Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by nilkn
<el mouthful>

Replace every instance of "narrative" with "premise" in your thesis and tell me it doesn't still make sense. Why should a game be structured as an incremental reveal of a predetermined, fixed narrative gated by dexterity challenges and logic puzzles? Why do we need plot twists, non-player character development and all that melodrama at any point between "Go" and "You win"?

I don't think we do. Yes, I think that some sort of concluding celebration is valuable, psychologically if for no other reason, but I'm convinced that this concluding celebration could be programmatically generated from a "transcript" of the specific user's path through the challenges of the game.

Games are still an incredibly young art form, and I believe that as we get better at making them (and have more horsepower to run them), we'll create more complex environments that are no pre-scripted but rather emergent in response to the player.

Well, narratives provide the illusion of progress towards the fulfillment of some purpose, whereas premises do not. Narratives are usually present in games that lack any other truly satisfying measure of progress.

Super Mario Galaxy has plenty of measures of progress towards satisfying some purpose (getting all the stars, etc.). But look at Mass Effect. The narrative is really the only way to tell where you are in the game; it's the only way to measure your progress. Your character does develop, but enemies develop right along with you, and the game maintains pretty much the same static difficulty throughout. In short, the gameplay really doesn't change at all throughout the entire game. The narrative is the only thing that develops in any meaningful and significant way. Without the developing narrative (developments often taking the form of plot twists, new conversations, etc.), I think the game would have been a complete failure.

Maybe it wasn't clear, but I'm actually agreeing with you. Narratives are an easy way to provide a sense of progress when the gameplay itself fails to provide this. Better gameplay would not need a supporting narrative to motivate the player to continue. I suppose most of my previous post was an explanation of why a sense of progress is needed in a game.

I liked Mass Effect, sure. But I liked it much more as a story and not so much as a game. I don't think it could have worked as a movie because there's too much detail (not even a movie trilogy would suffice, I think, to cover all the information in the three Mass Effect games). I think it would excel as a book: it has great world building, good characters (especially the second one), a compelling plot, and lots and lots of dialogue.

Quote: Original post by nilkn
Maybe it wasn't clear, but I'm actually agreeing with you. Narratives are an easy way to provide a sense of progress when the gameplay itself fails to provide this. Better gameplay would not need a supporting narrative to motivate the player to continue. I suppose most of my previous post was an explanation of why a sense of progress is needed in a game.

But is 'collect all of item X' really "better" gameplay?

It feels like its the same gameplay wrapped up in a different box;

- Complete all these missions and you get the story
- Complete all these levels and you'll get all the stars
- Complete the game to get the highest score

At the most fundamental level how much of a difference is there really? Just different rewards for carrying out a task.

I think the fundamental difference is that in something like Super Mario Galaxy the gameplay is rewarding in and of itself. The gameplay itself provides a sense of progress and development. The stars are more or less a wrapper to solidify the idea that you have made progress, but you "feel" the progress because you can feel the development of your own mastery of the game as you are increasingly able to take on greater and greater challenges that even at the beginning of the game would have daunted you. In a way the increasing star count is like the game agreeing with you that you have indeed become more skilled and more masterful in controlling Mario.

Well, maybe it's just me, but I never got any feeling like this in Mass Effect. In my experience one of two things will happen in Mass Effect, depending on how thoroughly you develop your character and explore the world: (1) the difficulty will be static throughout the whole game, and the narrative will be the only sense of progress besides increasing statistics which the player will quickly learn don't really matter; (2) the game will actually become easier as your character will become overpowered; this can provide a very "artificial" sense of progress. The fact that it's easier does help you feel like you've progressed, but it's simultaneously clear that it's not easy because you've become more skilled or masterful; it's just that your character has so much health or whatever that the game has become unbalanced.

Increasing the difficulty level generally has the effect of making option (2) harder to achieve and of raising the static difficulty level referred to in option (1), so this doesn't alleviate the issue.

Abstracting from this case study, I think maybe the more fundamental issue is that games are increasingly providing artificial senses of progress--narrative development, characters that slowly become overpowered, etc.--rather than providing a true sense of progress that can only be attained by the player himself developing in actual mastery of the gameplay. MMORPGs are extremely guilty of this, offering almost exclusively hollow and altogether lifeless forms of progress. They are designed to slowly but methodically gnaw at the player's mind until he is fully settled into the delusion that he is himself progressing in any way.

(Just to be clear, I don't think that all AAA games suffer from the issues I listed above. But I think Mass Effect does, so I just singled it out.)

I'm not of the opinion that narratives should just be banished from games. But I don't think they should function as measures of progress--that to me is a sign of unsatisfying gameplay.

