Wing Commander and the Awesomeness of the Epic Fail

Posted November 19, 2009, by Cameron Goble    Comments (9)

  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • N4G
  • Reddit
  • Twitter
When he’s not costing lives and losing the Vega Sector single-handedly, Cameron Goble reviews classic PC games at LongTailGamer.com.

When’s the last time you completed a video game by losing every mission? Many video games are designed with a destiny in mind: you will finish the game only by winning. I’m talking overwhelming success here. You must be the victor in every battle. You must kill (or disable or avoid) every enemy. You must overcome all obstacles. Your destiny in the game is basically to beat everyone, win everything, and be awesome forever.

That sounds a lot like “infallible” to me, and frankly, I just can’t relate to that. More often than not, I’m reloading and re-attacking a game with prior knowledge gained from a splattery death. My in-game avatar, however, would remember it differently. There’s a discontinuity between me and the avatar. He can’t see the quick saves and the rage-quits. In his story, he’s just an awesome guy with an awesome destiny.

But destiny didn’t always have its day. As game studios began to unify video games and filmic narratives, the idea of multiple endings emerged. I’m going to explore how multiple endings work in one particular game here: Wing Commander, released in 1990 by Origin Systems.

Wing Commander is a good focus for narrative exploration and variation, in part because Origin’s designers explicitly wanted to create a movie-like experience within a video game. Movies usually only have one ending, but the variability of the player/machine interaction gives video games more flexibility. That tension between singular and multiple endings, and the way it intersects with the player/avatar discontinuity, invites inspection.

Wing Commander
Losing the war one Rapier at a time. KABOOM!

The motto of Origin Systems was “We Create Worlds.” The pride of their games was depth of emotion and range of play. In Wing Commander, Origin used an unusual strategy to exploit both emotions and exploration. They created a set of player-driven world histories: paths through victories and defeats in the Kilrathi War. It’s easy to face defeat in Wing Commander: fail to protect a transport, fail to destroy a capital ship, fail to stick with your wingman. Where Wing Commander breaks from rail games like Half-Life or X-Wing is that Wing Commander’s failures are mostly survivable– even productive. Only outright death or the conclusion of the war campaign will stop the player.

Since the game isn’t dependent on victory, the goal of winning out the war is subverted to the goal of simply surviving long enough to see it through. This difference is the axis upon which the emotionality and depth of the game can turn in unexpected directions. As long as I come back alive, I have to face the consequences of my performance. Those consequences build up over time. Fail a few times and the missions turn more defensive. A few more, and I’m scrabbling to turn the tide of the war. String enough failures together, and now I’m covering a hasty retreat from the sector– alone, if my would-have-been wingman already bought it in a furball a few missions back.

Wing Commander
No, we’re not sending you out to try the mission again. Loser.

My avatar can now embody how much I suck at being a fighter pilot in deep space. In some strange way, I think that’s a step forward in player/avatar relations. Failure brings my story as a player more into line with my character’s story as a potential hero. We can share the same causality as well as the same fighting skills. We can explore the world in terms of cause, effect, and consequences.

Wing Commander
It’s like playing Plinko with the fate of mankind!

Failure also enables an existentially sublime interpretation. By doggedly winning every mission, I am denied the experience of defeat. The point is that the potential experience exists, waiting to be engaged by losing. Nor is there a single path to victory or defeat. By accepting losses, Wing Commander turns mission-ending catastrophes into more missions to play.

If failure adds to the quantity of gameplay, it also adds new qualities to the characters. In the ship’s lounge, my crew mates reflect on their experiences of the war. I see different aspects of the same characters emerge as victory nears or defeat looms. The lounge becomes a profoundly affecting place upon discovering an vacant seat where a wingman would have sat, had he or she not died in a prior mission. Since wingmen can usually die only when they fly with me, the emptiness becomes personally significant: I know the cost of my failure, but I am rewarded with a richer emotional experience.

Wing Commander
Whose got the medal of suckage? I do, bitches.

The reward of failure even undermines the determined perfectionist gamer with a Gödellian twist. Medals are collected for extraordinary wins in battle, but that collection will be incomplete without at least one critical loss: the Golden Sun medal is awarded for surviving the destruction of one’s ship.

