Haze Comments by Tom Bramwell

"But in reality, my first reaction when greeted with an NPC/team mate is to see if I can attack or kill them. I played the demo of splinter cell double agent yesterday. I was infiltrating a village in the congo, there were cowering civilians and terrorists all over the place. I was meant to be protecting the civilians and dropping the terrorists. Within 2 minutes I had sneaked up on a peasant woman who was crying in the corner. Then I kneed her square in the crotch and laughed mercilessly. The fact remains, gamers are cunts, and they play games so they can be violent and feel all big and clever without fear of incarceration as a result."

----

Speak for yourself, mate! No offence but I don't really know why anyone would do what you suggest even if it isn't real. What could possibly be the appeal of beating the crap out of innocent people? I can see the appeal of taking your frustration out on someone antagonistic but the need to be the thug yourself is a bit incomprehensible to me and thankfully so.

I think that says more about your mental and emotional state than it does about gamers in general.

On another note; If the helmets filter out things they don't want the soldiers to see wouldn't they be forever tripping over dead bodies they can't see and being assaulted by grieving civilians they're unaware of?

@afghan_jones

"The fact remains, gamers are cunts"

Huge generalisation.

Not everyone plays games the same way you know. Just because you act in ways contrary to how you would in real life doesn't mean everyone would. In that respect, maybe you simply aren't the target audience for a game that tries to disturb you by hacing your associates commit atrocities? Doesn't mean the audience doesn't exist.

In general I agree with you, but in afghan/ag-parrot's defence, the examples they gave were of the run-and-gun variety and arguably most gamers do take a rather desensitised approach to such games, simply because they aren't encouraged to think otherwise (herein lies the challenge, FRD). Fable is another kettle of fish, as it is built around a very visible framework of moral choices with lasting gameplay ramifications.

> can you name a single (recent, popular, original) British-owned
> British-developed game with strong art direction?

Anything by Introversion.

@dirigiblebill

I'm not suggesting its a black and white issue. I just took exception to the suggestion that (in any kind of game) all gamers "are cunts" and will beat up on innocent NPCs.

This is perhaps a larger issue and comes down to the ability of the game in question (whichever genre it is cast in) to represent NPCs in a way that generates sympathy in a player.

Example. I have to escort an NPC in a game. They are a bit faceless, and due to poor pathfinding they bug the crap out of me by getting lost often. Result: if I could kill them and move on I probably would. Alternatively a game can present me with an NPC that doesn't annoy me, and I find I actually want to protect them (this can happen in an FPS, an RPG, etc).

Now each player will make their own decisions, based in part in the ability of the game to generate empathy, and in part on their own opinions, motives and maturity. The idea that ALL gamers just want to hit in-game innocents and then laugh is plain nonsese. Now I reckon afghan/ag-parrot didn't really mean that, they were just making a point in a slightly heavy handed way. Its maybe just stating personal preference as global fact that I don't like (a general allergy of mine I think).

I'm not sure anything by Introversion would qualify as 'popular' in the grand scheme of things. Not saying that is a good thing at all, but I don't think their distinctive artstyle actually helps them sell product to the mass market.

In general I agree with you, but in afghan/ag-parrot's defence, the examples they gave were of the run-and-gun variety and arguably most gamers do take a rather desensitised approach to such games, simply because they aren't encouraged to think otherwise (herein lies the challenge, FRD). Fable is another kettle of fish, as it is built around a very visible framework of moral choices with lasting gameplay ramifications.

Yes, don't get me wrong - I've played games that have made me shed a tear or two if they strike a resonant chord somewhere in my heart, or just come out of left-field with some tragic revelation... but dirigblebill has just clarified my point, I think... that the challenge with the perspective FRD are taking on Haze is to tackle this sort of entrenched desensitisation.

I recently replayed Deus Ex, an example of a game design that didn't force you to take the 'good' or the 'bad' approach, nor did it really judge you on your actions... but it did have ramifications for how the game interacted with you further down the line... I went through it, on this occasion, without killing anyone (who wasn't genuinely evil), and I don't really class myself as a c***... but it is interesting to have the choice 'twixt good and bad paths.

I'm genuinely looking forward to how they handle it in Haze... I think some of the time I play as evil-game-agparrot is to do with the way that NPC characters are portrayed. Some of them are just begging to be beaten!

I know what kangarootoo is saying about not all gamers being sadistic psychopaths, and I think this is genuinely true in real life - as afghan_jones pointed out - but in games, moral choices don't tend to harm real people... otherwise nobody would, in all conscience, be able to even fire up Grand Theft Auto.

This is perhaps a larger issue and comes down to the ability of the game in question (whichever genre it is cast in) to represent NPCs in a way that generates sympathy in a player.

Absolutely, and I share your allergy to generalisations :)

the challenge with the perspective FRD are taking on Haze is to tackle this sort of entrenched desensitisation.

Yes, and unfortunately the derivative, hard-nosed sci-fi look and feel of the game so far speaks volumes against them.

