The Failure of First-Person Narrative

I've never been big on first person shooters. However the recent glut of writing about Modern Warfare 2 and its effective (or not so effective) "No Russian" level has got me thinking about many discussions of first person narratives lately. Far Cry 2, Red Faction: Guerrilla, and both Call of Duty 4 and World at War are all games that have garnered much critical discussion yet I've let them slip by me because of their genre.

These have sat in the bottom of my GameFly queue for a while so I was quite surprised yesterday when World at War showed up in my mailbox. I popped it in this morning with an open mind and was immediately impressed by its graphical polish. The interspersing of real footage with a dramatic stylized history lesson of America's involvement in World War II was made for the post-MTV generation. The tension of the opening scene - my character's capture and the graphic execution of a fellow Marine seconds before my rescue - pulled me into the game instantly. Unfortunately that excitement died alongside my fallen comrade the moment I picked up a gun.

Not being a veteran of first person shooters I felt more like a frightened James Sunderland who had never held a gun before than a hardened Marine. What button do I push to shoot? Should I crouch to avoid enemy fire? Who are these people yelling at me - My CO or a random AI grunt? How do I tell the difference between friendlies and hostiles when everyone looks nearly the same? While I realize the panic that grips a soldier during a firefight is a major reality of war, generally you have many months of order and training to fall back on that helps create order out of the chaos of the battlefield.

I had none of that training. Call me spoiled but I like having a tutorial available when I play a new game. World at War has none. Perhaps developers believe anyone who plays and FPS are "hardcore" and wouldn't need such a thing. Yet the game that renewed my interest in the genre, Battlefield 1943, did so largely because of the tutorial that held my hand as it explained the basics combat. Being thrown into a chaotic and dangerous situation where I have no idea how to protect myself creates the perfect atmosphere for a survival-horror game, but not so much for a simulation of war where your training and trust in your squad mates are essential to success.

Assuming the opening experience for veterans of the Call of Duty franchise would be markedly different and knowing I would eventually get the hang of things, I perservered. A few suspension-of-disbelief shattering moments aside (I'm talking about the CO who yelled at me for 5 minutes to kill one glitch-hiding hostile while the rest of my squad stood around doing nothing.) I reach the end of the second mission and a member of my squad is killed before me in a scripted surprise attack. Cut to the set up for the third mission and the aforementioned glitzy graphics lamenting the loss of my fallen comrade. Who was he? I have no idea. But apparently he was important enough to me in those two brief intro missions that I should be choked up about his death.

Two missions into the game and I have no real attachment to characters, or even, to myself. While it's still early in the game I think much of my distance from the game's narrative is that I still feel confused by what's going on around me. This is a problem that could easily be solved by adding a tutorial for nubs like myself and using that time to introduce me to my squad.

Anyone who has seen Full Metal Jacket knows that if you really want to get into the psychology of a soldier you need to start with Basic Training. A game doesn't necessarily need to go that far. A a simple sweep and clean mission punctuated by down time where the player can overhear their squad mates talking - humanizing them - and scripted, hand-holding attack sequences would do wonders for giving a player both the narrative drive to care about their team and the tools to do something meaningful to protect them.

First person shooters do a great job of immersing the player in a world of limited vision and ever-present danger. They don't necessarily need a tutorial to do this if the player perseveres enough to learn the ropes. I imagine this is why many players stick with the genre. The learning curve is small and the gameplay immersion instantly gratifying. But a good narrative, particularly if a game aspires to create an emotional experience for the player, requires more than just placing a player with a pre-existing skill set into the heart battle. They need a reason to care at the micro-level, not just the patriotic thrill of a brief stylized history lesson. In the case of World at War they developers choose to give the player a name but it is really just that. No backstory, nothing to connect him to his squad. Maybe more of that is revealed over the course of the campaign, but they haven't given me a reason to stick with the game so far through either story or gameplay.

Battlefield 1943 versus Crash Commando: Two Perspectives on Spatiality

This entry is my contribution to the Blogs of the Round Table for this month.

I've been playing Battlefield 1943 and Crash Commando on the PSN quite a bit lately and it recently dawned on me that they are nearly the exact same game played out in different perspectives. They share an underlying pick-a-weapon-and-kill-or-be-killed mechanic but because one is a 3D first person shooter and the other a 2D side-scroller they are drastically different experiences for the player. I'm going to look at five ways in which they differ as a direct result of their spatial representation then decide if this makes one mode of representation stronger than the other. But first a quick run-down of the games.

Battlefield 1943

If you've played one online FPSer you've pretty much played them all but the general gist is as follows. You pick one of three soldier types (which determine the weapons available to you) and you and your team battle it out on small islands trying to capture and control specific bases on the map. Along the way you try to kill as many opposing players as possible. You see through the eyes of your soldier and have full control over direction you look. This is important because it is vital that you pay attention to the space around you. Attacks can come from behind, to the sides, and even above. Play continues until one side depletes the other's "energy bar" by getting the requisite number of kills, with more energy deducted per kill based on how many bases your team controls.

