Video games are generally complex in the amount of stuff that has to go into them.  Its not just digital renderings, or bump mapping or sprites.  But at the same time its not simply plot, or exposition or character development.  Its a unique medium in the sense of how many elements have to be combined to produce a finished product.  After a public release, these elements are usually explored ad nauseum.  Most review outlets break down a game this way:  story, gameplay, lasting appeal, sound design. This is the 12 and half foot pole we use to gauge critical success. But what’s missing?

Even in fandom this exists.  “Oh yeah man, the graphics kick ass.”  “Eh, the button mashing got kind of receptive.”  “That story was ridiculous”.  All of this is fine and no doubt important, and its also something I’ve focused on the majority of my time obsessively hashing over the medium.

I think there’s an unsung hero in the creation of a video games however.  One who, much like Neo… fights for us.  The thing is, its a fine line with this hero.  If done right its actually way more important of an element than lasting appeal, and maybe even more important than gameplay.  If done incorrectly, however, it becomes much like the pussy Neo from the last two movies, disturbingly shortening “Trinity” to “Trin” or saying things like, “I just love you too damn much”.  Its at this point that it becomes woefully apparent that something is horribly horribly wrong even though it might not be plainly obvious as to what that wrongness is.  You see… its absolutely critical that this hero not call Trinity Trin.

I’m talking about the environment here.

I can almost hear it, “Whaaa??  Environment more important than gameplay?  You’re the pussy, pussy!”

Yeah yeah yeah, but hear me out.  The other day on the podcast we were talking about a strange phenomena where we lose interest in games for whatever reason.  The thing is, its not just bad games that this happens with.  It can very easily be games that are critically well received.  Games like Red Dead Redemption.  This game in particular has been a tough nut for me to crack because I know how much I should like it.  Its got the pedigree, production, the financial backing — all of that.  In those categories I listed above it pretty unanimously ranked highly across the board.

And yet, so far, I honestly haven’t really liked it all that much.  In fact, its been kind of a chore to play.  At first I was excited about it partly because it was a new high profile game released in March and partly because I hadn’t bought a video game in like… 2 whole months.  I think it was because of these factors that I tricked myself into liking it.  I mean, I really really wanted to like it.

I played online once and that turned out to be a giant bowl of “meh” soup, so most of my time with it has been focused on single player.  Even though I fought with myself tooth and nail for it not to be true, this has turned out to be a pretty “meh” filled salad as well with some “bleh” croutons sprinkled on top.  And I love croutons.  Maybe it has something to do with how I’m coming at it, or where I am in my life or some other such hippy bullshit, but I honestly don’t think so because, you see, its happened before.  I’m looking at you GTA IV.

During the show my cohort Mixmoff pointed out that the open world in Red Dead was almost a detriment to it.  Sure it was gorgeous and wide open, and wow! pretty sunsets (yawn), but it almost detracted from the game the developers set out to make.  Yeah ok, they wanted to put together the best wild west simulation the world had yet seen so all of us bed ridden nerds who can barely support our own weight can act out our own Paul Newman fantasies, but they wrapped it up in a bucket of seriousness with a side of singular purpose.  This dude, John Marston has had his family held for ransom by the federales, who task him with the daunting mission of hunting down his former gang mates and bringing them to justice, dead or alive.  Once this task is accomplished, he can have is family and his life back.

But you know… run around wherever you want and kill coyotes and lasso horses and stuff.

*cough*

You see, the problem is this is a game — and when tasks and objectives like that are given, you’re encouraging the player to complete them.  Which is fine… as long as you don’t wrap your game in a bucket of seriousness with a side of singular purpose that makes these tasks seem ridiculous in context.  Well, my wife and children are held ransom and the only thing I need to do to grant them freedom is hunt down a a couple of no good bandits, but hell yes I have time for some Five Finger Filet!

What does this have to do with environment though?  I’m glad I asked.  A critical point for my understanding of this phenomenon is when I tried to juxtapose it with a similar game that did work for me.  The game I came up with was Fallout 3.  It takes a relatively similar approach in that you have daunting task set before you in a wide open world which you can explore at your leisure.  There are tons of side quests, and a lot of ways to get distracted from the main objective.  So how does it succeed where Red Dead Redemption failed?  The difference in my opinion, is how the environment is used to tell the story and reinforce the metaphors of the game.

I mean, come ON

The world of Fallout 3 is a wasteland.  Not just physically, but emotionally as well.  The inhabitants of the world are changed forever and left without hope.  Some are even horribly and grotesquely mutated.  The sun may sometimes shine, but its not the bright yellow sun of a bygone summer’s day filled with sprinklers and laughter, its a harsh bleating light that only helps to illuminate the desolation and decay.  This is a dead world.  As you, the player, explore it looking for missions or just hunting down random outlaws the enviornment you traverse helps to constantly re-enforce these extremely important themes.

On of my favorite parts of the game was the Oasis quest line.  Only with this level of scrutiny do I now realize why.  Its the one area of the game where the environment really dramatically changes.  The sun is actually brighter here.  The grass is… well shit, there’s grass!  Who cares what color it is!  I actually got a fleeting sense of hope here.  The juxtaposition was absolutely incredible, and it merely came from switching a few environment textures.  Thats a powerful tool to have at your disposal.

In Fallout 3 the decaying vastness is critical to the story because it reinforces the sense of loss and abandonment, but in Red Dead Redemption the openness of the unsettled west becomes more of a distraction.  Marston’s motivation is extremely singular, so all the wide open environment does in this case is detract from it.  That’s a problem.  The more critical underlying issue here is that its thematically incorrect, and as a result it begins to ring false over time.

It’d be an interesting experiment to breakdown some critically well received games and see how much the environment is used to impact the package.  Two that jump to my mind are Silent Hill 2 and Shadow of the Colossus.  Talk about using your environment correctly to impact the overall product.  Mein Gott…

I get that video games are a relatively new medium and I’m absolutely thrilled with where they’re going, but as they get more technically and thematically complex, its important to realize that certain aspects can’t be just shoe-horned in anymore.  The story in a lot of cases cannot take a backseat to gameplay, and environment is absolutely critical to the type of game players will experience.

So don’t call Trinity Trin, for the love of all that is holy.