Now each player will make their own decisions, based in part in the ability of the game to generate empathy, and in part on their own opinions, motives and maturity. The idea that ALL gamers just want to hit in-game innocents and then laugh is plain nonsese. Now I reckon afghan/ag-parrot didn't really mean that, they were just making a point in a slightly heavy handed way.

Ya, Even David Doak makes reference to the difficulty of addressing these issues of empathy, involvement and desensitisation - it sounds to me like they are one of the building blocks of the storyline within the game... but that doesn't necessarily relate them to how people will play the game.

This notion of empathy has to work on two levels, really - it has to emanate strongly enough from the context of the game to carry through to making me want to care about how I play it.

"There'll be tactical issues to consider in this situation... do you kill your squad mate?" says Yescombe, and in doing so highlights, maybe, the paradox of tactics vs. morality in the combat situations they are trying to portray. That is all well and good, and in real life it might be a tough choice to make. However, in a game, if somebody on your team has just gone Schiz, I think the choice is much easier to make - sad as it might be, a swift bullet to the red helmet is the way to go.

Now - reading between the lines, it sounds to me as if the game is designed so that when you are 'on the juice' in red-helmet mode, all your targets are presented as gun-toting enemies, so as far as you are concerned, shooting them is not a moral choice, because they are gun toting enemies who disappear into the ether once they are dead. Once the nectar runs out, however, perhaps then you discover some of them were pregnant mothers, nuns, children and pet hamsters.

So you have been unwittingly made into a c*** by your perception of your targets. You might have thought that tasty headshot to a sniper just saved your squaddies butt, but in fact you've just drilled a .50 calibre hole through the head of a simpering villager.

How this will work out in 4-player co-op I'm not sure. As players surely you could ensure that you always knew who were your team-mates in a co-op game by maintaining a relative position - I don't know, always standing in a straight line of four. You'd have to do some proper tinkering with the game mechanics for the player to think they were being attacked by human team mates.

So an interesting challenge for them.

My point really is that is going to be incredibly hard to cause the desired empathy and emotional response in this sort of game.

A few examples of the genre.

1. Im playing a squad based game, maybe gears of war, my team mate runs into a hail of bullets and falls to the floor. Do I throw my pad to the ground, screaming 'Nooooo, Dom!' Of course not, I curse his worthless hide for being so rubbish and rev the chainsaw in his face when he gets up.

2. I have to escort a weak NPC, possible a female, possibly injured, to a safe location. Am I watching their back, trying to reassure them that I will protect them with my very life? No. I am shouting at them to get out of my way so I can get through that effing door so I can push that flipping switch and rescue you, you dozy tart!

3. I have to wait for a slwomoving NPC, possibly a security guard, to open a bunch of doors for me with a key that he refuses to give to me. I am a large man with several guns. He is old and walks slowly. I do not feel very grateful for his help and wish to protect him. I find him very frustrating and try to shoot or club him eveyr time he repeats one of his three set sound bites.

It is really hard to get gamers to feel involved with NPCs, especially in this genre. If you get 100 people to watch schindlers list, 99% will have a similar emotional reaction. (the other 1% are heartless or possibly nazis) The responses are broadly similar as the audio visual stimulation is the same for each viewer. If you get 100 people to play an FPS with an emotional angle, you will get 100 different responses as each gamer will have done different things and their responses will depend on how they, as the central character have chosen to approach things.

A lot of it is down to parameters. The start of a game generally will see players testing the boundaries of the game what can I shoot/not shoot, what happens if I shoot that NPC, can I break that door down etc, I think an emotional involvement in an FPS will be extremely hard to do.

(Also, sorry if anyone felt very offended by rash generalisations but on the whole, gamers will always be bastards.)

lol

or Haze-lenuts

oh, and I think we all agree, afghan, on the problems facing the scope outlined by the Haze developers

and... it's nice of you to downgrade your generalisation from c***s to bastards!

"oh, and I think we all agree, afghan, on the problems facing the scope outlined by the Haze developers

and... it's nice of you to downgrade your generalisation from c***s to bastards!"

I wasnt including you in that. you are still a hardcore 'See You Next Tuesday'

(In the nicest possible way, obviously.)

lol ;) ta.

edit: forgot to say thanks

Kiigan - I must say, I do miss the 'British' feel that many games used to have, but they were around when the costs could be offset by success merely in the domestic market, before development budgets got so obscene that only devs with giant corporate backers could make decent product. German and French games used to have their own special feeling, especially French games - companies like Delphine and Silmarils just used to put out product with a certain twist about it.

But you'll get richer selling burgers than haute cuisine....

For the non-US feel, I've been most impressed by STALKER. Maybe because Ukrainians making a game set in the Ukraine brought it closer to home for them so they put more of their heart into it, but it didn't feel like Doom 26 1/2 for me. Pathologic is similarly good & different, but the English translation rivals the worst mangled products of cutting and pasting into Babelfish.

@agparrot

The comment you started with "Ya, Even David Doak"... great post says I.

The idea that you could be fooled into commiting atrocities (then having to decide how you felt about it when the truth is later revealed) is something that a game might be able to use to great effect (though I do suspect that once the player "saw how the trick was done" it would be hard to use it again).

