Overdue Thanks

A bulbous mass of Tofurkey roast sits in my fridge, waiting to make my family uncomfortable with its presence at the dinner table. As the Thanksgiving holiday approaches here in the states, we are reminded, once again, of what we should be thankful for. In a year filled with some excellent gaming moments and an impressive selection of fall titles, my 'Thank You' list is full. In an effort to praise the under-appreciated and the over-looked, I will share with you just a few things that deserve our gratitude.

1. The Film Industry

The film industry and the videogame industry are siblings in a dysfunctional family. The well established, widely popular, and slightly vain older brother (film), casts the shadow under which videogames strive for unique recognition. With the games industry abandoning the Citizen Kane comparison, setting ourselves apart, the film industry tries to bring the siblings together for personal gain. Make no mistake, the Avatar game and the Prince of Persia movie were not made to bolster the games medium, but to extend movie studio profits into newly burgeoning markets. In this light, the film industry needs no praise.
However, a relationship does exist, at once legitimizing games as art and acting as a foil by which games distinguish themselves. Uncharted 2 for example, refines the linear game narrative, borrowing heavily from movie production, to create a well paced and amazing cinematic game like nothing else. While some may distance themselves from this particular brand of filmic storytelling, it still offers an experience unique to the interactive videogame medium.

Like Uncharted 2 borrows from film, District 9 seems to borrow from videogames. From the alien technology, to the weapon upgrades, to the movie's climax, D9 tells a story that could exist comfortably in your console. As I have mentioned before, its success holds valuable lessons for the games industry and should be recognized as a win for both mediums. We are an entertainment media family after all.

2. Foolish Expectations

Bombarded with common videogame tropes, gamers have grown accustomed to certain player behaviors. In general, it is safe to believe snipers will take high ground, bright colored ledges are meant to climb, and team mates with the same goal will use similar tactics. Developers and players can wisely exploit these expectations with both frustrating and entertaining results.

In competitive games, player ingenuity thrives when expectations are held too firmly. In League of Legends, a fleeing enemy at low health may be less victim and more bait. A clever snare or an ally lurking in the grass can spell certain death for the overly bold pursuer.
Even in cooperative games, molds are meant to be smashed. Although the co-op mode of New Super Mario Bros. Wii is ostensibly friendly, the game still keeps some of the potentially mean spirited mechanics. If a teammate needlessly takes a second mushroom, pick them up and throw them into lava - molten vengeance is immensely satisfying. After playing only a couple hours with friends, my reservoir of trust was completely depleted, even when we needed cooperation to survive. I should have expected nothing less.

3. Better Players.

The end of team deathmatch arrives and you are ranked lower than anyone. You were thoroughly trounced and humiliated, with your failure presented for all to see. Don't worry. We have all been there. Sometimes, your best is just not good enough. There always seems to be better players. Now some games are capitalizing on your humiliation and leveling the playing field in innovative ways.
Like Team Fortress 2 and its prequel before it, Modern Warfare 2 implements a 'Kill Cam' in its multiplayer games. Mysteriously murdered? Spend a few second watching a sniper blast you away and you will learn why jumping up and down in the bushes is a terrible idea. Spend enough time learning your enemies strategies, and the game will award you an accolade for it. If a history lessen is not enough, 'Death Streaks' allow unlucky players to copy the class and weapons loadout of their killer, giving them better odds against the better equipped.

Even a single-player campaign offers cross-player education. Demon Souls allows players to leave notes and hints for others. If a note reads "Beware flanking spiders," you might want to heed the advice. More than ever, we are learning from our fellow players, and we are all a little better for it.

There is one last thing I am thankful for, and that is you readers. Scott and I have been working on Experience Points for over a year now. While we are both happy to leave the birthday candles in the cabinet, we know you deserve recognition. I am sure I speak for both us when I say I am consistently awed by the entertaining and intelligent discourse you are all willing to have with us. Alright, enough with the sappy thoughts. Go eat some mashed potatoes, play some games, and let me know what you are thankful for. Read more!

