Nostalgiapocalypse: Save the Castle, Screw the Princess

I miss a time when I could feel complete satisfaction simply from collecting a power crystal and destroying every box in a level. The reasons why boxes deserved the fate of genocide didn’t matter, only the fact that an empty slot in my inventory needed to be filled by a gem did. Perhaps that is a little facetious, I would still not find a deep connection through that masochistic box hunt that was basically a realistic Nazi simulation… except I found Anne Frank… box form Anne Frank. However in every modern story-based title this thought process will always arise. I don’t feel as a gamer I can take anything at face value anymore. Deeper meanings may not always be contextualised within a game or its world; however that doesn’t mean I won’t over analyse and stew on the finest details. The less explained, the more I get to think about… how lucky.

Something I’ve been wondering about a lot lately is how this has come about. I’m sure the fact meaningful stories have only recently become a facet of videogame canon is a primary reason; however a lot more has changed within myself than the actual medium.

One of my favourite games as a child was the penultimate collectathon that was Donkey Kong 64. The story hinged on the need for Golden Bananas to defeat K.Rool; however the motivation for myself as the player was simple human instinct. No reward for achieveing 100% was discussed or even needed, just the fact that I could obtain a form of accomplishment for finishing what I had started mattered.

This is the first example I can think of where I didn’t care what the game had to say I was creating my own story. That story being that it is an absolute bastard to find everything in that game, but dammit it feels great when you do. This simple idea that I could create stories through videogames has evolved with me through the years. Where this first example depicts ignoring the story in favour of gameplay, the evolution of this idea has strangely come full circle into a deeper reading of what is displayed as narrative. Games once could be consisdered deep through gameplay, however that just isn’t enough anymore.

Bioshock created an atmospheric world for the player to interact with, not only physically but emotionally. Seeing horrific sights of brutalisation and debauchery left an echoing emptiness in its wake. That corpse belonged to a life and the truth of its fate will remain buried under the sea. What hit me on a much deeper level than this face-value assessment of Rapture was Andrew Ryan’s motives. Ryan’s visualisation of a utopia held a lot more meaning into human wants and needs than the savage visual of its eventual insanity ever could. People were willing to follow the leader in hopes of perfection; they were willing to leave everything based on the words of another. The irony being that Ryan’s entire personality balanced on ‘œa man chooses, and a slave obeys’.

The complete devastation of Rapture could be seen as a tragic failure in human nature, however Ryan may have seen it as paradise… a world where people followed every inclination they felt. Every emotion was met with a reaction. The lust for blood lead to deaths and the want for growth lead to life. A circle of chaos that optimised pure human nature. None of this is ever explained and through that reason, so much more meaning can be felt. An eight hour game can quite honestly weigh on my mind for several days and this could have never been achieved a decade ago. People now complain why everything isn’t laid out for them to simply follow and that just leaves me with the question what came first, the chicken or the dickhead?

Bioshock was an incomplete story. Not all was told to the player, instead opting for hints and suggestions into what occurred. I do not doubt that the average gamer couldn’t understand that Atlas was Fontaine and that Sander Cohan was crazy. I do however doubt that the average gamer questioned whether Ryan held such hatred for Fontaine because of his lust for power or simply because “A man builds. A parasite asks ‘Where is my share?” Every person could feel compelled to collect every item in a game; this is why simple gameplay will always appeal to the majority. However the medium can achieve so much more than that and I feel for those who cannot read a deeper meaning of the story has been showed to them.

What I’m really nostalgic about is the lack of remorse for simply being a peer to the generic gamer. I can’t help but cringe when I hear ignorance spouted as ‘œpoor game design’. Or maybe ‘œI wouldn’t do that, this is bullshit’. Gamers can’t detach themselves from the fact it is a game and they play a character within that world. The avatar you are bestowed isn’t just an empty emotionless shell waiting for your opinion to occupy it. Your character has been a part of their world a lot longer than you have and it’s this that is so hard for some to understand.

More to the point I am nostalgic about meaningless story, “save the castle, screw the princess” nonsense. No need for player expression except for how epic the end of a level was when they just scaped by through to the finish line. Simpler times meant I didn’t have to concern myself with the multiple issues of ‘œwhat do I think of this world’, awell as ‘œwhat will everyone else think of this world’. I wish I could go back to gameplay holding equal meaning to story. Not so I didn’t have to think about the world I’m in, but just because that was enough. I miss being able entertain myself with creative gameplay, instead of needing both that and a creative narrative to be completely pleased with a game experience. I realise it’s not my place as a gamer to concern myself with what meaning others take out of games, retro or modern, but I don’t see developers wanting to move forward if the majority couldn’t care less. That and stupid just shits me to tears.

Recently the story of Call of Duty 6: Today Fighting 2 has been simplified to a Michael Bay piece of action-movie rubbish. Plot holes and unexplained character actions have lead people to quantify the story as utter tripe, however incredibly fun. I completely disagree and it isn’t because everything is secretly explained in subtext and I am just brilliant enough to illuminate it. The reason is because I filled in the gaps, whether my reading on the story is validated through narration or not, the answers have still been met. I as a player will understand that the story is not complete and instead of ignoring it favour of “wow wasn’t that fun I suppose” I will rationalise everything to an acceptable level for myself. For instance a lot of controversy has come through the “No Russian” level. [Ed: Spoiler warning for the following paragraph] Not that it’s too graphic, but that more player interaction and a reflected game response was needed. Basically, people feel that they “just would shoot the terrorists, let me shoot them”.

I can’t empathise with their feelings at all. You as a player are a CIA undercover agent; you have been trained and briefed that this massacre will save many more lives. Whether as a person you would shoot them or not is irrelevant because you are not a CIA undercover agent. You have not spent years conforming your brain to follow orders to the very end; your opinion on the matter doesn’t affect this situation, your character’s does. Even worse was hearing people complain that by dying at the end of that segment it loses all relevancy and was obviously just put into the game for shock value. This couldn’t be further from the truth. If this piece was a by the numbers cut scene or if your emotions were perfectly played to so that you were the hero again, all hail you… all meaning would be lost. By playing a role that specifically alienates your feelings and causes an enate sense of helplessness and wrong, you will be affected by what takes place.

Games will continue to teeter on hanging themselves until they truly find their feet. Ambition can leave a game to be sent to die if it doesn’t come to fruition and I feel that too much of that risk is placed within “new interactive gameplay” and not in a truly unique story. Replayability still relies on how long will this game take and if it is fun enough for me to play it again. One day I hope replayability comes from a sincere want from the gamer to understand the story on a greater level. Not because of plot holes or misunderstanding, but because every nuance is important to figuring out for yourself the finer details of what is happening in the game world. In the beginning, accomplishment could only be achieved through gameplay. I honestly miss that feeling. However until we move beyond this complete lack of thought, narrative won’t progress. If we have no deeper thought towards games, they won’t ever have a deeper meaning. How can we expect games to walk paths yet not tread if we can’t bother to read the road signs they leave behind?