I very recently finished CD Projekt RED's 2008 highly-acclaimed RPG "The Witcher". It was a game that I loved wholeheartedly, but it's also a game I couldn't get into for the longest time (I have owned the game since 2009).
The problem was never the gameplay, which was meticulously designed and had depth; I took issue with the aesthetics and particularly the atmosphere. I felt that it wallowed in its "dark fantasy" setting, the dialogue was rife with out-of-place curse words, the voice-acting had one emotion (sheer indifference) and... well, everybody in the game is a grade-A asshole! It's hard to sympathize with anyone and I just didn't have fun being in that world.
This is, after all, extremely important for an RPG-- wanting to be in and explore its world. It didn't help that with each retry, I would get a little further before I gave up and I was eventually sick and tired of replaying the same sections of the game over and over.
But something changed this time. In this last play-through I enjoyed being in that world, despite its inherent flaws and I immersed myself in the game well-enough. I was surprised when, upon reflection, I realized the only change was my choice of camera.
The Witcher offers two types of camera: the classic isometric that's a staple of PC RPGs and their "OTS" (Over The Shoulder) camera, a third-person-view where movement is done via WASD, instead of clicking on the map.
Usually I'd go for the isometric view, partly because that's what I'm used to in most other classic PC RPGs, but also because the game incorrectly describes the OTS camera as to "suited for experienced players" and The Witcher's gameplay mechanics are quite unique. I didn't want to take the risk.
Well, that was stupid of me.
Using the OTS camera in my latest play-through quite literally changed the whole experience for me. It was like I was playing a different game! I was going through areas I'd already gone through a several times before and it felt like a first. Thanks to the close-up view, I found joy in exploring the world, drinking in all its beauty and atmosphere, bumping into NPCs and reading signs and posters on the walls.
I never had a problem with the isometric camera in other games, but The Witcher just wasn't built for it. Not only was gameplay (particularly combat) a lot more fluid with the OTS camera, but interacting with the environments also felt a lot more involving. The isometric camera just makes combat feel like busy-work and exploration can become too bothersome, especially by the point one reaches the swamp with its ridiculous vegetation and narrow paths.
It then occurred to me that we lost something very important by moving toward functionality of the camera in our games. Only last week I reviewed "Little Racers STREET", which offered a number of different camera views and all of them served a purpose: the isometric camera offered functionality and visual clarity, whereas the chase camera amped up the excitement but sacrificed some of the aforementioned functionality.
While many games these days offer the option to switch the camera mode, most titles come with only one view and it's usually pre-determined. The camera was a make-or-break deal up until the days of the PS2 era and many games suffered from it. So it only made sense that developers work toward functionality, but they lost the artistic potential hidden in the camera view of their games.
Remember back in the titles that built the stage for the industry as we know it today, particularly the PS1 era. Big games made wonders out of a fixed camera setting, that often-times hindered the game's functionality but offered much more to the experience.
Think of "Metal Gear Solid". By the time Subsistence hit the scene, the developers added a fully controllable 3D camera, but for the life of me I can never play that game using it, because it was built with the bird's eye view camera in mind. Think of how much the fixed camera offered to the cinematic experience the original PS1 game was going for, even as early as the Docks section.
An even better example is none other than Konami's celebrated horror series, "Silent Hill". The classic games (1-4) featured a fixed camera mode that made each moment in the games stand out. Did it sacrifice functionality? Absolutely, movement was already stiff and combat was specifically designed to be avoided at all costs. But the wide angles when entering a room and the radio was going insane, only to reveal it was literally nothing but static and you just shit your pants for no reason is an experience few games have managed to recreate.
Take the more recent games in that same series. While the problems of these installments extend further than the camera, it definitely doesn't help that the player can now easily scan the immediate area for dangers and act accordingly, more-often-than-not unafraid of dealing with the possible threats.
Of course there is a valid question to be asked: is it that big a loss to sacrifice fixed camera angles and specific modes to make a game more functional and less rage-inducing? Perhaps not.
But I can't help but miss the artistic potential once offered by the developer having full control of it. These days it seems we've pretty much settled on the best possible camera views and control depending not on game, but on the genre as a whole. We get more functional games, but all e.g. action-adventure games play the exact same way and we're stuffing them with gimmicks to make them (unsuccessfully) stand out from the bunch.
I'm not myself decided on which option is better, simply because few developers know how to deliver an experience that justifies handicapping the player like that. I do know, however, that as options become fewer all the time, games continuously live less up to their potential. And while the risk of relying on the camera angle for diverse feel may be too great, it's a better gamble than the myriad of gimmicky Unique Gameplay Mechanics that eventually deliver the same forgettable and easily replaceable experience.
The moment you start making a game, it should be a blank canvas. As the industry has become bigger and developers more experienced, the canvas never seems to start off blank; it shrinks with each retry. As such the creative potential of each game shrink as well and gaming becomes homogenous. The silver lining is still including a choice of preferred camera view for the player, but at least the creators' personal touch should be there in every aspect of their work.
The problem was never the gameplay, which was meticulously designed and had depth; I took issue with the aesthetics and particularly the atmosphere. I felt that it wallowed in its "dark fantasy" setting, the dialogue was rife with out-of-place curse words, the voice-acting had one emotion (sheer indifference) and... well, everybody in the game is a grade-A asshole! It's hard to sympathize with anyone and I just didn't have fun being in that world.
