I came across this article the other day.
This is related to a source article here.
In these articles, there are some quotes from George Lucas talking about the Star Wars franchise. The most striking of these is:
"Star Wars” fans can only blame themselves for ending the franchise."
Another interesting tidbit:
“Why would I make any more,” Lucas says, “when everybody yells at you all the time and says what a terrible person you are?"
So yeah, at first, I was a little ticked off at reading this. A knee jerk reaction because I love the setting so much. But you know what? He really does have a point. I've brought this up before in my blog, but it bears repeating.
The original Star Wars trilogy became a part of popular culture. The fact that the movies stood alone for so long before the prequels came out gave fans (like me) a sense of 'ownership' of the material. Every fan had their own ideas about the Star Wars universe, built on the scant information presented in the original three movies. We all had time to build our own 'mythology' of the setting (some of us on a deeper level than others). We all had our expectations of what the setting could become.
So when Lucas came to make the prequels he was already facing an impossible task. The original movies were satisfying his creative vision. The prequels had a whole lot of baggage pre-attached to them. There was no WAY he could make everyone happy. So he did what creative people do: He made something that satisfied his own vision. And unfortunately, that didn't mesh with the vision of a lot of other people.
Now, my profession is a creative one. My designs are based upon my own sense of aesthetics. And when someone else comes in- the client I was making the piece for- and doesn't like that vision...well, that sucks. Since I am in the commercial business, I am bound to change my vision to suit what the client wants. Lucas, in control of his own product, sees himself as the 'end client' of his work. And so, as an artist, he seeks to satisfy himself. It isn't selfish, its just part of art and the creative process.
I just wish that George Lucas could see that he isn't the only 'client' he should be seeking to satisfy. He made something that became part of our culture. It isn't just 'his' anymore. And you know... maybe he's made the right decision here. Just stop.
And then there's the argument that he should just 'listen to his fans'. Well... that won't work either. Since fans have VERY different ideas about the setting and where it should go. Even if you took a 'consensus' view on it- had fans 'vote' on what they wanted to see. I know for a fact that anything 'designed by a committee' tends to water down the idea.
So what's the answer? Hell if I know. I'd love to say that all he needs to do is hire ME to 'manage the brand' and all would be well, but...ahem. Yeah. Same problem.
As frustrated as I get with George Lucas sometimes, I still love the man for all he's done- and for being a very talented and innovative person. I can feel his pain when it comes to this.
I've often wondered what would have happened if the prequels had come shortly after the original trilogy, instead of waiting sixteen years. If Star Wars hadn't had time to 'imprint' as deeply into the minds of its fans, would the prequels have been received better? Would they have been different without Lucas waiting 16 years to write them? I honestly don't know, but its interesting to ponder.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
Diseases in Star Wars
This is going to be a short post- but I just wanted to put down a thought I had after watching the movie 'Andromeda Strain' a couple nights ago. That movie stressed how dangerous that contact with 'extra terrestrial' germs could be. And when you look at history- like the Spanish exploration/conquest of the "new world", it is easy to see what a huge effect introducing new germs into a previously isolated ecosystem would have.
In the Galaxy spanning setting of Star Wars, I can only imagine what a nightmare disease would be- when you have people living among all manner of different species- to say nothing of the exploration of previously undiscovered worlds. While the 'civilized' galaxy might have sorted out its disease problems over the centuries, one would think that contact with new worlds would constantly introduce new threats.
However, we do not see disease running rampant in any Star Wars stories that I know about—save for a few relatively isolated instances (like where Vader destroys a Faleen city to stop the spread of a particular plague). Now I know that this was probably done for the sake of cinema. Nobody wants to watch an adventure story about people visiting a new world, contracting horrible diseases, and dieing. Even so, I like to have some kind of 'in-character' explanation for these things- without getting TOO 'scientific' about it.
The explanation I came up with is this:
Medical science in the Star Wars galaxy- specifically the science of disease control- has reached a VERY advanced level. The majority of the galaxy's population has been 'immunized' with advanced (species specific) serums, thus giving them protection versus almost all known diseases and most 'new' ones as well. However scientifically implausible this may be, it is a nice, simple explanation as to why there aren't constant epidemics with every visit to a new world.
Of course, this still leaves room for health problems- what if a 'super disease' could overcome standard immunization techniques. And there is still the problem of newly discovered and/or isolated species contracting diseases FROM the 'civilized' galaxy. In this way, you can still include diseases as a threat in your campaign without making them the main focus.
Works for me anyway.
In the Galaxy spanning setting of Star Wars, I can only imagine what a nightmare disease would be- when you have people living among all manner of different species- to say nothing of the exploration of previously undiscovered worlds. While the 'civilized' galaxy might have sorted out its disease problems over the centuries, one would think that contact with new worlds would constantly introduce new threats.
However, we do not see disease running rampant in any Star Wars stories that I know about—save for a few relatively isolated instances (like where Vader destroys a Faleen city to stop the spread of a particular plague). Now I know that this was probably done for the sake of cinema. Nobody wants to watch an adventure story about people visiting a new world, contracting horrible diseases, and dieing. Even so, I like to have some kind of 'in-character' explanation for these things- without getting TOO 'scientific' about it.
The explanation I came up with is this:
Medical science in the Star Wars galaxy- specifically the science of disease control- has reached a VERY advanced level. The majority of the galaxy's population has been 'immunized' with advanced (species specific) serums, thus giving them protection versus almost all known diseases and most 'new' ones as well. However scientifically implausible this may be, it is a nice, simple explanation as to why there aren't constant epidemics with every visit to a new world.
Of course, this still leaves room for health problems- what if a 'super disease' could overcome standard immunization techniques. And there is still the problem of newly discovered and/or isolated species contracting diseases FROM the 'civilized' galaxy. In this way, you can still include diseases as a threat in your campaign without making them the main focus.
Works for me anyway.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Star (no)Wars
I've spoken about this in quite a few other blog entries-namely the question of what do you DO in a Star Wars setting where there is no 'War' going on. I mean, the title of the franchise doesn't leave much room for interpretation on that point. The whole setting boils down to heroic actions taken during war.
So what happens when, for instance, you run a campaign that lasts through the entire 'Rebellion' and the various wars that follow (Thrawn's Campaign, the 'Rebirth' of the Emperor, etc.)?
Well, in the 'official' expanded universe, the answer to this is: have more wars! Every series of books therefore has a new set of wars going on, usually galactic in scale: The Vong Invasion, the Swarm War, the Second Galactic Civil War, the...whatever the hell War it is going on in the Legacy Era, etc., etc..
As I have mentioned before, I think that having the Galaxy constantly in a state of open war and crisis strains the credulity of the setting. Yes, I know I'm talking about a setting that has mystical energy fields and giant space worms, but still. To me there was always a feeling of realism, or at least an allegory of realism, in the Star Wars saga. There was an 'Era of Peace' during the Old Republic. Then there was the Rebellion. In my mind, it only seems logical that another era of peace would follow.
The alternative is a downward spiral into the breakdown of the fabric of galactic society. In my mind, at least, you simply can't continue to have Galaxy-Shaking wars every few years and NOT have everything fall apart. Unfortunately, that seems to be where the 'official' universe has gone. I won't go into that further here, as I have long railed against the trend to bring 'gritty realism' or a 'darker edge' to the Star Wars galaxy. Yes, there is war and death and sacrifice, but overall, I've found the tone of the franchise to be one of hope for the future- at least in the original trilogy.
But this post isn't about any of that. No, really. It's about what there is to do DURING an Era of Peace in the Galaxy, such as the one that has finally come to my own, very long-running, campaign. Below are just some of my thoughts on angles to take for adventure in a time like this.
