AFK: Carcassonne

This was an accidental college assignment that assesses and modifies the board game Carcassone.

Carcassonne is a tile-based German-style board game that is designed for two to five players and was published by Rio Grande Games in 2000. The game is made up of 72 lands tiles that depict medieval landscapes, fields, cities and roads. Players take turns drawing tiles from a shuffled deck and then placing the tiles in correlation to other tiles on the board. From here on, players can place a “follower” piece on their newly placed tile to secure structures and score points. The player with the most points after all tiles have been placed wins the game. The board game has many expansions so for the purposes of this analysis, I will only be modifying the original version of the game. The changes that I have designed for Carcassonne are aimed to make the game less aleatory and more agonistic.

While designing these modifications, precautions were taken to make sure the game was still recognizable as Carcassonne. The modified game retains Carcassonne’s approachable nature; player turns still consist of simple actions, players are still not eliminated from the game, and the length of the game is still the same by keeping the tile count to 72. Players are still placing tiles to shape the playing field, so even with the modifications, the game keeps its high amount of player agency. The core essence of Carcassonne is still present, but the modifications made will allow for more strategic play than it’s highly chance-based original allows.

In Carcassonne, the luck of the draw plays a big role in a player's success. With an initial deck of over 70 tiles to draw from, strategy does take a backseat in some cases. Instead of being able to plan out moves 4-5 steps in advance, the limited knowledge that the player has of his own tiles makes Carcassonne much more reaction based.           

Modification #1

Creating similarities to traditional card games, the first modification is to make all players draw 3 tiles at the beginning of the game. The players are able to use any one of their tiles to place down on their turn. When all players have run out of tiles, they will all draw another 3 tiles. Player’s tiles should not be revealed to other players when in an hand. This modification allows for richer strategy in a few ways, the most obvious being that it grants players more choice in their turns and allows them to plan out a few turns ahead. Probability also becomes a bigger part of the game; like in the card game poker, players will now have to determine the percentage chance of another player having just the right pieces to secure a jackpot of points.

While designing this rule, two things were kept in mind. First, the amount of tiles that a player is allowed in their hand should be kept to a low number. This was done to stop players from having an overabundance of factors to keep track of during their turn, and thus keeping the game approachable. Second, players should not be able to keep tiles out of play for the majority of the game by keeping them in their hand. Making players play down their entire hand before drawing new tiles makes players put more emphasis on the order of the tiles they place and when to put down followers.

Modification #2

The second modification to the game, removes some restrictions by allowing players to place follower pieces on any tile that is already in play. The current rules of not allowing the placement of followers in enemy occupied structures, roads, and fields still apply, but if there is any unclaimed structure on the board during a player’s turn, it is fair game. By giving players this expanded ability, players need to more seriously consider the repercussions of each placed tile. The strategies that can be employed become more elaborate when the strategist has stronger abilities at his disposal.

Most strategy games have tactics that become trendy after a beginning period of play and experimentation, and Carcassonne is no exception. Two common trends that can be seen in many Carcassonne games are the neglected roads and the highly sought after fields. At only one point a tile, completed or not, roads don’t prove to be worth the effort when it comes to scoring points. On the other end of the spectrum, fields offer 3 points apiece for each completed city bordering the field, and with fields being so easily interconnected, owning fields becomes highly valuable.

Modification #3

The last modification is designed to shake up these trends by changing the point value for roads. Followers on roads will earn 2 points a tile, but only if the road piece is bordering a city. With road pieces being worth more points, they will become more viable. A benefit of increased road creation around cities, will be the divvying up of fields. Because roads are the one structure that effectively divides fields, the appearance of more roads in a game will mean that reaping the full benefit from fields will become a trickier task.

The luck of the draw plays a big role in a player's success in a game of Carcassonne, but so do good tactics. A strategically placed tile  is much more favorable than a randomly placed tile. The modifications detailed above have been designed to bring out more of the strategy element in Carcassonne by making some small changes and adding to the fundamentals of Carcassonne.

