Theory

[icycalm]

And here is a flagrant demonstration of why my approach simply must be adopted, if one is to get anywhere with understanding videogames:

There are countless magazine articles, academic papers and industry interviews in which "experts" claim that videogames are "a new form of narrative medium". Now (forgetting for a moment that games are not a medium) with Recap's definition their claim is of course true, but -- surprise, surprise -- all these eggheads are not using that definition! So in one sentence they are saying that games are a new narrative medium, and in the next sentence they proceed to talk about how the stories must be improved in order for the medium to fully realize its potential.

lol, etc.

Isn't it funny how people can get confused to absurdity by a couple of mere fucking words? It's like they are drowning in a spoonful of fucking water.

So that is why I exorcise the use of the word narrative from my writings, in the sense that Afterburn and Recap use it. When I mention narrative (as in the tittle of the article: On Narrative Delusions), I am using it as a synonym for scenario, plot, story, etc.

And don't anyone try to tell me that scenario, plot and story are themselves not exact synonyms, because of course I know, and trust me, it doesn't really matter!

[icycalm]

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.

And here's the funny thing: if the journalists, academics and developers mentioned above had been consistently using the term 'narrative' in the manner you describe, they would have seen that the way to improve a game's narrative is not by foisting a story on to it, or by improving that story -- but by expanding and improving "the rules, the setting, the development", as you mentioned.

So in the end, it doesn't really matter what words you use or in what sense, as long as your use of them is CONSISTENT within your own discourse. If it is, you will eventually reach the same conclusions as someone else who used the words in an entirely different sense, but still consistently within his own discourse. It's like notation in mathematics. X, Y, Z -- what difference does it make what you call the various variables? As long as you use them consistently: none.



Meanwhile, Bradford's little mixup re: simulation and games has been cleared up here:

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?t=2584

and will be further cleared up as needed.

[Recap]

if the journalists, academics and developers mentioned above had been consistently using the term 'narrative' in the manner you describe, they would have seen that the way to improve a game's narrative is not by foisting a story on to it, or by improving that story -- but by expanding and improving "the rules, the setting, the development", as you mentioned.

I'd say you already have there the article made. In just one single paragraph.

[icycalm]

Actually, I already have the article made, and it's several pages :)

But yeah, every article on this site can be summarized in a paragraph. Hell, most of them can be summarized in a sentence! But that is not the way to explain things to people...

[icycalm]

http://www.babble.com/Andy-Serkis-The-I ... ndex2.aspx

Games — there's no heart in them. They're not about anything that is lasting. We put so much into the writing of film scripts and plays, but not into games. And games are where the audience is going to be. In the next generation of kids, you're going to see a lot of storytelling in games. And I think it's important to invest in that. I absolutely think that gaming is a massive storytelling arena in the making and now the technology has arrived to do that. It's a fascinating time.

Terminally delusional. Not to mention stupid.

[icycalm]

So what do you think is the hardest thing about writing for games?

At strip clubs, there’s a guy whose job is to talk between the strippers. He tries to do a good job and be entertaining and enthusiastic, but everybody’s just there for the nakedness. That’s a professional writer trick we call called an “analogy”. What I really mean is that game writers are the game equivalent of the guy who talks between the nude girls at strip clubs. Nobody cares about what that guy does, and anybody who does care is probably a little maladjusted. So I’d have to say the hardest part of being a game writer is learning all the writing tricks like “analogy”.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2007/10 ... ik-wolpaw/

[icycalm]

I just bothered to look 'narrative' up in a dictionary, and realized that, going by the dictionary, this is wrong:

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.

This is what the dictionary says:

narrative |ˈnarətiv|
noun
a spoken or written account of connected events; a story : the hero of his modest narrative.

So story=narrative=plot=scenario=script=whatever other word people might invent to describe pretty much one and the same thing.

So there's nothing wrong with the title of my essay or this thread.

[Recap]

n.
1. A narrated account; a story.
2. The art, technique, or process of narrating.

http://www.answers.com/narrative


I don't remember myself saying that your title was necessarily wrong, anyhow.

