|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
Kipple
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:07 pm Post subject: Re: "Messiah" games or -- the whole industry is br |
  |
|
| Broco wrote: |
| As another example, "immersion". We should be careful not to assume a player is ever truly "immersed" in a game in any real sense. Consider your own thinking and emotions while playing a game. We rarely actually look at a situation through the eyes of the game protagonist -- we are constantly thinking as players, interpreting even realistic-looking environments as obstacle courses and trying to find the optimal method to advance. In a highly dangerous situation, we are perhaps frustrated or exhilarated, not afraid like the protagonist would be. We completely ignore the game universe's code of ethics and the protagonist's priorities, gleefully murdering friendly NPCs and then perhaps reloading the game if this breaks progression. There is a gigantic distance between the player and the game avatar he is supposed to embody. And this is not just a problem with us hardened, too-experienced "gamers" -- I've seen people who almost never play games immediately adopt this attitude. |
This is a very good observation, and an aspect of gaming that fascinates me. We play games, in the sense that we—while not ignoring the context of story or imagery completely—are always aware of the underlying structure, of the obstacles and rewards that are fundamentally at the heart of all game design. And that structure always outweighs whatever context is given; i.e. when killing a hooker after getting a BJ allows us to retain a little more cash in a game, then we do not see it as a moral choice but instead a logical way to gain the reward while sidestepping the obstacle of losing resources (cash) to do so. Game players aren't nihilistic; there's usually a structural motive behind the story-breaking things we do.
I think the conflict between the structure of games and their narrative or story aspirations is the key reason there are no "respectable" games today. Most people, from those with no game experience to even selectbutton denizens, are inclined to view video games—a new medium—in the terms of preexisting mediums, like film and novels. That's just naturally what we do, like how most early films resemble plays with static cameras and 2-D lateral placement of actors. Eventually filmmakers realized the breadth of other ways to use film, and the populace at large did too, embracing films that were radically, specifically designed for the medium, like Memento for example.
But back to my point, the public is inclined to see games through the lens of story. That is, they see Half-Life as a game about fighting back an alien invasion, and Zelda as a game about saving a princess from evil. Then the public sees the discontinuity between the stories of games and the way the games are actually played, and they're turned off. It seems immature that games are bound to a structure of obstacles/rewards that consistently overrides whatever story is purportedly being told.
I think there are two options for addressing this.
One, a brilliant designer could create a game that actually encourages real role-playing, wherein all the obstacles and rewards are coherent in terms of the designer's intended narrative. Shadow of the Colossus got really, really close to the mark there.
Or two, we could, as a culture, just come to terms with the fact that the video game is not a narrative medium. Yeah, sure, most games encourage players to think in terms of obstacle/reward and end up breaking their own premises: so what? A great video game is, regardless of the coherence between its story and the actions of the player, a vibrant experience. There's little reason to judge games as immature or silly because they're not a good medium for transmission of story or narrative. We've inherited a bias towards story from being culturally used to books and film, but that mindset can only go so far. Games don't need a story and games don't need the player to follow a narrative in order to be great games. We just need to get past the perception that they do, just like film got past the perception that it needed to be presented like a play.
That said, I really hope option one happens, and I'd like to think there's a future for games that tell stories well. I'm just not optimistic about that right now.
Last edited by Kipple on Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:09 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
Kipple
Joined: 05 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:07 am |
|
|
| Koji wrote: |
| I only have one observation to what you're saying, leroyhacker, and it's that narrative is very tightly linked to videogames, in that videogames cannot be without narrative, as time and progression is an essential characteristic of the very medium. Yet you're right in that it's not necessarily the ultimate aspect by which a videogame should be designed around. But don't mistake narrative with story, as even a very abstract game can have a very emotional narrative. Katamari Damacy is not the most abstract game ever, but the progression that's built as your katamari gets bigger is (or was for me) very powerful, with a stupendous climax. This is a very linear kind of narrative, though, and, certainly, non-linear kinds would explore the medium much better, but more abstract ways of achieving narrative can be very stimulating, like abstract forms of visual art are in comparison with figurative art. |
I think a distinction needs to be made between different kinds of narrative. The term is slippery.
You seem to be talking about user-experienced narrative, and I'd agree that every game has a narrative of experience. After we play a game, we can describe what happened from our perspective, and that constitutes a genuine narrative. BUT... that narrative will almost certainly not be the same for every player. People will experience games in different ways, and some will break from the game's premise or story in the course of creating their narrative.
On the other hand, I think a lot of people, when reading or hearing the word "narrative", take it to mean an authorially defined experience. As in, the story is the grand outline of what happens, and the narrative is the author's intended way that a reader or player experiences the story. Like in a novel: the story is the outline and the narrative is the intimate personal details. So, to use an example, Shadow of the Colossus might intend that a player feel sad and nostalgic and melancholic in the aftermath of killing a colossus; I think a strong argument could be made that's the way the creators structured the game, in order that a player experience that narrative. This is an intended narrative experience that fits with the story. But some players are going to subvert the intended narrative progression and experience the game their own way—like feeling glee when killing the colossi, and happily slaughtering all the lizards they find.
So, sure, it can be said that every game has narrative in the sense that every player can recount his experience playing a game in a narrative format; every player creates a narrative for him/herself. But few games successfully coerce players into following an intended narrative that fits with the supposed story of the game. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
