(Alternate post title: Bored with
Power 2: Electric Boogaloo)
I would just like to
say one thing upfront: it is almost hilarious that this post covers the same
topic I talked at length about almost a year ago on the dot. I say “almost”, of course, because the fact
that I feel like I HAVE to dredge up this topic again means that by and large I
don’t feel like the games industry has learned a single damn thing. Ergo, it’s less “almost hilarious” and more
“completely depressing”.
So. Not too long ago I did a
little post on Batman: Arkham Origins
(which I posted on a Monday because I didn’t want the stigma of a Family Guy post taking the top slot and corrupting
my blog for too long). I went in with a
bit of cautious “optimism” thanks to the reviews and consensus being less than
positive, but I figured it was at least worth a shot to see if the game could
win me over. It didn’t. I couldn’t bring myself to play past the
first hour or so, and with my brother saying that it just goes downhill from
there I decided early that even if there WAS a good story in there, it wasn’t
worth it.
As always, I want to
stress that if you like the game, then that’s great. I envy you.
But I couldn’t even begin to enjoy it, and I feel like I can’t rest
until I explain why.
Short answer? It’s the gameplay. Long answer?
Well...hold on to your butts.
I think it’s a safe bet
to say that the plot of any given Batman game is “Batman heads to a
crime-infested place to sort it out via fisticuffs”, so let’s talk about what
you actually do in the game. As far as I
can tell, you explore an open world as the caped crusader with a mix of gliding
and zip line shenanigans, allowing a character who technically can’t fly to
effectively fly. (Because he’s Batman,
as others would say.) That part of the
game is actually fairly enjoyable, though it does lead to a lot of trigger
button-mashing to try and find what you can grapple onto. Even so, it’s nice to have a
largely-enjoyable mechanic like that, and even if a lot of assets have been
reused I still like the way Gotham looks and feels. Though much like Man of Steel, the soundtrack -- for the most part -- has no idea
how to calm the hell down.
Where the game loses me
is where it should shine the most: the combat.
I’m almost certain I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: part
of the reason I like RPGs as much as I do is because they can have such unique
and exciting combat systems. I’ve always
believed that if you’re running away from fights, you’re not getting the most out
of the game. Grandia III’s story might have fallen apart before the halfway
point, but its battle system -- at least before leaving the first disc -- was amazing.
Even beyond RPGs, games have defined themselves with their combat -- the
interaction of the player and the game -- for decades. I’m not going to say that a game with bad
combat is automatically bad, but it sure doesn’t help its case.
And for me, Arkham Origins’ combat is deal-breaking. If you haven’t seen the games in action
before, here’s how it works: huge mobs of goons try to rush at Batman, and it’s
up to you to fend them off. The Bat’s
strikes are mapped to the square button, so hammer that and you’ll hammer foes
accordingly. It’s worth noting that
there’s no dedicated targeting/lock-on button; while that’s a death knell for
some action games (DmC sez hai),
there’s a soft lock-on made possible by pointing the stick in a direction while
attacking. It works, but it seems like
the mechanic sends my Batman flying every which way on occasion.
In any case, the Bat’s
got more tricks up his cowl. Double-tap
X, and you’ll evade in the direction you choose, and you can even flip over
enemies. Hit the circle button and
you’ll flap your cape, stunning enemies and opening them up for attack. L2
lets you use whatever Bat-tool you’ve got equipped, meaning you can work some
Batarangs into your sick combos. The
other buttons do stuff too, I guess. But
the crux of the combat system lies on the triangle button -- and with it, the
counter system. Watch enemies closely,
and when you see blue lines appear above their head, that’s your cue to hit
triangle. Pull it off, and Batman will
intercept their attack and make them pay for it as painfully as possible. It’s a system designed to capture the dark
knight’s abilities and nature, and in that sense it works; on top of that, it’s
a system that’s supposed to make fighting multiple enemies a breeze, not a
hassle. It’s built-in crowd control, in
a sense.
It’s just not very
good.