[icycalm]

No, you didn't say my title was wrong, but if narrative really meant something different than story it would be. As for this:

2. The art, technique, or process of narrating.

It's not really relevant for this thread's (and my article's) purposes. I sort of explained it at some point in an Action Button thread.

If a narrative (=story=script=scenario=plot) is an "account of connected events", then it can only exist in a game after the game is over. Because before the game has begun there are no events to speak of: there is only a range of possibilities. Of course these possibilities have been determined beforehand by the designers through their choice of a the rule system, so of course they will always have had a role in the narrative that will result every time the game is played -- after it is finished. But that is not the same as saying that the game has an actual narrative. Games, by virtue of the fact that they contain possibilities, never have an actual narrative, hence "the art, technique, or process of narrating" is irrelevant to them. What is relevant to them is "the art, technique, or process of playing", as well as "the art, technique, or process of designing (rule systems)".

[icycalm]

Note also that the second definition you gave pretty much coincides with that of 'storytelling'. Ideally (i.e. in the limiting case), games should not include any of that.

[dA]

And here is a flagrant demonstration of why my approach simply must be adopted, if one is to get anywhere with understanding videogames:

There are countless magazine articles, academic papers and industry interviews in which "experts" claim that videogames are "a new form of narrative medium". Now (forgetting for a moment that games are not a medium) with Recap's definition their claim is of course true, but -- surprise, surprise -- all these eggheads are not using that definition! So in one sentence they are saying that games are a new narrative medium, and in the next sentence they proceed to talk about how the stories must be improved in order for the medium to fully realize its potential.

I came across a piece of academic writing which was even titled "Videogames as a narrative medium". Luckily it recognized that videogames have far more interesting experiences to offer than MGS's cutscenes, even though it doesn't even try to take any worthwhile conclusion out of that.

The only way for videogames to be as involving in the same way as a good narrative (and ultimately something far beyond) is when mechanics, rules, A.I. etc. react to the player's actions in such a way that the situations and challenges that he faces are interesting enough to tell brilliant stories about (edit: exactly what icycalm was talking about two posts above). Stories that can't capture how awesome it was, because even at their best it's almost as if you're there, but it's never the real thing.

Still, that won't happen soon. It has been almost ten years since Deus Ex and developers (have to) focus so much on graphics that the actual interaction with the game world most of the only gets smaller.

[Molloy]

There is so much complete nonsense posted about this subject. Hopefully I'm not adding to the noise!

It's become a cliche but you always hear movie directors say the key to storytelling is "show, don't tell". The same could apply to animation and graphic novels. It's different for theatre because you often can't show things and you have to rely on dialogue.

With games you could say "play, don't tell". I think Ico was a wonderful example of this. You become protective of the girl because the entire game defending her. She doesn't even need any dialogue with you (that you can understand). The relationship is actually less appealing the 2nd time round where her dialogue is translated.

In Shadow of the Collosus you build a relationship with the horse because you're controlling him, but not exactly. I do quite alot of horse riding and it really caught that sense that you're mostly in control but the animal is making smaller decisions about exactly how he's going to go from point A to point B.

Older games didn't have any FMV and usually had minimal dialogue and cutscenes so they had to tell their 'story' with game mechanics, music and environments. I think this was probably a better approach but I'd be interested to read Icy's perspective because at the moment there aren't alot of ones I find very convincing.

[dA]

I think it goes a bit further than that.

Shadow of the Colossus, for example, has a cutscene near the end of the game involving the horse. You can't escape it and every one knows that it's a cutscene that can't be avoided and will happen every time you play the game. The player has no responsibility for that and just thinks "oh well, it was meant to happen so let's continue" or may cry when they fall under the category "artfaggot".

Now, take the dog from Fallout 3. Not quite as well designed, but it isn't enforced on the player. Some will never find it, others on their very first trip. It's completely optional and can be killed at any time: it's the responsibility of the player. He has to make sure that the dog survives. Think now of a version where the dog is introduced in the tutorial and can't die (only be knocked unconscious, like the main characters of the less involving main story!) until a certain forced cutscene near the end. It doesn't have the same impact at all!