Red Dead Redemption is a really recent game that I think has these issues. Now it's getting rave reviews, so I'm sure others might feel differently from me, but I found the gameplay in RDR extremely unsatisfying. It was dull, boring, and monstrously repetitive--nearly every mission in the latter three-quaters of the game is a copy, fundamentally, of a mission in the first quarter. Narrative developments were absolutely the only thing I had to look forward to in that game. When I realized that the narrative almost never actually developed but instead just took some other ridiculous leap, in order to postpone concluding what turns out to be a shockingly uneventful plot, I found it almost unbearable to continue playing.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine
I'd argue that [repeated failure before advancement to the next level] is true of a lot of skill sets. Take snowboarding for instance. The people who are pushing the skill level fail repeatedly until they get that new move perfect. Even for a mediocre snowboarder like me there is that plateau/leap in progression, where suddenly that huge jump feels tiny, followed by a long period where that front 3 is impossible.

True. And meaningful if you consider "finishing video games" a "skill set." Otherwise it's just odd.

Of course it is. It might not be a particularly useful skill set[grin], but it's really no different than the person who trains to set a world record for texting or stacking cups or whatever.

As for narrative, while it's often poorly done, I tend to agree with Phantom in that regardless of it's actual connection to the gameplay, narrative can still provide motivation both for the player and the character. Even in the utter pulp trash that is MW2's storyline, I can recall really wanting to kill the guy who betrays you*.

For example, I finished Bioshock because I wanted to find out what happened in the end, but the combat itself felt unengaging and repetitive.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Actually, the problem is that for every game which attempts to take on lofty issues/ideals in its narrative (Bioshock and objectivism), it ends up disconnected from its gameplay (shooting people in the face).

That's not a disconnect. When Ryan sacrificed his ideals for power, you got angry splicers, and the gameplay lets you feel the splicers firsthand. In most narratives, the nitty gritty of war is at best touched on. Games have the advantage to make the many battles that make a war something we have time to step through.

If you want to talk disconnect from story to gameplay in Bioshock, try the fact that death is at best an inconvenience or the fact that the much hyped final boss falls prey to an AI exploit used in freaking GoldenEye.

Quote: Original post by slayemin
I am still convinced that story and game play can coexist harmoniously. It's just that most games don't do it right.

Indeed, I think even those of us who seem opposed to "plot" agree with this. Perhaps our argument is that we want the process of playing the game to author new narratives that the game itself continually reacts and responds to, rather than a fixed narrative existing which we simply follow.

Quote: Original post by nilkn
Maybe it wasn't clear, but I'm actually agreeing with you. Narratives are an easy way to provide a sense of progress when the gameplay itself fails to provide this. Better gameplay would not need a supporting narrative to motivate the player to continue. I suppose most of my previous post was an explanation of why a sense of progress is needed in a game.

I think we agree, too. I think you hit the nail on the head when you speak of narrative as a facile means to provide a sense of progress when the gameplay doesn't; maybe the growing trend in narrative is a function of the perceived need to extend the play time of games. I'm on the record as arguing that games should be shorter (and cheaper, of course), so I suppose under my ideal of what games should be narrative becomes far less necessary.

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine
Of course it is. It might not be a particularly useful skill set[grin], but it's really no different than the person who trains to set a world record for texting or stacking cups or whatever.

Heh.

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine
As for narrative, while it's often poorly done, I tend to agree with Phantom in that regardless of it's actual connection to the gameplay, narrative can still provide motivation both for the player and the character. Even in the utter pulp trash that is MW2's storyline, I can recall really wanting to kill the guy who betrays you*.

I tend to find that frustrating, and as someone without a completist urge I would simply abandon a game and go look for all the cutscenes on YouTube at that point. If the fundamental gameplay isn't fun, I stop playing. House rule.

Quote: Original post by Lazy Foo

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Actually, the problem is that for every game which attempts to take on lofty issues/ideals in its narrative (Bioshock and objectivism), it ends up disconnected from its gameplay (shooting people in the face).

That's not a disconnect. When Ryan sacrificed his ideals for power, you got angry splicers, and the gameplay lets you feel the splicers firsthand. In most narratives, the nitty gritty of war is at best touched on. Games have the advantage to make the many battles that make a war something we have time to step through.

That's an interesting argument, that the gameplay challenges are the consequences of the philosophical/moral decisions made by the animating characters in the narratives. Not totally satisfying, but certainly interesting.

As for the death thing, well, that's just video gaming.

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine
As for narrative, while it's often poorly done, I tend to agree with Phantom in that regardless of it's actual connection to the gameplay, narrative can still provide motivation both for the player and the character. Even in the utter pulp trash that is MW2's storyline, I can recall really wanting to kill the guy who betrays you*.

I tend to find that frustrating, and as someone without a completist urge I would simply abandon a game and go look for all the cutscenes on YouTube at that point. If the fundamental gameplay isn't fun, I stop playing. House rule.

Actually I agree with you. The difference was I actually enjoyed MW2s gameplay. The story was beyond ridiculous, but the gameplay was engaging.