I don’t know if it’s a
complaint one could leverage at the other Arkham
games since this is supposed to be a copy-paste job (only worse, from what
I could gather), but the problems here are problems of their own, regardless of
the lineage. I’ll admit that Batman is
well-animated, and at times the sound design is on-point, but if the intent was
to make the player into Batman, they overshot it. This game has one of the most unfulfilling
combat systems I’ve ever encountered; there’s no challenge, no tension, no
reason to improve, nothing. It may sound
a bit harsh to judge a game’s system based on its first hour of play, but if
I’m not intrigued by the start, why should I be intrigued by anything that
follows? Besides that, there’s an
upgrade tree that demands the player put in points to build a better bat -- but
why would I do that when Batman is already broken?
The only button you
need for the majority of your fights is the triangle button. Maybe any fight, but I can’t bring myself to
care enough to investigate. But what I
do know is that if you steer yourself to the center of a bunch of thugs (or
even if you don’t), all you have to do is wait for the prompt to pop up and hit
triangle. No damage to you, damage done
to your enemies. That’s it. They’ll just keep running at you and running
at you, doing what goons do and tossing out Goonese proverbs (“You’re dead!” or
“Gonna mess you up!”)
You barely even have to
be conscious to stop them. Hell, a part
of me suspects that you don’t even have to use proper timing to stop them;
there’s no penalty for hitting the counter button early except leaving Batman
in a ready stance, and enemy attack patterns are lax enough to let you not have
to worry about incoming attacks. In
fact, I get the feeling that you can mash the counter button to make yourself
effectively invincible. It’s not
something that I tested -- although I made myself unbeatable just by “playing
the game” and hitting triangle -- but it’s not something I want to prove.
Remarkably, it gets worse. As far as I can tell, there are two main
“builds” for a player’s Batman; they can either boost their combat skill, or
improve the gadgets they can use. Seeing
as how the game starts with you
taking down Killer Croc by yourself, I decided to take the road less traveled
and put points into my tech. It wasn’t
long before I had my Batman equipped with Triple Batarangs -- three per toss,
each one with the ability to lock onto a separate target. As you can imagine, that made me even MORE
broken; suddenly, I didn’t even need to bother with punches or counters. All I had to do was evade into a corner or an
empty space (sometimes not even then) and mash L2, watching with horror as
Batman cleared out an entire squadron of goons without even having to aim. They couldn’t even get within a yard of me
before getting stunned, knocked back, or knocked out. I would have busted a gut laughing if it
wasn’t the stupidest damn thing I’d seen in a while. And I've seen some things.
In defense of the game,
it is possible that there’s more to the combat.
The presence of armored guys and knife guys has to stand for
something…but on the other hand, I wouldn’t put too much stock in them. Guys like that only appear once in a while,
and make up just one unit out of a dozen-strong clump of goons. I’d bet that beating the knife guys could be
as easy as spamming Batarangs until they don’t have a drop of blood left in
their bodies; meanwhile, the armored tough guys can be taken out with a
specific combo established early on -- that is, you stun them, and then you
wail on them with the square button. The
majority of your time in this game, I’d wager, is spent beating on goons who
have no business going up against Batman, because Batman is Batman, and
compared to them might as well be Superman.
It really says a lot about the game when the biggest threat to your
success is you, simply because you made the mistake of trying to get in one
more punch on the baddie ahead of you instead of dropping everything to counter
the guy behind you.
The stealth doesn’t do
much to support the game either. It’s
true that it works, but it just invites the problem of Batman being so absurdly
powerful that there are no stakes. If
for any reason you should land in a tight spot, all you have to do is grapple
to a high point and hide until things cool down. Batman has an entire dimension to use as he
sees fit; the vertical element gives him an almost irrevocable advantage,
letting him pick off foes however he wants.
It’s true that guns can still tear through the dark knight, but if that
happens -- if you get caught in close quarters -- all you have to do is throw
down a smoke bomb and use the confusion to either run away or knock a goon
out. Pardon my naiveté, but I thought
that stealth mechanics were suppose to emphasize you wanting to avoid combat at all costs, because if you get into a fight you’re almost
guaranteed to lose. When did “stealth”
start to mean “instant kills” and “reset buttons”?
At least they didn’t
give Batman a fully-functional flamethrower...that I know of.
