Uncharted and “Narrative Design”

I recently had a discussion with a friend and colleague at a party about Uncharted 3 and it’s merits and weaknesses.  My friend’s main high point was the fantastic “Narrative Design”.  I’m not trying to single him out with this post and I don’t’ want to insult anyone, but when I hear terms like “narrative design”, I want to give our industry a good shake.  Not because it’s necessarily wrong to go after a great narrative, not that narrative and design should be divorced, it’s just that it’s so freaking poorly defined!

What is narrative design anyway?  Is it writing?  Story? Connection between story and gameplay?  All of the above?  something else?  For me, the term invokes the concept of telling a story through gameplay, or at least tightly interleaving gameplay and story.  To me a great “Narrative Designer” would be someone who can tell me the story of a game even as I’m playing it, without relying heavily on dialogue or cutscenes.  Someone who can use environment cues to give backstory, who can, through gameplay, create emotional connections to characters and plot.

Not to offend anyone, but I don’t think we have a lot of these people in the business.  And, not to be a total jerk, but I don’t think any of them work at Naughty Dog.

Let me start by saying that I think Uncharted 2 is in a short list of contenders for best game of the current console generation, and maybe one of the best games of all time.  Certainly one of the best action games of all time.  Particularly in context.  It wasn’t a game that innovated, but boy did it execute on so many levels.  Great encounter design, decent shooting, fantastic graphics and great dialogue.  Really impressive tech, too, in terms of graphics, physics, what have you.  Amazing opening, incredible pacing, just a fantastic bolt from the blue as far as I’m concerned.  Uncharted 1 did not prepare me for what Naughty Dog had in store for Uncharted 2.

However.

When Naughty Dog says things like (paraphrasing) “it’s disheartening when reviewers say other games have amazing stories”, I have to take issue. The story might be good, if there was a consistent main character in Uncharted, or if the allies of the main character didn’t have a huge blindspot for the main character’s bizarre psychopathic behavior.

What am I talking about?

The main character, who presents himself as a “happy-go-lucky” everyman who is a treasure hunter, just trying to get that big score, in actuality is a mass murderer.  We’re talking about someone who will sneak up on hired guards who are paid to protect an archeological dig, or possibly some amazing ancient tomb, and silently kill as many people as he can until they realize he’s there and desperately try to defend themselves.  It doesn’t do much good though, because Nathan Drake is a superhuman marksman and soldier who basically puts any real soldier to shame.  During each uncharted game, Drake kills easily over a thousand people, many of whom had no warning, and certainly did not initiate combat. 

And why does Drake murder all these people?  Is he trying to save his country?  Maybe protect the human race?  Even something as simple as revenge? 

No, the main reason Nathan Drake sneaks in and murders hundreds of mercenaries is to try to get rich.  He’s presented as a noble protagonist and several characters are sympathetic to him due to his supposed nobility.  But all the motivations for Drake are to make a lot of money obtaining some relic. The plot does ensure that there’s someone even more murderous and money hungry (though do we ever see these so-called villains murder thousands of people?  I don’t think so), and of course the get rich quick scheme backfires, but it doesn’t change the fact that characters in the story laud drake and hate the antagonist despite the fact that the motivations are largely the same.  And worst of all, they’re not really that consistent with the motivations of the player!  The player wants to have fun murdering thugs!  Which is totally out of character for Drake!

Now, I haven’t played Uncharted 2 in a long time, so I can’t pull examples from that as easily, though the beginning of the game, where you inexplicably start with a tranquilizer gun comes to mind (why bother?  Drake clearly has no compunctions taking down hundreds of people who get in his way), or at the end when in a bizarre desire (one assumes) for Naughty Dog to show the world how ridiculous its plot actually is, they have the antagonist say to Drake “How many men have you killed, just today”.

