Textual Analysis of "Playing Hard"

             I can’t think of many documentaries that have connected with me so strongly the way Playing Hard has. As impressed as I was that Jean-Simon Chartier took it upon himself to write, direct, and produce a documentary which expounds upon the process of creating a video game - a process that I felt more people needed to know about - it is not as though I found this particular documentary to be an overwhelming achievement of narrative or cinematic storytelling. Playing Hard connected with me because of the particular story it told and the journeys of the people spotlighted throughout the film. In addition, 2017’s For Honor – the making of which is the central story of this film - is a video game that I still regularly engage with and is one that I consider to be highly innovative in its design and the way that its gameplay strongly communicates the themes of its narrative. It is easily one of my absolute favorite games of this console generation and for the last two years since its release, I have engaged in a large number of intense multiplayer battles both with friends and strangers alike online. I practiced For Honor’s highly innovative, skillful, and refreshing Art of Battle system and marveled at its brilliant implementation, which lead to the evocative and immersive gameplay that For Honor offered its players. All the while that I enjoyed this game, I could not stop wondering what happened to its creative director, Jason VandenBerghe. His was a name that, even for a video game enthusiast like myself, was entirely unknown to me until For Honor’s announcement; however, I would never forget the passion and excitement that he so strongly communicated to me when he revealed For Honor to the world in 2015. Although I have been actively following For Honor and its team since release, Jason VandenBerghe has been missing from every event, livestream, or press conference concerning the game. Imagine my excitement in learning that Playing Hard would not only reconnect me with the creative visionary that I saw Jason to be, but it would give me more insight into producer Stephane Cardin, brand manager Luc Duchaine, and the harrowing journey these men took together to bring forth a piece of media that has heavily affected my life in the last two years. 

            Ubisoft Montreal is one of the biggest video game studios in the world “with over 3000 employees” (Chartier, 2019). Even with all of the renown, resources, and talent that comes with being in that position, creating a video game – particularly a new intellectual property – can be a very arduous and risky undertaking. Playing Hard expounds this to its audience fairly quickly. In a sequence early in the film, Stephane can be seen giving a presentation in which he comments that the video game industry is “a savage industry where only three percent of all games earn 97 percent of the total profits…it was two years of my life we were working on something magical until we realized we weren’t going in the right direction” (Chartier, 2019). Playing Hard does a good job of highlighting the risks and hardships of creating a new intellectual property in the video game industry. In addition, there is a great human drama on display in the film that parallels each subjects’ difficulties during the creation of For Honor, with the actual themes and mechanics on display in the game itself. I choose to analyze these parallels through the theoretical frameworks of procedural rhetoric, self-determination theory, and Friedrick Nietzsche’s theory of nihilism. For Honor is a game about conflict, and this documentary has revealed a crucible of conflict in which the game was created.

            Ian Bogost’s theory of procedural rhetoric details the “practice of using procedures persuasively” (Bogost, 2008). For Honor is a game in which the player’s procedures are determined by the Art of Battle combat system. During his pitch meeting in Playing Hard, Jason shows the intuitive process of an 8 year old grabbing a stick and the urge to swing it like a sword. This process was then translated to the Art of Battle system in which players focus on the position in space occupied by both their character’s weapon and their enemies’ weapons. By changing your weapon’s position to either left, right, or top with the right thumb stick of a video game controller, you can manipulate the direction that the weapon will swing or block. In the heat of battle, you lock your focus on another player’s character and that then becomes the focal point for every action you make. When two players are locked onto each other, attempting outthink and outmaneuver in the very spatial and physical manner that For Honor provides, the intense urge for survival can be felt surging towards a player’s fingertips. Ubisoft CEO, Yannis Mallat, likens the experience of playing For Honor to combative sports: “I know that fear, concern, thrill, intensity comes with it. You get that intensity playing [For Honor]” (Chartier, 2019). This feeling Yannis describes is the procedural rhetoric of For Honor. The constant pressure and dexterous skill that the procedure of playing the game demands creates a feeling of intensity. Jason describes the world of For Honor as “a place where conflict is constant” in which the player is thrown into the center of that conflict, “knowing that what [they’re] doing may or may not be right…but still doing the best that [they] can do in that moment…in the hope that it makes the world a better place” (Chartier, 2019).  Similarly, Stephane comments “the pressure comes from always fighting for survival and in convincing management that the money invested here is well-spent because of the project’s potential, rather than on an existing brand” (Chartier, 2019). I believe this shows clearly that the process of creating a game is also a world of constant conflict in which the developers never know how well the public will accept their work or if some other development team is making the same game but better; yet, they soldier on to create their art so that their message might have an impact on the world. For Honor teaches this lesson through the procedural rhetoric of its gameplay, while Playing Hard depicts the same struggle in the lives of its subjects.

  At the Game Developers Conference in 2016, Jason VandenBerghe presented a new model to suggest player motivation based on self-determination theory. Self-determination theory, or SDT, “addresses factors that either facilitate or undermine motivation, both intrinsic and extrinsic” (Ryan, Rigby & Przybylski, 2006). SDT suggests that there are three basic satisfactions that are universal to human beings (VandenBerghe, 2016); these satisfactions include competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Competence is satisfied by mastery and control; if you can see evidence that you are getting more skillful at what you do then competence is satisfied. Autonomy is satisfied by evidence of choice; a good example Jason uses in his GDC talk is that choosing where items go on your desk at work does not satisfy autonomy, but returning the next day to see that you made those choices does. Relatedness is satisfied by knowing where you fit in the world; you need to see evidence of your allegiance or belonging in order to feel relatedness (VandenBerghe, 2016). Through the narrative of Playing Hard, the audience is shown the satisfactions of SDT met by the three main subjects of the film, as they create a game which is also entirely built around satisfying SDT. Jason, Luc, and Stephane are all faced with something to prove. Jason wants to show how amazing his dream game can be if given the chance create it, and he has powerful messages that he wants it to instill to its audience. Luc has been given his first chance to be the brand manager of a new intellectual property which, while risky, can be the opportunity of a lifetime for him if the game is successful. Stephane has the opportunity to produce an amazing new game, in his own words “I’ve known the pain of having something not work out, and I’ve been fool enough to try again” (Chartier, 2019). All three of these men satisfy competence by proving they are good at their jobs. Even though Jason and Stephane have failed before and Luc is in a much more important role than he’s used to, the greenlight from Ubisoft headquarters to go for “the full box game…the big one,” serves as satisfaction for their competence (Chartier, 2019). In the game itself, I know I personally struggle to increase my skill in timing, positioning, and reaction every single time that I play. Even the smallest victories, like being able to accurately time a parry for a particularly fast attack, satisfies my sense of competence.

As for autonomy, Playing Hard clearly depicts a number of conversations in which key features of the game and its marketing are being implemented. Luc and Stephane struggle to pick out a name from a long list of cringe-worthy game titles sent to them by a marketing team in Paris. Luc also complains when the stage crew at E3 incorrectly times the logo and date reveal for the game repeatedly during rehearsal. As the brand manager, these are important details that he has worked tirelessly to get right in For Honor’s marketing strategy – especially during E3, the world’s biggest and most important video game exposition. Jason on the other hand, works on writing the narrative of the game day and night. He asserts the he views media “as a statement of philosophy,” and that “[his] message will come through. Even if it’s wrapped in swords and sorcery” (Chartier, 2019). Through the narrative he writes, Jason chooses what themes and messages his game will impart. Autonomy is reflected in game through player customization. For Honor is a game that deeply stresses play customization and personalization. You can choose your character’s outfit, the colors they wear, the weapons they wield, whether they taunt in combat or respectfully bow to their opponent. There is even a small coat of arms that appears next to your online handle that is fully customizable.

Each of the three subjects seems to have an obligation to which they align themselves and this obligation satisfies relatedness. Jason is obligated to the message of his game. Stephane is obligated to Ubisoft as a company. He must ensure that the game’s ship date is finalized as well as ensuring the well-being of the development team. Luc is obligated to making the game look good in the public eye. As he reveals during E3 2016, For Honor is second on Gamespot’s list of most anticipated games from E3 2016. Being that Gamespot is a very popular video game publication, this is both very positive but also incredibly stressful for Luc as many excited gamers are looking to his team to fill them in on For Honor and keep them interested until the game’s release the following year. One of the main themes of For Honor deals heavily with relatedness. “Knight, Viking, or samurai…what kind of warrior is inside of you? What do you value? What would you fight for?” (Chartier, 2019). Jason repeats these questions multiple times throughout his dealings with the press in promoting For Honor. One of the first decisions you make when you start up the game is which faction, knight, Viking, or samurai, you wish to be aligned with. This decision does not lock you out of playing other characters nor does it really have any large effect narratively – it does offer some rewards based on community standings – but it gives you a sense of belonging that satisfies relatedness. In Playing Hard, Jason reveals his mother’s love of the play Camelot which spoke to him about the gallantry and chivalry of being a knight. That philosophy deeply resonated with him, so in For Honor he chooses to align with the knight faction in order to show that he is a chivalrous person. However, he also offers players the choice to align with Vikings in support of free expression or samurai in support of “mastery”, as he puts it in case you happen to be a player who prefers to fight for those ideals or if you simply prefer the aesthetics of those factions.