A Year of Balance

The holiday season snuck up on me this year. Before I could mentally prepare myself for the yearly onslaught of delicious temptations, visions of gravy, stuffing, fudge, and cookies have worked their way into my sights, and they will undoubtedly soon work their way into my stomach. If I'm not careful, I might inadvertently add to the old stereotype of the paunchy player.

However, in the fight against the caloric hordes, I have a weapon: The Wii Balance Board! The plucky little thing waltzed into our house around this time last year, bringing with it the unusual idea that one need not be rooted to the couch while playing games. I figure this is a good time to reflect on its usefulness: Should Wii Fit be added to my list of forgotten resolutions or has the device transformed me into the gaming equivalent of Jack LaLane?

The idea of a video game improving one's physique is an alien one, and even exercise experts are having trouble determining the Balance Board's effects. A recent article from Gamasutra reported that the American Council on Exercise found the intensity of Wii Fit's exercises to be "underwhelming." Somewhat predictably, the study found that "performing an actual exercise activity rather than Wii Fit's virtual approximation resulted in 'significantly higher' caloric expenditure." This conclusion is hard to argue with, but certain excerpts hint at some potential holes in the study.

For example, this passage was a bit strange:

"While we found that playing the Wii Fit burns twice as many calories as a sedentary video game," said ACE's chief science officer Cedric X. Bryant, "the outcome of the study suggests that Wii Sports, the Wii's suite of exergames that includes tennis, boxing, golf and bowling, is a better option and more capable of helping consumers meet minimum intensity guidelines for exercise."

Like commenter Joseph Vasquez II, I too have a hard time believing that Wii Fit burns only twice as many calories as simply sitting on the couch. Of course, there is always the possibility that I possess a Zen-like stillness while I play games, but I still find this dubious. Additionally, anyone that suggests that Wii Sports burns more calories than Wii Fit must have skipped the latter's Hula Hoop game. While Wii Fit will never compete with military boot camp, a properly constructed routine can yield Simmons-esque exertion.

This type of evaluation overlooks Wii Fit's strength: The game's health benefits stem partly from its exercises, but also from its game design. The animated balance board that greets the player is an expert in the ancient art of the guilt trip. The Balance Board seems to delight in doling out backhanded remarks about my attendance and snacking habits, which motivates me to think about fitness even when I go a week without playing Wii Fit. The combination of not wanting to see an upward curve on my weight graph and the pleasure I derive from thumbing my nose at that perky little jerk draws me back to the game on a regular basis. Wii Fit might not single-handedly sculpt me into an Adonis, but has been effective in cultivating a mindset. Whether it be counting calories, monitoring pounds, earning high scores in the games, or simply shutting up the Balance Board, Wii Fit makes exercise a game with clear, achievable goals.

Like a perfectly-timed swing in PixelJunk Eden or a flawless victory in Street Fighter, the BMI graph becomes part of a system to master and optimize. Every time I yearn for a candy bar, I think about my little plastic adversary nagging me and instead reach for an apple. If I have to wait for a podcast to download, I try to squeeze in a quick jog or some calisthenics, knowing that this might lead to just a few more hula hoop rotations. Wii Fit's ability to add a gaming layer on top of the traditional benefits of exercise exploits my habits for my ultimate benefit.

Ultimately, the most disappointing thing about Wii Fit is how quickly it has defined the Balance Board's standard implementation. As has happened in the past, many other companies have followed Nintendo's lead regarding game design and hardware utilization. For the Balance Board, this has meant a number of subsequent workout games along with the occasional mini-game collection. Nintendo has proved to me that they can turn fitness into a game, but I am still waiting to see whether the Balance Board is more than essentially a single-use peripheral.

My early impressions of Wii Fit Plus give me hope for this, as some of the new games are surprisingly fun adaptations of traditional concepts, but I'll report back later with a more detailed review.

In the meantime, I am interested in what you all have done with the balance board. For those of you who own it: is it buckling under the weight of a year's worth of dust, or do your abs now rival those of Solid Snake? For those of you who do not own it: What is keeping you away? Does the Board's price versus its number of uses worry you? Of course, you may just be trying to avoid becoming fixated on the approval of an inanimate object. Although it lacks a face, I was sure the thing was looking down its nose at me the other day.

