How Far Cry 3 Failed at Story

Far Cry 3 is a video game. That's the start, end, and sum of all of its issues.

Source

This is a very odd game, looking back. It's been almost 5 years since it released and it continues to be a very present game. People look back on it fondly in a lot of ways, and in many areas I do have to agree with them. The actual gameplay is very good, particularly once the wingsuit is relinquished to the player. It gives a lot of choice to the player in the gameplay, and is a nice mix between keeping things at a good pace while also giving the player a lot of freedom.

I'm not here to talk about the gameplay, however. It works, it is good, etc. etc. That's beside the point. The far more interesting bit, and where I think it fails, is in the, well everything else. This is a game that quite honestly falls flat when it comes to everything but the gameplay. It tries to have a complex story deconstructing the gameplay and murder key to the game. In doing so, however, it fails to use this in anything but the script, and as a result comes out limp and toothless.

Except for Vaas actually he's a very good villain who really does do an effective job of communicating conflicting themes and overall pulls things together very nicely with some great voicework and brilliant monologues seriously he's like a character dropped in from a different much better writer

cough

See, here's the thing about Far Cry 3: it's ostensibly about deconstructing the violence in the game and how it erodes the main character's morality and sanity. Not exactly a bad idea for a game. You have to remember, back in 2012 things were pretty different. The violent AAA game was still being played pretty straight and the landscape for success was a lot more limited in publisher's eyes. We've gotten quite a few games going after that nowadays, but back then this was still a fairly new concept when applied to a big game.

The story is... well it's OK. I don't think the writers did a phenomenal job of it, but the core of the script is fine and for the most part I think they had a pretty solid thing going. It does tend to stumble sometimes, but I think for the most part they had a very basic idea going that could have been fleshed out very well. And like I said, whoever wrote Vaas definitely deserved a pay raise. Of course, it also stumbles sometimes, mainly whoever decided Vass should have been replaced with Hoyt should have been fired. But by and large, when I talk about Far Cry 3's story being bad, I am not talking about the writing.

People absolutely love throwing around the term ludonarrative, I've done it before even. I do really like this term, however, because it gives a vocalization to the idea of story and gameplay working together. It's really cool to see a game doing this right! It's also really interesting when it, erm, all falls apart.

It is quite obvious in retrospect that the game designers and story writers were not working so closely. Separately, they're fine as ideas and even mostly in execution in game. Neither works so well when combined, however. Far Cry 3, in what I think was likely some accident of miscommunication, tries to have its cake and eat it too. This is kinda tricky to explain, but let's take a look at 3 different parts of the game and I hope this'll become clearer.

Going forward I'm going to assume you've played the game or at least know the story, as it'd take too much time to explain otherwise.

In the Beginning
Far Cry 3 has a pretty effective story opening, I think, and hell, I think the gameplay for the most part helps out here. It's a tad out of your control, but that generally works to its advantage and you are for the most part in the same shoes as Jason. Out of control, confused, and maybe a wee bit scared. It works, it's not genius, but it's a pretty effective opening and makes the tone of this game known to you from square one.

And then you get in control of Jason, and the illusion just all falls apart.

See, here's the thing. Jason will act and talk like a scared kid in the opening portions of the game, which makes sense. However, it doesn't gel with the gameplay at all. You handle a machete in the same way at the start and end. Your gun accuracy? Always perfect. You'll run through combat just as flawlessly the first time as you do at the end.

The issue here is that this is not at all what's happening in the story. Ostensibly, Jason is terrified, has no idea what the hell he's doing, and barely even knows how to shoot a gun in a firefight. And then you get plunked into a firefight and none of that holds true. The story, in this part of the game at least, is so totally and completely undercut every single time you're in control. I understand that sometimes liberties must be taken, but when the basic acts of moving and shooting are contradicting your story, you may want a second pass at it.

The transition
It's certainly a good idea for a character arc to have Jason slowly enjoy and relish in the violence. It had never seriously been explored in a high profile game before and seeing as games tend to revolve around violence, it's a great fit too.

It was not to last in quality beyond and idea, however. The opening is a little worrying, and those worries just sort of continue and develop throughout the game. The entire game is just... so... static. Nothing ever changes. There is no progression in the gameplay besides the skills you unlock.