Crash Commando

The fundamentals here are the same as in Battlefield - pick a soldier (in this case a set of weapons) and destroy the opposition. Unlike Battlefield there are several game modes such as a free-for-all deathmatches and objectives-based maps where one team has to blow up certain objects while the other team defends. Crash Commando, however, is not an FPSer. You can see your character at or near the center of the screen at all times. Enemies are clearly visible when you are in range of their weapons and for the most part all the action occurs on screen. It's your classic 2D side-scroller so you never have to worry much about anything happening off screen.

Here are the key differences I see between the games.

Point #1: Crash Commando is less frustrating.

It's par for the course with either of these games that you are apt to get killed frequently when you first start playing multiplayer. However, repeatedly dying in Crash Commando doesn't make me want to throw the controller at the screen as much as it does in Battlefield simply because in almost all cases you can see who killed you. Heck, as a general rule you can see them before they kill you so you know you at least had a chance of taking them out first. Dying in Crash Commando is a matter of not being fast enough or accurate enough rather than being ambushed by an unseen enemy. In Battlefield you are often killed without ever seeing your killer. Without the HUD that indicates who killed you and how you'd never know who or what took you down! This sort of dead-but-don't-know-why is a staple of the FPS genre and generally what drives new players away from them, but it's largely unavoidable because your perspective leaves you blind to a large portion of what's going on around you at any given time. In Crash Commando your local area awareness is nearly complete regardless of how skilled you are at the game. You don't have to worry about controlling a camera to focus on threats so you end up feeling responsible for your own deaths because you could see them coming.

Point #2: Battlefield 1943 is more visceral.

Crash Commando is very bloody. Any death, even a clean sniper shot, causes a player to erupt into red bits. Battlefield lacks any blood - deceased soldiers disappear leaving only their packs behind. Yet Battlefield leaves me feeling more uneasy, more terrified, and more shaken after I've taken a hit or been fragged. The limited field of view makes you agoraphobic, always frightened of what may be lurking behind or to the side, or who may be straight ahead but too far away to see. Space in Crash Commando is far less open and far more visible and that makes you feel more secure at any given time, especially when no enemies are around. In Battlefield you feel as though you are at the center. Taking a sudden hit raises your heart rate as you scramble to find an all but invisible threat before it's too late. The difference in effect is similar to the difference between horror films that rely on shock value and those that are more subtle, showing less and letting the viewer's imagination create the scares.

Point #3: Battlefield 1943 encourages more team-based cooperation.

For the most part Crash Commando's "teamwork" consists of doubling up on firepower. Because any and all threats are visible on screen at all times there is little need to flush an enemy out into the sights of an awaiting teammate. Battlefield encourages this type of team work because it allows you and a partner to watch each other's back, letting you focus on threats in one direction without worrying about what may behind you. Without any real ability to ambush or need to protect one other other than when threats come from opposing sides Crash Commando's teamwork ends up feeling like little more than a Contra clone.

Point #4: Battlefield 1943 has a greater variety of distinctive weapons.

Strictly speaking Crash Commando has more basic weapons than Battlefield (11 compared to 9), but for the most part its primary weapons are identical. They may have different levels of damage, speed, or reload times, but with the exception of grenades and grenade launchers each weapon has the same range - the length of the screen. The 2D playing field limits the weapons' distinctiveness because you don't have weapons that are better or worse at different ranges. In Battlefield you have long-, short-, and mid-range weapons, each of which can be used at different ranges but with greatly diminished returns. Each weapon, then, has a unique feel to it and will appeal to different types of players leading to more diverse player types. In Crash Commando most players tend to play the same because once you've learned how to use one weapon you've basically learned them all.

Point #5: Crash Commando lacks a Roshambo dynamic.

One element common to many multiplayer games is the psychological guessing game offered up by some sort of rock-paper-scissors dynamic. In Battlefield this is based on the type of unit a player chooses and the range at which they fight. A sniper will take out an infantryman any day of the week, but a fast moving rifleman at mid range will make him wish he'd never picked up a scope. Crash Commando lacks this because its fast pace, relatively limited active playfield, and similarity of weapons means any player's weapon choice has a nearly equal chance of defeating any other player's weapon choice at any time. This puts the emphasis much more on your physical reflexes than the ability to analyze and predict what sort of weapons and strategy your opponent will use.

Overall it looks like 3D is the clear winner in this contest. While the way in which it limits a player's view may be a bit frustrating and therefore discourage many new players from getting into the genre there's a reason that side-scrolling fragfests haven't really caught on. Both the level of immersion and the depth of strategy are greater in Battlefield than in Crash Commando. It's unclear whether 2D side-scrollers are inherently incapable of delivering the dynamics of an FPSer at as high a level as an FPSer itself. Any thoughts on how to overcome some of these limitations?