The Good, the Bad and the Gamer
February 7, 2009 at 12:27 pm aakoo 5 comments
By reviewing two different games in the same genre I would like to look at the Dual Structure of police/ counterterrorism simulators as SWAT- and Rainbow-series. I will not look into the strategic part of Rainbow Six, though it’s a chapter by itself.
The first SWAT game was released in 1995. It was named after former Los Angeles Police Chief and called Daryl F. Gates’ Police Quest: SWAT. In the game you were placed in charge to lead an elite group highly skilled police officers into dangerous situation involving hostage situations, high-risk arrest warrants, bank robbery and more.
Rainbow Six was released in 1998, based on the author Tom Clancy´s book with the same name. This handpicked elite group had a primary focus on counterterrorism activities and took you and your man (and woman) around the world in the ever going hunt for terrorists of all kinds.
The dual structure, the core and shell, is almost the same for both games. The present sound of your breathing, the men moving around you, the small almost whispering sound of a Kalashnikovs safety switch being set to off on the other side of the door. The close quarter environment, the claustrophobic feeling when you were wearing the gasmask, the flickering lights witch made you fumble in desperation to get you flashlamp to work. All this – the Shell, the symbolic representation, the affect on your senses – made you hesitate more than once before you entered the dark basement in the hunt of a loony with a 12 gage shotgun. The feeling of being one in the team and that everybody expected you to do your part perfectly and without hesitation, took you to a higher level of game experience. As one of my co-op players replied on a newcomers question if it was a good game; “This is not a Game, this is SWAT!” The shell is also including characters as well as sound and visual impression. Sadly, the characters were poorly developed, even though with some beautiful graphics, they still remain two dimensional on every level.
The Core – the rules- differentiate the two games on one level – moral. When SWAT applause rules, moral and standing in a five-man queue formation – Rainbow Six goes for the kill in a more gung-ho fashion. The core contains not just rules but also the goal of the game and what is it? In Rainbow Six it is obvious – kill all the bad guy. A SWAT member would rather say; catch the bad guy. It is here the difference in a moral aspect separates the games. In both games the bad guy could be overwhelmed by the sheer force or skill of your attack and simple give up. SWAT then encourage you to put handcuffs on the “object” and send him away. In Rainbow on the other hand you ran around the track trying to find out where the last bad guy was hiding, simple to discover that you had to go back and shoot the first bad guy who has already given up when you entered the building. Kill all – are the rules for the players of Rainbow Six.
The moral debate almost always turned up sometime during the game. A bitter aftertaste that both young and older players could experience. And as one co-op player said once: “If they give up – why do we have to shoot them?” A moral question not often asked in games of this kind.
//Urban Marklund
Entry filed under: Uncategorized.
5 Comments Add your own
Leave a comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Introduction to Game Design - Group 3 
1. wikman9 | February 7, 2009 at 3:27 pm
It is interesting to see that such a thing as moral can be effecting the actual gameplay of two games so similar in genre. I guess it comes down to the intention of the creators in such decisions.
I think the games differ mostly on the core level. Their shell is almost identical in many ways, but small changes in the core really sets the games apart. I’ve played both myself, and I agree with the points you make.
//Dennis Wikman
2. Wilhelm | February 8, 2009 at 5:42 pm
I find it interesting that you put morals in the games’ Core.
I agree to such an extent that if game A has the objective ‘shoot the opponent until he dies’ and game B has the objective ‘shoot the opponent until he dies or surrenders’ those games are different at a Core level, since the mechanics or rules are fundamentally different.
But, the factor of moral is in my opinion a matter of Shell, that is just something that was painted unto the rules to give flavor to the game.
While I have not played either game, from your description I get the understanding that in RB6 you kill with abandon and in SWAT you must use some caution when selecting targets. The SWAT game could be given a new skin, e.g. some opponents wear explosives that would force the player to handle some different from the others.
The rules or the Core would be just the same, but the Shell would be very different. I therefore argue that the morals described are a factor of Shell rather than Core.
/Wilhelm Person
3. mekii | February 8, 2009 at 8:31 pm
it is interesting to include morale aspects in a game, not done all that much i think, in most action games or just games that involves any kind of killing, the killing is necessary to advance in the game, and most people just kill without question. they probobly dont question because they don’t actually kill anyone 😛
I would like to see a game with focus on combat but with alternate ways of advancing in the game than killing. E.g. you could kill if you really want to but you could also capture the poor fellow and turn him into a slave and have him build a castle for you.
Not much of a moral question thou, since slavery and murder is both kinda bad, but i couldn’t think of a better example at the moment ^^
//Magnus Sjölin Olson
4. johanhedberg81 | February 9, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Outstanding writing! I mean, really. I love the way you describe SWAT in a most colourful way, to say the least. Like Magnus mentiones, morale seems to be a lacking ingredience in most games today (having in mind games spanning from such likes as GTA to the ones as RB6, described in the article above). And even if the debate regarding “game/video violence” has been around for probably as long as there has been computer games, the degree of immorality, if we can use the term as a substitue for violence, seems to alter in a pretty constant matter.
Now, some might argue that – hey, violence is fun (and, yes it sure can be in many cases) but it still makes you wonder.
However, as a follow up to Wilhelm’s comment, I do think there are games in which moral actually is a part of the game’s core, and not just being rules cosmetic. Maybe this not being the case of RB6, but take a game like Dark Forces2:Jedi Knight. Here the actions and decisions you take during the course of the game affects both the storyline and the abilities and powers of the main character. You wanna be evil? Go ahead, and that will change the final outcome of the game itself, thus the morality applied is tightly coupled to the core of the game.
Other good examples are strategic games like Black&White, in which it is entirely up to the player if you want to play nice with your world population, or go ballistic and simply end them all! Depending on either way, the choices effects the whole overall gaming experience.
Magnus, if you’re seeking a game in which killing often is simply an alternative and completly (or at least almost) avoidable, have you then tried Mirrors Edge? That would be pretty close to what you’re after. You choose whether you want to stick and fight the officals that comes in your way (and of course risking your live while at it) or you can choose to avoid them as best as possible (which for once, actually is explicitly stated in the game as the preferred option). But here we’re back at the same terms as with RB6. Avoiding killing does not affect the game’s core in any way, so that perticular aspect of design can then only be seen as part of the game’s shell make-up.
/Johan Hedberg
5. webghost9698 | February 10, 2009 at 10:11 am
First, thank you for the positive response.
Magnus, when you ask about games were you could choose between engage in combat and kill the opponent or sneak pass him, the game Thief came to my mind. The main purpose there was the other way around. You should sneak pass the guard but you could also kill him with your dagger, sword or bow. Another example is the excellent COD 4: Modern Warfare. In the game you play a episode were you follow a veteran sniper and have several opportunities to choose between kill or sneak pass. For those who haven’t played COD 4 I strongly recommend it, the end is one of the best ever in FPS games.
But I have to agree with Wilhelm in the fact that the moral dilemma I mention above is just make up for a stringent game, and don’t effect the game itself. The rules are still the same.
In SWAT vs. RB6 is another matter, at least in my opinion.
The rule here is pretty clear – kill them all. But in SWAT they implement a function that you can take a prisoner into custody that had given up. In RB6 they also gave up, but the game couldn’t be finish until you got back and shot the poor fellow in the head. The rules – core – are different. And it awakes – among my friends anyway – a moral question, why do they give up in the first place? If they all had to be dead anyway, why didn’t they just charge to their death?
The moral dilemma in SWAT is clear and should be considered as a rule in the core. In RB6 it’s a fake decision and, yes, Wilhelm, there may be the moral should be moved up into the Shell instead.
/Urban M