I like Chess, I would even go as far as to say I think it is a mechanically perfect game. The strength of Chess is that there are no redundant actions, there are no actions without consequences. Achieving a checkmate is not only dependant on the final move but on every preceding move, right back to the opening. Any change in that sequence of moves by either player will result in a radically different outcome.
Every move in Chess is meaningful because every move irreversibly changes the state of the game world and which subsequent moves are possible; all actions have consequences.
Redundant actions are those that are not meaningful, those for which there are no consequences, such actions are literally a waste of time, as nothing is gained from performing them.
The concept, that every action should be meaningful and have consequences, is one that has seemingly been abandoned, or at the very least greatly diminished, in recent years. Often for the purposes of increasing accessibility or pacing, and usually in games that feature some degree of authored narrative.
Consider Far Cry 2, the mechanic of respawning hostiles at checkpoints is implemented to prevent the world from ever becoming safe and thus damaging its representation of a country in the grip of civil war, yet the mechanic causes some actions to become redundant, meaningless. The core mechanic of the first person shooter genre is that of shooting hostile characters. This usually requires a degree of skill and comes at the cost of some form of ammunition. Even ignoring the cultural connotations of the act killing a hostile character is rich with mechanical meaning. They will no longer be around to threaten the player in the future, which leads to a change in the play style of the player over time, as areas of the game world shift from hostility to safety. Additionally the expenditure of ammunition is meaningful, as the quantity of ammunition used in killing one hostile will cause changes in the manner in which subsequent hostiles can be dealt with.
Upon encountering a hostile checkpoints in Far Cry 2 both elements of meaning inherent in that core shooting mechanic become redundant.
Respawning enemies prevent a change in future behaviour as areas do not become less hostile over time. The act of killing does not change the overall state of the game world or the future play style of the player, therefore in this sense the act of killing itself is rendered largely meaningless, there are no long term consequences. It is in fact more beneficial to avoid enemies as it is to kill them, especially as time is very rarely a factor. The decision to engage these hostile in direct combat is a redundant one. Ammunition can be recovered from the bodies of dead hostiles, so the actual expenditure of ammunition is only meaningful when more is expended that is recovered a generally rare occurrence, made even more so because some checkpoints contain stockpiles of ammunition.
In a strictly mechanical sense the act of attacking checkpoints in Far Cry 2 is meaningless beyond the immediate short term. It’s possible that this was an intentional inclusion designed to be representative of a country in the grip of civil war where death is largely meaningless. I’m willing to give Ubisoft Montreal the benefit of the doubt given the various subtexts at work in Far Cry 2, however this doesn’t excuse the dozens of other games that also include redundant and meaningless game mechanics.
The infinitely respawning hostiles in Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, when killing a hundred hostiles has no consequence the act of killing itself becomes meaningless; war can be won simply by continuous forward motion. Dialogue trees in Mass Effect or Fallout 3, when two different options lead to the same outcome the choice between them is meaningless. Vita Chambers in BioShock, when you are eternally reborn any actions taken to mitigate health lose are meaningless.
These mechanics were implemented because they served to increase tension, constrain options or improve pacing, in short they were included to help maintain a specific aesthetic experience; often a narrative focused one. Yet it’s worth noting that almost all the examples I’ve cited have been criticised for in some way being unrealistic. The expectation is that actions have consequences, that choices are meaningful, when this fails to occur the artificiality is made painfully obvious.
Narrative plots are built around the immutability of fate, events occur in a specific manner for dramatic purpose. If an event is included in the plot it serves a purpose, even red herrings exist serve the purpose of being a red herring; nothing is wasted, nothing is redundant.
Games are built around providing choices and feeding back the consequences of those choices. Choices are included if they have some consequence that influence the developing act of play. If choices are included that don’t have consequences they are redundant and a waste of time on the player of both player and designer.
In order to be meaningful narratives and games depend on the portrayal of both actions and consequences.
All too often when games seek to include some form of narrative the inflexible nature of heavily plotted stories is given prominence over the flexible nature of gameplay choices. As in the examples cited this can lead to redundant choices being included simply because choices must exist in a game but the focus on the plot means those choices cannot have consequences that might move the narrative away from what has been prescribed by the original author.
That actions have consequences and thus carry meaning is something we all learn in childhood. So when presented with a choice its naturally expect there to be a consequence, otherwise why be given the choice at all?
The future of narrative games is not based around more directly authored experiences but around narratives that make use of the fundamental nature of games to present choices that have consequences, and to ensure that those consequences contain both a mechanical and a narrative component.
