Additional Information

People derived from emotions are not really alive. But then, being susceptible to every one and each stimulus, might at the very least disclose cultural or, well, emotional shortcomings.

Throughout the years I grew particularly fond of a specific range of video games. Sure, Call of Duty (used to be) fun and so does need for speed series (used to be as well). Games are all about fun, are they not? Well, unless you treat it as a medium for converging and transcending stories, which by the use of existing affordances, may elicit emotions far outreaching the capabilities of exisiting forms.

In fact, they actually did. I was fascinated by what the developers were able to achieve with a range of games, launching the player on a true emotional rollercoster, such as: Life is Strange, The Walking Dead: The Game, Spec Ops: The Line. Would you like to experience complex sadness? Or true, heartbreaking grief? How about to truly hate yourself? All operating on player-operated illusory choices, concealed so well behind the game mechanics that you can't tell the difference, if there were any other existing ways. That's the degree of immersion that the player gets dissolved in.

The presentation was scheduled to take place in between 12-15 minutes. I tried disclosing a year, in which a great number of games released paved way for the upcoming years of the gaming industry, as so many were of stunning quality. If one took a closer look, each of these games involved some level of innovation. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare for the first time was placed in modern times. Need for Speed: Pro Street took place on racing tracks instead of regular streets. In case of Crysis, the developers decided to make, basically a benchmark that didn't work well on most computers, as it was so advanced technically (and graphic-wise). Nevertheless, all of these titles relied on mechanics that were already well established in the industry. Some titles became a multimilion blockbusters, with sequels being produced for many years to come. Nevertheless, despite the fierce competition, there received the most 'game of the year' titles and that was one that did not exceed in that many ways altogether. Except, it shone off with one particular element, which truly made a killing and stole the hearts of the industries' reviewers. In fact, they managed to accomplish it with mere 3 words: 'Would you kindly'.

You see the beauty here? In fact, this year, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, already introduced at least one scene which literally shocked & awed. Introducing a twist that, again, literally blew the player away with (spoiler alert) an unexpected nuclear blast, the presentation of which was so wonderful and petrifying at once. Then the developers anchored the scene with another, in which the player woke up in the midst of a world struck by the nuclear fallout and dying afterwards. Despite, that the main character was not built in pretty much any degree whatsoever, didn't even murmur one word at all. Infinity Ward was able to design a sequence of scenes that was able to react heavily upon its players.

In Mass Effect the developers were able to introduce a twist, among all the role-playing features of building relations and making choices, the enormity of one of the final scenes, in which (spoiler alert), literally, your entire universe was beginning to be destroyed and you were there to stop it and experience it all. The immersion was truly one of a kind and basically as most rpg games made properly, the device of making the player someone really important and making the player a hero. Seems to generic, does it? But the level of immersion spoke otherwise.

In fact, The Witcher had an extremely powerful twist by its end as well. Rusing the player into a sequence of choices, that were made throughout (possibly) days and then finally finding out (spoieler alert), that in fact all the bad stuff that was happening in this world was a result of another entity hunting you. That sounds even more generic, alright. Still, entirely unexpected and yet it fit the depicted world like a charm!

And then, there is Bioshock which in spite of its compelling world placed in a mesmerizing scenography. The level of insanity introduced, some in regards to the world itself. Mechanics were fairly standard, even slightly outdated with a few innovative features introduced. Yet, the thing that made the game so special in regards to the others, was most likely how much it made of a fool of the player. That's actually a fairly corrupt approach to be taken in regards to game development. Yet, there the logic of games is: you are in one place, you move to another. You get through some difficulties, solve some riddles, but you keep moving, usually for some reason, because somebody tells you to. And that's exactly the point that the developers have exploited, introducing a character that keeps telling 'Would you kindly...' do this, do that and these become your objective, without which you can't move forward. Your character is dead silent and so he lacks a personality and much of anything to begin with. That, paradoxically boosts the immersion of the player for some reason as the game directly relates to the player with 'Would you kindly'. Then, once the games reveals this, well, like I mentioned, the game was already quite well made. But the thing that it actually starts messing with your mind and showcases the wrong that you've been doing so far? It wasn't that extremely heavy, yet it contained a few scenes that were massive. And Bioshock's world? It all blended well together on a surprisng level.

But it all came down to the illusion of choice. Of which I talked about in regards to the next slides:

The Walking Dead: The Game was an action adventure game which operated primarily on storytelling and limited environment exploration with a hinch of QTE events. Making decisions was the mechanical backbone, while the relations between the adult Lee and a child Clementine in a grim world torn apart by a zombie apocalypse made a scene near perfect for building a truly compelling relationship between the characters, for which the player wholeheartedly cared for. Once the history began coming to an end in season one, with (spoiler alert) one of the protagonists dying, tears were the most natural thing to be shed, even by the most emotionally durable of us it did happen. And so plus 80 titles of game of the year followed.

Nevertheless, one of my favorites, which actually produced a wide debate whether games ought to focus on being fun or rather telling compelling stories - Spec Ops: The Line, which remained in The Walking Dead: The Game shadow's in 2012. An adaptation of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Farcis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now, a game which in my honest opinion might have became easily the game of decade if only its shortcoming were fixed in time. While The Walking Dead: The Game focused on building relations and producing choices that impacted the further play, eventually bringing it down to a nerve wreaking grief, Spec Ops: The Line took a rather different approach by throwing the player straight into a journey to the very bottom of the downward spiral. Yager Entertainment provided an archetype of an american hero, who arrived in a struck by an apocalyptic sandstorm Dubai to find out if anyone's alive. Check if anyone's there, report and get back. Then, all kinds of things start becoming wrong. At first, as in many military shooter games, you start killing the middle eastern dwellers, apparently because they started shooting at you, so you shoot them back, despite that they are the ones you're supposed to rescue. But then, you start killing american soldiers, that's when shooting starts to become relatively uncomfortable (from the western perspective). Afterwards, you decide to keep on going and, as a matter of fact, it is your decision to keep on going. The game puts you recurrently in a position in which it reminds you that you don't have much of a choice, but there always is a choice. So, by blending into the existing conflict and trying to discover more and more, (spoiler alerts) instead of rescuing anyone, you kill squadrons of middle easterns, americans and then the game puts you in a position, when you have to use white phosphorus if you'd like to progress further, as getting through, as what it seemed an army, didn't seem possible in any other way. That's the breaking point.

