A while back, I took a look at how the game industry defines a game’s genre by play type rather than by narrative. When looking at narrative-focused games, we saw how this could be problematic. I’d like to expand on this idea and examine it in relation to franchises with multiple entries that share some semblance of a cohesive continuity. Most importantly, I’d like to examine the question of whether or not a game franchise can exist or be successful while jumping through different genres.
The last article asserted that a developer whose central aim is to tell a compelling story through a game should frame the gameplay mechanics around the needs of the story. For example, if the story calls for stealth, let there be stealth mechanics. If the story then calls for a shootout, implement some solid gunplay. However, we were dealing with only a single game. What about a story that is meant to exist over multiple games? Trilogies are still all the rage these days. Would it be crazy to have a franchise that consisted of three games with three different gameplay genres that still managed to tell one cohesive story? Why don’t developers do this now?
The main reason I wonder whether or not this multi-genre formula should be tried is because many franchises are already working from an extremely tired model that you may be familiar with already. It’s the tried and true “run it into the ground until no one is interested anymore or it’s not financially viable” model. Instead of taking the initiative early to vary the gameplay according to a franchise’s continuity, developers simply retread what worked in the last game with little to no change in play-style. I know, I know. If it ain’t broke, right? But, remember, the point we’re looking at here is to tell a compelling story, and repeating the same type of gameplay ultimately leads to limiting what type of story each game can convey. Games would have us believe that no matter what the situation calls for we can just shoot or punch our way to the finish line. Just need to ask this a question? Better punch him. Would it be easier to sneak through this building and steal the prize? Who cares, the game mechanics call for killing every guard in the place first and creating a massive scene. Things like this make no narrative sense and, again, limit what adventures a character can go on. If a character can only ever shoot or punch their way in or out of a situation, that’s the only types of situations they will ever find themselves in, and that makes for the same game over and over again.
The other negative result that repeating gameplay elements leads to is the inevitable loss of interest from players. Many high profile franchises have suffered from this. Resident Evil is one of the most notable examples of this. It took four games (Resident Evil through Code Veronica), but it happened. People simply stopped caring. Despite having a fairly entertaining continuity and universe, people just got tired of playing the same game over and over. This brings us to the first example, in recent memory, of a franchise making, what I consider to be, a genre change. With the release of Resident Evil 4, the series went from Survival to Action, and people ate it up.
Here’s why it worked. The core elements of the game, the universe, exploration and gunplay, were still intact; they had just been manipulated to deliver a completely different vibe and, ultimately, play experience. The franchise was still able to give the player some thrill, but it did it by ramping up the intensity and action rather than the scares. The game may use what would be considered horror imagery from a narrative standpoint, but there is very little that is actually scary about the game. It stealthily became an action game without us realizing it.
The other franchise that currently seems to be taking this a step further is Splinter Cell. While the first three games are guilty of milking the same stealth mechanics for all they’re worth, an interesting thing happened with the fourth, Splinter Cell: Double Agent. Ubisoft used the narrative device of Sam becoming the titular double agent and molded the play mechanics around this idea. Players couldn’t simply stand around in the shadows, and the game asked the question of how one hides in plain sight of everyone around them. While this may not be a genre changer, it was enough to make the play feel fresh. Additionally, I normally wouldn’t credit Ubisoft with doing much else than making a necessary play adjustment to boost lagging interest, but when we consider the narrative arc of the series as it leads into the upcoming Splinter Cell: Conviction, it may be that Ubisoft is due more credit. Let me explain.
At the beginning of Double Agent, we learn that Sam’s daughter has been killed by a drunk driver. This leads to his tarnished mental state and his willingness to take on the guy-with-nothing-else-to-lose role of a double agent. So, there’s one point for Ubisoft. In Conviction, Sam learns that his daughter’s death may not have been an accident and embarks on an off-the-grid quest to find the truth. So far, footage of the new game has shown a much more action-oriented play style. We’ve seen Sam jump out of windows, employ cover, quickly scale buildings and even use some run-and-gun tactics. The character is no longer bound by the rules of his profession, and it would seem, so far, that neither is the gameplay. At E3, the developers made a point to show that if a player wants, they can employ force over stealth. This is a far cry from the days of hiding in a corner for five minutes waiting for a guard to leave his post.
Call it what you want, an evolution of the franchise or a genre change, but the newest iteration of Splinter Cell looks to be heavier on the action and lighter on the stealth than ever. Most importantly, whether you condone this change or not, it makes sense for the direction of the narrative. I’d like to think that Ubisoft is taking this idea and running with it. Maybe they are interested in expanding where the character of Sam Fisher can go and not worrying about fan response to change.
Speaking of fan response, look, we’ve all been there. We’ve all said it. We’ve all booted up the newest entry into a famed series and after a few moments declared, “This isn’t a real (insert franchise title) game!” People do it with other forms of entertainment all the time. We’ve all bought a new CD only to be disappointed by the change in the band’s sound. We need to not hold onto our expectations so tightly, especially if we are going to let games tell us stories that are actually interesting. We need to be open to the idea that perhaps a game can change and still be good. We all love to play different genre types anyway, what’s the big deal if it’s within the same franchise? Just imagine a multi-game story where each entry either allows or requires the player to use different skill sets and tactics to reach their goal. Maybe one game does require a lot of shooting and brawling, but maybe the next requires more puzzle solving or dialogue building.
Obviously, I’m not calling for Resident Evil Kart Racers, but I would urge developers to consider taking the chance on making logical genre changes that accurately reflect where they want the narrative to go while leaving a game’s core components alone. Lastly, I would also urge all of you to go pick up that game you thought sucked because it was different, and give it another try. Listen to that CD you thought sucked. You might find that time spent away from your expectations has altered your perception.