Narc: 1st Amendment issue, shameful marketing ploy, or both?

I just read a CNN.com article detailing the controversy surrounding Narc, a PlayStation 2 & X-Box game published by Midway. In the game you play a narc, and throughout the game you must choose what to do with the drugs you confiscate: turn them in like a good cop, or get high off your own supply. The short-term effects of drug use are temporary super powers (more on this intriguing concept later), while the long-term effects include addiction and getting busted by your fellow cops. Midway marketing suit Steve Allison is quick to point out that drug use in the game is a sure path to failure, hoping thereby to show that his company in no way condones drug use, virtual or otherwise.

Naturally, the game is drawing the ire of conservative political opportunists. Not satisfied that the game content rating system they fought so bitterly to instate is being adhered to (Narc is rated M for "mature", a fact prominently featured on its packaging and advertising.), they're continuing the long-standing practice of using pseudo-science to claim that whatever Johnny does in a video game, he'll want to do in real life. (Apparently these well-informed folk have never played a game that involved an extensive walk through a sewer system. Johnny has.) I'm not going to harp too much on this today, though. It's a tired and threadbare arguement that gets a little less convincing each time it's rolled out.

Today I'm more interested in Midway. The publisher makes financial parallels between the video game and movie industries, and claims that the right to feature adult content in games should be protected the same as it is in films. I agree with that arguement 100%. However, game publishers do not release games for the purpose of getting 13-year-old boys interested in their civics classes via the 1st Amendment; they do it to make money, and with that fact in mind I must question whether releasing Narc was really the "right" thing to do, from a gamer's perspective.

I want to make it clear that I have not played Narc, so I can't tell you whether or not it's a bad game. That said, I've been playing coin-op video games since Space Invaders and home video/computer games since the Atari 2600. My experience, which includes a stint as a professional (albeit criminally underpaid) game journalist, alerts me to a few warning signs that suggest Midway may not have intended to release a quality game with Narc.

First, we have the cheap shot factor. Forbidden fruit sells, and humanity has been aware of this since before the concept of Catholic guilt. There have been plenty of games over the years that featured edgy, adult content. Some have been good, some have been bad, but you can apply this rule of thumb with a good deal of accuracy: the heavier a game's marketing spin leans on the edgy adult content, the less impressive the rest of the game will be. What's the one feature of Narc acting as the cornerstone of the hype machine? The in-game choice whether or not to do drugs. This fact alone pretty much invalidates the aforementioned suit Steve Allison's claim that drug use is the non-preferred path through the game. Does he really expect gamers who buy this title to ignore its main feature? There's also the fact that short-term drug use in the game grants you temporary super powers, which brings me to the next red flag.

A good game will dictate its content, incorporating whatever it must to create a fun, involving, sometimes realistic gaming experience. When content dictates the game the results are usually terrible. The concept of drug use granting super powers seems like a poorly thought-out attempt to tack on adult content for its marketing value alone. The CNN.com article lists the following drug "power-ups":

Marijuana, as you light a virtual joint and take a long drag, causes the screen to become a hazy green. The drug slows time for criminals in the game, allowing your cop character to chase down and arrest them.

LSD helps differentiate friend from foe, so your character knows whom to confront; allies grow wacky court jester heads, and enemies become devil-headed cartoons. Trippy music and psychedelic colors accompany your computer-generated acid trip.

Other drugs in Narc include speed, ecstasy and crack. Crack, after the distinct sound of someone huffing on a pipe, gives players a one-shot-one-kill skill. Your crackhead cop character suddenly becomes an expert marksman.

Right off the bat, we see pot and acid having the opposite effects they have in real life. Your narc can run faster when stoned? What? Musta been laced. So if pot acts like speed, what in-game effect does speed have? Time for a reality check here, folks. Here's how a couple drugs should affect gameplay:

Marijuana: Time slows down for you, not the criminals, who are able to run away from you faster. You are unable to run for more than 5 seconds at a time, because the fact that you are running is so funny it makes you collapse with laughter. Your mission goal changes from "apprehend drug dealer" to "obtain pizza".

LSD: Your ability to distinguish friend from foe is crippled, as non-player characters will change allegience randomly. Attempting to walk in any direction causes footage of the hotel lobby scene in "Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas" to obscure the game world. These effects allow timid exploration of your surroundings, but render actual game progress impossible for 12-16 hours.

Another red flag is the screen shot that accompanies the CNN.com article. In it, the graphics look slightly more advanced than those of the original Playstation, far inferior to what even an average PS2 game is capable of. Were Narc a strategy game this could be a little more understandible, but action games pride themselves on visual speldor. An action game with substandard graphics usually indicates a rush job.

The final warning sign is price. Narc is priced at $20, 60% less than the typical $50 price for a new PS2 or X-Box game. Combined with the other red flags, this makes me suspect that Midway is trying to encourage impulse sales fueled by the titilation of unique adult content. Midway knows that even a marginally-experienced gamer is going to be reluctant to plunk down $50 for a title that looks like a one trick pony, but $20 is a different story. If this turns out to be the case, then shame on Midway for churning out a product they know to be inferior just to make a quick buck. And shame on them for giving the political hacks who delight in pouncing on games like this additional ammo for such an artistically bankrupt goal. It's bad enough that these beady-eyed trolls are riding a wave of support since millions of men around the country had to fake disgust in front of their wives upon seeing Janet Jackson's tit on TV. Do game publishers really need to hand them picks with which to chip away at our rights, especially for the low low price of $20 a pop?

Of course, this may all be a fool's misguided conjecture. Narc may turn out to be a spectacular game. If it does, I'll gladly smoke a joint the next time I have to run somewhere really fast.

Because the game told me to.