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?

Weekly News Recap 9/27/09

The past couple of weeks have seen a bevy of news related to digital distribution, a topic I've already spent some time ranting about. Of most importance is the revelation that Nedgame, Holland's home grown version of GameStop recently announced it is boycotting sales of the PSPGo. Obviously they just realized that selling users a piece of hardware sans a removable media drive is essentially shooting themselves in the foot. How can they continue to rip off customers by treating used games as their own personal "buy low, sell high" stock market if there is no removable media to trade* - the thing even comes with built in storage!

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I don't remember Circuit City boycotting the sale of mp3 players because they wouldn't be able to sell customers CDs for it (then again, they're out of business now - whoops!). This is the new gaming order here folks, and as far as I'm concerned the sooner price-gouging B&M-used-game-mega-stores go the way of the Jaguar, the better. But Nedgame also claims that Sony is creating a monopoly on software sales which raises an interesting point. Is a distribution service a monopoly?

Back in the 80's Nintendo didn't quite create a monopoly on game software, they just controlled what games were allowed on their system. It worked pretty well from a QA standpoint, though some cried foul. Sure we may miss out on the occasional deal of the day or liquidation sale noted at places like CAG, but if you look at a service like Steam you see that great deals happen all the time, not for any particular reason, but simply to give games more exposure. Without competition among distributors, though, we occasionally see some fishy pricing practices, notably that downloadable titles are more expensive than their boxed retail brethren. Sony promises to combat this discrepancy, but that doesn't necessarily mean lowering the prices on downloadable titles. After all, if there are no boxed retail versions to compare them to, parity is achieved, no?

That small economic speed bump aside there's only one more real barrier to full acceptance of digital distribution and that's advertising. How with the hype machine ramp up for Final Fantasy XIVVLXQ1ß if there isn't ample acreage of GameStop storefront upon which to affix posters? Fortunately a small change to the way our distribution interface works can fix that problem. This is evident by the way firmware 3.0's addition of "ads" in the XMB helped a little known title achieve record sales. It's easy for a small indie title to get lost in the shuffle of weekly updating, but a little reminder in the XMB can make all the difference in the world.

*I actually have no idea if Nedgame is as nefarious in their practices as GameStop. I'm just assuming. Haven't heard any rumblings of a GameStop boycott. Yet.

Weekly News Recap 9/13/09

Bit of a short news week this time around.

I've recently been turned on to the virtues of the FPS genre thanks to a friend getting me into Battlefield 1943. It's all the fun of WoW's battlegrounds without all the tedious grinding. Still, now that I'm on board I can't help but be disappointed that there are no immediate plans for additional Battlefield 1943 DLC. DICE says they are too busy working on other Battlefield projects. For once I understand the frustration players feel when a developer stretches themselves too thin. But it begs an interesting question - is it better to shoot for breadth or depth in a franchise? Both Valve and DICE seem to have settled on the former track, expanding their game universes through multiple releases rather than working to better existing games. The ability to support a game through dlc is relatively new and gamers may have taken to it so fast that you'd think it was their God-given right to have their favorite game supported until judgment day. Beneath it all though I wonder if it isn't a good idea for a specific product to continue to receive upgrades over time. Call it the MMO model. Imagine if a classic like GoldenEye were still supported with dlc. Perhaps Rare would still be a household name.

Finally Braid is only $5 this weekend. Did you hear me? Five bucks for Braid. Go get it.

Weekly News Recap 9/06/09

[Bit late on the recap this week owing to the holiday weekend and a road trip. On the plus side I finally have my HDTV back so I can, y'know, read the text of games I play]

Ever since he inserted himself polygonally into the tutorial for Farenheit/Indigo Prophecy I've had a bit of a mancrush on David Cage. There's something reassuring, if smug, about a director explaining, in-game, that you're about to experience something so different from the norm that he needs to break you of years of gaming habits. Now he's come right out and said that players should play through Heavy Rain only once. With re-playability a key selling point for most games that's quite a bold statement (badum ching!), but one I respect. I played through Indigo Prophecy last summer exactly that way - I didn't repeat sections that went badly, nor did I play through it again to get a "better" ending. IP, unfortunately, has its share of game over screens so I still repeated a bit, but it left a clear mark on my gaming habits. Now, rather than try to see everything, do every side quest, and get the best gear (I'm looking at you Crisis Core!) I approach games with a one-time-only mindset and I think it's high time more games made that take advantage of that kind of player. Hopefully Heavy Rain is successful because of it's consequence heavy game play and future developers realize the untapped story telling potential therein.

