|
(this is a post from my blog "The Doglion")
 I'm a believer in the idea that the medium of games, in order to find their own place amongst the art forms, must reach a point where narrative is purely an outcome of the given setting and actions/reactions of the player. We will reach a point where this narrative can be just as complex and meaningful (even potentially MORE gripping) as film or books or music. It is the element of interactivity that makes games unique and so hard to compare, let alone find a good way of game design that does the medium justice without having to "borrow" techniques from other media to cover up deficiencies. I believe this will all get better as algorithmic technology advances - in the field of AI first and foremost in my opinion.
But there are games that don't even seem to try to break new ground and consciously aim to deliver a cinematic experience. Games that are so far from the "Playstyle Matters" philosophy of Warren Spector, and yet don't feel out of place at all being in the games medium. Games whose core value lies in the "premise" of being able to deliver the feeling of being a certain fleshed-out character.
Yesterday I played Batman Arkham Asylum and couldn't let go of the game until the end. This game is a masterpiece in the sense that some movies are master pieces (The Dark Knight, for example :P). It's a huge contrast in its game play element compared to games I usually find the most interesting. You have few ways to solve enemy encounters, and only one way of solving the puzzles that the various bosses you encounter. So there should be virtually nil replay value, right?
Theoretically, yes. But it works for Batman Arkham Asylum. It is exactly this - there is only one style you are going to beat this game. It's the way Batman would do it. Because YOU ARE BATMAN. This is the element of awesomeness in the game. The premise is that this game is going to let you be Batman. It's a very very powerful allure. Of course, in order to make you feel like Batman, everything else in the presentation must ooze the feel of the franchise. The antagonist, the art style, the voice acting, the plot, the combat and various gadgets at your disposal. Everything just works and is one tight experience - just like a good Batman movie, or the comics themselves. A game that can deliver such a strong experience is in my eyes a masterpiece - ideology of what games should be aside.
I believe that especially games built on a license are best suited for such an approach. I felt the same thing when playing Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay, which is one of my favorite games. Another game of the same vein, with a "pure" gaming background is Metal Gear Solid (the one on PS1).
The plots are themselves not limited to the usual game plot lines but rather follow the style of the franchise. In Riddick for example, the progression isn't "fight-fight-fight-get-better-gun-fight-fight-get-even-better-gun". Riddick loses his guns during the game and at some points has hardly more at his disposal than a screw driver. Batman on the other hand always feels empowered, always superior in his own way, and is getting provoked and messed with by the Joker, always trying to save one of the good guys.
Interestingly, Metal Gear Solid and Batman have a lot in common. Both are comparatively short, both basically make you fight really interesting bosses one after the other with fun game play sequences in between, and both keep you guessing plot-wise. Of course, Metal Gear Solid utilizes far more and longer cut scenes for the necessary character development and story progression, which I actually believe work in their own way, because those cut scenes are very good, and most people didn't play the NES games prior. So in order to bring the strong context of the game's universe to the player, they work out well. InBatman, this isn't the case. Batman is widely known an popular. It's a big franchise in modern pop culture. And withThe Dark Knight having come out shortly before, and in being an amazing movie, the interest in the franchise was big, and hardly no one needed lengthy introduction on how crazy the Joker is. Also, cut scenes aren't that essential nowadays than in 1998. A lot can be communicated in-game these days.
 What I find very important as well is that those masterpieces have a relatively short gaming time. I was able (and compelled) to finishBatman in one sitting, as with Metal Gear Solid. Many gamers might bemoan this, having spent the amount of money that gets you far more game hours with other games. But to me anyways, it's all about the experience I get from the game. It's a blunt way of rating a game to measure them up on the game time. Batman needn't be longer, or shorter. Same goes for MGS and Riddick.
So I suppose my message is: If your going to make a game on a license, then do it justice. Bend all game design techniques that you have at your disposal to make a game that brings the core feel into every little corner of the game. Pay attention to detail.
The other message is: If you're going to make a linear gaming experience, make it a masterpiece of authorship, too.
|
Narrative is the wrong word for you to use here for describing the outcome of a sandbox-like game system. A narrative implies structure and authorship of the set of events, which is the opposite of what you suggest may lie in the future of games (but is already in the past and present to some extent).
"We will reach a point where this narrative can be just as complex and meaningful (even potentially MORE gripping) as film or books or music."