A Co-Op Binge

A Co-Op binge, a hungover article about the collection of co-op games that my friends and I embarked on. This article itself is in fact cooperative operation, with it making use of google doc’s multi-edit feature. At best, we’ll manage a conclusion about the state and value of co-op games; learning and sharing valuable lessons along the way, but most likely this is going to end up as an inarticulate mess of random thoughts.

Below is the list of games that we (Bernard Hwang, James Morgan, Kelly Wright) have started and more or less completed in a 3 month span. Due to technical and monetary difficulties, all 3 participants were not able to take part in all the games, but it’s a pretty even split. Shall we get started?

 
Borderlands

Bernard, James, Kelly

Bernard: So we start with Borderlands. It was marketed as a co-op game, but was it an effective co-op game? From the getgo, the game makes you pick 1 of 4 classes. So I guess the ideal situation would be to have a 4 player party, with each player playing a different class

James: Borderlands was created around co-op, I feel like it required co-op play. Can the game be played with all one type of class? I would say not really. It wouldn’t be very fun 

 

Kelly: Well BL borders on a MMO, and any good MMO needs different classes working together; it can be done by yourself, but it's easier/designed for multiple people
 

Bernard: The main way BL tries to create co-op play is by having symbiotic classes

James: There are different classes, but you can beat the game with just one class. Apart from increased difficulty nothing really changes. So how does this constitute a co-op driven experience?
 

Kelly: Side note: I think the personalities of the four classes were based on the four humors
(blood, phlegm, black bile and yellow bile), which translates to four personalities (Stable, Unstable, Extrovert
ed and Introvert). Those four personalities are suppose to make a really balanced group of people
 

James: Alright, but where do these different personalities fit into co-op?
 

Bernard: Well I think it works as an analogy, in that although the class trees are different from each other, they do work together to build a powerful group. The classes are unique, but they are also designed to be independent for the single player. This weakened their ability to play of each other. For example we didn’t play with a tank, but we beat the game without one

 

James: Well we need one for the Crawmerax, but otherwise yeah we didn’t need one. Since there was ample cover to fill the lack of tank class, it really didn't matter
 

Kelly: We always could have used a tank. We were so unorganized all the time and we died... a lot. Just like your average MMO
 

Bernard: I think if we continue down this path we come to the conclusion that BL was a bad experience for any group with less than 4 member. I think the game had some good class design for being able to adapt to a missing class. We had multiple ways of getting health regeneration and multiple ways of getting bonus xp so we could out level our enemies.
 

Kelly: I'm sure if you are playing on your own you are going to be cautious and take in every detail. it's always the case with co-op games that you rush through more than solo. May I direct your attention to Diablo. You just run around killing shit when shit needs to be killed. I just realized... maybe BL’s story was so piss poor because the designers knew you wouldn't be paying attention while in a group

Bernard: That excludes all the people who solo it

Kelly: They weren't designing for solo. They obviously intended co-op to be THE experience
 

James: But the classes were designed so that any role could be useful. I feel like that’s missing the key component of co-op
 

Kelly: I'm not saying they didn't design a single player experience. I'm just saying that instead of creating single player and patching on multiplayer, they did the opposite
 

James: If one person can win the game without any help than how does it make a good co-op game? In classic co-op games, each race has a weakness, but in BL they don't really have one,  save health and speed differences. Characters in BL each have some different strengths and weakness but each can hold their own in a fight by themselves. They do not require the assistance of others.
 

Bernard: Exactly, it works as singleplayer experience and as co-op one, but there aren’t any differences in between. Your maybe more effective in a group, but does that mean it is a better experience than playing it alone?
 

Kelly: I think yes, it makes downtime which is never fun. It's like real life, one soldier COULD get the job done but a battalion can get it done faster.
 

