I join the discussion late since I got this masterpiece only today. After the hype about Prey I find myself looking more and more outside the mmorpg genre and the reason is again because I feel rather bored and frustrated about the potential wasted. While there’s always a lot to discuss, many of the topics are recurring (which is good since it means a progression is needed and possible) and I have already my own opinions. I know that now I’d like the possibility to experiment them concretely because you can only go that far by just thinking and analyzing them over and over and over.
Instead outside this genre the creativity is flourishing in all its forms, from interesting design to inspired graphic. I believe it’s useful to put mmorpgs aside for a moment and observe what is happening outside because it helps to think outside the box, outside the boundaries and the “shapes” of gameplay we all know and that after so much time seem everything a game can ultimately offer. It’s like if the more you focus on something and grasp it, the more you get blind to what is around and to those possibilities that are still not strictly codified and overused. You are only able to think to what is already under your eyes, unable to see or grasp something even slightly different.
It can happen to me as a player or to a dev that has to deal with the same stuff for many hours a day without the possibility to “relax” and let the imagination enlighten those corners that became completely dark and invisible with the time. This is an old comment from J.:
The more experienced players are in existing MMOGs, the more they can’t help but think about the whole genre in terms of what they already know.
I really cannot help the fact that even when I play a totally different game I keep analyzing it and trying to reduce it to the essential patterns followed by the design. It’s like a natural tendence to a form of reverse engineering, just applied to the design. While “God of War” belongs to a genre that hasn’t much to share with the average mmorpg I think it still offers interesting ideas. It can be useful to understand what exactly makes this game shine and, even more, understand how the developers were able to isolate those important elements. So that it could be possible not only understand the success of this game, but also understand the process that brought to discover those qualities in the first place.
I believe that games, as every other cultural form, have strongly evolved over time and not just because of the technical possibilities. These represent just the evidence at a superficial glance but the essential is elsewhere. “God of War” isn’t that different from Pac-Man, this is the crucial point. I’m not sure if a player that was proficent at playing it would be able to relate today to a complex game like “God of War”. The complexity of the form of the expression has risen exponentially and it’s definitely true that we develop more and more new competencies as the time passes. The games we play today are infinitely more complex than games we played ten years ago, but at the same time some of the basic structures are still there. The roots are there, just evolved toward more complex and intricate patterns.
In Pac-Man there’s a symbolic representation of a 2D space. The space is strictly codified since the movement is enforced in precise directions and paths. The gameplay is basically the essential concept of a “game”. Recognize and compare patterns to make choices and progressively optimize the outcome. Till a progression. In “God of War” the basic pattern is similar. We drive an avatar within a space with precise boundaries. There are monsters that move toward you and the gameplay is about playing with the space. The relative position of your avatar compared to the position of the monsters. We are still within the same scheme but in a freeform environment that allows the player to be more “creative” in the interaction and approach. This means that each player can interpret the perception of the space personally and tryout specific personal patterns. The experience gets personalized, the player invents his own solutions to a problem instead of just trying to figure out (“trial-and-error”) what was planned ahead by the developer himself. It’s again the problem of OOC design. The player and the game/environment. In this case without an interface or interpolated stages. As opposed to a player that needs to figure out what a dev was thinking instead of just what the situation is presenting.
To understand the essential I think it’s important to read the opinions of the players and see if there’s something recursive or in common (I plan to post tomorrow a compilation of comments I found interesting). From the comments I’ve read (and confirmed by my direct experience) the best qualities of the game are about a combat system felt “fluid and visceral”. Fluid and visceral are two important points of view and I think they should get splitted and considered separately since I believe they have two different origins.
This game doesn’t really “innovate”. There aren’t outstanding new elements or new approaches. Instead it’s a game that refines a process and isolates what was fun in other games to consolidate and focus on them. From my point of view the “smoothness” of the combat isn’t the result of a design lesson to learn but just a matter of practice. It’s about devs mastering their skills. Smooth camera movements, precise controls, polish, timed animations and so on. These are all parts that aren’t about sudden innovative solutions never realized before but about a process of refinement and skills that develop with the time. At the basic level the combat and the controls of the game aren’t different from those in games like “Medievil”. There’s just a slow and progressive process of refinement behind. The fact that the avatar can jump and perform actions while on the air helps to add a new layer to the complex representation of the space. It’s a way for the player to go through a “backdoor” and jump out of a context. It’s a creative solution to a paradox (something similar will happen on Prey through the “spirit walk”, breaking the reality to open up a creative solution). The paradox puts you in a situation that you cannot escape, because maybe you are surrounded. But then the game allows you to jump and break the paradox by putting on it a creative solution. A new perspective. So we are still dealing with representation of spaces like in Pac-Man, but then we have different layers we can “break”, adding a complexity. A pattern has never one solution and never punishes you for a single mistake (in general, the game has also “Dragon’s Lair” parts). Instead it puts you in a context and gives you a good number of tools to allow you to alter and use the space.