Despite some first steps made in this direction, Masq being a particularly interesting if limited example, there is still some way to go. Until then maybe it’s time those interested in narrative in games start to look for guidance from Chess as much as Chaucer.
10 replies on “Meaningful Actions.”
I think that to some degree, you have to have non meaningful choices. In the example of chess, the first few moves are always the less important ones. You can’t make a mistake n your first move, because the game hasn’t played out yet, because all the pieces are at their starting positions.
Sure, to a professional player the first move may be important, since it dictates which strategies he/she will be able to use later, but this particular move remains to be the least meaningful one a player can make.
And that’s precisely how I think games should behave (there are exceptions, of course). Any game has to start with non meaningful choices, because the player doesn’t know anything about the game’s mechanics or environment or characters yet.
That’s why I don’t like RPGs where you have to decide every meaningful detail about your character right at the beginning of the game. This approach results in a loop of creation and dissatisfaction until the player decides that the character he created is good enough.
You have to have an escalation of meaning.
Then again, The Sims 1 works in the exact opposite way, so what do I know?
It is and isn’t the case. You bring up Far Cry 2 as an example where actions have no meaning in the end, because the enemies respawn. But it does have a certain amount of effect. In playing the game, you learn that the checkpoints are never safe and after a while begin going out of your way to avoid them. That causes a change in play style. Keep off the roads.
But if you look at it thematically, the respawing enemies makes sense. This is an ongoing conflict of which you are causing further trouble and extending it. If you kill everyone in the country, sure the war will stop, but such a end point has never happened. Of course this reading, while it may be correct is difficult to digest, because we don’t see it as a choice on the designer’s part. He can’t put a limited number of enemies in the game, because then players can game the system and it loses a lot of what it is saying later on. Most importantly we find that we cannot take this reading full heartedly because we have yet to see the other end of the specturm. We have no example of which to compare it against. All shooters take this perogative, so we as gamers don’t see it as a choice, but the standard.
And your overlooking one further irreversible element in your critique of infinitely respawning check points: playing time. Even if I die and respawn from an earlier point in the game, I still see this as playing time spent, even if this is a loop backwards in ‘game time’.
@Diego: I’m not opposing a progressive increase in the importance of each decision, as you pointed out this is the case in Chess. I am wary though of decisions that serve no purpose, that cause nothing to happen. Or choices between an action that has a consequence and one that is merely a “waste of time”.
Your example of role playing games is one I’m familiar with, however I think we are both attempting to oppose upon them something that is against their nature.
Such RPGs are designed so that you select a character class and skill set then do you best to play that role, in both the theatrical and ludic sense. It’s not about selecting a character class that suits your play style so much as assuming a role and play style to suit the character class you have chosen.
@TheGameCritique: As I said I’m willing to give Far Cry 2 a pass on this one because of its thematic context; which makes it a rather poor choice as an example I guess, so I failed there.
The respawning checkpoints can led to a change in play style, though this is not always the case, and when it is the choice is taken at one point and rarely, if ever, reconsidered. Once you have decided to avoid checkpoints it’s unlikely you will ever consider not avoiding one. Upon approaching one you are presented with a false choice between either continuing with your current tactic or taking a meaningless and redundant action.
There are ways to make the game world feel consistently hostile without such obvious respawning. One of the very reasons the respawning exists is because the balance of power is biased heavily in favour of the player, when the thought of them being able to kill all hostiles in the country is a real possibility (As it would be in Far Cry 2 without respawning hostiles) something about the structure of the game is clearly out of balance.
In contrast a game like STALKER is able to present a world that is consistently, and often brutally, hostile to the player without such obvious respawning. In fact I’m never certain if hostiles do respawn in that game or if they simply wander in from some other location. Physically tougher enemies, combine with limited ammunition and environmental hazards to make the wastes of Chernobyl a singularly unforgiving place.
A greater number of more intelligent hostiles, limited ammunition along with hazardous means of obtaining more, actual war occurring between opposing factions. These and various others means could be used to make the world of Far Cry 2 more hostile and avoid providing false choices. The meaning of each choice would be increased if there were always various factors affecting it. Do I risk attacking this checkpoint with limited ammunition in order get at that stockpile? Will the ammunition I obtain exceed that which I expend? Do I attack now before the convoy arrives, or hope the convoy is hostile to this checkpoint and they clear the area for me?
As for all shooters taking a similar approach, I did think this might be the case until I remembered that large sections of Halo (Everything pre Flood) did not resort to infinitely respawning enemies, neither does No One Lives Forever, or in fact the original Doom – enemies often spawned out of nowhere, but the it was possible to kill them all, the percentage counter at the end of each level made that clear. Continuously respawning enemies is actually a fairly recent addition to the genre.
