“And am I born
to die?
To lay this body down?
And must my trembling spirit fly
Into a world unknown,
To lay this body down?
And must my trembling spirit fly
Into a world unknown,
A land of
deepest shade,
Unpierced by human thought,
The dreary regions of the dead,
Where all things are forgot?”
Unpierced by human thought,
The dreary regions of the dead,
Where all things are forgot?”
-Charles
Wesley, Hymns for Children
Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare
has come under fire recently for its memorably bad handing of a soldier
grieving a dead companion. The scene has already been analyzed thoroughly by others and inspired Press E To, a game that tackles the subject with far more gravity.
You can say what you want about the scene in question, but Advanced Warfare’s attempt
to address the finality of death in a big-budget video game may have been
doomed from the start. The early history of the medium was built around the
assumption that death is never truly the end. Whether it’s Mario collecting 100
coins to gain another life or Arcade machines trading real money for imitation
lives, the show always went on for players with sufficient skill/quarters.
It is not impossible for games to tackle the subjects of death and grieving,
but it can be difficult. Aerith’s death in Final
Fantasy 7, considered one of the most traumatizing events of many a
childhood, falls apart emotionally when you ask “why didn’t they just use a
Phoenix Down?” Why doesn’t the friend in Advanced
Warfare just respawn? When will he be available as a DLC character?
Grief is predicated on the permanency of death, something which game narratives
do not generally support.
There are, of course, games that subvert this assumption. Whether it’s a high-concept
subversion like Lose/Lose (where each enemy’s death permanently deletes a computer
file and the player’s death deletes the program) or more standard subversions
like ZombiU (where player character deaths are permanent), the
straight trope of “revolving door afterlife” can and has been avoided.
As much as this trope has been subverted, it exists for a reason. Video games
are a (generally) interactive medium – the player can make the character fail
in a way that conflicts with the story. If we assume the narrative of Super Mario Brothers is
“Mario hops and bops and defeats Bowser,” we realize just how easy it is to
subvert this narrative. The player can refuse to move forward. The player can
intentionally kill herself. The player can prioritize collecting coins over
saving the Princess. The creators can punish the player for diverting from this
narrative (limited time to finish levels, “game over” screens which force the
player to restart the game), but they cannot force the player to win.
If we position video games as contracts between the player and the creator, the
necessity of multiple lives becomes clear. The creator has the right to punish
the player for an inadequate performance – losing lives, lowering scores,
locking off content. However, the creator also has responsibilities to the
player. Make the game too easy, and players will tire of it and quit. Make it
too hard, and players will become frustrated and quit. Make it unplayable
(*cough* AssCreed
*cough*), and the player will quit.
The player also has rights and responsibilities in our theoretical contract.
The player has the right to buy or not buy the game, the right to decide she
does not like the game and quit, the right to play the game in a subversive
fashion that conflicts with the creator’s design. On the side of
responsibilities, the player must either accept the game’s design and work with
it or accept the consequences of playing subversively.
Multiple lives are not the only method of cheating death; we also have the
save/load system.[i]
A creator might be able to reasonably expect a player to finish Super Mario Brothers in a
single play session, but what about Final
Fantasy 7? Is it really reasonable to expect a player to restart a
40+ hour game after a single death? In these cases, forcing a player to finish
the game in a single life and a single sitting would prevent the vast majority
of players from ever taking it up, let alone playing it to conclusion.
Multiple lives games like Super
Mario Brothers still present the player with a failure state – the
dreaded “Game Over” which forces the player to start again from scratch.
Save/Load games cannot force the player to start over from the beginning, just
from the last save point. Multiple lives games can punish inadequate
performance with finality, Save/Load games can only be lost if the player gives
up.
There is one final right we have not discussed: the right to infinite play.
Outside of arcade machines or subscription service games, a player who
purchases a game theoretically has the right to play it ad infinitum. It does
not matter how many times I fail at Super
Mario Brothers and get the Game Over screen, I have the right to
try again and again until my game cartridge/NES dies.
Or until I die.
This is perhaps the reason why this trope cannot be completely avoided. Even if
Lose/Lose deletes
itself, I can always reinstall it. My player character may die permanently in Zombie U, but I will get
another one. My stupid little brother may delete my FF7 save file, but a new game can be started. As
long as the player remains alive, the possibility of infinite replay remains
intact. To remove the possibility of infinite replay is to violate the common
contract between creator and player.
Since games cannot legally kill the player for failure (right? I’m not a
lawyer), all games substitute the idea that failure is met with a narrative
dead end. Death forces the player to restart the level, to restart from the
last save point, to switch to a new player character, to reinstall the game.