Uncharted 3, has some pretty amazing moments in this regard, however.  At the beginning of the game, when Drake’s British compatriot hands him a gun and Nathan gives the man a look as if to say he wasn’t comfortable handling a gun.  Really Nathan?  Who are you trying to fool?  I personally watched you gun down hundreds of people during the previous two games, and don’t act like you’re trying to look good in front of your friends.  I’ve seen them shoot a fair few mercenaries themselves.  But the amazing part is towards the end of the game, no spoilers, so don’t’ worry, but there is a part where Sully separates from Nathan so Nathan can open a door, and on the other side of the door there are 20 or so mercenaries, just trying to guard the place.  After murdering all the mercenaries, you open the door, to have Sully ask:  “What took you so long?”  Your response?  Delivered in a lighthearted, devil-may-care tone: “The usual”.  Indeed, murdering tens of people is “the usual” for this madman, but not for any normal person!

Now longtime gamers might, at this point, begin to question my motives behind this blog post, and even question the validity of my concerns.  I mean aren’t most games about killing enemies?  What about Halo or Call of Duty?  What about Grand Theft Auto?  Well it’s pretty simple, in Halo and Call of Duty, you’re a soldier, and a soldier’s job is to kill enemies!  It’s perfectly reasonable that you’d mow down tons of enemy troops.  In Halo, you’re even meant to be a genetically enhanced cyborg, so it’s sort of plausible that you could face down armies on your own.  Call of Duty basically ensures that you’re the greatest soldier who ever lived, but at least it makes sense that a soldier would shoot enemies.  As far as Grand Theft Auto, I could write a whole separate blog post on why the gameplay and story don’t match up, but at LEAST the main character is meant to be a NOTORIOUS CRIMINAL.  In Grand Theft Auto Vice City, several characters are trepidatious about the protagonist’s imminent return due to his ability to destroy a town!  This isn’t exactly solving the problem but at least it sort of addresses it.

“Well, that’s all well and good,” you might say, “ but can you show me an action game where the main character isn’t killing hundreds of enemies?” 

Indeed, the Batman games from Rocksteady do, in fact, have a protagonist who doesn’t kill criminals.  All of the combat is stealth and fistfighting.  One might note this is how most of the action in films that are similar to the Uncharted series takes place also.  Films like the Indiana Jones movies, and Romancing the Stone.

I can laud the uncharted games (particularly 2) as a fantastic action game series, but I can’t take them seriously as advancing the industry in terms of narrative design.  I will admit they have a reasonably good plot and, for video games, really good dialogue, as well as fantastically realized cutscenes.  I won’t give them a pass on the absolute and complete disconnection between the action of the game, and the plot of the game, however.  It doesn’t make the game bad, but it certainly reflects poorly on the games as paragons of “narrative design”.

So is this rant just a hate filled spew?  Can ANY GAME Live up to my seemingly high expectations?  Indeed, my friend’s question was “what game does it better?”  Which, in some ways is a fair question.  I shall attempt to answer with a few games that I do find to be incredible examples of what I think of as great narrative design.

Ico is the only game that I’ve ever witnessed that can truly be said to have a love story in it.  You may not fall in love with Yorda, but if that’s the case, I’d advise you to go to the hospital, because I think there’s a reasonable chance you don’t have a heart.  Through simple mechanics and IK, a bond is forged between the protagonist and Yorda that ends up creating incredibly strong emotional connections, and the ending exploits this to tremendous (and frequently tearful) effect.

But that’s old and somewhat esoteric.  One could even complain that it’s too artsy fartsy, and not that popular.  Besides, there’s not even any good dialogue!

For my second case, I present: Portal 2.

The entire game, your motivations are perfectly in sync with the protagonist.  There is amazingly hilarious dialogue with genius comic timing.  The story is told through mechanics, dialogue, and told very well through the environment. I’m not going to talk about whether Portal 2 is overall a better game than Uncharted 2, but from a narrative design perspective, it beats the ever living crap out of uncharted 2 (in my opinion,  of course).

