Theory

[Archonus]

[This post, and the first few of the ensuing replies, were originally posted in this thread. So as not to derail the original thread, I have spun this discussion off into its own. Note that the title is mine, and relates to one of my upcoming articles. --icy]



I like to think of video games and the plots they contain as two completely separate entities to be enjoyed independently of one another. Some people like to think that "stories", plot or characters play just as important a role in video games as do rules and mechanics, but I think that's bullshit. If you were to take Super Mario Galaxy and replace the plot with an epic reminiscent of Beowulf and the main character with a hard-drinking detective it'd still be the same, exact game. Whether or not it raises the quality of the "total package" of a video game is up for debate, but it doesn't effect the quality of the game at all. Rules and mechanics are what really matter. Plot and characters are just frosting and trimmings.

[icycalm]

The idea of prefabricated characters and plots in games is absurd, if you sit down and think about it. The only reason it doesn't immediately strike us as absurd is because, in the last two or so decades, we have been brainwashed to think otherwise. I will explain all this in detail at some point.

[Archonus]

Well, yeah. These are games we're talking about, after all, where the point is to play them, not watch/read/listen to them, in the same sense you do movies/books/music. Somewhere along the line, however, developers decided to take advantage of the video aspect of video games and turn them into interactive movies and books with the invention of the cutscene, FMVs for the JRPG fans, and the implementation of "interactive" dialogue. It's pretty crazy when you compare these video games to games like chess or baseball. Nobody ever tried to write a plot for those games...

At the same time, though, I'd imagine some of the games I enjoy today would be kinda bland if it weren't for some of these "absurd" aspects of modern games. That little "Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant" stand-off Alex and Hugo do at the beginning of their fights in Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike always came off as totally badass to me, and they wouldn't do that unless there was some sort of plot involved with the game. I'd say that plot and characters can definitely add to the "experience" of a video game, but that's probably because I've been brainwashed to think that way, eh Icy?

[icycalm]

It's quite a subtle point. I'd say I am the only person on the planet right now who fully understands it. The question is, "How can Alex assert that prefabricated characters and plots are detrimental to videogames, when we can point to many examples where they clearly aren't?" I will explain this in detail in my "Narrative Delusions" article. The entire issue hinges around the concept of "bastardization".

[icycalm]

At the same time, though, I'd imagine some of the games I enjoy today would be kinda bland if it weren't for some of these "absurd" aspects of modern games. That little "Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant" stand-off Alex and Hugo do at the beginning of their fights in Street Fighter III: 3rd Strike always came off as totally badass to me, and they wouldn't do that unless there was some sort of plot involved with the game.

P.S.

3rd Strike would not be "kinda bland" without that little flourish of animation you mentioned. I understand what you are saying, but your example is terrible.

[Afterburn]

I'm going to pose a question that it sounds like Archonus wants to ask:

If a game feels "bland" (to use his phrasing) without its animations or cutscenes or "clever dialogue" or whatever, does this mean the game is bad? Or rather, is the fact that it requires cutscenes and a story to hook people in a knock against a game?

For example, if all the cutscenes were removed from Halo, you'd still have a competent first-person shooter. If all the cutscenes were taken out of any Metal Gear Solid game, a big chunk of the audience of those games might be less inclined to play them. Does this mean there is a fundamental flaw with the MGS games?

I'm leaning towards yeah, probably.

[icycalm]

I split the above posts off from this thread because they would have derailed it. As I mentioned, I will deal with this subject at length in an upcoming article. In the meantime, whoever wants can post his views on the matter in here and/or discuss them with others. I might chip in the occasional comment, and if someone says something intolerably stupid I might delete their comments, but apart from that I won't contribute anything of substance. It's one of these issues -- a central issue in the examination of videogames -- that you either deal with in one go, comprehensively, or you are better off not dealing with at all.

You guys are free to try though! It took me ages to crack this one, but now that I've done it I find it very amusing to observe others' hopeless, flailing efforts, watching them stumble into every little pitfall that I fell in, repeating every little mistake. This is about the only kind of entertainment I get out of the internet these days, actually.

[Volteccer_Jack]

You guys are free to try though! It took me ages to crack this one, but now that I've done it I find it very amusing to observe others' hopeless, flailing efforts, watching them stumble into every little pitfall that I fell in, repeating every little mistake. This is about the only kind of entertainment I get out of the internet these days, actually.

