Hi I'm Tommy Thompson and welcome to Design Dive on AI and Games.
November 11th 2018 marks the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I and the armistice
signed between the western allied forces and Imperial Germany.
As both Remembrance Sunday looms here in the UK as well as Veterans Day in the United States
and the Volkstrauertag in Germany, it got me thinking about how EA's Battlefield 5 is
released on November 20th, just days after these formal commemorations to those who died
in armed conflict.
Now the business reasons of this are lengthy and it's well documented that Battlefield
V was meant to launch on October 19th, so whilst it may be in somewhat poor taste, it
wasn't what got me thinking about it.
It was more to the point that I seldom ever play games inspired by real world conflict:
be it World War I, World War II, Vietnam and many more.
So in this return for design dive, I wanted to look at how we use AI to build characters
and experiences and their portrayal in war games, the proliferation of violence and how
non-player characters and systems both drive the character and nuance of these games, but
also desensitise players to the horrors of war.
Now as I step into this topic, please note that this is not a condemnation of neither
those that make nor play war games.
If you plan on picking up Battlefield V or have really enjoyed other games of that ilk,
that's cool.
In this video my interests are in examining how AI is used in these games and in a sense
address some of my own misgivings with games that adopt real-world conflict as a backdrop.
War is an ideal backdrop for all sorts of games: the zero-sum whereby one force will
assume dominance and succeed over another fits perfectly for a variety of single and
multiplayer encounters providing a clear winner.
Two or more sides complete with unique attire, weaponry and capabilities easily provides
context and allow us to quickly identify teammates and opponents.
But while Red vs Blue of Halo or the COG and Horde of Gears of War are ideal in establishing
opposing sides, there is often a desire to base games on real world conflicts given it
ties us to a period setting.
This allows for specific attire, weapons and technologies as well as geographical locations
that prove interesting to attack and defend.
The Total War series is a superb example of this as it explores different periods of human
history bringing new maps to conquer and in some cases unique gameplay mechanics that
reflect how war was waged in that era.
However it's within this context of building from history that consideration needs to be
given to how the game plays in conjunction with authenticity we seek to craft as developers.
This means considering the agency that the player has within that space and - to my mind
- how we as players interact with non-player characters and other AI systems that embody
that world.
Now I think that consideration is stronger when we consider more modern history versus
going back hundreds or thousands of years.
If we consider popular historic periods such as ancient Greece or Rome, we're largely interested
in it retaining a semblance of authenticity that we can collectively agree upon based
upon what we actually know about that era.
Hence it's cool for us to Spartan-kick NPCs off cliffs in Assassin's Creed Odyssey.
I mean it's ridiculous, but it's funny and other than the odd Greek history purist you're
not really upsetting anyone with that kind of portrayal.
Pulling from earlier historical conflicts also avoids dealing with political sensitivities.
A modern-day Assassin's Creed where Desmond assassinates world leaders whilst getting
tech upgrades from his tech buddies in Silicon Valley is something that would never happen.
It brings with it all sorts of baggage and immediately influences your opinion of whether
this is the greatest game in human history or a reason for you to start smashing your
keyboards over on Reddit.
It also opens the developer up to litigation if the people in question don't like how they
are portrayed.
It's why many a modern-war shooter never explicitly states the middle-eastern countries they're
invading or who the 'terrorist' factions are because it is asserting a political opinion
or perspective that not just turns into a negative headline, but it can ultimately influence
sales figures.
Titles such as Far Cry 5 and the upcoming Division 2 are lifting from the current American
political climate but then dancing around the more complicated aspects of society they're
lifting from.
It makes for an unsatisfying end result when you're happy and willing to take real-world
influences into your games, and fail to acknowledge that by doing so you're making a statement
about it.
And this is often where my issues with war games lie, in that they want these conflicts
as a framing device they seldom have much to say about it beyond 'ach war's bad and
all that, now let's shoot each other'.
When we consider that the likes of literature, television and cinema have all used war to
tell stories - and the notions of sacrifice, bravery, power, courage and family to name
but a few.