That reminds me of something I have already seen in a game, but I don't want to write a spoiler (and even if I gave a warning, naming the game would be enough to give the game away for some players). Nevermind.


@afghan_jones

I absolutely see what you are saying, and I used the similar example of poor NPC pathfinding as I didn't want to appear all one sided about this.

However, I do think that in many ways poor NPC implementation has undermined the whole idea of a player feeling empathy for other characters in a game. When an NPC does something that bugs the crap out of you, not only are annoying in their own right, but they have also ruined the game's attempts to suspend your disbelief. You stop feeling empathy in part because their behaviour is no longer realistic.

So, the point I am getting to is that just because lots of games implement NPCs badly, doesn't mean that the concept of player empathy is flawed in itself.

@ExplodingClown

I'm playing STALKER right now. And it struck me today that graphically its a bit old school (not that old, but you know what I mean). However, the atmosphere is creates is spot on. This is due to several things though I think. The Russian dialogue and accents help, but also the voice acting for the most part conveys a real sense of "just getting by, focussing on staying alive" kind of mentality. This is then matched by the whole "there is no sunny weather here, move along" visual style. A fantastic game with a few annoyances (which is often how I like 'em).

@kangarootoo

The idea that you could be fooled into commiting atrocities (then having to decide how you felt about it when the truth is later revealed) is something that a game might be able to use to great effect (though I do suspect that once the player "saw how the trick was done" it would be hard to use it again).

Yes... the whole feeling of the information forthcoming about Haze has me feeling very Metal Gear Solid really - these broader 'moral' issues outside of the run-and-gun format, which have to be carefully balanced against the game(play) itself. I guess it is the 'reality-bending' storyline in MGS2 as an initial flavour, but the aftertaste of walking past the corpses of dead people you have killed in MGS3 also lingers.

When an NPC does something that bugs the crap out of you, not only are annoying in their own right, but they have also ruined the game's attempts to suspend your disbelief. You stop feeling empathy in part because their behaviour is no longer realistic.

... and I'm just not sure how to square this against what Dr. Doak says about the AI and "not taking it as obsessively far as we were going to". - does this mean we are back into the sort of territory of sniping one of two enemies standing in a guard tower, and the second one obediently waiting to take a bullet because he can't see you?

Is the 'truth' of the Haze combat only made plain to the player, and not the rest of the NPC squad, too? If so we risk that shattering of suspension-of-disbelief, because we would like to just tell our squadmates the truth... empathise with them, have them empathise with us.

I guess all these things will become clear - it sounds ambitious, and I think that it should be applauded as an idea... despite my earlier quips about baseball-bat rampages, I think there is definitely room for thought provoking adult content in games.

@kangarootoo
"When an NPC does something that bugs the crap out of you, not only are annoying in their own right, but they have also ruined the game's attempts to suspend your disbelief."

Read an article once about how most people find horror films so unbelievable, and they were saying it was due to the fact you rarely agree with the actions of the main character. As soon as you stop believing/understanding why a character is doing something, thats when you "stop caring".

I guess its things like the "I'm so scared I can't run away" behaviour so often seen in horrors, or people tripping over tree roots and then taking ten minutes to stand up.

Eventually you just thing "look, you aren't even trying, you're gonna get killed because you're an idiot".

I saw 28 Weeks Later recently, as an example of how these things can be done. No one titted about in that, when danger came calling everyone ran like f*ck. And when people did get killed it was usually because there was simply nothing they could do to escape, so you felt empathy at the situation they found themselves in.

The worst bits in horror films are the bits where the teen victims walk into the abandoned fairground/spooky house/obviously murderous basement, saying 'hello' very loudly and generally writing 'stab me' in big letters on their heads.

@afghan
The worst bits in horror films are the bits where the teen victims walk into the abandoned fairground/spooky house/obviously murderous basement, saying 'hello' very loudly and generally writing 'stab me' in big letters on their heads.

lol. yeah.
"You lot stay here, I'll go off into the dark and the mist on my own, without a torch or even a stick, and I'll meet up with you later"


@kanagrootoo
I saw 28 Weeks Later recently, as an example of how these things can be done. No one titted about in that, when danger came calling everyone ran like f*ck. And when people did get killed it was usually because there was simply nothing they could do to escape, so you felt empathy at the situation they found themselves in.

*Puts 28 weeks later on 'to watch' list*

When done badly, the whole thing is just something you can shout at when you are watching it in a horror film, or indeed you can turn it off or leave the cinema, but when it comes to games, you are also expected to be involved in it and interact with it. Sometimes, as evil-game-agparrot, it is just this frustration at the 'kill me' idiots that earns them a bat in the face/ bullet to the head/ knife to the jugular.

Woohoo! 4 player split screen co-op puts this right at the top of my 360 list!

Lets hope Halo 3 follows suit and doesn't limit split-screen co-op to 2 player only. Or worse, limit all co-op to online only (here's looking at you Crackdown and Splintercell).