James: But it lacks co-op... ness since each of the classes aren't required to help one another

Kelly: You can revive allys
 

Bernard: Or you can kill enemies to revive yourself. Which seems redundant in co-op, when you are supposed to be cooperating and after I played through Borderlands as Berserker, Soldier and Siren, and honestly its the same experience
 

Kelly: The majority of what I played was Siren and Hunter and they are so different to play. You are constantly running in and out of battle with the Siren. With the hunter its all about positioning and staying out of the LoF
 

James: but that's just similar to standard FPS tactics, just instead of different guns you have different class
 

Kelly: So you are saying you can't have good co-op with a standard fps?
 

James: No, I'm saying you should design an fps with a more co-operative mindset, not the same old run and gun thought process. It just seems like class' where created around gun types and the mindset you use when you equip them..
 

Bernard: Look at it this way, if we were having a BL session and you two were to randomly drop, it wouldn't have been much of an issue. The game would have been pretty much the same. This shouldn’t happen if the game had good co-op.
 

Kelly: So just to get this straight, if a game has good singleplayer, it's co-op must be shit. Or are you saying that co-op and singleplayer have to be two different game modes?
 

Bernard: Single player and co-op should differ a lot. You cant just tack on another player to a single player game and call it good co-op.
 

Kelly: So what if the singleplayer was tacked on? And they balanced it in a way that singleplayer is shit simple just so it's playable? If BL forced you to have four players to be able to play, would that make it good co-op?

Bernard: No, because the players are still not cooperating with each other
 

James: Ok, Team Fortress 2 is a perfect example of good co-op mechanics. Each class has a role and needs to fill it, and each class has obvious flaws
 

Bernard: TF classes do actually have strengths and weaknesses, in BL all players serve far too similar roles
 

Kelly: Well in WoW each class is playable solo, there are just situations they put you in that are easier with a team
 

Bernard: There is that element of WoW where it is a pissing match though, you are trying to be better than the guy next to you and a streamlined approach and effective playstyle works to accomplish that goal. Not the same can be said of BL.
 

Kelly: One of the reasons BL has the characters able to fill some similar roles is to house four people, no matter what kind of class they have already picked. Imagine if you have four people who all want to be snipers, but BL forces them to use all of the classes. Everyone can be a sniper, but they aren't all going to be great at it
 

Bernard: Having 4 classes creates the illusion that a team should be diverse, which inturn makes it seem like the classes function with each other, but that’s not the truth. BL classes become too powerful and self-efficient at a point.
 

James’ Closing Statement:
Borderlands is just more fun with other people. It makes the game more interesting since they add an unknown element.
Kelly’s Closing Statement:

I'm going with, good co-op when fighting multiple enemies. Each class fills a needed role and supports other class’ weaknesses resulting in a well balanced team.
Bernard’s Closing Statement: 
If your playing Boderland’s singleplayer, but want to get through it faster and want something to do with a friend, it's the perfect game for co-op

Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days
Bernard & Kelly

Kelly: Best. Game. Ever.

Bernard: Yeah... this discussion is going to be far more unanimous than the last one

Kelly: I could advocate for the other side just to make things interesting, but I don't think there is enough to go on. Essentially co-op was just a second life for the player; and someone to operate things otherwise not operable by one person.

Bernard: K&L2 was a game that was built around co-op, so it does suit 2 player-play in a strange way

Kelly: How? The only thing it allows is 2 player transitioning, which isn't a plus to co-op as much as it is a necessity for co-op.

Bernard: The way the characters conversed with each other throughout the game did strengthen the relationship between them two. These guys were far more fleshed out in comparison to characters in something  like Borderlands, where the players are empty slates.

Kelly: Would you not have felt that way if you were just playing as Kane/Lynch yelling at the other about not knowing what the fuck was going on? Like... single player? Would you not have been attached to the characters?