While I can perhaps see the intent to have your skills reflect your state of mind as a killing machine, it just doesn't work. How exactly does learning how to cook grenades or getting more health help show the player how Jason is? For that matter, why would an upgrade system work at all in this game?

I'm serious. This game should not have had a skill upgrade system if it was seriously committed to making the gameplay and story work together. The entire purpose of the game's story is that violence without thinking can be easily stumbled into, and any old person could slip into that darkness. That entire point does not gel with letting the player make specific choices on how to progress your killing excellence.

Maybe the idea was that you're somehow complicit in progressing this? It's done really, really badly if that was the intent. The game presents a story of out of control instincts and then hands you a handy menu in which to progress. It just makes no sense. Imagine, if you will, a game where your upgrades are gained by doing specific things. Maybe you learn a new, vicious way to kill from a mission. Maybe after you've killed enough with a grenade you unlock new ways to use it.A menu is just so... direct and against the entire flow. Jason progresses as a character in one part of the game. He progresses as an unlock tree in the next. Does it really have to be this way?

All for what?

Let's be real here; Far Cry 3 fumbles the ending, as it does with everything else. There are 2 endings that you can get by making the choice at the end of the game to kill your friends or not. If you kill them, you get a very, um, let's be delicate and say badly written ending. That's not the point here, seeing as we're looking at the gameplay vs. Story. The point is the other ending, where you just leave the island.

Why does this ending even exist? To fulfill some idea that video games need choice? This screams executive interference, and it just goes against literally everything the story has been building up to this point. Everything is building up to Jason killing his friends. It's obvious. The entire point of the game has been how violence corrupts and takes over one's morality. To give the player the option to say, "no", and go against every single point in the story is just... wrong. End of story. The player should not have had a choice here.

And that's pretty much Far Cry 3's story in a nutshell. OK, but brought low by it's inability to reconcile the gameplay and story. It's clear to me that everyone involved were concerned with making a fun game first, and a story second. While that may be all that is needed, it's disappointing that this is a sequel to a game that got this dynamic so, so right. 

But more on that next time. Thanks for reading!

What makes a choice matter?

You encounter an article on the internet! What do you do?

A. Read it (Friendly)
B. Skim it (Dismissive)
C. Critique it (Helpful)
D. Ignore it (Rude)

Will you be a cool guy, or evil prick?
Source

Look, I get it. Making choices in video games is fun! I like it! But we need to talk about the mass mishandling I see of making one's choices "matter". You want games to be taken seriously as a storytelling medium? Please, please start noticing this stuff. I do not want to name any names today but rather take a general look at this type of storytelling. Let's hop right in.

So generally there are 2 styles to this sort of interactive narrative. The more straightforward option is to actually make one's choices matter, have the story actually shift around them. This is not a very popular option in games, however, for a pretty good reason. Games are pretty expensive. It costs a lotta money to make new cutscenes and get new voicelines and make it all work in the game systems. You can't just write some more words like in a choose your own adventure book.

So generally the default is the 2^nd general option, what I like to call "fake choice". It's basically making your choices "matter", but they really don't influence the plot all that much. You could choose the rude option, the happy option, or the sad option, but you'll still get the same information and same objective in the end. Despite how bad "fake choice" can sound, it's not a bad option at all. It can lead to a much more focused story if you really only have 1 plot in the end, and makes sure no part of the game will suffer from bad writing because it just happens to not work as well.

Now, when you're talking about the overall narrative, this is all well and good. However, where it's easy to stumble up on this 2^nd type of story is in the moment to moment choices you make, in that it is far, farrrr too easy to just make them, well, pointless. I think this'd be better put in a hypothetical:
You: Hey, I just retrieved the (insert item here).Character A: Awesome! This'll be great in helping us defeat (insert enemy here)!

Dialogue options:

A – Show enthusiasm for plan
B – Show apprehension for plan
OK, let's just take a timeout here. This is a pretty typical sort of setup, where you can either agree or somewhat disagree with someone on the same side of you. Play any game that lets you make choices and you'll hit a similar scenario sooner or later. It's basic but still a very good setup.