Not to re-ignite any hard feelings about the lack of BC on all but the earliest PS3s, but it's rather interesting what sort of creativity is engendered by constraint in the gaming world. In an effort to milk more money from the franchise Sony will re-release enhanced versions of God of War 1&2 for the PS3. Shameless attempt to make money though it be it strikes me as far more appropriate to actually take the time to update a golden oldie than to simply port it (I'm looking at you Wii Virtual Console). The work required to re-vamp a game for modern consoles is considerably less than building a game from scratch and greatly increases a game's longevity. Look at the great work Capcom did with Marvel vs. Capcom 2. Personally, as I get older I'm less inclined to keep old consoles around nor do I want to spend money to play an exact copy of something I already own. Giving me a little something extra is a great way to re-kindle nostalgia and let me show people an older game without feeling like the geezer who drones on about how much better Atari 2600 games were.

Weekly News Recap 8/30/09

[I'm trying something new (though not entirely original) here at PEEG. My time is in short supply of late which puts a cramp on my style as far as blogging and playing games about which too blog. But I still manage to keep up-to-date on what's happening in the game industry and gaming culture so, in an attempt to keep my fingers typing I'm going to subject you, Inconstant Reader, to a weekend update of sorts. Basically these are my quick thoughts on several interesting game related news stories from the previous week.]

The FCC is considering a standardized rating system that would apply to games, movies, television shows, and mobile apps. Many commenters see this as another step towards censorship which I find that a weak concern. What scares me most is the logistics of such a thing. It takes long enough to get a product rated by an independent organization focused on one specific medium - imagine a governmental body charged with standardizing ratings across multiple types media!

That issue aside I'm rather intrigued by the idea. A standardized system could garner more equity across ratings. For example, some things that are tame enough to be included in a PG-13 movie will elicit and MA rating in a game. Standardized ratings would expose this gross inequality, or at least open up debate as to why one and the same action is more "mature" if it's included in an interactive medium (even if the action itself is part of a cutscene or otherwise out of the player's direct control). I personally doubt this umbrella system will ever come to pass, but I don't see it being a gross blow to the games industry if it does.

According to the Chatty Cathys of the interwebs Best Buy is willing to bribe people out of returning their recently purchased PS3 Fats for PS3 Slims.

Obviously no one likes feeling they just got shafted by purchasing a $400 piece of hardware only to learn the following day that a newer version of it could be had for 3/4 the price. But isn't that exactly what a company does if they try (and fail) to keep these things a secret? Why not let people know about a price drop or new system in advance? Because sales will probably wane in the interim as people hold out for the newer, cheaper system. So by withholding that information the company is basically decieiving consumers. Put another way, the company is hoping consumers will get shafted. That's just bad PR if you ask me. By officially announcing something like this, say, a month in advance and also - though this is a pipe dream - encouraging stores to inform consumers at the point of purchase, you give people a choice. Maybe I just can't wait a month to get the system I want, but I should be able to make an informed choice. Besides, marketing people should know the American consumer enough to realize that we're impulse buyers at heart!

Finally, on the subject of American consumerism... can you believe that people would actually consider purchasing a Scribblenauts strategy guide!? Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Scribblenauts is not a game about winning, it's a game about creativity. The only possible reason a person would desire a strategy guide for such a jewel of a game is if they approaching gaming as just another conquest. Everything I've read about the game suggests that it won't be all that difficult - it's not the destination but the journey that's important. Using a strategy guide is like making the journey on rails... in an enclosed vehicle... with a single window... facing the ground....

Change of Address

It's come to my attention that some readers may misinterpret the domain name of my blog. While it's possible to connect the dots from my PSN ID (ZapatoDelDiablo) and note that my domain name is simply the English version of that pithy phrase - shoe of the devil, or, devil shoe - some have taken to thinking that I prefer to be known as the devil's hoe. Apologies for that shortsightedness and I assure you this is not the case (though why it's worse to be one of Satan's garden implements than footwear I'm not sure - there's an "E" there people!).

Therefore I'll be moving this site to optimusprymus.blogspot.com. Please update your bookmarks and RSS feeds accordingly. Both of you.

Video Games Live

Inconstant Readers are no doubt aware of my recent gaming slump. Aside from occasional forays into SFIV and a slow but steady second slog through Puzzle Quest (a corrupted file ended my first play through) I haven't had much hands-on experience of gaming in the recent past. That did not, however, keep me from being as giddy as Henry Jones Sr. upon discovering that Video Games Live was coming to Pittsburgh.

Wait, I mean Video Games LIVE!

