So, I've been playing Shadow Complex -- since we touched on the controversy some have raised around the game, I feel obligated to disclose I had a code for it. For whatever it's worth, I would have purchased it anyway.Snafu aside, I like it all right. "Metroidvania" style is one of my all-time favorites -- I play Symphony of the Night several times a year, for example, and given how engrossing that core style is, I don't mind much that it's "ripping off" Super Metroid.
Two issues, though -- not especially fond of the aiming. If I can't use the Z-axis, why should I have to try to target enemies that are further "back" than I am? Sometimes, it doesn't seem to work very well. Of course, given that you've got unlimited ammo and enemy soldiers generally go down easy, it's not a major obstacle, but I like feeling precise.
The larger issue for me is one of plot and tone. This particular style of design encourages the player to experiment and explore, so I absolutely love that resources are either unlimited or easily replenished, and that thus far I haven't encountered any time-limited events (hopefully there aren't any).
I also think it's interesting to see the genre wrapped in distinctly Western military sci-fi as opposed to the more fantastic environments to which we're accustomed even with Metroid -- even though it's long been my position that video games have more than enough steel gray helmets-and-guns stories.
But these supporting elements stand in direct contrast with the game design. Granted, I'm only a few hours into the game, but the dichotomy is already jumping out at me: Your girlfriend's being dragged away for advanced torture into a helicopter that is about to take off, and you...
...Decide to go and search for more stuff?
Like, really, the mission objective practically SHOUTS at you, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE, and you're just like, "huh, I wonder if there are any gold bars hidden in this weird underground complex." Uh, okay?
The cut scenes attempt to convey a sense of urgency -- take the most direct route to solve an immediate crisis -- and yet the gameplay requires precisely the opposite mindset. If the player chooses to engage with the plot, the gameplay feels weird, and if they go the other way 'round, as most will, the plot becomes even more goofy and cliche than it already is.
None of the things I'm pointing out are dealbreakers. I'm still enjoying the game so far. And I do think it's possible to wrap this genre with an appropriate story and atmosphere -- I hope Shadow Complex sells well, and proves that there's still a strong demand for this style of gameplay. I'd like to see some more original, modern takes on it come out of its success.
33 comments:
Hmm. I guess this is yet another example of how games are the only art form that require the artist and the onlooker to create the final product, and because of that the artist's intent can fall through the cracks.
I hurried as fast as I could to save my girlfriend when the game asked it of me, and the only time I spent exploring was when *SPOILER* she was hidden in the one room, and after I'd gotten her safely out of the complex. */SPOILER*
So, the game didn't really feel the same way for me. It makes me wonder if some games give us a little too much control, this allowing us to completely break whatever message the developers tried to send. Then again, giving the player control is what makes this medium so unique, so if they took too much control away, we're pretty much just a few steps away from film.
I guess the best thing developers could do is allow us to explore when it seems right, and guide us a little when things are more urgent.
But, like, the entire appeal of this kind of game is hunting for items and secrets, and map completion if you're into that. Certainly it doesn't much thrive as an action title!
So when the plot told you to hurry, you did? What did you do when the popups suggested you try to find hidden upgrades?
i run into this kind of thing in a lot of games. i'm playing infamous right now, and many missions have a sense of urgency, storywise ("better get to X before bad guy something something"), but there's no actual time limit (thankfully, since i hate time limits in games... i'm just not good enough most of the time). since it's an open world game, it too encourages exploration and you can even taking on side missions while a main mission is afoot.
Ah yes, the devious pop-up. I mainly just collected the ones that weren't too out of the way. For example, I passed by maybe 10 during one of my trips to "save the girl," but I only bothered with about 2 or 3 of them, as they were in or near the same rooms I was passing. I had to put my OCD aside and choose love! Ha ha.
Your right in that this type of game requires exploration, and it absolutely rewards it... though I did play on casual. Maybe that's why I was able to avoid picking a lot of the stuff up? There's also an achievement for finishing the game with under 13% of the items, so maybe the developers are trying to have it both ways :)
I haven't finished the game, but I do know what you mean, Leigh. Logically, in terms of narrative, it makes no sense; however, it's no different from an RPG like Fallout 3 or Mass Effect, where there's an expectation, and even an incentive, for exploration. It's one of those weird video gaming cliches that we've now come to overlook and take for granted.
I mean, it didn't even cross my mind that I should save the girl first AND THEN explore. And this is because, over the years, I've learnt that if you go for the story first, you end up getting locked out of the side stuff.
