Thursday, March 06, 2008
Why the Quest for Story in Video Games Will Fail
In April 1981, I played my first game of Dungeons and Dragons. My thief got into a fight with a giant spider in a 2-room dungeon, and was losing badly. Another player had to come to my rescue. That wasn't quite an auspicious beginning. But it was magical to me. It was the emotional investment into an imaginary world and story created by three guys, a rulebook, and random chance. The story wasn't Shakespeare. But for me, hanging on every word of description and the results of every die roll, it was made out of awesome.Later adventures in different systems have stuck with me for years. Just the little vignettes, situations, sub-plots, and characters. These little bits of story were what sucked me in. They have meaning to me, and to the other people I played with. Maybe they'll even pique your interest:
- A luxury cruise liner en route to Bermuda was re-routed by a demonic entity towards Hell.
- A tower full of skulls that begged to be released from their bondage, as the players frantically tried to discover whether obeying their wishes would bring good fortune or ill.
- A species of squirrel that turned acorns into gold. As a result, the government harshly regulated the export of gold to protect its economic power (and, unsurprisingly, de-valuing the price of gold such that the country was on the silver standard). And, of course, the squirrels were a national resource of extreme importance and protection. Woe be unto the unknowing adventurer who stumbled across one and decided to make it into squirrel soup!
- A political journalist on a supposed sabbatical in New Orleans, who gets caught up in local politics of the supernatural variety, and discovers his own family heritage of magic and voodoo.
- A week of utter chaos, as an inescapable light fills the world which causes madness and violent changes to creatures and geography. In the midst of this cataclysm, one woman (a player character) to give birth weeks early to a daughter who has been transformed (and blinded) by the magical illumination.
While many video games suck me in just through sheer awesome and addictive gameplay, when it comes to some genres (especially RPGs), it comes down to the story and the feeling of being part of the world. I ate and drank Wing Commander for a couple of years. I'd memorized ship stats, created additional back-story in my head, and became a fully participatory fanboy.
I've written about some of my other experiences with "game moments" - times when I got sucked into the game, when the fiction of the game became so involving, so compelling, that it drew me into the world and I became a willing participant. What's interesting to me is that almost all of the ones that I felt worth writing about were emergent stories - events that were not tightly scripted. I mean, sure, I could write about the death of Aeris, laying the ghosts to rest in the violently destroyed Scara Brae, or the confrontation against Malcom McDowell's brilliantly twisted Admiral Tolwyn, or getting slapped around by the Dread Pirate LeChuck, or the face-off with the even more twisted GLaDOS - and I will. Like I just did. But since anybody who really cares already knows the story and has been there, there's not a whole lot to say other than, 'that was pretty cool, huh?'
Your Story, or My Story?
But while I do often get sucked into interesting linear stories trying to figure out (or help decide) "what happens next?" the stories from video games that stick with me for years are a lot like the ones from the pen-and-paper RPGs I mentioned earlier: Emergent stories that invited ME to become a participant.
I remember bits and pieces of Ultima VII's storyline (like the aforementioned Skara Brae subplot), but what made it work for me was the opening sequence - from being taunted by the Guardian to investigating a ritual slaying in a barn. The "hook" pulled me in and invited me to invest myself emotionally and intellectually to the fictional world. Origin's motto of "We Create Worlds" became ever so true for me. As it did again with Ultima Underworld, a game with a laughably lame plot but - for me - an outstanding story. Because I was the guy who filled in the story.
Read the stories people write about that emerged from The Sims or Dwarf Fortress. These games seize players' imaginations, and invite them to fill in the numerous blanks in the game's cold logic with their own warm, human cause-and-effect explanations. They imbue the characters with personalities that don't really exist. In short, they become co-authors, and in their own minds these characters and stories come to life in a spectacular way. Story happens.
You'll Never Find a Game With a Great Story
I believe that this is a key reason that the quest for "better story" in video games is doomed for failure. The very criteria and tools we use to judge story is based on linear storytelling which is at odds with nature of our medium. But this dead-end warning sign seems to be lost on most designers and publishers. On the route the industry seems to be taking, I don't think we'll ever have our "Citizen Kane."
(Which I think is kind of a silly comparison, as I don't believe Citizen Kane was recognized as such a landmark in cinema when it was first released, and it certainly wasn't a commercial success. And I gotta ask... where's the NEXT Citizen Kane going to hit the theaters? Have things been all downhill since 1941?).
In some ways, I think game developers are trying too hard. They are over-applying the rules of linear storytelling to a degree that it distracts from the point of a game - to be interactive. The stories need to be interactive, too. Maybe not on the level that Chris Crawford is trying to achieve, but on the level where it invites the player's imagination to participate as a co-author. Instead, the player is too often forced to disengage their active participation so they can be force-fed a cut-scene. The result is a disjointed feeling where the player has two juxtaposed stories he's trying to reconcile - the one he or she is imagining as they play, and another one thrust upon them that may not jibe with how the game is playing out in their mind.
Changing the Rules
In a lot of ways, the focus on graphics and detail that we insist upon in modern games might actually distract the player from the story. It's like reading a book that insists on detailing a character's action between important events - brushing their teeth, tying their shoe, looking both ways before crossing the street, stopping to look at the newspaper, eating breakfast... If these aren't key to the story, they should be abstracted out. But in a game, well... done any grinding lately in an RPG? Or wandering around looking for an exit? Or, uh, having your Sims take bathe and use the bathroom?
