Before I can have the dialog I want to have I need to establish my view on the basis of thought in the game industry towards narrative, or the state of the field. Most of this analysis comes from my honor's thesis "Overcoming the Sickness: A Study on the Literariness of Video Games" that I wrote in 2009, but I plan on incorporating what I have learned since then from other designers and books I have read. This section will focus mainly on my thesis, Jonathon Blow's analysis in his presentation “Fundamental Conflicts in Contemporary Game Design” at Montreal International Game Summit in 2008 and the art game.
When I wrote my thesis, I identified the main issue or sickness as being the story: while game-play was being revamped and the technology was improving to support better art and sounds, stories remained unimaginative, overly violent and formulaic. From an outsider perspective, story had not evolved and seemed to have been ignored by developers. There were a few shining examples of powerful story and story-telling techniques combined with strong art design and game-play, but they were a rarity. I went into more detail in the thesis about the history of games, pointing out games like Chrono Trigger, Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Final Fantasy X as examples.
All the above was from an outsiders perspective and I was curious to know what the industry thought. At this point in my research, I found an article by Jason Fagone written November 20, 2008 called “The Video-Game Programmer Saving Our 21st-Century Souls”. Fagone identifies the unique position games are in and what might occur if, instead of mindless “really fun murder simulators”, someone stood up and developed thought provoking content. He identifies Jason Rohrer’s game Passage as one of these moments for the game industry, focusing on Clint Hocking’s (of Lucas Arts) response to the way Rohrer’s games create deep emotions:
"Why can't we make a game that […] means something? A game that matters? You know? We wonder all the time if games are art, if computers can make you cry, and all that. Stop wondering. The answer is yes to both. Here's a game that made me cry. It did. It really did."
The article goes on to depict the frustration that the industries leaders feel because of their inability to cause people to feel while they are stuck creating the murder simulation escapism fantasies. This is significant because industry leaders were frustrated with the content of their games, the same way I was frustrated with the content.
As I dug deeper to find the source of the frustration, I encountered Jonathon Blow’s presentation, creator of Braid. His presentation was my first introduction into the industries feelings about conflict between linear story and game-play. His goal is to find a way to touch people in a way that will change their lives through a game. To do this, he first separates games into two categories: Story-based games like Bioshock and Half-Life 2; and Activity-based games like Go and Madden. Blow goes on to say that Story-based games are inherently conflicted between narrative and game-play. The following section is directly from my thesis:
"Blow comes up with three centers of conflicts: Dynamical meaning versus Story meaning; Challenge versus Progression; Interactivity versus Delivery.
The first conflict is between story meaning and dynamical meaning (the meaning the player interprets from the game-play). The conflict here is mainly a design conflict because "mainstream designers are not thinking about dynamical meaning" when they build their games, rather they are preoccupied with making "fun" game mechanics. This situation creates a clash because game-play may cause the player to think differently about the story they are interacting with. One example is found in Grand Theft Auto IV: a character named Kate is important to one of the story’s endings because it hinges on Niko’s relationship with the character, but there is no reward for interacting with this character causing the game-play to not reinforce what the story is telling you."
The other game's he discusses are Bioshock and Half-Life 2. I plan on discussing each of these games in more detail than he did in other posts. I continued to state in my thesis:
"Blow proposes three solutions to the problem of conflicting story and dynamical meaning: eliminate story; eliminate dynamical meaning; or couple the two more tightly. The second option is impossible because game-play inherently creates a mindset for the player and his goal. The first option he suggests is the best way to solve this problem, to eliminate story much like Rohrer does. But Blow and anyone listening to his presentation should ask the question of how to scale simple art games to AAA titles and would not that require just as much work as option three? Also, though art games cause people to feel emotionally, they are not inherently fun and cause people to take a step back instead of interacting with the medium; this is counter-intuitive to the principles of agency and immersion. Though Blow believes designers are not trained and the industry is not modeled correctly for the third option, it is the best choice. Game designers should think actively about what the game-play causes gamers to think and either design a story around the game-play (which seems to be the industry standard) or have the game-play grow out of the story.
