SPOILERS FOR LA NOIRE, RED DEAD REDEMPTION AND GTA IV

Recently, I was forced to turn in my gun and my badge. Or, rather, Cole Phelps was forced to turn in his gun and his badge for having an affair with a German morphine junkie. Not many games have touched on adultery with such maturity before, and it's refreshing to see a developer explore uncharted territory. While there are issues that can be taken with this, such as how the player has no actual input on the relationship, the big issue I take with it is that you do not know that this is happening, and you play as the person having the affair. When you play L.A. Noire, you play as Cole Phelps, you should be able to know his wants, needs and flaws. While he seems like a stereotypical, justice craving hero, there is much more to his character.

And the player isn't allowed to see it.

You see Cole's wife ONE TIME in the game, just seconds after it begins, and the next time you see her is when she is packing up and leaving. And while Cole is a pretty big asshole to his wife for doing what he did, the player is left wondering why they should care. His wife says things like “Think about the children, think about what you are doing to them!” but we've never seen the children before. In fact, I had forgotten he had children because Cole just kind of mentions it to Galloway in the car one time. Something like “I have kids. That might be important later in the story. Maybe.” So when disaster strikes in the home, the characters act like it is a big deal, but because these are brand new characters whom we've barely seen before, it doesn't pack the emotional punch it seems like it is reaching for. Seeing more of Cole's wife and children before the affair would make that moment so much more effective. We would view Cole as a real douche, rather than left wondering “What? Why?” Expansion on his relationship with the German girl (Whatever her name is) beyond cutscenes of Cole sitting at the Blue Room could help too.

Similarly, You spend the majority of Red Dead Redemption in search for your family. John Marston tells almost every person in the game “The only reason I'm working with the government is because they have my family,” gaining their support with his sob story. However, because the player doesn't see Marston's family for the majority of the game, it seems to beg the player to wonder if he is actually telling the truth. I was convinced that John was working for the government the whole time, that his family didn't really exist. And while this may sound ridiculous, John doesn't see his family until his mission is over, leaving the player plenty of time to wonder whether they really believe John Marston or not.

I'm not saying that every video game character needs the same treatment. We don't need to know what Gordon Freeman's childhood was like or where Master Chief gets his haircut. While these things may help the audience understand a character, they aren't crucial to the plot. A good example of something like this is Grand Theft Auto IV. That game is very much Niko's story, and at the beginning of the game we learn that he's done some pretty messed up stuff in the past. He conveys that through his dialogue and behavior. We understand that he had a bad past, even though he does not go in to detail about it. While his initial mission is to find a man who wronged him in his past, he quickly gets overwhelmed with a whole host of new problems, so when he finally finds the man he was looking for, it isn't a big deal anymore. And that's exactly how the player feels. They know Niko has a beef with this guy but understand that there are bigger fish to fry at the moment.

Spoiler Free Quick Summary:

Story critical information should not be hidden from the player. And every Rockstar game has the exact same story.

Everybody loves solving mysteries. As soon as something goes unexplained, our curiosity kicks in and we crave answers. Cole Phelps is a video game character who not only loves solving mysteries, but can get us the answers. Rather, Cole Phelps is a character who can walk around in circles listening for a piano jingle. Cole Phelps is a man who can discern details that players would like to figure out themselves. L.A. Noire frustrates me more than it seems to amaze others.

My frustration is brought on mainly by the fact that crime scene investigation aspect of the game (a pretty significant chunk) is lacking. The game seems more about the protagonist solving crimes than the player. You walk Cole through an environment until the controller vibrates. He examines an object, and if it is of any significance at all he will comment about it and add any important details to his handy dandy notebook. I'm not arguing that the notebook is a bad mechanic or really hurts the experience as a whole, I end up referring back to it many times during a case. The problem is that it downplays the importance of the player. The investigation sequences remind me of Heavy Rain; the player ends up walking the character around the room until they are prompted to look at something, something that they would never have noticed if the character hadn't pointed it out. Luckily for L.A. Noire, its story is compelling enough to make this process worth while, even though it is still very much a chore. I almost would have preferred a cutscene to these sequences, it would give the player all the information they needed to know in a more timely fashion, without dragging them through the process of spinning around in circles until Cole finds a clue. The chimes and controller rumble can be turned off, but then the game becomes basically impossible. The third person perspective makes it very, very easy to miss important details at a crime scene, and the player just ends up reverting back to walking around the environment, this time hammering the A button until Cole finds something. 

Investigating these crimes has had me thinking about what other games have even attempted something like this. I failed to think of any better example than Condemned 2. I forget how other people felt about this game, so I might just be the one insane person who has any kind of reverence for Condemned 2, but I remember the game being pretty solid. My favorite bits involved the player stumbling upon a crime scene (Most of the time it was a murder, which was strange because I believe the main character was a homeless ex cop who was violently murdering dozens of homeless people) and having to investigate said crime scene. If I remember correctly, there was far less hand holding, the player was left on their own to actually examine a scene and determine what had happened. I don't believe there were any prompts letting you know you had found a clue, you would just have to be thorough and attentive enough to find anything of significance. When you signaled to the game that you were done, it quizzed you on the scene. Was the victim stabbed or bludgeoned? Were they killed here or was the body moved? And while getting these questions right wasn't crucial to the overall experience like it is in L.A. Noire, it was still pretty cool to have to figure out all of that stuff yourself. Keep in mind, Condemned 2 benefited greatly from a first person perspective, allowing the player to examine the environment more closely, as opposed to L.A. Noire, which fills forty percent of your screen with a character.

