Talking to the Player (Part 1)

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 4^th 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 4^th 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.