Political Corruption
Hopefully, the downfall of the Old Republic due to its own corruption was a huge lesson for the people of the Galaxy. In a New Republic, there would have to be a concerted effort to avoid and root out corruption within the government. As far as adventures go, this would involve Player Characters who are agents of the New Republic (or its allies), or perhaps even politicians themselves. Missions would involve investigating rumors of corruption. Checking up on those Senators with shady dealings and exposing them to the light of day. Likewise, the huge corporations of the Galaxy would need someone to check their more avaricious behavior. Stealth, tact, true idealism and diplomacy would be at the heart of these kind of adventures-otherwise you run the risk of becoming a 'McCarthy Era' inquisition. But the latter even provides another adventure opportunity. What if an agency, committee or group of senators starts taking things too far? Your heroes would have to deal with these threats as well.
Criminal Organizations
With the Galaxy just recovering from a series of devastating wars, Criminal organizations are sure to abound- profiting off the chaos and misery while the 'large powers' have their attention diverted elsewhere. Agents of the New Republic would be needed to battle these criminals, be they isolated smugglers and pirates or full-blown criminal syndicates. Missions here would involve investigation (possibly undercover work) and raiding missions versus criminal bases and the like- as well as the protection of normal citizens. With some of the larger organizations (the Hutt Cartels for example) this might almost necessitate military intervention.
Cold War
Though the war between the Republic and the fragmented Empire may be officially over, there is no love lost between the two factions. Imperial Warlords may not make overt war against the might of the New Republic, but they could still carry on covert campaigns to undermine its presence and attempt to expand their own power. You have to look no further than any James Bond movie for inspiration for a lot of different adventures. The trick here is conducting operations in a manner that WON'T start a full-blown war.
Brushfire Wars
Though I see the New Republic as the most powerful single entity in the Galaxy during this period of peace, it is by no means in control of the entire Galaxy. There are hundreds of smaller powers that must be dealt with- and many of them have their own agendas. Whether it is expanding their power or settling old scores, these smaller powers may go to war with each other. Unfortunately, such things tend to destabilize everything around them— including the Republic. Thus, agents would be needed to go in and help stop these wars with quick, decisive action. This fits in well with the cold war gimmick as well- what if Imperial agitators are stirring up trouble? The trick then is to eliminate the Empire's influence without widening the scope of the conflict (Korea? Vietnam?).
Terrorists
Can't see why they wouldn't exist in the Star Wars galaxy. They could range from political idealists working for some specific agenda to pure anarchists who only wish to see the universe burn. Defending the galaxy from these kinds of threats is certainly a heroic task- and missions could range all over the place, from investigation to infiltration to raids and surgical strikes to rushing to stop some attack on a political figure or landmark.
Sith
They're always there. They had it pretty good for 20 years or so, running the entire Galaxy. With the downfall of the Emperor they have lost that power, but there are now (in my setting at least) dozens, if not hundreds of Sith vying to become the next emperor, through whatever means they can. This again can overlap with the other angles. Perhaps a Sith takes up politics and attempts to work his way into power within the Senate. Perhaps another is a terrorist seeking nothing but vengeance for the fallen Emperor. Another might seek to forge a criminal empire. Etc..
Supernatural Threats
Since I loved Dark Conspiracy (another horror RP games), I can't help but include this idea. The galaxy is a big place, and there are a lot of unexplained things out there. Force Spirits have been used in some stories. Monsters in others. Much like the criminal angle, the Empire and New Republic would have been distracted from such concerns during the war. And indeed, all the death and destruction caused could have opened the door (as it were) for all kinds of nastiness to emerge from the shadows. I could see the New Republic forming a 'taskforce' to deal with this kind of threat- tracking down strange and unexplained things at the fringes of the galaxy- or in those dark corners at its very heart.
Exploration
Here you have the Star Trek angle, and to me it makes sense. The Old Republic had a policy of exploration, but all of that got derailed by the rise of the Empire. Now, with things finally 'settling down', effort would be put back into this arena. New worlds will be needed for their resources and scientific value. More pragmatically, the New Republic may wish to avoid any more surprise attacks from alien races from the 'unknown regions'. Who knows what is out there- especially in my own campaign, where the Republic has unlocked the secret to intergalactic travel via hyperspace gates.
Diplomacy
This may not be particularly 'Star Wars', but missions to meet with foreign powers and solidify relationships would be a large part of a galaxy at peace. It would also offer interesting constraints to the activities of heroes, who would definitely have to think twice about going in, guns blazing.
So, there you have it, just a few of the ideas I have off the top of my head. I personally think there is a lot there to keep any heroes busy. In fact, the average 'mission' undertaken by heroes during this era wouldn't be much different from the scope of adventures that took place during the war(s). Only rarely did my PCs ever participate in large scale battles anyway.
The only thing I see 'lacking' is that sense of desperation that a huge war can bring about. Where every decision could mean the lives of thousands. Then again, maintaining peace seems to be as much a challenge as achieving it.
For some, the idea of a Galaxy at peace might also throw out another Star Wars staple: The idea of the PCs being the underdogs. It is kind of hard to see them that way when they have the resources of the entire Republic at their disposal. But to that I have only to say that the Republic, while huge, is limited in its resources. Especially in the period directly following the war(s). Yes, it may have entire fleets of starships at its disposal, but it can't commit them whilly nilly to counter every threat and 'back up' every team in the field.
Anyway, I'm thinking that Star Wars without the Wars still works.
So what happens when, for instance, you run a campaign that lasts through the entire 'Rebellion' and the various wars that follow (Thrawn's Campaign, the 'Rebirth' of the Emperor, etc.)?
Well, in the 'official' expanded universe, the answer to this is: have more wars! Every series of books therefore has a new set of wars going on, usually galactic in scale: The Vong Invasion, the Swarm War, the Second Galactic Civil War, the...whatever the hell War it is going on in the Legacy Era, etc., etc..
As I have mentioned before, I think that having the Galaxy constantly in a state of open war and crisis strains the credulity of the setting. Yes, I know I'm talking about a setting that has mystical energy fields and giant space worms, but still. To me there was always a feeling of realism, or at least an allegory of realism, in the Star Wars saga. There was an 'Era of Peace' during the Old Republic. Then there was the Rebellion. In my mind, it only seems logical that another era of peace would follow.
The alternative is a downward spiral into the breakdown of the fabric of galactic society. In my mind, at least, you simply can't continue to have Galaxy-Shaking wars every few years and NOT have everything fall apart. Unfortunately, that seems to be where the 'official' universe has gone. I won't go into that further here, as I have long railed against the trend to bring 'gritty realism' or a 'darker edge' to the Star Wars galaxy. Yes, there is war and death and sacrifice, but overall, I've found the tone of the franchise to be one of hope for the future- at least in the original trilogy.
But this post isn't about any of that. No, really. It's about what there is to do DURING an Era of Peace in the Galaxy, such as the one that has finally come to my own, very long-running, campaign. Below are just some of my thoughts on angles to take for adventure in a time like this.
Political Corruption
Hopefully, the downfall of the Old Republic due to its own corruption was a huge lesson for the people of the Galaxy. In a New Republic, there would have to be a concerted effort to avoid and root out corruption within the government. As far as adventures go, this would involve Player Characters who are agents of the New Republic (or its allies), or perhaps even politicians themselves. Missions would involve investigating rumors of corruption. Checking up on those Senators with shady dealings and exposing them to the light of day. Likewise, the huge corporations of the Galaxy would need someone to check their more avaricious behavior. Stealth, tact, true idealism and diplomacy would be at the heart of these kind of adventures-otherwise you run the risk of becoming a 'McCarthy Era' inquisition. But the latter even provides another adventure opportunity. What if an agency, committee or group of senators starts taking things too far? Your heroes would have to deal with these threats as well.
