Level Design Analysis Series #1: Call of Duty Advanced Warfare

 

Level Design Analysis Series #1: Call of Duty Advanced Warfare

There was a series of videos from a person by the name of Jared Russo who did a series called "Level Design Hall of Fame". He also did a Hall of Shame but the point is that he made a level design analysis video series on various games including God of War, Sly Cooper and Halo and I will admit, those videos were not very good but I do think the idea is interesting and sound, and I want to make my own spin on the concept, so I will be doing my first in a possible series of level design analysis write ups on various games that has level design that stands out to me.

First up, I will be doing one on Call of Duty Advanced Warfare, and this will be a write up that will be more critical of the level design than me praising it.

I wrote a blog years back on talking about Call of Duty's shooting mechanics and this might be a follow up of sorts. I always felt the Sci Fi CoD games had potential to be something interesting but the fact that the series refuses to genuinely innovate is a big part of what held it back.

Before I get to the level design itself, I will bring up why Call of Duty was made and what made the campaigns scripted to begin with. When Medal of Honour Allied Assault came out, the creators were tired of the whole "one man army" approach that the MoH games and fps games in general were known for, so the devs decided to make a game where the player was a lone solider working alongside other soldiers during various WW2 battles to make it feel like they were all playing a part in the battle rather than one solider doing everything. In classic MoH games, every objective was done by the player, the battle and what drove the outcome was driven entirely by the player, it never felt like the other characters were helping you and it felt like everything revolved around the player. In CoD, you were a solider that worked alongside the infantry to help change the outcome of battle. You would follow them, they would distract enemies, they give the player "barks" that can help them on what do during  situation and the player felt like the ones who helped turned the tide of battle during "impossible odds". The player was also the one to deliver the finishing blow and do all of the major set pieces to help keep the feeling of empowerment. It was essentially another way of having the "illusion" of war but this time it felt like your fellow combat in arms were actually playing a part. The name "Call of Duty" came from this.

And while it worked for the first few CoD games, after World at War, this whole method of scripting and approach to design started to clash with the dumb over the top action movie tone of Modern Warfare 2 and onwards. In the latter, you were trying to be a badass action movie hero like John Rambo and John Matrix, and the game would often chastise you for running ahead and shooting everything in sight. It was getting more and more obvious that these campaigns felt like scripted roller coaster rides then  playing actual levels in a shooter. While there is a charm to that approach, it did lead to an identity crisis when CoD was steering more towards the one man army approach that was against the idea why the series was made to begin with. 

And now this finally leads me to Advanced Warfare. That one man army approach that I mentioned would've actually have helped this game then detract because I feel the scripted nature plus the way CoD arenas are designed really hold back what could've been a good fps campaign. In CoD AW, you get various Exo Suit abilities that can help you in battle, but here is the thing, a lot of these abilities you will never need to use because CoD's traditional shooting gameplay will get you by almost if not every enemy encounter. In the opening level, you get the ability to Double Jump and Slow Down your landing, but the problem is, the level design never actually supports it. A lot of the combat arenas lack any verticality or uneven terrain to make you want to jump around. The arena design is often just flat slopes with lots of cover, you don't gain any benefits from jumping around and then attacking the enemies since there are lots of cover and there is only one or two areas you can double jump too. The enemies don't double jump or actively move around either which can lead you to doing more of what I mentioned.

This is just one example, later you get the ability to perform Bullet Time, but you are never given any actual reason to use it because the enemies go down in a couple of hits and acting flashy with the Bullet Time in any way will lead to your death, and you can only use it a few times and that's it, the ability isn't even on a cool down. The same can be said for the Riot Shield too. Using that is more risky than beneficial since you need to be up close and enemies can gun you down very quickly plus it's easier to hide behind cover and wait for the health to regen because the level design gives you lots cover, and it's easier to do that because rushing in with the Riot Shield will make it harder for your health to regen due to the fact groups of enemies are shooting at you.

You also get a climbing gloves as well, but they are only ever used during scripted sequences, so it might as well be not even be in your loadout since you won't be actively using them.

There is a Stim but at the same time, the levels are most just a linear line with lots of cover, if this was a limited health system it could encourage the player to use it but since there is lots of cover, you will just rely on regen health.

