Imagine if you will the film that gives you an extra few minutes of story at the end if you watched it really hard and demonstrated a true understanding of its themes, its arcs, its subjects. A film that only gives you a full ending or a complete story if you engage with it hard enough or watch it over and over again? Does that sound off to you? What about the book that witholds its full content until you have read it at least twice?
Is that worthwhile cultural engagement would you say? For those with the time, cultural background and energy to spare maybe it is? You see I'm not so sure... Of course I am not talking about films or books in this case, I am, as ever, talking about the humble video game. The single player narratives that ask you to commit however many hours of your fleeting free time to see a conclusion that isn't actually conclusive. I don't mean the conclusion is half baked or intentionally ambiguous here. No I mean there are critical elements that require at least one further playthrough before you get to see them.
So what prompted this chain of thought you might ask? Specifically it was Alan Wake II, a game I have a whole lot of thoughts about. Mostly good ones at that but upon completion of the story in this game you get an option to start what is essentially a new game plus with the tantalising prospect of getting a full, uncut ending once done. So what's the problem you may ask? What's the deal big or otherwise?
Now just to put things in context I got this option after already spending about 40 hours on this game. This is not a short game, in fact I might say its a little overburdened with content and lore amidst the backdrop of another shared fictional universe. The original Alan Wake might have been a simpler narrative that wore its influences proudly on its sleeve but there was a certain elegance to it all the same. Alan Wake II is a much busier game by comparison, riffing heavily (I might almost say too heavily) on Twin Peaks: The Return but lacking a certain something that made its inspirations stand apart. Which is all to say that this is not a game you are going to casually play twice in order to get the full ending, well not myself anyway.
Oh its atmospheric to be sure and one of the best looking video games I've played since maybe Red Dead Redemption II? It's a narrative that twists and weaves with some decent forward momentum for the most part but asking your audience to play it all through again for a modicum of extra but crucial ending feels like an extremely lopsided ask. The effort is not proportional to the reward is what I'm saying. I've mused around here before about gaming being a time sink, about the importance of respecting the time of your audience. I'm not saying we should abandon new game plus only that I feel that you shouldn't gate-keep critical game content behind it. Let it be a more difficult remix of the original game that keeps seasoned players on their toes whilst giving the odd trophy or achievement for its completion. At a stretch, maybe add some extra info or context about the game world which in turn enriches that ending. Just don't send players to Youtube when you could have provided that extra content yourself.
This isn't the first time that I've come across such things in gaming of course. I am reminded of variations on this theme. Instead of a second playthrough, the full ending for Batman: Arkham Knight was locked behind completing the many, many collectibles in that game and in that instance it changed the complexion of the ending in a big way. Nier: Automata didn't obscure the ending but it did keep rolling credits on several playthroughs before you finally got to the ending proper. So not as bad an example as the rest but still wringing more playtime out of the narrative than perhaps was warranted.
Part of me thinks this is a holdover from gaming's past and the arcade coin-op days where giving players reasons to keep inputting their money for game time was the driver of the gaming industry. I also suspect there is also a little creator anxiety around Alan Wake II as well. A proper sequel that took 13 years to arrive and maybe no-one wanted to leave the audience short-changed on content once it got here. To be sure there is plenty of content here and it does not need to be artifically extended by a second playthrough.
It's a shame really because as I said above, this is not a bad game and in a lot of ways its one of the best single player games I have played in quite some time. An ending like that that leaves you on a cliffhanger when this game does not in fact conclude with a cliffhanger? Well that ends things on a bad note that could have been easily avoided.
Whilst this doesn't feel like I'm dishing out rocket science revelations here and I'm certain some people will hold the counter-view that they absolutely love sinking more hours into games that have already eaten up dozens if not hundreds of hours of free time. Still I feel there is a valuable point to be made here about how you dish out content in such games. Anyhow in case you are wondering I will not be playing Alan Wake II a second time and I will be heading over to Youtube to find out if SPOILER answered the SPOILER and whether SPOILER survived the SPOILER.. Unlike that game I will leave this entry on an entirely definitive, conclusive awe-inpiring note of supreme and utter finality...
...
...
...well, mostly.
Comments
Post a Comment