Heck, this episode is named after the song by heavy metal band Metallica, with it's feelings
of futility and lack of control over ones survival in war tying into the larger themes
that are pervasive throughout the album Master of Puppets.
Yet games in an effort to become experiences, often lack that emotional connection.
And it's when AI characters come into play that I find it most disconcerting, given we
typically ignore not just how it might be perceived by a wider audience, but also how
it represents people that are still within living memory.
So given this is AI and Games, let's go look at AI for a bit.
If we consider how AI is adopted in war games, it can fill numerous capacities and it comes
down to the core design of the game and how you - the player - are interacting with the
overarching systems.
For this video I played a bunch of war games to see why AI is adopted in these games and
the underlying themes or messages that are present in our interactions with these systems.
I started off by visiting real-time strategies, having previously played many entries of the
Total War franchise for my case study series I was already quite familiar with how they
operate.
So I decided to also check out the Company of Heroes games as well.
Real time strategy games are typically built with sufficient layers of abstraction that
we are emotionally detached from the troops we're moving across the battlefield.
This largely represents the experiences of those who conduct strategy across theatres
of war.
The deaths of our individual units is more inconvenience than horror - a reality of conducting
war at this scale.
Nonetheless it's all rather clinical which maintains a level of respect for your simulated
fallen but also stresses the need not exhaust these people otherwise you're going to lose
the battle.
One of my favourite AI behaviours in Creative Assembly's Total War series is when units
of troops decides to rout.
That vote of no confidence in the commander such that they flee for their own safety.
Sure it's just another system we have to keep atop of when conducting combat, but it reminds
us that at the end of the day these are meant to be people and having any sort of steely
determination can only hold for so long if you're commander is a muppet.
One thing that Total War never really does with any real effort is put a face to the
opposing generals or war lords such that you can begin to characterise their strategy - an
idea Creative Assembly actually adopted to great effect in Halo Wars 2.
Meanwhile Company of Heroes brings this much more towards the modern day, with a focus
on World War 2.
I found this a little more discomforting as more powerful firepower is brought to the
fore and you see bodies in some instances flying everywhere.
The actual controls and management are interesting, given that the squads you control are much
smaller than in total war but also even the camera is positioned much closer to combat
by default.
It gives it a more personal feeling if you will compared to Total War, which I find keeps
that abstraction and emotional distance rather well.
Company of Heroes wants us to pay closer attention to the make up of that team and one of the
things it interestingly has to balance is how easily they die in contrast with the needs
of the mission.
Hence the mechanic to drop new NPCs periodically into the map for you to use.
I liked that the NPCs are a little more contextually aware of what is going on around them.
They actively try to take cover and when you move a particular unit towards an objective
they will dynamically respond to attack and take cover when necessary.
It's a nice little touch that cements not just a little bit of realism, but also that
these characters are a little more aware of the need for their own survival.
One thing that both helps and detracts from this process is the opening mission on Omaha
beach, it's a rather disturbing opening sequence as we control AI characters getting mowed
down by machine gun fire.
I have much more to say on this and I'm going to come back to it later in the video.
Moving on from RTS games I spent a lazy Sunday exploring one of the more unconventional war
titles in recent years: Valiant Hearts: The Great War by Ubisoft Montpelier.
I loved this game from start to finish: with its cartoon design inviting players into a
story that is heartfelt and compelling whilst exploring the violence and horrors of war
rendered upon a handful of characters trapped on either side of World War I. It carefully
balances pathos with humour and above all else is educational - working in conjunction
with the producers of the Apocalypse World War I documentary and the Mission du Centenaire
- the official board for the commemoration of the centenary of the first world war.
Naturally the story leans towards the allied forces, on account of it being developed by
a French company with assistance from the French government, but it doesn't seek to
villify the German-Austrian army, only specific characters in service of the story.
AI non-player characters are often used to build puzzle behaviours and provide obstacles
for the player to overcome, but despite it being a war game you seldom are forced to
kill these NPCs in order to progress.
Many of the puzzles actually relate to rescuing civilians, patching up wounded soldiers or
surviving in a prisoner of war camp.
On that note, an honorary mention should be given This War of Mine by 11 bit studios.