I’d like to think that
the boss fights are a lot better, but I don’t have much hope there,
either. The only reason Killer Croc hit
me at all is because I couldn’t get the camera to cooperate, and I got so
distracted I didn’t dodge in time -- not to mention that “boss fight” in this
game likely means one big guy and even more goons to counter into
oblivion. The Electrocutioner fight is
essentially a QTE, wherein Batman beats an electrified and supposedly
ultra-skilled fighter with one attack.
The Deathstroke fight -- which may or may not be the only one in the
game, despite how much hype he’s gotten -- comes off as an extended QTE, with the in-game combat peppered with pre-baked
combat that makes you wish the actual game was that cool. On the plus side, you walk away with one of
his tools. Weapon get, indeed.
So no, I don’t like Arkham Origins. It has nothing to do with me and my
admitted distaste for Batman, because I know that A) he’s a character that can
and has been done well before, and I’ve seen it for myself, and B) he’s not my
favorite superhero, but the concept is full of intrigue and potential even to
someone who prefers squeaky-clean Boy Scouts.
No, I think that the problem is that this game is about the pitfall that
comes with the character -- the fetishization
of Batman, rather than the exploration
of Batman. There must be tens of
thousands of characters out there whose skill set includes the ability to punch
people really hard, or get their jollies in dangling thugs from high places to
get the info they want. Those are all
complements to a character, not the defining factors. But the way Origins plays, you’d think that Batman is an invincible, whirling
engine of destruction -- because the devs are trying to give the people what
they think they want. “Be Batman,” they
whisper seductively into your ear. “Be
unbeatable. Be a badass. Be powerful.”
And then they try to slip their tongues across your face.
Like I said, games
define themselves via their systems -- their combat more often than not, but
there are alternatives. That’s not a bad
thing. It’s only a bad thing when the design
of combat, and the power that runs alongside it, goes off the rails. If there is no challenge to a game, no agency
to its combat or any edge to its other defining particulars, then what makes it
worth playing? Is making the player feel
like a badass THAT important to devs these days? Have we reached a point where a game that
should make memory manipulation its main
system has to add kung fu fighting and dragon punches? Or where a game ensures that its players
will have the chance to act like the biggest jackass in the
universe? The answer to that is yes
-- because if certain commercials and YouTube ads are to be believed, war is so totally
awesome.
I’m beginning to think
that a distinction needs to be made -- which is why I’m introducing the phrase
“predator game”. Predator games are
games that turn the player into a verifiable killing machine, by design and by
suggestion. You are the hunter, given
all the power needed to turn you into a creature of instinct -- unthinking,
unfeeling. Everyone else is the hunted. The prey.
The herbivores, with nothing to oppose you but their soft and succulent
underbellies. In a predator game,
killing is just something you do, and the moment you become aware of the
instincts the game is infusing into you, you just might realize that you’ve
been played. For some, the hunt may no
longer have the same thrill. For others,
they don’t care -- and they grow fat off the hamstrung prey offered to them.
I would say that
predator games aren’t automatically the
worst thing ever -- that is, they’re not an instant failure state. But they are something worth noting. Developed and enjoyed sparingly, they’re
harmless; done in excess, they do more harm than good. I would have thought that video games were
about more than just one-hit-kills, lavishly-rendered executions, and a chance
to showcase the physics of either spurting guts or lifeless bodies. But alas, in a predator game that’s not the
case. Killing is the sole way the game
tries to define itself, and it’s worse off for it. Hardly memorable in the long run. Maybe not even enjoyable in the short run.
When did this trend
start? And is it a trend in the first
place, or am I just reaching? It’s hard
to say conclusively, but my guess is that Assassin’s
Creed and its popularity had a hand in it.
Being a killer is admittedly an interesting idea with lots of potential,
and once upon a time Ubisoft capitalized on it by giving us an experience that,
while not exactly perfect, put ideas into the heads of others (gamers and devs
alike). I don’t know or care about the AC series enough to comment about each
of its games and how it’s transformed over the years, but if nothing else it
has problems. Like Origins, it’s got the whole “stand in the center of a crowd and
counter everyone to death” mechanic going on, and the entire franchise revolves
around stabbing the hell out of people so they never, ever get back up. Stealth, subterfuge, and stabbing are what
the series is built on…well, except when it isn’t. Remember this trailer?