Generally things like option A clear the way for a faster plot and more action. It's a safe choice that can also easily be leveraged to let the player see the non confrontational side of everyone. Option B scenarios on the other hand let you get somewhat deeper and lets you see the more confrontational side of people.

So even though both options will lead to the same sort of outcome, it's all in how you get there. Make each route interesting, make each route different enough, and most importantly make them mean something. If your understanding of a character is different in each route, that's a great outcome, essentially.

Now, let's see how this can go horribly, horribly wrong.

Scenario A:

You: Hey, I'm game. When do we get started?

Character A: We'll get started on this tomorrow. For now, get some rest, you've certainly earned it. Catch you later!You: Alright. Later!
Scenario B:

You: Are we totally sure this is going to work? Seems a tad risky.

Character A: Look, I get you're worried, but there's not much of a risk to this anyway. Just get some rest, we're all gonna need some for tomorrow.You: OK. I'll see you tomorrow.

So obviously this is really rough and short but you should get the general idea. The difference in these 2 scenarios is that there really are no differences. There's no room for diversifying or rounding out the characters. They both funnel the conversation into the same lines really quickly and still keep the same sentiment in both.

Your choices do not matter here. You learn nothing different, you don't get any difference in outcome, the tone isn't different, it's just the same scene, but one has them agreeing and one is a disagreement. Neither option garners any new reactions or even makes you think differently about it.

If you're going to keep the overall plot the same, you need to put a lot more consideration into how each individual moment makes the player feel about that overall plot. Going back to the 2 options I mentioned earlier, imagine a plot about saving the world or something to that effect. Now think of the 2 general character threads. One story has the characters working together all the while and eventually fixing the issue. The other has them arguing a lot but ultimately setting aside their differences to fix the issue.

There's a lot you can do with this! If you're smart the two ostensibly same plotlines can be interpreted to be almost totally different stories. You can view all the characters differently. You could gain info that radically changes how you view the same events.

The point of this whole article is that if you want to write a story and base your choices around upholding the "illusion" of choice, you are doing it wrong. Again, not naming names, but I see most games doing this horribly, horribly wrong. "Your choices matter" is pushed up as a marketing point when in reality, no, your choices do not matter.

"Fake choice" should still be choice. It is just that it should be about the characters and your view, not the plot. When a game fails to understand that, when it well and truly does ignore your choices, that is when people get frustrated with your game, and that is when you have failed as a story writer. This isn't easy, and I'm not surprised that countless developers fail at it. If for some reason any developers are reading this, keep at it. There's only one way to learn this, and it sure isn't gonna be from some random person online talking in the most general terms.

The problems with Ace Attorney

Okay. Let's do this.

Source

I want to preface this by saying I'm still a fan of Ace Attorney, and am really glad it's doing well. It's got great characters, an enjoyable plot, and a fun logic system. I'm about to talk a lot of crap about the series, however, so just keep this in mind... I love Ace Attorney, and still highly recommend all the games.

That being said. Over the course of the last 2 years or so I've finally worked my way through what's generally considered "The Big 3" visual novels, at least in western countries. Ace Attorney, Zero Escape, and Danganronpa. They're all brilliant games, and I enjoyed my time with each. However, after careful consideration, I have to come to a conclusion. Ace Attorney is definitely the weakest link.

I say this because after playing Danganronpa and Zero Escape, I've noticed things they do that were really clever, and then I look back at Ace Attorney, and it just feels... devoid of said elements. Oftentimes it's just a lot of small things, but those small things really, really add up over time. There's no better way to show this than by side-by-siding these games, so let's get right into it!

Yes this is the 2^nd article in a row where I compare AA to Danganronpa #noshame

So let's start with the gameplay differences, the more direct comparison. I've already outlined how Ace Attorney and Danganronpa do things differently. Let's talk about what Danganronpa just flat does better.

Primarily what Danganronpa does better is in the logical puzzles and challenges it lays out for the player. Ace Attorney's logic makes sense and is very well paced if you're following the order of deduction. However, if you get one too many steps ahead you're not able to skip to that, and must slog through the deductions you already solved.