Whilst not based on actual conflict, it forces the player to consider the larger consequences
of more contemporary war games as you play as a civilian trying to survive in a war-torn
region.
Now all this was coming to the big show: first person shooters.
FPS games love World War II and shooting Nazi's in particular; it's almost a marriage of convenience.
The Nazi regime and it all it stands for has - quite rightfully - been posited as the greatest
evil in modern history.
Hell the whole FPS genre was largely kickstarted by shooting Nazi scum in the face and it's
a tradition that has held across a variety of media over the years, often using their
heinous acts to frame narratives for all sorts of pulp fiction ranging from Indiana Jones
to Captain America.
Shooting nazi's in the face is great in games such as Wolfenstein because they reinforce
throughout that experience that every single one of those soldiers who crosses your path
deserves and needs to be shot in the face again and again and again.
The problem here is that even in these pulpy narratives nothing is ever black and white.
And treating it as such risks desensitising players to the fact that German soldiers who
fought under Hitler's newly formed Wehrmacht were conscripted to do so after 1935; many
of them resisting the nazi regime in one form or another.
Not only are generations of these people still alive, but their descendants are well aware
of these horrors and live on knowing that reality.
As such care should be applied when representing German soldiers and civilians in World War
II games that seek retain that authenticity.
This sat on my mind whilst playing through the campaign of 2017's Call of Duty WW2 and
to it's credit it does pay some lip service to this idea.
It's mentioned off-hand in cutscenes and includes a mechanic where enemy soldiers can surrender
and - quite rightfully - cannot be killed once they have done so.
In addition one mission that stuck out for me is 'Collateral Damage' from around the
middle of the campaign.
It does something interesting in that the mission starts with the player under heavy
fire, to a tank combat sequence, storming a nazi encampment only to find a number of
German civilians trapped in the basement of a building.
Players then not only have to escort them to safety, but the game builds a stealth sequence
around the player sneaking the last child back out as enemy forces storm the building.
However what goodwill this creates is robbed from us with near immediate effect, as the
missions name implies.
But this isn't exclusively a problem for Germans and Nazis, it also influences the perception
of allied forces and there's no better video game locale to explore this than the beaches
of Normandy.
This is the opening mission of Call of Duty WWII, in which we are storming the beaches
on D-Day.
This is... by Giant Bomb's count... the most recent of over 50 games that take place in
this region of France.
While we're quick to desensitise ourselves to fact that not all Germans were nazi's,
we also trivialise the loss of life in the allied forces.
The opening mission of the Cod WWII campaign is around 20 minutes long.
It took 6 days from the d-day landings for the allies to secure that region and over
30,000 soldiers - British, American and more - died on the beaches of Normandy.
This is largely why I don't play World War II shooters: it applies a level of sheen that
glamorises this conflict without any consideration for what we're actually seeing.
These AI characters who by design will either survive or are doomed to 'die' are representative
of real people who fought and died on that beach.
Some of them are still living today and many of us from the allied nations have relatives
who fought and died there.
These AI characters and their recreation of actual human suffering is mere set dressing
for a power fantasy that exploits a real world statistic for your endorphins rush.
I wouldn't be so frustrated with this if the game even acknowledged it.
The players helps break the line and secure the beach head but our only consideration
is the three or four NPC characters that are given names for the story.
They're our buddies throughout the campaign - who are largely invincible - whose job is
help us feel a sense of camaraderie and also just throw things at me.
Health, ammo, grenades.
We're really not prepared for this conflict going in are we?
The impact - even from a game design perspective - of having these characters die on me and
forcing me to proceed without their assistance would prove interesting, but I fear that would
get in the way of the spectacle.
Train go boom and all that.
Call of Duty WWII - like many entries in the series - forgets that behind the victories
and the conquering of the Nazi regime, that World War II is a tragedy.
It's the gaming equivalent of Michael Bay's Pearl Harbour: it's conscious that war is
bad and not something to revel in, but as a product of entertainment hits it stride
when it grabs this horror and puts you front and centre in high definition and sixty frames
per second.
And if the campaign doesn't cement this for you, then spending 5 minutes admiring the
emotes and cosmetics found in the headquarters of the multiplayer mode should really hammer
it home.
