Students Blog

An example – Maashtur City (those who have played the game might know it’s one of the better-designed maps in the came – close quarters and urban terrain – lots of twisting alleys to set up chokepoints and high buildings for snipers; getting in a vehicle gives you a prominent advantage but also makes you an easy target.) I joined the squad of the highest-scoring player on the server, as did a few other people. And it just clicked. Even though last game we didn’t do spectacularly, this game our skills seemed to complement each other. I was the medic this round, and kept our team alive, while our support unit kept our supplies up, and we had enough firepower to pick off the lone wolves that were running around the map. Our squad leader was smart enough to work with us, and even though we wouldn’t discuss tactics, we’d instinctively surround all the danger points around a flag, and keep our leader alive, so that if we got individually taken out by snipers, we could just form up on our leader and keep our momentum. And so when we careened down the dusty streets of the map in a troop carrier, swerving around mines and barely dodging rockets as the sounds of machine gun fire whizzed by, it was truly exhilarating.

What in the game mechanic of Battlefield 2 provides for such an experience? I believe it lies in the core of Battlefield’s squad/class system and the flag/control point system, which give the game a clear structure for players to operate within, and keep the game experience goal-oriented and specific rather than general and aimless.

In an FPS, the primary determining factor of an individual’s success is the “twitch” reflex – how fast one can identify a threat, move the mouse over it, and click in such a way as to make it die. In this respect I am probably mediocre, as are a majority of the game-playing populace. I would imagine this would lead to anxiety, as when a single player is confronted with another player of a higher skill level, in many FPS games the outcome is almost predetermined at this point – one player has a 3 ms response time, and it’s over. The challenge level in this specific situation remains fairly static and insurmountable within the rules of the game. FPS clans try to turn this dynamic into a group endeavor, by banding together so that players aren’t acting alone, and to develop a tactical connection between players to increase effectiveness.

But for most games, clans end up serving primarily as social groups, because the increase in individual player effectiveness is minimal. After all, everyone can do pretty much the same thing, so there isn’t any multiplication in effectiveness; banding together in say, Counterstrike is only holding up a sign to an enemy “AWP whore” for fast points. Most players are casual players and end up falling below the “hardcore” threshold for interest in joining a clan.

Battlefield 2 short-circuits the process and provides a group gaming experience that a casual player can jump into, by creating a structure in which players are specific, rather than general. To take an example from my own field, which Csikszentmihalyi might consider an example of creating flow conditions: actors can only achieve real freedom if they’re operating within a clear framework. If they are confused or unclear about what they can or can’t do, and what they need to achieve, then they will be afraid to try new things and thus remain stilted. The same applies for players – the beauty of Battlefield 2’s system is the variegated classes, each of which requires different styles and tactics. This is somewhat of an anxiety/boredom valve – inexperienced players who aren’t the best with a rifle or at the controls of a chopper can still contribute and be rewarded for supporting the team by healing, supplying, or assisting in holding ground, and in the end learn the game mechanics while still feeling like they are achieving something. On the other hand, players whose skill in a particular class outweigh the challenges offered by other players in a match can always switch up to another class that is needed, and start tackling its particular problems.

The fact that each class also has a particular role to play also is the foundation of the squad system. The game mechanics are designed to encourage people to group together and form squads to achieve the objectives. (The objectives themselves also set clear goals for the players beyond “kill everyone on the map".) A single player might have the ability to take out enemy tanks; however, they are slower and thus easier targets for enemy gunmen and choppers; a squad combines their members’ strengths and minimizes their weaknesses. Furthermore, each player has a specific focus that they can concentrate on, allowing them to engage with the game further. Because players are encouraged to work together to achieve, this can foster that sense of “CoLiberation” that DeKoven posits, perhaps almost a surprise in a game in which talking is kept to a minimum and most communications are made through a quicklist-menu. However, once you know that someone has your back, the game dynamic changes dramatically. Like the actors I mentioned, because of this support network and framework of specific goals, I’ll feel freer to try new things. As a support soldier, I can lay down suppressive fire and resupply my allies; therefore other players will be more confident in charging down that blind alley or popping off a crucial grenade. Meanwhile, as a special operations soldier, I know that my allies are pinning down a majority of the enemy, so I can feel free to sneak behind enemy lines and blow up their facilities. And none of this stuff has to be discussed – once it clicks, a few choice words are all that is necessary to understand each other.

This, of course, is predicated on the competency of the others playing the game; not necessarily in having skill, as such a threshold is conceivably lowered by the class system, but in just being on the same page as others – playing the same game as everyone else. Jumping into a room of total strangers and expecting some semblance of teamwork isn’t the fool’s errand that some veterans of online gaming might think; however, it just takes a few people to ruin a game experience for many – teamkillers and the like, or even just players that choose not to communicate with their team. They probably experience “flow” by ruining the chances of the same for other players. And in a game where collaboration becomes more crucial to the game mechanic, the more dependent one is on others – the flip side of the coin.