A reader worries that the idea of free-to-start video games could ruin not just storytelling but the whole nature of modern gaming.
So, the industry have a new toy: free-to-start. This buzzword has been bandied about the Inbox a little, with suggestions that this would effectively be a free couple of hours of a game, like a demo, with the remainder being bought through episodic content or a season pass. Now, this sounds fine and I’ve no problem with it… provided that it doesn’t intrude on the video game experience. Because this isn’t just a disposable demo, it’s the game. And that, dear reader, might be a problem.
A lot of games revolve around the concept of progression. You start off a game killing rats/gangsters/thugs with your wooden sword/peashooter/fists, exploring Little Chipping where people’s problems are things like ‘I’ve ran out of gin'; you end it killing massive demons/evil terrorists/whatever with your planet-sized summoned monsters/rocket launchers/infinity +1 sword, exploring the White House where people’s problems are more of the ‘threat to humanity’s existence’ variety.
We start off weak and we get strong, and this progression is a core part of the experience; as we progress through the game and reminisce about our past weaker self, we feel like we’ve achieved something and maybe even have some fun. As Borderlands 2 puts it during mission one: ‘You just moved five feet and opened a locker. Later, when you’re killing skyscraper-sized monsters with a gun that shoots lightning, you’ll look back on this moment and be like, “heh”’.
So gameplay elements are introduced and new powers are granted… but all at a sufficiently slow rate to give the character a sense of progression and empowerment. Now let’s compare this to game demos, which are fundamentally different. A demo is an advert and, just like a trailer, they shouldn’t just parrot the game’s opening level but try to accurately represent the game experience as a whole.
Demos often include levels or gameplay elements from the middle of the game: BioShock accelerated the rate at which you acquired powers in order to show off more spangly doohickeys; Dragon’s Dogma contrasted the prologue with a different, and totally out of context, battle in order to boast that it contained both caves and fields; the Asura’s Wrath demo was actually just the two best bits of the game. As far back as Space Year 1999, Valve truncated various elements of Half-Life into the much, much shorter and free Half-Life: Uplink.
But the first few missions of a game shouldn’t represent the whole game experience or we’d lose this sense of progression; the fun should come from situation and context, not the badass experience of the game going forward. Would an hour of wandering around Black Mesa without much happening be an effective demo of Half-Life? Would you want the start of Half-Life to ape an action-packed demo?
Demos and game introductions should be different things but free-to-start risks dangerously combining these elements into an unsatisfactory whole, like a low-budget Frankenstein’s monster.
Of course; this won’t be an issue for every genre: the latest FIFA or Need For Speed will be fine (although any free-to-start driving game will certainly start with some vomit-inducing supercar preview events) and some games seem totally unsuited to the free-to-start model (although I think I’ve just invented Skyrim: Pay-Per-Hold Edition) but I think there’s a genuine risk that free-to-start could end up changing game structure and modifying stories.
If games companies want the start of the game to represent the full experience, is every game to kick off with a Bond movie prologue? Will we get tired of all stories shoving the A Taste of Power trope down our gagging throats in order to show us ‘what we’ll get to do later’? Why should publishers stop there? Could this result in more episodic games, stuffed full of story-ruining cliffhangers and other contrivances purely designed to part a fool from his money?
Will our games be front-loaded with excitement as all the best ideas are shoehorned into a glorified advert, leaving us disgruntled and underwhelmed as our games repeatedly culminate in morose and unsatisfying climaxes, stapled together from the last few half-chewed scraps of inspiration by the gin-sozzled tea-boy after act one stole all the talent and good bits?
That’s not to say these tricks can’t be used to build coherent and spectacular stories. Spec Ops: The Line (renowned for its storytelling) started with a bombastic flashback (firing a minigun out of a helicopter, not so renowned for its gameplay innovations); helping us to buy in to our protagonist’s delusion that he was an action hero. Action sequences like this can kick off a game perfectly well but not all games do start like that and not all games should.
Free-to-start risks imposing stricter storytelling formula on our games and both hindering the artistic vision of their creators and stifling innovation, potentially breeding repetition, boredom and contempt.
Let’s be honest though; this is all hyperbole right now but did I get your attention? Will it be an issue: probably not. But let’s just remain vigilant; we shouldn’t let a business’ monetisation model write our stories.
By reader Bear_of_Justice (PSN ID)
The reader’s feature does not necessary represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.
You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. As always, email gamecentral@ukmetro.co.uk and follow us on Twitter.