How about Half Life 2?  The beginning of the game is a master class in video game storytelling.  This storytelling doesn’t work in any other medium, you have to play it, you have to experience it firsthand.  I don’t’ think the rest of the game holds up quite as well to the beginning, but oh what a beginning.

Other games that I tend to think have great narrative design include Bioshock, Shadow of the Colossus, Mass Effect, and the God of War series.

I think that’s enough ranting, and I hope I made it clear that I think the Uncharted games are perfectly good games, but I hate that as an industry we can’t define “narrative design” as distinct from writing a story well enough to discern good dialogue and cutscenes from good design.

Mirror's Edge

I finally finished Mirror's Edge.  It took me a very long while.  It is by turns one of the most exhilirating and frustrating games I've ever played.  At first I thought the level designers just made decisions that I didn't agree with,  I was constantly getting lost having trouble figuring out what to do next, and on some levels I was lost with tons of blues trying to kill me.  So at first I thought that Dice intentionally created one of the most frustrating game experiences I've met.  By the end of the game though, I started to wonder if maybe this wasn't just a time issue.  It almost seems like they didn't have a lot of time to go through the levels and polish up the clamber paths and put all the red hints that most players would need.  That doesn't really excuse the weak combat, or levels with just plain too many enemies, but maybe the game didn't get a chance to get really focus tested and balanced.  That's what it feels like anyway.  I really hope they fix this one up for the sequels, my EA stock could really use a boost.

2007 in Review (Part One)

2007 is probably the best year for video games I can remember. 1998 was good, to be sure, but 2007 was absolutely incredible. I'm going to make a few posts about the games I played with some of my thoughts on them.

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune

When I first downloaded the Uncharted demo, I was somewhat underwhelmed. I found a game, with a decent, if unspectacular, shooting mechanic; and a likewise just above average clamber puzzle mechanic. From this I wasn't sure if I wanted the game that much, so instead of buying it, I just put it on my Amazon wishlist.

I ended up getting a copy for Christmas, so when I'd absolutely finished every other game in my library (except one), I fired it up.

Holy crap. What seemed like sort of a mediocre shooting experience turns into one of the best cover/shootout systems I've encountered. The enemies seem incredibly threatening without being unfair, there is ample reason and motivation to move from cover to cover to avoid flanking enemies and grab more ammo, there is even reason to run up and occasionally melee fight an enemy. Turns out to be just a fantastic system and if the game leans heavily on this mechanic, it's the right call, because it's a lot of fun.

The clambering/ puzzle solving sections were fun as well, but I wouldn't say they were really spectacular in any way. I really liked the overall variety in the gameplay, however. One minute you're in a gunfight, then you're in a ridealong section, then you're piloting a Jet ski through hostile waters. All fun, all exciting, 100% pulp action.

The story and characters are really good as well. Nathan Drake is a likable hero, even if I don't quite buy him as an "everyman". I like how the characters and game in general have a sense of humor akin to pulp action movies, in the vein of Romancing the Stone and even Indiana Jones. The story is interesting and actually has a few twists I didn't see coming. The atmosphere in the game also works in it's favor, with lush jungles, absolutely incredible water, and creepy interiors to explore.

The graphics are overall great, maybe just shy of fantastic. The jungle environments are refreshingly colorful, and there are some really nice lighting effects that get really shown off in interiors. The water is, again, fantastic, with oceans that made me want to take a swim, to white water rivers that seemed ready for a raft. Just incredible water, I really liked it.

The game's not flawless however, I feel it tends a bit on the difficult side overall, and there was a puzzle where I just banged my head against the wall until I looked it up on gamefaqs. The final boss encounter breaks the rules established earlier in the game, which is something that I can't stand. For all the great graphics and wonderful technology, occasionally I feel like the art lets the game down. The animations in particular are occasionally bafflingly odd looking. Visually though, the nits are somewhat small. Balance wise, I feel like it's a bit more of an issue (I played the game on normal). I never got to the point of throwing my controller, but there were definitely some frustrating times.