How satisfying it will be to rub my progress in that non-existent nose! Read more!

EXP Podcast #52: The Difficulty with DLC

"Thank you Mario. But our princess is in another castle! I'll show you the way...for only $5!" This scenario might be an exaggerated nightmare, but the world of DLC is becoming an increasingly complicated one. The recently released Dragon Age: Origins launched with day-one premium content, some of which is actually offered by in-game NPCs. Unsurprisingly, many gamers vehemently disapproved of this and set out to form angry Internet mobs. This week, we discuss Sean "Elysium" Sands' plea for gamers to re-evaluate the merits of premium downloadable content. He makes a thought-provoking argument, suggesting that DLC may be the price we pay in order to perpetuate the existence of gaming as we know it. Do his ominous predictions have you reaching for your wallet? We invite you to jump in with your thoughts, free of charge.

Some discussion starters:

- What kind of DLC have you purchased? Do you have specific personal rules about what you buy?

- Do you believe that one game's DLC can subsidize other games, or will it just yield more DLC for that game?

- Is there an ethical component to DLC from an artistic or democratic standpoint?

To listen to the podcast:

- Subscribe to the EXP Podcast via iTunes here. Additionally, here is the stand-alone feed.
- Listen to the podcast in your browser by left-clicking the title. Or, right-click and select "save as link" to download the show in MP3 format.
- Subscribe to this podcast and EXP's written content with the RSS link on the right.

Show notes:

- Run time: 30 min 52 sec
- "A Dirge for the Sinking Ship," by Sean "Elysium" Sands
- Music provided by Brad Sucks Read more!

The Sensationalist: In Defense of 'No Russian'

This post is part of "The Sensationalist," a continuing series here at Experience Points in which we examine games' abilities to evoke emotions and sensations in video game players. Please have a look at the series' introduction as well its previous entries. As always, we welcome your thoughts on all the matters we discuss, and look forward to analyzing one of gaming's most powerful, yet intangible, abilities.

WARNING: This post contains major spoilers for Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. It also contains mature themes some might find inappropriate.

I would like to preface this piece acknowledging the amount of work already discussing Modern Warfare 2 and its 'No Russian' scene in particular. Forgive me for adding my own voice into what is already a cacophony of critical thought - considering the array of emotions this particular scene evokes, I feel it is necessary.

Here is a synopsis of the scene in Modern Warfare 2: Early in the game, the player controls Private First Class Joseph Allen, an Army Ranger tasked with going undercover for the terrorist Vladimir Makarov. In 'No Russian,' Allen joins Makarov and a few other terrorists as they walk into a crowded Russian airport and proceed to gun down hundreds of innocent civilians.
The scene is undoubtedly horrifying. Civilians scream and run in terror. They try to drag themselves to safety, clutching their side as they create a path of blood on the floor. Some civilians sit on the floor, bleeding out in front of you. One of Makarov's men stands on a balcony, slaughtering a crowd of people trapped a floor below. The terrorists show no mercy, and their demeanor of casual intent is incredibly unsettling. After the havoc, Allen and the terrorists fight their way through a group of police officers. In the end, Allen is betrayed and left to die. Russians finding his body amongst the massacre ultimately leads to an invasion of the US.

Reactions

As expected, many have reacted to this scene with revulsion. In a piece by Kyle Orland of Crispy Gamer, Kyle details his reaction and ends by saying "that it is easily the most affecting scene I've taken part in in a video game so far, and for that alone it deserves careful attention." During her playthough, Cary of Play Like A Girl froze with "sheer, honest shock" at the scene's onset. Lono of the Sarcastic Gamer was physically disgusted and Tom Chick of Fidgit mirrors the initial thoughts of these writers when he calls 'No Russian' "unnecessary, cheap, and disgusting." Chick announces Modern Warfare 2 is our "new enfant terrible in town to embarrass and shame us all."