You get a lot of different grenade types but once again, a reoccurring theme with this game is that level and enemy design does not support the use of them because it's easier just to do the traditional ADS shooting, wait for health to regen then shoot.

Then there is the scripted sequences which is another big factor that I think really holds the game back. On top of the levels being design like your typical CoD shooting galleries, there is an over abundance of scripted sequences. The game gives me all this fancy sci fi abilities and the characters act cool during cutscenes. So the level design in the actual shootouts don't support much reason to do to use the mechanics but the scripted sequences rob players of interesting scenarios they could be doing themselves. Two examples is when the player and an npc has to infiltrate a base and use an invisibility cloak but the during this entire sequence, you are following an npc and only using the cloak when the game tells you to, it's also jarring considering the game has a decent stealth section before that which I will mention later. The second example is where the player is chasing someone through traffic and the player has to jump on a series of cars to catch up to the enemy but instead this is done through some very jarring QTEs instead of the player having to actually watch out and time their jumps through traffic.

To avoid being a Negative Nancy, I do feel there are times where the mechanics and level design do come together. The mission "Sentinel" has the player sneak into a party and avoid killing civilians and getting caught. This is a much loathed scripted stealth section, but it's actually not bad here because the player is given a decent array of tools to complete it. You have a grappling hook which is utilized really well here. There's lots of verticality in the level and you can also perform takedowns with the grappling hook, the AI is forgiving enough for the stealth not to be frustrating. There's lots of cover to sneak past enemies and the best part is, this isn't designed like the rest of the levels which is either a traditional CoD shooting gallery with fancy abilities and a scripted sequence. There is some degree of decision making here. Do you go on the lower floors and risk guards and civilians or do you take the high ground and risk the drones looking for you. I really feel if the game was designed like this, then there could've been a very good game here. Unfortunately this only lasts about 15 minutes and it's back to the traditional gameplay but it does get a little better. Some of the later levels do use the grappling hook decently enough like when you have to take down 3 armoured enemies and you are given a decent sized arena to take them out in, it's nothing special but it does give you more to work with that typical shootouts. The level on the boat does let you Double Jump more now that there is some degree verticality even if the game goes back to traditional shooting galleries later.

So how can I improve this game? I would take the MoH Allied Assault and Crysis approach with the level design. I would have open areas where the player can use their Exo Abilities and complete various objectives in those levels, the player can use stealth in a way that is designed in the Sentinel mission or can go guns blazing or can combine the 2 with the various abilities. I would bring back the One Man Army approach since I feel it would fit the game more. Then I would contrast them with linear missions where the player has setpieces where they would have more agency and decision making during the setpieces. Like using Double Jump to dodge debris, use the Grapple Hook while platforms are falling and or use the Bullet Time to shoot grenades to blow up a wall.

Part of me wonders if this will be an ongoing series but only time will tell.

The Importance of Fictional Jobbers

 

The Importance of Fictional Jobbers

I seem to notice particularly in the anime community that characters who often lose fights a lot or doesn't help defeat the main villain in any way or aren't "useful" are considered to be pointless and badly written characters who serve no purpose. Basically, what Professional Wrestling labels as "Jobbers" or what TV Tropes calls "the Worf Effect". I argue that the "Jobbers" or "the Worf Effect" serves a very important purpose in fictional stories, action based stories or stories with lots of fights in particular. I think it's a trope that often gets taken for granted and doesn't get the credit it deserves. Like with many tropes in fiction it serves a very specific purpose.

