Follow us on Twitter: @ggtl
Join our friendly community!
Latest news
13.5.11
Grand Theft Auto and Assassin's Creed. A Chaucible Crossantwich.
I recently caught up to the rest of the gaming world, finally finishing Assassin's Creed II last night. As if to celebrate my triumph, I received my new issue of Game Informer on the same day, with an enormous spread on Assassin's Creed: Revelations on the cover. Dear readers, I love the Assassin's Creed series so much that I am totally prepared to plow my way through Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood as quickly as I can, so I can play Revelations right when it comes out.
I am not the only one. Assassin's Creed has consistently been one of this generation's best-selling series - so much so that Ubisoft decided to give it a yearly release cycle. Canny gamers will remember that this is not the first time the gaming public has gone head-over-heels for an open world franchise, and a brief look at last generation reveals several similarities between the three Grand Theft Auto games released for the PlayStation 2 and the Assassin's Creed franchise. Read on to find out why Assassin's Creed and Grand Theft Auto share more of a pedigree than is initially apparent.
1: It Came From Out of Nowhere and was Ridiculously Successful
Hard as it may be to believe, not too many people were looking forward to Grand Theft Auto III when it was first shown at E3 in 2001. The two top-down entries in the series (plus whatever expansions there might have been) had a modest following, but few predicted what a runaway hit GTA III would become. Similarly, the original Assassin's Creed, while undoubtedly hyped, was not expected to blow up the charts in any significant way. Instead, it would go on to sell 8 million units, and currently reigns as the highest-selling original IP of this console generation.
2: New Releases are Basically City Packs, and we Like it that Way
Like the GTA games before it, the Assassin's Creed franchise is built on an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" platform. Though gameplay elements are tweaked and changed slightly from game to game, players of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood are still doing largely what they have already done in previous entries in the series. This is hardly a bad thing: mechanically, the GTA and Assassin's Creed games play exceptionally well, and simply being able to continue raising hell as Tommy Versetti or Ezio in different cities offers a compelling, satisfying experience.
3: It Pushes the Envelope for Mature Writing in Games
It may seem a bit toothless now, but GTA III's story was trail-blazing at the time, with its depiction of criminal activities and the slimeballs involved in them breaking myriad gaming taboos. Assassin's Creed is similarly placed to help advance maturity in game stories, but the narrative isn't "mature" simply because it involves blood and tits (although it does have those). From the outset, the Assassin's Creed series has hung its hat on some seriously heady questions, specifically about organized religion and the existence of God; not the most likely theme for a multi-million-selling franchise. It's a good sign that players can be sold on deep, non-patronizing ideas if the game is fun enough (BioShock, anyone?).
4: It Does Things with its Open World that Gamers Haven't Seen Before
Grand Theft Auto III wasn't the first game to have an open-world structure, but it was the first to truly nail it, and anyone who played it at the time can tell you why: GTA III marked the first time an open game environment had ever felt "real". Traffic lights changed, weather patterns came and went, and legions of pedestrians went about their day, regardless if you were doing anything around them. Assassin's Creed took a different approach: it made its (historically accurate) world dense, rather than expansive. Players could find courier missions, assassination contracts, races, viewpoints, collectables, and much more in the same expanse that many open world games would reserve for one sidequest. Games like Crackdown and Saints Row couldn't exist without GTA, and games like Infamous and The Saboteur couldn't exist without Assassin's Creed.
5: Hookers
Oh yeah.
Labels: 2011, Andrew Testerman, Assassin's Creed, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, Assassin's Creed II, Grand Theft Auto III, GTA
- Andrew Testerman
I've always loved RPGs and open-world sandbox games. They're the ones that unleash gaming's true potential as a truly interactive experience, by placing you in a world which you directly alter with your own actions. As such a fan of the genre, I've spent a lot of time listening to podcasts, reading articles and watching interviews in which developers talk about building these types of atmospheric, non-linear games.
I've think I've found the rule for a successful open world game.
