another debate on story telling in shooter games

    So the main project I am on right now is a new first person shooter with drivable vehicles (in single and multiplayer), rag doll, some version of havok or whatever physics, yada yada standard fare.

    The premise is modern military in the spirit of the terrorist hunt/war in Afghanistan and sort of Iraq. It is not based on those wars, however it is set in "the near future" where super elite military commandos, like Delta Force operators, go into a hostile environment and do whatever it takes to find the bad guys and kill or capture them. A great reference book is The Hunt for Bin Laden: Task Force Dagger. These elite commandos go beyond Special Forces operators in that they also gather intelligence and work with their support organizations via radio/other communication to make decisions on they fly rather than go through the immense military beuracracy that the Rangers and other Army organizations have to plod through. The result is that data is gathered and analysed in a matter of minutes or hours rather than days or weeks and appropriate actions get done. In effect, these elite commandos have "full battlefield authority" to do whatever it takes.

    Real example of using "full battlefield authority to go beyond Special Forces" from The Hunt for Bin Laden:

    In the war in Afghanistan, teams of 12 made up of Delta Force or Navy Seal operators had to work with Northern Alliance warlords to fight the the Taliban and al-Queda fighters. However, the warlords would not offer up their 1000 to 3000 fighters unless they (meaning the warlords) got paid big amounts of cash. So one of these elite battlefield commander doods (probably a CIA trained Detal Operator) would drive around with briefcase(s) of up to millions of dollars in US currency in attempt to "rent" the warlords' fighters. Often this meant negotiating "by the seat of your pants" like in a Hollywood movie. This action was not planned for back in the Pentagon when the Mr. Bush said to invade. The guys on the ground realized that a conventional war would never work in Afghanistan, so they literally said "shit let's just rent these fighters to help us" on the fly and the practice became modus operandi for the war.

    Example from the TV show 24 that futher illustrates the flavor of fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants action:

    In season 2, episode 1 (i think) Jack interviews this criminal (currently surving a sentence for some crime) who is an enemy of terrorist sort of group that Jack must infultrate. Spontaneously during the interview Jack pulls out his gun and kills the criminal. The head dood at CTU freaks out, but Jack says something to the effect of: "You want to stop this nuclear bomb? The get me a hacksaw and stop asking fucking questions." He then takes of the guy's head as proof he killed him to get "in" with the terrorist group. This is the spirit of the action we are going for in the game.

    The "elite commandos" are typically Navy Seals or Delta Operators who have additional CIA/NSA training, hence they are "beyond Special Forces" as mentioned above. From the evil marketing point of view these guys are like "military versions of Jack Bauer operating oversees to fight terrorism."

    So what's this mean for the game:

    The developer came up with this idea and we think it has huge potential. The issue is: how do you deliver that feeling to the player that he is this Jack Bauer inspired military/CIA/NSA commando type of character? He'll be able to drive vehicles, call in airstrikes, tell his handler he needs a tank and then get a tank, order the Army Rangers to secure a perimeter, give a "Viking Funeral" to fallen comrades being desecrated in the streets of some foreign city, etc. (Viking Funueral: your enemy captured and killed some of your commrades. In disgust for your side, the enemy has mutilated your commrades' bodies and hung them from bridges and had children and civilians around the bodies and cheering like in Iraq earlier this week. You are hidden atop a hill not too far away observing. You laser spot the crowd and high above some napalm bombs drop and wipe out the entire fucking crowd. Controversial, but that is a Viking Funeral.)

    FINALLY I GET TO THE FUCKING QUESTION:

    The developer is debating whether the player character should have voice over or not. They are deeply devided:

    One side says:

    "Look, all great first person shooters don't have the main character speak while in the first person mode. Halo, Half-Life, Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, etc...none of them speak. Master Chief has some dialogue but only in third person cutscenes. Conversely, in third person games like Max Payne or Splinter Cell, the main characters speaks...maybe not a HUGE amount, but sure shit Max Payne spoke a lot, even if the Max Payne 2 was a bit more meh than Max Payne 1 for some people. Anyway: the law of gaming says you can NEVER have the player character speak in the first person perspecitive. He should only speak in 3rd person cutscenes. Take Far Cry. Player character speaks from 1st person perspective and his dialogue and acting sucked! It ruined the story despite the interesting environments and other shit. Then there is the bigger issue that speaking from the first person takes you out of moment and make it less believable. See? We're right you dickheads."

    The other side says:

    "Eat shit you asshats. Just because those games sold well and generally are considered 'good' doesn't mean it's law. Far Cry had a bad voice actor and bad writing. But if you get good writing and acting, that can totally be reversed. In this game, you are this commando dood who is the fucking boss and tells his handler what he needs. In a linear story driven game, at some point he'll need a tank and at that moment, he should say: "Yo! Mr. Handler: I need a fucking tank. Get me one now, bitches." Otherwise, he would just be spoonfed around if he never gets dialogue to show the's the badass with full battlefield authority. How can you deliver that fanatasy to the gamer if the player character never speaks? And don't give me that "breaking the moment" shit or "we don't know how to do the flow of the level if he speaks" either. If you guys had ACTUAL LEVEL DESIGN SKILLZ you could do it....pussies."