Before I go onwards, I am going to be talking about where the term "Jobber" got its origin from: Professional Wrestling. I am going to be using it as a basis for my argument since many if not all action stories tend to be similar to what Pro Wrestling does like Shonen Anime, Superhero Comics, or any story that involves lots of fictional fighting, and if you don't watch Pro Wrestling, try to bear with me because I will try to explain the best I can. In a Pro Wrestling company like say, the WWE, their job is to get a Wrestler "over" or in other words, attached to the crowd whether they'd be a Baby Face(Good Guy) or a Heel(Bad Guy). They do this by giving Wrestlers "gimmicks" or characters and see if the crowd will in a Baby Face's case "cheer" for them or in a Heel's case "boo" them. Another way to have wrestlers get "over" with the crowd is having the wrestlers whether they'd be Baby Face or a Heel is for them to win matches or "fights". This is where Jobbers and "Jobbing" in general comes in. If a wrestler whether Baby Face or Heel wins a lot of matches and is "booked" or portrayed in a dominant manner, the audience might have a high chance of getting attached to that wrestler. Jobbers are the ones who always tend to lose "fights" to make the other Wrestler look "dominant". If there were no "Jobbers" in Pro Wrestling, it would be utterly impossible to have the audience be attached anyone in storylines they are trying to tell. The more victories wrestlers get being Face or Heel, the audience becomes attached. So if say you want to establish how "strong" a newer Wrestler is, you have them get victories over the Jobbers and then eventually have them win over established names or even the Champions to show, how "strong" that wrestler actually is. What I am trying to say in all this is that the whole point is "investment" and Pro Wrestling companies like WWE tries to establish new stars or show off how "cool" older guys are by having constant victories. It's a show about "fighting" after all so how to establish someone as tough in a fictional setting? Fighting whether it'd be through constant wins or losses.

Now, apply what I have just described to fictional action based stories and the same rules apply. You want to establish that a character is really tough, have them beat up the show's "Jobber" or have them beat up an established name to show off how "tough" they really are. And this is where, my argument for "useless" characters in fighting shows comes in: you need this trope because without it, communicating to the audience how "strong" someone is would be extremely hard. The execution of that trope can vary with every story but I think the trope doesn't get enough credit and often gets looked down upon whenever they are used.

I often notice this trope being looked down upon in the anime community in particular where shows like Dragon Ball(particularly Z), Naruto and Bleach are notrious for having "useless" characters where shows like Hunter X Hunter, Full Metal Alchemist Brotherhood, and even Western Cartoons like Avatar the Last Airbender often get praised because every character is portrayed in a "dominant" manner and no one is "useless". This is where I say that belief is incredibly misguided. I tend to notice that lots of people attack Akria Toriyama in particular for the fact that the human characters like Tien, Krillin, Yamcha and Choitzu tend to be Jobbers for the villains and how characters like Vegeta never gets a victory over a main villain or how Piccolo never beats a main bad guy and while I have many issues with Dragon Ball as a story, I say for the most part, Toriyama actually uses this trope very effectively. Think about it, would Nappa be half as intimidating in the Sayain Saga if they didn't beat up Piccolo, Tien and the rest of the non Goku characters the way they did? The Kaioken technique would not feel half as impressive and Goku's growth as a fighter would not be as noticeable if Nappa didn't beat the crap out of the before mentioned characters. Think about it, those characters were on Raditz's level or slightly stronger when they fought Nappa, and it was said that Nappa and Vegeta were way stronger than Raditz, it would make them look pathetic if Piccolo and the crew took out Nappa and laid a dent on Vegeta before Goku showed up. Vegeta before Dragon Ball Super also got bashed a lot for never beating a main villain but here's the thing, Vegeta is Goku's "equal" and are the same alien race. If Frieza, Cell and Buu didn't beat up Vegeta as effectively as they did, how would they be established as a powerful threat? Beating the human characters was usually a quick way to establish how powerful a villain is but Vegeta is the 2nd highest on the totem pole so having him losing to establish how powerful a main villain is makes sense. Would Perfect Cell even work as a powerful villain half as well if he didn't humiliate Vegeta after getting out of the Hyperbolic Time Chamber? How else would they show off how much Goku "one upped" Vegeta after the former got out of the Hyperbolic Time Chamber? Exactly. Would Buu be half a threat if Tien lasted 20 minutes against him? Exactly. It make the former look terrible.