@Andrew: Play time is something I can admit I did not give much consideration too. I think in so many cases player time is treated as nearly infinite, the assumption being that players will continue playing until they are simply unwilling and that often the factors contributing to that are beyond the control of the designer. It’s certainly something I haven’t given enough consideration to, so thank you for bringing it up.
I’m sure you won’t disagree vehemently, but I think its safe to say not all choices need to be meaningful mechanically speaking. Even in chess, there are moments where will player will force the other play into a move because of a check. Or better yet, situations where a checkmate is imminent, no matter where the opponent moves. This is a rare occurrence, but I can imagine a story in which your choices should not make a difference specifically because of existing context. The Far Cry 2 example is indicative of that.
I also think its important to differentiate mechanically meaningless choices and narrative meaningless choices. In Mass Effect and Fallout 3, and to some extent Bioshock, I bring my own perceptions into my decision making. Even if being an asshole and being kind may have the same outcome in one of these games, they resonate very differently with me. My views on the characters, NPCs, and their motivations may change dramatically because of a dialogue choice they/I made. Now if I go through one of these games in its entirety without ever knowing my choices don’t affect the outcomes, is this any different than if it had? Unless I know for sure, the illusion of choice might be enough. Even meaningless situations can be meaningful in that case.
@Jorge: I don’t think all actions need to be equally meaningful but neither should they be devoid of meaning. Actions should have consequences and those consequences should influence future actions. In Chess the endgame is often defined by a very limited range of choices but their importance, in terms of influencing future moves, is much greater that during the opening. Those endgame choices are lent additional weight because they are the direct result of every proceeding choice.
Even a very limited choice is meaningful if it is limited as a consequence of previous choices.
I confess I have been guilty of something I have decried in others by placing mechanical meaning above narrative meaning. Maybe “percieved consequences” would have been a better term? The problem with the checkpoints in Far Cry 2 is also that they actually appeared meaningless, it felt like a waste of effort when hostiles return to an area only minutes after you had made it safe.
I think I forgot to point out an important difference between Far Cry 2 and the likes of Doom. One is a linear expeieice and the other is open world. If you look at it from an open world perspective Grand Theft Auto III and up had repwaning hostiles as do all combat based MMos. I can’t speak for many other games because I haven’t gotten to them yet.
A linear experience has its pacing directed by the designer and emptying a room of enemies is okay, because you are unlikely to come back here and it makes reasonable sense that enimes would not have respawned because to get to the earlier location they would have to pass by you.
Within the world of Far Cry 2 it seems it would make a good deal less sense not to have them respawn. Once a faction noticed a checkpoint was unmanned, would they need to have some type of response to the attack. I could take this train of thought to its logical conclusion, but in terms of game design it would be a waste of time and it would come under the heading of meaningful choices.
@TheGameCritique: In an MMO and often in open world games, such as Crackdown and Infamous there is an explicit reward for killing hostiles therefore even when they respawn killing them is still meaningful as doing so actively improves the player.
Upon starting most GTA titles there are few if any hostile characters, it’s only once the player has started to take action that the state of the world changes, bur still in GTA IV for example there are very few hostile characters in the world outside of the missions. In those GTA games where there are number of hostile characters roaming the environment there is usually some means of making particular locations safe by killing all hostiles in a specific area, the turf control mechanic in GTA: San Andreas being the most obvious example. Furthermore killing in GTA has direct consequences in that it leads to an increase in your Wanted level.
To clarify my concern is not that areas are repopulated with hostiles rather it is with the manner in which this repopulation is implemented. There are no consequences to clearing checkpoints in the medium to long term only in the extremely short term. If clearing a checkpoint made it safe for a longer period the value of the decision to do so would be increased.
You guys should really strike out to enact some sort of implementation to apply these things if you haven’t already. Considering how much work should be made on a games’ writing specifically, most of the guys around your blogger circle have demonstrated multiple times that they have valid theories that need some kind of ground for testing. I do agree with this in the sense that a game should consistently commit to ‘meaning’ with their actions.
Or have you guys already started this somewhere I don’t know about?
~sLs~
Just picking up on the Mass Effect point; not all dialogue options need to lead to completely different responses. What Mass Effect does – much like Deus Ex – is let you personalise the narrative with dialogue choices, rather than take complete control of it.
It’s a compromise that the game needed to make in order to tell a story that could be feasibly written and developed for a modern platform. We’d all love a AAA game like Masq where every choice leads to a different consequence, but the reality is, with development costs as they are, it just won’t happen.
So again, all that is left to do is compromise.