I don't think anyone can doubt that making a game with good atmosphere isn't one of (if not the) main goals for modern game designers. Any game that has a large area to explore has got to feel right; whether it's magical and fantastic or real and grounded, no matter the genre or take, all imagined worlds follow the same principles to feel alive and real. Fun, engaging gameplay is important, but if you're spending 300 hours in an unconvincing land, you won't have fun; a nagging voice in your head will always remind you that 'this isn't right'. Feeling immersed is a vital component for both basic enjoyment and that special emotional connection felt only in incredibly good games.
Graphics, obviously, often aid immersement. Most upcoming open world games look to have no lack of beauty - Skyrim is an obvious example. But it's the wealth of small, often minor features or mechanics that truly make or break a game world. Take S.T.A.L.K.E.R., for example. While its textures may be bland and outdated, its lighting is superb. When combined with other effects, like eerie scrathces and moans, it has a huge ambient effect. Why do players get so scared when, say, approaching a Bloodsucker lair? It's not just because of the streaks of intermittent lightning; it's the fact that, at night, you've wondered past the lair before, seen odd lights, and heard strange noises. You've noticed twisted corpses and blood painting walls, all of which give you a feeling of the area's history. A Bad history. You've heard rumours from NPCs about this place, so while you have an idea of what's coming, you're not truly sure what to expect. Graphic and sound aesthetics combine with narrative clues to create a place that feels frighteningly tangible.
After playing these types of open world RPGs and sandboxes for a long time, I think I've come up with my own little maxim that you can apply quite well to all those games that have truly outstanding atmosphere - the ones that truly feel real, truly engage with the player with a real, breathing world. Basically, after you've turned off the game, close your eyes and imagine the game world for a moment. Once you've envisioned it, ask yourself:
Is it possible for that world to function without a player?
Example: GTA. Take Vice City or San Andreas. Those worlds only functioned with the player inside them. If you imagined the game was still running after you stopped playing somehow, it would be utterly dead. Cars would still go round, but nothing else would happen. All its missions are simply waiting around for you start them. The cops wouldn't have to chase anyone down. The gang wars would never happen, as in the game it takes the player to press a button saying 'start a gang war'. NPCs would wonder aimlessly, without purpose. It just wouldn't feel real. The Vice City or San Andreas worlds do nothing but wait and react to one person: you.
GTA IV, on the other hand, pretty much nails it. Thanks to what you've seen or experienced in the game, you know random events can occur. So, if you imagined Niko Bellic went away for a while and Liberty City was left to it's own devices, it would actually make for a pretty convincing world. The police would still chase criminals, whizzing past you while chasing someone else as you've often witnessed, so when turning off you console you feel like 'Hey, there's stuff going on that isn't player-dependant'. NPCs would carry shopping bags home, dash between awnings in the rain, drive to work, and react to one another. Helicopter tours would fly around the city, day would turn to night, there'd be a shoot-out somewhere, the weather would change, and so on and so forth. It'd be a boring place, sure, but you still feel like things would happen, events would occur, and there'd be some purpose and order to the city without you roaming it. The game, on this occasion, isn't simply waiting for you to affect it; it's a realistic, alive place, that you just happen to have a very active role in.
This 'can-the-world-thrive-without-its-player' theory can be applied to many of these types of games. In S.T.A.L.K.E.R, Duty and Freedom patrols occasionally run into each other and have a fight in its shadowy environment. That made it feel alive, real, ever-changing, and so on. As progressed, you visited places with escalatingly worse atmospheres. As the environment became increasingly harsh and the situation more dire these sort of events happened less and less, until essentially it was only you doing the unique, world-changing things; the game was just waiting for you to accept a mission to go somewhere and do something. If you didn't play, nothing would happen.
Here's another one for you - Fable. Peter Molyneux did a good job with this. In the original, there were ships that deliver trade goods on certain days of the week, and villagers transporting those goods to individual shops. And then every night all the villagers would gather at the tavern and have a few drinks. Small details, yet it did wonders in making the game world feel vibrant and alive.
In half a year we'll be able to test this 'does-the-world-function-without-me' theory on the newest title in the Elder Scrolls series: Skyrim. I love Skyrim. I utterly adore Skyrim. And I actually have great faith in Bethesda, because despite engine limitations Fallout did a pretty good job of creating a believable environment. You'd find people fighting over a fridge, or someone crying with a bomb strapped to their chest - these made the place feel dynamic, like it would be a pretty interesting, eventful environment without you (though, of course, not as eventful as if you were there).