Happy to oblige.

I'm going to pose a question that it sounds like Archonus wants to ask:

If a game feels "bland" (to use his phrasing) without its animations or cutscenes or "clever dialogue" or whatever, does this mean the game is bad? Or rather, is the fact that it requires cutscenes and a story to hook people in a knock against a game?

For example, if all the cutscenes were removed from Halo, you'd still have a competent first-person shooter. If all the cutscenes were taken out of any Metal Gear Solid game, a big chunk of the audience of those games might be less inclined to play them. Does this mean there is a fundamental flaw with the MGS games?

I'm leaning towards yeah, probably.

I don't think Halo bears much discussion on this matter(but I've been wrong before!). The reason you can easily remove the cutscenes from Halo is because Halo's cutscenes add nothing to the game in the first place.

With Metal Gear Solid, it's not quite the same. You could remove all the cutscenes and plot and the actual game would still be exactly as good as it is(and I would say that it's an extremely good game at that). But with Metal Gear Solid, the plot and cutscenes actually add something. What they've basically done is made a stealth action game, and then thrown in a movie along with it. This is good, because the movie they've thrown in is fun to watch. But it's also bad, because if you just want to sneak around and break necks(the reason you bought the game), 20-minute intermissions are stupid to the point of absurdity.

So while, yes, removing the cutscenes and plot from MGS would mean that "a big chunk of the audience of those games might be less inclined to play them", you have to also take into account the fact that the same cutscenes and plot are responsible for alienating another section of the game's audience.

The idea of prefabricated characters and plots in games is absurd, if you sit down and think about it. The only reason it doesn't immediately strike us as absurd is because, in the last two or so decades, we have been brainwashed to think otherwise. I will explain all this in detail at some point.

Now I'm going to make some futile efforts of my own. The thing that struck me the most about icy's remark was the word "prefabricated". To say that the use of that particular word was a surprise to me, would be an understatement. It's not a word I would use to describe a story. I needed some time to think about it before I responded. Again though, I'm flailing about, so take this as a pondering and not a conclusion.

As far as I can figure, the most likely example of a story that isn't fabricated beforehand would be in an actual roleplaying game, with the oh-so-obvious example game being Dungeons & Dragons. Here, the story is in the process of being written, and things which have not yet occurred can be altered to accomodate player actions, or merely at the whim of the GM.

The problem I have is in applying that same method to video games, where the GM is replaced by a computer. The closest I can imagine would be an incredibly large set of possible stories, with changes based on the player's actions, or even just at random. These would have to be implemented before real players even came near the game. Aside from the seeming enormity of the task, it brings up a question about the definition of "prefabricated". It doesn't help that I have no first-hand experience with any real roleplaying games, so I'm a bit in the dark.

But I have another thought on the matter, which is that games can have a story without telling a story. To take the Street Fighter 3 example. I know pretty much nothing about Street Fighter's plot, and even less about all the new characters in SF3. But I know Sean plays basketball, and that he's not as well trained in combat as other characters. How do I know this? Well, I know he plays basketball because he does basketball stuff, like a taunt where he throws a basketball. And because he just looks like a guy who enjoys basketball, and isn't all that good at fighting. It's tough to explain.

[icycalm]

You are way off base on both Halo's and MGS's storylines. Halo's story actually adds just as much to the game if not more than MGS's does to MGS. The difference is that Halo's plot adds just atmosphere, while MGS's adds both atmosphere AND plot for plot's sake. That is where it fails, as a game (as a cartoon it may succeed perhaps, but that is not something I am interested in).

On prefabricated stories. Note that the phrase "prefabricated story" is a pleonasm, since ALL stories are by definition prefabricated. I only used the word to underline the fact. I guess you found the word "prefabricated" demeaning, as well you should. People hold story peddlers in much too high esteem. In fact, they should do the exact opposite. Even the greatest novels and films of all time are fairly shallow, intellectually speaking, if one sits down and cuts through the flowery language and visual techniques in order to get to what they are actually saying. You will pretty much always discover that what they are saying is either something very simple indeed, or else downright banal or stupid. Novel writers and movie directors are not exactly noted for their wisdom and intelligence, after all, which is why the greatest philosophers have always looked down on them with varying degrees of contempt. Even people like George Orwell, an immensely intelligent writer and extremely talented novelist, ended up spouting naive humanitarian claptrap. Very moving of course, and extremely well-written claptrap, but claptrap all the same. The bottom line is this: whoever has enough intelligence to understand the deepest insights, will decline to spend his life fantasizing random stories while sitting in a dark room furiously scribbling for ten hours a day. Hence, the job of narrative fabrication will always fall to the mediocre.