This is, after all, extremely important for an RPG-- wanting to be in and explore its world. It didn't help that with each retry, I would get a little further before I gave up and I was eventually sick and tired of replaying the same sections of the game over and over.
But something changed this time. In this last play-through I enjoyed being in that world, despite its inherent flaws and I immersed myself in the game well-enough. I was surprised when, upon reflection, I realized the only change was my choice of camera.
 |
| See what I did there? |
The Witcher offers two types of camera: the classic isometric that's a staple of PC RPGs and their "OTS" (Over The Shoulder) camera, a third-person-view where movement is done via WASD, instead of clicking on the map.
Usually I'd go for the isometric view, partly because that's what I'm used to in most other classic PC RPGs, but also because the game incorrectly describes the OTS camera as to "suited for experienced players" and The Witcher's gameplay mechanics are quite unique. I didn't want to take the risk.
.jpg) |
| The isometric view made everything in The Witcher's world feel like visual cannon fodder. |
Well, that was stupid of me.
Using the OTS camera in my latest play-through quite literally changed the whole experience for me. It was like I was playing a different game! I was going through areas I'd already gone through a several times before and it felt like a first. Thanks to the close-up view, I found joy in exploring the world, drinking in all its beauty and atmosphere, bumping into NPCs and reading signs and posters on the walls.
I never had a problem with the isometric camera in other games, but The Witcher just wasn't built for it. Not only was gameplay (particularly combat) a lot more fluid with the OTS camera, but interacting with the environments also felt a lot more involving. The isometric camera just makes combat feel like busy-work and exploration can become too bothersome, especially by the point one reaches the swamp with its ridiculous vegetation and narrow paths.
 |
| The OTS (Over-The-Shoulder) camera, on the other hand, brought me right into that living, breathing world. |
It then occurred to me that we lost something very important by moving toward functionality of the camera in our games. Only last week I reviewed "Little Racers STREET", which offered a number of different camera views and all of them served a purpose: the isometric camera offered functionality and visual clarity, whereas the chase camera amped up the excitement but sacrificed some of the aforementioned functionality.
While many games these days offer the option to switch the camera mode, most titles come with only one view and it's usually pre-determined. The camera was a make-or-break deal up until the days of the PS2 era and many games suffered from it. So it only made sense that developers work toward functionality, but they lost the artistic potential hidden in the camera view of their games.
Remember back in the titles that built the stage for the industry as we know it today, particularly the PS1 era. Big games made wonders out of a fixed camera setting, that often-times hindered the game's functionality but offered much more to the experience.
Think of "Metal Gear Solid". By the time Subsistence hit the scene, the developers added a fully controllable 3D camera, but for the life of me I can never play that game using it, because it was built with the bird's eye view camera in mind. Think of how much the fixed camera offered to the cinematic experience the original PS1 game was going for, even as early as the Docks section.
_06b.png) |
| The angles in "Metal Gear Solid" created a cinematic feel to the game, without detaching the player from the action. (snapshot actually from "The Twin Snakes") |
An even better example is none other than Konami's celebrated horror series, "Silent Hill". The classic games (1-4) featured a fixed camera mode that made each moment in the games stand out. Did it sacrifice functionality? Absolutely, movement was already stiff and combat was specifically designed to be avoided at all costs. But the wide angles when entering a room and the radio was going insane, only to reveal it was literally nothing but static and you just shit your pants for no reason is an experience few games have managed to recreate.
Take the more recent games in that same series. While the problems of these installments extend further than the camera, it definitely doesn't help that the player can now easily scan the immediate area for dangers and act accordingly, more-often-than-not unafraid of dealing with the possible threats.
 |
| The pre-determined camera angles in "Silent Hill 2" contributed greatly to the feeling of isolation and insanity that plagued its protagonist, also through a more cinematic lense. |
Of course there is a valid question to be asked: is it that big a loss to sacrifice fixed camera angles and specific modes to make a game more functional and less rage-inducing? Perhaps not.
But I can't help but miss the artistic potential once offered by the developer having full control of it. These days it seems we've pretty much settled on the best possible camera views and control depending not on game, but on the genre as a whole. We get more functional games, but all e.g. action-adventure games play the exact same way and we're stuffing them with gimmicks to make them (unsuccessfully) stand out from the bunch.
I'm not myself decided on which option is better, simply because few developers know how to deliver an experience that justifies handicapping the player like that. I do know, however, that as options become fewer all the time, games continuously live less up to their potential. And while the risk of relying on the camera angle for diverse feel may be too great, it's a better gamble than the myriad of gimmicky Unique Gameplay Mechanics that eventually deliver the same forgettable and easily replaceable experience.
 |
| "Spec-Ops: The Line" featured a completely standard 3rd-person-shooter camera. Fortunately, the game had a lot more going for it other than shooting and its focus was, in fact, elsewhere. |
The moment you start making a game, it should be a blank canvas. As the industry has become bigger and developers more experienced, the canvas never seems to start off blank; it shrinks with each retry. As such the creative potential of each game shrink as well and gaming becomes homogenous. The silver lining is still including a choice of preferred camera view for the player, but at least the creators' personal touch should be there in every aspect of their work.
No comments:
Post a Comment