This isn't saying good storytelling techniques aren't critical in making game stories. A killer "hook" at the beginning of the game, compelling characters, an intriguing storyline that keeps you playing, a believable and captivating setting - these are all key to inviting players to invest themselves emotionally and mentally into the fiction. For a good game, the player will get out of it what they put into it.
And that's where a great story in video games come from. Not from trying to compete with movies or books, and not from trying to enforce linear storytelling conventions on games, but by stepping aside and assisting the player in making their own "Citizen Kane."
(Vaguely) related navel-gazing:
* Fixing Interactive Storytelling
* What Makes a Great RPG: The Story
* Why Do RPGs Suck Now?
Labels: Game Design, Game Moments
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 5:04 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I've never had a defining single player computer game story. I have alway felt like I was on the rails. Even if there were more than one rail...I was on them. Picking one's path is not the same as writing one's story or co-authoring.
Pen and paper - yes. MMORPG - only twice (UO & Shadowbane).
I think that you are right, designers and developers get in the way. They are trying to sell games, not story. Not that making money or selling games is a problem. Not even to say that creating X game the way all other games have been created or even making a game to appeal to the common player is a problem.
But, that is not story. That is game. I have oft said that games will never be considered art because they are designed from the beginning to be entertainment. Even those that try to push the envelop towards art fall, because they still have to make a statement. Art is a statement because of how it connects to people.
Games have no story, neither their own, nor one that most players and find for themselves. Too many things the designers do make it entertaining. Those things strip story right out of it for me.
cl
Pen and paper - yes. MMORPG - only twice (UO & Shadowbane).
I think that you are right, designers and developers get in the way. They are trying to sell games, not story. Not that making money or selling games is a problem. Not even to say that creating X game the way all other games have been created or even making a game to appeal to the common player is a problem.
But, that is not story. That is game. I have oft said that games will never be considered art because they are designed from the beginning to be entertainment. Even those that try to push the envelop towards art fall, because they still have to make a statement. Art is a statement because of how it connects to people.
Games have no story, neither their own, nor one that most players and find for themselves. Too many things the designers do make it entertaining. Those things strip story right out of it for me.
cl
I think you know where I stand on the issue. :)
From my experience, modern Game Designers most often are focused on providing a story - that is one single story that they carefully craft. It doesn't leave much room for the player to stumble into a story of their own.
We need the programmer-designer - someone who makes a simulation engine that just happens to be a great place to play a game.
A Great example IMN2BHO is Age of Kings - an RTS game. You can play the campaigns, which have some wonderfully scripted moments, but yet are still able to take several different approaches to most of the scenarios.
It gets even better when you leave the campaigns behind. The heart of it is the flexibility of the engine. You can dial up the basic parameters of almost any sort of game you want: 1 on 1, 4 on 4, 1 on 7, pick world size, type amd layout, and a ton of other options and let it create something you never saw before.
And from there the general computer player AI, which was designed to handle random maps and a variety of roles helps a lot.
I remember rollicking multilayer games; once where I was kicked off my island and was always on the move to find a new home. At one point the two sides had completely swapped starting islands. Another time, a last-ditch suicide mission taking the long way around the map KO'ed the other teams wonder and we held out by the skin of our teeth protecting our own wodner in the 5% of the map we still controlled for the win.
I had other memorable times with the single player game as well. I remember being stuck on a small island with a foe who kept rushing me early - and when I finally got the upper hand, I had to invade a continent where the 6 other computer players had already aged up on in a brutal race to stop their wonders.
I could go on, but the memories just mirror your point - How the games would play out was not known until it actually happened. The game provided the means, and I filled out the story as I went. Some were immediately forgettable, but others turned out so exciting and unexpected, they stayed with me as happy memories.
The game is the story? or is the game there to make the story possible?
I've spoken of RTS's, but you know other genres could take those lessons to heart too.
-Spaceman Spiff
From my experience, modern Game Designers most often are focused on providing a story - that is one single story that they carefully craft. It doesn't leave much room for the player to stumble into a story of their own.
We need the programmer-designer - someone who makes a simulation engine that just happens to be a great place to play a game.
A Great example IMN2BHO is Age of Kings - an RTS game. You can play the campaigns, which have some wonderfully scripted moments, but yet are still able to take several different approaches to most of the scenarios.
It gets even better when you leave the campaigns behind. The heart of it is the flexibility of the engine. You can dial up the basic parameters of almost any sort of game you want: 1 on 1, 4 on 4, 1 on 7, pick world size, type amd layout, and a ton of other options and let it create something you never saw before.
And from there the general computer player AI, which was designed to handle random maps and a variety of roles helps a lot.
I remember rollicking multilayer games; once where I was kicked off my island and was always on the move to find a new home. At one point the two sides had completely swapped starting islands. Another time, a last-ditch suicide mission taking the long way around the map KO'ed the other teams wonder and we held out by the skin of our teeth protecting our own wodner in the 5% of the map we still controlled for the win.
I had other memorable times with the single player game as well. I remember being stuck on a small island with a foe who kept rushing me early - and when I finally got the upper hand, I had to invade a continent where the 6 other computer players had already aged up on in a brutal race to stop their wonders.
I could go on, but the memories just mirror your point - How the games would play out was not known until it actually happened. The game provided the means, and I filled out the story as I went. Some were immediately forgettable, but others turned out so exciting and unexpected, they stayed with me as happy memories.
The game is the story? or is the game there to make the story possible?
I've spoken of RTS's, but you know other genres could take those lessons to heart too.
