Yamatai, she would go through scripted scenes in which she would go through some sort of trauma and come out with a fresh scratch. Yager Development's 'Spec Ops: The Line' had a more involved 'wear and tear' mechanic in which the protagonist would grow more and more haggard as the psychological toil of the player's actions began to weigh on him with increasing severity. And Lionhead's 'Fable 3' had a literal 'scarring system' wherein the Hero had the possibility of attaining a scar every time that they got defeated by an enemy. Some of those examples are more transformative to the narrative than others, but they all serve to reflect the mortality of their subjects.
Storytelling is a multifaceted beast that can be tackled in so many hundreds of ways. The grounding of characters is just one step on a long road to crafting a clear and cohesive narrative, but it can be an important one depending on the tale you are trying to tell. I'm willing to bet that at least one the examples I mentioned today went almost completely ignored by some gamers out there; but as Mister Plinkett likes to say "You might not have noticed it, but your brain did." Personally I'm a sucker for all these little details, just as I'm a sucker for the big 'showstopper' features. Maybe I'm a just a huge nerd who can't see the forest for the trees or maybe I'm subconsciously taking note of all these little things in hope that I can write my own story/game one day. Or maybe I just enjoy seeing something that I feel daily mirrored by the coolest characters in fiction: The need to take a break.
Have you ever had that moment when you just can't stand to get up in the morning? When you wish that you could just hit the off button and come back tomorrow? I'm not just talking about feeling reluctant, I'm talking about feeling drained. Feeling fatigued. Of course you have, everyone has. It's a universal feeling that everyone can relate to, which is why it can be powerful tool in story telling. "What? Having the main character be tired?" Yes, indeed. How many fight scenes have you seen in movies where the hero dusts up with a room chock-full of bad guys and tears through them without breaking a sweat? Did you relate to him? Did you worry for his safety? Now think of that scene in episode 2 of Netflix's 'Daredevil' wherein Matt Murdock takes down that entire hallway of thugs. (A must-watch scene if you haven't!) Think about how tired he gets, how they tired they get, and how it looks like he barely takes that last one down. Did he look like he was getting hurt?
Pain and fatigue are inexorable elements of our everyday lives, (Or at least they are until those Transhumanists get their way.) and so when we see these feelings represented in our fiction it makes it easier to realise that fictional world in our minds. Storytellers must always nail the fundamentals of their worlds before they can establish any of the fantastical elements, no matter how wild and imaginative that world is. When the story fails to make you believe in the world, you don't feel the need to care about it's inhabitants. That is why something as simple as showing your focal character stop to take a breather can build a whole depth onto your story.
Video games have also had their hand in demonstrating fatigue through one of the longest running traits in gaming: Stamina bars. This is the bar that is usually present in the Hub and will drain as you get damaged; once it is depleted, you character falls down dead. or just defeated, depending on your game's rating. (I know I likely don't need to explain the basics of a health bar to you, but remember, I'm a narcissist. So I will anyway.) Health bars were born out of the need to solve one of the most universal questions of game design: What is the player's motivation? When high scores don't matter anymore and the game has no sports-like win/lose conditions, the last carrot that developers have to dangle over our heads is the most potent one of all: Our very lives! And so the most enduring and widespread system in gaming was born.
Over the years, as development technology has become more and more robust, game developers have found all different ways to demonstrate the remaining health of the player. Some games have even gone so far as to remove the health bar altogether. (The monsters!) One of my personal favourite methods is the way in which player's wellness can be linked to that character's animations. In some third person games, as your character becomes more poorly (That's British slang for 'infirm' by-the-by.) they'll start to show it in their stature and gait; meaning that they'll start slumping over and hobbling about. You'll notice this in games like Resident Evil 2, Tomb Raider (2013), Red Dead Redemption, Uncharted: Drakes Fortune, Max Payne 3, Final Fantasy 7, Yakuza, Assassins Creed, oh and every single modern third person action adventure game ever made. It is a little silly how these characters can usually be seen clutching their sides after being riddled with enough lead to make them float, but I guess that the characters need to look like they can shake off their injuries. If they were going around vomiting up blood it might start giving players pause.Of course, that isn't the only alternative that Video game companies have come up with for representing the health bar. Afterall, how would first-person games pull it off, considering they are the games that started shedding traditional 'health bars' first? Well, Call of Duty started off something of a trend when they created the 'damage effects' that are now widespread in first-person games. This includes 'hit markers' (A small on screen indicator telling you from which direction you got hurt), blurred screen effects, and reddish overlays onto your vision. As your character is dragged ever closer to death your screen become more and more red until you die. This is supposed to represent an immersive way to display health without the use of ugly, HUD adorning, health bars. However, the side effect is that now players can recover from their injuries by merely waiting around and not being hit. You win some immersion and then you lose some.
