Extra Credits is a show that most of you probably know, it has become quite popular during its short lifespan. I am a fan and agree with them on many topics. But the episode "Narrative Mechanics" just comes across as pretentious nonsense and has been bothering me ever since I watched it I would like to give my thoughts on this episodes and see what others on the escapist think. So please before you condemn me as a hater with no life please at least read what I have to say and keep the judgements until after 
Now, the people who don't know the episode, in this episode they ask the question "Can games tell a story or raise a question using only play?" They use missile command as an example.
Now this is a very simple question, Yes. Practically every game does this. Even counter-strike does this. Even if you never heard of Counter Strike, play one round and you know the story, terrorists are trying to blow up a small town and counter terrorists are trying to stop them. Am I missing something here? Why did they have to reference a thirty year old game to prove a point? I guess it depends on how you define 'play'. If you factor in exploration of your environment as part then it's simple, but if were only talking about your interaction(eg you shooting your gun in an fps) as part of 'play then it becomes a lot harder. I'd love to hear some conformation on this.
But my biggest frustration in this episode is how they portrayed Missile Command as a deep and Intelligent game which it certainly is not.
In it you have six cities and three missile bases and you lose when you lose all six cities, so do you sacrifice all but one city so you can maximize survival chance or try save them all? They stated it had "the best and most difficult moral choice any video game has ever presented'. But I don't see it as a moral choice, because these aren't cities full of people, there pixels. Now, not saying you can't feel bad for pixels, many games such as Mass Effect, Silent Hill and System shock 2 have brought me close to tears before but that is because these characters are fleshed out, we learn to care for them through the course of the game and can truly sympathise with there struggles. But in Missile Command, we know nothing of these places, they did say you're supposed to use towns near you and pretend there the towns in Missile Command but I don't buy that, that's like if in Mass Effect 2, instead of giving the character Jacob a backstory, a box popped up saying "Pretend he's your best friend in real life" it wouldn't work there and it doesn't work in Missile Command.
So it's not a moral choice, it's a calculation. Obviously you will survive the longest if you concentrate on keeping one or two cities alive and forget about the rest so why not do that? If you want a much better example of a moral choice, try Pathologic. It's a game most of you wouldn't have heard of it, it was made by Russian Developer Ice Pick Lodge back in 2004. Rock, Paper, Shotgun has a long article about it that is worth reading,but for now I'll give a quick synopsis
The game begins with three healers arriving in a town, a backwards settlement built on a meat industry out in the barren earth of the Russian steppes. The year is 1910. The three healers do not know each other, and arrive in town via different paths and come for different reasons. One of the healers is a doctor from the city, another is a shamanistic figure. The last is a tiny girl with fearsome messianical powers. They are the Bachelor, the Haruspicus and the Devotress. They?re also your playable characters.
But things are wrong. The moment the three healers arrive a terrible, merciless infection breaks out. Soon thousands of residents have fallen ill, with hundreds more dying each day. As the town is isolated and, eventually, quarantined, the healers are trapped, forced to win the fight against the disease or succumb to the infection themselves. And make no mistake, if no one stops this plague it will wipe the town off the face of the Earth.
This is a very hard game and as such, resources are scarce, very scarce. As such you will often have to give up something you need just so you can buy some food and survive the rest of the day. But roaming the streets are children, homeless and willing to do anything to survive, just like you. You are free to murder anyone you please and these kids often carry resources like medicine which you give to infected people and postpone the spread of the plague, leaving you with more time to help cure it.
And this is the choice you must make, do you murder these innocent children to help save the lives of others? If so how much is too much? You also have to consider what damage this will do to the town, if you kill too many, how will the town continue after the plague? If nothing else, it puts bioshock's little sister moral choice to shame.
So that's all I wanted to say, feel free to disagree. Please keep the hateful, obnoxious comments to a minimum, I'd like to keep this civil. Thanks for reading.
Now, the people who don't know the episode, in this episode they ask the question "Can games tell a story or raise a question using only play?" They use missile command as an example.
Now this is a very simple question, Yes. Practically every game does this. Even counter-strike does this. Even if you never heard of Counter Strike, play one round and you know the story, terrorists are trying to blow up a small town and counter terrorists are trying to stop them. Am I missing something here? Why did they have to reference a thirty year old game to prove a point? I guess it depends on how you define 'play'. If you factor in exploration of your environment as part then it's simple, but if were only talking about your interaction(eg you shooting your gun in an fps) as part of 'play then it becomes a lot harder. I'd love to hear some conformation on this.
But my biggest frustration in this episode is how they portrayed Missile Command as a deep and Intelligent game which it certainly is not.
In it you have six cities and three missile bases and you lose when you lose all six cities, so do you sacrifice all but one city so you can maximize survival chance or try save them all? They stated it had "the best and most difficult moral choice any video game has ever presented'. But I don't see it as a moral choice, because these aren't cities full of people, there pixels. Now, not saying you can't feel bad for pixels, many games such as Mass Effect, Silent Hill and System shock 2 have brought me close to tears before but that is because these characters are fleshed out, we learn to care for them through the course of the game and can truly sympathise with there struggles. But in Missile Command, we know nothing of these places, they did say you're supposed to use towns near you and pretend there the towns in Missile Command but I don't buy that, that's like if in Mass Effect 2, instead of giving the character Jacob a backstory, a box popped up saying "Pretend he's your best friend in real life" it wouldn't work there and it doesn't work in Missile Command.
So it's not a moral choice, it's a calculation. Obviously you will survive the longest if you concentrate on keeping one or two cities alive and forget about the rest so why not do that? If you want a much better example of a moral choice, try Pathologic. It's a game most of you wouldn't have heard of it, it was made by Russian Developer Ice Pick Lodge back in 2004. Rock, Paper, Shotgun has a long article about it that is worth reading,but for now I'll give a quick synopsis
The game begins with three healers arriving in a town, a backwards settlement built on a meat industry out in the barren earth of the Russian steppes. The year is 1910. The three healers do not know each other, and arrive in town via different paths and come for different reasons. One of the healers is a doctor from the city, another is a shamanistic figure. The last is a tiny girl with fearsome messianical powers. They are the Bachelor, the Haruspicus and the Devotress. They?re also your playable characters.
But things are wrong. The moment the three healers arrive a terrible, merciless infection breaks out. Soon thousands of residents have fallen ill, with hundreds more dying each day. As the town is isolated and, eventually, quarantined, the healers are trapped, forced to win the fight against the disease or succumb to the infection themselves. And make no mistake, if no one stops this plague it will wipe the town off the face of the Earth.
This is a very hard game and as such, resources are scarce, very scarce. As such you will often have to give up something you need just so you can buy some food and survive the rest of the day. But roaming the streets are children, homeless and willing to do anything to survive, just like you. You are free to murder anyone you please and these kids often carry resources like medicine which you give to infected people and postpone the spread of the plague, leaving you with more time to help cure it.
And this is the choice you must make, do you murder these innocent children to help save the lives of others? If so how much is too much? You also have to consider what damage this will do to the town, if you kill too many, how will the town continue after the plague? If nothing else, it puts bioshock's little sister moral choice to shame.
So that's all I wanted to say, feel free to disagree. Please keep the hateful, obnoxious comments to a minimum, I'd like to keep this civil. Thanks for reading.