Criminal Organizations
With the Galaxy just recovering from a series of devastating wars, Criminal organizations are sure to abound- profiting off the chaos and misery while the 'large powers' have their attention diverted elsewhere. Agents of the New Republic would be needed to battle these criminals, be they isolated smugglers and pirates or full-blown criminal syndicates. Missions here would involve investigation (possibly undercover work) and raiding missions versus criminal bases and the like- as well as the protection of normal citizens. With some of the larger organizations (the Hutt Cartels for example) this might almost necessitate military intervention.
Cold War
Though the war between the Republic and the fragmented Empire may be officially over, there is no love lost between the two factions. Imperial Warlords may not make overt war against the might of the New Republic, but they could still carry on covert campaigns to undermine its presence and attempt to expand their own power. You have to look no further than any James Bond movie for inspiration for a lot of different adventures. The trick here is conducting operations in a manner that WON'T start a full-blown war.
Brushfire Wars
Though I see the New Republic as the most powerful single entity in the Galaxy during this period of peace, it is by no means in control of the entire Galaxy. There are hundreds of smaller powers that must be dealt with- and many of them have their own agendas. Whether it is expanding their power or settling old scores, these smaller powers may go to war with each other. Unfortunately, such things tend to destabilize everything around them— including the Republic. Thus, agents would be needed to go in and help stop these wars with quick, decisive action. This fits in well with the cold war gimmick as well- what if Imperial agitators are stirring up trouble? The trick then is to eliminate the Empire's influence without widening the scope of the conflict (Korea? Vietnam?).
Terrorists
Can't see why they wouldn't exist in the Star Wars galaxy. They could range from political idealists working for some specific agenda to pure anarchists who only wish to see the universe burn. Defending the galaxy from these kinds of threats is certainly a heroic task- and missions could range all over the place, from investigation to infiltration to raids and surgical strikes to rushing to stop some attack on a political figure or landmark.
Sith
They're always there. They had it pretty good for 20 years or so, running the entire Galaxy. With the downfall of the Emperor they have lost that power, but there are now (in my setting at least) dozens, if not hundreds of Sith vying to become the next emperor, through whatever means they can. This again can overlap with the other angles. Perhaps a Sith takes up politics and attempts to work his way into power within the Senate. Perhaps another is a terrorist seeking nothing but vengeance for the fallen Emperor. Another might seek to forge a criminal empire. Etc..
Supernatural Threats
Since I loved Dark Conspiracy (another horror RP games), I can't help but include this idea. The galaxy is a big place, and there are a lot of unexplained things out there. Force Spirits have been used in some stories. Monsters in others. Much like the criminal angle, the Empire and New Republic would have been distracted from such concerns during the war. And indeed, all the death and destruction caused could have opened the door (as it were) for all kinds of nastiness to emerge from the shadows. I could see the New Republic forming a 'taskforce' to deal with this kind of threat- tracking down strange and unexplained things at the fringes of the galaxy- or in those dark corners at its very heart.
Exploration
Here you have the Star Trek angle, and to me it makes sense. The Old Republic had a policy of exploration, but all of that got derailed by the rise of the Empire. Now, with things finally 'settling down', effort would be put back into this arena. New worlds will be needed for their resources and scientific value. More pragmatically, the New Republic may wish to avoid any more surprise attacks from alien races from the 'unknown regions'. Who knows what is out there- especially in my own campaign, where the Republic has unlocked the secret to intergalactic travel via hyperspace gates.
Diplomacy
This may not be particularly 'Star Wars', but missions to meet with foreign powers and solidify relationships would be a large part of a galaxy at peace. It would also offer interesting constraints to the activities of heroes, who would definitely have to think twice about going in, guns blazing.
So, there you have it, just a few of the ideas I have off the top of my head. I personally think there is a lot there to keep any heroes busy. In fact, the average 'mission' undertaken by heroes during this era wouldn't be much different from the scope of adventures that took place during the war(s). Only rarely did my PCs ever participate in large scale battles anyway.
The only thing I see 'lacking' is that sense of desperation that a huge war can bring about. Where every decision could mean the lives of thousands. Then again, maintaining peace seems to be as much a challenge as achieving it.
For some, the idea of a Galaxy at peace might also throw out another Star Wars staple: The idea of the PCs being the underdogs. It is kind of hard to see them that way when they have the resources of the entire Republic at their disposal. But to that I have only to say that the Republic, while huge, is limited in its resources. Especially in the period directly following the war(s). Yes, it may have entire fleets of starships at its disposal, but it can't commit them whilly nilly to counter every threat and 'back up' every team in the field.
Anyway, I'm thinking that Star Wars without the Wars still works.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Star Wars Live Action TV Series
Since Return of the Jedi came out in 1983, rumors have been floating around about the possibility of a TV series set in the Star Wars universe. Every now and then something happens to stir up those rumors again-like when the Young Indiana Jones series came out in 1992 or with the release of the prequels in 1999. As of yet, nothing solid has materialized.
One of my bosses recently sent me an 'off-the-cuff' interview with Rick McCallum, George Lucas' right-hand-man (and biggest fan). In this interview, McCallum mentions the TV series again-saying that they have 50 scripts already written. He also went on to say that the 'working title' of the series is "Underworld" and it will focus on criminal gangs and the like during the period between the prequels and original trilogy-in those twenty years when Luke and Leia were growing up. He was quick to point out that it wouldn't be about Luke though. The sticking point of the series, according to McCallum, is the price point per episode. They're trying to get it down to a manageable 5-Million per episode. Until they get closer to that goal, the series will, it seems, remain in limbo. McCallum just hopes that it'll be released 'before he dies'.
You and me both, buddy.
In any case, this little inkling as to what the series might be is, to me, encouraging. I have said before that what I thought the prequels were lacking was a 'Han Solo' type character who WASN'T a Jedi or Sith. A series about the underworld of the Star Wars galaxy has promise. I mean, just imagine a show kind of like Firefly (a ship full of misfits) only in the Star Wars universe. I'm onboard with that.
Smugglers, Pirates, Bounty Hunters, Crimelords. Yeah, that will be a nice change from Jedi Generals and Clone Troopers.
That having been said, I'm sure that with the HUGE focus on lightsaber-wielders since the prequel release that we'll see far too many of them for my liking-even in an era where most of them are supposed to be dead.
Here's hoping this show actually happens within MY lifetime. And here's doubly hoping it doesn't suck.
One of my bosses recently sent me an 'off-the-cuff' interview with Rick McCallum, George Lucas' right-hand-man (and biggest fan). In this interview, McCallum mentions the TV series again-saying that they have 50 scripts already written. He also went on to say that the 'working title' of the series is "Underworld" and it will focus on criminal gangs and the like during the period between the prequels and original trilogy-in those twenty years when Luke and Leia were growing up. He was quick to point out that it wouldn't be about Luke though. The sticking point of the series, according to McCallum, is the price point per episode. They're trying to get it down to a manageable 5-Million per episode. Until they get closer to that goal, the series will, it seems, remain in limbo. McCallum just hopes that it'll be released 'before he dies'.
You and me both, buddy.
In any case, this little inkling as to what the series might be is, to me, encouraging. I have said before that what I thought the prequels were lacking was a 'Han Solo' type character who WASN'T a Jedi or Sith. A series about the underworld of the Star Wars galaxy has promise. I mean, just imagine a show kind of like Firefly (a ship full of misfits) only in the Star Wars universe. I'm onboard with that.
Smugglers, Pirates, Bounty Hunters, Crimelords. Yeah, that will be a nice change from Jedi Generals and Clone Troopers.
That having been said, I'm sure that with the HUGE focus on lightsaber-wielders since the prequel release that we'll see far too many of them for my liking-even in an era where most of them are supposed to be dead.
Here's hoping this show actually happens within MY lifetime. And here's doubly hoping it doesn't suck.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
A Star Wars Holiday
Being an Uncle is awesome.
Being an Uncle with Nephews who love Star Wars is even MORE awesome.
This holiday, I went up to my mom's house to spend time with family- which included my oldest Sister's two boys- one five, the other one and a half. Thanks to the miracle of Skype, the oldest of those two had already seen a lot of my collection of Star Wars toys. Needless to say, he wanted to see these toys 'in person'.
So it was that when I loaded up my car, the trunk was filled with the cream of my collection- the 'Hoth Playset' as I now call it. This included an AT-AT walker, a Snowspeeder, a Squad of Snowtroopers, a Squad of Rebel Hoth troopers plus some taun-tauns, a Wampa, and various droids and the like. Also along for the ride were a TIE fighter, an X-Wing, a Y-Wing and Boba Fett's Slave I.
I arrived before the kiddies, so I had a little time to 'set up'. Of course when they arrived, I had to do the Uncle thing and pretend that I had forgotten to bring my toys. My sister unfortunately ruined my teasing by telling her son I was full of beans. Within moments, my oldest Nephew and I were playing Star Wars.
And you know what? It is still fun. We had a blast- and more importantly- HE had a blast. In particular, he loved the Y-Wing. This made me grin as I have to admit that as a kid, that particular toy would have been my favorite as well. We are talking the 'Old Republic' version of the Y-Wing here, from the Clone Wars series. This features seating for a Piot, a Gunner AND an Astromech droid- plus it has spring loaded pop-up missile bays- into which you can fit ANOTHER droid (or so my Nephew discovered). It could also FIRE six spring-launched missiles and drop two bombs. Yep, that would be my favorite, and it certainly was his.
But lets not forget little brother. The one-and-a-half-year-old was just as fascinated by the toys as his older brother. Again I had to grin. Even at that age, he totally 'got it'.. you put the pilots into the cockpit, you take them out, you fire the missiles, you put the missiles back and fire them again.
Sigh. Good times.
In any case, I am glad to see that some things DO seem to bridge the generations. Say what you want about the electronic age and all the distractions and entertainments therein. There is still something amazing about actually holding a toy and playing with it. I'm not sure that will ever go out of style.
In case you were wondering what the exact point of this post was, there isn't one beyond the fact that playing Star Wars remains awesome. That is all. Happy New Year, everyone.
Being an Uncle with Nephews who love Star Wars is even MORE awesome.
This holiday, I went up to my mom's house to spend time with family- which included my oldest Sister's two boys- one five, the other one and a half. Thanks to the miracle of Skype, the oldest of those two had already seen a lot of my collection of Star Wars toys. Needless to say, he wanted to see these toys 'in person'.
So it was that when I loaded up my car, the trunk was filled with the cream of my collection- the 'Hoth Playset' as I now call it. This included an AT-AT walker, a Snowspeeder, a Squad of Snowtroopers, a Squad of Rebel Hoth troopers plus some taun-tauns, a Wampa, and various droids and the like. Also along for the ride were a TIE fighter, an X-Wing, a Y-Wing and Boba Fett's Slave I.
I arrived before the kiddies, so I had a little time to 'set up'. Of course when they arrived, I had to do the Uncle thing and pretend that I had forgotten to bring my toys. My sister unfortunately ruined my teasing by telling her son I was full of beans. Within moments, my oldest Nephew and I were playing Star Wars.
And you know what? It is still fun. We had a blast- and more importantly- HE had a blast. In particular, he loved the Y-Wing. This made me grin as I have to admit that as a kid, that particular toy would have been my favorite as well. We are talking the 'Old Republic' version of the Y-Wing here, from the Clone Wars series. This features seating for a Piot, a Gunner AND an Astromech droid- plus it has spring loaded pop-up missile bays- into which you can fit ANOTHER droid (or so my Nephew discovered). It could also FIRE six spring-launched missiles and drop two bombs. Yep, that would be my favorite, and it certainly was his.
But lets not forget little brother. The one-and-a-half-year-old was just as fascinated by the toys as his older brother. Again I had to grin. Even at that age, he totally 'got it'.. you put the pilots into the cockpit, you take them out, you fire the missiles, you put the missiles back and fire them again.
Sigh. Good times.
In any case, I am glad to see that some things DO seem to bridge the generations. Say what you want about the electronic age and all the distractions and entertainments therein. There is still something amazing about actually holding a toy and playing with it. I'm not sure that will ever go out of style.
In case you were wondering what the exact point of this post was, there isn't one beyond the fact that playing Star Wars remains awesome. That is all. Happy New Year, everyone.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
TUESDAY TANGENT: Skyrim and the Illusion of Freedom
Contrary to the activity of my blog, I am not, in fact, dead. Truth be told, I am in the year-end crunch that most people experience at their jobs. Between that and planning for my vacation I've been swamped. And when you add to that the release of a new video game (Skyrim), well...lets just say the blog got put on the back burner, hm? In any case, I am finally taking some time to discuss something game related- though not at all Star Wars related (thus the tangent).
My introduction to the Elder Scrolls series (of which Skyrim is the 5th chapter) was with its predecessor, ES-IV: Oblivion. I purchased this game shortly after playing Star Wars, Knights of the Old Republic. I was looking for something to give me that same 'fix' of awesome, free-ranging roleplay. I played Oblivion for...oh, about two hours before I sadly discovered that it was nowhere near the experience I had hoped it would be. Many people would consider this an unfair comparison, and it is to an extent. But only to an extent. I think the exact moment I quit Oblivion is when I entered into 'conversation' with a random NPC and found myself in a bizarre mini-game involving different 'moods' and colors and... yeah. After the friendships I'd formed in Knights of the Old Republic (for example the awesome dialogue with Jolee Bindo), I found the whole thing to be very flat.
Even so, years later, when I saw the ads for Skyrim I thought that it looked pretty cool. So I took the plunge and hours and hours later, I finished the main storylines of the game. My initial reaction to the game was one of awe. The world was HUGE and beautiful, and I could go wherever I wanted. Okay, so maybe the NPCs were shallow, the combat was fun, as was the exploration. The sheer number of things to do was staggering. There were all kinds of dungeons and ruins and towns to explore. Okay, so maybe the big set-piece battles of the game were a little uh.. low key. Not epic, but still fun and playable. I was certain, though, that as things built towards a climax with the civil war AND the dragon invasion that there would be those big MOMENTS. I was sure that some of the characters (the main ones) would prove to be more than your typical NPCs... that they would have deeper stories to tell and have personalities that come out through association with them and... well, when I 'finished' the game, I was still waiting for this to happen. Don't get me wrong. I think Skyrim is a good game. I had (and am having) a lot of fun with it. But for all it's vast scope, it is not a very 'deep' game. And that is probably the reason why I am not nearly as enthusiastic about it as I was about other games.
Now, before I keep rambling, I want to get to the point of this blog entry- namely that Freedom in any video game is an Illusion. And to me, a well done illusion of freedom is a lot better than a game that offers freedom but seemingly without dramatic impact. I will explore this by comparing Skyrim to a couple contemporary games: The Dragon Age series and even Mass Effect. Now again, some folks might call the comparisons unfair- that Skyrim is going after another kind of role playing experience. But I am talking personal preference here-which is all anyone can really do, since there is no great 'universal truth' to making a game 'fun'.
First of all, I'd like to describe what I mean by 'Freedom' within a game. Ultimately what I'm talking about here is being able to make MAJOR choices that affect either the world or the story being told-which, in effect, allow me to steer the course of the story (and in effect the 'game world') in the way I want it to go. In games like Skyrim (and Dragon Age), this kind of freedom is achieved in three major ways- through the setting, the characters and the 'setpiece' events and storylines.
As far as setting goes, Skyrim achieves the illusion of freedom by allowing the player to go wherever he/she wants. The only 'invisible walls' are the borders of the huge realm of Skyrim. Other than that, if you want to get there, odds are you can find a way to do so-be in the peak of a towering mountain or the depths of an icy lake. The size of Skyrim makes this very impressive indeed. You aren't confined to one set of corridors or a single path that takes you through a forest. If you're on a road that goes east and west, you can make a right angle turn and go north or south and STILL find adventure. That is impressive. Especially when you compare it to something like the Dragon Age series, where travel through the world is achieved through menu screens and only 'encounter areas' are actually open for exploration.
Where this Freedom of travel/setting thing begins to break down, however, is in the scope of human habitation in Skyrim. Miles of tractless wilderness are one thing, but when you reach a large town or city, the 'illusion of reality' begins to falter. Yes, you're able to go ANYWHERE within that city map, but the city itself is small-maybe a couple dozen or so buildings all-told. And while, at first glance, it gives the impression of being larger than it actually is, the more you visit and explore a location, the smaller you realize it is. In games like Dragon Age (or even the Fable Series), there are 'snippets' of large cities present to explore, but beyond those are hints at the larger scope of the setting- buildings leading off into the distance. Even if I can't physically break into and rob each of those houses, the fact they are there creates the 'Illusion' of an epic scale to a story. A city LOOKS like a city, not just a collection of a few buildings. I would point to Mass Effect 2 for an almost perfect illustration of my point. One planet, Ilium, is a vast metropolis, a la Coruscant or Blade Runner- and yet the part you can explore is (in comparison) almost laughably small. Even so, when you look off of a balcony and see the miles and miles of cityscape stretching out... well, you get feeling- the illusion- that you're in a vast world. And yes, again I realize (and have heard) arguments that Skyrim's cities are supposed to be small, but seriously, 'real' medieval cities were a LOT larger than Skyrim's.
But more than just the setting itself, the characters (people and beasts) who populate it really help bring a world (and a game) to life. In Skyrim there are hundreds (if not thousands) of NPCs scattered across various cities, towns and even farms and remote cabins. Most of them can be interacted with in some manner. And then there is the wild life. Walking through the mountainous tundra, you can find everything from tiny butterflies to elk, to mammoths. And you're able to interact with ALL of them. Nothing here is 'just for show'. Are you really in the mood for some delicious mammoth snout sandwiches? Well, go ahead. Attack one of the beasts (I wouldn't recommend it though). Do you need butterfly wings for one of your potions? Go ahead, send your heavily armored dragon-slaying warrior skipping around the fields of flowers to catch one. It is all possible.
More to the point that most gamers seem to bring up, if you feel like killing some random villager for casting a disparaging remark in your direction (which, for some reason, they seem to do with frequency), you can do that. You can slaughter to your heart's content. Well, except for children. Because that would be bad. Oh, and except for shop-keepers or folks who are important to the storyline in certain quests and...hmmmm. So maybe my freedom is somewhat limited after all.
I normally play a good guy, so this 'unkillable NPC syndrome' doesn't usually bother me-I don't fancy random slaughter of children or anything else for that matter. But I ran into a situation in my own game that irked me. In one town, there is a crooked noblewoman- Maven Black-Briar. She basically runs the Thieves' Guild in her city. In fact, several NPCs tell you this outright. She is also thoroughly unpleasant to boot. So, after the tenth time of her making some snide remark as she walked past me, I decided enough was enough. I'd take her out, and the Guild with her. It would be one of those 'justified killings' (at least in my mind) for the greater good (the greater good!). Imagine my annoyance when I found out that she was unkillable. So much for freedom of choice. And honestly, in my play through I saw NO reason at all why she would be immortal. I didn't participate in any of the Thieves' Guild stuff, so her life (or death) were of no consequence to me or the main storyline as a whole. But in the end, it just serves to illustrate my point. As much as Skyrim may tout its 'you can do anything' selling point, there are a lot of exceptions to that rule.
In other games, such as Dragon Age, there were characters who I (or rather my character) would have very much liked to kill. But within the confines of that game, you knew up front that you couldn't do so unless it was 'scripted'. There was never any option to 'go berserk and kill everyone'. Therefore, such situations didn't really bother me. In games that tout 'freedom of action', however, anything that curtails that freedom really does become an issue. Once again, the Illusion of Freedom is broken- and if I had my druthers, I'd prefer to know up front (out of character) that some annoying people are just untouchable.
Another point regarding characters in Skyrim is the fact that all of them-even the lowliest farmer in his field or woodcutter plying his trade-have something to say. Most of them are able to interact with your character in some way. Some just have a few lines of dialogue, others have quests and still others turn out to be elements of various larger stories or adventures. Each town has its own rogue's gallery of denizens, each of them going about their daily lives. At first glance, this serves to make the world seem 'alive'- to make those cities (however small) seem to be bustling. But the fortieth time you return to your hometown and have the SAME NPCs spout the same lines at you that they have for the entire game. Well...it gets old. And I'm not sure if I have a good 'solution' to this one. In fact, Dragon Age and Mass Effect kind of do the same things, though they do have a lot fewer NPCs with lines.. and well, I don't mind that, actually. While I feel it is rewarding to talk to NPCs in a video game, I tend to only do so when that NPC has something interesting to say-and I don't just mean a fetch quest. I mean the ability to carry on some kind of conversation that teaches me about the world or the NPC. So while at first glance 'chatty' NPCs may seem like a good way to liven up a world, it tends (for me at least) to get old fast. Perhaps the whole 'less is more' thing is preferable. You can have a city populated by NPCs, but maybe only have a few of them speak and/or interact. And those that do should hopefully have some 'reason' for being interacted with- be it a quest, some general information or even just a laugh.
The last character-related issue I want to discuss is the depth of personality of specific, plot-important NPCs and companions. In Skyrim, unfortunately, this depth is lacking. Even the most important people in the game-the Greybeards, General Tullius and Ulfric Stormcloak, do not develop much through play. Nor do you ever feel like you are creating a 'relationship' with any of them. About the only nods to this are the bits of dialogue prior to them handing out quests. If you've been doing good for them, they'll comment on it, but that's about it. And for me at least, the Villains (or rather, the enemies I chose to label as such), didn't seem to react to me at all. I mean, I had helped the Empire capture two forts and was able to just walk into the capital of the Stormcloak rebels without any fuss except a guard commenting. "Hey, how come you're not wearing our kind of armor?"
As far as actual adventuring companions go, they might as well have just named them all 'meatshield' and/or 'walking inventory space'. None of them have any personality- at least not while they are with you. Oh sure, some of them might have a bit of a backstory (the Companions, for example), but once they begin traveling with you, they robotically adhere to the behavior (and even dialogue) of all other companion characters. Yes, Lydia, that does look like a cave. Yes, Erik the Slayer, that does look like a cave. Yes, Aela the Huntress, I too wonder if we should explore that cave. It is perhaps unfair to compare Bioware games and their very well developed NPCs to those of Skyrim, but... well, if you're going to include the option of recruiting people to join you, shouldn't there be SOME kind of reason for them to do so outside of helping in combat and carrying all your excess loot? In the end, I found companions to be more of a nuisance than anything else. And when that happens, you lose a wonderful way of helping players connect to the world and the story.
Finally, we come to the 'story' aspect of a game: how your choices affect the way things work out. In most modern computer roleplaying games, the player character is central to the resolution of whatever conflict is going on in the game world. Skyrim is no different in that regard- save for the fact that there are two ‘main’ quest lines running through the game. The first is the civil war between the Empire and the Stormcloak rebels. In truth, both sides are portrayed as rather ‘grey’, so whichever one you wind up choosing (if either) become the ‘good guys’ of your story. The second major storyline is the return of Dragons to Skyrim from their centuries-long slumber. In this case, you have a more definite ‘enemy’ in the big-bad dragon, “Alduin the World Eater”, who is destined to bring about the end of the world and the birth of a new one. So, unless you LIKE the idea of dieing to make room for a new world, odds are you’re going to try and fight Alduin.
The resolution of the Alduin storyline is pretty straightforward— find the tools necessary to defeat him and then go do it. The civil war is a lot more open ended—and how it ends depends entirely upon who you side with. There are also dozens of smaller quest-lines that can be picked up or ignored. You can become the Archmage of the College of Magic. You can join and take over the thieves’ guild, you can become an assassin in the Dark Brotherhood. On the surface, at least, it appears as though the sky is the limit (no pun intended). In practice, however, very little seems to change. The 'major earthshaking events' of the story don't seem to amount to much. The only things that really seem to change are the color of the city guards' uniforms and a few of their random bits of dialogue. In fact, even after I had defeated the 'main villain' of the piece, Ulfric Stormcloak (well, he was the villain in MY particular story), the various rulers of the different towns didn't even seem to recognize that he was gone. All the same (previously exhausted) bits of dialogue were still there, including questions as to why they chose this or that side in the war. And the responses I got were the same AFTER the war as they were while it was going on. Disappointing. For all the importance placed on my character, the world itself didn't change outwardly at all.
The same can be said of a lot of the other quest lines. I became Arch Mage of the college of magic. But apart from the snazzy new apartment and some robes, it didn’t mean anything. Only the Mages in the college ever referred to me by my title, nobody else in the world seemed to care. The same could be said for me becoming the leader of the Companions (Warrior Guild). No reactions at all, for the most part. So while you’re free to choose to do whatever you want, not a lot comes of it. There don’t SEEM to be any consequences or effect on the larger world.
Then again, when I look at a game like Mass Effect, it isn’t as though a whole lot changes based on your decisions- at least not within a single game. But when I played ME2 AFTER ME1, I really DID have the illusion that my choices had an impact. The dialogue of quite a few NPCs depended entirely upon what I decided to do in the last game- as did the tone of various encounters- and with the game continuing into its third installment, I can see how my game might be VERY different from someone else’s. Perhaps something like this will happen in Skyrim- either with DLC or the next game, but to me, the open-ended nature of the game seems to work only because you CAN’T change the setting that much. And that makes me feel less impactful as a hero.
Another aspect of story is ‘drama’- and by placing almost the entirety of Skyrim’s ‘camera work’ in the hands of the player, you can really miss out on a lot of drama. There were entire scenes and interactions between NPCs that I missed entirely because I ran past them by accident, then returned only to find the conversation over. Likewise, some big villain might be making his big entrance onto the battlefield, but I missed it because I was looting a corpse elsewhere. While this can be attributed to my own bad timing, it does contribute to an overall lessening of the ‘drama’. While I am not a huge fan of cut-scenes, I do feel that they can really enhance an encounter- even if only to momentarily focus your adventurer on some momentous happening.
And finally, there is something to be said for a sense of scale. In Dragon Age, the opening big battle of the game is preceded by an awesome cut scene of thousands of monsters and men doing battle. When you cut back to your character, you find yourself in a much smaller scale battle, but it FEELS like it is part of something larger. In Skyrim, the big assault on the enemy fortress seems to be conducted by me and twelve other guys, against a couple dozen bad guys, who come in waves. It was distinctly underwhelming. And I’d wager that in both games, there were probably the same number of enemies, the difference was the illusion of scale and scope present in Dragon Age and absent in Skyrim.
Anyway, that’s just what I wanted to ramble off the top of my head. And remember, despite everything I have said, I DO enjoy Skyrim for its own merits. I just can’t help but wonder if there will ever be a marriage of concepts. A game as BIG as Skyrim, and as Deep as Dragon Age. If it ever came to be, it would rank as one of the best games of all time, I think.
My introduction to the Elder Scrolls series (of which Skyrim is the 5th chapter) was with its predecessor, ES-IV: Oblivion. I purchased this game shortly after playing Star Wars, Knights of the Old Republic. I was looking for something to give me that same 'fix' of awesome, free-ranging roleplay. I played Oblivion for...oh, about two hours before I sadly discovered that it was nowhere near the experience I had hoped it would be. Many people would consider this an unfair comparison, and it is to an extent. But only to an extent. I think the exact moment I quit Oblivion is when I entered into 'conversation' with a random NPC and found myself in a bizarre mini-game involving different 'moods' and colors and... yeah. After the friendships I'd formed in Knights of the Old Republic (for example the awesome dialogue with Jolee Bindo), I found the whole thing to be very flat.
Even so, years later, when I saw the ads for Skyrim I thought that it looked pretty cool. So I took the plunge and hours and hours later, I finished the main storylines of the game. My initial reaction to the game was one of awe. The world was HUGE and beautiful, and I could go wherever I wanted. Okay, so maybe the NPCs were shallow, the combat was fun, as was the exploration. The sheer number of things to do was staggering. There were all kinds of dungeons and ruins and towns to explore. Okay, so maybe the big set-piece battles of the game were a little uh.. low key. Not epic, but still fun and playable. I was certain, though, that as things built towards a climax with the civil war AND the dragon invasion that there would be those big MOMENTS. I was sure that some of the characters (the main ones) would prove to be more than your typical NPCs... that they would have deeper stories to tell and have personalities that come out through association with them and... well, when I 'finished' the game, I was still waiting for this to happen. Don't get me wrong. I think Skyrim is a good game. I had (and am having) a lot of fun with it. But for all it's vast scope, it is not a very 'deep' game. And that is probably the reason why I am not nearly as enthusiastic about it as I was about other games.
Now, before I keep rambling, I want to get to the point of this blog entry- namely that Freedom in any video game is an Illusion. And to me, a well done illusion of freedom is a lot better than a game that offers freedom but seemingly without dramatic impact. I will explore this by comparing Skyrim to a couple contemporary games: The Dragon Age series and even Mass Effect. Now again, some folks might call the comparisons unfair- that Skyrim is going after another kind of role playing experience. But I am talking personal preference here-which is all anyone can really do, since there is no great 'universal truth' to making a game 'fun'.
First of all, I'd like to describe what I mean by 'Freedom' within a game. Ultimately what I'm talking about here is being able to make MAJOR choices that affect either the world or the story being told-which, in effect, allow me to steer the course of the story (and in effect the 'game world') in the way I want it to go. In games like Skyrim (and Dragon Age), this kind of freedom is achieved in three major ways- through the setting, the characters and the 'setpiece' events and storylines.
As far as setting goes, Skyrim achieves the illusion of freedom by allowing the player to go wherever he/she wants. The only 'invisible walls' are the borders of the huge realm of Skyrim. Other than that, if you want to get there, odds are you can find a way to do so-be in the peak of a towering mountain or the depths of an icy lake. The size of Skyrim makes this very impressive indeed. You aren't confined to one set of corridors or a single path that takes you through a forest. If you're on a road that goes east and west, you can make a right angle turn and go north or south and STILL find adventure. That is impressive. Especially when you compare it to something like the Dragon Age series, where travel through the world is achieved through menu screens and only 'encounter areas' are actually open for exploration.
Where this Freedom of travel/setting thing begins to break down, however, is in the scope of human habitation in Skyrim. Miles of tractless wilderness are one thing, but when you reach a large town or city, the 'illusion of reality' begins to falter. Yes, you're able to go ANYWHERE within that city map, but the city itself is small-maybe a couple dozen or so buildings all-told. And while, at first glance, it gives the impression of being larger than it actually is, the more you visit and explore a location, the smaller you realize it is. In games like Dragon Age (or even the Fable Series), there are 'snippets' of large cities present to explore, but beyond those are hints at the larger scope of the setting- buildings leading off into the distance. Even if I can't physically break into and rob each of those houses, the fact they are there creates the 'Illusion' of an epic scale to a story. A city LOOKS like a city, not just a collection of a few buildings. I would point to Mass Effect 2 for an almost perfect illustration of my point. One planet, Ilium, is a vast metropolis, a la Coruscant or Blade Runner- and yet the part you can explore is (in comparison) almost laughably small. Even so, when you look off of a balcony and see the miles and miles of cityscape stretching out... well, you get feeling- the illusion- that you're in a vast world. And yes, again I realize (and have heard) arguments that Skyrim's cities are supposed to be small, but seriously, 'real' medieval cities were a LOT larger than Skyrim's.