Or perhaps it would be more appropriate to call it Video Games LIVE!!!!!!111oneoneone

Yes, it's geared towards that sort of audience. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

I've been in love with Nobuo Uematsu's music for over 17 years, ever since I dubbed - to 4 cassettes! - a friend's copy of the Final Fantasy VI OST which, no doubt due to Americans not having the slightest clue what an OST was at the time (Original Sound Track for those of you still out-of-the-know), was strangely titled "Kefka's Domain". Having played through the 60+ hours it took to complete the game and all attendant side quests and developed an overdue appreciation for Final Fantasy (I had played I and IV but didn't think them anything special) popping those tapes into my Walkman and pedaling to school every morning was nothing short of sublime. The way each character had a unique theme woven seamlessly into the bulk of the soundtrack, the fantastic reprisals of each major theme during the closing credits, and, of course the absolute best final battle music in gaming history (yes, even better than One-Winged Angel - you fanboys realize that wasn't an entirely original composition, right?) all came together to make me appreciate just how powerful music in games could be.

Flash forward a decade or two. I've imported every OST, lyrical interpretation, and piano etude from Final Fantasy 1 through 10. I've longed to hear The Black Mages in concert. I've become familiar with other composers through my love of games - Akira Yamaoka, Yasunori Mitsuda, and Harry Gregson-Williams come to mind. Game music has found itself a staple of both my yoga and massage therapy playlists. When I heard about Video Games Live I thought this was finally it, game music has achieved mainstream appeal and I would be able to enjoy some of my favorite orchestrations in their full symphonic glory.

Someday perhaps I will. For the nonce, however, I'll have to keep dreaming.

Don't get me wrong, I love what VGL is trying to do. Anything that helps get the masses to recognize gaming as an artistic cultural artifact is a good thing. But the current iteration may not necessarily be a gateway to widespread acceptance.

Simply put the focus of the concert was more about fan service than about music. Extreme fan service. I'll admit that perhaps the video game concert of my dreams is on one end of a scale - something very much akin to a traditional night out at the symphony only all the pieces are from games - but VGL is firmly at the other extreme. The cosplay extreme if you catch my general drift. There must be some kind of middle ground.

I've got no problem with the costume contest that opened the show (and the pretty bad-ass Lich King getup that won was no joke), nor the guitar hero competition and general geeky swag-fest atmosphere that permeated the theater. But when it comes to the actual concert, well, I want to pay attention to the music.

Sure the youngsters that inevitably beg their parents to go (along with the more twitchy of the older gamers in attendee) probably couldn't handle just sitting and watching an orchestra perform, so the three screens of video clips are a good idea. Heck my SO really appreciated getting to see the graphical transformation of legendary franchises over the years (although it's jarringly obvious that VGL doesn't have the right to use images from Square-Enix games - a glaring omission when music from several Final Fantasys, both Chronos , and Kingdom Hearts is included). Having a little something pleasing for the eye as well as the ear is only appropriate for a concert rooted in a multimedia art form like games.

Still the emphasis on greatest hits medleys rather than full orchestral songs takes its toll on the artistic integrity of the music. The only piece played in its entirety and not wedged into a medley was One-Winged Angel. This meant that as a fan of the music I wasn't able to close my eyes and get lost in the nuances of a pieces with which I was familiar. Instead I had to settle for the occasional soupçon of a loved phrase during long mash ups that mostly string together riffs of the most well-known and recognizable themes.

The real let-down was the entirety of the second act during which Tommy Tallarico used an entire symphony orchestra as a platform to live out his rock-star fantasy. Electric guitar in tow (even for Scars of Time which screams for acoustic) he dominated every song with his "look-at-me-not-the-orchestra" antics and volume cranked up to 11. The crowd loved it, but as I told Renee afterward it was more like a celebration of Beatlemania than a celebration of the Beatles, more like an emphasis on Michael Jackson fandom than Michael Jackson's music.

For all my gripes it was still a very enjoyable experience. There were several moments of gooseflesh and many more of pure joy (though years of overexposure to rabid fanboys have long since deadened my heart from being affected by the first three notes of Aerith's Theme). I'm very glad that there's something out there that highlights one of the lesser talked about artistic aspects of games. Music-in-games talk today is almost exclusively about interactive music, but it's important to remember that there are well-established craft elements that stand up on their own (music, cinematography, voice-acting, etc.) and need to be recognized. But until such times as the market will support a traveling show of game music in a more traditional orchestral style I'll just keep cranking up my symphonic suites in the comfort of my own home.

What do you want out of your local video games/high culture crossover?