    So this is a very hostile debate at the developer now and it is threatening to derail the project.

    MAPCORE: what do you think?

    "if you get good writing and acting, that can totally be reversed." Is the Truth.

    It can't be like what you were writing "Yo Bitches get me a motehr fucking Tank, Peace out foo!!" But something like Jack Bauer would say "I'm going to need a tank ASAP/Pronto in order to past this area." Of course Jack Bauer is the new MacGuyver, so Jack just needs a paperclip and a rubberband and he can get past any guard/henceman.

    In any game the voice actiing needs to work, regardless of if its thirdperson or first. Shitty VO can ruin a game, even if the graphics are top notch.

    Games of the future should have voice recognition, although then it would ruin a lot of plot development, especially with kids telling the female characters to take off their clothes.

    Quote from Mojo

    It can't be like what you were writing "Yo Bitches get me a motehr fucking Tank, Peace out foo!!"

    Let me clarify...that is not the dialogue...just the GIST of the dialogue...like "I need a tank" basically. picture good dialogue instead of the shit i wrote.

    What about voice recognition stuff? It's become quite advanced lately, there are even some (Japanese) games based solely on it. Of course, this would limit the market to only countries where the native language is english. If you plan to ship abroad, you either need to translate the whole game, or give the voice recognition software some very loose borders.

    Example :

    Dude from Ukraine is playing your game. English is not his first, second, third or fourth language. He wants to tell some warlord to fuck off.

    Mr Ukraine : Ai vant ju to pise of.

    Game hears :

    Warlord does : Nothing at all.

    Mr Ukraine : This game is the pits.

    I would go for 1st person voice acting as well. It creates a very immersive atmosphere as long as the acting is good and it suits to the general feeling of the game. If you have a realistic shooter (delta force etc.) about terrorist hunting or wheresoever, I don't think people would like if the character they play speaks like Duke Nukem, especially not after taking out Taliban with an m16, night vision goggles and what else every firearm maniac and wanna be navy seal hides under his pillow. It just wouldn't be convenient, I would use formal military slang instead.

    If he talks it destroys the feeling that 'you' are the character, so you'd best fill the void it opens up with something cool - it's easier just to make him mute. The potential for the things he will say ultimately stems from your story; But first person shooters don't often have a lot of story, or at least have a story simple enough that your character doesn't need to ask any questions; I mean, it's either "WE'RE AT WAR, KILL STUFF" or "AN EXPERIMENT HAS GONE WRONG, KILL STUFF."

    But you must commit, if he does speak, but not a lot, then he's just some boring guy that shoots stuff, because you haven't given him a character to replace the one axed out when he opened his mouth.

    I say go for a character with a voice. Cut out the stereotypical macho bullshit, and give me a character with even a shred of the tenacity and fucking brilliance Jack Bauer (and Keifer Sutherland on the whole) exhibits, and you've got yourself a winner.

    Perhaps have Deus Ex style conversation trees, such as below:

    Player: "Chief, I need some ordinance here ASAP, the area is hot"

    Chief: "Alright son, you've got it, what do you need specifically?"

    Player: "I need..."

    A) a weapon and ammunition drop, I'm running low/don't have the equipment for the job.

    B) An airstrike at this location

    C) A chopper to take me above the city, I need to clear the rooftops; they're positively crawling with Tangos/Charlie/Communists

    And so on, give the player a choice in his actions and allow his choices to be represented with sharp dialogue and a fantastic voice actor.

    First of all, I recently played FarCry and it's voice acting is fucking retarded. It should get a prize for being so crap. Detracts so much from the game for me. This is NOT what you want for S.T.A.L.K.E.R i'm assuming that is the game in question. Cause that game looks kickass and I don't want to see it fucked up.

    Second of all, the game seems to have a dark silent atmosphere, if anything go with the choice that suites the game itself. If you can get good voice actors I would say go for it. But something on par with Grim Fandango's voice acting, which is brilliant. You could always try it out, if it's not great, don't have it. That simple. I personally feel for some reason the game should have voice acting, if so a it shouldn't be overdone. Just a average guys voice, slightly deep, but not try hard. He's not Wolverine. This would help with scenes between NPC's and avoid it being a one-way conversation. It would even be stunning if there were at times choices. The problem with FarCry is also that the voice comes too "unannounced", if you have a scene where marine hard ass man comes into contact with a npc woman character, you could have ambience music / sound to aid the voice actings punch. Two way conversion also makes it feel like there's a "connection" between characters. On the other hand I aggree with Taylor, that's the catch Half-Life had, no voice does work well in making YOU Gordon. If the character spoke in Half-Life the experience wouldn't have been the same.