But more than just the setting itself, the characters (people and beasts) who populate it really help bring a world (and a game) to life. In Skyrim there are hundreds (if not thousands) of NPCs scattered across various cities, towns and even farms and remote cabins. Most of them can be interacted with in some manner. And then there is the wild life. Walking through the mountainous tundra, you can find everything from tiny butterflies to elk, to mammoths. And you're able to interact with ALL of them. Nothing here is 'just for show'. Are you really in the mood for some delicious mammoth snout sandwiches? Well, go ahead. Attack one of the beasts (I wouldn't recommend it though). Do you need butterfly wings for one of your potions? Go ahead, send your heavily armored dragon-slaying warrior skipping around the fields of flowers to catch one. It is all possible.
More to the point that most gamers seem to bring up, if you feel like killing some random villager for casting a disparaging remark in your direction (which, for some reason, they seem to do with frequency), you can do that. You can slaughter to your heart's content. Well, except for children. Because that would be bad. Oh, and except for shop-keepers or folks who are important to the storyline in certain quests and...hmmmm. So maybe my freedom is somewhat limited after all.
I normally play a good guy, so this 'unkillable NPC syndrome' doesn't usually bother me-I don't fancy random slaughter of children or anything else for that matter. But I ran into a situation in my own game that irked me. In one town, there is a crooked noblewoman- Maven Black-Briar. She basically runs the Thieves' Guild in her city. In fact, several NPCs tell you this outright. She is also thoroughly unpleasant to boot. So, after the tenth time of her making some snide remark as she walked past me, I decided enough was enough. I'd take her out, and the Guild with her. It would be one of those 'justified killings' (at least in my mind) for the greater good (the greater good!). Imagine my annoyance when I found out that she was unkillable. So much for freedom of choice. And honestly, in my play through I saw NO reason at all why she would be immortal. I didn't participate in any of the Thieves' Guild stuff, so her life (or death) were of no consequence to me or the main storyline as a whole. But in the end, it just serves to illustrate my point. As much as Skyrim may tout its 'you can do anything' selling point, there are a lot of exceptions to that rule.
In other games, such as Dragon Age, there were characters who I (or rather my character) would have very much liked to kill. But within the confines of that game, you knew up front that you couldn't do so unless it was 'scripted'. There was never any option to 'go berserk and kill everyone'. Therefore, such situations didn't really bother me. In games that tout 'freedom of action', however, anything that curtails that freedom really does become an issue. Once again, the Illusion of Freedom is broken- and if I had my druthers, I'd prefer to know up front (out of character) that some annoying people are just untouchable.
Another point regarding characters in Skyrim is the fact that all of them-even the lowliest farmer in his field or woodcutter plying his trade-have something to say. Most of them are able to interact with your character in some way. Some just have a few lines of dialogue, others have quests and still others turn out to be elements of various larger stories or adventures. Each town has its own rogue's gallery of denizens, each of them going about their daily lives. At first glance, this serves to make the world seem 'alive'- to make those cities (however small) seem to be bustling. But the fortieth time you return to your hometown and have the SAME NPCs spout the same lines at you that they have for the entire game. Well...it gets old. And I'm not sure if I have a good 'solution' to this one. In fact, Dragon Age and Mass Effect kind of do the same things, though they do have a lot fewer NPCs with lines.. and well, I don't mind that, actually. While I feel it is rewarding to talk to NPCs in a video game, I tend to only do so when that NPC has something interesting to say-and I don't just mean a fetch quest. I mean the ability to carry on some kind of conversation that teaches me about the world or the NPC. So while at first glance 'chatty' NPCs may seem like a good way to liven up a world, it tends (for me at least) to get old fast. Perhaps the whole 'less is more' thing is preferable. You can have a city populated by NPCs, but maybe only have a few of them speak and/or interact. And those that do should hopefully have some 'reason' for being interacted with- be it a quest, some general information or even just a laugh.
The last character-related issue I want to discuss is the depth of personality of specific, plot-important NPCs and companions. In Skyrim, unfortunately, this depth is lacking. Even the most important people in the game-the Greybeards, General Tullius and Ulfric Stormcloak, do not develop much through play. Nor do you ever feel like you are creating a 'relationship' with any of them. About the only nods to this are the bits of dialogue prior to them handing out quests. If you've been doing good for them, they'll comment on it, but that's about it. And for me at least, the Villains (or rather, the enemies I chose to label as such), didn't seem to react to me at all. I mean, I had helped the Empire capture two forts and was able to just walk into the capital of the Stormcloak rebels without any fuss except a guard commenting. "Hey, how come you're not wearing our kind of armor?"
As far as actual adventuring companions go, they might as well have just named them all 'meatshield' and/or 'walking inventory space'. None of them have any personality- at least not while they are with you. Oh sure, some of them might have a bit of a backstory (the Companions, for example), but once they begin traveling with you, they robotically adhere to the behavior (and even dialogue) of all other companion characters. Yes, Lydia, that does look like a cave. Yes, Erik the Slayer, that does look like a cave. Yes, Aela the Huntress, I too wonder if we should explore that cave. It is perhaps unfair to compare Bioware games and their very well developed NPCs to those of Skyrim, but... well, if you're going to include the option of recruiting people to join you, shouldn't there be SOME kind of reason for them to do so outside of helping in combat and carrying all your excess loot? In the end, I found companions to be more of a nuisance than anything else. And when that happens, you lose a wonderful way of helping players connect to the world and the story.
Finally, we come to the 'story' aspect of a game: how your choices affect the way things work out. In most modern computer roleplaying games, the player character is central to the resolution of whatever conflict is going on in the game world. Skyrim is no different in that regard- save for the fact that there are two ‘main’ quest lines running through the game. The first is the civil war between the Empire and the Stormcloak rebels. In truth, both sides are portrayed as rather ‘grey’, so whichever one you wind up choosing (if either) become the ‘good guys’ of your story. The second major storyline is the return of Dragons to Skyrim from their centuries-long slumber. In this case, you have a more definite ‘enemy’ in the big-bad dragon, “Alduin the World Eater”, who is destined to bring about the end of the world and the birth of a new one. So, unless you LIKE the idea of dieing to make room for a new world, odds are you’re going to try and fight Alduin.
The resolution of the Alduin storyline is pretty straightforward— find the tools necessary to defeat him and then go do it. The civil war is a lot more open ended—and how it ends depends entirely upon who you side with. There are also dozens of smaller quest-lines that can be picked up or ignored. You can become the Archmage of the College of Magic. You can join and take over the thieves’ guild, you can become an assassin in the Dark Brotherhood. On the surface, at least, it appears as though the sky is the limit (no pun intended). In practice, however, very little seems to change. The 'major earthshaking events' of the story don't seem to amount to much. The only things that really seem to change are the color of the city guards' uniforms and a few of their random bits of dialogue. In fact, even after I had defeated the 'main villain' of the piece, Ulfric Stormcloak (well, he was the villain in MY particular story), the various rulers of the different towns didn't even seem to recognize that he was gone. All the same (previously exhausted) bits of dialogue were still there, including questions as to why they chose this or that side in the war. And the responses I got were the same AFTER the war as they were while it was going on. Disappointing. For all the importance placed on my character, the world itself didn't change outwardly at all.
