Double Buffered

A Programmer’s View of Game Design, Development, and Culture

Archive for November, 2009

Assassin’s Creed 2: Stabbing Through the Heart of the Matter

Posted by Ben Zeigler on November 30, 2009

Lately I’ve been consuming two works of media dealing with religion, conspiracies, and semiotics in Renaissance-era Italy. One of them is the great novel The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco, and the other is the best and most interesting game of the year, Assassin’s Creed 2 (AC2) by Ubisoft Montreal. It’s the best game this year because it superbly mixes excellent combat and climbing base mechanics with the brilliantly realized open world environment of 15th century Italy, an compelling advancement structure, and a huge variety of memorable moments. If the concept of Assassin’s Creed 1 appealed to you (regardless of rather you enjoyed the mediocre actual game) you will love AC2.

You can read the various rave reviews if you want to know more about the specifics of gameplay, but AC2 is the most interesting game of the year because it brings all of those elements together to create a form of Art that is uniquely suited to the medium of Interactive Games. Before I continue I’ll warn that I’m going to spoil the plot of Assassin’s Creed 1 and the first hour or so of AC2, so you should flee in terror if that’s your thing. You may wish to read the plot summary of AC1 if you never played that game, it has enough flaws that I would not recommend everyone play the first game in the series.

I’ve personally always been enthralled by conspiracy fiction, dating back to growing up on The X Files and Deus Ex (10 years ago already). Today’s world is an interconnected web of complicated events that stretches beyond the means of any one person to truly explain or understand. But, this doesn’t stop us from trying. Dating back to the earliest myths and fables, the human brain has an insatiable desire to form a narrative out of the unfathomable. Regardless of the quality of its writing, The Da Vinci Code and friends are as successful because they directly tap into this deep-seated impulse of the psyche.

Of course not all works in the genre are quite as literal and simple-minded as The Da Vinci Code, and luckily AC2 takes some of it’s influence from more metafictional works such as The Illuminatus! Trilogy. Illuminatus! is a classic of the genre and works because it simultaneously treats conspiracies as deadly serious and a ridiculous joke. It constantly jumps around in perspective, tone, and setting in a way that directly mirrors the complicated and conflicted possible truths that are present in real life conspiracy theories. The 4th wall gets shattered a few times. AC2 has the same goal in mind of mirroring the layered structure of real conspiracies, but manages to do so while maintaining an internally consistent and self contained universe.

In Assassin’s Creed 2 you are simultaneously playing two extremely distinct characters. From his birth you relive the life of Ezio Auditore, a spoiled young noble from Renaissance Florence. Your first few tasks are to instigate some Romeo and Juliet-style gang warfare, flee the wrath of your lover’s parents, and then go for a leisurely walk with your mother. These interactions quickly establish Ezio as a charming but selfish rogue who deeply cares for his family, and cleanly sets up his motivation once things start to inevitably go wrong. Ezio is directly impacted by the events of the real-life Pazzi Conspiracy, which was just ridiculous enough that I assumed it had been invented by the developers. The sensation of climbing the interior of the Duomo in Florence is without peer in the history of gaming.

Despite being the focus of the gameplay, Ezio (and Altair before him) is not a proxy for the player of the game. Instead, Ezio is the proxy for the other character you are simultaneously playing, Desmond Miles. For most of the game Desmond shares an identical perspective to the player. Ezio’s life is playing out in Desmond’s mind through the technology of the Animus, which is a proxy for the very console the game is played on. The HUD, partially dubbed Italian dialogue, and various visual artifacts are explained via this conceit, and bring the necessary artificiality of a game within the context of the world’s fiction. As an example there is a detailed database of relevant real world information available in-game, but it is all written from the biased viewpoint of an extremely cynical British researcher who is a member of your support team.

During the rare sections where you see Desmond from a 3rd person perspective the UI is stripped away, the lighting and visual style is altered, and the movement and controls are simplified. I almost wish these segments were presented from a 1st person perspective, but practical development and control constraints won out in this case. Throughout the game you are playing the role Ezio, but the game tries as hard as possible to make you feel like you ARE Desmond. Even at the expense of making things less fun (Desmond moves irritatingly slowly), by the end of Assassin’s Creed 1 Ubisoft has built a fortified wall between the two characters.

Things get really interesting in AC2 when the wall between Ezio and Desmond (ie, You) slowly disintegrates, via what is named the “Bleeding Effect”.  This starts at the end of AC1 when Desmond uses “Eagle Vision” (ability to visualize hidden information) to notice the cryptic glyphs on the wall of his cell, left by a previous inmate. In AC2 these same glyphs are hidden throughout the world of Ezio and are locked doors to background information on the world. They need to be unlocked by the player/Desmond, and the combination of well-crafted puzzles, non-linear information delivery, and pseudofictional events works wonders. You are actually tracing a conspiracy through history, and I’ve never felt so motivated to continue playing a game. The glyphs are just the start, and the blurring of boundaries is put to great dramatic effect later in the game.

Another unique element of the game is its approach to moral philosophy. The literal Assassin’s Creed of the game is a phrase attributed (likely incorrectly) to Hassan-i Sabbah, the founder of the historical Hashshashins: Nothing is true, Everything is permitted. Both Altair and Ezio are the embodiment of Deconstruction as they fight against the autocratic constructions of the Templars, who are attempting to build a peaceful and orderly world at all costs. Both have to go “beyond morals”, which is a concept I find very interesting. Morals are great abstract rules to live your life by, but the game makes the argument that if it can be empirically proven that someone must die for the greater good, then it is right to do the killing. This same utilitarian approach shows in the game’s general disdain for organized religions of all types, which is more explicit then I can remember seeing in any Western game (Japanese culture has a long history of distrusting organized religion). The game doesn’t dwell on this for an extended time period, but the Codex pages and circumstances of the ending make the viewpoint obvious.