It'll be the small things that will make or break the world of Skyrim. Imagine, for instance, you go to a town and see Jimmy. You have a chat, and he tells you that he's going to start work soon, or that he really wants to be an adventurer. You go off and do missions and explore the world, but eventually you cross the same town again. Jimmy's there, with a lovely new piece of armour on. He tells you he did a bit of work for a friend, and earned enough to buy this really awesome breastplate. You, as a player, are thinking "Wow! While I was off doing my own things, Jimmy was actually off doing HIS own things, independent of me! It feels like this is a real place where people do new things and have experiences regardless of whether I'm here! I can't wait to see what else has changed!".
Or you'd probably just think "Wow, that's kind of neat. What's for lunch?".
Point is, the world with Jimmy feels alive, real, atmospheric, engaging, and full of wonder and change and dynamicnessosity (a word I just made up). There are loads of seemingly insignificant ways to add this Jimmy effect. A house has a broken roof, and after a while, you go back to see the house and it's fixed. A store clerk mentions getting new stock soon, and you come back later to see they've actually received it. You could even have mini-missions occurring that you don't take part in. You see a wife running down the street of the town, asking if anyone has seen her husband. You can't take it as a mission or do anything to alter the events, but you find her later, hugging her rescued husband. And you think:
"Hey... It is possible for this world to function without me"
Labels: 2011, Chris, Chris Hawke, Elder Scrolls, Fable, Grand Theft Auto, GTA, GTA4, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Skyrim, STALKER
- Chris Hawke
Jack Thompson's argument has one vital flaw; it's hard to prove that violent video games 'damage' children, because you have to let them grow up. Finding out whether a childhood obsession with Grand Theft Auto leads to the cultivation of a hooker-beating, car-jacking, tracksuit-wearing 20-year-old maniac means that you have to both actively let a child play GTA, and then wait until he's a grown adult. It's time consuming, messy, morally objectionable and a bit weird.
However, there is still a way that we can find out what kids think of this super-violent alternate reality, and what their tiny innocent minds process while brutal imagery flashes through their tiny eyes. Unfortunately, I couldn't steal a child (not after last time, and I'd let a mate borrow the cage), so it was up to one brave writer: Matthew Orona of Bitmob. This is what happens when a kid plays GTA.
You can read Matthew's article on Bitmob.
"I egged him on to take the car in front of him which was waiting at the red light. He quickly looked up at me with disgust and refused, stating that the car was already owned by the person driving it."
First, a general observation: 4-year-olds are right little buggers. They dribble, shout, scream, punch, grab, bite, scratch, and spill everything everywhere. However, their favourite thing by far is to claim that every single object is theirs. See that vase your Mum gave you? Theirs. Your brand new Honda? Theirs. That chocolate bar you're eating? Definitely theirs. So, why is this child so terrified of taking someone's car? Either he's one of the kindest and most empathetic toddlers this side of young Gandhi, or it triggers the divide between action and principle. When in the home, it's easy for a child to say that 'everything belongs to them' in front of a parent, but actually physically taking something off a complete stranger is too much for most. As far as the child is concerned, the game is synonymous to real life, and the morals that they uphold in the real world translate directly to the virtual one. At least, for now...
"At one intersection he attempted to brake, but he was travelling too fast. Instead of ploughing into the rear of the car ahead of him, he swerved to the right and popped up onto to sidewalk. In doing so, he accidently ran over a woman walking towards his oncoming car. He was incredibly ashamed of himself and profusely apologised."
Again, just as a real life tragedy such as this would render a child horrified and ashamed, so does the video game. Children blur the lines between reality and the imaginary far more than most adult gamers, magnifying the whole experience and making it more involving, and either more joyful or terrifying, depending on the circumstances in the game.
"Only seconds later, he witnessed a policeman jump out of his patrol car to pursue a criminal of San Andreas. His eyes lit up as he asked if he could drive the police car. I reminded him that it was only a game, and it was fine to take the car. As he drove the squad car, I pressed L3 to turn on the lights and siren. He asked very excitedly if he could get the bad guys too. With a huge smile I pressed R3 to initiate the Vigilante Missions. It was as if his imagination had come to life. He was taking down delinquents left and right."