Overall, top-notch game, too bad it wasn't the system seller it deserved to be.

Mass Effect

Ah yes, finally, the long-awaited follow up to Jade Empire. Mass Effect. Here's a game, that I feel has some huge, glaring flaws, things I could bitch about for hours with my friends. One of the most frustrating moments I've met in video games. And yet....

And yet it remains one of the best games of 2007, and probably one of the best games I've ever played. The graphics are absolutely incredible. The faces look amazing and the animation sets the bar. I loved the feel of the game, artistically, I constantly felt like I was in a golden age science fiction story.

The characters, story, conversations, and player character story arc, are all in some ways unprecedented in video games. The story isn't quite up there with Planescape:Torment, but I will say I think it tops KOTOR. I really enjoyed the way the conversation system worked, and how the character traits no longer really affect the combat mechanics. I really enjoyed the writing and dialog and found some funny moments in the game.

The shooting mechanics aren't so hot. Particularly at the beginning. I feel like the designers decided to have a sense of character progression by making the player better at shooting as the stats level, but this has the unfortunate side effect of making the shooting feel really lame and crappy until your levels are high enough. The balance is also occasionally just awful. I had several incredibly frustrating fights until I leveled up enough, whereupon the entire game is ridiculously easy. I don't mind an overly easy game, but I hate an insanely frustrating one. The complete lack of tutorials doesn't help either. Also... Offhand grenades on back? Really? The driving parts are sort of mediocre also.

Overall, the story pays for all, and towards the end, even the shooting gets fun. From what I've said it may sound like I didn't enjoy myself, but I actually had a hell of a time with this game. Easily one of my favorite games of all time.

That's it for now, I'll post more as the mood strikes.

Battle of the Music Games

So, as any gamer worth his or her salt knows, this holiday, there is a battle upcoming of sorts. Between Guitar Hero 3, with Neversoft continuing the franchise started by Harmonix Music Systems, and Harmonix moving on to Rock Band, the spiritual successor to guitar hero, featuring drums and vocals.

Neversoft has previously announced several seemingly minor changes to the Guitar Hero formula, such as boss battles, battle mode, and a story with cutscenes. At first blush, these seem like minor changes, and possibly even welcome ones. And if that were all Neversoft had done to the Guitar Hero franchise, there probably wouldn't be a post here right now.

Enter Guitar Hero 3 demo.

Holy.
Fucking.
Shit.
How the fuck do you fuck up Guitar Hero? Neversoft knows. Terrible sequencing.

I played a few songs on hard... and it seemed... OK. Then I cringed at the tutorial, and brought it into work, and people at work played horrible, shitty battle mode and hated it. Then I played some songs on expert against my co-workers (face off, of course). Everyone agreed it was kind of weak, people didn't like the sequencing much, but I couldn't believe that would have such a huge impact.

I then took the game home and played it for a while. I was starting to think I was getting over the music game genre. I was almost ready to give up on Rock Band. I thought I was just through with the whole idea. I played portal for a while, then did some other stuff.

Then I sat down at my X box 360 and put in Guitar Hero 2.
Booted up Bark at the Moon on expert.
Yes. This was still fantastic.

Sweet Child O Mine? Fucking incredible experience.

Search and Destroy? Still fun as hell.

I put guitar hero 3 back in. Rock You Like a Hurricane? Decent, had some fun with it for sure.

Evenflow?

Holy shit it is a fucking horrible mess. I can't believe how bad it is. Nearly unplayable.

Basically what I'm saying is..... Fuck you Neversoft. Fuck you for ruining one of the best video game franchises to come along in the past decade.

Meanwhile, I'm going to rockband.com looking for info, listening to the tracklist, generally getting excited again, because I'm sure Harmonix won't blow it the way neversoft has.