I think the thing is that Shadow Complex isn't the only one guilty of this kind of weird contradiction. It's never particularly bothered me, but is it something that needs changing? If you're trying to tell a proper story, then sure, maybe, but Shadow Complex obviously doesn't seem that bothered on that front.
(On a related note: all RPGs or any games that have side quests should have the game inform you when, by committing to some other action, you end up making those side quests null and void.)
Oh! And I have an absolutely perfect example of the opposite direction people have gone in: Dead Rising.
In Dead Rising, you're always on the clock, whether your doing story missions or side questions. Essentially, this means that you always miss out on certain things because you constantly have to time manage, and if you do miss a story mission then you sacrifice all future plot developments.
Now, what this did do, and very successfully so, is give a sense of impetus to every action, every mistake you made and every diversion you took. The problem, as you probably can guess, is that it can lead to frustration for those who want to see everything from the game, and want to explore, and don't want to feel that they're on the clock when playing a game.
I'm not saying that you're advocating this, but this an interesting case of where a game has done something differently, made the story more coherent with the design, and has bred mixed results.
It's not really that new a thing for a game's plot to be marred by illogical gameplay contrivences. Many sadly just find it hard to blend item hunting and exploration with story urgency.
"You need to get to the evac soldier! We're nearly overrun!"
"Righto Sarge! Just let me prat around for an hour seeing if I can use the ingame physics to push obstacles together to reach a high ledge. There might be a weapon or unlockable I need up there. Maybe even a hat! Then I'll get straight to the evac. Probably."
"What?! No! Hurry the fu-"
*gunfire, screams of the dying*
"Meh, they'll be ok. It's only around me they get cutscene stupidity. Ohh, an extra costume!"
It's almost gaming intuition to just go with the flow and ignore the jarringness of these things.
I would also say that it goes against a cinematic sense of immersion, but games like Shadow Complex aim to immerse in a different way – like on a more cerebral or conceptual level, and not in a visceral or emotive way.
Honey, I know you're in trouble, but I'm pretty sure these missle packs are going to come in handy. And come on, who leaves gold lying around a base anyway?
Look, I know the right thing to do would be to get in this jeep with yoy and leave, but do you really want me to live without an incomplete suit of armor? How would it make you feel if I hid one of your shoes in a vent somewhere and then didn't let you look for it?
It's funny, I have the same feeling of gameplay/environement/storyline non sense about Rock Band.
...
Yep. Playing album material whereas you are supposed to kill the show.. Weird.
(mail coming soon... Did not have time to explain every point of this... Stay tuned. /private )
Great post. I was struggling with the exact same issue until...
(possible spoiler)
...I decided the whole thing smelled fishy and that she wasn't in any real danger. I mean, who goes spelunking with their boyfriend but then runs off by herself, with the only set of climbing gear?!
I'm only 40% of the way through the map so I don't know if this is where the story is headed or if I'm just the paranoid type. But my innate distrust of her character has given my lackadaisical approach to her rescue a little more justification.
Hey, engagement is a choice -- I really like when people develop their own narratives (I often do the same).
LUDONARRATIVE DISSONANCE
To answer a question in your post: there are a few timed events. One is for a door that can help you get a passkey, one is near the end of the game, and one is a sequence breaking door that will let you skip the armor and let you beat the game in just your shirt and backpack.
I've been through the game a few times and those are the timed doors I can think of.
I'm on board with Sean's possible spoiler thingy. Bits of girl's dialogue seem "off" as if I'm being dropped hints in anticipation of a plot twist. Total speculation: I'm not so sure she's entirely not in danger, but it's like she's manipulating you to steal the armor and/or disable the complex.
When the game (and the character) suggested that it would be helpful to find more gear, I went and found more gear. Otherwise I pretty much followed the blue line and grabbed anything I found near it. On the first play through, that is. Second time I did that until she was safe, then went and got absolutely everything.
I don't think there's too much of a disconnect, though; there can be if you go off looking for stuff while the game is telling you she's in danger, but there are plenty of opportunities to do that while as far as the game's concerned she's safe.
And you can always just go home.
True, and why don't his clothes get blown off when he dies?
I've been thinking and talking about how game mechanics should cohesively tie in with the game's themes and story and this is yet another example of how abstraction and reliance on the player can kill the flow of a game. When you wander in Metroid, it makes sense. No one gave you a map, you've got to figure it out yourself and you're not in it to do anything but kill Mother Brain and wipe out some pirates.
In this case, the player should be doing what he can to ensure his girlfriend is safe. You're right, it makes no sense.