Triple-A games tend to
influence other triple-A games (remember the whole “Tomb Raider is just like Uncharted
now” claims, which might not actually be that far off). And I’d bet that triple-A games tend to
influence games period. Games, and the
mindset to follow; that sense of power is as enticing as it is corruptive, and
without the creative spark -- the reason needed to stand up and say “hey, maybe
we don’t need to bank so hard on ultra-violence and positive reinforcement” --
we’re going to get more of these predator games.
If you’ll let me be a little bold, I’m going
to preemptively call out Ryse: Son of
Rome for this, because any game that is (or was) very nearly a string of
QTE murders deserves to be watched scornfully before release. The inevitable Assassin’s Creed 5 is going to feature next-gen murder, no doubt,
so it’ll be interesting to see if Ubisoft can do anything new with a franchise
that’s seen six installments in a single console generation besides adding more
weapons to the player character’s coat. Call of Duty and Battlefield are going to keep up their pissing contest for a while
yet -- so may God help us all.
I want to take a minute
to say that just because a game has weak combat or lopsided odds doesn’t
automatically make it a predator game.
If that were true, then a lot of good games would qualify. It’s important to remember, I think, that predator
games rely almost exclusively on their “combat” to win gamer hearts, while
others offer something more -- via story, via additional gameplay elements, and
the like. It’s true that Zelda games don’t exactly have the most
challenging fights (the game’s pretty much won the moment Link gets his
boomerang in Wind Waker), but that’s
offset by the gameplay being a mix of combat, exploration, and
puzzle-solving.
On top of that, Link may
have all the tools he needs to succeed, but it’s power gained within reason and
in accordance with his world and the story at large. You gain power at a steady rate; some tools
work well in combat, but others are too unwieldy or limited in application; even
beyond that, using sword skills and the wisdom needed to score a hit makes for
a simple but effective combat system.
It’s not a matter of glorifying each kill, but an event for you to
progress past on your way to the next bit of the game. As it should be.
The alternate option is
to go down the Platinum Games route.
It’s very true that action games like Bayonetta, Metal Gear Rising, Devil May Cry, and others put you in
control of extremely powerful characters -- BUT that’s offset by them regularly
fighting against even more powerful enemies on their way to victory. Being a predator in games like those is damn
near impossible; if anything, you’re the one who’s the prey, and just surviving
is infinitely more important to you than seeing some slick animations. The only way to win -- to even get to the
next area -- is to develop whatever skills you can, and let those become your
power. Learn to dodge in Bayonetta. Learn to parry in Rising. Learn how to use
your style of choice in DMC3. Those games are almost completely defined
by their combat, yes, but in exchange they give you some of the best combat
systems games can offer…that is, if you can survive the tutorial level
alone. Again, as it should be.
But that all operates
under the assumption that combat is essential to a game. It isn’t.
Combat is how games and gamers can express themselves by way of their
interaction -- BUT that’s not the only way it can be done. Or, if it absolutely, positively HAS to be
done, it needs to be offered in a way that’s unique but exciting. Refined, but rewarding. Telling of the thought process, but more than
capable of showing the player a good time.
It’s more than possible to make a game like that, and I’d wager that
even now, in this current industry climate, it’s more than possible to deviate
from the norm. And I’m more than happy
to offer one possibility.
Here’s the underlying
question: what if the strongest character in the universe was also its weakest?
This is a concept I’ve
been thinking about over the past few weeks.
Like I’ve said before, I come up with characters based on what sort of
powers I can give them -- weapon skills, control over the elements, enhanced
physical parameters, ESP, what have you.
But lately, I’ve been thinking what it would be like to have a character
with a different sort of power. A character
who’s Weak,
but Skilled personified…for better or worse. And the answer that I came up with was to
have a character that is weak -- and is made weaker by the fact that he makes his enemies stronger.
So let’s say there’s a
guy named Sheeper. A really flimsy
looking guy who looks like he could keel over at any moment, but in spite of
that has an ego the size of Mount Everest.
And let’s say that in terms of raw fighting ability, the most he has
going for him -- besides being able to run faster than a shrieking ninny -- is
the crowbar he keeps tucked in his belt.
BUT he also has a hidden power, something that makes him an MVP for the
bad guys: he subconsciously releases energy waves that make certain people
around him better. Bigger, faster,
stronger, smarter, it depends on the person -- but the end result is that
Sheeper can make anyone or anything into a superhuman version of itself...especially
if he consciously decides to use his power via physical contact. Essentially, he’s a monster maker. Among other things.
So in general, the
story behind the game is that Sheeper -- being the selfish twit that he is --
decides one day to say “screw you” to the baddies he’s been working for (and
helping to enable world domination by building their evil army) so he can go
fulfill his dream of being a world-famous…well, he hasn’t thought that far
ahead, but he knows that fame, fortune, and foxy femmes await him at the end of
his road. The baddies -- and a hefty
assortment of bounty hunters -- want him back, so he’s got to fight to earn his
freedom.
Sheeper isn’t any
stronger than the average man, but he is wily.
He’s a master of evasion. He
knows how to hit people right where it hurts with his crowbar, and while he
doesn’t have the power or durability needed to last long or dish out the
damage, he makes his hits count. He’s
not afraid to play dirty, either; he’ll resort to cheap tricks, hit-and-run
tactics, or make use of his environment.
Where things get really interesting, from a gameplay perspective, is
Sheeper’s boost mechanic. Enemies will
naturally get stronger as a fight progresses, albeit at a steady pace; think of
it as like the Mario Galaxy games,
where a boss a hit away from death will get a lot faster and more
aggressive. But Sheeper -- i.e. the
player -- can boost them even further with his power, making them even
stronger, even faster, or outright turning them into a new type of enemy. Forced evolution, as it were -- the sort of
thing that’s guaranteed to make sure Sheeper has a bad time.
All right, so why would
making an enemy stronger be a good thing?
Simple: you might be making enemies stronger, but you’re also making
them dumber. More complacent. More likely to think that they’re invincible
because they’re so powerful, and thus more likely to make a mistake. And when they leave themselves open -- if
they leave themselves open, that is -- then Sheeper can land critical hits
that’ll get the job done even faster.
Beyond that, there would be some sort of point system awarded by
onlookers; if Sheeper takes down a slightly-empowered mob, he’ll get a few
claps from a small audience. But if he
beats massive enemies (even if he created them himself), he’ll get standing
ovations from the entire town. A
nd that,
in turn, could unlock new paths in the story and in the world at large; maybe a
captain who sees Sheeper win a fight will give him a free ride on his cruise
ship, or maybe the collateral damage caused by Sheeper’s super-empowering
antics will make a rival pop up.
Regardless, the combat would have players make a tough choice; do you
play it safe and take down enemies that aren’t as big a threat in a low-risk,
low-reward situation? Or do you turn
even the average goon into final boss material precisely because you know you
can take them out more easily -- reaping the benefits of a high-risk,
high-reward situation?
It’s true that there
would be some problems in making the game work as intended (making it
accessible for beginners, adjusting Sheeper’s balance with enemies via upgrade
trees, giving enemies powerful forms and adapting AI), but I think it’s a
concept that could work…or if nothing else, could make for an interesting
story. What’s important is that the
possibilities are there. There are more
routes to go down than just making the player God and the average enemy a speed
bump. There are so many meaningful
things you can do with a game and its creative space, allowing for expression
through its mechanics. So much more can
be done than just putting in a Can’t-Touch-This Button.
Will devs understand
this someday? Yeah, I think they
will. Not all of them, but more than
enough. There are examples now that I
could name that either get combat right, reinterpret it, or toss it out
altogether -- and the industry is stronger for it. That variation is something to be proud
of. Something to be treasured. And in spite of my whining, so are a lot of
less-than-perfect action games.
Sometimes -- not all the time, but sometimes -- it’s okay to make the
player feel like a badass. Plenty of
games do that by default. But if I want
to feel like a badass, I want it to be for the right reasons.