This kills pacing completely. When the entire pace depends on your deduction skills, breaking away from it has the unfortunate effect of breaking the pace itself. You get brought to a screeching halt and have to bring the other characters up to speed, when realistically, you could just tell them.

Danganronpa is a lot more careful in its execution of working through arguments. The gameplay is the same, but it frames it in a much better way. This isn't a courtroom, where a logical argument will shut everyone up. You need to punch through the emotions and biases of the other characters, piece by piece, to get to the truth of the matter. You'll take part in minigames where characters won't listen to reason until you throw it right in their face. You'll have to frame answers in a manner that everyone can get.

It's not a matter of finding something that feels off, it's the matter of convincing everyone else it is off. You can push trials forward in Ace Attorney through vague ideas of not feeling right, which will often result in the characters hemming and hawing when you know exactly what's up. The other characters in Danagnronpa are active blocks at all times, so even if you know the answer there's a good, solid reason that feels right as to why you can't just out and say it.

Surrounding all this is the tone of the games. Now, Ace Attorney's tone isn't bad per se. It's a well established fact that it's a larger than life and goofy version of court, one with shouting and dramatic reveals. My question is, well, why?

Look, I get the tone doesn't need to be established, and I understand that consistency is what makes a world tick, not why it's that way. But after playing the other 2 games, Ace Attorney feels rather... empty in its tone. There's just no reason for it, and the craziness is just a thing that kinda.. exists in this world.

The other 2 games justify their tones quite nicely, on the other hand. Danganronpa's trials are tense and very volatile, much like Ace Attorney, but this is justified because, y'know. Murder school. There's a good reason for everyone to be shouting, a good reason for crazy theories to fly left and right, and a very good reason for things to be tense every step of the way.

Zero Escape's tone isn't quite as directly comparable, but for what it is it's done well. The atmosphere is oppressive and claustrophobic. Suspicion runs deep. Everything has this sense of danger and mistrust, and the deadly games played are the only reason the game needs. All the fear and suspicion flows naturally from that. The game knows damn well that it doesn't need to say why everyone's acting this way, because the backdrop has set that from square one. That's where Ace Attorney fails. The backdrop is a law procedural, and it just... is wacky, I guess.

Alright, there's one more point I want to bring up. Bringing continuity between games. This is by no means an aspect that Ace Attorney has failed at. It's more that it just gives it no thought. What I mean when I say that is a character or object from a previous game being brought into the new one. This can be a cool story point, or a fun callback, but it can just as easily be a lazy last minute addition.

I'm going to bring forward that by a lack of looking closely at the why, in and out of universe, Ace Attorney sometimes falls into this trap. Let's take Edgeworth's introduction in the last case. Why is he here? He's never been mentioned or important in this game before. This situation doesn't call for Edgeworth specifically. So why is he here? Outside of the game universe, it's not like Edgeworth achieves anything thematically or similar. There's nothing he does that another prosecutor couldn't do. So why does this situation call for this character from its mythology?

Massive Virtue's Last Reward Spoilers in next paragraphConversely, let's take a look at why Junpei was brought back for the sequel to 999. He, as a character, has a very clear motive: Akane. It was such a big deal for him in the last game, and it's not a surprise it'd continue to be a motivation here. Outside forces gave him this opportunity here, so it's not like it's random chance either. The thing is that here is that there's a clear and pointed reason for bringing a previous character back in Zero Escape, whereas Ace Attorney lacks that clarity much of the time when it does things like this.

It's not as though this is the worst thing in the world, and I'm not trying to say any of this stuff ruins Ace Attorney, not even close. Like I said, it's still great. And it's not like Zero Escape or Danganronpa are immune from their flaws, either. Zero Escape trips up in bringing back Clover from 999, and Danganronpa's character blocking approach backfires sometimes (I.E everything Yasuhiro "contributes" to the discussion).

What I am trying to bring up here is that Ace Attorney could learn a lot from these games. It's still got a strong base, great characters, awesome music, and fun trials. I just wish that it was all a little tighter.

Fire Emblem Awakening, Story, and Context

I never gave Fire Emblem Awakening a fair shake when I first played it, really. I played it, I enjoyed it, I talked about it, and then I moved on to other stuff. I'm fairly certain it's one of the last games I played before I really got into looking at games critically. And that's something I regret. When I played Awakening in 2014, I determined it was a great game. I was so, so wrong.

It's a fucking masterpiece, and I do not say that lightly. Awakening gets everything so, so right, and it goes above and beyond even that. You've got a complex battle system where paring up and relationships factor into it, where the weapons triangle and ranged attacks make for hugely strategic thinking, alongside having to manage levels, gear, and classes outside of combat. The gameplay is amazing, and the story, well, that's what we're here to talk about today. I think it'd be best to show this with the most impact story beat in the entire game, and you already know what I mean if you've played it. Let's talk about chapter 12.

Spoilers if you somehow haven't played this game yet. I'm also going to assume you know what happens, otherwise you'll be very confused.
So I think it's important to preface this by making special note of how this part of the story doesn't really revolve around themes or making the player think or anything like that. While that might seem like an odd thing to note, it's actually quite an anomaly in games writing to have a story purely ride on the quality of its plot. That's something I want to get into at a later date, but suffice to say games often have issues with making a plot that feels good because the player can by the very nature of the medium influence the pacing, thereby making it easier and less risky to ride on themes and making the player think. The point is it's already notable from the start to take a plot approach to it.

Of course, I say chapter 12 but really you can't ignore chapter 11 in this equation. Chapter 11 up to the end is much like any other chapter, with standard gameplay. The standout difference is the hostage situation around it, but hell, you even had a similar situation beforehand in chapter _. And even if you ignore that you've made it through assassination plots and overwhelming odds time and time again before this. The precedent of this game's tone has been set: serious, but not grave, a war story where the nation is at stake but your individual lives are not at the whim of the plot.

And then it all just... breaks. It's business as usual in the 11^th chapter up until you've cleared out all the enemies, and then Gangrel decides to raise the stakes by having arrows drawn at her. This is actually a big deal in the overall narrative, because it's the first time such an action has been taken. There are a lot of firsts to the story in 11, actually, and it's what I consider the big shift in the game. Before this you're presented with scenarios with the ideals of success and victory, and every challenge is meant to be overcome. This is the first time in the game where your agency and success is ripped out of your hands.

Speaking of choice, let's talk about your lack thereof. Right before Emmeryn takes it out of your hands, you're given a menu and 2 choices: hand the Emblem over or Emmeryn dies. Of course it doesn't matter what you chose, as I mentioned, because she takes matters into her own hands and sacrifices herself. Now I wanna be frank here, because I usually despise when games do this false choice stuff, where the devs obviously wanted you to feel like you're having an influence on the story but didn't want to actually change it, as that's just lazy most of the time and a bad use of the medium. Tropes and tools aren't bad, though.

See, I usually get annoyed when games do this because it's a very cheap tool, where you're often given a menu that essentially boils down to "Yes" and "Yes but I'm not happy" or something similar. It's fake choice that's just going to frustrate players when they find out that their choice never mattered. BUT it is possible to do a fake choice correctly, and by golly Awakening sure knows how to.

 Narratively there's really only one clear way to use the fake choice, and that's to have the point of the choice be your lack of choice. The player has no agency in this scene but it's all for a good, sensible story reason. Emmeryn is the type of person who'd sacrifice herself. Chrom can't do anything because the enemy has the upper hand, and he'd never willingly sacrifice his sister. It's important to make sure there are no contrivances when it comes to scenes like these, because when you take agency away you cannot have the player feel cheated in any way. This is really just a complicated way to say the game has good writing, but it really, really does.

How many shooting games have you played where the enemy took a hostage and suddenly you're unable to shoot them, despite shots being instant and in gameplay before your accuracy was perfect? It's stupid and frustrating when gameplay mechanics clash with the story. Now compare to Fire Emblem.

Could you shoot the archers down? No, you don't have enough to kill the dozens of them surrounding Emmeryn.

Flying units? No, the game has already established that those units take increased damage from archer shots, it's far too risky. Your army is mostly ground bound, anyway, so they would have no backup.