Remember that lesson in school where you were told how the police are your friends, and PC Nicey would give a little speech on how they catch the bad people? That was cool. What was even cooler were the cars. "Ha! Look at them lights! Looks at them hats they wear! They get GUNS! Kewl!". Being a policeman or policewoman is the height of awesome for all kids. Grand Theft Auto now becomes their way of living out this fantasy, drifting round corners and stopping the evil-doers in the name of the law. The interesting thing here is that while killing criminals in GTA is very violent, it's violence in a good cause; you're ridding the streets of evil. The child here displays no regrets or apologies, because he knows that the police are the 'good guys'. This is, presumably, before the inevitable time when the kid grows up and gets pulled over for doing 41 on a 40mph road, has to fork out a £300 fine and realises that the police are nothing but corrupt and sadistic creatures of pure evil who thrive off the salty tears of mere mortals by extracting every last penny from their battered wallets.
Because I'm not bitter at all.
"In all his time with Grand Theft Auto he never once encountered any of the controversy surrounding this notorious title. He didn’t beat any hookers with a baseball bat. He didn’t deal drugs. He didn’t go on a murderous rampage. He certainly never once had a cup of hot coffee. He didn't avoid these things because I told him he couldn't try them. It just never occurred to him to commit these acts."
After more ambulance and fire-fighting work, we get to the crux of the matter. The kid has killed a number of people, either by accident or through vigilante missions, but all his actions have been justified morally. He never stole a car from someone, because that's not the right thing to do. Sure, he took the police car and the ambulance, but only because no one was in them and he hasn't quite got the hang of property laws yet. He killed, but only for a good and righteous cause. And he never once did the sort of evil things that plague an adult's playthrough, simply because he never thought of it. Why, in this world, should he beat up a hooker? Yes, all the necessary tools are there - weapons, hookers, dark alleyways - but there's no reason to commit such a grievous act. If anything, Grand Theft Auto has enhanced the child's morality; unlike most players who kill and steal for the hell of it, the kid only does what he thinks it is right to do, even if it provides him with some escapist fun in the form of a police chase. Do you really see this player growing up to kill and drug deal in later life?
Dr. Hawke has reached his conclusion. The 18+ rating is there for a reason; games are much more involving for children than they are for adults and, obviously, that means they're more dangerous: I have no doubt the same experiment with Dead Space 2 would produce endless nightmares. But as for children immediately turning into bloodthirsty murderers: it's doubtful. As a general rule, children shouldn't be allowed to play videogames so violent or repugnant as GTA, but if this toddler is anything to go by, they don't look at games with the same cynical eyes we do. As soon as you booted up GTA IV, you wanted to run someone down, didn't you? But for this child at least, it's just a fun way to become a policeman, and not much else.
Please don't take this as proper medical advice, as my BSc in Medical Sciences is actually written in crayon on the back of some tissue paper, but feel free to have a discussion of the findings below, and follow our Twitter.
Disclaimer
Quotes in this article are taken from Matthew Orona's original article on Bitmob.Use of these quotes is for illustrative purposes only, and the Gamer's Guide to Life Network does not claim to own, in any way, the quotes used here.
Quotes shown here may have been edited or abridged to better fit the context of this article.
Labels: 2011, Bitmob, Children, Chris Hawke, Gaming Addiction, Grand Theft Auto, Grand Theft Auto IV, GTA, GTA4, San Andreas, Study, Videogames and Violence
- Chris Hawke
Subscribe to our content
and never miss a single thing
subscribe to our monthly newsletter:
Our most recent writing
Our most recent reviews
Recent comments
All comments are subject to our commenting policy
Latest videos
Subscribe on YouTube
GGTL Classics
Some of the very best articles dug out from deep in the GGTL archives, written by some of our past and present wordsmiths alike.
Your continued use of this website and/or any others owned by Gamer's Guide to Life.com represents your acceptance and indicates your full understanding of all of our legal policies and terms. Our legal policies and terms are legally binding. If you in any way disagree with or refuse to be bound by any part of said legal policies and terms, you are advised to leave this website immediately.