All of these emotions are completely legitimate. Killing civilians is supremely detestable, deplorable as an international war crime. Developers Infinity Ward knew exactly what sort of emotions this depiction of extreme violence would evoke, and they created this scene with the intent to stir up these very difficult sensations. To many, this feels like betrayal. Personally, I consider it a daring success in many ways, something the gaming community should respect even if they find it too unpalatable to admire.

There are a few arguments that have arisen frequently amongst critics that I want to address specifically.

1. Children will play this game.

This statement is undoubtedly true. Thanks to the "undiscerning parents" Cary mentions, or the ignorant grandfather Chick describes, a child who should not be playing war games in the first place will experience one of the most violent scenes ever depicted in a videogame. But this doesn't mean Infinity Ward has failed in their duties as developers. Nor does this imply content should be strategically censored from popular games.

Stephen Totilo of Kotaku recently appeared on Fox News Strategy Room discussing MW2. Totilo
aptly describes this 'undiscerning parent' as "subject to the expectations that videogames wouldn't go there." These are the symptoms of a consumer base with a naive understanding of videogames as toys. These are the expectations many of us have committed to changing in an effort to mature the medium. It is not morally consistent to relegate truly mature themes to indie titles where the most affected players are less likely to stray. Unless we want to make the argument MW2 should have been given the equivalent of an NC17 rating, we should stand by its M rating.

2. 'No Russian' is unnecessary

Lono most succinctly frames the gist of this claim: "Couldn’t there have been a half of a billion ways to show that Makarov was a bad guy within the game’s narrative, other than playing out a first person terrorist attack?"

There are two ways I want to address this statement. The first, is that the purpose of this scene was not only, or even primarily, to show the depth of Makarov's evil. The purpose was to show you how evil one might have to become to achieve good. During the loading screen introductions, General Shepherd describes Makarov to Pvt. Allen: "I ask much more of you now...He trades blood for money. He's your new best friend. You don't want to know what it's cost already to put you next to him. It will cost you a piece of yourself."
The confusing emotions 'No Russian' evokes, the desire to stop, the helplessness and sense of inevitability the linear scene creates, are exactly what the player is supposed to feel, because that is how Allen feels. Allen's confinement is elevated by the players own limitations. During 'No Russian', the player cannot jump or turn quickly, they cannot run ahead or bounce around the level like they are accustomed to. Even if the player chooses to shoot, they are more of a spectator to the violence than an instigator. This creates a level of unease that the player shares with Allen, which would have been less affective in another format.

One could still make the argument the scene was unnecessary for the larger storyline, that we need not share these emotions with Allen. This again becomes an issue o moral consistency. I value the freedom the medium gives to developers in allowing them to tell a story of their choosing. If the scene is too visceral for your personal tastes, Infinity War gives you every opportunity to skip that segment of their story. Certainly, some depictions of mature themes could be too much for myself, but that isn't to say I don't respect the developers addition to the medium. There is no reason to be ashamed of a medium willing to broach uncomfortable material well beyond your comfort level.

3. The ending makes the whole scene pointless

This is a variation on the above argument, most passionately discussed by Anthony Burch of Destructoid during his Rev Rant. Burch believes Allen's death eliminates the driving conflict of the scene - the sacrifice of the few for the benefit of the many. Not being able to kill the terrorists, and get treated to a depiction of "Chicago going up in a nuclear fire ball" is detrimental to the scenario we are supposed to experience. This is a misunderstanding of 'No Russian'.

The purpose of 'No Russian', in my interpretation, is not to show that A will lead to B, therefore having the means justify the ends. Rather, the purpose was to show how people make evil decisions based only on an order from the top and the hope that the ends will justify the means. Allen is meant to die unredeemed. The moment of "what have I done" succeeds so well because it infuriates Burch. This is to say nothing of the criticisms we can lay on General Shepherd for giving this order in the first place - a man who becomes the ultimate enemy and is clearly motivated by selfish interests. For Shepherd, the ends always justify the means. Pvt. Allen is a victim of that belief.

4. We should be allowed to act differently

This is one of Anthony's major criticisms, and is vaguely mentioned by many critics. Why, some ask, are we not allowed to shoot the Russians? The answer is relatively simple: Because Allen does not shoot the Russians. Burch has this to say on the author's control:

"Play the right way so you don't break our story [they say], and that's bullshit. Interactivity, by its very nature, implies some degree of choice. Which, again, we are free to have infringed upon so long as it feels its not actually being infringed upon... Don't fall be on that non-interactive story structure when you are rubbing my face in something which is horrible and provocative, and disturbing and is supposed to make me think and decide, and then just take away my ability to decide because I have to be a puppet in your bullshit story."
Authorial control is a treacherous subject. There are so many reasons player created emergent gameplay is a valuable tool in a developers toolkit. That being said, non-interactivity is also a tool we should not be so eager to critique when it fits our whim. The player is allowed to feel betrayed and angry and confused during 'No Russian', they are intended to feel that way. They are not, however, allowed to act on those feelings with Allen's agency.

Games are a conversation between player and developer. Some game designers are happy to give the player a great deal of control over the narrative elements, but this control is still defined by designer created boundaries. For Burch, role-playing as Allen was too much. He could not stay in the "narrative box" created by Infinity Ward because his priorities were different than the protagonist's. That is not an indictment of Burch or Infinity Ward, but a statement on the incompatibility of player and story designer for this particular scene. Skipping might not be optimum, but it is a conversation Infinity Ward is willing to engage in.

Conclusion

None of this is to say Modern Warfare 2 is a good or bad game, and by no means is 'No Russian' a perfect scene. I would say the first MW approached its content with more awareness and maturity than its sequel. However, MW2 succeeded in the area the Sensationalist series is designed around. For many, 'No Russian' evokes dark, hideous and unsettling emotions rare in videogames. For this reason alone, I welcome its presence in the medium. Read more!

Layton's Linearity and Halo's Heuristics

I recently played the Professor Layton games while also making my way through Halo. At first, it appeared to me that the games were structured similarly: Whether it is vanquishing the Covenant or locating the mysterious golden apple, both games present players with objectives that must be accomplished in order for them to progress to the next scripted event.

However, I soon began to wonder if Master Chief was upstaging Layton in his attempt to give my brain a workout. At the same time, I found myself becoming disengaged with Layton's gameplay and simply looking forward to the next story bit or cutscene . How was it that a game about space marines was more mentally engaging than one about a puzzle-loving professor? The answer exemplifies the pedagogical strengths of video games and demonstrates that linearity in games is a layered concept.

At the most basic level, Halo is a game that leads the player through a predetermined story with a variety of mandatory plot points. The genius of the game lies in the way players move between those pre-determined plot points.

The level design and enemy AI make Halo's gameplay highly dynamic. Halo is structured around sequences comprised of what Steve Gaynor has called "the basics of effective first person shooter encounter design." Instead of maze-like hallways, most of Halo's fighting takes place in environments with a variety of cover clustered in a circular pattern, laid out in such a way that the player can observe the environment and get a good sense for what tactics will help them succeed. Additionally, Halo's enemies' AI exhibits a wide range of behavior. Enemies rarely stand still and allow you to exchange fire; they will duck behind cover, charge you with clusters, or even retreat in fear.

The varied combat environments and unpredictable enemies give rise to dynamic, chaotic, and rarely replicable gameplay. While the overall game's structure is linear on the macro level, there are dynamic zones in between scripted events that allow the player to exercise their creativity and experience unique events. When Jorge and I were playing the game on co-op, one errant-grenade throw could potentially scrap a carefully laid plan and force us to come up with a new solution on the fly. If we got stuck, a change of tactics would cause us to experience a the level differently than the first time we attempted it.

Although the game has specific waypoints, the space between those rigid structures offers a significant amount of flexibility. Halo's possesses an immutable structure on the macro level while simultaneously rewarding the player's creativity; moment-to-moment events are often determined and shaped by the player's choices. A visual representation of Halo's campaign might look something like this:


On the macro level, Layton's structure is reminiscent of Halo. While there are many optional puzzles, progression is tied to certain mandatory challenges that divide the game into sections. Layton diverges from Halo by retaining this linearity during the intervening gameplay spaces. Regardless of how creative or clever the player is, there is only one path to success in Layton: guessing one predetermined answer.

