Contemplating Rules
A tool useful when contemplating rules.
The following is sort of a post-article writing meditation on what I think I'm saying in a forthcoming piece on Fable 2. Keep an eye on the SCAN Media Journal for a long review/critique of Fable 2 that opens up the idea of different rule sets in an example game.
In the field of game studies, we find ourselves talking about 'rules' a lot. The rules of a game are the most obvious, and often the most valued. Think of Marrku Eskelinen and early Jesper Juul--they both describe game rules in very clear terms as being a recognisable structure that we can point at, discuss, critique etc. We learn the rules of the game in order to play, if we break them we are cheaters, etc. They can be negotiated on the fly in certain types of (children's) games, that sort of thing.
When looking to narratology, we can discern a different set of rules, the rules of 'narrative.' I would argue that these are rules of a different order, more meta-rules for building a good narrative, not content-rules of a particular narrative. Like the meta-rule of what a game is (should be fair, have quantifiable outcome), the structuralist rules of what a narrative is (beginning, middle, end, having a narrator) are upheld by the narrative, not described within it. So, the rules of an individual game are not identical to rules of games in general. Similarly, the rules of narrative (structure) are not the same as rules that apply within a particular narrative. And quite obviously, the rules that define general narrative and general game are not the same thing either--this is essentially the basis of the narratology vs ludology debate.
However, videogames are not 'games' nor are they 'narratives' they are, above all, videogames. A new form of media/expression/art/software that hasn't been properly defined or criticised yet. I believe we are getting close, however, as the frame of the general debate has shifted in the last couple years. A lot of it has to come down to language, and the precision with which we apply certain words. So a word like 'game' needs to not be confused with 'videogame' in certain contexts. Because if we are talking about the rules of a particular game, we may or may not be talking about its particular instantiation within a videogame. We seem to have a fairly decent grip on the fact that the 'narrative' doesn't account for the entire videogame, but perhaps because of the funny word play involved, it seems that earlier theory tried to substitute the game (rules) for the whole videogame.
Drama ex Machina: The Desperation Meter
This post is a speculative solution to a problem I noticed in Assassin's Creed, both I and II, but could equally be used in other vaguely similar games. Firstly, let me outline the problem as I see it, and then describe my mechanical solution.
I loved both Assassin's Creed games, the first was a revelation, and the second made the first look like a tech demonstration. However, there was a basic problem for me: it was too easy. Both Ezio and Altair were far too strong, essentially able to ignore the sneaking and barrel headlong into any number of guards with a reasonable expectation of survival. In AC2 it was even worse because arguably the most efficient method of dealing with an enemy would be to go in unarmed and use the disarm/kill combo to insta-gib the baddies. In either case, armed with the longsword, both assassins could simply back up to a wall and deal with the enemies one by one.
This broke the fiction for me, as my concept of an assassin is a killer who doesn't ever fight, let alone face off with heavily armed and armoured troops. Assassins come in the night, and their victims die without ever seeing them. Perhaps like in the Hitman series, the assassin isn't even there when the victim is killed; instead a series of traps are laid and the killing might seem accidental. The cost for this is that assassins must travel light, to go unnoticed they must blend in and disappear. They cannot carry heavy weapons, wear armour etc. Their economy of power, if you like, is squarely situated in the surprise attack, not in battle prowess. If Altair/Ezio were a unit in an RTS, they would be clearly over-powered. They should be like a rogue or thief in RPGs: deadly from behind but unable to take much of a direct attack.
The Metanarrative of Videogames Part 2
Alternatives to the Orderly World
Constructive criticism requires the presentation of suggestions to ameliorate some if not all of the shortcomings identified by an assessment as scathing as the one presented above. While it is beyond the scope of a theoretical thesis to actually implement and test these suggestions, the following are essentially design ideas that, theoretically at least, alleviate some of the limitations observed above. The first area to explore are alternative concepts for what the object we currently call ‘videogame’ could be. When relying on existing definitions of videogame, many of these suggestions will very likely seem like very bad design choices. What must first be addressed then, is the nature of a videogame experience, the goals of the medium, which can then allow for slightly or wildly different formal structures. These new concepts are fashioned in hopes of creating new gameworlds that provide experiences with a wider range than is possible with the very determined, game-like and predictable systems presently available. Perhaps some of these simulations will be more true-to-life in some ways, certainly in certain contexts, than is possible through the determinist model. Whether true-to-life or not, though, this wider palette will allow artists in interactive media to express a wider range of ideas than rigidly game-like concepts allow.
Escape the Tyranny of Game-Fun
Industry-focused game design texts advise budding game designers that not everyone likes the same thing you do, not all players will find the same games fun. They advise to pick a market, a genre, or some other identifiable goal and work towards that. This is obviously sensible, the kinds of players who like the Sims are often not the same as those who like Fallout 3 or FIFA 2010. If they do crossover, it is usually to satisfy very different desires at a given time. However, as much above assessment describes, the very high-level kind of fun that these same game design texts assume is a ‘game-fun’ involving mastery of rules. That game-fun constructs an end-point of power, then builds a ramp for the player to ascend towards it, until eventually, there is no challenge the player cannot overcome. The player-character has become the most powerful being within the game system. There is nothing the player has failed to do, he has ‘beaten’ the game. This does not correspond well with life experiences, nor does it allow for other archetypal narrative types, from comedy to tragedy. The question is, can a system be designed that abandons this strict, rule-focused and progress-based framework for experience, and what would we call it?