A hot topic among many fellow students this year has been on ludo-narrative dissonance and the multitudes of opinions regarding its relevance or lack thereof. Some feel that it is an overly analytical approach to game studies, an excuse to see deeper meaning where there is none. Asking my fellow students if they feel that ludo-narrative dissonance is something to consider in game design. The majority response was no, claiming it was either to broad in how the term can be applied to multiple instances. An argument against the term is that in most shooters you are described by the narrative as a hero yet if you want to, you can kill non-playable characters on your side. How specific an instance of this term and if it should be a term should be put under discussion by looking for defined examples of it.
For instance in Bioshock the player requires a genetic substance called Adam to progress and better themselves in combat, however the only way in the narrative to get Adam is to harvest the creatures making it, Little Sisters. Now this would create an interesting moral dilemma, does the player harvest the beings that were once innocent young girls to progress faster or do they save them and stifle their advancement. That would be the case if you were not rewarded for doing both.
If you save three Little Sisters you will be gifted with a hamper full of Adam, just a little bit less in fact if you were to harvest three Little sisters. This ultimately defeats the point which the narrative tried to make when it introduced us to the concept of the Little Sisters. From the perspective of the story you can either be more powerful yet horrible person or you can be weaker but hold the moral high ground and this should reflect in the gameplay. But it does not. Is this intentional dissonance created to contemplate that all is not as it seems in the world of Rapture? Or is it a feature implemented by either the studio or publisher as a means to not punish players for doing the 'right' thing. In my opinion in a very adult themed game like Bioshock it should allow the player to make their own decsions and not have the game presume to teach them how to make moral decisions based on risk and reward. Especially for a game with multiple morally ambiguous ideas that Bioshock discusses.
Despite the possibility of this being a conscious decision on Irrational Games' part, it is more likely the decision was made to improve the flow of the gameplay for a wider audience rather than to challenge the players moral fiber and innate need for progression in a game.
This is what I would describe as ludo-narrative dissonance, a jarring and noticeable clash between gameplay mechanics and important story points and the majority of examples tend to be mistakes or aspects of a game that have been overlooked rather than intentional commentary.
This is why I would like to alter the term to ludo-design dissonance or assonance. What I mean by this is how all the elements of a game fit the same tone as to have a fully immersive and engaging experience or on the flip side make aspects of different elements clash in order to send a message. A good example of ludo-design assonance would be the Metro series. Metro 2033 is set in post-apocalyptic Russia where the remainder of humanity in the region has survived by taking shelter in the Metro tunnels. The game takes place a few decades after the bombs fell where the survivors have begun to rebuild civilization within the Metro itself. Stations have become cities, halfway points villages. Not only are rival human factions agressive, the nuclear fallout has brought fourth a large range dangerous mutants creatures. Deformed rats the size of wolves, enormous gargoyle like bats and the ever-present threat of telepathic beings called the Dark Ones. The game is based on the book by Dmitry Glukhovsky and commits entirely to creating an immersive, believable bleak outlook on humanity clutching to the end of the world. The dead world above the Metro seeps into the entire aesthetic and the gameplay. Exploring dank, forgotten tunnels of the Metro require the player has to manually charge their flashlight to see or when slowed by filthy cobwebs the player has to pull out their bullet lighter and burn them away to continue. When above ground the player is at their most vulnerable and the game never lets them forget it. Because of the irradiated air the player must wear a gas mask at all times and you often only have a limited amount of filters which last for five minutes each, making the player regularly check their in game watch to make sure they have enough time to complete the level and get back underground. Harsh winds, water and sludge can be splashed onto the players mask, forcing the player to manually clean it off. Cracks in the gas mask grow and grow until it finally breaks, and doing so Artyom will gasp and splutter for breath, his vision becomes blurry until the player can find a new gas mask or dies trying.
The games narrative also intertwines with the gameplay. Ammunition is incredibly scarce and pre-war bullets are even harder to come by, but accumulate enough and the player has a choice here. Use the more available but cheap, inaccurate rounds or when facing larger creatures switch to high grade rounds which do substantially more damage. Because ammunition is currency there is a risk versus reward here especially when playing the game on higher difficulties.
Why Metro works is because the dynamics of the game are all within the same tone. The gorgeous visuals depict a bleak and drab picture while the narrative punctuates the world with tragic characters, wishing to reminisce of the life they once had, accompanied with somber slow guitar music. The gun-play in Metro is not like a typical shooter. When the player has to fight they are cumbersome and slow, left to defend themselves with equally cumbersome weapons yet land a headshot on most human enemie and some of the smaller creatures results in an instant kill. The combat is suspenseful in how it is paced. The best approach is to stealthily creep by and enemy or entrench yourself in the safety of higher ground hiding from cover to cover. Metro treats its gameplay very realistically. Going full auto with the 'bastard gun' will result in it overheating.The inaccuracy of the makeshift firearms and highly aggressive opponents and the rarity of useful ammunition can make the game difficult and at times irritating, but this may be intentional. If the game were to have fast paced action set pieces the atmosphere would be broken.
Metro truly is an excellent example both ludo-design assonance. The tone and design of all its components is the same as the sum of all them together.
