To preface this, these are only my beliefs, and if you disagree, I welcome your viewpoint. Please, (I know I don't need to say this, but...) don't hesitate to give your own personal view! I don't speak for everyone, nor do I pretend to, but I do feel that this discussion is an important one to our community (the gaming community to be particular, but all media in general). What follows here is a half rant, half opinion focused on the problems that gaming has with drama. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it, even if you don't agree 100%.
===Alright then, Allons-y!===
There is, I believe, a feeling amongst the game industry that their games must be edgy. That they must show something to "shock" the gamer, and in doing so create a sense that they are pushing limits. While this can be a good thing, it can also be a terrible thing, and something that makes a good game worth less than it would be had they not tried to make a "statement" or put in a shock.
The big example of a game company trying to "shock" the gamer is in the Modern Warfare series. What started off as a truly shocking and horrifying moment in Modern Warfare 1, where you play as a character who is slowly dying from radiation in the wake of a nuclear blast and was legitimately one of the most emotional gaming experiences I've ever had. This "button" was pushed to give the gamer a perspective that they might never experience otherwise and was one of the things that puts Modern Warfare 1 as one of the best single player experiences I've played to date.
Unfortunately, that moment has since been overshadowed by the two "shocks" of MW2 and MW3. MW2's moment was also legitimately shocking, as you play as a character who helps gun down hundreds of civilians in an airport. It is also completely unnecessary. It is violent and brutal to a point that was not at all needed, and actually took away from the experience, in my opinion. The difference is that in the first game, the level is showing something to the gamer that they would likely never experience on their own, and gives them something to think about. While the level from MW2 does the former, it fails to do the latter. It is simply gratuitous, and ultimately added nothing to the game. It was meant only as a shock, not as a truly dramatic moment, which is why it fails to live up to the expectations set by the first experience.
Unfortunately MW3 fails again, and by this point we were all waiting for it. The scene in question here is the death of a young girl, killed in a suicide bombing. Now, the scene is ostensibly supposed to show how evil the game's antagonist is, killing little girls on the street, but it also fails to live up. First off, the scene is obviously put in for its shocking nature. There is absolutely no other reason why it would be necessary to show that over, say...an in game news report giving the death toll from the attacks. We already know the antagonist is a bad guy. On top of that, there's no time for us to become attached to the little girl, nor are there any of the main characters present at the time of death, so we don't even get their perspective. The scene is supposed to take place in London, but the family is obviously American, and since the MW3 game was marketed to an American audience, it's likely that the game developers felt that Americans wouldn't care as much about a little British girl being killed in a suicide bombing. I think that just proves how little the developers think of Americans, that they needed to juxtapose an American in England, just to make their audience care.
But here's the real problem. It's obviously shock footage. The girl is killed in a fiery explosion, and while there is no blood or gore, it's obvious what has just happened. This might be ok if it elicited the correct feelings of anger or horror, but the designers or writers screwed up so badly that I wasn't horrified, I was annoyed. I saw it coming. I called it. Little girl. Bunch of terrorists. Big explosion. This isn't drama, this is a formula.
SPOILER ALERT (If you do not want to hear about the opening 20 or so minutes of Mass Effect 3, do not read ahead. You have been warned!)
So, imagine my surprise when I saw another scene today that had the death of a child in it in a game I was looking forward to. The game was Mass Effect 3, and the scene takes place on Earth. This scene is an example of how to do a "shock moment" correctly. The scene takes place as Commander Sheppard has just boarded his, or in this case, her (because frankly, I like the idea of a female being the savior of the universe, but that falls into a whole different discussion that someday, perhaps, I'll write) ship. Sheppard is watching as her friend has just stayed behind to help with the evacuation and the Normandy takes off to leave orbit. As she's watching she notices a young boy standing in front of the evacuation vehicles, looking up at her. The boy says nothing. All that's exchanged is a glance. The camera pans out and a large tank like "walker" is moving toward the evacuation zone, it's weapon primed and ready to fire. Sheppard is unable to move, unable to stop what is about to happen, and can only watch as the boy boards the vehicle. The vehicle takes off, and for a moment, I legitimately thought that the ship was not going to be destroyed. Then, the game takes that hope and dashes it as the ships are shot out of the sky. Sheppard merely turns her head, obviously distressed by the image, and closes the hatch of the Normandy.
No footage of the little boy being blown apart is necessary. No moment is taken to introduce the child, or characterize him particularly. The emphasis is not on his death alone, but how his death affects Sheppard. The moment is necessary, not only to show the horror of the battle being waged, but because it tells us something about Commander Sheppard that may not have been understood otherwise. She is distressed by this young boy's senseless death. He's just one of hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions who are being killed in this attack, but because of his death, Sheppard has been affected personally.