Bernard: It would definitely have felt more sterile, the fact that you were actually in the game with me, taking the role of another character in the game that I way meant to have some emotional attachment for worked. If you were replaced with an AI it would have lost that touch.

Kelly: Well even if you get attached to your character in the end you (spoiler) switch characters, which personally kind of lost it for me, I didn't give a shit about you. And now I have to play as you. Nevertheless does the that make it a good co-op game?

Bernard: The game wasn't a good game, nor was it a good co-op game. But there is something to be said about crafting a co-op experience from the ground up, where even in singleplayer, an AI buddy is still present.

Kelly’s Closing Statement:

They succeeded in failure.I think that's it.
Bernard’s Closing Statement:
It's a bad game, but it's enjoyable for a quick 30 minutes. There's only so many chances to run around Shanghai butt-naked.

Kelly: Is that an invite?

Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light

Bernard & Kelly

Bernard: Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light: Un-Sarcastically Best.Co-op.Game.Ever

Kelly: I want to disagree... I really do. I feel like this is going to be as short as K&L. I've played singleplayer GoL and I've played it co-op, and under your classification of good co-op, this game wins. The levels and puzzles actually change depending on whether you are solo or co-op. Each characters has weak points that the other fills. And you can play as F@&%ing Kane and Lynch.

Bernard: Succinct and all accurate. I'm trying to be cynical, but I'm having a difficult time.

Bernard’s Closing/ Opening statement:

Best. Co-op. Game. Ever

Kelly’s Closing Statement:
K&L finally were in a good game.

Sleep is Death
Bernard & Kelly

Kelly: So, the sleeping dead.
 

Bernard: The most unique game on this list. One player takes the role of the Game Master and the other takes the role of the player.

Kelly: It's a co-op on D&D proportions with more complex "gameplay" challenges

Bernard: It's seems like a tool for psycho-therapy more than a game. Although there would be awkward situations when the therapist has difficulty keeping the scenario pristine while under the ridiculous 30 second time limit for each of the DM's turn.

Kelly: The therapist would have to predict what is going to happen then not only set up pre-determined scenes, but create custom sprites using the ingame editor. It's more of an engine designed for narrative shenanigans than an actual game itself.

Bernard: It provides the possibility to explore basically anything, which is something that can't be said about any other game in this list, and for what it is trying to accomplish, I applaud it. Judging it as a co-op experience, it does provide a strong connection between the two involved.

Kelly: But it doesn't provide anything. It's like handing one person an empty notepad and telling him to create a novel with his friend, who is not allow to write anything. I'll agree there is some emotional connection between the players, but I think the approach was all wrong.

Bernard: In that analogy, one person would be the author and the other person would be a living character within the story. Sleep is Death provides both players with a large amount of authorship. Even just from the player's role, that is more authorship given to the players than in most games.

Kelly: But it can't be played on the fly, which would provide the most organic stories. The framework provided does not allow that to happen. Essentially one person has to go out, write a story, prepare everything, then bring in an oblivious observer to act in the creation. Then when the player veers off course, the author can either pull a DM move and force them back into the dungeon, or half-hazardly create new props and scene and risk loss of quality.

Bernard: That was the experience that I had when you played the role of the DM, but there is the possibility to make an emergent story, something that is only capable in a video game. I will agree the technical boundaries that are placed in the game do limit story emergence. If the DM had an hour to build his scene, I think Sleep is Death would be a very effective way to build a story and provide a platform that can affect two people greatly.

Kelly: But it's not about what this game COULD be, in a perfect world it would also have online capabilities and assign you to a random storyteller who has never met you, allowing for several unique experiences and with each personality affecting the overall. (Patch!) But as is, it tries to do something that it just does not facilitate.
Allowing for more unique narrative experiences is a noble endeavour in video games, and it's something I hope will become a thing in the future, but SiD does not accomplish this in a way that is a fun experience. Memorable, yes, but only in the difficulty and overall failure that comes from attempting to play such a "game".

