If a game is going to allow your character (in this article, "character" is used loosely to describe any avatar that the player controls, be it a person, a vehicle, an abstract shape, or whatever) to change over time, it almost always follows a process of construction. At the beginning your character is at the nadir of their capability which increases with the passage of time and the completion of objectives. RPGs are the most obvious example with their highly structured systems of levels, stats, and gear that demonstrate numerically the continually increasing ability of your character to overcome the obstacles he is presented with. Indeed, levelling up and growing in capacity is one of the things that draws so many players to the genre. This is evident almost every other popular genre of game that features a changing character. Action game characters accrue more powerful weapons and skills, RTS and 4X cities develop improved technologies and units, and so on.
This makes perfect sense of course. Games are primarily escapist fantasy (sorry
Tale of Tales), and achievement is something that's fun and motivating. However, I'm quite intrigued by the narrative, mechanical, and stylistic opportunities that could be afforded by taking the opposite approach: one of character erosion. Instead of beginning with very little ability to overcome obstacles and growing, what about games where the character begins at the peak of their power, and only decreases over time? A game where the only place your character can go is down would have a pretty profound effect.
|
A bad time for your gun to break. |
One of the things that is continually lauded about the Survival Horror genre is its mildly erosive quality. All the most acclaimed games in the genre like System Shock, Silent Hill, and the earlier Resident Evils focus in large part on managing highly limited quantities of important items like ammunition and health. Every time you fire your gun or take a hit, you use up a substantial portion of a finite resource. This is taken even further in System Shock 2, where all of your weapons are subject to degradation over time and, without maintenance (which also requires the use of consumable tools), are doomed to eventual malfunction and destruction. However, these games are still mostly constructive, giving the player access to better equipment and more resources over time, eventually allowing them to build enough of a stockpile that they feel more confident by the endgame. Imagine how much more intense a firefight would become in SS2 if you knew that not only did you have a limited supply of bullets for this encounter, but that you were never, ever going to find any more.
|
Better make those count, because you're not ever getting more. |
This brings me to Valve's
Alien Swarm, a sadly unknown cooperative action/survival game that's free to anyone with Steam. At the start of each level, all players select equipment, and are then forced to ration it for the remainder of the level. There are no ways to replenish ammo which is always in very limited supply, and reloading with bullets left in a magazine wastes them. Health kits are limited to the medic class, and once again there are only a small number available with no way to restock. The game is quite hectic and you are never as capable again as you are at the start of the mission. Its not uncommon to have multiple players out of bullets and resorting to clubbing at waves of monsters by the end of a level, and every heal has to be prioritized and triaged due to the set number of medkits. Because of these factors, Alien Swarm feels almost unbearably tense at moments, more so than it's cousins Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor can hope to achieve due to their constructive model of increasing capability.
Leaving base mechanics behind, what about character erosion in the narrative sense? I've long been a fan of Jack Monahan's
Gausswerks Design Reboot blog, and I feel that he and I share many of the same sensibilities about game design and particularly the implementation of meaningful narrative connected to, rather than on top of, the mechanics. Of particular interest are
his reinterpretation of Clive Barker's Jericho and his truly sublime concept for a Deus Ex prequel:
Laputan Machine (He actually conceived of the DX prequel as a duology consisting of both Laputan Machine and a sister game titled
Flatlander Woman. Flatlander Woman is also more than worth reading, but only Laputan Machine really digs into narrative erosion.) Both the Jericho reboot (henceforth JR) and Laputan Machine (LM) focus on unavoidable, irreversible decay of the characters' states as they endure continued abuse.
|
^ All your friends. |
In the original Jericho, one of the game mechanics revolved around a priest character being able to resurrect dead squad members, but there were no consequences for this. In JR, each time a squad member is ripped back from the afterlife, they leave a small piece of themselves behind. They continue to function mechanically exactly as they always did, but each successive resurrection makes them lose a little bit of vitality and personality, until eventually you are left with soulless revenants, still capable of fighting but devoid of all humanity. In game terms nothing has changed but the manipulation of the narrative layer adds a penalty to having your characters die which is altogether more effective than any purely mechanical one. This one shift radically alters the tenor of the entire game. JR is no longer a bombastic action/adventure story, it's now a game about using people up until there's nothing left of them, and continuing to use them some more.
LM rather cleverly couches its erosive elements in the appearance of construction. As Gunther Hermann acquires mechanical boosts to capability via cybernetic augmentation, his mental state and self image deteriorate proportionately. Similarly, using your "upgrades" reinforces his dissociation from humanity, dragging him closer and closer to the monster that he has become by the time Deus Ex begins. This is, I think, an especially intriguing concept as it forces players to question what is the real measure of fitness in the game. Is it the mechanical benefit provided by Gunther's augs, the ability to overcome physical obstacles that is the normal gauge for a game character? Or is it his sanity, something less tangible and less conducive to "fun" gameplay in the traditional sense? Either way, LM sets up a catch 22, as increasing one decreases the other, forcing meaningful erosion of some sort to become a defining element of the game experience.
So what do you guys think? Is a game predicated on erosion something you'd want to play? Or do you play games to achieve things, rather than lose them?
Addendum: It just occurred to me that Shadow of the Colossus, possibly the best game ever, is so great in large part because of its narrative erosion. The player figures out early on that what he's doing can't possibly be good, yet you keep helping the character do it all along. Each time he kills a colossus the deed quite literally stains him, enshrouding him in black tendrils of what may as well be pure evil and leaving him looking more disheveled and weary each time. SotC is, after a fashion, a chronicle of the character's downfall, an experience of mounting guilt and foreboding that builds up to a terrible failure rather than a triumphant victory. This is the thing everyone remembers about it, and the reason everyone loves it so much. It is also a great example of erosion.