One game that I think does a particularly good idea of wedding game mechanics to central themes is Dragon Quest V. The way it handles scripted battles and the way that experience levels separate characters of disparate ages and strength levels actually makes sense. You start as a kid and you're weak compared to your old man, your children are weaker than you when they join your party, etc. As for the battles, there is a sense of despair well-conveyed when you're in a battle you know you can't win, but that you vainly try to fight through anyway.
I guess I'm trying to say that developers should try a little harder to forget the tropes and techniques of the past and try a little harder to wed mechanics and theme if they want something that is a cohesive work of art. Then again, we all need popcorn blockbusters that make no sense, but are tons of fun, right?
Also, she's not his girlfriend. They only met the day before. You'd do what you can to make sure she's safe because that's the decent thing to do, but they don't have a history beyond meeting the previous day.
You're right about the, um, ludo-narrative dissonance (great term, anonymous!), but the underlying problem is that the story just plain sucks on every conceivable level. From the moment your date gets kidnapped and taken into a "secret liberal base" whose inhabitants are planning to overthrow the US government, it's a ridiculous sub-Dan Brown paranoid fantasy. I stopped caring about the story almost immediately, which left me free to enjoy the great exploratory gameplay.
But come on, expecting a good story from anything that Epic turns out? This is the house that Duke Nukem built, remember?
I had a different version of this same issue when I was trying to play Dirge of Cerberus. I'm not very good at any game that requires you shoot something that is shooting at you (unless it is Doom II, for some reason) so I was playing on the easiest setting, mostly just for the story, etc, because I'm a huge Final Fantasy nerd.
I almost never died as I played through the game, never had much trouble doing the things that the game wanted me to do to continue forward, etc. But the game kept throwing me these (for me) TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE side missions, in real time, as I played.
Maybe that was supposed to be fun, but what actually happened was that all of these innocent people (some of them children) died or were carried off while screaming horribly at me to save them. Eventually, I had to stop playing the game because it actually started to disturb me that I couldn't help them because I just wasn't good enough. And sure, this is Vincent Valentine we're talking about here, so maybe a little bit of "I can't save anyone" angst is appropriate, but I felt like all of the cutscenes really point to the game being about you getting to play a gun toting badass-- but then the game itself making you feel like a total jerk because I couldn't save any of these civilians.
This is not a problem isolated to Shadow Complex alone, as others have said, but a very strange long-standing tradition in game narrative. "The world will end if we don't get to the secret evil lair immediately," they tell us, but then we can spend all the time in the world grinding out levels or searching for items or what have you. Now, I know that on the other end of the spectrum, people often hate being tied to a timer, especially in an RPG or an exploration-based game, but I think it doesn't have to be so cut and dry.
Wizardry VII, for instance, is an old RPG that took speed into account. In your search for the Maps needed to help you along in the game, if you dilly-dallied too much, NPCs could actually beat you to them. The game didn't end; you simply had to either move on without them, or track down the NPC in question and get it by hook or by crook (I wrote about this a few months ago in more detail)
So why not offer the player some other options like that? Branching plot points tied to how long players took in doing something; make their speed (or lack thereof) feel like it matters. I haven't finished Shadow Complex quite yet, so I can't comment on the latter parts of the game, but where I am now, all sense of tension is notably absent; that helicopter isn't taking off until I get there no matter what I do in the meantime. Why not provide me some incentives - if I go there faster, but with less items, perhaps I gain a different advantage in the battle. Alternatively, spending time to power up may make me more prepared, but the battle may be tougher for other reasons.
Total agreement about the story/gameplay disconnect. I haven't played the game, but have watched others play it, and have played games that also have a similar mechanic. I think Metroid sets a pretty great example of how exploration can weave successfully with narrative. I purposefully didn't use the word "story" because I don't think the exploration needs to be dramatized to provide incentive. You want to explore out of curiosity. I suppose you could go the other way with it, but should probably drop the all-the-time-in-the-world pacing.
If we want to look for a contemporary, successful example in terms of exploration, I can't help but think of Persona 3 and 4's calendar system. It avoids the beat-the-clock scenario in favor of a time management approach. Exploration is encouraged, but it must be balanced with the other gameplay systems. That said, the Persona games suffer from some similar story-driven pitfalls of needing to save someone from being killed by a certain day, and then having the option to casually hang out with your pals until the day before. Granted there were benefits to completing exploration as fast as possible.
In short, yes!
