The Role of Interpretation in Prince of Persia

Today, I've published an article on GameCareerGuide examining the role of interpretation in Ubisoft's 2008 Prince of Persia. This is my first professionally published essay, and I am pleased with how it turned out. I would like to thank my parents for never giving me a ride to school, and the GameCareerGuide editor who took a chance on an unknown kid. Read the essay at GameCareerGuide.

I would love any comments on the essay. Feel free to leave a comment under this post or to email me at finnhaverkamp@gmail.com

Fable 2: In Real Life

Cooperative gaming is all the rage these days. In fact, there has been a huge surge of coop games this past year. Co-op is, in a way, the medium's zeitgeist. Not only do players love the new focus, but designers as well, who are enamored with the challenges of co-op game design. From Army of Two to Schizoid, designers are experimenting with the boundaries of co-op and learning about its possibilities and limitations. Co-op is far from new, just look at Gauntlet, but as a style of gameplay it has recently received a jolt of attention.

Among those games lavishing in co-op is Fable 2. Peter Molyneux isn't one to rest on his laurels, let alone those of others. He and the team at Lion Head are pushing the limits of what games can achieve with co-op. Other co-op games up until now have focused on cooperative gameplay, which is fantastic in and of itself. However, Fable 2 is trying to offer something else altogether: co-op narrative.

Co-op gameplay in Fable 2 is excellent design in its own right. A second player, known as the "henchman," can jump into the host player's world at any time simply by pushing start. Experience and gold can be divided howsoever the players chose by allotting percentages of each when the henchman joins. Henchmen will retain their gold and experience when they return to their own games. Combat, likewise, is adjusted when playing co-op, as players must work together to fight most effectively. But these features aren't what set Fable 2 apart from the herd. What does is the game's transgression into reality.A henchman in Fable 2 has the power to permanently affect the host player's world. Henchmen have all the freedoms of the host player. In fact, the henchman has equal power, or perhaps even greater power, than does the host player. In Fable 2, a player cannot kill his or her spouse. Spousal-murder simply is not possibly. Personally, I'm a fan of this limitation. Lion Head, while advocating freedom as one of the main themes of Fable 2, it seems does not want to support, or even allow, such atrocious immorality. Actually, I think this is a much, much bigger issue than immediately apparent, but thats for another article. However, while players cannot murder their own spouse, henchmen can. Henchmen can walk into the host player's house, pull out a gun, and shoot the player's husband or wife. And the character will never come back. The spouse is dead for all time and forever and ever.

This initially bothered me. "Griefing" comes to mind as I consider the potential ruin and sadness that could be affected upon a person. I would be extremely upset with anyone who killed my spouse in-game. And then I realized, that is the whole point. Allowing such freedom in co-op gameplay is more than just characters interacting with characters; it is about people interacting with people through the game, and the game interacting with people through their actions and decisions. This level of co-op interaction transcends the television screen, and the game becomes something else altogether.Suddenly, co-op is less so about working together and more so about the relationship between two people. Now, cooperative gameplay is about trust. Not that it wasn't before either. Working together to take down monsters or ships certainly does involve trust, but Fable 2 employs trust on a completely different level, a level of morality and friendship. How two people play Fable 2 together is symbolic of their friendship. The game becomes a sharing experience. What players do in the game, even outside of murdering or not murdering spouses, is an interaction between two people, not two characters. Playing is like dancing: when two people dance with one another, they are interacting and representing their individual emotions. This is what Fable 2 is trying to achieve. The game relates to the players, offering a means of interaction, an outlet for sharing an experience. How the players engage that world and engage one another speaks to their relationship as people. Who you play with is a sign of trust. Can you trust your friend. Can you trust that your friend won't kill your spouse? What does this say about your relationship with that person. Furthermore, how will your interactions in the game affect your relationship. If your best friend murders your spouse, how does that affect your freidnship; what is your friend trying to tell you (and I don't mean he or she hates your spouse in real life, but maybe)?

Then the game becomes an exchange between player and character. The players actions affect the world, the world reacts to the character, and subsequently the player is affected by the worlds reactions. Fable 2 fuses character and player; the game creates a bond between the two. The character is a representation of the player, the person in a polygonal form. Therefore, when two players interact in a game, they are truly interacting as humans.

