Mad Thoughts
This week I have been mostly reading Keith Jenkins and 6 years worth of Scary Go Round. I’m also looking after a coal fire, which means breathing in an unusual amount of hot ash and carbon monoxide. Therefore if I post any really mad ideas in the next few days it’s probably best to ignore them.
The other thing I read was an article by Brian Rejack about Brothers In Arms: Road To Hill 30 (the WW2 computer game that I posted about ages ago). First thought: if only I’d known you could get published in Rethinking History just by writing about how BiA isn’t as realistic as it claims to be. He didn’t even have to cite Derrida (although there is a bit of Barthes). Second thought: if only I’d bothered to look at the extras in BiA. I ignored them on the grounds that I already know quite a lot about WW2 and that I have the research skills to find out even more whenever I want. Do I need to be patronized by pop history factoids? Well, it turns out there’s a lot more to it than that.
One of the central points of the article is that extras can change the way a game (or DVD, where this idea started) is perceived and interpreted. The photos in the BiA extras are a major part of the games claims to realism. They include composites of original photos of WW2 mashed up with screenshots taken in-game, with only the change from black and white to colour showing where one begins and the other. (I’ve also just noticed that one of the composite shots is on the back of the box, but I don’t think I ever looked at the back of the box. So much for close reading…) With this attention to historical detail, surely Gearbox can say “This is How It Really Was”. But it doesn’t really work. When I wrote about the game I was mostly interested in tactical realism, which I think it ultimately fails at, despite being an improvement over MOHAA and CoD. They might have based the levels on maps and photos of the real Normandy, but does the real Normandy have those strange earth banks in the middle of fields with convenient dips in them that you can shoot over when you’re in the right position. If so who put them there and what are they supposed to be for?
Rejack takes a different approach, pointing out that the characters in the game are not emotionally engaging and don’t react to anything like real people. Even the death of Baker’s best friend in a cut scene isn’t particularly moving. Another weakness is that the game “presents a view of history as a straightforward sequence of events, with no sense of competing interpretations or multiple viewpoints”, although the sequel Earned in Blood does attempt something like that (as I mentioned here).
As a comparison, Rejack offers Facade, which involves more sophisticated interaction with NPCs and much less shooting. I’m not sure how excited I can get about a dinner party simulator, but I’ll report back after I’ve tried it.
Comment by mercurius politicus — 2:58 pm, 29 March 2008 [permanent link to this comment]
Thanks for this post, I’ll have to read the Rejack article.
BiA annoyed me, I have to say, although it was a fun game to play. On the one hand Gearbox went on about practically every blade of grass was an exact reproduction of its Normandy equivalent in 1944 - yet the narrative of the war it gave was so cartoon-like (heroes take on identikit waves of Germans, it’s all about the comradeship, quiet man steps up to the plate to lead his men) that it lost any point the technical realism might have given it. And as you say, tactically it wasn’t an accurate reproduction at all. It was fun to play, but as WW2 shooters go I’ve got far more pleasure out of Call of Duty 1 and 2. I suppose because they don’t pretend to be anything more than entertainment.
Facade is good fun, actually, although you can only play it once or twice before getting bored. I’m not quite sure it’s the future of games - it’s more like an installation than a game. But there is something intriguing about watching the NPC couple bicker and row. It certainly immerses you in a different world while you’re playing it.
Comment by Gavin Robinson — 12:15 pm, 31 March 2008 [permanent link to this comment]
I can’t decide whether I prefer CoD2 or BiA. When I’m playing one I usually wish I was playing the other. You’d think with such a US-centric perspective in BiA they might be able to acknowledge that the Americans invented and extensively used the bazooka. The thing that annoys me most is the “Oh no! A tank! Go and steal a panzerfaust!” levels. At least with the all American approach you don’t have to worry so much about the voice acting. Some of the “accents” in CoD2 are a bit strange to say the least.