Rely on your squad

It's tough being a squad leader, isn't it? What with having to make sure your team doesn't suffer critical damage, ordering them around and fighting enemies things tend to get a little hairy. What doesn't help is if your squad is as dumb as a sack of Deku nuts.

Squad-based gameplay has taken some leaps and bounds in the last few years, and some tragic and hilarious crashes. Everyone remembers games like "S.W.A.T." and the original "Rainbow Six" that had artificial intelligence that was just okay. Then there are games like "Skyrim," in which your companion character's battle tactics are sometimes the subject of horrific ridicule. Oh, Lydia, will people ever forgive you?

Then there are games like "Ghost Recon: Future Soldier" that really surprise you with how good the squad is and actually make you excited when utilizing their abilities. When the squad actually does what it's told and you can rely on them, you tend to enjoy the mechanic rather than loathe it.

What is the key to this, though? Why is "Ghost Recon: FS" so much better with squad AI than "Mass Effect?" Perhaps it is the design and purpose of the squad itself.

In games like "Halo," "Mass Effect" and even "Dragon Age: Origins," your squad is meant to supplement your playstyle and abilities. Instead, your marines end up getting in front of you or holding better weapons. Or Morrigan will stand her ground in front of a horde of Darkspawn rather than run or cast a large AoE spell. And let's not forget Liara just sort of sitting there instead of tossing her biotic powers willy-nilly at Geth to help even out the playing field.

Luckily, in "Mass Effect" and "Dragon Age," you're able to pause the game and tell your squad where to go and to do certain things to avoid outright death. Frankly, telling them what to do actually makes them more effective in the first place, and one wonders why they're AI controlled at all.

Sometimes it's almost like they're just there to model their outfits.

Unfortunately, in games like "Halo" and "Call of Duty," you're left shouting "Why are you shooting at that guy two stories up and in cover and not the three people standing right in the middle of the road?!"

Games like "Ghost Recon: FS" make you weep with joy when you have AI that can lay down effective suppressing fire or actually take out an enemy that you tell it to. The big difference is that these AI characters are actually meant to be played by other human beings rather than just be a squad for the sake of being a squad.

Games like "Dungeon Siege III" prove this, too. Alone, with a single AI companion, you are able to go through the game rather easily with an AI character that can do the most area damage (rather than picking one that you feel will do precise damage) and wound everything enough for you to make kills quickly. Replace the AI character with three other human players and the team becomes an unstoppable cadre of magic, swords and guns. Honestly, it's something to try if you haven't played that game with other people. Again, these AI characters are made to be played by other people.

If "Dragon Age" had a cooperative campaign that allowed for online players to outfit and level the teammates accordingly to fit their playstyles or the style of the team, the game could be much more difficult but exceedingly more fun. Put in the dialogue system from "Star Wars: The Old Republic" and you've got yourself a game of the year.

"Halo: Reach" worked well enough when you play the co-op campaign, but other than that it feels like you're the only one fighting the enemy and the friendly AI is along for the ride. "Gears of War" co-op is also really fun to play and can be even more enjoyable than the competitive multiplayer (more enjoyable if you ask me).

When thinking about putting co-op in your game, don't think about doing it just because you've got a squad in your game and you want to capitalize on multiplayer madness. If a player can outfit and command the AI enough to where she's playing all four members of her team, then maybe you should think about implementing a co-op system to make it less challenging for them and promote teamwork. Maybe even give the players rewards for doing so. Whatever you do, for the love of Kratos, make the AI smart enough that they don't run four miles down a hill to attack a dragon you've been trying to avoid because you're too weak. Please, stop it Lydia. I love you, but stop it.

Probably one of the best and most challenging multiplayer experiences to date.

Un-tie the tie-ins

I've played quite a few movie tie-in games in my life, and (surprise) they are generally not very good. I don't think it's the fault of the developers, though, because studios like Beenox, which has created both movie tie-in and original titles, are capable of creating very good games when they aren't tied to films.

I think the so-called curse of movie tie-in games is not so much a curse as it is a failure to recognize the difference in development methods and schedules of movies and video games.

Often, movie tie-in games are expected to begin and end development at or around the same time as the films they are tied to. This production schedule regularly results in game developers having to sacrifice polish and testing in order to ship the product around the same time as the film.

The fact is that video games aren’t created in the same way or within the same time frame that movies are.

This recent movie tie-in game was decent, but not stellar.

Some games are even meant to emulate the film experience so much that a considerable amount of control is taken away from the player in order to show off particularly impressive graphics and scripted scenes.

Video games are not about watching movies from a first-person perspective.

They are about experiencing events, emotions and characters in ways that films cannot allow. They are about giving players the power to create the memorable moments rather than just happen upon them.

Playing cooperatively with someone online and coming together in a moment of tension to overcome a particularly challenging obstacle can be so much more satisfying than walking up to a ledge overlooking a massive battlefield and watching explosions while a battle-weary non-play character spouts lines about how war never changes.

If I want to have a story presented to me, I can read a book. If I want a story presented to me visually and with sound, I can watch a movie. If I want to have an experience that I would otherwise never be able to feel for myself, I can play a video game that places me in a new world and gives me the power to act of my own will within it.

That’s not to say that cinematic games like those in the “Uncharted” series or “Call of Duty” games filled with scripted moments aren’t worth players’ time, or even that they aren’t fun. It’s just that those types of experiences can be had elsewhere in media.

Games give us an opportunity that generations before us could not have imagined. They give us the chance to explore worlds and affect events and individuals in those worlds while creating our own stories.

A game like “Minecraft,” in which there is no narrative background given and no story aside from the one players create for themselves is a good example of the type of freedom games can offer.

Here's a world and some tools. Do whatever you want.

Another game that gives players great narrative power is “The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim.” The latest chapter in the Elder Scrolls series contains many small stories that players can choose to take part in as well as a main, over-arching storyline, and all of those paths are interesting. But the thing that Bethesda did with the game that makes it so impressive was to offer players the option to follow none of those storylines and simply allow them to explore the land as they see fit. 

Letting people loose in a new world is what makes gaming great.

Certainly, there is a place in the industry for exciting space operas and gritty war stories, and including some interactivity in what would otherwise be a linear story can make for great art, but in the long run, I think that game makers should focus on creating worlds to explore and fill with our own stories rather than guiding players to their end.