(spoilers continue) In most games using overpowered weaponry would end up quite generic. You killed your enemies, not much really happened. In this case, you use white phosphorus via a mortar and see first hand the mayhem you just delivered by merely a few shells. The game actually forces you to see what you have actually done. And what you have done, is being displayed in all its gruesome details. Far way beyond what you could have imagined. And afterwards it reveals, that it's not just the dozens of american soldiers that you burnt alive but, mistakenly, you also burnt alive civilians that sought shelter. That part is displayed naturalistically and foundroyantly. Appalling in all its details. Petrifying, with enough time for the player to learn of death and havok you brought upon and yet... the protagonists decides to go further, blaming Conrad, the presumably main antagonist american soldier who went rogue and decided to save the city on his own terms. Still from here on out, even the game itself will explicitly now start accusing you directly of what you have done and making equivocal remarks in regards to your play.

What do you do afterwards? Well, you still try saving these people and bringing Conrad to justice. By taking down a radio station, which used to voice emergency signals. That's not enough? Well, how about stealing all of Dubai's water supply and then destroying all of it. At this point, who's left in the city will eventually die of thirst. The game progressively changes, the characters from professionally handling the situation become vulgar and take their actions to extremes, performing brutally while carying out hand-to-hand combat. Their appearence deteriorates. Elaborate hallucinations start surfacing. Then, at one point, a crowd of angry survivors hangs your team member. At this point you are provided a decision, which in the midst of the current situation isn't quite clear at all. Most people decided to open fire on the crowd. Some - did not. Apparently it was an option to shoot in the sky or the ground. But at the time, pressed by the crowd about to stone you to death, the choice was not that clear anymore and even I pulled the trigger.

Afterwards comes the ending, a truly compelling one. While in the book and the movie, you had no influence over how it concluded, here the option was actually here and not really illusionary. After having decided to surrender, your team member decides that after getting this far, it's not an option. Havok breaks out and then, you finally get to meet Conrad. A painting, presumably painted by Conrad appears of what you've done a while back with the white phosphorus bombardment. Again, with all its gruesome details and one particularly appalling: a burnt mother with a child. You get to face Conrad on the balcony of a penthouse of Burj Khalifa, highest building in Dubai. With the landscape of Dubai in the dark of the night, lit up by the flames of the fires eating up the city plunged into chaos. And Conrad... dead. For quite some time now, by a bullet to his head. Turns out he wasn't responsible for all the death and destruction. You were. Exactly, YOU were. Not Conrad. Not Walker who you steered. The game addresses directly the player. 'All you had to do was stop. But you wanted to be a hero.', 'That's not where your talents are'. The game now blacks out and provides three characters. Konrad, trying to talk sense into Walker, from my point of view, the remaining concious that is still left and Walker. The game presses the player with a time limit. Conrad counts down from 5. 'I never wanted to hurt anybody'. 'No one ever does!'. You either wait for Conrad to pull the trigger, subsequently letting Walker pull the trigger on himself. You may pull the trigger on yourself. Or you may pull the trigger on Conrad. After which, he shatters and says, that even despite everything that you've done, he may still go home as if never ever happened.

You may pull the trigger on yourself, though. Which is entirely valid as you're the one who gets to decide if Walker's actions, that are your own, were that despicable that you just had to end it. But in the epilogue that comes afterwards, you get three - not that easy choices. Eventually, Walker calls for help and the actual american soldiers arrive. Yet, Walker stands up, suited in Conrad's uniform and not ready to surrender. Will you surrender? Go home? Leave everything as if nothing ever happened? Will Walker ever recover from what he experienced in Dubai and the choices he has made? The choices that you have made? That never ever were there in the first place? Well, you may kill off all the soldiers at this point. And let the illusion take over. Or provoke a fight in which you'll die, as you were meant to in the very first place. After all, you'd never come back in one piece.

Despite the extremely bleak and dark scenario, the game was multi-layered and -dimensional in other forms as well. The game criticised basically the entire shooter genre. What accounts for good killing and what for bad? Furthermore, imperialism was bashed, with a hint directed at america being the world police state and its influence on the middle east (and its wars). The topics of psychological problems affecting soldiers and the complexity of conflicts breaking out, portrayed in a surprisingly wide range of angles. And, the thing that everyone wants to become a hero, which gets reflected in a variety of games, movies, books etc. But can you be one if you commit horrible acts in the process? You've gone this far. Are you a hero, yet?

If a game could be art, which I believe it can, Spec Ops: The Line would definitely be one. A game, that impacts emotionally the player to its very deep core, that the player actually starts to hate himself, at the very least being strongly displeased by the actions that one has commited. That has a very strong message in regards to a range of diifficult political and ethical topics and the industry of its own. All wrapped up in a compelling package, with mechanics that unfortunately lacked behind.

...You know what? You shouldn't have read this. Pure Fuad production, blog creation and being inspired workflow. I wasn't even done by half. So now you may get an idea of how bad I may get in terms of producing content.