You want me to kill
people, video games? Fine. I’ll kill people. But in exchange, I want you to do it
right. I’m bored with power, and I’m
bored with being a predator. Show me
something new -- because if you don’t, you’ll find out the hard way that not
even a predator is invincible.
You probably addressed the biggest reason why I despise the obsession with gunplay in games in recent years. Ignoring the brown-haired stereotypical Sheploos and Joels that plague the market, offing enemies and NPCs constantly with little challenge or variance disturbs me. From my admittedly generalized perspective, several games with "predatory" elements only have violence for the sake of violence. I can't think of Call of Duty as anything other than an online contest over who has a bigger shoe size. Sure, it's what players and the developers want to show me and brag about, but I doubt the gameplay itself is more challenging than badass.
ReplyDeleteAt least when I see someone play God of War, the player can get his/her ass kicked many, many times before making progress and having enough energy to face the next horde. Even DmC (or at least the demo I played), didn't make Donte as badass as he always thinks he is. He's not that grand [or consistent] a killing machine, especially in the beginning. Neither is Kratos.
If there's anything about Assassin's Creed, at least I feel like I have to be careful where I tread. A successful killing when you cause as little disturbance along the way as possible feels more rewarding than going in with knives flying. Does it still make it "predatory"? Yeah. It does. But nowhere near as much as how you described Origins.
I dunno. Maybe we've just grown to be wusses when we game. Maybe it's because we're appealing to non-gamers now too, so difficulty has to be nerfed. But that's why some games offer three to five levels of difficulty. Heck, other games automatically amp up the difficulty on a second run. Even then, normal mode can still be a mindless cakewalk. If the Shin Megami Tensei games taught me anything, it's that I really have not experienced much gameplay challenge on normal mode as I once believed. Most of all, it's perfectly okay to cry, rage quit, and run to mommy when the same cheap enemy kicks your ass until your dignity is crushed. Sure it's for a niche audience, but even a younger gamer like me can see that modern games seem a bit too hand-holdy and generous.
Anywho.
By the way, I would love to see a game with Sheeper. Though I'm not sure which genre will work well for him. A fighter? Action-Adventure? Platformer? RPG? Add in some puzzle solving? Dunno.
You know, I've actually been wondering about multiple difficulty levels in games. I've heard people sing praises about The Last of Us for having (what I hope must be) a much more difficult and satisfying adventure on higher levels, which in some ways is pretty good. Something there for people who want a challenge. But my question is, if a game only starts to be challenging AFTER you crank up the difficulty, then doesn't that mean the game on Normal mode is too easy?
ReplyDeleteOnce again, Metal Gear Rising is a game that I think got it right. It's a tough game from the outset, but it's also a pretty fair one. You either have or unlock all the tools you need by game's end, and the game teaches you how and when to apply them so that the difficulty is on a manageable curve. There were times where I got my face kicked in, but it never felt frustrating. It never felt like I had to go "No, this is too much. I can't go on." And the game was stronger for it, because it trusts the player's ability to learn and adapt in a context that's meaningful to the story AND to the player.
...Jeez. The way things are looking, Rising's gonna be my game of the year. Imagine that. But anyway...
"You probably addressed the biggest reason why I despise the obsession with gunplay in games in recent years."
That's something else I've been thinking about. I'd like to think that idealizing guns and warfare are tings that have some SERIOUSLY deep roots, but it smacks of a lack of imagination and effort to just scream "THIS GAME HAS GUNS!" and leave it at that. (So I guess that makes the upcoming The Order: 1886 another target for pre-release cynicism, considering that one of its first screenshots features a gun-toting soldier hiding behind chest-high cover in a colorless world.) There are so many, many weapons and skills that can be created and fine-tuned for use in a game, and the fact that devs keep going back to guns -- or bows, or some kind of knife, or a copy of Kratos' chain blades -- feels like a flat-out refusal to explore the possibilities. I can think of a few right now...but I suppose that's a topic for another day.
RE: Sheeper, though, I'd like to think the best fit for his game/gameplay would be some kind of action game, a la Devil May Cry (the good ones, of course). There'd probably have to be some kind of unique targeting system so Sheeper could hit certain body parts, so I suppose the challenge would be working in the VATS system from Fallout 3. Or one of the challenges, at least..