Games are not novels, and the ways in which they harbor novelistic aspirations are invariably the least interesting thing about them. You can judge games by the criteria designed to evaluate novels: Are the characters believable? Is the dialogue complex? But inevitably, the games will come up wanting. Games are good at novelistic storytelling the way Michael Jordan was good at playing baseball. Both could probably make a living at it, but their world-class talents lie elsewhere.- Steven Johnson
Now, I don't know if Steven Johnson is aware of the "Games as art" crowd, but most of them would disagree. To them, games have the largest potential for storytelling of any medium, in no small part because of their interactive nature. You aren't an observer of the events on-screen; you're their catalyst.
And because of the player's ability to influence the events and environments and in turn determine the outcome of the story (theoretically speaking, of course, because anyone who's played games for a while will know that most of the time, the player is simply triggering a series of linear events), the sense of immersion this can create is unmatched by the other "passive" mediums.
As I see it, this view is somewhat skewed. While those sentiments are most certainly true, we tend to re-hash our most convincing arguments (Braid, Bioshock, Portal, etc.) as the pinnacle of our medium as an art form. Whether it be the writing, the layered narrative, or the atmosphere that these games so plentifully provide, those games always seem to be at the head of the discussion whenever someone dares to deny that our favorite pastime isn't culturally relevant. We as the advocates of games use these games because they're the ones that are the most likely to convince naysayers to our side.
And I believe this isn't doing us any favors.
Or rather, that this strand of argument is counter intuitive to what our cause is (or should be). By pushing the games that we believe are art because of their narrative capabilities, we're in effect arguing that storytelling is the only qualifier of art. Because games like Braid, Portal, and Bioshock all have a focus on storytelling, when we push them as the pinnacle of our medium, we're doing a disservice to the games that don't focus on story aspects. And if the point of games as an art form is supposed be to tell a story, we're sending the message that games are just trying to be a new form of novels or movies; a vehicle to drive emotion through story. If this is the point of games, we're certainly not doing all that well.
Games certainly do have that potential to tell stories in thoughtful and meaningful ways, but a game doesn't have to pull us in with its awe-inspiring narrative to be "culturally relevant", and for the most part, history has proven this to be true; The games that break through to the mainstream are usually the ones that the most people play (obviously), and the games that the most people play just happen to be the ones that are the most fun.
Halo, Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, and Madden are all popular with the "Hardcore" players because of their replay value and because their intense multiplayer. Likewise, The Wii (game) brand and its ilk are popular because of their ease of use, lasting value, and family-centric/self-betterment focus.
And that isn't to say that games should just abandon narrative aspirations; I've definitely had my share of games that I've completed simply to see the story through. The fact of the matter is, though, that games are narratively deficient by nature. Most of the time, the story in a game serves as backdrop for your actions, context that allows the player to more easily suspend their disbelief.
This is because the focus of most games is are the actions themselves. This is where games, to me, are an art form; this what Johnson would refer to as their "basketball". What captivates the player is the thought process they engage in while playing the game, as well as the feeling of tangible reward and progress for actions and the feeling of immersion.
In a game like Call of Duty, for example, the player can have any number of concepts to juggle, from direct actions (looking for and aiming at enemies) to more strategic and abstract decisions (when and where they should launch their air-strike). These thought processes are complemented by the reward of getting a 7 kill streak, and that they feel like they're a skilled soldier while doing it.
This is why most companies only bother with story in a game to the extent of it providing a convincing framework for what the player is doing in-game. The ones that are attempting to tell meaningful stories through this interactivity are laudable because better frameworks provide a greater sense of connection to a player's actions, but the reason that that can hard to do is because the interactive format doesn't leave much room for thought out exposition or the intricacies of various characters.
Metal Gear Solid 4 had mixed reactions to its elements of cinematic storytelling. The long, explanatory cutscenes that it used to get across much of the game's story seemed at odds with its revamped and improved gameplay. And for the most part, times when game attempt to be movies can detach the player from the game because what they're looking to do in a game is interact, not observe. The characters become more intricate, and the plot can diverge into areas where certain aspects can be expanded on, but it can be easy to bore those who are disinterested.
When games intertwine the cinematic aspects of their games with the gameplay (Bioshock, Half-Life), they have the potential to more effectively immerse the player while allowing them to interact, but do so at the expense of the depth that multiple perspectives and angles can provide.
Writers for games also have to deal with being second string players. If a particular section of a game has to be cut or changed, the story must follow. Starcraft 2 lead designer Dustin Browder mentions that Blizzard is not shy about changing the lore to fit the needs of the balance of gameplay.
In Movies and Books, sections are cut only when they don't fit in with the rest of the story or if they're found unnecessary; in games, important parts of the story can be cut because they're not fit for interactivity (perhaps why there are so many novels based on games these days), or because that part of the game was just left out. This is a big part of what hinders games' ability to tell the powerful stories that Movies and Books can tell.