Bernard: I can see how you constructed this view of SiD from our experience. But we only gave SiD a fraction of the time it needed for us to actually learn how the game worked. There are dozens of flipbooks created through SiD that display what can be accomplished in SiD. The game strives to to push the term "interactive narrative" farther than any Bioshock or Mass Effect. If enough time and labor is put into it, it seems like creating a great story is more than possible.

Kelly: Just so I'm clear, are we analysing this as a game? Because if we are suddenly not talking about co-op games and are simply talking about any type of co-op experience then my views will change.

Bernard: Semantics?

Kelly: Okay, well as a program that allows to people to essentially play in MS Paint this creates a means for people to create whatever story/sitcom/pornographic pixel art they want. But as a game... it's not...

Bernard: From the DM's perspective, I wouldn't define SiD as much of a game. But from the player's perspective, it is definitely a game. Some would go and call it an interactive experience, but the structure for the story/game is still there; beginning, middle, end. The player is simply trying to get to the end of the narrative, just like in any other single player game. And SiD makes the act of playing a seemingly single player game into a co-op experience by allowing the other player to play god and directly affect the other player.

Kelly: Just because the designers says this is all stuff you should do doesn’t mean there is structure to make sure this happens. The game itself isn't created for co-op it's created for... anything. I could suddenly decide that you are three green pixels arranged in an L and whenever you try to use a verb I move you into the center of the screen and draw lines across the scene. This thing is no more co-op than me deciding not to punch my roommate. There is co-op only because someone said there is.

Bernard: The outcome of the game is reliant on the players that are playing the game. Their imagination, creativity maturity, patience. What you described is a welcome possibility in SiD. The game has to be loose with it's boundaries to allow creative freedom in storytelling, more specifically interactive storytelling. This is a “game” because other mediums don't support this type of storytelling, and it has to be co-op because two authors must be working with or against each other for an interactive story to exist. It's a true real-time game. One person is playing through a game that another person is designing and creating at the same time.

Kelly’s Closing Statement:
Notepad, MS Paint and Skype... gogogo
Bernard’s Closing Statement:
A large percentage of SiD is what you make it out to be. It has a steep and long learning curve, but if you manage to stick with it I think you'll find an amazing tool for creating interactive stories and creating something truly unique with the help of a friend/significant other.

 
Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell: Conviction
Bernard & James

Bernard: Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Conviction, co-op was introduced in the 3rd game in the series (Chaos Theory), and since then it has been a staple in the series.

James: Until it was scraped, because people aren't cool enough to have nice things anymore.

Bernard: So this game has a dedicated co-op mode where we played the roles of secret agents, one of the Russian kind and one of the American kind. We went through the game in one sitting. Was it a good co-op experience for you?

James: I think the game gave us some cool moments, but ultimately failed to leave, at least for me, a lasting impression (something unique I could take away from the experience and remember for being different and engaging).

Bernard: Yeah I had the same feeling. When I first heard about Conviction, I was excited. Not for the the return of Sam Fisher, but instead for the jovial adventures I would be going on with two no-name spies. But Conviction doesn't really supply that experience. The unique aspect of going on a stealth mission is downplayed and turned into a co-op shooter. All Conviction gave me was an urge to revisit past Splinter Cells

James: I know, it seemed like all the game devs got together and said “remember that from the original Splinter Cell? People liked that right? Well lets change it and make it more mainstream.” I feel like they missed the point of making a stealth game. Hint! Its about not being seen. In fact I had more fun with the sticky camera (created in the first game[now with explosions]) than I did sneaking around. And I’ve got to say, the game was just too easy. Its like the trill of the sneaking was ripped out and replaced with a five-nine.