It's little details like that that show how thought and care has gone into how the story is presented alongside the gameplay, and that even the smallest things like a binary meaningless choice from a menu is used to great effect. It's a pretty sad and disempowering moment when you realize Emmeryn would have done this no matter what, that despite all your battlefield prowess you were doomed to fail this mission from the start.

And speaking of which, let's touch on Emmeryn's actual sacrifice too. Now obviously the idea of a character sacrificing their life for the sake of the others is nothing new, you've seen it done dozens of times by now, surely. It's all in the execution, however, and the little details are important nowadays to really sell such a scene.

Perhaps not minor, but in this case motivation is important, and it's important precisely because the motivation in universe is smart as all hell. It's not just forcing the power of the Fire Emblem out of Gangrel's hands, but forcing his army against him in the process. This is continuing Emmeryn's characterization, mainly for the player. She's always been presented as a wise and intelligent leader that had a good read on her allies and enemies. The problem with this can often be the fact that the player has to control the game, and qualities like this can get pushed to the sides. Another issue the story thus far has presented is that her kingdom is pretty much at a point where she only ever has one option to take at most times. These 2 are obviously good story and gameplay design, but it leaves her characterization and importance in a fairly awkward spot, since there isn't really a good way to show this that gels well with these practices.

So really it's a great story beat to have her qualities like these emphasized at the moment of her death, and to have that death be a sacrifice. Putting down one's own life is a great way to show wisdom, bravery, leadership, and similar stuff in a single instant. Put simply, it is in many ways the biggest and most dramatic way you can show a lot of serious character traits for a character already well established, and one you want to/need to kill off.

It's not like Fire Emblem is doing anything new with this, but it's doing it very well. With this action we see how much Emmeryn cares for her kingdom. We also see her caring for family, not wanting them to bargain for her life. Her independence and quick thinking is taken from an implied skill to being shown off. And she is also seen as incredibly smart, as her sacrifice motivates her allies, keeps power away from her enemies, and crushes the spirit of their army in one move.

So we've got the game batting a nice score with the story so far, and it's just getting started. Let's move over to gameplay and chapter 12.

Chapter 12 is a bit odd, since it's not very plot focused compared to previous events. It's just one battle, with the only important plot being the framing of said battle. Up until now, Awakening has been riding on the quality of its story. Now, it needs to make its gameplay mean something.

What's most impact about this chapter is how the gameplay doesn't change, or rather, how it cannot change. Everything around you is different. The mood is somber. The setup screen has no music, and the only sound filling your ears is the gentle patter of rain pouring down all upon you. There's nothing heroic here, no smart planning to be made, no tactical enjoyment to be found, no relaxing or tense music. Yet, the physical, gameplay process you go through to begin a battle will not change.

Nothing in the battle changes, either. You guide your units, attack the enemy, and nothing has realistically changed. And yet, everything has changed. Nobody really wants to fight. You're caught behind enemy lines, forced to carve your way out. The enemy is unwilling to fight after such a horrid display by their own leader and such bravery by the enemy, yet they must under threat of death. And you of course have this music playing, which is such a deviation from the heroic music you fought to beforehand. You can't even call it battle music, it's more of a reflective and emotionally out of control piece. It is flat out one of the most brilliant musical pieces I have ever heard.

I can't say how any one player will react to all this. Perhaps you're angry. Maybe you're in tears. You could be trying to avoid a fight. You could resign yourself to it. Maybe you're just numb to the proceedings and aren't even sure what to think. It's not my place to assume how a single person will react to this, but the one thing I can confidently say is that this will not make you feel heroic. It runs in opposition to the grand battles of before, the feeling of overcoming the odds and an evil. Nothing has changed in what you do, but really, everything has changed.

At the end of the day, Fire Emblem Awakening doesn't take any grand strides in video game storytelling, not really. However, the fact of the matter is that good writing by itself is rare in this industry, let alone good writing that interacts with the gameplay well. It's one of the best signs to me that a good story is something that is very important to the fabric of a great game. It doesn't have to be complex (A sad fight in the rain isn't a high level concept). It doesn't have to be long. It doesn't even have to change the gameplay. At the end of the day, what this one chapter from Awakening shows us is that story can make a good game truly great.