So with my feelings on Call of Duty fresh in my mind, I started up the campaign of 2016's
Battlefield 1: which is the first time the franchise explored the first world war, rather
than the second.
The introductory mission - the Storm of Steel - seemingly inspired by the Meuse-Argonne
offensive in late 1918, sees players play as soliders from the 369th infantry regiment
of the United States army.
It's a powerful introduction, one that takes time to explore the futility of our efforts
and the fragility of life on the battlefield as both enemy AI and the player die in increasingly
more chaotic circumstances.
As the player dies, we respawn not resetting the battle for a checkpoint, but instead controlling
another soldier on the battlefield.
I really liked this, because what makes it feel impactful is *not* what I'm doing as
the player.
Instead it looks towards the level's pacing and structure to dictate when we - as an army
- can proceed forward.
I can die as many times as necessary for the goal to be achieved; finding other soldiers
to once again inhabit and die for our selfish pursuits.
Allied AI characters spawn into the world not just to support my efforts, but to eventually
become a candidate for me to embody.
I was sad to see that this hot-swap mechanic doesn't persist throughout the campaign.
But there are some flourishes throughout both in how the presentation and the mission structure
that I felt was a more step in the right direction than that found in Call of Duty.
Firstly the emphasis that on the soldiers name appearing at the moment you die in-game;
whilst I sincerely doubt these are the names of actual soldiers it serves as a solid reminder
that this inspired by actual events.
Furthermore, the game makes a small effort to actually educate the player through use
of Codex entries: small text entries that explain the real world influences behind missions
you are playing throughout the campaign.
I really liked these as it helps just flesh out a little bit more about what actually
happened versus the game that you have in your hands.
However, you actually have to complete tasks in the game to unlock these?
Which I found rather disappointing.
The actual AI character involvement in some of these battles varies significantly, but
overall I felt they were more conducive to what was happening around me.
However I feel much of this comes down to presentation than the reality of what's actually
happening in game.
The presentation seemed more muted than Call of Duty: it's still got that level of spectacle
but it sort of rips the awe away from it in a manner than I found more digestable.
Even the fact that the war stories in the campaign are from different perspectives and
collections of characters gives it a more global feeling and a reminder of how devastating
the war is and the long term effects these individual stories had not just in ending
the war, but how some of it is still felt today.
This video has me looking at a selection of games based on real world conflict but my
analysis is far from exhaustive and if there are games of merit that should be included
in this discussion, I'd like to hear from you.
Ultimately, as these games continue to prove popular and proliferate, it's important that
we remind ourselves that the stories and gameplay are derived from those who have served in
the armed forces of nations across the world.
Sure, it's in no way like the real thing, but it serves as a reminder and has the potential
to inform younger generations as we continue to move forward in history.
For many people, video games are one of if not the primary source of their media consumption
and in-turn is a critical pillar of their cultural awareness.
When we consider that games could be the first medium through which younger generations are
informed about the events that transpired in the great wars - plus the likes of Vietnam
or even the Gulf conflicts - there is a responsibility to acknowledge the very politics of those
events and make an assertion as to the ethical and moral issues throughout.
This industry's adoration of violence can be problematic, but if it is framed to better
inform us of the consequences of such action that can be progressive and in-time a positive
for our cultural understanding.
While I was rather surprised by how well some of these games managed to address this, I
fear it's something that will only get worse over time.
The unwillingness of games and in instances even players to acknowledge these political
factors is damaging not just to the industry but to the very people involved in a projects
development and later it's consumption.
And if we cannot collectively look at these periods of history and acknowledge that games
can do better at highlighting the myriad of issues it presents - and instead continue
to utilise its mechanisms for video game revelry - then that sets a really bad precedent.
If all we can say is 'war is bad', yet exploit many facets of its makeup for game design
and player empowerment, it results in a false equivalence that simply cannot be ignored.
Thanks for watching this video.
It's the first design dive in almost a year and I wound up tackling a rather difficult
subject.
I hope it's proven engaging.
Design Dive much like AI 101 and the main Case Study series on AI and Games, is supported
by the names you see on screen now, over on Patreon.