In Praise of Able (with an F)

I thought I would take the time "Pre-Fable 2" to look at the reception of the original Fable and what made it, in my eyes, a big success.

For a game that I loved, I thought Fable received quite a harsh critical reception, partly because I think it dared to do a variety of things differently. And I hope that Fable 2 continues along this road…but more of that at a later date!
Let’s start with the feeling I got playing (and finishing..sometimes a rare thing) Fable. Well firstly, and this is important in a game, I enjoyed it. I felt I was a hero. I wasn’t particularly challenged; in fact I thought it was fairly easy. But I enjoyed it. And I’m sure Mr. Molyneux set out to achieve that, rather than laughingly sitting at his desk stroking a white cat as I tore my hair out in frustration, crying “Why is this game so hard!” That’s right; games don’t have to be hard. In fact, one of the things that occurred to me while playing Halo 3 was that a lot of the time I didn’t feel like an invincible super-soldier, but some poor grunt who got repeatedly gunned down after going over the top. OK, I selected the difficulty and wanted a challenge, but I basically lost the vision of being the protagonist that Bungie had created.

I think this is an inevitable part of “single protagonist” shooters, where you can die. They are nearly all one man armies in the Halo, Gears of War, etc mould. One of the good things about the COD 4 single player experience was the fact (SPOILER! LOOK AWAY!) that one of your protagonists dies in the course of his mission. It lends a little mortality back to the game, and the idea of war. I think some games in the future will have the nerve to address this, and create a different feeling game, perhaps in army /war styled shooters such as Gears or the Battlefield or COD series. Why not have the players character as the general, who gives feedback on story and progress and accomplishment in between missions, while you play as a series of grunts who have to carry out the missions. The amount of corpses the player accrues can act as a score as well as giving an emotional weight to your achievements in the game. If the unit runs out of men, then maybe that mission fails. All the while the player character “General Chief” can boast of his cunctation skills in preserving his boys, or coldly pronounce that the mission was accomplished regardless of casualties. Or break down weeping, “War is Hell!”

Which leads me back to Fable. I finished it easily, and I had a blast. So much so, that I made a new character and jumped right back in vowing to do things differently this time (in fact, evilly!) The game’s enjoyment came not from the progress alone, but through the environment and the atmosphere the game conjured. In fact I can sum up my love of Fable in two words: “Chicken Chaser!” The character of the game was embodied by brave use of audio, and it still resonates today as one of the few games whose audio signature stays with me and epitomises the game (alongside the fantastic chatter of the original Halo). In fact I remember being quite angry reading an Edge magazine discussion which dared to criticise the use of audio in Fable, seeming to prefer yet more bland “thou & thee” mid Atlantic RPG speak. I hope Fable 2 continues in the path it so ably beat before, and from the few clips I have seen, it seems to do so. Its humour shone throughout the game, and was a big part in making it a comfy gaming experience that will long stick with me as a uniquely identifiable game. Chicken Chasing was not just an amusing audio clip it was a fun experience in the game, one which had nothing to do with “storyline” and “progress”. Again, Fable acted as a gaming enabler; the ability to spend time in the world mucking about, boasting in front of crowds and scaring passers by took the pressure off the player to ‘accomplish’ and progress, and let them proceed as they saw fit. Progress might be buying another house, or getting a new haircut. Either way, it was an enjoyable gaming experience, and something other games could do well to learn from.

Perhaps more games, even those not starting with an F, should make the player Able.

Social Gaming. A new imperative for older gamers?

I have come to notice recently that my gaming habit has become a means of communication, rather than just a means of play. As I have gotten older, and my circle of friends has expanded (and I mean that in a geographic rather than quantative sense!) it’s been very hard to ‘hang out’ with my friends. A current swathe of babies among them all has only added to the time pressure being felt by many of them.