I think the most fundamental disconnect, ironically, is the fact that the game isn't linear. When your girlfriend is airlifted away to get tortured, you, as a gamer, trust that you will be able to get to her on foot. When you hit a dead end with a locked door that you need to pass, you trust that if you "explore" (the game does give you that blue line on your map) that you will locate whatever tools you need to open it.
Aside from that, I don't think it's much different from any other game. After all, the thing that separates games from narrative movies is empowering the viewer with choice.
Players always have the option of doing whatever they want, which is why people traveling long distances as Link repeatedly somersault. It's why people playing WoW jump erratically as they progress through the Barrens. It's why Solid Snake can run in circles for 24 hours straight without the world ending because he was screwing around.
In Shadow Complex there are a lot of hidden secrets, and as players, disconnected from the actual goals and desires of the protagonist, we want to get them. The game doesn't force us to get them, but knowing that they are there, we can't help ourselves because it's fun...and I'm not sure if I want to hold it against a game because they plastered the landscape with cool secrets for me to discover.
At the same time, we've played lots of games, as we know that we can ignore the girl's cries for help because whenever we actually do stumble upon the dark room she's been taken to things will be fine; she won't have been tortured, she'll be happy to see us, everything will be peachy. A way to fix this would be to toss in a timer the moment she's taken away...but that doesn't really gel with the rest of the game, and it's certainly not what this game's target audience wants.
So I do agree with your points regarding certain parts of the plot (I say this because soon enough the plot gives you reason to explore) clashing with the gameplay, but I kind of just shrug it off as "games as usual". It's an interesting bastard child of Metroid and Metal Gear Solid, one that I think all fans of quality 2D games should pick-up (though I share your irks with the Z-aiming...why?!).
You know, the original Metroids were all technically "timed." Why not have a good ending where you, you know, rush, and a bad ending where she dies if you take too much time? Problem solved, so long as they figured out a way to maintain tension.
Anyone remember Majora's Mask? You can get yourself (and the whole Termina) killed if you don't hurry.
Majora's mechanics relied on time manipulation to avoid the impendent doom, but there were times where you actually felt threatened to finish a certain task or even felt a little sad for the ones you wouldn't be able to save on that particular run.
Speaking of which:
"You've got to find Commissioner Gordon ASAP!"
"Not now. Batman needs treasure."
A strip from Penny Arcade comes to mind regarding the quest for unrelated objects.
To quote bowlby speaks:
"Logically, in terms of narrative, it makes no sense; however, it's no different from an RPG like Fallout 3 or Mass Effect, where there's an expectation, and even an incentive, for exploration. It's one of those weird video gaming cliches that we've now come to overlook and take for granted."
Two of my favorite games ever, and what's hilarious is that the entire time the main quests are actually pushing you to go as fast as you can. "It's a race against time! The whole universe is in danger! GO GO GO!!!" And if you listen, you're locked out of all that other fun content (until Broken Steel comes out and retcons the ending).
Now I'm playing Fable 2, which has a similar structure, but actually encourages you to take time out between main mission quests to do things like take side jobs, upgrade your equipment, and tend to your families. On a possibly related note, the game feels entirely devoid of urgency. Especially when you get to one particular point of the main quest and it's all "TEN YEARS PASS." Whuh?
Anonymous said...
LUDONARRATIVE DISSONANCE
Anonymous is Clint Hocking?
I think the whole disscussion is kinda a bit off ( no offense) due to the fact that you will reach a point in Shadow Complex from where you get every time and space to explore the whoe thing from left to rigth and from up to down, and it still kinda makes sense. ^^
Well but mainly it is a bit unimportant cause actually it is a game, it makes fun, whoo i play it gain. ^^
I mean look at GoW2 compared to GoW.
The first was even BETTER when it comes to character narrative (really the Story of the Secon and especially the voice over between the cutszenes were so OFF that the cutscenes felt also very out of place) but still i would prever the nice and rollercoaster like gameplay of the second every day.
And that althougth i am normaly some who is all about the Story.
Okay hat was an awfull typofilled comment.
Sorry.
"Okay hat was an awfull typofilled comment."
^twice as nice. way to go.
and yes, @adam: batman needs treasure, even though he doesn't collect any, really. there is no sense of urgency in the game at all except for a faked timer scenario in which the captives survive no matter what you do, and the few scarecrow moments. Hey svgl, i understand the metroidvania joy, but whats your take on the main character? for that matter, all the recent "normal doods"(i.e. uncharted, bioshock, infamous, prototype, etc.). fucking yawn.
Post a Comment