If someone wanted to tweak their Halo experience by only using the pistol or by relying largely on melee fighting, they could so so while simultaneously remaining tethered to the game's overarching path. With Layton, there is little room for experimentation; to quote the Professor "Every puzzle has an answer." And by "an" he means "exactly one:" regardless of whether the player can think of a different way to stack chairs, retrieve a ball from a hole, or exploit vague language, the only route through the game is unvarying adherence to a single path. The game becomes doubly linear, as both the game's overall structure and the player's path become one and the same.

While this may be a valid game structure, it can often undercut the medium's strengths. When forced to follow a rigid path, the player loses much of their agency and finds themselves at the mercy of the designer's thought process. This might not be a problem depending on the game's readability and feedback system, but if things do get vague, the player may find themselves compelled to brute-force their way through obscure, single-solution problems.

Additionally, in order to keep things interesting, the game must then compensate for this lack of interaction by relying on the strength of its story, characters, and art direction. The Monkey Island and Zelda series show that this is possible, albeit extremely difficult. While all games require a certain suspension of disbelief, even the best puzzle and adventure games sometimes parlay this into a demand for passive acceptance of arbitrary, limiting systems. In this sense, games featuring a dual-linear structure share much in common with books and films: the story, sequence of events, and presentation are predetermined and largely static. Change can only be effected by interpretation and analysis after fact.

Instead of getting bogged down in the minutia of a puzzle, Halo presents the player with a general problem along with the tools to solve it. Most of the game boils down to "get to that door," but because the environments, enemies, and player behavior create dynamic spaces, I found myself looking at each level like a puzzle comprised of many interconnected parts. While they are often clever, the problems and solutions in Layton can also be pedantic. The approach to puzzles is overwhelmingly traditional, and most of the game would remain relatively intact if converted into book form.

Video games allow us to create laboratories dedicated to actively exploring dynamic situations in which the environment and objects become a puzzle. Layton's brain teasers provide a mental workout, but they seem ill-suited to the medium's unique pedagogical potential. Both Halo and Layton follow largely in the tradition of author-controlled narratives. However, Halo offers the opportunity to stray off that well-warn path, thereby opening up the possibilities for unique challenges and unexpected lessons.

For example: I learned that a Spartan can be just as thought-provoking as a Professor.
Read more!

EXP Podcast #51: Sizing Up Handhelds

Big chubby news came out of Nintendo recently: Their next DS version is imminent, and it is a much larger beast than we are used to. The DSi LL (DSi XL for the western market), is a whopper compared to its older sibling. Its screen is fully 93% larger than the original DSi. Take that poor eye sight. This week, Scott and I tackle this behemoth and discuss the current state of handhelds, what we've been playing on our itty-bitty screens, fat fingers, developing for limitations, and the elderly market. You can find more information, including nice photographs, in our show notes, and we encourage you to leave thoughts of any size in the comments section.

Some discussion starters:

- Aside from portability, what has attracted you most to handheld games?
- What limitations of the current handheld market are potentially empowering?
- What games have you been playing on a small scale, and what best use the smaller hardware?

To listen to the podcast:

- Subscribe to the EXP Podcast via iTunes here. Additionally, here is the stand-alone feed.
- Listen to the podcast in your browser by left-clicking the title. Or, right-click and select "save as link" to download the show in MP3 format.
- Subscribe to this podcast and EXP's written content with the RSS link on the right.

Show Notes:

- Run Time: 27 mins 21 secs
- Nintendo Officially reveals the DSi LL, via Destructoid
- Music by Brad Sucks Read more!

In Search of Bond

What hero is more iconic, more internationally lauded as courage embodied in fine attire, than the MI6 man of action: Agent 007. Conceived over 50 years ago, with 22 films, several television appearances, and numerous comic book adaptations and videogames, James Bond stands alongside cowboys and knights as one of the most recognizable cultural creations of the western world. Despite his British origin, his success in the US and world wide is a testament to his easily consumable appeal.