    ANYWAYS, that's my opinion ... hope it helped.

    - Ewok

    Quote from Ewok

    First of all, I recently played FarCry and it's voice acting is fucking retarded. It should get a prize for being so crap. Detracts so much from the game for me. This is NOT what you want for S.T.A.L.K.E.R i'm assuming that is the game in question. Cause that game looks kickass and I don't want to see it fucked up.

    Good feedback on FarCry. everyone says that. duly noted for sure by our developer anyway. Also, this is not for STALKER. It's for another game in the early design phase.

    It's basically an action oriented shooter game. But the developer wants to make you feel like the character you are playing has more than zero personality (meaning more than Gordon Freeman or the dude you play in MoH...neither has much personality.)

    I'd say he is the "Master Chief" of the modern military/Delta Force/black ops kind of guy, skewed closer to military as opposed to black ops.

    I didn't have type to read that huge post, but from the gist of the replies I think your asking if first person voice acting works while still making you feel like a part of the story. I think it works just fine as long as it's well done. Example: Vietcong

    I could see how it could go horribly wrong if not done well tho.

    I think if you're going to have first person dialogue outside of orders(eg. "follow me," "attack," etc.) then it should be carefully tested. Although it all depends on what sort of first person voice acting you're doing. If dialogue affects the actual story and can change how the game is gone through, then it should be tested to make sure that every sequence lines up and whatnot.

    First person voice acting, overall, is a great thing. It really is a shame that a lot of games don't take advantage of it. As Zaphod said, Vietcong uses great first person voice acting, but it does not go beyond the usual "cover me" and "attack" dialogues. Something more profound, like, "take your team east 200 meters and come north" instead of "go 100 meters west and head south" will undoubtingly affect not only the gameplay, but the story as well (if the team is needed in the story, and they get killed by following those orders, for example).

    Anyway, yeah. If a game can make some really good use of first person voice acting other than simple orders, I say go for it. It adds that much more depth and realism, and for a tactical game (such as your military game you mentioned), it'd be a VERY helpful feature to have and could assist the player in more ways than one.

    Excellent post, Zazi.

    And to everyone, great feedback so far. Yes, if we end up doing player dialogue in first person, then it would have to be excellent. The studio has hired a pro writer, a veteran of other big video games and even some movies. I met him on Thursday, he knows his stuff. And all the voice actors, while not big name hollywood stars, will be top quality.

    As for the writing, picture the "no bullshit" yet still dramatic dialogue the Delta operators had in the movie Black Hawk Down. Then picture Jack Bauer's dialogue (especially his high drama, yet no bullshit dialogue when he talks with Tony at CTU or the President) in 24. This is the kind of dialogue that I envision the main character having if he ends up having some.

    Any further thoughts? My take is that the gaming community generally thinks BHD and 24 are "good" and not bullshit-cheesy garbage entertainment.

    I really appreciate your input.

    there was lots of dialouge in vietcong besides the commands you specifically ordered. During points in the mission, say, when you went into a vc tunnel for the first time, you character would say stuff to the effect of "why am I always the one that has to go down" or something. They had no actual impact to the gameplay, but by the end of the game, I was assosciating the voice and attitude of the recorded dialouge with the way I played my character.

    There is so much little detail and voice acting in Max Payne 2, it makes my heart melt. Like the 2 guys in the prison ("That's fucked up man" ). The downside is that the game is rather short

    "Any further thoughts? My take is that the gaming community generally thinks BHD and 24 are "good" and not bullshit-cheesy garbage entertainment. "

    Of course not, I love 24 Jack Bauer is a legend on so many fronts...

    Anyhow, I'll conclude with my belief that you will have to go for first-person voicing, as the context of the plot and game design requires for the character you play as to communicate fluently with those around him, being part of a specialised team. Compared to Gordon Freeman, for example, who's alone and confused - he doesn't need to speak for the cohesion of the game to flow.

    Quote from Tequila

    Anyhow, I'll conclude with my belief that you will have to go for first-person voicing, as the context of the plot and game design requires for the character you play as to communicate fluently with those around him, being part of a specialised team. Compared to Gordon Freeman, for example, who's alone and confused - he doesn't need to speak for the cohesion of the game to flow.

    This is the core of the debate...can the designers acheive what they want without having player character dialogue. A compromise may be 3rd person cutscene dialogue like in Halo.

    Another idea we are discussing with the developer:

    Perhaps, on occassion in game, we freeze the player's movements but still allow him free-look. This keeps him in the game while he has his dialogue, or listens to NPC dialogue. Whether he has his own dialogue or not, the notion is the same: deliver some story/dramatic dialogue to keep it more than just a constant action, mindless run/gun shooter.

    Not sure how much of these we'd use in the game yet...sigh. Still debating.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login