Essay: The Place of Game Mechanics in Star Wars Canon. - Torvus

The Place of Game Mechanics in Star Wars Canon
by Torvus

In numerous internet debates, an issue has arisen: can video or computer games be trusted as a source of canon? Or, on the other hand, does the fact that games are entertainment first and foremost skew their accuracy? Typically, in such debates, the final word is this: game mechanics render (at least some) game-based evidence inadmissible.

Yet, to the best of my knowledge, no definite set of criteria has been laid down for how to determine whether something in a game is “game mechanics” or not. Should it be said that games in general cannot be trusted, or are only certain specific elements inadmissible for whatever reason? In this essay I endeavor to lay out some simple guidelines for determining the validity of game-based canon, with an emphasis on the Star Wars franchise.

In order to begin, we must ask ourselves exactly why any piece of game canon should ever be considered invalid. The logical answer is that electronic games are subject to certain design limitations. No game thus far invented has ever featured a completely realistic in-game environment, nor has any game ever featured totally accurate laws of physics. The fact of the matter is that games cannot address every tiny detail of realism, even when realism is what they’re shooting for. And, more often than not, a game needs to be balanced for playability, necessitating the use of semi-arbitrary damage scales, unit speeds, etc. Since playability and enjoyment - taken together as “game play” - take precedence over realism, games cannot be wholly trusted to be accurate representations of canon.

The first implication of this truth is obvious: since games are not realistic (or at least, are incompletely realistic) regarding technical details, technical information obtained from games cannot be taken at face value. As such, quantitative data - basically anything consisting of numerical measurements - is inadmissible when collected from an electronic game. In the case of Star Wars, details such as the yield and range of weapons, starship dimensions and acceleration, shield durability, number of craft present at a battle, etc must be discounted due to the fact that, as quantitative details, these are all subject to game-design limitations. They are all determined firstly by gameplay issues, secondly by engine limitations, and thirdly by the game’s production schedule, which may not allow for a more sophisticated treatment of the material.

The implication following from this, then, is that details not directly subject to game limitations should in fact be admissible. Stylistic choices are conscious choices made by game designers because they want to present a particular concept to players, rather than being made to ensure basic playability. These conceptual, or qualitative details, should be admissible because game designers could easily have left them out or substituted them without the risk of unbalancing the game. Details like the setting of a mission, the types of craft involved, the basic mission objectives, the color of weapons-fire, and the names of characters are all subjective, artistic decisions settled upon by the game’s designers, who could just as well have altered such details according to their whims. As such, this kind of data should be admissible, because it is not subject to limitations such as combat balancing or the game’s engine capabilities.

This leaves us with some odd conclusions which I have no doubt will go unaccepted by some. For example, take the case of the domes on top of a typical Star Destroyer. According to at least one source, an Incredible Cross-Sections book, these structures are sensor/communication devices. Yet, these same structures are quite consistently portrayed as shield generators/projectors in SW games, as well as a number of “The Essential Guide” reference books. According to the guidelines laid out above, we must conclude that the games support the structures being shield-related, because this is a fundamentally stylistic choice made by the designers. Some other structure on the Star Destroyer could be portrayed as a shield, just as well; or, more radically but still conceivably, the game simply could have chosen some other vehicle as a target, or even omitted such an element altogether. The idea that the domes specifically are shield-related is not one arising from fundamental game limitations. It arises from deliberate aesthetic choices on the part of the designers.

On the other hand, this same example leads us into a paradox. We know from a number of sources that capital ships should not be vulnerable to (small) fighter attacks, such as those which cripple Star Destroyers by eliminating their “shield generators.” Capital ships are supposed to have shields far too powerful to be vulnerable to fighter strikes. The idea that fighters can actually penetrate such shielding is a fundamentally quantitative one, because it involves questions of numerically measurable factors like weapon yield and shield dissipation rate. As such, the idea of fighters taking down capital ships - as portrayed in various games - is one which must be left inadmissible due to game mechanics. The end result is that such a game supports the idea of Star Destroyer domes being shield-related, while not supporting the idea that fighters can defeat warships. (This in itself brings up certain “plot-gap” problems, as described in The Nature of Star Wars Canon.)

Another example is to be found regarding SW disruptor weapons. The “Essential Guide” and “Visual Dictionary” series are consistent in their depiction of disruptors as weapons operating on the same principles as blasters, only exaggerated and “beefed up” to a high degree. This means that disruptors are plasma weapons which do damage through the conventional transfer of energy, mainly thermal energy. But in at least one game - Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast - the single disruptor weapon is portrayed as causing targets to rapidly “disappear” without explosive vaporization, a la Star Trek phasers. Most Warsies would dismiss this as game mechanics, but I would argue, as I laid out above, that this is a qualitative phenomenon and that it is therefore admissible as reflective of canon. Indeed, characters in that game normally just fall down dead when killed by other weapons, and only the disruptor causes the so-called “NDF” effect. We would have to conclude that the game designers went out of their way to illustrate that this weapon has this effect, because it would in fact have been easier to just make it kill characters in the same fashion that other weapons do. Given this standard, we can therefore conclude that at least one SW weapon referred to as a “disruptor” has such an effect, and more generally that the technology exists in the SW universe (specifically being built by a criminal organization, the Tenloss Syndicate).

However, we can still recognize some disparities between this weapon and other disruptors. All other sources depict disruptors as being fundamentally short-ranged weapons, whereas this Tenloss weapon is the game’s equivalent of a sniper rifle. Long range and high accuracy are diametrically opposite to all other descriptions of such weapons, so we can at least conclude that the Tenloss rifle is not representative of disruptors in general. Nevertheless, we have to admit the possibility that “disruptor” is a broader term than otherwise thought, and that while blaster-type disruptors may be much more common, “phaser”-type disruptors also exist and are in regular use by some organizations.

The quantitative-qualitative dichotomy is one which I will be using in other essays when I try to determine the admissibility of canon taken from game sources. It provides a straightforward, intuitive standard by which to assess what details are or are not proper canon in the SW franchise, and as such is ideally suitable for my attempts to analyze SW in an objective fashion. As with my other analytical standards, I leave any resulting conclusions to stand on their own merit in the mind of the reader.

Record 1529 - ship - Last update 21 Nov 2007, 00:05:54

Entry written by: Torvus

Update this entry - Your update will be submitted for moderation.