SPOILERS AHEAD











The section I was referring to is when your commanding officer kills you in cold blood (in a cutscene) to cover up his covert evulz. It's after a particularly difficult mission and I just remember thinking "oh screw that! I am so gonna kill you" and looking forward to playing the next section.

I'd contrast that with Bioshock, where I loved the story, the atmosphere and the art direction, but the actual combat bored me to tears. I kept waiting for this emergent gameplay but it just never happened and about halfway through the game I pretty much game up and did exactly as you said.

Original post by Oluseyi
Over on Slate.com I came across an article about a (new?) book by Tom Bissell called Extra Lives in which he ultimately wonders whether video games are a waste of time. Far more interesting to me, however, is this pair of paragraphs by Slate technology writer Farhad Manjoo:

Quote: When he looks at video games from a critical distance, Bissell is concerned mainly with their lack of narrative meaning. Games ask us to save the princess, save the country, save the world, save ourselves—but no one plays games to achieve those ends. We play for the puzzle, for the physics, for the sense of being embedded in a fully realized world. Indeed, for me, the "story" usually seems like filler, even in games like Grand Theft Auto and RDR [Red Dead Redemption], whose stories are smarter than the rest of the video-game pack. RDR begins and ends every mission with cleverly scripted movielike "cut scenes" that provide some explanation for why your character is doing what he's doing—but the game also lets you skip the scenes, which I usually elect to do. Thus I can't really explain why my character is doing what he's doing. The real answer is he's doing it because I am making him do it, and I am making him do it only because I am having fun.

[...]
Your thoughts?

Wait. He says he skips the story explanations and then has the balls to complain about not being able to understand the story? Just wow.
I'm surprised anyone would take that opinion piece seriously.

Quote: Original post by Eskapade

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Over on Slate.com I came across an article about a (new?) book by Tom Bissell called Extra Lives in which he ultimately wonders whether video games are a waste of time. Far more interesting to me, however, is this pair of paragraphs by Slate technology writer Farhad Manjoo:

Quote: When he looks at video games from a critical distance, Bissell is concerned mainly with their lack of narrative meaning. Games ask us to save the princess, save the country, save the world, save ourselves—but no one plays games to achieve those ends. We play for the puzzle, for the physics, for the sense of being embedded in a fully realized world. Indeed, for me, the "story" usually seems like filler, even in games like Grand Theft Auto and RDR [Red Dead Redemption], whose stories are smarter than the rest of the video-game pack. RDR begins and ends every mission with cleverly scripted movielike "cut scenes" that provide some explanation for why your character is doing what he's doing—but the game also lets you skip the scenes, which I usually elect to do. Thus I can't really explain why my character is doing what he's doing. The real answer is he's doing it because I am making him do it, and I am making him do it only because I am having fun.

[...]

Your thoughts?

Wait. He says he skips the story explanations and then has the balls to complain about not being able to understand the story? Just wow.
I'm surprised anyone would take that opinion piece seriously.

I don't think the bolded text was meant to be a complaint. It was the author's attempt at explicating his belief that the narrative of RDR is unnecessary for his enjoyment of the gameplay.

Quote: Original post by nilkn

Quote: Original post by Eskapade

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Over on Slate.com I came across an article about a (new?) book by Tom Bissell called Extra Lives in which he ultimately wonders whether video games are a waste of time. Far more interesting to me, however, is this pair of paragraphs by Slate technology writer Farhad Manjoo:

Quote: When he looks at video games from a critical distance, Bissell is concerned mainly with their lack of narrative meaning. Games ask us to save the princess, save the country, save the world, save ourselves—but no one plays games to achieve those ends. We play for the puzzle, for the physics, for the sense of being embedded in a fully realized world. Indeed, for me, the "story" usually seems like filler, even in games like Grand Theft Auto and RDR [Red Dead Redemption], whose stories are smarter than the rest of the video-game pack. RDR begins and ends every mission with cleverly scripted movielike "cut scenes" that provide some explanation for why your character is doing what he's doing—but the game also lets you skip the scenes, which I usually elect to do. Thus I can't really explain why my character is doing what he's doing. The real answer is he's doing it because I am making him do it, and I am making him do it only because I am having fun.

[...]

Your thoughts?

Wait. He says he skips the story explanations and then has the balls to complain about not being able to understand the story? Just wow.
I'm surprised anyone would take that opinion piece seriously.

I don't think the bolded text was meant to be a complaint. It was the author's attempt at explicating his belief that the narrative of RDR is unnecessary for his enjoyment of the gameplay.

In that case I would kindly ask him to speak for himself, as fun is, as we all know, subjective. I had a great time with the RDR cutscenes and especially enjoyed the ending and I don't think that hours of shooting bandits would've been the same without these story "fillers", because they would have lost their purpose.