Procedural Architecture vs Historical Accuracy
Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2021 8:59 pm
Saw this mentioned a few places so I wanted to talk about it. Similar to when the game was originally announced, one of the cooler features was the totally destructible environment that the team advertised. Because of the controversy around the game, this addition few under the radar. Even now it's basically impossible to find information about it outside of interviews from Peter Tamte where he mentions how no one talks about it. But for a game originally in development in 2009, this was a very unique addition. The only games that could really compare back then was the first Bad Company game (2008,) which the destruction was mostly limited to blowing the walls off buildings, and the Red Faction game (2009,) which did have a very impressive scope of possible destruction.
While they are no longer advertising the game as having a fully destructible environment, they have created something possibly equally as innovative*. A producorial artchiture system that somehow randomizes the insides of building and restructures the map itself. I struggle to think of another game that can cycle through urban environments like this. Only XCOM 2 comes to mind with it's procedurally generated maps, including city environments, and even then it is a isometric game not requiring the same level of detail as a FPS would. (Stick with me I'll get to my point eventually.)
I've seen some quiet chatter from people looking at this game, attempting to sidestep the larger discussions about the context of the game, and admiring the possibilities of a FPS in an urban landscape that's new every time you play. But with that comes some criticism of the game which I think is misplaced. The thought process, I imagine, is this: The game is attempting to pride itself on accuracy, from the general feel of the Middle East and the city of Fallujah itself, down to the smaller details on a soldier's uniforms. So, why in a game, that is attempting to be this accurate, would the city of Fallujah change like this? To say it plainly, buildings do not move around and the insides do not magically change like that (whether this happens every time a new mission begins or only when you start a new campaign, I do not know.) But, if buildings are not in their correct places, if this isn't the best attempt at a 1x1 scale model of Fallujah (which I believe the original game did attempt to do in some form,) then we're breaking from historical accuracy, right? Well, not really.
I want to introduce you to two different forms of story telling. We have what is called "happening-truth" and what is called "story-truth." I could do my best to explain these two forms myself but I'm going to figuratively pass the baton on to one of my favorite authors, Tim O'Brien, who wrote about the differences between the two in his excellent book The Things They Carried (which I recommend everyone read and is available in full on this government website https://lessonbank.kyae.ky.gov/wp-conte ... l_Text.pdf.) For context, The Things They Carried is about Tim O'Brien's time as a foot soldier in Vietnam. I wanted to shared a short chapter from the middle of the book titled "Good Form" where he discusses these two types of writing:
Good Form
It's time to be blunt.
I'm forty-three years old, true, and I'm a writer now, and a long time ago I walked through Quang Ngai Province as a foot soldier.
Almost everything else is invented.
But it's not a game. It's a form. Right here, now, as I invent myself, I'm thinking of all I want to tell you about why this book is written as it is. For instance, I want to tell you this: twenty years ago I watched a man die on a trail near the village of My Khe. I did not kill him. But I was present, you see, and my presence was guilt enough. I remember his face, which was not a pretty face, because his jaw was in his throat, and I remember feeling the burden of responsibility and grief. I blamed myself. And rightly so, because I was present.
But listen. Even that story is made up.
I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth. (emphasis added)
Here is the happening-truth. I was once a soldier. There were many bodies, real bodies with real faces, but I was young then and I was afraid to look. And now, twenty years later, I'm left with faceless responsibility and faceless grief.
Here is the story-truth. He was a slim, dead, almost dainty young man of about twenty. He lay in the center of a red clay trail near the village of My Khe. His jaw was in his throat. His one eye was shut, the other eye was a star-shaped hole. I killed him.
What stories can do, I guess, is make things present.
I can look at things I never looked at. I can attach faces to grief and love and pity and God. I can be brave. I can make myself feel again.
"Daddy, tell the truth," Kathleen can say, "did you ever kill anybody?" And I can say, honestly, "Of course not."
Or I can say, honestly, "Yes."
Finally, we're bringing it all back and getting to the point. Does designing the city using procedural architectural hurt the historical accuracy of the game? The answer is, it depends. If you come into the game hoping to see every building, street, bush whatever in the correct spot, then you'll be disappointed. But, as they've mentioned in their trailers, they want you to feel what soldiers felt as they walked into these building not knowing what is on the inside. Without a randomized city, this might be true for the player their first run through the game, but if they replayed, suddenly they know what's coming and the game strays farther and farther from it's original purpose, which is trying to accurately represent the feelings and emotions the marines faced as they cleared Fallujah house by house and street by street. So, in the sense of happening-truth, the game is not faithful with procedural architecture. In the sense of story-truth, the game is accurate. Which is truer? I think it depends on the creators purpose and here I think the story-truth form helps them better reach their desired end.