It is simply not possible that the *narrative* produced by these systems would be more meaningful than hand-crafted ones if you communicated the events to someone who didn't play the game. But as you touch upon, for the actual player the events take on a greater meaning, which relate to the identity of the player and the character he or she is assuming. This is about player experience and gameplay, not narrative. This is all just a giant nit-pick on your abuse of a word (and you're not the only one that does it) but I think it's important to get definitions right to conduct these discussions with any clarity.
"A narrative is a story that is created in a constructive format (as a work of speech, literature, pictures, song, motion pictures, television, video games, theatre, musical theatre, or dance) that describes a sequence of fictional or non-fictional events."
Your point is that narrative is a story that is envisioned and designed by an author, if i understand you right. A sandbox-like game has by definition no narrative, since there is no author to lead the direction of the plot, that is what you say, correct?
I think sandbox style games have very much authorship. It's the frame, the constraints and the internal rules/logic that define the world that is what the author creates, the extent of influence the author has without circumcising the freedom of action of the player. The resulting plot itself isn't authored in a direct manner.
In that, I believe that it very well can be described as narrative, only does it share its authorship with the creators and the player. There are people who for example play Oblivion and make up stuff stories of their own, creating their own online documentation of their adventures. Those could be described as a form of narrative. Of course, those diaries are a result of mainly what the player perceives while playing - not directly communicated by the game itself.
Also, AI is what IMO is really lacking these days. If NPCs in games had an actual human like brain and the means to "live" in the world created, then narrative would bloom by itself, manifesting itself in our perception of the gaming experience.
Narrative is a tricky term to use in gaming, because of the element of interactivity. I admit my use of the term isn't 100% by the book. I believe for gaming, we have this new term, "ludonarrative". I think I'd better use that term in the future.
A more general way of looking at it is that every player-generated jump and attack, for example, is part of the 'story' and in this respect the 'story' is simply the game itself, so it's just confusing to call this part of a game a narrative. Then you have cutscenes and dialogue etc., which you can safely call the narrative, since they are not interactive. Therefore, if cutscenes and dialogue become generated according to player action, they cease to be narrative and become the game itself. I suppose this would be pretty cool, but we could be very far away from it being a reality. It is still not possible to generate good dialogue in text, nevermind as synthesised voice acting.
Also, there is no point taking the route of generated world events/dialogue etc. for its own sake or how cool it sounds since it does not guarantee better games. If any system is introduced to the gameplay questions should be asked such as: "Is it transparent enough to be enjoyable as a mechanic?", "Is it possible to break the game by exploiting this?". Even if and when it is possible to do as a sandbox, there will be much more work to be done to turn it into a game.
Sorry to be so off the main topic of your post. I have not played the games you cite as examples. There is clearly a place for great authorship in games and Grim Fandango is one of my favourites of all time.
Take Epic Mickey, for example. Warren is empowering the player to "be" Mickey... but not a completely static interpretation of Mickey, but rather he's giving the player a set of predetermined choices that stem from elements of Mickey. Obviously Disney somewhat limited him in this regard, but that was the goal.
As Batman, I would've much preferred to be the "Great Detective", seeking out clues and solving cases. I'm sure you do SOME of this in Arkham, but to me, that was more central to his character. He's not Superman, he doesn't win all his battles by beating everyone up.
I guess that's the danger here. Everyone views their heroes in a certain way... so in game design, I think it's better to take all the identifiable qualities of a hero, and exaggerate them. Make any plausible method available to the hero to use. That way, when I'm playing Batman, I can solve mysteries and go in fully prepared... someone else can focus on crazy gadgets and depend on them to win.... and yet another person can use highly trained stealth and martial ability. Or any of us can use whatever ratio of these things we see fit!
On the whole "what is narrative" argument: yeah I see your point there, and I think you're right. It still would be a form of narrative though, in which the direct sequence of events, or the events themselves aren't directed by the author. "Ludonarrative", again.
@Charles I find your critique on Batman absolutely valid. The detective side of things is truly a big part of what makes Batman Batman. I think such a game where you have more freedom with making your own conclusions and work out your own plans of attack etc, that would be a great premise at the very least. But I think you also know what the Batman creators went for here. A very distinct movie-like experience, that brings as much Batman atmosphere into game-form as possible.