While Playing Hard has revealed the positive effects of SDT in game design and gameplay, it also shows how easily a workplace can fall apart when the satisfactions of SDT are no longer being fulfilled. As the film continues, Jason is removed from his position of power. Many decisions are made without ever consulting him including Stephane’s decision to remove split screen multiplayer; a feature which Jason had seen as essential to For Honor. With Jason’s opinions being discounted, he relegates himself to focus on narrative instead of gameplay. His competence and autonomy in designing his game have been removed, and his relatedness begins to fail, as he associates himself more and more with the narrative message of the game rather than the procedural rhetoric of the gameplay. In speaking to his friends outside of the office, Jason tells them “Yes, I am done. My role on the project is over. They no longer care about my opinion” (Chartier, 2019). The final straw that destroys Jason’s sense of competence and relatedness to his team comes in the form of being denied a platform to speak during For Honor’s “Gold” status announcement. His monologues for the antagonistic For Honor character of Apollyon are allegorical of this. “These barbarians, they seem like they’re good people, huh? They embrace each other like they were all kin. But that is all a lie. When night falls, they stab each other with their knives” (Chartier, 2019).

One of the most prominent themes in both Playing Hard and For Honor, is finding meaning in conflict. As Jason states in the movie, “If you’re someone who is afraid that something bad is going to happen, then understanding the consequences of violent action can help you with that feeling. I think that anyone who is interested in how the world works will also be interested in violence, because violence is the natural consequence of conflict” (Chartier, 2019). The sensation to fight for survival that For Honor grants to its players and the notion of what themes one would fight for that Jason discusses in his promotion of the game are perfect examples of fighting back against nihilism. In her 2019 paper Avengers in the Void: Nietzsche, Nihilism, and Why We Need Superheroes, Abby Moore wrote about the ability for superhero movies – particularly the Marvel cinematic universe – to help us combat the chaos and meaninglessness of nihilism. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy asserts that nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless, existence is meaningless and those who consider themselves to be nihilists believe in nothing and have no loyalties. Avengers in the Void suggests that super heroes who value the lives of the innocence above all else, keep fighting to straighten out systems that are clearly corrupt, and provide us with strong moral figures to align with provide us with meaning. I find that video games can work in a very similar fashion. When I choose to align myself with the ideals or aesthetic qualities of one of For Honor’s factions, it gives me a sense of belonging and a sense of purpose in that I would fight to uphold the ideals that my faction represents. In Playing Hard, the audience is offered three distinct perspectives to align with in order to make meaning out of the chaos of its tumultuous narrative. Stephane is a father with a studio to run. Luc is also a father with plenty of fans to please. It is not revealed whether or not Jason is a father but the film does make it seem as though he has a wife. Jason’s allegiance is very clearly to creating his dream game, how this will immortalize him, and what message it will send. Unlike the subjects of Avengers in the Void, these men are not super heroes. They are very human, and thus they have flaws and weaknesses that make them more relatable. Whether it be Luc’s CPAP machine for his sleep apnea, Stephane’s mental breakdown, or Jason’s sensitivity and overall attitude issues, relating to these characters through their strengths and weaknesses helps the audience to make sense of the narrative. Personally, I align strongly with Jason. Though Playing Hard has shown me that he may not have always been the easiest person to work with, his dream so strongly resonated with me. I can understand his yearning for a game that communicates with players on a deeper level through intuitive controls. I identify with Jason’s sensitivity as well as his passion for viewing entertainment as different forms of philosophy. Playing Hard has shown me that even though I still love to play For Honor without Jason continuing to be a part of the development team, his passionate and his dream still very much fuel my love for the game. I feel as though if he had not been the one to reveal For Honor at E3 2015, I still would have been excited by its aesthetics but the meaning behind its world of conflict would not have been communicated to me.

Works Cited

Bogost, I. (2008). The Rhetoric of Video Games. The Ecology of Games: Connecting Youth, Games, and Learning, 117-140. Retrieved From http://www.cogsci.rpi.edu/public_html/ruiz/EGDFall2013/readings/RhetoricVideoGames_Bogost.pdf

Chartier, J. (2019). Playing Hard [Video File]. Montreal, Canada: MC2 Communication Media. Retrieved from http://www.netflix.com

Ryan, R., Rigby, C., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The Motivational Pull of Video Games: A Self-Determination Theory Approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344-360.

Vacker, Barry. (2019). Media Environments: Using Movies and Texts to Critique Media and Society (Third Edition). In Abby Moore (Ed). Avengers in the Void: Nietzsche, Nihilism, and Why We Need Superheroes.

VandenBerghe, J. [GDC]. (2016, December 23). Engines of Play: How Player Motivation Changes Over Time [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg2GndSat1E&feature=youtu.be