Liberty Blues

Images taken from the glorious DeadEndThrills.com

Grand Theft Auto IV's Liberty City is, easily, my favourite videogame setting around. That may surprise you given my bias towards certain games and, indeed, their own locations, but Rockstar's faux-version of New York is king because it continues to surprise me each and every time I visit.

Every three months or so I fire up GTA IV simply to go for a walk or drive around Liberty City. I do this, I guess, because I want to relive my experiences of playing the game when it first came out, or when the Episodes proved that the city had many stories to tell. I also do it because its huge size, impressive design and sense of life is unparalleled in this medium, even three years after its release. You know something was incredible when even L.A. Noire's Los Angeles -- already impressive in its own way -- can't match Liberty City's scope or awe. It truly does feel like Liberty City exists whether you're visiting it or not, and this distinct difference elevates it above any other game setting as the best one I have ever had the luxury of visiting; of inhabiting.

Verisimilitude is wonderful and certainly something that has seen substantial progress within this current generation, but it means nothing if these wonderful worlds that get built for games like Mass Effect, Fallout 3 and Red Dead Redemption are under-utilised or, worse, forgotten about. Obviously that's a non-issue at the moment as these games and their amazing environments are absolutely relevant to us right now, but my fear is that as we continue to progress and continue to move forward with technology, new hardware and new, amazing intellectual property (IP), these places of wonder will exist only in memory and nothing more. This might have been acceptable (to a degree) in the past where the medium's evolution was such a significant force, but as we reach and surpass the uncanny valley and photo-realism, I don't think it will be right to forget about Venice in Assassin's Creed II, Empire Bay in Mafia II or, yes, Liberty City in GTA IV. So much effort, time and resources go into making these virtual masterpieces but, because of the always looking forward mentality (that I keep bringing up on this blog) and the perception that what has come before must be outdone, I'm seriously worried that these wonderful game settings, these amazing spaces, will be left behind. Whether they are or not remains to be seen, but if it does happen then losing the brilliance of Liberty City will be the biggest loss, I think.

Think about it for a second. The Episodes From Liberty City downloadable content bucked the trend of DLC by redefining the city through new, fresh perspectives, adding a different take on a place we had all become familiar with. Like, say, Minerva's Den (also fantastic) from BioShock 2, this content took what we knew about these worlds and showed us that this was only just a small part of their overall make-up, that our insight was just a small component of a much bigger, much more incredible picture. They made something old new again, and definitely enhanced our overall enjoyment (and perception) of Liberty City as a whole. But, now that those episodes have been and gone, where do we go from here? Towards the next instalment of GTA (whatever that happens to be), of course, leaving Liberty City as nothing more than a memory -- an amazing memory, sure, but still a memory.

This year's E3 is the perfect example of this situation: every single press conference that opened the show was met with gamers everywhere anticipating the announcement of the next Grand Theft Auto. Like Half Life Episode Three (or, indeed, Half Life 3) the announcement never came, but the point is that everyone is ready to move on and experience the next title in Rockstar's seminal franchise, and they can't wait to hear about even just confirmation that it is coming. These people have moved on, in other words, and while they can reflect upon their time in GTA IV's Liberty City and acknowledge how great it is, it's no longer relevant to their gaming habits because they're too busy awaiting the future. This is understandable, of course, and I don't begrudge anyone who is excited to see where the GTA franchise goes next (both literally, in terms of where it is set, and figuratively in terms of the impact it will have) -- I know I'm anxious to know as well -- but as such an immense fan of Liberty City, it's somewhat disheartening and definitely disappointing to know that no one cares about it like they used to.

I don't know -- I look at Liberty City and see a gigantic metropolis with so much to see, so much to do, and also get the impression that we know so little about this remarkable city. Sure, we may have it memorised (I certainly do, thanks photographic memory!) and may know where we can go to play darts or go bowling, but as a whole we are a very small element in the city's massive scale, and despite three adventures within it, we've made such a little impact on it overall. At the end of the day we're just one person roaming the streets, with thousands more like us clearly visible amongst Liberty City's hustle and bustle. We may be the protagonist and, like all games, the experience may be centered around us and us only, but as I suggested before Liberty City leaves me with a sense that it exists whether I am there or not, and that my presence won't affect its ability to be home to so many civilians. It is kind of like New York for me in real life -- I know it is there and I'd like to visit one day, but it means nothing to my life here in Australia unless I actively seek to change that by hopping on a plane and flying to America. My concern is that no one will make the effort to make the trip to Liberty City any more, and the reason for that will be because they are always more interested in visiting the places that the various videogames out there take us next.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but Liberty City isn't exactly a disposable thing, either -- it is still the most stunning technical achievement and fascinating environment videogames have ever seen, but all of that will be forgotten once brand new games, perhaps even the next GTA, come along to wow us with their own amazing locations. New York will never be forgotten -- why does Liberty City have to be?