The same can be said of a lot of the other quest lines. I became Arch Mage of the college of magic. But apart from the snazzy new apartment and some robes, it didn’t mean anything. Only the Mages in the college ever referred to me by my title, nobody else in the world seemed to care. The same could be said for me becoming the leader of the Companions (Warrior Guild). No reactions at all, for the most part. So while you’re free to choose to do whatever you want, not a lot comes of it. There don’t SEEM to be any consequences or effect on the larger world.
Then again, when I look at a game like Mass Effect, it isn’t as though a whole lot changes based on your decisions- at least not within a single game. But when I played ME2 AFTER ME1, I really DID have the illusion that my choices had an impact. The dialogue of quite a few NPCs depended entirely upon what I decided to do in the last game- as did the tone of various encounters- and with the game continuing into its third installment, I can see how my game might be VERY different from someone else’s. Perhaps something like this will happen in Skyrim- either with DLC or the next game, but to me, the open-ended nature of the game seems to work only because you CAN’T change the setting that much. And that makes me feel less impactful as a hero.
Another aspect of story is ‘drama’- and by placing almost the entirety of Skyrim’s ‘camera work’ in the hands of the player, you can really miss out on a lot of drama. There were entire scenes and interactions between NPCs that I missed entirely because I ran past them by accident, then returned only to find the conversation over. Likewise, some big villain might be making his big entrance onto the battlefield, but I missed it because I was looting a corpse elsewhere. While this can be attributed to my own bad timing, it does contribute to an overall lessening of the ‘drama’. While I am not a huge fan of cut-scenes, I do feel that they can really enhance an encounter- even if only to momentarily focus your adventurer on some momentous happening.
And finally, there is something to be said for a sense of scale. In Dragon Age, the opening big battle of the game is preceded by an awesome cut scene of thousands of monsters and men doing battle. When you cut back to your character, you find yourself in a much smaller scale battle, but it FEELS like it is part of something larger. In Skyrim, the big assault on the enemy fortress seems to be conducted by me and twelve other guys, against a couple dozen bad guys, who come in waves. It was distinctly underwhelming. And I’d wager that in both games, there were probably the same number of enemies, the difference was the illusion of scale and scope present in Dragon Age and absent in Skyrim.
Anyway, that’s just what I wanted to ramble off the top of my head. And remember, despite everything I have said, I DO enjoy Skyrim for its own merits. I just can’t help but wonder if there will ever be a marriage of concepts. A game as BIG as Skyrim, and as Deep as Dragon Age. If it ever came to be, it would rank as one of the best games of all time, I think.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
TUESDAY TANGENT: Mass Effect and Difficulty
My favorite kind of video game is the ‘role playing’ type. Just what constitutes an RPG is open to debate— but to me, it is something that allows me to play the role of a character- to make decisions that impact the world around them and shape the story of the game. However, I am also a fan shooters (first or third person). It should come as no surprise, then, that the Mass Effect game series is one of my favorites. These games combine incredibly well-done storytelling with increasingly more ‘visceral’ gunfighting combat. But if I were forced to choose one or the other, the RPG aspect would definitely come first.
This attitude and the desire to experience the story of these games often causes me to do my initial run-through on very low difficulty settings. In fact, most of my subsequent run-throughs are on the ‘casual’ or ‘average’ settings. This allows me to focus more on the story and worry less about the combat (which is, in my opinion, ultimately peripheral).
That being said, once I have completed the game (usually several times over), I have made a point of going back through on the most difficult setting available- or at least I have done so with both Mass Effect games thus far. I have recently finished doing so with Mass Effect 2 and discovered something quite interesting along the way— a sense of real accomplishment and a whole new appreciation for a game that I have played literally dozens of times.
Oddly enough, instead of detracting from the RP elements, the incredibly difficult combats often made me much more ‘involved’ than I normally am. A case in point is the whole last act of Mass Effect 2- the final confrontation with the villains. The fights were incredibly difficult, requiring me to really make use of ALL the ‘bells and whistles’ of the combat system. I had to think tactically, ordering my companions into advantageous positions. I had to make use of the variety of special abilities that I and my companions had- I couldn’t just shoot bullets into every problem to solve it. I had to always be mindful of my ammo and medical supplies. And in the end, this playthrough really made me feel as though I were part of a ‘unit’ rather than a lone gunman.
For example, there was a part of the game where zombie-like beasts were swarming my small group. We had to keep falling back, until at last we were cornered. Things were looking pretty grim. Then one of my companions- Grunt the Krogan (big brick lizard dude) does his battle cry. “I. AM. KROGAN!” and suddenly charges forward, trampling down and destroying most of the zombie horde. I had heard him use that cry dozens times before. I’d even seen his charge before. But in that desperate situation I actually cheered out loud.
There were plenty of other situations like that throughout the playthrough. More than once, my companions saved my butt (or vice versa) by a well-timed shot or Biotic body slam. And in the midst of actual adrenaline filled combat, those actions had a lot more impact. The climactic string of battles were especially intense- most notably those events that were time dependent. No way I was going to let Tali die in those ventilation shafts!
In short (too late), it was almost like playing a brand new game.
It also got me thinking about my table-top gaming and some of the ‘best fights’ we’ve ever had there. In my Star Wars group, in particular, we have had a LOT of fights. But the ones we really remember were the most hard-fought- where the players really had to pull out all the stops in order to just survive. So yeah. Next time we play, I might crank up the difficulty setting a few notches and see what happens.
This attitude and the desire to experience the story of these games often causes me to do my initial run-through on very low difficulty settings. In fact, most of my subsequent run-throughs are on the ‘casual’ or ‘average’ settings. This allows me to focus more on the story and worry less about the combat (which is, in my opinion, ultimately peripheral).
That being said, once I have completed the game (usually several times over), I have made a point of going back through on the most difficult setting available- or at least I have done so with both Mass Effect games thus far. I have recently finished doing so with Mass Effect 2 and discovered something quite interesting along the way— a sense of real accomplishment and a whole new appreciation for a game that I have played literally dozens of times.
Oddly enough, instead of detracting from the RP elements, the incredibly difficult combats often made me much more ‘involved’ than I normally am. A case in point is the whole last act of Mass Effect 2- the final confrontation with the villains. The fights were incredibly difficult, requiring me to really make use of ALL the ‘bells and whistles’ of the combat system. I had to think tactically, ordering my companions into advantageous positions. I had to make use of the variety of special abilities that I and my companions had- I couldn’t just shoot bullets into every problem to solve it. I had to always be mindful of my ammo and medical supplies. And in the end, this playthrough really made me feel as though I were part of a ‘unit’ rather than a lone gunman.
For example, there was a part of the game where zombie-like beasts were swarming my small group. We had to keep falling back, until at last we were cornered. Things were looking pretty grim. Then one of my companions- Grunt the Krogan (big brick lizard dude) does his battle cry. “I. AM. KROGAN!” and suddenly charges forward, trampling down and destroying most of the zombie horde. I had heard him use that cry dozens times before. I’d even seen his charge before. But in that desperate situation I actually cheered out loud.
There were plenty of other situations like that throughout the playthrough. More than once, my companions saved my butt (or vice versa) by a well-timed shot or Biotic body slam. And in the midst of actual adrenaline filled combat, those actions had a lot more impact. The climactic string of battles were especially intense- most notably those events that were time dependent. No way I was going to let Tali die in those ventilation shafts!
In short (too late), it was almost like playing a brand new game.
It also got me thinking about my table-top gaming and some of the ‘best fights’ we’ve ever had there. In my Star Wars group, in particular, we have had a LOT of fights. But the ones we really remember were the most hard-fought- where the players really had to pull out all the stops in order to just survive. So yeah. Next time we play, I might crank up the difficulty setting a few notches and see what happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)