Most games try to mix cutscenes (story) with gameplay (rules and mechanics). But those things don't mix. Not only do most stories in games suck, they're also compromised by this mix. If a developer wants to tell stories, then it should make films, write books etcetera. If it wants a game that actually has some emotional impact, it has to abandon story and make the rules, mechanics, animation, A.I. and stuff good enough to create situations and challenges that are effective. Feeling responsibility, determination and stuff can be far more effective than the passive empathy in films.

[Worm]

EDIT: Maybe I am misreading--it sounds like Molloy's saying something similar to Recap, though I still don't understand how anything except a story can be narrated--but I'll add these lines to show what I was trying to respond to:

It's become a cliche but you always hear movie directors say the key to storytelling is "show, don't tell".
...
With games you could say "play, don't tell."
...
Older games didn't have any FMV and usually had minimal dialogue and cutscenes so they had to tell their 'story' with game mechanics, music and environments.

Horse mechanics do not tell a story. Environments do not tell a story. Music does not tell a story (though lyrics can). I'm not sure what you're getting at but it just sounds like you're abusing the term "storytelling" to mean "giving things interesting properties."

If you develop a certain attitude towards objects because of their properties, that's your prerogative, but just because you get attached to your virtual horse doesn't mean that there's a story there, any more than when people name and talk to their cars in real life. Even if we're talking about the explicit characterization of NPCs, that's still not storytelling.

If the term is to have any meaning we have to be very firm on this point, because otherwise people end up talking about Civilization's great "narrative," when what they really mean is the amount of interesting interactions and possibilities that can result from its mechanics. This is the confusion Icycalm stated above, and I really have no idea why people want to use "story" and "narrative" in this way. I think people assume that without a plot, you can't have engaging, moving, or dramatic moments, but that is clearly false.

In fact, as dA has pointed out above, the exact opposite is true when it comes to games.

[icycalm]

The communication in the last three posts is extremely scattershot. Molloy is just throwing out some random thoughts. dA sort has a point, though he loses the thread in the last couple of sentences. And Worm is replying to something that no one said.

Still, not bad posts, if we take them individually and ignore the breakdown in communication.

And dA, never use the word 'gameplay' again.

[Recap]

No, you didn't say my title was wrong, but if narrative really meant something different than story it would be.

I think it's clear enough by the definitions quoted here that "narrative" does indeed mean exactly the same as "story", hence you're title can't be "wrong". But you see, the thing is that there is _another_ meaning for the term (which indeed is richer and more appropiate when you get into metalinguistic dissertations, if you ask me).

What is relevant to them is "the art, technique, or process of playing", as well as "the art, technique, or process of designing (rule systems)".

You and me are saying the same thing. If you forget for a moment that narrative =story=script=scenario=plot and pay attention to my posts in this thread, you'll realize that I was never interested in the story at all nor how the story is narrated or even about a particular development, but indeed about the "possibilities" the rules determine. All of them. We can call that "the narrative of a game" because it's what determines how the events will occur. Whether if the events still don't exist, it's unimportant. The point is a game involves a succession of events.

[icycalm]

you'll realize that I was never interested in the story at all nor how the story is narrated or even about a particular development, but indeed about the "possibilities" the rules determine.

Then this has nothing to do with any of the meanings of the word 'narrative'. The second meaning, as we have seen, is about storytelling.

We can call that "the narrative of a game" because it's what determines how the events will occur.

Only the player determines how the events will occur -- within, obviously, a given possibility space. So I don't see the point in borrowing a term which was invented for a completely different purpose, and adapting it to our requirements. I mean, we already have a term for this: 'possibility space'. It's a term invented solely for games. Of course we could define a new meaning to 'narrative', as:

narrative=possibility space

but then we could also define a new meaning to story as

story=possibility space

et cetera, et cetera, but I don't see any benefit to be derived from this, whilst I see many disadvantages. This issue is confusing enough as it is, and it will get even more confusing in the future (in my writings), so I need to keep things as simple as possible. And the simplest solution in this case is to say that "ideally, narrative should have absolutely nothing to do with videogames, or games of any kind".

[Recap]

you'll realize that I was never interested in the story at all nor how the story is narrated or even about a particular development, but indeed about the "possibilities" the rules determine.

Then this has nothing to do with any of the meanings of the word 'narrative'. The second meaning, as we have seen, is about storytelling.

Or not really. It's about "event-telling". A subtle though crucial differentiation for this discussion.

Only the player determines how the events will occur -- within, obviously, a given possibility space. So I don't see the point in borrowing a term which was invented for a completely different purpose, and adapting it to our requirements. I mean, we already have a term for this: 'possibility space'. It's a term invented solely for games.

"We"? That term is hideous. And we're not "adapting" anything, we're just keeping in mind that a game involves a "succession of events", hence they gotta have their own particular narrative.

Of course we could define a new meaning to 'narrative', as:

narrative=possibility space

In the case that "possibility space" is contemplated in those official dictionaries you and me love so much, I guess so.

et cetera, et cetera, but I don't see any benefit to be derived from this, whilst I see many disadvantages. This issue is confusing enough as it is, and it will get even more confusing in the future (in my writings), so I need to keep things as simple as possible. And the simplest solution in this case is to say that "ideally, narrative should have absolutely nothing to do with videogames, or games of any kind".

That's indeed quite a simple way to solve it, yeah. Then again, another one more... technical would be to indeed make everybody see that games (therefore, video-games too) do have their own particular narrative which has little to do with that of novels, movies, etc.

[icycalm]

Or not really. It's about "event-telling". A subtle though crucial differentiation for this discussion.

"Event-telling", lol. Why don't you make up a few more terms that mean exactly the same thing? As if people were not confused enough as it is.

There's no differentiation, subtle or otherwise. "Event-telling" and playing a game (or designing a game) could not possibly be any more differentiated activities.

"We"?

It's a fairly well accepted term within academia. Not that I care -- just sayin'. If it makes you feel any better, you can substitute all the "we"'s with "I"'s. At the end of the day, I am only interested in my articles and my books and the terminology I'll be using in them. Everyone else's terminology is useless to me. They are languages I don't speak, and don't care to. It's enough that I had to learn the terminologies of a dozen different philosophers -- my only goal now is to create my own.

That term is hideous.

I find it quite elegant, actually. Appropriately descriptive, too.

And we're not "adapting" anything, we're just keeping in mind that a game involves a "succession of events", hence they gotta have their own particular narrative.

This is the kind of stuff I am trying to avoid. It's the kind of thing SB people would say: "events having their own narrative", lol. It is impossible to communicate with such sentences -- they are entirely meaningless. My dog has his own narrative too.

In the case that "possibility space" is contemplated in those official dictionaries you and me love so much, I guess so.

We keep having the same argument over and over again, and I seem incapable of explaining to you how philosophers use dictionaries. The result is comments like the above. But the fact of the matter is that I have a job to do, some ideas that I want to communicate, ideas which can only be communicated by adjusting a dictionary to my purposes, and no amount of opposition, on any grounds whatsoever, will prevent me from doing so.

That's indeed quite a simple way to solve it, yeah. Then again, another one more... technical would be to indeed make everybody see that games (therefore, video-games too) do have their own particular narrative which has little to do with that of novels, movies, etc.

The fact of the matter is that NOT EVEN I can see this. I get confused really easily too, so I like to have separate words for separate things: i.e. a word should have as few meanings as possible, and preferably only one. This is what Wittgenstein says in the Tractatus. In the ideal logical language, each word would correspond to a single meaning, and no meaning to more than one word. About 99% (if not 100%) of our misconceptions/stupidities/breakdowns of communication occur because our languages are non-ideal.