The insane amount of different attacks and combos goes along those lines. The game is ultimately fun because it doesn’t enforce a single pattern. In the case you fail you feel already the motivation to go back and try a completely different strategy. There are so many tools to make the game open to the experimentation and keep away the frustration of feeling captured in a corner you cannot escape. I already discussed in the past how combat systems that progressively open up possibilities can be more fun than codified patterns you cannot escape or reinterpret personally. In “God of War” there is space for creative solutions because the game offers many different tools that may even generate a specific play style that is unique to a specific player. This happens only in the best games, when the players discover and master completely different approaches to the same situation, developing their own preferred tactics. Of course I’m stretching now the concept to the extreme but this is the direction where it goes, this is why it’s felt fun. It even bring the discussion to the concept of “skill”, which is becoming increasingly popular in mmorpgs. It’s about offering the possibility to reinterpret creatively your character and its codified skills. It’s the possibility to play with those tools to develop an unique, personal strategy.
This is important from the perspective of a mmorpg because we know these creative patterns in just one form: exploits. We punish directly and cannot afford to design a game that is open to a creative gameplay. We fear this because in a mmorpg nothing can be “out of control”. But it should be also evident how this damages the potential of a game and makes directly the gameplay dull and repetitive. It’s again about a “fear” that is just leading to wrong solutions that ruin directly the gameplay. It gets progressively simplified, codified and diluted. Compared to the “rich” offering of a combat system like the one in “God of War”.
This was about the “smoothness” part of the combat. Then there’s the “visceral” part. This brings the discussion back to the OOC design. “Visceral” is a cultural value and not the result of a formal system. This is again what I criticize in Raph’s ideas. A formal system will never get defined as “visceral” because it misses the cultural myth that is unique. The culture is never formal, it is never about numbers. It is about shared myths. Some interesting comments are:
I had to stop playing at 1:30am. My yelling “you cheap motherfuckers!!” at the Gorgons was keeping people awake.
As an aside, prior to GoW, it’s been forever since I’ve played a game with so many “how the hell am I going to deal with THAT thing….oh wait, I’m insanely badass, bring it on!” type moments.
Every single time I’m force-feeding the Blades of Chaos to some scumfuck minotaur, I’m all like, “TAKE IT! TAKE IT YOU FUCK!”
Mashing the circle button has never been more satisfying.
Remember that part where Kratos has the attitude-off with the giant minotaur guarding Pandora’s Temple? Dude, I was like totally cheering at the TV at that point, shaking my PS2 controller at the big bad wolf (bull, whatever) and telling him that if that was all he’s got, I was going to totally kick his ass. And I did! And it was great!
Please, Kratos makes Dante look like Don Knots. In the first level of Devil May Cry, Dante uses guns to shoot across the room at puppets. In the first level of God of War, Kratos rips undead pirates in half with his bare hands, then impales a humongous hydra on the crow’s nest of their ship, then fucks two hot chicks. At the same time. Advantage: Kratos.
You know it’s good when it makes you feel like all other great action games will be downright lethargic now. I mean, are you kidding, right off the bat (well, the 2nd battle) you’re fighting this monster that would typically be a boss in other games. And you don’t just stab them with your sword or poke them with a staff. Hell no, that’s not the Kratos way. You pick that mofo on up and tear him in two.
See? All these comments are about a rare magic: “immersion”. The game is considered visceral because it is directly immersive. There isn’t a complex interface between the player and the representation of the action, there aren’t complex statistics and rules as filters. It’s all downright to feeling there, within the situation and as a badass character that is utterly satisfying to play. The combat is “visceral” because it isn’t parsed, iconified or re-represented. It’s direct in both the gameplay and the visual representation.
All these elements aren’t formal patterns, they do not matter in the gameplay and they do not belong to the mechanics of the game. They are completely irrelevant from the perspective of the formal system. Still, they are essential for the success of this game. The combat is visceral because it has a tribal nature. It comes from a cultural and natural background that we all share. It allows the player to express that aggressiveness and recall the feeling of the blood and flesh. It is visceral because it comes from cultural patterns we all have in common and that we feel strongly. This help us to make ties between the representation we see on the screen and the imagination in our heads. The result is an “immersive” game because we can relate to it. Because we understand and feel directly those values it evocates, because it comes from a background we know already.
Those are “shared myths” and they are as important as the formal system (the gameplay) itself. This game is successful because it “gets” both parts. The fun gameplay and the strong, visceral myths that we will carry along even when the game is over.
There are even other elements that build the success of the game but that aren’t essential to what I wanted to underline here. For example the game is kept always varied and dynamic, a strategy used in “Metal Gear Solid” and other games. There aren’t repetitive scenes and the players is continuously put in new conditions that can even onsidered as mini-games on their own. This allows to keep the game always fun, always offering something new to discover and master, avoiding to just throw at the player mindlessly droves of monsters over and over and over. Ultimately it’s all about the balance of the parts. This is again a matter of “practice” and not a design lesson that can be isolated and then reapplied. There isn’t any magical recipe to point out the correct balance since it’s mostly a matter of points of view. Some players could like more some parts and dislike others, there isn’t a single solution perfect for everyone and this is where the game, even when flawlessly designed, will always be exposed to criticism.
I believe there are interesting points to consider even for the mmorpg genre. The combat system is definitely not useable since it has a strong physical impact. This isn’t possible with the current technological limits of the mmorpgs. We cannot support fast and furious combat systems where the character can throw monsters in the air, jump around and perform air-attacks. We can dream about this but it’s not where the strength of the genre is.
This is why I believe that the mmorpgs have their own path to follow but at the same time it’s always useful to keep an eye open to other genres that are way more dynamic and innovative at the moment and can still offer interesting points of view on what could be done in the near and far future.