*We will have to wait and see as we have not received a lot of information on this. Does a room just cycle through a couple different rooms the devs have created or will the insides' of buildings always be unique and the outlay of Fallujah itself always look different? I can only speculate at this time.
While they are no longer advertising the game as having a fully destructible environment, they have created something possibly equally as innovative*. A producorial artchiture system that somehow randomizes the insides of building and restructures the map itself. I struggle to think of another game that can cycle through urban environments like this. Only XCOM 2 comes to mind with it's procedurally generated maps, including city environments, and even then it is a isometric game not requiring the same level of detail as a FPS would. (Stick with me I'll get to my point eventually.)
I've seen some quiet chatter from people looking at this game, attempting to sidestep the larger discussions about the context of the game, and admiring the possibilities of a FPS in an urban landscape that's new every time you play. But with that comes some criticism of the game which I think is misplaced. The thought process, I imagine, is this: The game is attempting to pride itself on accuracy, from the general feel of the Middle East and the city of Fallujah itself, down to the smaller details on a soldier's uniforms. So, why in a game, that is attempting to be this accurate, would the city of Fallujah change like this? To say it plainly, buildings do not move around and the insides do not magically change like that (whether this happens every time a new mission begins or only when you start a new campaign, I do not know.) But, if buildings are not in their correct places, if this isn't the best attempt at a 1x1 scale model of Fallujah (which I believe the original game did attempt to do in some form,) then we're breaking from historical accuracy, right? Well, not really.
I want to introduce you to two different forms of story telling. We have what is called "happening-truth" and what is called "story-truth." I could do my best to explain these two forms myself but I'm going to figuratively pass the baton on to one of my favorite authors, Tim O'Brien, who wrote about the differences between the two in his excellent book The Things They Carried (which I recommend everyone read and is available in full on this government website https://lessonbank.kyae.ky.gov/wp-conte ... l_Text.pdf.) For context, The Things They Carried is about Tim O'Brien's time as a foot soldier in Vietnam. I wanted to shared a short chapter from the middle of the book titled "Good Form" where he discusses these two types of writing:
Good Form
It's time to be blunt.
I'm forty-three years old, true, and I'm a writer now, and a long time ago I walked through Quang Ngai Province as a foot soldier.
Almost everything else is invented.
But it's not a game. It's a form. Right here, now, as I invent myself, I'm thinking of all I want to tell you about why this book is written as it is. For instance, I want to tell you this: twenty years ago I watched a man die on a trail near the village of My Khe. I did not kill him. But I was present, you see, and my presence was guilt enough. I remember his face, which was not a pretty face, because his jaw was in his throat, and I remember feeling the burden of responsibility and grief. I blamed myself. And rightly so, because I was present.
But listen. Even that story is made up.
I want you to feel what I felt. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth. (emphasis added)
Here is the happening-truth. I was once a soldier. There were many bodies, real bodies with real faces, but I was young then and I was afraid to look. And now, twenty years later, I'm left with faceless responsibility and faceless grief.
Here is the story-truth. He was a slim, dead, almost dainty young man of about twenty. He lay in the center of a red clay trail near the village of My Khe. His jaw was in his throat. His one eye was shut, the other eye was a star-shaped hole. I killed him.
What stories can do, I guess, is make things present.
I can look at things I never looked at. I can attach faces to grief and love and pity and God. I can be brave. I can make myself feel again.
"Daddy, tell the truth," Kathleen can say, "did you ever kill anybody?" And I can say, honestly, "Of course not."
Or I can say, honestly, "Yes."
Finally, we're bringing it all back and getting to the point. Does designing the city using procedural architectural hurt the historical accuracy of the game? The answer is, it depends. If you come into the game hoping to see every building, street, bush whatever in the correct spot, then you'll be disappointed. But, as they've mentioned in their trailers, they want you to feel what soldiers felt as they walked into these building not knowing what is on the inside. Without a randomized city, this might be true for the player their first run through the game, but if they replayed, suddenly they know what's coming and the game strays farther and farther from it's original purpose, which is trying to accurately represent the feelings and emotions the marines faced as they cleared Fallujah house by house and street by street. So, in the sense of happening-truth, the game is not faithful with procedural architecture. In the sense of story-truth, the game is accurate. Which is truer? I think it depends on the creators purpose and here I think the story-truth form helps them better reach their desired end.
*We will have to wait and see as we have not received a lot of information on this. Does a room just cycle through a couple different rooms the devs have created or will the insides' of buildings always be unique and the outlay of Fallujah itself always look different? I can only speculate at this time.