The Xbox 360s ‘Xbox Live’ is a great method for sharing time and chatting with your mates, as I realised when going through a bout of solo gaming recently. In some senses I realised it felt quite an empty experience without sharing it with my friends. Often we get on for a game of Forza or Chromehounds or Crackdown, all cooperative pleasures, and achieve very little in gaming terms but have a great time and a good laugh, which in entertainment terms means these games score very highly. Not only that but they offer great longevity, as we keep returning to them, whereas single player games, once complete are often merely discarded. Perhaps when creating a brand or a new IP, games design companies should keep that in mind, as cooperative experiences can keep fans loyal and keep the brand fresh in gamers minds. Also the very fact of coop gaming, especially in sandbox style games, allows for the players to create their own play experiences. I wonder how many people out there have whiled away the hours with their friends engaging on ‘silly’ projects within a game world, rather than achieving anything the game has specifically set out for you to ‘accomplish’. Crackdown offered the chance to try and build structures out of the worlds physics enabled furniture (such as skips, cars, lampposts, and handily enough highly explosive barrels) and once the structure is big enough and packed with enough high explosive to make any pro carbomber proud, detonated for a magnificent fireworks display. Making tanks by tipping skips over small cars while you coop friend rides on top to provide the fire power is also fairly entertaining, seeing how far you can go before your smart car powered tank/skip falls apart. Co-op gaming isn’t just fun, it can enable fun that isn’t present in single player gaming, even within the same game.

I wonder how many games creators are going to wake up to this seemingly forgotten fact in the next few years? Will single player modes become the ‘tacked on’ element of new games, or will they be designed as seems standard now, as single player games, with coop thrown in if possible? Versus play is core to FPS & RTS gaming, but versus mainly uses humans to replace AI effectively and cheaply, and isn’t a shared ‘friendly’ experience (have you tried playing a bunch of American teenagers in COD4 or Gears of War on Live?! Great well made games rapidly become a hideously un-enjoyable experience…hmm online player behaviour might be another blog chapter soon!). Is co-op the new future that is starting to dawn on an increasingly large number of companies? Titles such as Fable 2,and Army of 2 may hint at it, but they still seem to be in the minority

Games are great fun. But in truth this all seems a fairly obvious reflection of what we all learned as children. Play is great, but it’s a lot better if you are playing with your friends.

Interfarce

Games are interactive entertainment.

That's two fairly obvious words. They should connect directly and honestly with the player. And they should entertain them. Simple enough, eh?

So why is that some games either think that pressing a single button counts as interacting, (yes thats right Japanese RPGS, I'm looking at you!) or that other games force pointless such 'interactions' on the player, BEFORE they can even play.

A lot of games seem to have front ends that either are the result of zero forethought or even worse, a seemingly wilful disregard for the players fingers and time. One of my favourite games, Chromehounds on Xbox360, is a classic example of this syndrome. On booting up, the player is asked whether they want to play online or single player. All well and good, but the single player is a tutorial that once over is never use again. Once Xbox live is selected, then the player must select his harddrive as the chosen storage media. After the choice there is a confirm box, which defaults to "no". WHY!?! Why would anyone say no, when there is only one choice..ie your hardrive. Once you have overcome this tricky obstacle you dive into the game lobby. Whoops! Not quite, first you must plough through a series of pointless "news" messages, each requiring a press of your A button to skip.... Great, more Japanese style interation...

All of these hurdles are pointless delays before you can get into playing a game. Oblivion, one of the Xbox's first hits set the right trend. It remembered your chosen storage device, and also where you were in game. You booted up and pressed start twice and continued playing, just as it should be.

In todays time pressed enviroment, with old fogey gamers like me having to cope with friends and families hectic schedules, each minute of gaming is a treasured haven at the end of the day. Each second spent faffing in lobbies or trying to coordinate settings etc, is a waste of time. Pressing "A" repeatedly for no real reason, other than to progress what would have progressed without you pressing "A" is not real interation. Every interaction I make should have an effect. Yes or no is a dialog choice, but just moving on, is not. If its complex and important dialog and you want to give time to read it, put it on a scroll or give me a pause / replay facility, but dont make me press the button just for the sake of it.

This short rant is dedicated to Eric who took the time to read my only other entry, and has inspiried me to write some more soon! I hope I havent wasted your time.

Press "A" to continue....