So why is this kid's death dramatic when the other's was simply formulaic? Well, I suppose that the most obvious reason is that in MW3 we expected a shocking moment. In Mass Effect 3, the moment is unexpected. That said, even if MW3's moment had not been expected, I'd still say that it was simply a graphic moment intended to shock people. It didn't have value to the story line, and no other characters were affected. That little girl could've been anyone, she could've been an old man walking back home from the hospital, she could've been a yuppie on his way to a meeting, she could've been a purse-thief running away from his crime. No one was affected by her death, and the audience was not given something to think about. There was no lesson here, just a guttural knee-jerk intended to shock people. Looking at Mass Effect 3, on the other hand, we have a moment where no characterization is given for the child, but a world of characterization is given for Sheppard. She is forced to watch helplessly as the young boy dies, not splattered gruesomely or blown apart in front of her, but simply as his evacuation vehicle is hit and explodes. There is a lesson to be learned from this death, and it's in Sheppard's reaction. She could have screamed, cried, thrown something, or hit something. All of those reactions could be expected or justified. Instead she watches and then turns away and closes the hatch. That tells us something about her character, and gives us a moment to think about what just occurred. Why did Sheppard do what she did, rather than something else? What was her motivation in simply walking away? On top of that, if I were the one standing there, rather than Sheppard, would I have reacted differently?
Mass Effect's moment forces the player to think, to evaluate themselves and to take the time to bring something away from the game. MW3 has no such learning value. The player may be shocked or horrified, but they won't learn something from it, which is what really does matter. MW1's moment did teach the player. It forced them to reflect on a situation and come away with conclusions that might otherwise not have been reached. MW2's moment less so, but an argument could be made that they did. Yes they will be shocked and horrified, but the fact that they play through the moment may be enough to force them to reflect on what they had just been forced to do. MW3's moment, though, has none of that. There is no lesson, there is no characterization gain, it is simple shock value.
In summary, there can be a distinction made between my four examples. The first two are gameplay moments, and it can be said that that, in and of itself, can be enough to give the player a reason to think. That said, the first example brings so much more to the table than the simply gore and horror of the second. The latter two examples, though, are cutscenes, and therefore do not have "gameplay" to fall back on. Because of this, it is obvious to me why one means something while the other does not. Games can be an important medium, and can give the gamer so much in terms of food for thought. MW3 fails to do so, where ME3 succeeds in a very similar circumstance. Edginess and shock are great tools as for forwarding the genre and bringing something new to the table, but they must be coupled with a meaningful experience. Otherwise, they're simply worthless.
===Alright then, Allons-y!===
There is, I believe, a feeling amongst the game industry that their games must be edgy. That they must show something to "shock" the gamer, and in doing so create a sense that they are pushing limits. While this can be a good thing, it can also be a terrible thing, and something that makes a good game worth less than it would be had they not tried to make a "statement" or put in a shock.
The big example of a game company trying to "shock" the gamer is in the Modern Warfare series. What started off as a truly shocking and horrifying moment in Modern Warfare 1, where you play as a character who is slowly dying from radiation in the wake of a nuclear blast and was legitimately one of the most emotional gaming experiences I've ever had. This "button" was pushed to give the gamer a perspective that they might never experience otherwise and was one of the things that puts Modern Warfare 1 as one of the best single player experiences I've played to date.
Unfortunately, that moment has since been overshadowed by the two "shocks" of MW2 and MW3. MW2's moment was also legitimately shocking, as you play as a character who helps gun down hundreds of civilians in an airport. It is also completely unnecessary. It is violent and brutal to a point that was not at all needed, and actually took away from the experience, in my opinion. The difference is that in the first game, the level is showing something to the gamer that they would likely never experience on their own, and gives them something to think about. While the level from MW2 does the former, it fails to do the latter. It is simply gratuitous, and ultimately added nothing to the game. It was meant only as a shock, not as a truly dramatic moment, which is why it fails to live up to the expectations set by the first experience.
Unfortunately MW3 fails again, and by this point we were all waiting for it. The scene in question here is the death of a young girl, killed in a suicide bombing. Now, the scene is ostensibly supposed to show how evil the game's antagonist is, killing little girls on the street, but it also fails to live up. First off, the scene is obviously put in for its shocking nature. There is absolutely no other reason why it would be necessary to show that over, say...an in game news report giving the death toll from the attacks. We already know the antagonist is a bad guy. On top of that, there's no time for us to become attached to the little girl, nor are there any of the main characters present at the time of death, so we don't even get their perspective. The scene is supposed to take place in London, but the family is obviously American, and since the MW3 game was marketed to an American audience, it's likely that the game developers felt that Americans wouldn't care as much about a little British girl being killed in a suicide bombing. I think that just proves how little the developers think of Americans, that they needed to juxtapose an American in England, just to make their audience care.