Blow’s next conflict is between challenge and progression. Challenge is needed in a game because it “communicates to you that your interaction means something”, but this essential game-play element conflicts with story progression. In fact, in games today story - usually in the form of cut-scenes or cinematic breaks in game-play - is a reward for overcoming a difficult challenge. However, challenge and progression, though opposite forces, can work together and do work together in telling a compelling story. Challenge can mean not just deserving the story but the challenge can be reflected in the progression of the story; in this way you feel you deserve the story reward and the challenge also feels natural in the events of the story. An excellent example is found in Uncharted [series] where the characters actually acknowledge the challenging sections of game-play and the hordes of enemy soldiers through both cinematic scenes and in game dialogue."
Blow does not have a solution for this conflict and leaves it as an open issue. The two ways the industry supports strong story delivery is by faux challenge, in which challenge is implied by the number of enemies (or some other element) but is easily overcome, or Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment (DDA), where the game becomes easier or harder to fit the player's ability. Faux challenge is "unlikely to impact someone deeply" and DDA may get in the way of story delivery. As stated above, I think this is resolved with a DDA system and a story that reflects the challenge of the player and main character are facing. I continue with the last and most difficult issue:
"The most difficult conflict to overcome is how to deliver a story and maintain its structure when a player is able to interactively destroy this story. Both of these elements directly deal with immersion into the game world and tampering with either can destroy the realness of a world. Therefore it becomes odd that Blow concentrates on the problems of player’s interactivity with a story and fails to notice the problem of how delivery in cut scenes destroys interactivity. The dominant way to tell a story in the industry today follows the form of a grabbing introductory cut-scene that explains the situation followed by some in game story-telling with cut-scenes after certain challenges have been overcome (end of missions, bosses, or puzzles), culminating in the final game-ending cut-scene. These cut scenes, however, take away the interactive elements the player identifies with which then dissolves the players attachment to the game and story therefor destroying the immersion. This is the trap that the Metal Gear Solid series falls into: the creators tell an excellent story (even with its share of oddities) but the cut-scenes overwhelm the game making it feel more like a movie. This becomes the problem of designing the story for a game: either the player destroys the story by interacting improperly or the maker destroys the game by taking away interactivity.
But then how do we interact with movies, traditional art, books and poetry? It is possible to actively and aggressively attack these media to destroy the artist’s intention instead of a more passive approach people usually take. Given the nature of games it is more likely the individual is willing to be active however, it is possible to be aggressive but not detrimental to the experience as so many movie, novelist and art critics have shown. It is further proof that all the game developers that played “Passage” did not destroy the experience through active participation. It takes a willing individual to interactively destroy the experience of a game and therefore as a game designer it is more of a risk in taking away interactivity than changing the experience yourself. Books and movies are made profound when the audience makes its own meaning through active participation. Games should also follow the same formula. Let the user decide how they experience your story because, in this way, they take the most from it."
In reality, while agency (agency is the ability of an entity to act in an environment meaningfully) is unique to in-game experience, agency does exist in other media. While a player's agency in a game is different from a reader's passive reading of text or a viewer's watching, when a reader/viewer engages their medium in a form of discussion or criticism, it is much like that of an active gamer in a game: that reader can destroy the experience, follow it faithfully, and their thoughts influence meaningful change or discussion in the environment around them or exhibits agency. This same discussion happens when a player reflects on their experience in game, and I am a firm believer that many gamer's enjoy the discussion after a great play session equally with their experience in-game. Game designers and creators of other mediums create the experience with agency in mind; only creators of other mediums actually think of criticism while game designers usually only consider game-play. While the creators do not have the same tools in their mediums, they all can shape the experience of a player in a positive way:
"This is not to say that designers have no control over the way their games are interpreted. Novelist and movie directors lead you to the meaningful interpretations you make. While video games also can use the narrative techniques of novelists and screenwriters to enhance story, video games also have something over any other medium because designers have the ability to reward their audience for interacting properly. When a player overcomes a challenge, designers’ reward the player with a cut-scene or new item because they completed a goal in a proper manner. These rewards can be used to get reluctant players who would like to interact improperly to play more closely with the designer’s intentions, helping to preserve the story’s delivery and allowing the player to remain interactively aligned with the story."
Overall, I do not agree with Blow that the story game is unworkable. There is a place for the art game, but it is not the only solution to making a game that makes people feel. It also does not resolve the conflict between story and game-play; it eliminates the issue and places the story in a position of reflection. The conflict between story and game-play can be overcome if a designer keeps the pitfalls in mind.