-Spaceman Spiff
# posted by 
: March 06, 2008 12:45 PM
: March 06, 2008 12:45 PM
I'm not saying that Frayed Knights is going to be a shining example of how storytelling SHOULD be done in games - nor would I submit that Dwarf Fortress or Grand Theft Auto is "proper" game storytelling. Sandbox games are great, but they aren't the be-all, end-all.
What I am saying that game designers need to recognize that the player isn't just their "audience" - they are co-writers. That doesn't mean to just leave them some choices for overall story direction - it means they need to let the player engage their imagination and recognize that the player's story taking place in their head isn't going to be the same as the one the designer created. So the game *should* provide some abstractions, leave some things open to interpretation, and give the player some meaty story tidbits to chew on.
My classic example is the "Clone Wars" as presented in the original Star Wars movie (episode... uh, IV). The dialog kept implying things about the Clone Wars, the dissolution of the Senate, and other neat back-story issues... and I felt they were tremendously cooler in my geeky fanboy imagination than actually playing out on the screen in the prequel movies.
Another tiny example is in F.E.A.R. - one of the scariest appearances of Alma wasn't one at all. I thought I saw her, but it turned out to be a potted plant. I scared myself on that one. Completely unintentional on the part of the designers (probably), but that's part of MY story.
So... give the player room to imagine, and give them some building blocks to use to build their story with.
What I am saying that game designers need to recognize that the player isn't just their "audience" - they are co-writers. That doesn't mean to just leave them some choices for overall story direction - it means they need to let the player engage their imagination and recognize that the player's story taking place in their head isn't going to be the same as the one the designer created. So the game *should* provide some abstractions, leave some things open to interpretation, and give the player some meaty story tidbits to chew on.
My classic example is the "Clone Wars" as presented in the original Star Wars movie (episode... uh, IV). The dialog kept implying things about the Clone Wars, the dissolution of the Senate, and other neat back-story issues... and I felt they were tremendously cooler in my geeky fanboy imagination than actually playing out on the screen in the prequel movies.
Another tiny example is in F.E.A.R. - one of the scariest appearances of Alma wasn't one at all. I thought I saw her, but it turned out to be a potted plant. I scared myself on that one. Completely unintentional on the part of the designers (probably), but that's part of MY story.
So... give the player room to imagine, and give them some building blocks to use to build their story with.
I think you know where *I* stand on the issue.
There's plenty of room for both kinds of storytelling. Obviously you can more excitedly tell someone about things that happened to you that were unique to you. But if you watched a movie and someone else watched the movie, you both experienced the same story... does that stop people from discussing it interestedly?
But since anybody who really cares already knows the story and has been there, there's not a whole lot to say other than, 'that was pretty cool, huh?'
Not if you leave enough ambiguity in your story for people to be fiercely debating elements of it. Not if you have characters that people are sufficiently invested in to want to write fanfic about.
There's plenty of room for both kinds of storytelling. Obviously you can more excitedly tell someone about things that happened to you that were unique to you. But if you watched a movie and someone else watched the movie, you both experienced the same story... does that stop people from discussing it interestedly?
But since anybody who really cares already knows the story and has been there, there's not a whole lot to say other than, 'that was pretty cool, huh?'
Not if you leave enough ambiguity in your story for people to be fiercely debating elements of it. Not if you have characters that people are sufficiently invested in to want to write fanfic about.
There's a big problem with that philosophy too, though, and it's something I've talked about before at my blog... Giving the player the tools to tell their own story does not guarantee a fun experience for them, and it puts a lot of weight on the shoulders of the player to make a fun experience for themselves.
Not everyone has fun in a sandbox.
Unlike traditional forms of media, where you passively engage with a predetermined story, in a videogame you're an active participant. You're making the story, instead of watching it (or reading it). Even in pen and paper, players are presented with at least a loosely structured scenario and its the DM's job to guide the game towards fun. Videogames can't do that.
Just providing them with the ability to tell a story (their own story) doesn't mean they'll have fun in a game.
Not everyone has fun in a sandbox.
Unlike traditional forms of media, where you passively engage with a predetermined story, in a videogame you're an active participant. You're making the story, instead of watching it (or reading it). Even in pen and paper, players are presented with at least a loosely structured scenario and its the DM's job to guide the game towards fun. Videogames can't do that.
Just providing them with the ability to tell a story (their own story) doesn't mean they'll have fun in a game.
Not if you leave enough ambiguity in your story for people to be fiercely debating elements of it. Not if you have characters that people are sufficiently invested in to want to write fanfic about.
That can be a powerful tool to use to help get the player involved in things, yes. I mean, like I said - I was a total Wing Commander fanboy, and that was a relatively linear game. But it also suggested a lot of additional story happening between the scenes, leaving you to fill in the blanks.
But that's one yardstick my wife and I use to measure story when we're watching movies - we know the story was good if we're still talking about it the next day.
You've actually explored both ends of the spectrum pretty well with your last two game releases. Feel free to rebut. :)
Just providing them with the ability to tell a story (their own story) doesn't mean they'll have fun in a game.
I entirely agree, actually. I think it behooves the game designers (in a story-based game --- not all games are) to employ good, solid storytelling techniques to engage the imagination and structure the player's experience.
When people throw up their hands and say, "Sheesh, when will games have stories that DON'T SUCK!", there's a couple of approaches.
The approach that I feel is doomed to failure is to try and present a better, traditional, linear story to the player. Put in all the standard formulaic stories, break up a movie into chunks separated by gameplay (while I really enjoyed Wing Commander IV, it TOTALLY used that approach), have name actors voicing every line, and let it go with the production values of a blockbuster movie.