Beautiful Disaster

Destruction caused by war is fascinating, but what if Mother Nature caused it instead?

War. Death. Destruction. Turmoil.

These are all things that videogames are synonymous with, so much so that brown and grey textures, muddy environments and charred ruins are, perhaps brazenly, more common than colour itself. But most of the time this significant imagery -- the “Destroyed Beauty” of Gears Of War; the apocalyptic ruins of Washington D.C. in Fallout 3 -- is the result of war, the remnants of the past now nothing more than ruins. Why is this? Obviously war and combat are important from a gameplay point of view, justifying these settings, but what if there could be other causes behind the destruction? What if the perdition came not from humanity’s struggle or fight against an enemy but from something out of our control? What if Mother Nature was responsible instead?

This is something I have been considering for a while now and something that I’m reminded of every time another game with an environment impacted by disaster comes along or, this year, another tragedy in real life occurs. In fact, this year’s sheer quantity of natural disasters has been so significant that I have felt compelled to delay this post out of respect for those who have suffered from them or, worse, lost their lives. The floods and cyclone in Queensland; the Earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand; Tsunami (and subsequent nuclear disaster) in Japan; floods in Brazil; the Californian fires or, indeed, the recent tornadoes in America, including the recent one which wiped portions of the city of Joplin off the map -- all of these and more have been exceptionally serious, extremely unfortunate events that, when combined, make this year absolutely horrific and inherently depressing. I put off this post because I felt uncomfortable publishing it -- much like the creators behind those games that were either delayed or cancelled, I imagine -- when so many things were happening and where so many people were being affected. But I can’t put it off forever and, forgetting the tragic brutality we’ve seen so far this year, for a moment at least, I think that natural disasters in videogames could be something important and definitely an area worth exploring. Allow me to explain.

Videogame spaces, in this generation in particular, have come alive, with thematic settings, incredible atmosphere and multiple stories to tell. Discovery has been particularly strong, finding an abandoned shack in Fallout or a messy room in BioShock an intriguing affair, both because it gets us, as players, asking questions -- why is this room like this? What happened here? Where did the owners of this shack go? -- and because it adds weight and meaning to the environment we are exploring, the locations we get to inhabit. More than any other generation the combination of visuals, sound and atmosphere allow for videogames to take us anywhere, to places we can’t go. Mass Effect enables us to travel the galaxy and mingle with other species; L.A. Noire and Mafia II take us back to a time period long ago and incredibly different to our own today. Red Dead Redemption, finally, showed us what it was like to exist in a Western setting, enlightening us, indirectly, to how things were back then and how far humanity has come. But all of these settings, all of these locations that games allow us to visit -- both ‘real’ and fictional -- are static, mostly unchanging environments, only alive when our consoles are on and only existing to serve a story, mechanics or a particular intended experience. Rapture is, bless its soul, already in ruins when we get to see it, the levels built to convey the narrative and service the combat dynamics rather than to demonstrate how things can change, how characters and civilians alike can leave their mark or have an impact on the city or proceedings. If something changes it is because it was supposed to, a scripted moment to benefit or influence a particular facet of the overall experience. A good example of this is Mafia II’s transition from Winter to Spring: snow and blustery conditions give Empire Bay one kind of atmosphere (which, I might add, is quite charming) while the brighter, more positive aura of a warmer season gives the city another. What if this changed? What if Mother Nature’s ferocious but beautiful power -- if weather -- changed an environment or setting in a meaningful way? What if a tragedy in a virtual world could impact gameplay, the story, or the demeanor of a game’s characters in really interesting ways, changing our experience in the process and reinforcing our connection to that world and everything in it?

Just imagine if rain flooded Liberty City, and just what that could mean.

We’ve already seen how a thunderstorm in Red Dead Redemption or showers in Liberty City can change their respective games, even if it’s momentarily. It changes the atmosphere, makes driving (for example) harder because things are slippery, and breaks up the pace and alters the dynamics of our session. But what if Liberty City was flooded, its rivers overflowing and spilling onto the roads? What if the weather was so ubiquitous and ongoing that the streets were covered with water, buildings inundated and the result was a different city -- even if it did eventually recede -- than the one we’re already accustomed to? It would force us to reassess our approach to what we were doing or how we’d do it, and test our knowledge of the space we have inhabited for so long, making us find alternative routes or different means of travel. Furthermore, narratively, it could affect the people who we come to know, showing us sides of their personality we couldn’t see previously and how they would deal with such adversity. What if these quest-givers -- because, let’s face it, that’s all they really are -- couldn’t offer us things to do or tasks to perform because they simply had more important things to attend to? What if, god forbid, these characters -- some of whom we might actually have a connection to or relationship with -- died because they weren’t prepared for an excess of water to come and flood their houses, their home? What if, to go in a slightly different direction, Liberty City was hit by an earthquake, unexpectedly, because like the weather it was dynamic, unpredictable and unforeseen?

Such scenarios can pose many questions and, if done effectively, really impact upon a game world and the things inside it in meaningful ways. Part of the reason Heavy Rain resonated so much with me is because it used rain as a significant, serious part of its narrative -- something that hadn’t been done before. From a technical standpoint serious events and tragedies in games might be unrealistic to do, but surely there is incentive in trying if it can add weight to a world, make our connection to it as players more meaningful, and ultimately ensure that games as a whole can be as deep, emotional and affecting as products in other mediums? Mother Nature’s fury in real life is nothing more than a negative, unfortunate and unpredictable series of events, where loss is prevalent everywhere and the need to rebuild is essential. But in a virtual sense her wrath could be absolutely beautiful, especially if it engrosses us into our games more thoroughly than ever before. The result might not be pretty but it sure beats having yet another war be the justification for why all of our games are always... well, in ruins.

Mafia II

Oh Mafia II, what can I say about you? I love you so much and yet you left me feeling puzzled, confused and conflicted. You enticed me with your beautiful city, strong focus on narrative and realism, and your prospect of taking me on a virtual trip to the 1940s, a time I will never get to experience in reality. You did those things but then didn’t allow me to explore Empire Bay; to inhabit that wonderful time period or, indeed, Mafia story; and your attention to realism -- admirable as it is -- was a letdown once I realised it was barely enforced and that I could treat the “rules” like I would in any other open world game. You were supposed to be different, supposed to be unique, and certainly supposed to deliver something that couldn’t be found in other games. Instead, you are more like them than you realise. You deal with things just like they do, portray them in the same light, and the results of my actions are the same they have always been. You relied on genre conventions and tropes, on familiarity rather than something new, and became just another example of how right games like Grand Theft Auto actually got it. But you’re not GTA. You’re not concerned with mayhem or freedom or the relationship between player and world, of protagonist and ally. You are much more interested in conveying a story in a cool setting. So why didn’t you?

It’s no secret that I was pretty keen on Mafia II. At the time I was excited about it because it truly seemed like something different, something I hadn’t experienced before. In some ways, it was. The time period and therefore setting -- particularly aesthetically -- was new (to me) and definitely a change from more modern surroundings and post apocalyptic adventures. But go beyond its looks and sounds, its sights and period-appropriate melodies, and what you get is just another game city, one impressive in size, scope and activity, but also one that has been done before. Liberty City, despite being released in early 2008, is still the most active, appealing metropolis that videogames have ever seen. Even L.A. Noire’s meticulous recreation of 1940s L.A. has nothing on the city that never sleeps, the city where there is always something to see and do. Mafia II’s Empire Bay tried to replicate some of the amazing diversity and sense of wonder that Liberty City inspires with almost every visit, and in some respects even achieved this, with a compelling atmosphere; similar sense of a “living and breathing” city; and places to go and explore, but then it takes it all away again in order to continue on with the story it is trying to tell. At first it is awe-inspiring, the beauty of skyscrapers in the distance and the little (scripted) moments that can take place due to the strong focus on story and the structure that reinforces it of particular note, but before too long you start to notice how deceiving it is, how it’s more of an illusion than a real city, and how little reason there is for it to actually exist. You only go places because you have to, because the story demands it. This might make these locations fascinating in their own right, because your attachment to the characters or the details you find within are relevant to you (think Heavy Rain), but consequently it leaves the rest of the city behind and makes it feel mostly irrelevant. There’s no motivation to go and explore; no incentive to see what Empire Bay has to offer. Sure, you could go for a drive or stroll and admire the architecture and personality, but your interest wouldn’t last long because there’s very little to see, very little to do, and the game keeps demanding you to go home, to go to your next mission or destination, all of the time anyway. You might be able to break free from the story’s linear structure and do your own thing, but that doesn’t mean the game wants you to. And why should it, anyway? It’s not as if time will pass or the weather will change. That goes against the game’s scripted focus, and we can’t have that.

And what about that realism that was so intriguing for me personally? Surely that added weight and meaning to that environment; to that time period? Nope, instead it is just there, not really crucial to the overall experience. Sure, like Empire Bay itself, engaging it can be interesting and offers something to break up the game’s forward-looking pace, but ignoring it won’t affect your time with the game in any significant way, and you certainly won’t be punished for your diversionary actions either. Following the speed limit (something made particularly convenient given a simple button press activates a limiter, making driving almost automatic), obeying red lights or parking your car in the garage might seem like something you should be doing given the setting and atmosphere of Empire Bay, but you don’t have to and, honestly, it’s easier if you don’t -- you’d just be wasting time. Police are mostly oblivious to your presence in the world, ignoring you unless you do something right in their face or because a mission caused them to take notice of you. They will chase you for speeding but only if you zoom right past them; do it a few metres down the road or going the opposite way and they won’t care. Red lights? By all means go through them, just slow down first so you’re not seen as a menace -- in other words drive slowly enough that civilians won’t panic but fast enough that the speed limit means nothing -- and the cops will turn a blind eye, no doubt enjoying their blissful ignorance and the quicker pace with which they can despawn, again, since they’re obviously only around when you are anyway. Brandishing a weapon in public is more dangerous for you and rousing for the Police of Empire Bay than driving erratically is. But, should you get in trouble either way, your indiscretions and misdemeanors can be quickly overlooked through bribery or a simple visit to a phone booth. Or you could, you know, kill them and outrun their pursuit like you would in other games, but this isn’t supposed to be like other games, remember? *sigh*

Don’t get me wrong, I loved Mafia II and I am definitely glad I got to play it, but it’s disappointing not because it is a bad game -- quite the opposite, in fact -- but because it didn’t execute on what I thought its qualities would be, and because it doesn’t appear to know what it wants to be, either. Not since Mirror’s Edge has a game left me feeling so conflicted, confused about how I feel, and dismayed by its failure to meet its potential. It lacks identity; delivers arena-style shootouts and over-exaggerated action, just like other games of its ilk; and doesn’t even recognise, perhaps ironically, that it is a game about the Mafia. It could be so much more than it is, then, but thankfully what it did end up being is still pretty good. I’ll have more on that, soon.

Preview Power: Mafia II

[Part of a series of smaller posts that I'll be doing about various upcoming games. I don't jump on board the hype train too often, but when I do I like to think that there's a pretty significant reason for why, and in this series I will attempt to explain my anticipation for each game.]

There are four reasons why I'm eager to get my hands on Mafia II: its strong emphasis on realism; its theme; the time period in which it takes place; and its use of space.

I was unable to play the original Mafia and wasn't even aware of it until just a few years ago, but as I heard more about it I realised that it sounded like a game I would enjoy, so when 2K Games announced its sequel I decided that I needed to try this franchise.

First of all, hearing about the original's emphasis on realism was an exciting prospect to consider, and now that I get to experience it in its sequel I'm rather excited to see how it is implemented. Having the police chase you for speeding or running a red light is something I'm not used to, the indiscretions in GTA and other games of its ilk going by largely ignored in favour of the more violent crimes. Knowing that I need to be more careful with my actions doesn't just change up a familiar formula, it also drastically changes my approach to playing, and it's the results that stem from this key difference that I'm eager to explore. I'm also interested to see where else this emphasis on realism is enforced in the game, but as I am unaware of how it worked in the original I'm left to speculate, meaning that I will just be making assumptions until I can finally play the game.

Thematically, the game might not be anything new, with Mafia movies and videogames as familiar to us as aliens and dragons, but even so, Mafia II appears to be attempting to tell a mature tale and knowing this leaves me with a hope that the game will be a cross-between what Rockstar tried with Grand Theft Auto IV, and the maturity Starbreeze demonstrated with their Mafia tale in The Darkness. Whether it succeeds on this remains to be seen, but if I'm right and 2K Czech manages to pull it off, I expect the final result will be something special indeed.

Besides, it's set in the 1940s, which piques my interest for two reasons. First of all, the aesthetics such a setting will provide is unlike anything we have seen in videogames, and that excites me. Screenshots confirm that its appearance is distinct and unique, and I look forward to spending time in that world. Which brings me to my final reason for anticipating the game, its space. I'm really intrigued by what sort of interactive entertainment this 1940s setting will provide, with the design of the city, the buildings and cars that permeate it, and how things like physics and weight (of the cars especially) will feel like in an older time period a particular area of interest for me. The fact that a day/night cycle and weather will also be in the game is just the icing on the already seemingly awesome cake.

Overall, Mafia II looks set to provide me with a game space that is as detailed and immersive as Liberty City, Rapture or The Wastelands of Fallout 3, and if I'm right about that then to be able to spend time in an environment set in such a time period, with a more realistic approach to its mechanics and dynamics is an incredibly enticing and exciting prospect for me. Hopefully Mafia II delivers on the expectations I've created for it, but even it doesn't, so long as they nail the city and its atmosphere, I suspect I will thoroughly enjoy it later this year.