[icycalm]

I think the reason you do not share the urgency with which I clarify my terminology (including terms such as 'RPG', 'possibility space' and now 'narrative') is because you do not have to deal with artfags and academics, and also because you do not have to grapple with the greater theoretical problems. If I wasn't writing articles addressing artfags and academics, and if all my reviews were of old 2D action/strategy games, then I wouldn't need these words either. I could review 10,000 arcade games in the same language the CVG guys used back in 1989, no problem.

[Molloy]

I wrote a huge reply to dA's second post and it took me so long my account logged out and I lost it!

What I don't like about the Bethesda emergent style of game is it can be a little bit like giving you a big box of grey lego and saying 'go make your own fun'. Yes, you'll probably have a couple of cool things happen but most of the situations you're going to create will be dull. You can keep the dog in Fallout 3 but are you as richly involved with him as the dog in Fable 2 where the entire game has been designed around him?

What I liked about Ico is that the repetitive mechanic of saving the girl 100's of times was what did the emotional groundwork. It's the setup for a handful of very short cutscenes in the game. If a game has a 10 different endings it’s not necessarily going to be more entertaining. Most of the endings would be boring or wouldn’t make sense in the context of what you’ve been spending the game doing. I think passive and active parts of the game need to interact with each other and the more successfully this is done the more the ratio can be tipped in favour of the active.

[Recap]

"Event-telling", lol. Why don't you make up a few more terms that mean exactly the same thing?

"Event-telling" (as I used it) is not the same as "storytelling". You could have said though that "event-telling" means "story". Check out the difference (between "story" and "storytelling"), because that's indeed the difference between the two meanings for "narrative":

1. = "story"
2. = "HOW the story is narrated"

"Event-telling" and playing a game (or designing a game) could not possibly be any more differentiated activities.

Man, designing a game is indeed about "event-telling". When you design a set of rules you're modelling a whole extent of [possible] events.

And we're not "adapting" anything, we're just keeping in mind that a game involves a "succession of events", hence they gotta have their own particular narrative.

This is the kind of stuff I am trying to avoid. It's the kind of thing SB people would say: "events having their own narrative", lol.

"Lol" at what? At a sentence or an idea I never said?

It is impossible to communicate with such sentences -- they are entirely meaningless. My dog has his own narrative too.

You trying to say that a game doesn't "involve a succession of events" or just refuting another idea nobody here expressed for the hell of it?

In the case that "possibility space" is contemplated in those official dictionaries you and me love so much, I guess so.

We keep having the same argument over and over again, and I seem incapable of explaining to you how philosophers use dictionaries. The result is comments like the above. But the fact of the matter is that I have a job to do, some ideas that I want to communicate, ideas which can only be communicated by adjusting a dictionary to my purposes, and no amount of opposition, on any grounds whatsoever, will prevent me from doing so.

Eh, it was Icycalm himself the one who bumped the thread up after... three months? just because he was unable to find the definition in the dictionary for a word I had used!

That's indeed quite a simple way to solve it, yeah. Then again, another one more... technical would be to indeed make everybody see that games (therefore, video-games too) do have their own particular narrative which has little to do with that of novels, movies, etc.

The fact of the matter is that NOT EVEN I can see this. I get confused really easily too, so I like to have separate words for separate things: i.e. a word should have as few meanings as possible, and preferably only one. This is what Wittgenstein says in the Tractatus. In the ideal logical language, each word would correspond to a single meaning, and no meaning to more than one word. About 99% (if not 100%) of our misconceptions/stupidities/breakdowns of communication occur because our languages are non-ideal.

Linguistics is not an exact science and words usually have multiple, even dozens of meanings, no matter if Icycalm likes it or not, I'm afraid. In that "ideal logical language", anyhow, every meaning/concept would also get its own word in order to have a fucking linguistic sign. So by following your logic, given that we have already some several words for the concept of "story", it seems like an utterly brilliant idea to start using the word "narrative" for this other fascinating meaning of "how something is narrated; the techniques and the process", which, other than it, doesn't have any other proper word to designate it.