This Console Generation

I've been reading another blog wherein the author is attempting to characterize each of the major console manufacturers and perhaps give some insight into their strategies, with perhaps a small prediction as to the winner. I figured I'd take a stab at roughly the same thing.

* Microsoft

I believe that Microsoft is currently the generation's leader, even if they temporarily lose the hardware market share crown, they're in the catbird seat as far as revenue thanks to the incredible attach rate of the X box 360. They also have by far the strongest lineup of any next gen console, and it will be even stronger by the end of this year. The company itself is a software company modeled on attempting to provide the widest accepted solution for any given problem and to throw resources at a product just enough to beat all competitors in the area. Then resources are thrown at a product only to convince users to upgrade to the next version of the product. Examples of this include Windows and Microsoft Office.

As far as video games, I believe they're simply looking to open up another revenue stream after witnessing Sony's resounding financial success in this market, and obviously they look at the X Box line as a way to break into people's living rooms and sell them the software and media they want to consume (witness X Box live marketplace and the Zune store). That said, they have managed to cleverly buy into some great first party studios in Ensemble and Bungie as well as above average to good studios in Rare and Lionhead. They have clearly made a strong first party commitment and as a games publisher have gotten to the point where they tend to publish only top rated games (Gotham, Forza, Gears of War, Mass Effect[yeah I know I'm tooting my company's horn, but it's got Buzz damnit]). The hardware itself has proven to be a bit flaky, this is not a surprise as Microsoft is clearly a software company first, and software is where they Excel.

As a developer, developing on Microsoft's platforms have consistently been the best experience of all console development, and an incredibly straightforward and easy way to make games. They provide fantastic tools (Pix, Visual Studio, xbperfview), and great support, and they've managed to consistently design easy-to-develop-for hardware, the only gotcha being the multicore nature of the 360.

They've learned a lot from their X box 1 mistakes and the 360 is a much stronger platform for it. Custom designed into a sleek shape that's easily acceptible to all, with a very strong first party lineup, and the best third party support of any "next gen" console, they have pulled off their strategy of coming out of the gate first and establishing a strong lead.

Strong, but certainly not insurmountable.

* Sony

If Microsoft is the leader, Sony is bringing up the rear. As a company, Sony is one of the world's leading consumer electronics manufacturers and they make everything from camcorders to cell phones. With Playstation and Playstation 2, Sony found that video games were a very lucrative market, and became Sony's most profitable division by far. At this point one could speculate that Sony needs video games to survive the way they have in the past, Blu Ray could also be a potentially torrential revenue stream if it goes their way.

From a games point of view, Sony has, in previous generation managed to be the third party leader as well as having the largest group of first party developers of all the major console manufacturers. They've built strong first and second party brands and own quite a bit of the most valuable "second tier" video game IP ( Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, God of War). Nothing quite as iconic as Mario or Sonic, but valuable nonetheless. Their first party group has managed to put out quality game after quality game, and I'd argue that they have the best first party of all the major console manufacturers. At least they did during playstation 2, Sucker Punch, Naughty Dog, Sony Santa Monica and Fumito Ueda's team have managed to put out some of the finest games the previous console generation had to offer. (Sly Cooper, Jak and Daxter, Ico, Shadow). Their "second party" has been strong too, with Insomniac. And in previous console generations, their third party connections made their position nearly unassailable, with Square, Konami, and Rockstar all creating exclusive or timed exclusive content for the Playstation 2 console.