Now to look at a game that is tonally all over the place. Tom Clancy's The Division is an open world multiplayer game set in the wake of devastating virus spread throughout New York via banknotes on black Friday. The city is mostly evacuated over the winter but many civilians are left behind however they are now not only at risk of the virus as multiple gangs and hostile factions have took up arms to seize the city in its moment of weakness. To combat this threat a government organisation called the Division activates it many sleeper cells in order to neutralize the threats in the city and possibly help create a cure for the Manhattan virus. The overall tone of the narrative takes itself very seriously despite it being a compilation of many different Hollywood disaster movie cliches and themes. The setting especially invokes images of the flash freeze section of The Day After Tomorrow and the typical hazmat suits and gazebos littered around the city. This rendition of Manhattan is visually stunning, especially at night, the snow coated ground is illuminated by Christmas lights and trees, abandoned after the evacuation. On a technical level the game is a triumph, boasting some of the best high fidelity assets I have ever seen in a game. The re-creation of the city appears one to one, so much detail can be scene in every inch.
Yet despite the gorgeous visuals there is one big glaring problem. A game with hyper realistic graphics and serious narrative would most likely have very meticulous, realistic and tactical gunplay. This is not the case as underneath the glamour and sincerity what you have is a loot driven, arcade like RPG-shooter. The combat in the game is very iterative of what you would expect from a third person shooter, snapping to cover, popping their head over to unload an entire magazine into a rioter for them to simply shrug it off and bludgeon you with a baseball bat. All the enemies in the game are effectively large sentient sponges wielding high powered rifles that lazily rush the players position, being almost self aware of how bullet absorbent they are.
It is not unusual for a game that looks realistic to have unrealistic gameplay to an extent, look at the modern military iterations of Call of Duty, but to have such a realistic aesthetic to both the narrative and the visuals creates a huge disconnect between the player and their investment and immersion in the experience. When making a realistic game or simply a world that needs to be taken seriously, suspending the players disbelief is key. Metro does this incredibly effectively by establishing an interesting world with the history and detail within it to make it believable. When combat starts in Metro the immersion is not broken because gameplay falls in line with the tone of the visuals and narrative.
The Division's gameplay is so dissonant and unrealistic compared to the lifelike graphics that it lessens the experience for the player. In particular when facing higher level enemies that require north of thirty rifle shots to the head, despite the enemy being just a man in a hoodie. This really tests the investment of the player because the games narrative insists it should be taken seriously. All the major characters are presented with the utmost sincerity and deliver their iterative and cliched dialogue with such conviction I can not help but laugh at how absurdly uninspired it is. There was clearly a conflict of vision when developing The Division. Was is Ubisoft trying to merge genres to garner wider appeal or were the art and technical designers themselves divided? It would give the title some form of meaning at least.
So there is a example of ludo-narrative dissonance negatively affecting a game but there are examples of using this to enrich a games narrative. Spec Ops: The Line is one such game. On the surface Spec Ops nothing special. In 2012 it appeared to be just another modern military shooter. You played as a stereotypical US Sargent, Walker, alongside a stereotypical sniper, Lugo, and a stereotypical heavy weapons guy, Adams, who go into Dubai after a disastrous sandstorm has wrecked the city to search for survivors and locate the 33rd platoon who never reported back after their initial dispatch to the city. From that description the only thing interesting about it is the setting, yet in the beginning of the game it appears so drab and utterly beige. Now this sounds completely uninspired iterative of the modern military genre.
However Spec Ops: The Line is not just another bland shooter. It is a deconstruction of the entire genre, and by extension, games as a medium.
All is not as it seems, yet there is not a contrived plot twist for its own sake. Part way in you hear radio chatter of how the 33rd have been committing atrocities to the remaining survivors, and open fire on Walker and his team, mistaking them for CIA operatives. Just this alone puts Spec Ops above so many others of it genre. The United States military is almost universally considered the good guys in video games. The idea of seeing them as an enemy is intriguing and refreshing compared to middle-eastern (borderline xenophobic) depiction of enemies in other modern military shooters.
The Line continues to morally challenge its players when they are forced to intervene on the 33rd preparing to execute a CIA operative. The options are to save the innocent hostages or the agent. Both options end tragically. This begins the downward spiral into insanity. Later 33rd appears to have barricaded themselves in a container, blocking the only way forward, Walker and his squad use white phosphorous to clear the way, knowing what does to people. They were not soldiers in container. They were civilians. Walker opens the container recoils in horror of what he has done.
The game frequently behaves in this manner. It presents a clear objective, lets the player finish it, then reflects one what the player has actually done. The bland uninteresting design of the combat was a conscious decision, to lull players into a habit of shoot first, ask questions later only to subvert their expectations when they pull metaphorical rug out from under their feet to reveal that they have been tricked into becoming the true antagonist.
The commentary is everywhere. The repetitive combat is in direct contrast to the horrific tale of mental illness and war crimes and how most games of the genre choose not to, or blatantly ignore the aftermath war creates. Yet the games evolves over time. The more psychologically unhinged Walker becomes the more red colour is used in the environment and the sky. The combination of these commentaries on our depiction of the military and war in games really criticizes how the medium simply treats it like, well a game.
No comments:
Post a Comment