So, to achieve victory, I first must admit defeat. But oh, what a victory for video games and the people who love them. Wing Commander creates its avatar as someone more like myself as I play. In the cinematic moments of triumph or tragedy, its hero is a guy for whom life is uncertain and death must be dealt with.

Origin got these lifelike qualities right with Wing Commander. It is a game I love to come back to, and I play as much to lose as to win.

9 Responses to “Wing Commander and the Awesomeness of the Epic Fail”

  1. Great article; I really wish failure was accepted more frequently as an option. I personally believe that we lose a lot in games due to the save and reload. I think it would be far more interesting a lot of the time to allow the player to continue playing, but have each defeat actually mean something (unlike say Prey or Bioshock). Alas, seems like game designers (at the pressure of money grubbing publishers) are just making games easier and more mainstream (read: less original).

    Here’s my vote for a solid (indie?) title that could bring back this great idea for Wing Commander.

  2. I’m with Morinar — an indie game that embraced failure would get my attention right quick.

    What other games did that? Really let you screw up and still enjoy the game itself?

  3. Hunty

    Calamity Annie is a game where the romantic sub-plot is independent of game overs, which isn’t the same thing, but is similar:

    http://www.auntiepixelante.com/?p=177

  4. I was having a conversation about a similar thing with some GC members last night. I think linear gameplay is about the least interesting way to present a story in video games and love the idea of branching narratives.

    I haven’t actually played Wing Commander but the idea of failure as an option makes me want to check it out.

    Come on GOG, make it happen.

  5. I loved the direction Wing 3 took it, with the increasingly desperate defenses of Earth, climaxing in the never ending swarms of the games toughest enemies in Earth orbit. If you hold out long enough you get the game’s only appetance of a Kilrathi Dreadnaught, by far the biggest ship in the game. When you finally lose, you’re treated to your own execution by Thrakah, the Emperor laughing at the ruins of Washington, and your shipmates doing a suicide run on the Kilrathi fleet. Truly epic, & great enough that those scenes were featured in the games trailer.

    To a lesser extant the game kept the subtle touches going, with scorned lovers lingering to insult you and wingmen dying and not replaced. Fantastic.

    To a lesser extent RPGs do this with their alternate endings, but even the ‘bad’ endings end up with you winning a dark quest. Stalker had sone interesting stuff, allowing you to pretty much ignore the main plot and just kill almost anyone and wander.

  6. Mut-Hoe

    I want it…just sucks it costs a good amount to get a legal copy of it…

  7. Thanks for bringing up the “Dark Quest” option, JonnyFlash. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, differentiating between a choice of an alternate ending and the repercussions of failing a required quest. RPGs seem like they’d be more interesting for this option, but usually it comes down a choice in a conversation tree between rescuing a kitten and mugging a girl scout for her cookies.

    I had completely forgotten about the Wing 3 ending. Awesome.

  8. Games like Civilization also let you finish but then give you a “losing” screen(inspired by Ozymandius even). There are also a fair amount of games that have some kind of time limit for a game-ending “losing” event(Mutant Army attack in Fallout 1, Kor-Ah genocide in Star Control 2), where you still “finish,” but you lose.

    I think you are right about one thing in particular though: Wing Commander is the only game I can think of that embraced the “losing” storyline. Other games have losing endings, but you’re right on the ball that Wing Commander was unique in having a totally separate arc.

    Great editorial.

  9. I think the consequence-driven mission structure also made the series evolution more convincing. So many games end with you winning a decisive victory over the forces of evil, and then start the sequel with those forces of evil somehow, miraculously resurgent and more powerful than ever before. The C&C series can have you kicking the crap out of the Allies or Nod in mission after mission, and somehow they keep getting stronger.

    But Wing Commander wasn’t that kind of universe. When the second game starts with the Tiger’s Claw having been destroyed, and your character having been blamed for the debacle and consigned to backwater irrelevance, I can believe it. In the Wing Commander universe, shit happens, and it isn’t fair or predictable. The war drags on, neither side able to gain a decisive, lasting advantage, and you play your ambiguous part. What an incredible series.

Leave a Reply