But here's the real problem. It's obviously shock footage. The girl is killed in a fiery explosion, and while there is no blood or gore, it's obvious what has just happened. This might be ok if it elicited the correct feelings of anger or horror, but the designers or writers screwed up so badly that I wasn't horrified, I was annoyed. I saw it coming. I called it. Little girl. Bunch of terrorists. Big explosion. This isn't drama, this is a formula.
SPOILER ALERT (If you do not want to hear about the opening 20 or so minutes of Mass Effect 3, do not read ahead. You have been warned!)
So, imagine my surprise when I saw another scene today that had the death of a child in it in a game I was looking forward to. The game was Mass Effect 3, and the scene takes place on Earth. This scene is an example of how to do a "shock moment" correctly. The scene takes place as Commander Sheppard has just boarded his, or in this case, her (because frankly, I like the idea of a female being the savior of the universe, but that falls into a whole different discussion that someday, perhaps, I'll write) ship. Sheppard is watching as her friend has just stayed behind to help with the evacuation and the Normandy takes off to leave orbit. As she's watching she notices a young boy standing in front of the evacuation vehicles, looking up at her. The boy says nothing. All that's exchanged is a glance. The camera pans out and a large tank like "walker" is moving toward the evacuation zone, it's weapon primed and ready to fire. Sheppard is unable to move, unable to stop what is about to happen, and can only watch as the boy boards the vehicle. The vehicle takes off, and for a moment, I legitimately thought that the ship was not going to be destroyed. Then, the game takes that hope and dashes it as the ships are shot out of the sky. Sheppard merely turns her head, obviously distressed by the image, and closes the hatch of the Normandy.
No footage of the little boy being blown apart is necessary. No moment is taken to introduce the child, or characterize him particularly. The emphasis is not on his death alone, but how his death affects Sheppard. The moment is necessary, not only to show the horror of the battle being waged, but because it tells us something about Commander Sheppard that may not have been understood otherwise. She is distressed by this young boy's senseless death. He's just one of hundreds, thousands, millions, or even billions who are being killed in this attack, but because of his death, Sheppard has been affected personally.
So why is this kid's death dramatic when the other's was simply formulaic? Well, I suppose that the most obvious reason is that in MW3 we expected a shocking moment. In Mass Effect 3, the moment is unexpected. That said, even if MW3's moment had not been expected, I'd still say that it was simply a graphic moment intended to shock people. It didn't have value to the story line, and no other characters were affected. That little girl could've been anyone, she could've been an old man walking back home from the hospital, she could've been a yuppie on his way to a meeting, she could've been a purse-thief running away from his crime. No one was affected by her death, and the audience was not given something to think about. There was no lesson here, just a guttural knee-jerk intended to shock people. Looking at Mass Effect 3, on the other hand, we have a moment where no characterization is given for the child, but a world of characterization is given for Sheppard. She is forced to watch helplessly as the young boy dies, not splattered gruesomely or blown apart in front of her, but simply as his evacuation vehicle is hit and explodes. There is a lesson to be learned from this death, and it's in Sheppard's reaction. She could have screamed, cried, thrown something, or hit something. All of those reactions could be expected or justified. Instead she watches and then turns away and closes the hatch. That tells us something about her character, and gives us a moment to think about what just occurred. Why did Sheppard do what she did, rather than something else? What was her motivation in simply walking away? On top of that, if I were the one standing there, rather than Sheppard, would I have reacted differently?
Mass Effect's moment forces the player to think, to evaluate themselves and to take the time to bring something away from the game. MW3 has no such learning value. The player may be shocked or horrified, but they won't learn something from it, which is what really does matter. MW1's moment did teach the player. It forced them to reflect on a situation and come away with conclusions that might otherwise not have been reached. MW2's moment less so, but an argument could be made that they did. Yes they will be shocked and horrified, but the fact that they play through the moment may be enough to force them to reflect on what they had just been forced to do. MW3's moment, though, has none of that. There is no lesson, there is no characterization gain, it is simple shock value.
In summary, there can be a distinction made between my four examples. The first two are gameplay moments, and it can be said that that, in and of itself, can be enough to give the player a reason to think. That said, the first example brings so much more to the table than the simply gore and horror of the second. The latter two examples, though, are cutscenes, and therefore do not have "gameplay" to fall back on. Because of this, it is obvious to me why one means something while the other does not. Games can be an important medium, and can give the gamer so much in terms of food for thought. MW3 fails to do so, where ME3 succeeds in a very similar circumstance. Edginess and shock are great tools as for forwarding the genre and bringing something new to the table, but they must be coupled with a meaningful experience. Otherwise, they're simply worthless.