Bernard: There is a lack of difficulty, something that has to be measured carefully when creating a co-op game, and Conviction is guilty of not providing a challenge even at it's highest difficulty. Each level seemed like we were just going through the steps. Take a guy out, tag 4 guys, clear the room, move on. There was a lack of finesse and besides the two-man doors, there was nothing in the level that warranted the need for two agents. A shining example of how the game lacked co-op, is that half of the time, one of us was afk and the other person wouldn't have any trouble.

James: In fact I remember a few sighs over the microphone when boredom drove me to try my luck at a beat em up game. This is a far cry from the first splinter cell where being seen meant you where already dead. Maybe the game just gave you too many tools to get out of a tight spot. Still, I can appreciate some of the level design, which usually gave us two ways to go about tagging and killing everything that breaths. Still... could have been better. I'd also like to add that the games lacked any sort of... co-op ness. Aside from joining in on a team mates “ Mark & Execute,” everything in the level lacked a a need for team effort.

Bernard’s Closing Statement:

Conviction lost it's ability to be a competent co-op game once it dropped it's level of player agency and dumbed down all aspects of the game. There is literally an option to play the co-op mission by yourself, because after all, why send two agents to do the job of one? It would be redundant as giving Sam Fisher 3 different ways to stun a guard..
James’ Closing Statement:
Conviction suffers from a identity crisis. It thinks its a shooter, while its masked as a stealth game, while it feels like an adventure game. This just ruins the atmosphere. If I can tap a button and kill 4 guys, why would I care about sneaking? The co-op suffers because of it, and although very pretty and smooth, Conviction loses its appeal. Not to mention that co-op story that is strictly played by two players was wasted by lacking any sort of team cohesion. If I was a secret agent, after this game, I'd work alone.

Bernard: To bad I had to kill you at the end (spoilers!)

Synergy: Minerva
Bernard & James

Bernard: Last One on the list, Synergy/Minerva. Just as a quick description of what these two Half-Life 2 mods are: Synergy is a co-op mod for the Source engine that lets you play through what were originally intended as as single player games (HL2, HL2:E1, HL2: E2, etc.) in co-op.
Minerva is a HL2 mod that told a brief story about a breaking in at a top secret combine facility.
James and I used the combination of these two mods to embark on this dangerous espionage together. And man was it dangerous.

James: Ya, twenty guys chasing you and all we've got are crowbars and grenades. I've gotta give this game props. It has no skill system, no classes, no stats, nothing to set you apart from the other player, but this game makes some brilliant decisions that gave us each an identity. Namely the crowbar and grenades. Its far from a pile of sweet sweet roses but the game managed to surprise me.

Bernard: Synergy is literally throwing another person into a singleplayer game, but strangely there were some good co-op mechanics to it, most likely due to the ramped up difficulty (which we had to turn down to "Easy” actually get through it). It’s high difficulty made it a strangely compelling co-op experience. It felt tactical and it always felt like I could never handle a fire fight alone.

James: I'm a little lost as to why this game, a game that by all means isn't co-op, is actually a good co-op game (and a fun one at that). I thinks its the level design. Usually there were small tasks that we could each do by ourselves, and since we were always so close together it made sense to split up. In those moments the game kind of thrived. I wish I'd seen more of it but it was still a good show. Now of course there were some glitches here and there (one leaving me forever alone at the bottom of an elevator listening to you slowly die), but they are discernible because it’s a free mod. Its almost ironic how a free game was actually funner than a 30 dollar one.

Bernard: There was one part of the game that was definitely not designed for co-op, but it somehow felt like it was designed for co-op. I'm talking about the section of the game that where we were striped of our weapons and had to find a way to arm ourselves, only to find that we had to split our original arsenal of weapons between the two of us. It made having that other player vital, when only one of us only had a gun and the other person only had the crowbar.

James: It was that sort of break in the expectation that I really liked.