The peaceful feeling of walking through a town square in 15th century Italy, the thrilling and ambiguous act of ending the life of a despot, the uncovering of the threads of conspiracy that explain EVERYTHING, and the disquiet of embodying two characters at the same time. These are sensations that can only be delivered by a video game, and realistically could never have been delivered before this generation. While other games like Uncharted 2 are striving to be beautiful collections of vaguely interactive cut scenes, Assassin’s Creed 2 is taking games, and Art as a whole, to where it has never been before. Many in the industry worry about the failure of commercial publishers to produce games that have Meaning, but it is games like Assassin’s Creed 2 that give me hope for the future of the medium. Everyone who cares about games as an art form, or just really enjoys a well designed game, absolutely needs to play Assassin’s Creed 2.

Posted in Game Design | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Why I’m Not Buying Modern Warfare 2

Posted by Ben Zeigler on November 11, 2009

I was a pretty big fan of Call of Duty 4. I wasn’t going to buy it originally, but a bunch of guys at work started regularly playing at lunch and convinced me to pick it up over Steam. I ended up really enjoying the single player (I still remember the emotional impact of a certain death scene), and played probably 60 hours or so of the multiplayer. It’s probably my second favorite recent FPS after Team Fortress 2, so I was really looking forward to Modern Warfare 2. But as the game has now been released, I’m not going to buy it. I’m not boycotting it or anything, it just turns out there’s never been a game I was actively interested in that presented so many compelling reasons for me to not buy it. Here’s just what I can think of off the top of my head:

  1. I like many games on console, but not FPSs. Too many years of mouse control and a lack of fine finger control mean I really can’t enjoy games like MW2 on a console. This was not a problem for the first game, though, as it had a perfectly good PC version
  2. I’ve experienced nothing but pain with peer-to-peer networked games on the PC. P2P works perfectly fine on a console because everyone has a standardized console and networking settings. On a PC, you have to deal with software firewalls, network drivers, and dedicated hackers. As a consequence any game that relies on P2P server hosting (like the disaster that was Demigod) is going to be  a pain to use. I much prefer the approach Valve took, with just providing a bunch of standardized dedicated servers for the community.
  3. 9 vs. 9 just isn’t enough players. I’ve never been a fan of 32 vs. 32 clusters, but personally I find 12 vs. 12 to be my favorite size of match, going back to how I used to play Counterstrike. Even given the change to P2P hosting, I don’t see why larger matches couldn’t be optionally allowed
  4. Hardcore is mode I enjoy playing the most. You now can’t play hardcore mode at all until you unlock it at a certain level. Ugh.
  5. I’m way too busy playing Dragon Age right now. Damn that game is good.
  6. Even if I wanted to buy it now, I actually can’t. For some bizarre reason the Steam-distributed version of MW2 isn’t out until Thursday. The stupid part is that the retail PC version came out today and uses all of the same steam-based authentication as the digital version. Huh? Someone screwed up somewhere, and this doesn’t make me very confident about the support for the digital version.
  7. The F.A.G.S. promo video. What the hell was Infinity Ward thinking? I don’t want to consume the product of a company that is either willfully offensive or just incredibly stupid. I’m still confused by what they were trying to do with this one.
  8. Ignoring IW.net, is the PC version a direct port of the console version?
    Mackey-IW: No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings.” Those are some pretty awesome custom features! Wish I was making this one up.
  9. Activision/Infinity Ward has been ridiculously secretive about the game. There’s been no demo (which was especially needed on PC because of the changes to networking), and they only released the review embargo AFTER the game was already on sale. When movie studios do this it’s because a film is crap, but in this case it’s being done to artificially raise early review scores (previous example being GTA 4, which did the exact same thing). The people running this game are obsessed with controlling information and access to the game, and that does not make me feel very invited as a player.
  10. It’s $60. The original Modern Warfare, and essentially all PC games for the last 10 years, was $50 new. Activision has decided that MW2 is objectively better than all other PC games including it’s prequel, and thus we should be HAPPY to have to pay more. As I’ve said before this isn’t how pricing works. As soon as a game is over $30 or so (conveniently the price of a Borderlands and L4D2 4 pack), I personally feel an urge to do a value calculation. It’s normally a bit tricky, but paying $10 more for a game that has significantly FEWER features that matter to me is just a bad idea.

To be honest I don’t even care about most of the things the hardcore PC FPS community cares about (I don’t love server browsers, and never used any of the crazier options like FOV control or server mods), but I could easily come up with 10 different reasons to not buy this game. The only plausible explanation I can think of for this strategy is that someone at Activision or Infinity Ward has been wanting to prove that the PC market is dead, and decided to use this game as an example. When the thing fails to sell on PC (I don’t know anyone who’s picked it up on PC yet), they’ll then be able to point at the sales and exclaim “See! I knew it wouldn’t sell!”. It’s not just laziness, because they could have easily just done a direct modification of the PC part of MW1 and I would be perfectly happy. This is a conscious decision on someone’s part, and if they don’t want me to play their game I guess I’ll have to oblige. I may pick it up if it drops to $30 on a Steam sale, but there is no way I am paying $60 for an inferior sequel to an excellent game I already own.

Posted in Game Development | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.