(Note that my standards are higher than anyone else's, so for me you have to move everyone one scale down. Therefore what others call stupid people I call monkeys, what others call mediocre I call stupid, and what they call intelligent I call mediocre. The designation "intelligent" I reserve for a dozen or so people.)

To sum up: the videogame industry looks up with awe at narrative media, whereas they should be looking down at them with contempt. But that is what happens with people who have bad consciences and low self esteem! Not to mention with idiots!

[Worm]

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?t=2511#7025

[paraphrased] All simulation is pathetic.

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/untold_tales/episode_6/

Gradius is about the epic fight. The almighty spaceship Vic Viper against the evil fiends of Bacteria. The powerful Gladius of Justice in the face of cruel, greedy creatures.

What makes videogames both pathetic and awesome is that they create the illusion of doing cool things that the player can't do in real life. They contain elements that don't affect the mechanics, but provide context (e.g. rather than feeling like you are maneuvering a sprite into a hitbox, you feel like you are guiding a missile into the enemy base).

Other than with respect to efficacy, I see no reason to treat expository dialogue or cutscenes any differently than aural and visual elements that don't affect how the game plays. It's all just flavor. Good games don't need that stuff to be good games, but why not throw in a short cutscene to help set the mood?

Well, "short" is the operative word, here, because we get into diminishing returns very quickly. Such attempts are already clumsy in comparison (Would you rather be told that the blobs you're shooting are demons, or have the enemies actually look like demons?), and it only gets worse the more information you expect the player to sit and absorb passively. Eventually we end up with chunks of movie stuck into a game, presented with an inflated sense of importance, as if the point of the game is to unlock the next DVD chapter.

Even then we might be tempted to say, "So what? You can skip all that junk anyway. It's just a bonus, right?" But here the detriment becomes apparent. The more intricate the plot, the more constrained the game becomes, as player choice is eliminated and outcomes are predetermined to avoid continuity errors. And that's not to speak of the times when the game actually wrests control from the player and makes the character do some stupid shit. Or awesome shit; it doesn't matter--in fact, I think it speaks volumes that players often identify the most exciting parts of plot-heavy games as ones when they weren't even holding the controller.

There's also the simple issue of dev time/money--it's a waste of assets that could have gone towards the playable sections.

Now, I can see someone arguing that predetermining events in games is what lets us create neat set pieces, so maybe a little railroading is acceptable. Yet such illusions are flimsy. Players quickly realize that such events, flashy as they may appear, play out the same way every time, and are unfortunate kludges to make up for the fact that we don't have robust AI or destructible environments or whatever. But, even if accept that a little bit of this is allowed (for flavor and illusion), we still can only go a short ways down that road before the game becomes filled with situations that are static and boring.

As far as I can figure, the most likely example of a story that isn't fabricated beforehand would be in an actual roleplaying game, with the oh-so-obvious example game being Dungeons & Dragons.

D&D doesn't have a story, precisely because it's not yet written. Could you hand someone D&D and say "This game has a great story?" Of course, you can always tell someone a story about what you did in a game, but only after you are finished playing (i.e., after it has been fabricated).

EDIT: Looking at icycalm's post, "atmosphere" is a better choice than "context" or "flavor."

[Afterburn]

Halo's story actually adds just as much to the game if not more than MGS's does to MGS. The difference is that Halo's plot adds just atmosphere, while MGS's adds both atmosphere AND plot for plot's sake.

In other words, a story (or anything other than how the game plays, like animations, dialogue, music, etc.) in a game should only ever serve to add atmosphere; developers should never add story for story's sake. Make sense.

Well, "short" is the operative word, here, because we get into diminishing returns very quickly. Such attempts are already clumsy in comparison (Would you rather be told that the blobs you're shooting are demons, or have the enemies actually look like demons?), and it only gets worse the more information you expect the player to sit and absorb passively. Eventually we end up with chunks of movie stuck into a game, presented with an inflated sense of importance, as if the point of the game is to unlock the next DVD chapter.

