WTF?
Not every aspect of game design is mechanics, yet mechanics can effect many aspects of the game that does not make said aspect mechanics. The character creator in a game is a mechanical interface for making your character but all the eyes, skin tones, hair in fact ALL the meshes and textures that make up any character are part of ART design not mechanics. A sword that you swing doesn't become a mechanic even though mechanics are used to manipulate said sword or gun. The asset of the sword, or any other "asset" in the game is part of art design. The results of swinging said sword are not art design they are mechanics, the statistics of the sword are mechanics. Two seperate parts of game design even though both are used to portray a sword attack. By your definition the only thing that would be art in the game is anything that you can't interact with because otherwise that is mechanics. Simply because you can choose some MINOR branches in the story narrative does not render the story narrative a mechanic of the game.
The fact that there is a way to interact with the story narrative does not magically turn the entire narrative into a mechanic. Just because I can use a mechanic to change the colour of my eyes or the style of my hair in a game doesn't magically make hair and eyes mechanics instead of art design. Yes you can use LIMITED mechanics to interact with the story narrative but the story narrative is still the story narrative it does not become the mechanics of the game. And it is more than possible to watch a mass effect "movie" on youtube of just cut scenes you are just a passive watcher and there is a story narrative being told and that story narrative DIRECTLY compliments and support the theme of the series. This is something that is separate in its own right to the mechanics of the game just as art design is. The are not one of the same thing they are different aspects of game design. Games design is NOT synonymous with game mechanics.
Yes the story narrative is integral to GAME DESIGN it is not integral to game mechanics. This is how you can get narratives told in games like a RAIL shooter. Clear the level and poof get a cut scene revealing more of the narrative. You can get narratives in RTS games completely separate from the games mechanics but integral to the games design. How? Clear a level and watch a cut scene.
So what do I mean by story narrative vs. Mechanics narrative? Lets look at a game with ZERO story narrative but a powerful narrative is told simply by the games mechanics, Missile Command. There is no story narrative, no exposition nothing. There are few words in the entire game and yet there is a narrative told. This narrative is about the hopelessness of trying to save the cities from nuclear destruction. And it is hopeless because you can't "win" there is no end game you just keep going until you lose all your cities. It is a powerful narrative but it is only told through the mechanics of the game. Every game tells a narrative outside and separate from the story presented. all games have a mechanical narrative. And you get conflicts when the mechanical narrative conflicts with the story narrative. This can be obvious and blatant like a boss fight in Dead rising 3. You kill the boss with X weapon but a cutscene starts up at the bosses death and poof magically the narrative is that you killed the boss with a Molotov cocktail. And people watch this going WTF? That isn't how I killed the boss. The reason they react to this is because there are two SEPARATE narratives being told. In the same game TotalBiscuit talks about a separate dissonance between the way the character speaks and acts in the story narrative vs what he does mechanically. This is another example of how a games MECHANICS tell a separate narrative to the story's narrative.
Source: https://youtu.be/uBnIpDfyUi0?t=22m32s
i don't deny Shepard is portrayed as a messiah figure but that does not require a conflicting power fantasy narrative. in fact there is a story narrative scene where Shepard is NOT suppose to feel like a kick ass killing machine in Me3, yet everything about the mechanics of the game says you are a "god of death." An the way to the Cerberus HQ you have a romance scene with you li and then a dream and then the i can't sleep conversation. All of this was intended to make Shepard be more "human" but it conflicts with the I am the god of death narrative told by the mechanics. It conflicts so much that the dream sequences are panned by many players as emotional manipulation. Yet any story is by definition trying to engender some kind of emotional response, that's what all entertainment tries to do. The exact emotion differs but the goal is the same, so why do the dream sequences feel like manipulation vs. just telling an aspect of the story? Again because of the conflict between what the story is telling us and what the mechanics are telling us. This conflict is most evident in me3 but also starts in me2.
To say that ME2 and Me3 are not power fantasy is just because skyrim is and the major difference between skyrim and mass effect is the skyrim has fewer restriction is to be blind to the definition of what the power fantasy is. Comic book super heroes are power fantasy stories, you just finished stating that Shepard is the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object or visa versa which is by any sane definition larger than life, more powerful than normal which is the foundational pillar of the POWER fantasy. WTF? How to you square that circle????? You can't describe Shepard as larger than life in one paragraph and then claim just because you don't have the open world freedom of skyrim mass effect 3 can't be a power fantasy. That is logically inconsistent. The openness of Skyrim is a separate aspect of Skyrim's power fantasy mechanics. These features are not one in the same.
I am not saying the STORY narrative, which you keep using to defend the mechanics but however they are actually two SEPARATE aspects of game play, is inconsistent. In fact i keep saying that with regards to the STORY narrative there is nothing conflicting with the games theme. I make this entirely clear. The conflict is with the mechanics of Play. And sorry but these are entirely separate from the story.
WTF does western style and JRPG style games have to do with the topic at hand? NOTHING. This has nothing to do with the inherent conflict between the two narratives that the developers made with ME3/2.
Pffft that doesn't explain why people who liked the Shepard death endings thinking the endings sucked. It doesn't explain why the star child is hated. Your theory only explains why the "I want my Shepard and LI sipping drinks on the beach ending," crowd which i doubt makes up the majority of players who hate teh endings. The endings are almost universally panned. It is such a huge percent of the player base. Your theory suggests that what we had no idea we were playing an RPG and that is why we hate the endings? WTF?
Not once have you addressed anything about the mechanics of play and how they create a feeling of empowerment and yet the story keeps telling Shepard we are hopeless against the reapers, Except in one paragraph you claim that Shepard is the empowered saviour of the galaxy and in the fraking very next paragraph you claim there is no power fantasy. Simply because the story narrative complements the theme does not mean the narrative the mechanics tell does so. They are not the same thing.
One thing, I never stated the art cannot be the mechanics itself; that is a presumption you seem to be making. Assets and creation of that design is part of the mechanics as well, not just the drawings and the art direction that is presented.
Think of it this way, how a scene is presented is part of that art design in of itself, or cinematography if you want to put it that way. How the camera is framed can be a part of the art of the scene, a key component to the visual representation.
Your example of missile command is actually perfect to showcase that. Outside of the word-for-word regurgitation of Extra Credits as a talking point, Missile Command, based on it's mechanics also ties to the art of the game; how the it looks and plays, to the box art or even the "The End" theme to it when you eventually lose. It adds to that sense of dread you mention, a sense of dread people probably didn't have when they first played it because they may not understand the themes involved in the direction of the game until recently.
But the problem though is it's an apples and oranges comparison, you can't compare Missile Command to Mass Effect in how they approach mechanics like that first off.
Second, and more importantly, because of the nature of Mass Effect, the emphasis on choice, consequence and selecting dialogue to play with, the mechanics need to be the forefront of that whole design. Here is the thing, you are making the story you are passively watching right? So you are manipulating the plot to form that narrative. Remember, narrative and plot are separate; so you have control of narrative points in between the plot you are watching.
Now, video games are described as being similar to "Cool media", a term coined by Marshall McLuhan who was a media and technology expert. Cool media basically engages players through numerous senses at the same time, not at full force either. So for example, you are watching a conversation play out but at the same time picking and choosing what you say next. The conversation has several characters, so the scene has blocking and cinematography to it, and you also have interrupts thrown into the mix at times, which also involves reflex and reactionary timing.
This is a perfect example of cool media. You can passively watch a cut-scene, but that's easy. That makes it "hot media" when all of your attention is on what is right in front of you and you are passively engaged in it, like a film. Mass Effect, like most video games, when you are interacting with the game physically, you are engaged beyond just watching a cut-scene. You have control over the conversation flow and the direction of the story in those moments, versus watching someone else control it for you. It is two different things you are talking about.
What makes part of the games mechanics is that control the player has. Story narrative vs mechanical narrative are one in the same here, because of active participation vs watching things happen. A game like Dead Rising 3 has a passive narrative in most cases, so why John Bain felt like that is probably due to how disconnected the narrative is to his control.
In fact, a lot of games suffer from that, but not Mass Effect. Not The Witcher to an extant either. Games with hybrid protagonists; player-developed RPG characters with a semblance of a previous personality, are perfect windows into that mindset because of how they are designed. You have control over what they say and how they even feel at time, but not their history, backstory, or direction they are going.
I honestly don't really know what your problem is then. Simply put, you are wrong about the narrative mechanics being separate. Regarding how you play a game and how you kill enemies, that is a bit more skill based part of the game I guess and it does make it different from the narrative itself, but the entire game together encompasses the mechanics of the game itself, so the argument that one makes you more powerful yet tells you you aren't...thats bullshit frankly.
By the way, I can describe Shepard like that because that is how the game design actually works. A power fantasy is total control of a character to enact that fantasy for you; I am the master of my fate because I, as the player, can do anything and be a badass doing it. The ultimate truth is we are not the masters of Shepards full fate. We can manipulate it sure, in fact in that respect I would argue that in-game narrative choices are more of a power fantasy trope than being a badass in combat, but the duration of the game is not grounded into what you are describing if you ask me because we don't control Shepard fully.
I have said this before about the whole "W/J RPG" debate, it is in essence bullshit to begin with, but it came up because of the nature of Shepard as a in-game mechanic; he is a hybrid character type. We can create our Shepard, but we don't fully own Shepard. It is kind of like Geralt as well in that regard where the personality is there, we just pull the strings to when its necessary.
And truth be told, the reason why I have not mentioned the mechanics of play in this case it is irrelevant when the mechanics encompass the narrative. Going back to what cool media is all about, you can accomplish so damn much by shooting things and being deadly accurate, but you are not winning the war overall around you. Pyrrhic victories abound in Mass Effect 3 as you lose characters, potential squadmates, suffer major attacks that cost tons of lives- that kind of stuff is empowering in the end?
Shepard may be the highly skilled guy here, but hes not superman, he can't save everyone, and won't. A real, larger than life character in a power fantasy can, and usually is, infallible.
With so much going on, I simply can't justify the game being a power fantasy in how you describe it. Either way, it does not really change the fact that your argument is still flawed. That is just a simple truth in the matter. Hell, mine is flawed too, but no discussion on the theory of design is fullproof anyway, and this is stuff I had to study for my Playing Roles series, and I had to do an article on design philosophy over abstract vs concrete gaming mechanics.
I guess the cop-out at this point is to agree to disagree? I don't feel like writing another essay unless I am getting paid for it at this point, I got actual grading to do that should take precedence here. I will say this has been a fun little discussion though.
Retour en haut