Images from Lion Head

Character Progression Systems

You know, it's funny how video games change over time. In fact, it's great. We're very much so a developing art form and industry. Our ideas and perceptions of ourselves are constantly shifting, as our video games themselves. The gaming world moves at a swift pace. I often forget this fact, but gaming evolution and perceptions was brought to light today in 1up's review for Spider-Man 3. This is what editor Scott Sharkey had to say:

Spider-Man 3, however, is still an open-world game where there isn't a hell of a lot to do in that open world. It's an empty space to flip through on the way to the next cut-scene, brawl, or quick-time event. [. . .] You've got a very small number of collectable tokens on top of a couple of skyscrapers (they don't do anything, just in case you were expecting Crackdown here). It's not a bad-looking town, but it's lifeless and noninteractive.

You catch that? Spider-Man 3 is not like Crackdown. This tells us something. Sharkey believes that Crackdown has more rewarding and enjoyable character progression and exploration systems than Spider-Man 3. It's just more fun to jump around in Crackdown. And you know what? I have a feeling many other people feel the same way. But is Crackdown's system better? Or just different?

Crackdown. The world is your playground.

A summary, if you will. In Crackdown players can leap and scale buildings with super-human agility. The reward for doing so is finding little tokens that increase the character's agility skill. This allows the player to jump ever higher until more tokens are found and so on and so forth. Now in Spider-Man 3, players can also jump around the city, and swing and crawl. Tokens are also present atop buildings, but unlike Crackdown, they do not increase Spidey's agility, speed, or jump height. The tokens are more like milk caps that Spidey can add to his collection (does anyone remember Jump Start: 1st Grade. greatest game ever). Instead, Spider-Man gains experience points by fighting, and can use them to purchase upgrades in the above mentioned skills. Lets bring a third game, shall we? The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion features yet another character progression system. There are many skills in Oblivion, all of which are upgraded through natural usage of them. Stealth? Upgraded by sneaking up on enemies. Agility? Jump around alot and your skill will gradually build. Defense? Block enemy attacks to increase your ability.

This is your character after you've maxed out your skills. Oh! I'm refering to the corpse.

Are any one of these better than the other? Not necessarily, I don't think. However, what do you think compelled Mr. Sharkey to mention Crackdown in his review Spider-Man 3. Sharkey wanted to compare both games in order to point out the weakness of the latter. Crackdown makes exploration fun while at the same time serving a necessary purpose. By reaching the highest buildings they are able, players are rewarded with greater ability in the skill they've just exuded. Then, players are intrinsically, naturally challenged to reach the next highest buildings. This is the definition of fun. Challenege->Reward->Challenge.

Oblivion features a similarly rewarding character progression system. Player-characters practically become more skilled just by walking, and, in fact, do gain skill points by crouch-walking. Playing Oblivion is like getting living. Play the game, and your character naturally becomes better. It's even more fun once you figure out what exact behavior increases specific skill points, because then you can spend more time working to upgrade it.

Lastly, Spider-Man 3. Why is Spider-Man 3's version of character progression inferior to Crackdown's? As opposed to exploration, players are rewarded for combat in the form of experience points to buy skill upgrades. But doesn't that seem...counter-intuitive? Afterall, a big part of Spider-Man 3 (and the best part, from what I've read) is the exploration/platforming aspect. The combat, on the other hand, seems to pale in comparison. Why not reward players for swinging around New York City, instead of fighting thugs? The tokens themselves could work just like Crackdown. However, players have access to buildings of all heights from the get-go. Reaching the tokens is the challenge of Crackdown, whereas in Spider-Man the challenge is simply finding them. The system could alternatively work like Oblivion's. Spidey could naturally become more skilled simply by swinging and wall-crawling. But then the issue arises of how much reward of skill, how often.

I really like this screenshot. Crackdown sidescroller? Anyone? Anyone?

You know what, I think the system in place actually seems to work fine. The upgrades themselves are more like levels than skill points. And combat is an integral part of gameplay. In addition to story-line combat, players can also fight more frequently with side-missions, if they so please. The question isn't which game has the best character progression system, but which system works best for its game. I'll admit, though, I have a bias for Crackdown.

Sources:
All images from Gamespy.

Progress
Which character progression system is your favorite?
Have you played Spider-Man 3? What do you think of other aspects of the game?