So when we present games that have compelling stories in arguments about the artistic value of games, it's not surprising that naysayers scoff at our attempts to compel emotionally. It is indeed possible for a game to illicit strong emotional reactions from the player, as anyone who's played Passage will point out, but presenting that example seems to concede to their point: Games must become less like games and more "interactive art" to be culturally relevant.
Instead, I suggest that we fearlessly flaunt the games with the most captivating gameplay rather than the most compelling story. Sure, the writing in Gears of War will never win any sort of awards (unless they're dubious), but it has received awards for its refined and strategic gameplay. This is how games will makes themselves relevant; by mastering their own domains, not by mimicking the traits of others.
As I see it, this view is somewhat skewed. While those sentiments are most certainly true, we tend to re-hash our most convincing arguments (Braid, Bioshock, Portal, etc.) as the pinnacle of our medium as an art form. Whether it be the writing, the layered narrative, or the atmosphere that these games so plentifully provide, those games always seem to be at the head of the discussion whenever someone dares to deny that our favorite pastime isn't culturally relevant. We as the advocates of games use these games because they're the ones that are the most likely to convince naysayers to our side.
And I believe this isn't doing us any favors.
Or rather, that this strand of argument is counter intuitive to what our cause is (or should be). By pushing the games that we believe are art because of their narrative capabilities, we're in effect arguing that storytelling is the only qualifier of art. Because games like Braid, Portal, and Bioshock all have a focus on storytelling, when we push them as the pinnacle of our medium, we're doing a disservice to the games that don't focus on story aspects. And if the point of games as an art form is supposed be to tell a story, we're sending the message that games are just trying to be a new form of novels or movies; a vehicle to drive emotion through story. If this is the point of games, we're certainly not doing all that well.
Games certainly do have that potential to tell stories in thoughtful and meaningful ways, but a game doesn't have to pull us in with its awe-inspiring narrative to be "culturally relevant", and for the most part, history has proven this to be true; The games that break through to the mainstream are usually the ones that the most people play (obviously), and the games that the most people play just happen to be the ones that are the most fun.
Halo, Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, and Madden are all popular with the "Hardcore" players because of their replay value and because their intense multiplayer. Likewise, The Wii (game) brand and its ilk are popular because of their ease of use, lasting value, and family-centric/self-betterment focus.
And that isn't to say that games should just abandon narrative aspirations; I've definitely had my share of games that I've completed simply to see the story through. The fact of the matter is, though, that games are narratively deficient by nature. Most of the time, the story in a game serves as backdrop for your actions, context that allows the player to more easily suspend their disbelief.
This is because the focus of most games is are the actions themselves. This is where games, to me, are an art form; this what Johnson would refer to as their "basketball". What captivates the player is the thought process they engage in while playing the game, as well as the feeling of tangible reward and progress for actions and the feeling of immersion.
In a game like Call of Duty, for example, the player can have any number of concepts to juggle, from direct actions (looking for and aiming at enemies) to more strategic and abstract decisions (when and where they should launch their air-strike). These thought processes are complemented by the reward of getting a 7 kill streak, and that they feel like they're a skilled soldier while doing it.
This is why most companies only bother with story in a game to the extent of it providing a convincing framework for what the player is doing in-game. The ones that are attempting to tell meaningful stories through this interactivity are laudable because better frameworks provide a greater sense of connection to a player's actions, but the reason that that can hard to do is because the interactive format doesn't leave much room for thought out exposition or the intricacies of various characters.
When games intertwine the cinematic aspects of their games with the gameplay (Bioshock, Half-Life), they have the potential to more effectively immerse the player while allowing them to interact, but do so at the expense of the depth that multiple perspectives and angles can provide.
Writers for games also have to deal with being second string players. If a particular section of a game has to be cut or changed, the story must follow. Starcraft 2 lead designer Dustin Browder mentions that Blizzard is not shy about changing the lore to fit the needs of the balance of gameplay.
In Movies and Books, sections are cut only when they don't fit in with the rest of the story or if they're found unnecessary; in games, important parts of the story can be cut because they're not fit for interactivity (perhaps why there are so many novels based on games these days), or because that part of the game was just left out. This is a big part of what hinders games' ability to tell the powerful stories that Movies and Books can tell.
So when we present games that have compelling stories in arguments about the artistic value of games, it's not surprising that naysayers scoff at our attempts to compel emotionally. It is indeed possible for a game to illicit strong emotional reactions from the player, as anyone who's played Passage will point out, but presenting that example seems to concede to their point: Games must become less like games and more "interactive art" to be culturally relevant.
Instead, I suggest that we fearlessly flaunt the games with the most captivating gameplay rather than the most compelling story. Sure, the writing in Gears of War will never win any sort of awards (unless they're dubious), but it has received awards for its refined and strategic gameplay. This is how games will makes themselves relevant; by mastering their own domains, not by mimicking the traits of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment