Homeopothy For Headwounds

It is a curious factor of any combat-oriented video game that, universally, the player is forced to endure the most absurd odds and yet still survives to defeat whichever force it is that drives the game. How does one person survive 20 hours of constant combat, alone against a planet of enemies? How does one person succeed in destroying machines which are clearly designed with the ability of destroying armies, let alone a single person? How does a small squad of people fight an entire world of monsters, which attack relentlessly whenever the comforts of home are abandoned? The answer lies in the most absurd of all gaming conventions. Not the magic bag, nor the ridiculous accuracy of the crosshair. No, the reason that players always beat the computer at its own game is that ultimate concession to mistakes.

The health pack.

Call it a med kit, a healing spell, a regenerative shield or an energy orb if you like; they all provide the same basic service of compensating for player errors. The central idea is identical to that of endless arcade games, in the sense that the player is allowed to make a number of mistakes equal to the number of quarters they have with them. In fact, if someone had infallible ability than they could play through any video game without needing any health packs. In the same way a player could play Missile Command for months without needing more than a single quarter. In the real world there is no physical law that prevents a single person from killing thousands of trained and armed soldiers, it’s just absurdly unlikely that someone would do this without making a mistake (which would, of course, mean death).

The recent popularity of regenerative health bars has shifted the emphasis slightly. Regenerative health only punishes strings of errors, whereas a single misstep is quickly rendered irrelevant. This has certainly led to smoother transitions between areas, since there is no longer a need for the added distraction of finding an actual health pack. However, most game designers still seemed attached to standard health meters and they can hardly be blamed for it. After all, health pack game design has served us quite well until now. I personally do hope that we see more regenerative health bars, but that doesn’t mean that it should wholly replace the old standby.

The philosophy of game design through forgiveness may be considered “wussy” by someone who has played through Ikaruga, but in reality it is absolutely necessary component of the video game’s acceptance into popular culture. Take as an example Street Fighter 2; this arcade game was absurdly popular for a few years, but once the veterans asserted themselves it was virtually impossible for any newcomer to properly learn how to play. For a modern example we can use Counter-Strike. It takes a substantial amount of dedication to even approach the skill level of the average CS player, simply because they have been playing for so many years. The advantage that online games have is that it is always possible to find a “n00b server” which is more amenable to inexperienced players.

If single player games were always as hard to progress in as Street Fighter 2, then very few people would play them. Imagine if Half-Life was as difficult as Contra. That would be a horrible loss, since a fantastic experience would become un-available to most people. Further, all of the effort put in by the game designers would have gone to waste as only the most dedicated would be able to see their work.

I have spent my entire time here essentially praising health pack mentality, but I do want to say that it is unusual that alternatives have not arisen. For example, there is no FPS that provides a realistic but low level of difficulty. True, games such as Condemned: Criminal Origins provide realistic damage but, of course, Condemned contains health packs. It is strange that game designers are so hesitant to make single encounters more intimate and detailed rather than throwing oh so many enemies at us.

A Game Worse Than Doom

This December marks the 15th anniversary of Doom. Having played a great deal of Doom recently this does actually have some meaning to me. In fact, one of the stranger experiences I have had since moving to the state of Qatar is sitting in a Coffee Shop in a Middle Eastern country blowing up demons. Of course, I am not living in the past and I have lots of experience with the remake of Doom that came out in 2004, Doom 3.

The strange thing about Doom 3, is that you wouldn't know that it was a remake unless someone told you. However, this really says less about the game and more about the way shooters have evolved since the original Doom. People often complain about shooters being too similar, but comparing Doom 1 and 3 somewhat dispels that attitude.

Both games feature the same basic plot and absolutely stunning graphical technology. Many of the enemies in Doom 3 have obvious Doom 1 counter-parts. And both games will scare small children. But this is where the similarities end.

The plot line in Doom is a simple one and can be summed up in a few sentences: Scientists mess with portal technology. They accidentally open a portal to hell. Everybody dies except for this one marine that kills all the demons. 15 years ago, this was about as much plot as you usually expected from an action game. But (partially thanks to that other great shooter, Half-Life) we now expect some kind of plot line in shooters and Doom 3 provides. The game has been criticized for the rather laborious way the plot is revealed (via reading and listening to journal entries) but really, relative to the original game ANY kind of plot explanation is slow. The method used in Doom 3 simply highlights the way that out approach to story development has changed over the years. These same exagurations are found throughout the rest of the game.

The level design for example: Doom was known for being filled with complex mazes which were as much an element of gameplay as the combat. Doom 3 is completely different in that it follows a rather straight path most of the time and the player is always expected to be moving forward in a fairly constrained way. However the secrets, bonuses and keys that were hidden by corridors in the original Doom are now buried within the texts that push the story forward. This is another key change of direction. Modern shooter designers tend to reward cleverness over persistence. This can be seen in other games such as Doom 3 contemporary Half-Life 2. In one instance an ally yells "Head for the horse". It is not immediately obvious what he means, nor is it clear what direction the player should move in once the area is clear of enemies. Dr. Freeman could wander aimlessly until he stumbles upon the correct route, but clever players will notice a small statue of a horse by a street and head that way.

While it is certainly true that game developers have moved to more clever level designs in order to avoid becoming stale, it is also true that technology has placed constraints on what designers can do. That may sound counter-intuitive, but consider this: would the source engine be able to run a graphically updated version of the original doom tolerably? Probably not. The levels in Doom are extremely large, but unlike the vast world of Half-Life 2 it is absurd to try and cut Doom into loadable chunks, thanks to the substantial amount of backtracking (imagine if you had a loading screen for every room in Metroid Prime!). That said, part of the reason that Doom was so large is that the engine it ran on could not store rooms on top of each other and so each level had far more stairs and hallways than one would see in even the most system resource friendly modern shooter.

Enemy placement is another thing that has evolved between Doom and Doom 3, and this is for precisely the same reason that level design has changed. Fighting wave upon wave of enemies is often monotonous (though not in the original doom for some reason) and within the constrained levels of Doom 3 it could very easily become infuriating to fight wave after wave of the demonic hoard. Instead, the developers have made the enemies come from predefined, unexpected places. The player now has less health and supplies are harder to come by. This is probably the biggest difference between Doom and Doom 3, but it is also the most telling. Most modern shooters are made this way (at least most of the good ones). It really does feel as though Doom 3 is what Doom would have been if it was made for the first time in 2004.

There are probably more differences between Doom and Doom 3 that are just as telling about how gaming has evolved since 1993. It is quite clear, however, that game design has changed. Doom and Doom 3 are perfect marks to show what elements have been altered and how, for better or worse. Perhaps Doom 4 will do the same? or will it be Half-Life 3? You heard it here first, Duke Nukem Forever, 2014. 10th anniversary of Doom 3.