As many will already know Red Dead Redemption is an apple that does not fall far from the tree that is Rockstar Games’ open world formula. It’s single player portion does contain refinements that go a ways to addressing the above failing but regardless there is still ample ammunition for anyone who wishes to take that position. At the same time there is the multiplayer free roam portion of Red Dead Redemption. It comes tantalizingly close to fulfilling that dreamy promise of the ideal Rockstar multiplayer mode where anything might be possible. In free roam the whim of player and posse defines the next set of actions and stories are created from the conditions set up by Rockstar at the start. It is like some mad scientist version of Conway’s Game of Life…with horses. Through the lense of this maniacal creation I can build up a narrative where I will stop a hard driven pursuit to add to my collection of local flora or pause to share the sunset with a friend before blowing their head off just as they begin to describe what we were sharing. I am finding this method of narrative creation to be extremely satisfying and it has inevitably led me to compare it with the completely separate single player experience. And that is to be expected isn’t it?

I have always enjoyed that this medium has demarcation zones created by the player between our single and multiplayer experiences. With few exceptions games today provide us with easy ways to do this. The separation of Gerard as multiplayer cowboy from hell and Gerard as John Marston is as easy as paying attention to the two options provided when the title screen loads. It has even reached a point on the development side where games like Starcraft 2 and Medal of Honor utilise separate development teams for each experience. There are few brave enough to entertain the idea that one could merge the multiplayer ladder climb with the singleplayer narrative(?) of Modern Warfare 2. It is not worth that kind of effort and the reason is clear. These are parts of the same whole, the game that sits on your shelf, but we separate these experiences because they are simply not the same. Players are accustomed to having these dissociated story’s within a single game but I don’t think we go far enough.

Why must we join the John Marston of the open world of Red Dead Redemption with that of the John Marston of cutscenes and directed missions?

Are we compelled beyond our power to the tyranny of our avatar’s appearance or who inhabits the virtual space around us?

Do our stories really require a level of consistency that will place a limit to the interactivity we so greatly treasure?

Videogames provide us with a system to play with, not to be controlled by. The process of forming my own story through my play is mine to structure and control, and at times to edit. No boasting Halo player ever speaks of his defeats so I feel I have some small license to separate my stories. Red Dead Redemption continues the tradition of providing an expansive and atmospheric world for me to explore. I will make my own separate stories with the online free mode, with my random actions in singleplayer and with my connection to a strong character in John Marston. I am empowered in demarcating my time with a videogame because I am the player. If this is to be my escapism then I will craft many varied and interesting experiences and I look forward to any game that provides me with a Game of Life-and-then-some to do so.

I support the tyranny of player over game.

The result: as the first shot rang out from my ‘teammates’ I paused the game. I got up and walked around the house for a bit. I sat down and started playing for a bit longer. I fired some bullets to shatter a glass roof, to ‘pretend’ I was involved in the mission. I could not be the type of warrior I had pretended to be in levels just passed. I had to take it. The feeling in my stomach was reminiscent of the time I read through Brett Easton Ellis’ American Psycho. I would finish chapters, stop and decide to stop reading, not because I did not have the opportunity to, but because I simply did not feel like it. That this game could affect me so meant that it was worth personal reflection.

As a linear narrative based shooter Modern Warfare 2 is akin to a blockbuster film in so many ways. But where it differs provides a powerful example of what makes games such an important medium for me. It challenges my expectations through it’s unique property, interactivity. Expectations are tested in cinema through narrative devices. This game does so with a challenge to my ability to take action and have a feeling of agency set up in the opening levels of the game. Modern Warfare 2 through “the level” is saying to me

“You must uncover this experience differently because it is different, accounting for the violence of the world in the game is not just about being a walking empowered gun”

Maybe I will be a action hero in this game when I laugh out loud at the spectacle of the final snow buggy jump, but I am not an action hero when playing that level.