I think that approach paints us in a corner. Sure, we may get something cool in the end, but it'll be ruined by the game.
The other approach is to decide that "the great story" doesn't exist in an interactive medium without the other half of the equation - the participant. And so you instead focus your storytelling efforts on getting her emotionally invested in the game - caring about the world, caring about the characters, and caring about what happens.
On the "Final Fantasy: Advent Children" CD, there's a recap of the events of Final Fantasy 7. I was startled by how much I'd forgotten about that game's plot. I came to the conclusion that the story - as a whole - pretty much sucked. It was a slow, rambling, preachy, disjointed thing. I didn't remember most of it.
But when I was playing it, the story was awesome. Why? Because it somehow got me emotionally involved in the game. It was a story of lost love and revenge. The save-the-planet crap was just a McGuffin. MY story of Final Fantasy 7 rocked.
Perhaps the reason Square has had such a tough time catching the lightning in a bottle again is because they have tried harder and harder to "tell a story" in their games, because so many people loved the FF7 story. And maybe they are actually moving further from their goal, leaving less to the imagination, and ... well, overtelling.
That can be a powerful tool to use to help get the player involved in things, yes. I mean, like I said - I was a total Wing Commander fanboy, and that was a relatively linear game. But it also suggested a lot of additional story happening between the scenes, leaving you to fill in the blanks.
But that's one yardstick my wife and I use to measure story when we're watching movies - we know the story was good if we're still talking about it the next day.
You've actually explored both ends of the spectrum pretty well with your last two game releases. Feel free to rebut. :)
Just providing them with the ability to tell a story (their own story) doesn't mean they'll have fun in a game.
I entirely agree, actually. I think it behooves the game designers (in a story-based game --- not all games are) to employ good, solid storytelling techniques to engage the imagination and structure the player's experience.
When people throw up their hands and say, "Sheesh, when will games have stories that DON'T SUCK!", there's a couple of approaches.
The approach that I feel is doomed to failure is to try and present a better, traditional, linear story to the player. Put in all the standard formulaic stories, break up a movie into chunks separated by gameplay (while I really enjoyed Wing Commander IV, it TOTALLY used that approach), have name actors voicing every line, and let it go with the production values of a blockbuster movie.
I think that approach paints us in a corner. Sure, we may get something cool in the end, but it'll be ruined by the game.
The other approach is to decide that "the great story" doesn't exist in an interactive medium without the other half of the equation - the participant. And so you instead focus your storytelling efforts on getting her emotionally invested in the game - caring about the world, caring about the characters, and caring about what happens.
On the "Final Fantasy: Advent Children" CD, there's a recap of the events of Final Fantasy 7. I was startled by how much I'd forgotten about that game's plot. I came to the conclusion that the story - as a whole - pretty much sucked. It was a slow, rambling, preachy, disjointed thing. I didn't remember most of it.
But when I was playing it, the story was awesome. Why? Because it somehow got me emotionally involved in the game. It was a story of lost love and revenge. The save-the-planet crap was just a McGuffin. MY story of Final Fantasy 7 rocked.
Perhaps the reason Square has had such a tough time catching the lightning in a bottle again is because they have tried harder and harder to "tell a story" in their games, because so many people loved the FF7 story. And maybe they are actually moving further from their goal, leaving less to the imagination, and ... well, overtelling.
Having any sort of alternate-endings in your story (well, as long as they're not totally trivial and tacked on) will automatically invite some discussion as to what's the "best" ending. Do you prefer it when your character destroys the world, or saves it?
Variations - again, gives people something to talk about, as well as possibly making you feel more invested in the activity. Nothing in (game I won't name to avoid spoilers) *makes* you choose the option where you force someone to kill his best friend because of his honor debt to you, it's just something you can do if you feel like being a bastard, which probably makes it more memorable than if it were just something that happened in a cutscene.
Variations - again, gives people something to talk about, as well as possibly making you feel more invested in the activity. Nothing in (game I won't name to avoid spoilers) *makes* you choose the option where you force someone to kill his best friend because of his honor debt to you, it's just something you can do if you feel like being a bastard, which probably makes it more memorable than if it were just something that happened in a cutscene.
As human beings we have a natural instinct for creating narratives out of the events we perceive. One of the things I find powerful about interactive games is the blending between a static narrative created by someone else (a movie or a book) and the primal emotional impact that can be felt when you are experiencing the events themselves.
And I would agree that the techniques for interactive entertainment differ from those of static narratives in many ways.
With that being said, however, I would make three points:
First, I think there is a broad range of possibility. For example, there is the decades-old debate between people who prefer the sandbox-RPGs and those who prefer the scripted-RPGs (or the western RPG vs. jRPG divide).
Personally, I enjoy both. The death of Aeris remains one of the most emotionally powerful fictional events I've experienced, and that's in large part because the (albeit limited) interactivity of Final Fantasy VII made that an event I experienced rather than a narrative I was told.
Half-Life 2, for me, is an example of a game with more interaction. When I pause and reflect upon it, I can see that pretty much every event of significance in that game is pre-scripted. But when I'm actually playing the game I am completely invested in the events as a participant.
(In large part I think this is because Valve never takes away the control of my avatar. I may have absolutely no input to the social interactions taking place around me, but the fact that I'm still in complete control of my actions -- even if those actions are limited in scope -- keeps me invested as a participant.)
Second, I think it's important to realize that an achievement like Citizen Kane sits on top of a 3000-year old tradition that can be dated back to the theater of ancient Greece.