 But that raises the question: am I the only one who has a problem with that? The rest of the game is pretty awesome, I'm just disappointed with the way crime scenes are handled. But am I missing the point? It is very possible that the game is just trying to translate the experience of watching a detective movie in to a video game form, not trying to replicate actual police work. Detectives in movies know just enough to let the player fill in the blanks, and Cole Phelps is no different.

And maybe the crime scenes aren't as important to the game as I think they are, or want them to be. The rest of the game seems to have been handled in such a way that everything in it is deliberate. Maybe they thought players would have a hard time. Who knows? I don't.

The technology is great, I'm not trying to say it isn't. I'm also not trying to review L.A. Noire. I'm simply commenting on its crime scene investigation gameplay and how it can be improved and how it already has been improved.

 HEY, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ THE WHOLE THING THERE IS A MILD SUMMARY DOWN THERE.
 
 I suppose there are minor spoilers for the A-Team movie in here, so don't read if you really don't want to know what happens to the characters
 
Last night I saw the A-Team. It was a big, loud, dumb summer action movie that had many similarities to some of the most popular games around, with characters even dropping several references to Call of Duty. I was thinking about how games like Uncharted 2 and Call of Duty are becoming more and more like playing big, loud, dumb summer action movies. However, during the most intense and coolest parts of the movie, the (Spoilers) A-Team doesn't die. While fighting Hans Gruber, a last boss/ last level situation, John McClane doesn't die. While attempting to rescue his lady friend from a train, Nathan Drake dies dozens of times, and while chasing a target through South America, Mister Roach also dies several times. Dying completely removes the player from the action and causes the game to lose any kind of cinematic feel. It says a lot that the time I cared least about Nathan Drake is when he was shot to death while trying to save the woman he was in love with from danger. I didn't feel sad or sympathetic, I simply felt frustrated because dying meant I had to restart at the last check point.  The more I die in games, the more I see the main character as an obstacle I must overcome to beat the game, rather than either an extension of myself  or a person I genuinely care about.   
 

 HEY, I START TALKING ABOUT F.3.A.R DOWN THERE
 
Recently I was digging through some of my old PC games looking for my copy of Counter-Strike because I had realized it wasn't on my steam for whatever reason. Digging through old games is always exciting and I always get nostalgic and misty eyed (Or I would if I wasn't the stonewall man that I am.) I stumbled upon some of my favorites: Battlefield 2, Half Life 2, Starcraft, and... oh? What's this? I found my copy of F.E.A.R. hiding behind some of my brothers books. I don't know if it was there by mistake or if a few years ago I hid it so when I found it I would making a joke about how it was hiding and trying to fill me with F.3.A.R.- I mean fear. I got excited because I had forgotten about it and installed it again. I spent the entire day playing. 
 
I remembered my fondness for it and it's sequel and decided the first one might even be one of my favorite games of all time. I found the over-the-top sy-fy (Ha!) horror story and atmosphere extremely engrossing. Around the same time, rumors of a F.3.A.R began sprouting. Given the extreme cliff hanger ending of F.E.2.R, I could not have been more excited. I eagerly awaited the trailer for F.3.A.R and was disappointed around fifteen seconds in.   
 
HEY, THIS IS WHERE I TALK ABOUT F.3.A.R.
 
My biggest problem is that it's being developed by the people what did the 360 ports of F.E.A.R and it's expansions. Those games controlled like crap and my non-pc gaming friends failed to see the games greatness as the spent more time battling the controller than they did First Encounter Assault Recon... ing. Remember when Treyarch made Call of Duty 3? And Spider-Man 3? And any other series they ruined I am leaving out? It was bad news. I really hate it when another company takes over a franchise, because usually the original developers have plans to return to franchise they created, but instead we get another company's interpretation of where the series should go. Day 1s interpretation of Fear is a co-op shooter devoid of anything resembling horror. The game is called FEAR. It should be kind of scawy. It's like they knew that the game was going to be less scary, so to keep it "FEARy" they had you fight ghosts and beasts and stuff. And Ooooo Paxton Fettel has a bullet in his head because he is a ghost. Spooooooky. Not only all of that, but wherever the story goes from here probably isn't Sierras original intent. This bothers me because I might never get to know what actually happens to the characters at the end of FEAR and FE2R. It's the same case with whatever happens to Modern Warfare 3. Wherever the story goes, it's most likely not how Infinity Ward has planned. Or maybe it is. I don't know how this stuff works.   
 
I also fail to see how the game could be scary with two people playing it. A lot of the scares in FEAR fall flat when you are playing with other people. I can imagine they would fall even flatter (Woah!) with one of your friends tea bagging the little Alma as she runs across the hall (I will not concern myself with the people you choose to associate with.) And why would Alma be trying to scare you? The point man and Fettel are working together. Her boys are happy, and she's got another baby to attend to. It wouldn't make sense to have the character being stalked by a little girl, because, presumably, they are all on good terms. I can actually see Day 1 letting the players utilize Almas powers,  Which would make a game that already isn't scary even less scary! It's called First Encounter Assault Recon, you have to make it scary!

(Sorry, the blog thing is getting all wonky and not letting me change italics and underlines and such!)
  

But whatever. I have FEAR and FEAR 2, both awesome games. I will no doubt play F3AR, maybe even buy it, purely because of my love for the series. I hope it turns out good. I hope it wraps up the story well and answers all my questions. Also, I'd be more apt to purchase it if the main character was still mysterious and wasn't all scraggly. But then I see pictures like this: