Recently,
something happened that hasn't happened in some time. I was playing a
game and the story presented me with a difficult choice. I thought
about it briefly, then stepped back from the keyboard and thought
about it some more. It made me question my beliefs. When I came back
and made the choice, I felt like I'd also learned something about
myself. Presenting this kind of choice to the player is one way that
gaming can move beyond simply being viewed as entertainment and
become respected as an art form.
I
have seen games make attempts at creating these teachable moments in
two main strategies. In the first, the game at some point breaks the
4th
wall and talks directly to the player. In the second, the game
creates a moment where the player is faced with a choice that prompts
their own introspection. Both strategies have a set of criteria that
has to be effective for the message to resonate, and I will explore
some of the mechanics necessary for creating effective teachable
moments. Be warned, this post contains spoilers.
In
the first strategy, in which the game will break the 4th
wall and talk directly to the player, I can think of no better recent
example of doing this well than Spec
Ops: The Line.
Now, much has already been written about this game, both its message
and its plot. What doesn't get mentioned much is that the set-up for
that final sequence in which the hero is called out for his actions.
For that call-out to be effective, the player needs to feel agency
over their actions up to that point.
This
feeling of agency is reinforced through the very mechanics of how the
player's actions are presented. For example, there is a time in the
game when the player's squad is surrounded by a hostile crowd. These
people aren't soldiers, but they greatly outnumber the player and
they're angry. As they slowly close in, the player has only his 2
squadmates and his gun. Many players report at that point that they
start firing into the crowd, killing the civilians. As soon as they
start firing, the crowd flees. Mechanically, no prompt was given and
the player wasn't forced to kill them. In fact, if the player stays
calm and fires into the air, the crowd will still flee. The player
chose to fire into the crowd – chose to take that action in a way
that makes them feel like they own it. This makes the call-out at the
end all the more effective – because the situation is constructed
in a way to make the player feel like they had agency for the very
actions that are being called out.
An
example of this being done poorly is the recent Far Cry 4. If you're
not interested in spoilers then you should stop reading now.
Still
with me? Good.
The
player takes the role of a person returning to their native land
(which is embroiled in a civil war) to spread their mother's ashes.
The player then gets embroiled in the civil war. At the beginning of
the game, the player meets and escapes from Pagan Min, the country's
dictator. As the storyline progresses, the player is forced to choose
between rebel factions and whether or not to kill main characters.
Much later in the game, the player confronts Pagan Min again. The Min
will call out the player for his actions, even going so far to point
out that the player doesn't even have a motivation for what hes
doing.
Yet,
this attempt at calling out the player is hampered by the game
itself. For instance, during their first meeting, Pagan Min tells the
player that he has cleared his calendar so him and the player can
“tear stuff up”. There is an optional ending where the player
doesn't escape from Pagan Min and instead he takes you directly to
the place you wanted to place your mother's ashes by helicopter.
After you have done so, then he allows you to depart the country by
helicopter. This allows you to complete the game in under 30 minutes
without ever once picking up a gun. As the screen turns to black, however,
Min makes one final statement: “Do you feel better now? Get that
out of your system? Good. And maybe now we can finally shoot some
goddam guns.” He isn't speaking this line in character - he has no reason to. He is speaking to the player, asking them if they're done with their adventure in nonviolence and can we please get back to the gun play.
That
style of self-aware humor is sprinkled throughout the game and
interferes with the game's attempts to question the actions of the
player. The player is being continually reminded that they're playing
a game, which encourages the player not to take the events too
seriously and instead lay the blame for their action's on the game's
narrative and their protagonist instead of taking ownership of their
actions.
This
isn't to say that Far Cry was a terrible game or the Spec Ops was the
best game ever. However, Spec Ops' combination of taking itself more
seriously and giving the player as much agency over their decisions
as possible made their message calling out the player's actions much
more effective. If one wishes to call out a player directly, these
are good lessons to learn.