The problem becomes, then, how much story is too much? I agree that in MGS there is far too much story (as much as I love the story in the first and second games). I think the problem lies in how the story is presented. If it is forced upon the player, as in the MGS games, then the plot assumes a self-importance that being in a game it has no right to. A game like Deus Ex or maybe Mass Effect, where a lot of the story is optional, and you need to willingly seek out extra and background plot, is the better approach, I think.

[icycalm]

I think the problem lies in how the story is presented.

No, the probem lies in that the story exists at all. Storylines in games are due to technical limitations (and stupidity, of course) -- they are thus something that must be overcome.

If it is forced upon the player, as in the MGS games

Stories in games are always forced upon the player, in one way or another, so there's no need for the "if".

then the plot assumes a self-importance that being in a game it has no right to. A game like Deus Ex or maybe Mass Effect, where a lot of the story is optional, and you need to willingly seek out extra and background plot, is the better approach, I think.

The better approach for what? For adding unnecessary storylines to random games? You must be specific. Talking generally about "better approaches" that would work for all genres will get you nowhere. You did of course talk about Deus Ex and Mass Effect, which are to a greater or lesser extent pseudo-RPGs, but saying that their approach is "better" -- where does that get you? Better for what? For racing games? For beat 'em ups? For flight simulators? No -- better for Deus Ex and Mass Effect, and games like them.

People really need to get their head around the concept of genre one of these days.

The problem becomes, then, how much story is too much?

Sneak preview from the article:

First principle of ANY kind of functional design: When judging how much is too much is impossible, what you must do is add as little as possible. (Because even the slightest, tiniest bit above the minimum is already too much.)

[c001357]

Here's a compromise - developers can produce merchandise(comics, novels, etc.) that uses characters and settings of a particular game.
I agree with the plot being having relative value in a game. A plot would be central in games like the Persona series, and would have little importance in fighting or shooting games.

[JoshF]

I'm going to guess he thinks set storylines are disadvantageous when the whole point of games is interactivity, and the reason we're getting them right now is because developers look to the movie industry like a kid frolicking in his dad's work boots, since that's how you get your TV toys labeled as art.

[Bradford]

Story, n. 1. An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious, as: a. An account or report regarding the facts of an event or group of events . . . b. An anecdote . . . c. A lie . . . 2a. A usually fictional prose or verse narrative intended to interest or amuse the hearer or reader; a tale. b. A short story. 3. The plot of a narrative or dramatic work . . . 6. The background information regarding something . . . .

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Lanuage (4th ed. 2000).

The transative verb form seems particularly useful:

To decorate with scenes representing historical or legendary events.

How especially appropriate to consider the story in a videogame as decoration! The reason for this post, however, is to ask a question: exactly what definition of 'story' or 'plot' ("the pattern of events or main story in a narrative or drama") are we using here? I ask that question because I can't help but wonder what a game with no story looks like (depending on what is considered 'having a story').

Chess is the first game that came to mind. Maybe there is a story: "I have a medieval army and so do you, let's fight!" Compare, however, with poker, which lacks even that much of a story. I think that the difference is that one is a simulation and the other is not. Therefore, I would suppose we must constrain the discussion only to the role of stories in games that are simulations.

That leaves the only other couple of questions I want to ask for right now:

If a simulation by definition has at least the kind of story that chess does, should we call that merely its 'context' (or some other word) and differentiate that from the kind of story implemented in MGS? The 'story' in chess is certainly not a "a series of events," unlike MGS.

When Icy says "story is something to be overcome" does he mean "mastered and utilized appropriately" or "eliminated?"

[Recap]

What chess has is not a "story", but a "narrative". Every game, including poker, has it since the very moment they have rules and they develope according to them. Whether if you can figure an abstraction out of it or not, is not really important in the end.

[Bradford]

What chess has is not a "story", but a "narrative".

I understand what you're saying, and I think I was trying to say the same thing (using the word 'context,' but alternately I think you could use 'framework,' 'matrix,' etc.), but the distinction you're drawing is getting us nowhere until we take the time to codify the specialized manner in which we're using each term. The dictionary definition

narrative, n. Consisting of or characterized by the telling of a story.

appears useless for the present purpose. Can you explicitly define 'story' and 'narrative' in the manner that you are using them?

Also, are you rejecting my notion that distinguishing poker from chess in terms of simulation is either correct or useful (or neither)?