James’ Closing Statement:

Although the fates conspired together and gave us a seemingly once in a lifetime experience, the game was still well rounded and smooth. I had fun. GG Minerva.. GG
Bernard’s Closing Statement: 
It takes the combination of a prestigious FPS engine and two separate modifications, but if you are willing and have the ingredients you should definitely concoct this surprisingly good co-op experience.

Ludo-Therapy: Showing Trust

When Roger Ebert wrote about how “Video games can never be art”, gamers quickly took to social media to defend that their beloved medium. Gamers brought up how titles like Bioshock and Limbo could hold deep meaning. It’s clear that people are beginning to view our young interactive medium with more respect than anyone would have thought capable 10-15 years ago, but have games earned their new found respect?

A few days ago, a great editorial was posted on PC Gamer describing the safety precautions and "child-proofing" found in modern mainstream games. The article delved into how games were seemingly catered to the lowest common denominator as a result of immature gamer behavior. It stated that gamers and developers are "locked in a destructive cycle of dickification"; where developers act like a dick by restricting controls and gamers rebel by just acting like bigger dicks. It’s crass theory, but it’s arguably correct in defining our relationship and its negative effects. The caveats and boundaries placed in today's games may strengthen the narrative structure and progression pace, but it also displays a lack of trust in the player.

For a medium that has issues being associated with toys, it's surprising how patronizing some of the games are made to be. Notifications in modern games display the simplest of information that even monkeys could keep track of. Rewards are handed out for small menial tasks. Jesse Schell's gamified vision of everyday life is taking shape within the games of today.

Games that trust and respect their players are not impossible to find. One AAA game that I didn’t expect to display trust in their player is 2008’s Prince of Persia. This game was heavily criticized pre-release when it was revealed that the main character could not “die” in the game. Some gamers became livid at this approach to player death because it was seen as removing challenge from the game. While seeming to have another way to baby players, Prince of Persia showed a degree of player trust by simply removing of a button prompt.

In the game, the Prince and Elika must free the land of corruption through the use of Elika’s magic. The player (Prince) has to get Elika to a fertile land tile and press the Elika button to trigger a pretty cutscene of the land being brought to back to life. The first time you encounter a fertile land tile, the game displays a button prompt telling you which button to press. In the later hours of the game, this button prompt is removed.

The subtle disappearance of the button prompt conveys a transfer of responsibility. It's acknowledgement that the player made progress and learned the action for the context sensitive situation. On the opposite end of the spectrum are games like Call of Duty: Black Ops, which will prompt you to press "X" to reload every time you are nearing the end of your magazine.

Games need to start matching the respect we give them, as well as the maturity we expect from them. If games want to be appreciated by the general public like other mediums of entertainment, they must undergo the same scrutiny. Movies are criticized for being too blatant in their storytelling; it's only fair that games are criticized for being condescending in their gameplay.

How and Why You Die in Video Games

Depending on the genre of game you’re playing, how you perceive an AI enemy can differ a lot. The Player-Enemy Relationship Diagram places player-enemy relationships into three categories.

Hate

Hate, often referred to as a “strong word”, is perfect for defining the relationship that players have with the enemies that fit into this category. We have all experienced that moment when we were slain by an enemy resulting in a smashed controller or the exclamation of a curse. The level of emotion that a “Hateable” enemy provokes is reliant on the player’s endurance and their immersion into the game, but these hateable enemies do share characteristics.

1. Unexpected Difficulty Spike
   One of the most obvious traits is the extreme offset in difficulty. In an easy-to-manageable level, the introduction of a tough boss-type monster can make the player feel unskilled and frustrated. After a player's conditioning is broken, every moment/death needed to recalibrate contributes to rage.

2. Omni-present
   Some games will make you feel like your a fish a in a barrel. No matter how many different angles you approach a fight, you'll end up with a similar fail state over and over again. An enemy that seems omni-present chips away at a player’s patience to the point where same mistakes are repeated.