I think the reason you do not share the urgency with which I clarify my terminology (including terms such as 'RPG', 'possibility space' and now 'narrative') is because you do not have to deal with artfags and academics

I don't give a shit about today's video-games and their industry, how could I care about their "artfags" or "academics".

[icycalm]

because that's indeed the difference between the two meanings for "narrative":

1. = "story"
2. = "HOW the story is narrated"

Neither of which meanings has anything to do with games.

Man, designing a game is indeed about "event-telling". When you design a set of rules you're modelling a whole extent of [possible] events.

Designing a game has nothing to do with "event-telling", except if you define "event-telling" so broadly that it can then be used everywhere, in which case it is useless -- exactly because it can be used everywhere. I mean, by your definition, the universe has a narrative too, since it evolves according to specific rules. At this point the absurdity of the whole business becomes clear.

And we're not "adapting" anything, we're just keeping in mind that a game involves a "succession of events", hence they gotta have their own particular narrative.

This is the kind of stuff I am trying to avoid. It's the kind of thing SB people would say: "events having their own narrative", lol.

"Lol" at what? At a sentence or an idea I never said?

At what you said. You said that "a succession of events has to have its own narrative". That, to me, is funny.

Narratives don't exist until someone comes along and creates them. But that is something that happens after a game is over, outside the game, and therefore doesn't concern me.

You trying to say that a game doesn't "involve a succession of events" or just refuting another idea nobody here expressed for the hell of it?

I am saying that the idea of a succession of events having its own narrative, automatically, by itself, without a narrator, is absurd.

Eh, it was Icycalm himself the one who bumped the thread up after... three months? just because he was unable to find the definition in the dictionary for a word I had used!

That's not how threads like this work. These threads are mostly for me to make notes, for the purposes of my articles. Ever since we had this conversation I had this nagging doubt in my mind, that perhaps I'd missed something and the title of my article was inappropriate. After looking up 'narrative' in the dictionary, I came to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with my title, and made a note for myself in this thread. The note was meant more for me than for anyone else. Of course other people are free to read them, and respond if they have something to say, but like I said, the threads which bear the titles of my articles are more for my own use than for anyone else's. (Until the articles have been published, of course. Afterwards, the purpose of the threads becomes to answer pertinent questions.)

Linguistics is not an exact science and words usually have multiple, even dozens of meanings, no matter if Icycalm likes it or not, I'm afraid. In that "ideal logical language", anyhow, every meaning/concept would also get its own word in order to have a fucking linguistic sign. So by following your logic, given that we have already some several words for the concept of "story", it seems like an utterly brilliant idea to start using the word "narrative" for this other fascinating meaning of "how something is narrated; the techniques and the process", which, other than it, doesn't have any other proper word to designate it.

I am not really following you. I am trying to separate games from narrative media, whilst you are trying to bring them closer together. From my perspective, you are just making my work more difficult. But I can't accept that. It's already difficult enough as it is, and in order to make it easier I refuse to have anything to do with the word 'narrative' in any way, shape or form.

The word is -- how to put it? -- dirty, tainted, infected. I don't want to touch it. You can have it if you like it.

I don't give a shit about today's video-games and their industry, how could I care about their "artfags" or "academics".

'Nough said?

[icycalm]

Linguistics is not an exact science and words usually have multiple, even dozens of meanings, no matter if Icycalm likes it or not, I'm afraid. In that "ideal logical language", anyhow, every meaning/concept would also get its own word in order to have a fucking linguistic sign. So by following your logic, given that we have already some several words for the concept of "story", it seems like an utterly brilliant idea to start using the word "narrative" for this other fascinating meaning of "how something is narrated; the techniques and the process", which, other than it, doesn't have any other proper word to designate it.

Okay, I reread this, and see what you are saying. No objections! Let's use the word 'narrative' for this purpose too. "How something is narrated."

However, since nothing is narrated in a game, I will thankfully be able to continue having nothing to do with the damn word.

[icycalm]

And if anyone feels like raising the objection that lots of things are indeed narrated in many videogames, I have you covered. That is what I call the "bastardization process", and I will be devoting an entire other article to it.