Now, where Toriyama uses this trope very poorly is with Gohan, Goten and Trunks in the Buu Saga. The Cell Saga established that Gohan was going to replace Goku as the new protector of the Earth and Goku makes it clear that it's up to the next generation to take on any future threats to the world because he won't always be around. Yet the Saga has both Gohan, Goten and Trunks go through lots of training and hardships just for them to be beaten by Buu and have Goku and Vegeta come back. Then having Goku be the one to beat Buu. This is where Toriyama falters. To go back to Pro Wrestling, this is like if a Wrestling company had Gohan, Goten and Trunks be in line to win the title against a dominant heel champion at a Pay Per View and then they would lose after all that build and then they would have an established name in which it is Goku win the title. Where I think Gohan as a character and his arc is fine in the Buu Saga to varying degrees, it feels like here Toriyama was too scared to just have Goku be written out of the series.

Another example where the Worf Effect is used well is in Naruto...well Part 1. In Part 1, Sasuke Uchiha was the go to Jobber to establish how powerful an enemy was, whether it would be Haku, Gaara or Orochimaru. He's basically Naruto's Vegeta or to use a western example, Naruto's Wolverine. Would Haku, and especially Gaara and Orochimaru feel half as effective as villains if Sasuke beat him extremely easily? Nope. They would not feel very powerful at all.

 

Where Naruto screws up is in Part 2 where Naruto and Leaf Village spends many episodes trying to have all the villages unite against a common force which was Obito and Madara Uchiha, and in that arc that the former spent so long trying to create gets destroyed and humiliated very early on after all that build up and then Naruto and Sasuke and a few other characters were taking on Madara. What was really even the point of all that? It felt like they could've had Naruto solo everybody especially when they establish that his Shadow Clones are stronger than one of the Kages.

A show that actually uses this trope consistently and without many issues is surprisingly Ghost in the Shell Standalone Complex. Yup, a show that isn't 100% about action actually uses this trope the most efficiently. In GITS SAC, they use the Dragon Ball Z hierarchy to establish how powerful villains are. For lower level threats the Tachikomas are usually the ones to take the fall and it works because they are childlike machines that has their AI uploaded into another mechanical body. Then for the 2nd highest on the Totem Pole, Batou is like Vegeta in that if you *really* want to establish a villain as a threat you have the villain beat the former up. It works really well towards the ending of the first season and really well with his fight against Hideo Kuze in the 2nd Season. The latter does an excellent job at showing how much of a physical threat Kuze is. In an interesting somewhat subdued take on the trope is with the character of Togusa. He's meant to be the weak but also human link of Section 9 and it often shows how much he struggles against enemies in episodes focused on him, he very much struggles makes mistakes and can barely make his way out which makes it more impressive when Section 9 works as a team when they start to wreck havoc against the villains Togusa was struggling against or at least the types of people he was dealing with.

I want to discuss on what happens when you see the lack of this trope or when it's not used often enough. And I am going to use Full Metal Alchemist Brotherhood of an example when this trope is barely there. In my FMAB blog, I complained about how that show had most it's villains feel very weak outside of Lust, Bradley and Father and I know why now. It's because that show never really had a dedicated Jobber character like a Wolverine, Batou, Sasuke or Vegeta. Greed was sort of that but he was only used to make Bradley look tough and not anyone else. Buccaneer and Fuu also got killed by Bradley which makes me wonder couldn't the other villains be portrayed this dominantly? The show had a super big cast I mean couldn't the Chimeras, Lan Fan after the arm chop off with Bradley, Greed, Mustang, both Armstrongs, job to other villains to establish how tough they are? Envy, Pride, Sloth, Gluttony and even Kimblee to some degree desperately needed some actual wins to possibly have them win me over but they never do. If they just at least got some victories, I might've sort of taken them seriously as characters. It goes to show, if every character is useful, then the villains are the useless characters. Tropes exist for a reason

Avatar is another show that needed a Jobber character. Sokka was sort of that but the villains never humiliate him that badly to make me hate them. Azula and Ozai especially never felt very threatening to me because there wasn't enough wins for both of them to make me care for them and make even feel anything which is probably also due to the show being a kids cartoon so they can't have character be brutally beaten up or have villains be portrayed way too dominantly.

 

In Conclusion, Jobbers and the Worf Effect is a trope that should be viewed more carefully. When a character is Jobbing is it for the reasons that benefit the story? If not then bash it, if it's just that the trope is actively being used then I think you should examine more carefully.