3. Cathartic Relief
   Video games are the only entertainment medium that can make you feel accomplished. It’s a cathartic feeling when a player destroys an enemy that had become the virtual embodiment of their unhappiness. That sough after “Yes! I did it!” moment in a game is suppled by those enemies you hate.

Play

Playful enemies are incompetent at their fictional jobs. They are like stormtroopers or henchmen, in that they have the innate inability of being worthy opposition. The only time this category of enemy should manage to defeat the player is when the player disrespects their player-enemy relationship bounds and plays foolishly.

1. Poor Planning
   An encounter with this type of enemy can range from fair to unfair (for them). This is usually accomplished by giving them tactics that just don’t seem to make sense. Some examples of this are rappelling in while in plain sight of the player and deciding to storm the player AFTER they secured the turret. These strategies are immersion-breakingly stupid, but player enjoyment is put above all else for these enemies.

2. Flawed
   A playful enemy is designed to have moments of human imperfection. He/she will drop a grenade by accident or shoot the explosive barrel that is placed right next to them. It's an emergent display of ineptitude that signals to the player that a deadly fight is actually filled with levity.

3. Sportsmanlike
   Sportsmanship is least expected in a fictional fight, but it is a defining quality of a playful enemy. These enemies have a special set of rules of engagement that ensure the player's enjoyment. The star of the game is the player, and they are to be treated as so. If the player is behind cover; do not simply run past it. If the player is running, miss more often. The price of an enjoyable play experience is often the effectiveness of an enemy.

Defend

With the emergence of the zombie sub-genre in games, the “defend” category is quickly getting populated. The enemies that fit this category simply react to the player. Narratively speaking, these enemies are the ones being antagonized by the player. It is almost inaccurate to define these AI as enemies, but either way they still have a relationship with the player that follows a set of guidelines.

1. Provokable
   These enemies only technically becomes an opposing force when the player triggers them to do so. They are provoked into attack and the player must defend themselves against this newly formed enemy.

2. Numbers
   Because these enemies are not proactive in defeating the player, they can be grouped in enormous numbers. Their size makes them a threat more so than their ability. 

3. Obstructive
   This is a “Defend” enemy's defining characteristic, they are time sinks. These enemies are literally just in the way. It is beneficial to avoid these enemies entirely, which is the base of their player-enemy relationship.

The Call of Duty Jump

Let’s take a look at the end of the level “Hornet’s Nest” in Modern Warfare 2.

During my first time playing through of the level, I ended up on the edge of my seat with a big exhale of relief after the final leap of faith I had just made. MW2 has a lot of high action moments, but this was the one that had the best peak.

There are a few elements in this level that work together to create tension. You have the exciting score, the countless enemy spawns, the yelling NPCs, but these elements are also found in all the other action moments in the game. What made this moment different was the simple requirement of a jump at the end. It’s strange, I’ve done the leap of faith in so many games before. I’ve jumped large gaps as an assassin, as a mail-carrier, and as an adventurer, but in none of those situations have I found myself worried I wasn’t going to land it.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

In the three games pictured above, jumping and leaping is in the repertoire for these games. While as in Modern Warfare 2, you spend 95% of your time aiming down sights and shooting targets. I can count the number of times I have jumped in MW2 on one hand - and that’s what makes it exciting. The end of "Hornet's Nest" asks the player to use a mechanic they shouldn’t have found comfort with. Before this level, the game takes its time to explore the many different ways the player can shoot a target, but the dimensions and timings of the character’s jump are never explored. If I was asked to bunny hop around in any of the previous levels, this leap of faith would not have been as daunting. The high-stakes situation needing the player to use a disregarded mechanic makes it exciting.

It’s funny how jumping, something that's become irrelevant in modern shooters, manages to take center stage gracefully for such a brief moment only because it is such a brief moment. Games like Pacman DX and Braid demonstrate the worth of getting every last drop out of a mechanic, but Modern Warfare 2 shows there is some value in retaining unfamiliarity in a base mechanic.