Some games have very unique ways of showing of the players health that doesn't clutter up a HUD but is still built around the health bar formula. One of the most famous examples I can think of is the spine bar from Visceral's Dead Space. Dead Space was a horror game that was intent on integrating HUD elements into the world of the game, thus ensuring that players would never cut themselves off from the immersion by going into a menu. Inventory screens were handled through holographic projections emanating from the player's environment suit, ammo counts were shown through holographic displays on the guns themselves, and the health bar was prominently visible on the protagonist's back. One thing you instantly notice when you play Dead Space is the glowing blue tube up the players spine, and that is essentially your in-universe health bar which depletes as your take damage. Ingenious! Another game that tried a similar trick of integrating the HUD would be 1998's 'Trespasser'. A first-person Jurassic Park game that figured the best way to keep the audience aware of the main character's health was to feature a heart shaped tattoo on her left breast that would deplete with damage. Classy.
So far I've been following a very narrow subset of fatigue mechanics in how they pertain to gameplay, but there is another aspect to consider which is very important to crafting a memorable experience, how fatigue can relate to the story. I've already mentioned the way in which characters feel more real when they are pervious, but what I'm referring to here is more the way in which the character wears the strain of the adventure they've just been through. There's nothing quite as satisfying as seing your hero come through it all at the end of day covered in the bruises and scratches that represent the chaos that they just endured. A great example of this would be the Arkham games. (Which you might remember me mentioning a bit about not so long ago. Something about playing the demo for Arkham Asylum until it was seared into by subconscious.) We all know Batman. And we've all seen Batman roughed up; with the torn suit and the cuts and scratches. The Arkham took this one step further in that you lived through every bruise that Batman acquired throughout that night. That isn't to say that every counter you missed would result in a nasty welt a couple hours down the line, but rather that there were scripted encounters and sections which would result in 'wear and tear' for poor old Bruce Wayne. Moments like; the first air duct collapsing at the beginning of Arkham Asylum, deflecting Deathstroke's katana barrage at the end of his boss fight in Arkham Origins and surviving lungs full of potent fear toxin in Arkham Knight. All of these incidents left a 'scar' that last on your virtual avatar for the rest of the game; trophies of the battles that you fought.
Similar 'wear and tear' systems can be found in a few of the modern action adventure games of recent years. 2013's Tomb Raider had a system very similar to the Arkham games. As Lara travelled across Yamatai, she would go through scripted scenes in which she would go through some sort of trauma and come out with a fresh scratch. Yager Development's 'Spec Ops: The Line' had a more involved 'wear and tear' mechanic in which the protagonist would grow more and more haggard as the psychological toil of the player's actions began to weigh on him with increasing severity. And Lionhead's 'Fable 3' had a literal 'scarring system' wherein the Hero had the possibility of attaining a scar every time that they got defeated by an enemy. Some of those examples are more transformative to the narrative than others, but they all serve to reflect the mortality of their subjects.
Storytelling is a multifaceted beast that can be tackled in so many hundreds of ways. The grounding of characters is just one step on a long road to crafting a clear and cohesive narrative, but it can be an important one depending on the tale you are trying to tell. I'm willing to bet that at least one the examples I mentioned today went almost completely ignored by some gamers out there; but as Mister Plinkett likes to say "You might not have noticed it, but your brain did." Personally I'm a sucker for all these little details, just as I'm a sucker for the big 'showstopper' features. Maybe I'm a just a huge nerd who can't see the forest for the trees or maybe I'm subconsciously taking note of all these little things in hope that I can write my own story/game one day. Or maybe I just enjoy seeing something that I feel daily mirrored by the coolest characters in fiction: The need to take a break.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)