I bring up the suave spy because I have just recently watched the Daniel Craig iterations of James Bond. Admittedly, I am a bit behind the curve on this modernized version - Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were released in 2006 and 2008 respectively - but my timing is fortuitous. My viewings of the new bond coincide with my playthrough of Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, whose protagonist, Nathan Drake, shares many characteristics with the British agent. It has become increasingly apparent that Bond's persona permeates the world of videogame characters with startling frequency, but never completely.

It might be helpful to isolate some of Bond's characteristics, not all of which are favorable. First, Bond is classy and dapper in appearance. He is always well dressed and seldom found in disarray, even during the most harrowing of stunts. His demeanor matches his attire - Bond is nothing if not a suave gentleman, a man who tips well, comports himself with dignity in every public venue, and is never rude.

Ladies flock to Bond like flies to a bug-zapper; his chauvinism is rewarded with sexual attention. Yet he does not forget himself in the company of women - his job comes first. Bond is emotionally distant. His violent acts are brutally efficient. As Vesper Lynd remarks about Bond in Casino Royale, "there is something cold and ruthless" about him. He is also incredibly knowledgeable, accomplishing most tasks with ease. These last characteristics in particular are common place amongst our catalog of videogame adventurers.
Uncharted 2 is my first stop on my search for the most James Bond like videogame protagonist. Nathan Drake's knowledge of geography and ancient languages rivals that of Indiana Jones. Drake's uncanny ability of all types of weapons and his amazing climbing skills would make 007 proud - Bond once saved himself from a cliff's edge with his shoe laces. He's also got a charming demeanor, a thirst for adventure, and a knack for killing. However similar, Drake still lacks the fastidious gentlemanly appearance and emotional distance of Bond.

Perhaps the delightful Professor Layton is most akin to our genius foreign agent. The Professor is every bit a gentleman, maintaining a well pressed suit and top hat for all occasions. He is always mindful of ladies and is kind towards strangers. Layton is also a mysterious fellow, surprisingly adept with swords for a puzzling Professor or Archaeology. However, Layton is no ladies-man, nor is he a trained killer with the emotions of an ice sculpture. Like Bond, Layton strives for good, but he does not commit evil to attain it.
We will have to go back to the 12th century for our next Bond hero. Altaïr, of Assassin's Creed, matches the profile fairly well. A skilled assassin with stunning climbing skills, Altaïr masters his surroundings with Bond-like precision. For the majority of the game, his profession is of the utmost importance. His is an unquestioning killer of men; a task he undertakes with frightening resolve. He's also got a sparkling white get-up that he seems never to sully. But Altaïr is just not as easy to like. He also lacks the charm and masculine wiles to pursue and abandon women with Bond's regularity.

We can go to The Witcher's Geralt for his cavalier approach to women, but even he will be found wanting. Master Chief, the Prince of Persia, Mattias Nillson, Solid Snake, Squall, Sam Fisher, and even Faith are all Bond-like in some way, without encapsulating all of his characteristics. There are, of course, plenty of actual James Bond games -Activision currently holds the rights. GoldenEye 007 is the most well known title, but even this N64 game doesn't master the Bond persona.
James Bond is at once unique and completely trite. In cinema, he represents the embodiment of success, a protector of western values imbued with the charisma and aplomb we wish we could muster. He is the quintessential hero for a masculine and violent world. In videogames, he is a collection of the pre-established heroic qualities from which creators often cherry-pick.

Whether Bond indirectly inspires game creators, or they happen to pick these characteristics freel,y does not really matter. Regardless, if we were to collect all our adventuring protagonists and mix them into one being, James Bond just might pop out. A fact remains true for countless games: There is never any doubt we are playing a hero, an individual incapable of loss, who faces inhuman risks, whom we are encouraged to admire, even envy, and is willing to do almost anything to achieve his goal.

On an individual basis, this is not necessarily a bad thing. It is when I look at a wider picture that I become nervous. Maybe it is because the movies are fresh in my mind, but I am seeing Bond everywhere in games. His cavalier approach to wanton slaughter, his emotionless attitude, his ravenous pursuit of a goal. These, among his other traits, are common place amongst game heroes. Unfortunately, I may be growing tired of this particular brand of heroics. Read more!