[Recap]

I understand what you're saying, and I think I was trying to say the same thing (using the word 'context,' but alternately I think you could use 'framework,' 'matrix,' etc.), but the distinction you're drawing is getting us nowhere until we take the time to codify the specialized manner in which we're using each term. The dictionary definition

narrative, n. Consisting of or characterized by the telling of a story.

appears useless for the present purpose.

It's indeed quite a useless dictionary if you ask me, since it can't even distinguish between a "n." and an "adj."...

Can you explicitly define 'story' and 'narrative' in the manner that you are using them?

Quick'n dirty since English is not my native tongue:

Story -- narrated happenings (fictional or not)
Narrative (in my context!) -- settings; every possible development and not a specific one

I also think that, to this particular point, we were more or less agreeing; I simply was being picky with the terminology.

Also, are you rejecting my notion that distinguishing poker from chess in terms of simulation is either correct or useful (or neither)?

Yep. Chess would still be chess without "simulating" anything. That's why I believe it's important to distiguish between the "narrative" and the "story". Not important to this thread, actually, since Icy's ultimate point (the one you were trying to get into) is already cleared by Josh.

[Bradford]

Thanks for your response; I think I get what you're saying but it's difficult to wrap my head around all the implications.

[Afterburn]

Quick'n dirty since English is not my native tongue:

Story -- narrated happenings (fictional or not)
Narrative (in my context!) -- settings; every possible development and not a specific one

Hmmm... by definition, that's not exactly what the words mean. This is the sort of thing I have a pretty good grasp on, being a literature major in university:

"Story" is an event or sequence of events; everything that actually happens in a story.

"Narrative" is how a story is told; in what order; in what form, a flashback, chronological or non, and so on.

Stories are delivered by narrative means. Narratives arrange events in a certain order and style to communicate them. In a way, story pre-exists narrative.

[icycalm]

What the latest posts in this thread demonstrate once more, is the classic philosophical phenomenon of "denial". Basically, when someone learns a new theory which he can neither refute, nor for whatever reason accept, he goes into a sort of state of denial, and by juggling words around attempts to muddle the issue to the point where it might seem (to the shortsighted) that the issue hasn't already been resolved -- that there's something more to say on the subject, something that the original propounder of the theory was unaware of. In this way, they get to keep their little pet theories or delusions, which in reality have of course been crushed by the new theory.

So yeah. Plot, scenario, story, narrative, etc. Why not make up another twenty words that mean the same thing? The more the better. Then juggle juggle juggle, and muddle muddle muddle, until no one (not even you!) has a fucking clue what the fuck it is you are trying to say.

[Recap]

"Story" is an event or sequence of events; everything that actually happens in a story.

"Narrative" is how a story is told; in what order; in what form, a flashback, chronological or non, and so on.

Stories are delivered by narrative means. Narratives arrange events in a certain order and style to communicate them. In a way, story pre-exists narrative.

This is pointless material, but I really disagree with your definition for "story". An event which isn't somehow narrated can never constitute a "story"; that thing would be just that thing -- an "event".

I agree that "the narrative" is how a story is told, though, but that's besides the point. You missed my parenthesis. I was giving an explanation (not a definition) for my usage of "narrative" in a previous context -- if you think about it, in a game, the rules, the setting, its development are exactly the how; that's why I think we can always talk about "the narrative of a game" even when the game has no storytelling at all.

[Afterburn]

This is pointless material, but I really disagree with your definition for "story". An event which isn't somehow narrated can never constitute a "story"; that thing would be just that thing -- an "event".

Right, but that's all but all a story is-- an (or a sequence of) event(s). If I told you, "I fell," that's a story. A story comprised of one event, but a story nonetheless. I agree that this is obfuscating the real issue at hand, though.

You missed my parenthesis. I was giving an explanation (not a definition) for my usage of "narrative" in a previous context -- if you think about it, in a game, the rules, the setting, its development are exactly the how; that's why I think we can always talk about "the narrative of a game" even when the game has no storytelling at all.

I see what you mean. Thanks for the further explanation.

[icycalm]

that's why I think we can always talk about "the narrative of a game" even when the game has no storytelling at all.

If that is the official definition of narrative, or if at any rate that is how you want to define the word, then fine. However, I will still make a point of not using the word at all when I talk about games, because

1. Most people equate narrative with story, and will therefore be confused about what I am saying

2. It doesn't help me say anything I couldn't have said in other, less ambiguous ways

[Recap]

Sure. I just tried to explain to Bradford why chess and poker are not different in this regard.