This generation has seen a somewhat shocking shift in strategy away from attempting to secure exclusives (even timed ones). Having had rumors of having Assassin's Creed as an exclusive (among other games), only to find out that they were cross platform, was very surprising, given that Sony is also showing somewhat weak first party support with nothing so far coming from Naughty Dog, Sony Santa Monica, Sucker Punch, and only a new IP from Insomniac, the well recieved if not killer app quality "Resistance: Fall of Man". Given this new direction, Sony seems to be facing a very uphill battle. They've got quite a few cards in the deck waiting for the rest of the year, but aside from Ratchet and Clank, none of their major 07 titles feature clearly superior intellectual properties, certainly not proven ones. The beginning of next year should be strong with Metal Gear Solid, and the possibility of Killzone, but it seems like they've managed to miss another Christmas with their strongest lineup. I don't seem them outright failing but I do see them retaining their 3rd place role.

* Nintendo

Nintendo is a game company, they've been a game company for over 100 years and they will always be a game company. This may make people think that they are somehow nobler or better than their competition, Microsoft, and Sony. And I certainly don't begrudge anyone that opinion. That said, they are clearly as bloodthirsty and backstabby as either of their competitiors. They've been convicted of pricefixing, made disparaging comments about their competitors, and just been all around "meanies". That's not to say their competitors haven't done the same or worse, it's just saying that Nintendo for all it's cutesy "niceness" is not always Mr Nice Guy. However, they are first and foremost a game company, so they need this business more than either of their competitors.

This generation they've gone a completely different route, offering up what can only be described as basically last-gen hardware, with a completely innovative and different control scheme. The Wii with it's magic wand of a Wii remote is defining nintendo's offering this generation. The idea behind it being rather than dominating the competition with competitive or superior hardware, ultimately an arms race, Nintendo is instead opting to find completely new groups of consumers, currently not playing games. They're letting Microsoft and Sony go after the GTA and Halo players, and they're basically going after those people's parents, children, and younger siblings. While Nintendo will never admit that they're giving up on those people, indeed, Metroid Prime: Corruption is an example of how they're not. They haven't yet released a truly compelling game for that set of gamers. The console has sold like hotcakes, frequently outselling the X box 360 and ps3, and it seems it would sell even more, if there weren't any hardware shortages, but it's not clear how long this console's legs will be. In my opinion the control scheme is fun in small doses, for a select group of games, but I'm not sure if you'll end up finding a truly deep experience that can differentiate itself from previous games. Having got a Wii at launch, trying a bunch of early titles, and not wanting anything for it in a few months has doused my interest considerably, as has my disinterest in The Legend of Zelda, probably the most hardcore gamer aimed Nintendo title on the console.

The control scheme is interesting and innovative and it does reset the field for newcomers to video gaming, but I'm not sure if the pricepoint isn't too high for non-gamers to want to buy the thing, and while there are very strong looking titles on the horizon (Metroid, Smash Bros, Super Mario Galaxy), none of them seem to be as much a killer app as the one that actually comes with the console, Wii Sports. Mario looks rather complex, and as a first person shooter, Metriod is clearly a gamer's game. It's definitely a strong showing, but with no real competitor for Microsoft and Sony's flagship offerings ( to gamers), it's fairly clear that Nintendo is abandoning the core gamer demographics. The question is whether the non-gamer demographic can pick up the slack and buy games in high enough quantities to make it worthwhile for 3rd parties to develop for the Wii, if not, Nintendo could have the greatest marketshare and the least revenue. Also notable is with the most recent price drop, the X box 360's core system comes within spitting distance of the Wii in North America, and is actually at the same price in the UK.

*Predictions

Honestly, I'm going to cop out and say I don't know. Microsoft certainly seems to be doing everything right, but that doesn't account for the inexplicable band of Sony loyalists who won't let go of the Playstation brand until it's just completely senseless to hold on to it. Sony's high pricepoint can't last, especially without super compelling first party content, not to mention better third party support, that said, 100 million gamers is a strong statement. Nintendo certainly stands a good chance of becoming the generation's highest market share console, but I do still question how much fun I'm going to be having with my Wii in 2 years, where as I think the PS3 and 360 will still manage to be as fun as they are now. I do think Nintendo will continue to completely own the handheld market.

One thing's for sure, so far, with this much competition, the players are definitely winning.