Yes, film is a medium less than a century old. But while aspects of its presentation required the mastery of new skills, it was able to largely piggy-back on the artistic frameworks developed by three millennia of theater.
Interactive narratives, OTOH, are almost unprecedented and completely immature as an artform. Yes, some forms can be lifted from other media -- but only imperfectly.
Third, I think the heart of the interactive form is to look at how and why people form narratives (particularly powerful narratives) out of the events they experience.
And the key to unlocking that understanding artistically, I believe, is to understand the spectrum of possibilities: At one end you have a completely static narrative -- the events someone else describes. At the other you have a complete sandbox -- a completely open-ended environment which is as likely to produce a meaningful narrative as the real world is.
(The Sims games are almost an ideal form of the latter. Spore will probably push it even farther.)
But inbetween these extremes there is a rich range in which the creators of interactive games will be able to encourage, shape, or evoke original narratives.
And I suspect that the most effective uses of the medium will be when you don't necessarily script an outcome, but create an environment where powerful narratives are more likely to occur.
On some levels, the Grand Theft Auto games can be seen as a simplistic example of this. The simple assumption that the main player will be a car thief/gangster, coupled with an environment which puts obstacles in the way of that, creates emergent narratives.
Now, like I say, that's a simplistic example. But let's take a game like Ultima VII: Richard Garriott deliberately designed a world that functioned as realistically a possible and then said that his goal, as a designer, was to make sure that a puzzle had at least one solution without ruling out any innovations that the player might come up with.
So, for example, there might be a locked door and Garriott might make sure that there was a key hidden somewhere to open it... but you could also blow it up with a keg of powder or pick the lock or whatever.
Now, imagine that same mentality applied to a more complex goal -- something like "overcome the Fellowship". Imagine a game where that can be defeating Batlin in combat; or deposing Batlin and taking over the Fellowship; or discrediting the Fellowship; or burning their meeting houses to the ground. And not that these are preplanned options by the designer, but simply that the interactive world is complex enough and realistic enough in its reactions that the player can create their own strategies for success.
It's one possibility, anyway.
chris wrote: "I have oft said that games will never be considered art because they are designed from the beginning to be entertainment."
So Shakespeare (who wrote popular entertainment for the popular stage) didn't create art? Michelangelo, who almost never worked without a commission, never produced a work of art?
I reject your premise. Even a brief survey of art history (in any field of art) reveals that the truly great art was almost always popular art.
Which is not to say that all popular art is great art. Nor to say that all great art must be popular -- but the reality is that the Van Goghs (unappreciated in their own time) are vastly outnumbered by the Shakespeares.
Your premise that stories can't be entertaining or they cease to be stories is even more bizarre to me. It's completely disconnected from any definition of the word "story" I've ever heard.
And I would agree that the techniques for interactive entertainment differ from those of static narratives in many ways.
With that being said, however, I would make three points:
First, I think there is a broad range of possibility. For example, there is the decades-old debate between people who prefer the sandbox-RPGs and those who prefer the scripted-RPGs (or the western RPG vs. jRPG divide).
Personally, I enjoy both. The death of Aeris remains one of the most emotionally powerful fictional events I've experienced, and that's in large part because the (albeit limited) interactivity of Final Fantasy VII made that an event I experienced rather than a narrative I was told.
Half-Life 2, for me, is an example of a game with more interaction. When I pause and reflect upon it, I can see that pretty much every event of significance in that game is pre-scripted. But when I'm actually playing the game I am completely invested in the events as a participant.
(In large part I think this is because Valve never takes away the control of my avatar. I may have absolutely no input to the social interactions taking place around me, but the fact that I'm still in complete control of my actions -- even if those actions are limited in scope -- keeps me invested as a participant.)
Second, I think it's important to realize that an achievement like Citizen Kane sits on top of a 3000-year old tradition that can be dated back to the theater of ancient Greece.
Yes, film is a medium less than a century old. But while aspects of its presentation required the mastery of new skills, it was able to largely piggy-back on the artistic frameworks developed by three millennia of theater.
Interactive narratives, OTOH, are almost unprecedented and completely immature as an artform. Yes, some forms can be lifted from other media -- but only imperfectly.
Third, I think the heart of the interactive form is to look at how and why people form narratives (particularly powerful narratives) out of the events they experience.
And the key to unlocking that understanding artistically, I believe, is to understand the spectrum of possibilities: At one end you have a completely static narrative -- the events someone else describes. At the other you have a complete sandbox -- a completely open-ended environment which is as likely to produce a meaningful narrative as the real world is.
(The Sims games are almost an ideal form of the latter. Spore will probably push it even farther.)
But inbetween these extremes there is a rich range in which the creators of interactive games will be able to encourage, shape, or evoke original narratives.
And I suspect that the most effective uses of the medium will be when you don't necessarily script an outcome, but create an environment where powerful narratives are more likely to occur.
On some levels, the Grand Theft Auto games can be seen as a simplistic example of this. The simple assumption that the main player will be a car thief/gangster, coupled with an environment which puts obstacles in the way of that, creates emergent narratives.
Now, like I say, that's a simplistic example. But let's take a game like Ultima VII: Richard Garriott deliberately designed a world that functioned as realistically a possible and then said that his goal, as a designer, was to make sure that a puzzle had at least one solution without ruling out any innovations that the player might come up with.
So, for example, there might be a locked door and Garriott might make sure that there was a key hidden somewhere to open it... but you could also blow it up with a keg of powder or pick the lock or whatever.
Now, imagine that same mentality applied to a more complex goal -- something like "overcome the Fellowship". Imagine a game where that can be defeating Batlin in combat; or deposing Batlin and taking over the Fellowship; or discrediting the Fellowship; or burning their meeting houses to the ground. And not that these are preplanned options by the designer, but simply that the interactive world is complex enough and realistic enough in its reactions that the player can create their own strategies for success.
It's one possibility, anyway.
chris wrote: "I have oft said that games will never be considered art because they are designed from the beginning to be entertainment."
So Shakespeare (who wrote popular entertainment for the popular stage) didn't create art? Michelangelo, who almost never worked without a commission, never produced a work of art?
I reject your premise. Even a brief survey of art history (in any field of art) reveals that the truly great art was almost always popular art.
Which is not to say that all popular art is great art. Nor to say that all great art must be popular -- but the reality is that the Van Goghs (unappreciated in their own time) are vastly outnumbered by the Shakespeares.
Your premise that stories can't be entertaining or they cease to be stories is even more bizarre to me. It's completely disconnected from any definition of the word "story" I've ever heard.
But since anybody who really cares already knows the story and has been there, there's not a whole lot to say other than, 'that was pretty cool, huh?'
Hm. So how do you explain what goes on at book groups?
Interesting discussion. I plan a rebuttal of sorts. But for now, suffice it to say that writing stories is hard. Writing good stories is really hard. And writing good stories that stand up to the constant fiddling and interruptions of players is exceptionally hard, particularly since nobody seems to know how best to do it.
I'd say a good start is to get people involved who, you know, actually know how to write and craft a narrative to help out. Then you might be on to something.
Hm. So how do you explain what goes on at book groups?
Interesting discussion. I plan a rebuttal of sorts. But for now, suffice it to say that writing stories is hard. Writing good stories is really hard. And writing good stories that stand up to the constant fiddling and interruptions of players is exceptionally hard, particularly since nobody seems to know how best to do it.
I'd say a good start is to get people involved who, you know, actually know how to write and craft a narrative to help out. Then you might be on to something.
I would urge you to take a look at the pen and paper RPG called "In a Wicked Age" by Vincent Baker. It quite beautifully solves the story vs game problem. It's nothing that a programmed computer game can emulate, but I think a programmer with the correct mindset might get a lot of ideas out of it. Anyhow, my group and I regularly break it out when we want to end up with a Great Story to talk about afterwards, and it never disappoints.
# posted by : March 06, 2008 6:32 PM
: March 06, 2008 6:32 PM
Hey, I welcome a good rebuttal. :)
I'm not saying you can't have a good linear story buried in a game, or that some techniques from linear storytelling won't translate over very well (they certainly do).
But I think our fascination with trying to emulate the linear media with storytelling in games makes about as much sense as making a motion picture of someone reading a book aloud to the audience. Sure, the book may be great, and the reader may be eloquent and dramatic, but I imagine a new film-goer would come out of the theater saying, "Well, that ... could have been much more."
I'm not saying you can't have a good linear story buried in a game, or that some techniques from linear storytelling won't translate over very well (they certainly do).
But I think our fascination with trying to emulate the linear media with storytelling in games makes about as much sense as making a motion picture of someone reading a book aloud to the audience. Sure, the book may be great, and the reader may be eloquent and dramatic, but I imagine a new film-goer would come out of the theater saying, "Well, that ... could have been much more."
@justin - I am actually a little concerned for Spore. I am having trouble imagining it having as much resonance as The Sims. But that's a whole 'nother story. I'm not positive that a sandbox game is necessarily the other end of the spectrum, though. I feel it's more of a two or three dimensional field, and the highly linear story-based game is tucked over in one corner.
@harry - I hunted down the game, and bookmarked the page. I will have to check it out when I have a moment. I'm taking you at your word, here... :) But I'd really like to see what other people have come up with.
@harry - I hunted down the game, and bookmarked the page. I will have to check it out when I have a moment. I'm taking you at your word, here... :) But I'd really like to see what other people have come up with.
Stories told by the player purely about the things they did rather than the designed narrative elements may turn out to be Risk stories.
"And then, I rolled a two and a six..."
"And then, I rolled a two and a six..."
Well, if that's what floats their boat... :)
Taking it from another angle though, as I was talking about in one of the above links... What makes a good story is often at odds with the a gamer's instinct. Getting captured by the enemy might and having the main character fail a few times might be key for making an exciting story. BUT... is a player going to allow that to happen to themselves in the name of a better story?
So... you sacrifice some gameplay for the sake of story (Sorry - cutscene to have you captured), and you sacrifice some story on the altar of gameplay (you know, screw it, let the player win even if its not nearly as EXCITING - the player will still have a better experience and not be jarred from their connection to the game).
But if you are sacrificing story in the name of gameplay... because you have to ... you are going to fall short. And if you don't, you are going to fall shorter still as you lose the player's bond with the game that comes from the interactivity.
So - you accept you are going to fall short of having a perfect story. Fall short of a great story? Probably that too.
There are two other alternatives:
1) Redefine the meaning / measure of a "great story" for interactive games.
2) Make a set of game rules that encourage the player to make choices that lead to a better story.
I am experimenting with #2 in a tiny way with Frayed Knights, but not in any mind-blowing way.
Taking it from another angle though, as I was talking about in one of the above links... What makes a good story is often at odds with the a gamer's instinct. Getting captured by the enemy might and having the main character fail a few times might be key for making an exciting story. BUT... is a player going to allow that to happen to themselves in the name of a better story?
So... you sacrifice some gameplay for the sake of story (Sorry - cutscene to have you captured), and you sacrifice some story on the altar of gameplay (you know, screw it, let the player win even if its not nearly as EXCITING - the player will still have a better experience and not be jarred from their connection to the game).
But if you are sacrificing story in the name of gameplay... because you have to ... you are going to fall short. And if you don't, you are going to fall shorter still as you lose the player's bond with the game that comes from the interactivity.
So - you accept you are going to fall short of having a perfect story. Fall short of a great story? Probably that too.
There are two other alternatives:
1) Redefine the meaning / measure of a "great story" for interactive games.
2) Make a set of game rules that encourage the player to make choices that lead to a better story.
I am experimenting with #2 in a tiny way with Frayed Knights, but not in any mind-blowing way.
With respect to #2, though:
Allowing player choice is a Good Thing, but the game author still has to account for the different paths, no? In the absence of true emergent gameplay, allowing the player to make choices at crucial points during the game makes it seem like the player is directing the story, but not really -- the player is just following one of a number of predetermined paths.
"Choice is meaningful in real life only if it is excluding and irrevocable."
In current games, choice is really just a garden of forking paths. Furthermore, players will tend to explore most, if not all, available paths. Choice is thus almost never excluding and almost always revocable. Choice is therefore almost meaningless.
Guiding players to make certain choices that lead to a "better" story is merely just getting them to do what you want them to do, to be able to tell the story you want to tell them.
Allowing player choice is a Good Thing, but the game author still has to account for the different paths, no? In the absence of true emergent gameplay, allowing the player to make choices at crucial points during the game makes it seem like the player is directing the story, but not really -- the player is just following one of a number of predetermined paths.
"Choice is meaningful in real life only if it is excluding and irrevocable."
In current games, choice is really just a garden of forking paths. Furthermore, players will tend to explore most, if not all, available paths. Choice is thus almost never excluding and almost always revocable. Choice is therefore almost meaningless.
Guiding players to make certain choices that lead to a "better" story is merely just getting them to do what you want them to do, to be able to tell the story you want to tell them.
Getting captured by the enemy might and having the main character fail a few times might be key for making an exciting story. BUT... is a player going to allow that to happen to themselves in the name of a better story?
Yes, this comes back to the issue of saved games again... although this is a real problem in tabletop games as well as computer. If the GM wants you to lose and be captured and you want to fight to the death, someone's going to be unhappy.
Of course, I'd be happy with putting in some story elements that don't force the player's hands directly, but instead give you choices. The villain grabs PartyMember and holds a knife to his throat and demands you surrender or he dies....
This has a cutscene element, because you can't avoid idiot party member getting captured, but it also has a choice element, and it's not YOUR directly-controlled character wandering into an obvious trap. It could even just be an NPC that's being threatened, although in that case you'll definitely have to take the risk that the PC's response will be "Go on, kill him then."
Yes, this comes back to the issue of saved games again... although this is a real problem in tabletop games as well as computer. If the GM wants you to lose and be captured and you want to fight to the death, someone's going to be unhappy.
Of course, I'd be happy with putting in some story elements that don't force the player's hands directly, but instead give you choices. The villain grabs PartyMember and holds a knife to his throat and demands you surrender or he dies....
This has a cutscene element, because you can't avoid idiot party member getting captured, but it also has a choice element, and it's not YOUR directly-controlled character wandering into an obvious trap. It could even just be an NPC that's being threatened, although in that case you'll definitely have to take the risk that the PC's response will be "Go on, kill him then."
rubes wrote: "In current games, choice is really just a garden of forking paths."
That depends on the game, though. Uplink featured no save game feature (if you screwed up, you had to live with it). There have been games that featured pervasive worlds that persisted beyond your current character -- so if your current character died and you had to start a new character, the changes the world had endured during your previous incarnation remained.
I haven't played Dwarf Fortress, but my understanding is that the gameplay is irrevocable, open-ended (within the constraints of the reality being modeled), and leads to the development of rich narratives.
I'm not saying any of this is particularly mature -- and I would even agree that the industry has been somewhat reticent in pursuing some of these things -- but I think your sweeping generalization is not entirely accurate.
whiner wrote: "If the GM wants you to lose and be captured and you want to fight to the death, someone's going to be unhappy."
When I GM tabletop games I generally don't design plots: I design situations. So I never run into that dichotomy between what my players want to do and what I want them to do.
This is essentially a sandbox approach, but my sandbox is well-stocked with villains who react realistically to a completely open-ended panoply of possibilities. And the results have been many memorable stories.
This approach is more difficult to achieve with a computer game, but it's becoming more achievable with the technology we have (even if the mainstream developers don't seem to be pursuing it).
whiner wrote: "This has a cutscene element, because you can't avoid idiot party member getting captured, but it also has a choice element, and it's not YOUR directly-controlled character wandering into an obvious trap."
I think the unexamined premise here, however, is that this needs to be a pre-determined cut-scene that happens at such-and-such a point in the plot.
What if this "the villain has captured a PC" behavior simply happens at any point when the villain has, in fact, bested the PC in combat? That's how the villain's creator (i.e., the game designer) determined the villain would respond to that situation.
In fact, on a very limited scale, this was done two decades ago in Ultima V. And yet that kind of design approach has just never been followed up on. (A lot of the design principles in the old Ultima games were never really followed up on: Explain to me why the meaningful physics in modern RPGs are usually still more primitive than they were in Ultima VII.)
That depends on the game, though. Uplink featured no save game feature (if you screwed up, you had to live with it). There have been games that featured pervasive worlds that persisted beyond your current character -- so if your current character died and you had to start a new character, the changes the world had endured during your previous incarnation remained.
I haven't played Dwarf Fortress, but my understanding is that the gameplay is irrevocable, open-ended (within the constraints of the reality being modeled), and leads to the development of rich narratives.
I'm not saying any of this is particularly mature -- and I would even agree that the industry has been somewhat reticent in pursuing some of these things -- but I think your sweeping generalization is not entirely accurate.
whiner wrote: "If the GM wants you to lose and be captured and you want to fight to the death, someone's going to be unhappy."
When I GM tabletop games I generally don't design plots: I design situations. So I never run into that dichotomy between what my players want to do and what I want them to do.
This is essentially a sandbox approach, but my sandbox is well-stocked with villains who react realistically to a completely open-ended panoply of possibilities. And the results have been many memorable stories.
This approach is more difficult to achieve with a computer game, but it's becoming more achievable with the technology we have (even if the mainstream developers don't seem to be pursuing it).
whiner wrote: "This has a cutscene element, because you can't avoid idiot party member getting captured, but it also has a choice element, and it's not YOUR directly-controlled character wandering into an obvious trap."
I think the unexamined premise here, however, is that this needs to be a pre-determined cut-scene that happens at such-and-such a point in the plot.
What if this "the villain has captured a PC" behavior simply happens at any point when the villain has, in fact, bested the PC in combat? That's how the villain's creator (i.e., the game designer) determined the villain would respond to that situation.
In fact, on a very limited scale, this was done two decades ago in Ultima V. And yet that kind of design approach has just never been followed up on. (A lot of the design principles in the old Ultima games were never really followed up on: Explain to me why the meaningful physics in modern RPGs are usually still more primitive than they were in Ultima VII.)
A lot of the design principles in the old Ultima games were never really followed up on: Explain to me why the meaningful physics in modern RPGs are usually still more primitive than they were in Ultima VII.
I wish I could. I enjoyed Bloodlines a good deal, but the much-vaunted physics system from the Half-Life engine amounted to almost nothing in terms of gameplay. In fact, it would have been the same deal in Half-Life if it weren't for that incredibly cool Gravity Gun.
I wish I could. I enjoyed Bloodlines a good deal, but the much-vaunted physics system from the Half-Life engine amounted to almost nothing in terms of gameplay. In fact, it would have been the same deal in Half-Life if it weren't for that incredibly cool Gravity Gun.
Whoa, that's an funny coincidence. I was talking about this same issue in the post I made last night, over at my blog : www.scarsofwargame.com/blog
Yeah, I kinda agree with both sides. I think you can create very powerful stories in games. But at the same time, Jay is right, the most powerful stories are the ones the player makes themselves, the decisions they choose rather than those that are forced on them. Traditional methods of storytelling in games doesn't work quite as well.
I've also had some thoughts on the process of creating a good story for a game, but that will come in my next post (shameless pimping) ;)
Yeah, I kinda agree with both sides. I think you can create very powerful stories in games. But at the same time, Jay is right, the most powerful stories are the ones the player makes themselves, the decisions they choose rather than those that are forced on them. Traditional methods of storytelling in games doesn't work quite as well.
I've also had some thoughts on the process of creating a good story for a game, but that will come in my next post (shameless pimping) ;)
I'm all in favor of shameless pimping myself.
In any case, yes, that was a sweeping generalization, most likely because I tend not to play more open-ended games like Dwarf Fortress.
I also don't know that world persistence necessarily negates that argument, though. We're still talking predominantly about the game designer's ability to generate responses to player actions.
Game responses can be limited and small in scale, such as (I presume) with games like Dwarf Fortress, but the broader overall effect might be to generate a gameplay pattern that can be interpreted as narrative. And so those small-scale responses, if there are enough, can create enough different patterns to allow players to have their own "unique" narrative.
I think a lot of games focus on the larger-scale responses (the branch points I referred to), and so the overall narrative that is generated is very similar for most players. Coming more from an interactive fiction/adventure game perspective, that's more along the lines of what I had in mind.
I think the long-term goal would be the creation of a game system where we could have "villains who react realistically to a completely open-ended panoply of possibilities." That's the tough part, of course, so designers tend to restrict the range of player possibilities to a few, so they can hard-code the villain responses -- producing that garden of forking paths. I'd be interested to hear how that can be overcome.
Post a Comment
In any case, yes, that was a sweeping generalization, most likely because I tend not to play more open-ended games like Dwarf Fortress.
I also don't know that world persistence necessarily negates that argument, though. We're still talking predominantly about the game designer's ability to generate responses to player actions.
Game responses can be limited and small in scale, such as (I presume) with games like Dwarf Fortress, but the broader overall effect might be to generate a gameplay pattern that can be interpreted as narrative. And so those small-scale responses, if there are enough, can create enough different patterns to allow players to have their own "unique" narrative.
I think a lot of games focus on the larger-scale responses (the branch points I referred to), and so the overall narrative that is generated is very similar for most players. Coming more from an interactive fiction/adventure game perspective, that's more along the lines of what I had in mind.
I think the long-term goal would be the creation of a game system where we could have "villains who react realistically to a completely open-ended panoply of possibilities." That's the tough part, of course, so designers tend to restrict the range of player possibilities to a few, so they can hard-code the villain responses -- producing that garden of forking paths. I'd be interested to hear how that can be overcome.
Links to this post:
<< Home