Failure is met with a frustration, the understanding that the game cannot
continue until the player gets her shit together.
Now let’s talk about Shin
Megami Tensei 4. Spoilers follow.
SMT4 is a fairly
standard JRPG and a completely standard Shin
Megami Tensei game. Collect and fuse demons, run around a
post-apocalyptic Tokyo, make choices that affect your alignment, etc. There are
a few nice little twists and some fairly impressive use of the 3DS’s hardware,
but if you’ve played an Atlus RPG before you will feel right at home.
Like most JRPGs, SMT4
uses Save/Load system. When the main character dies, the game can resumed from the
last save point. Unlike most games, death does not have to be the end of the
narrative.
Upon death, the player resumes consciousness in the Underworld. The narrative
of the game continues as the player meets Charon, the overworked god
in charge of ferrying the souls of the dead across the River Styx. Charon, fed
up with the “mountains of the dead” waiting to be ferried across, offers to let
the player return to life in exchange for money (Macca). If the player does not
have enough money, Charon will even offer to open a tab!
In one sense, this device simply allows a safety net for players who have
forgotten to save recently. Instead of losing however many hours of game time
since their last save, they can take a financial penalty and return to the
entrance of the dungeon where they died. However, Charon also clearly exists
within the narrative of the game – the player can receive side quests from him
and his two assistants.
SMT4 combines the
Arcade system of “money for infinite lives” and the Save/Load system, while
adding a unique narrative flair. Instead of subverting the trope from the usual
end (trying to make death more realistically “permanent”), it subverts from a
fresh angle (death/player failure is incorporated into the narrative). Instead
of punishing the player by ending the narrative, Atlus rewards the player’s
death with additional narrative content.
It could be argued that Atlus is subverting the player’s ability to subvert –
not even intentionally “committing suicide” can liberate the player from Atlus’
narrative. However, I feel that it is more accurate to view this as a
player-positive feature. While the player is financially punished for failure, they
are not narratively punished. Whereas dying in Final Fantasy 7 takes the player completely out
of the narrative, dying in Shin
Megami Tensei 4 does not interrupt immersion. It is a more feasible
to play through SMT4
without ever saving or reloading than the vast majority of RPGs.
I am particularly inclined to give Atlus the benefit of the doubt on Shin Megami Tensei 4 for a
related reason. While SMT4
includes the usual three Law/Chaos/Neutral endings, it also has a fourth
option: liberating the entire universe from existence.
In the “White Ending,”
the player decides that the only way to end the suffering of humanity is
to annihilate all humans and triggers a chain reaction that destroys the
entire universe. This is not presented in game as a “bad ending” (although the
linked video describes it as such) but as an equally valid alternative to
the others. Finishing the game with the White Ending still unlocks the New Game+
option without any sort of penalty.
In providing the White Ending, Atlus gives the player a level of choice not
many other games can boast. Personally, I found siding with the Angels, Demons,
or Humans of SMT4 equally
depressing prospects. The White Ending gave me a chance to embrace my feelings
of nihilism about the setting and wipe the whole thing out. It felt something
like quitting the game, like refusing to side with a faction I could not
morally support. The only difference was that my choice was supported by the
narrative instead of punished as a poor performance. In destroying that
fictional universe, I found some measure of real-world peace.
Shin Megami Tensei 4
subverted my expectations of video game death in a way that was both unexpected
and pleasing. But it did so by becoming less realistic, not more.
I suppose the question becomes, “Is it possible for video games to address the
issue of death in a manner that is both realistic and pleasing?” I’m not sure.
Real humans and video game characters are both born to die, but their
deaths have very different meanings. When video game characters die, it is
usually because the player failed in some way and there is usually a way to
reverse it. Real humans die regardless of how they lived and it cannot be
reversed for love or money.
But then, that’s only going by what science tells us, and science isn’t the
only game in town. Maybe the theologians are right. Maybe we do get to respawn in a world without
pain, or else reincarnate in a new body with a new chance to get it right.
Maybe the Death, the Last Enemy, is more like a Final Boss than we ever dared
to imagine.
So whether we get one shot at defeating Death or as many as we need, choose
your character class and equipment with care. I hear that Bastard plays dirty.
Waked by the
trumpet's sound,
I from my grave shall rise,
And see the Judge, with glory crowned,
And see the flaming skies!
I from my grave shall rise,
And see the Judge, with glory crowned,
And see the flaming skies!
[i]
As a friend once said, “Save/Reload is the most powerful spell in any game.”
No comments:
Post a Comment