When considering game narrative, my interest lies with the role of character. Whilst the plotted events dictate the pacing and the progression of a tale, it is the characters that provide an entry point for the player. It is what links us to the world and it is the perspectives of the characters that provide the lenses through which we form our own interpretations.
Something that carries into games from film and literature is Joseph Cambell's Hero's Journey, or other wise known as the Monomyth. This format has formed the basis of storytelling for a long time in traditional platforms, but it presents a few difficulties when introduced in a game. Below we can see the factors to be included in the Hero's Journey.
When we watch a film or read a novel, points like the Refusal of Call seem logical. We understand the difficulty of the choices presented, we pretend that this is a real decision that the protagonist must make, and accept it accordingly as a necessary process. We appreciate the strength of the hero to overcome normal practices of duty in order to do the right thing. But in a game, we drive that motivation.
At this point I'd like to refer to a rather substantial, but very insightful article from Tadhg Kelly on Gamasutra. A summary would be that it argues against the notions of the existence of a player character relationship. Kelly states that a gamer plays to master skills for their own entertainment, and all feelings and emotions created within the interaction with an avatar are directed inwardly. We are presenting our sense of morality, or our resourcefulness in the context of the decision to gain self satisfaction and become something within a new environment.
Therein lies the main problem with the Monomyth in games; that we are not bound by the doubt faced by onscreen or written characters. We are in the experience to remove ourselves from our duty and procedural lives, and, as Kelly would have us believe, we are not encouraging the journey of a character, but living the journey through what he calls 'dolls'.
Visual narrative and literature containing Cambells' storytelling archetype convey the same sense of meaning; overcoming heavy odds, having the strength to break the comfort and normality of their initial situation, resisting from temptations and so on. The study of meaning in text is termed hermeneutics, which Kucklich describes in his paper Literary Theory and Digital Games (2006). He highlights the issue of where meaning is derived from with a video game. He points out that the creation of meaning might occur at the point the player interacts with the game, in a form of discourse between player and designer.
Moreover, though many of the external motivators of the 'hero' can be created via non-player characters, our perception of them will be more informed, due to spending as much or as little time with them as we wish. Even in the titles that demand we walk along a particular path, we are still free to ignore the input and simulated wisdom of those that inhabit the virtual world we interact with. Therefore, the Supernatural Aid may seem nothing more than a distraction, or even a hindrance to the character we wish to play.
Interestingly, the game that arguably has the most success with the Monomyth is ThatGameCompany's Journey. It takes the basic ideals of it, and creates an unspoken narrative in which all the player does is travels from the beginning to the end. There is even the inclusion of the Supernatural Aid, in the form of the white pilgrims both in the cutscenes, and occasionally in cooperative play. Though you can play at any speed you wish to, and can collect pieces of scarf to allow you the freedom of flight for longer, it really doesn't give the opportunity to choose anything (aside play or don't play). There is no dialogue, with communication limited to appealing and soothing melodies that serve to enable sustained flight, and the end goal is always in sight.
The best bit about it is that I am in no way criticizing this game. I could not tell you if it's the appeal of the Hero's Journey that I am simply responding in kind, nurtured by years of consumption of such tales, or if it is the harmonious combination of audio, visual splendour, the freedom of flight and every artistic effect that leaves me in awe of it, but it does provide a strong case study for future games that wish to successfully portray traditional storytelling formats.
|
I am pretty sure the call is the urge to purchase the game after looking at the box art or hearing about the game through language.
"Therein lies the main problem with the Monomyth in games; that we are not bound by the doubt faced by onscreen or written characters. We are in the experience to remove ourselves from our duty and procedural lives, and, as Kelly would have us believe, we are not encouraging the journey of a character, but living the journey through what he calls 'dolls"
The problem I see isn't an issue of projection, but a problem where the game developer more or less lies about the nature of the journey and transposes an alternate journey. This happens through logic failure and emphasis on something other than the hero's journey eg ~ go fetch them eggs, and bring me 12 rat whiskers. While this may be a trial, it's not the hero's trial, the hero's trial is something much more transcendent about the nature of being versus, simply following instruction ~ and thereby becoming something completely separate from the real battle.
If you look at say FF7, you see the struggle is emphasized about who the main character is becoming not through gaining of power really but inner change and triumph. also I think when looking at games you see there is a constant gain of power and especially today's metricced to death games where everything has to have the completely surreal constant "perfect" flow, which is asinine. There is no "break" point, nor is there even logical spot to break from because every level from 1 to 60 is perfectly even in it's emphasis.
Which makes both Joesph's Cambell's interpretation of temptation a foregone conclusion and atonement an unnecessary resolve. All the other initiation portions and return portions of the journey also become meaningless.
I could go on hours about this, but it's also completely separate from reality as well, Cambell's vision demonstrates myth as he sees it, which like so many other explanations fail to percieve the inadequacy of hermaneutics when speaking about spiritual experiences ... it's simply a general outline, from a non-spiritual perspective.
I think you can mix and match the parts quite a bit, as well as change their order. It's just that it makes the most sense from a non spiritual perspective to put them in this manner to sort the mess of ideas.
With regards to your comment about projection vs. developer intent, distractive game features are a problem with game when presenting a narrative. This is part of the reason it is hard to project a self felt sense of devotion to playing out the arc with the emotional attachment that some developers try to inspire. Part of Journey's charm is that, for me, it achieved that goal.
It's all down to approach. Where most games fall down is that they explicitly tell you your goal. Every NPC in the game is designed to remind you of your duty/task/destiny. It is then for you to go and do it. Journey only ever suggests it. There is a mountain with a spire of light coming from it's peak. The only thing I wish weren't there were the cutscenes, as that breaks up my connection to it.
As you so put it, the hero's trial has to be more than something instructed to do. Instilling a sense of doubt about a heroic decision is much easier to portray in film or literature, where you are simply told or shown this. To encourage a player to feel that transition of perspective as part of their own choice is something infinitely more complex and potentially more powerful.
Your reflection on FF7 is a fair one, but I think my problem with it would be simply that you see that change. It focuses on the right thing (inner growth, changing perspectives, etc etc), but from my memory of it, I don't recall feeling part of that transition. The character had a personality, I was then made to accept that person and lead him on HIS transition.
With Journey, my avatar is simply a vessel through which I experience a four hour period of reflection on my own journey through life. Put simply, I learned more about myself in that time than I learnt about the characters or the world I played in. Knowledge of the history of the ruins, or who placed the shrines there wasn't necessary.
As for your point about Cambell's theory and how it relates to spirituality, I'm not sure I follow I'm afraid. All I could really add is that the wonderful tale of our very own Jesus Christ pretty much encapsulates the entire Monomyth.
When approaching a subject/object we interface with how it is presented first, not just in the game. But how that game has communicated through to others .. even just the idea of an unfinished game. If we like the idea, we buy, trade whatever for the game .. then we find out if the call completely external to the complex object aligns to our perception, the refusal process is still processing.
The meaning comes when we recognize the aim of the game is to direct us toward a goal.
"To encourage a player to feel that transition of perspective as part of their own choice is something infinitely more complex and potentially more powerful."
I think this is a narration problem with video games, and I think it stems from something much more basic. Simply put, games have way too much going on. When you cut out the chatter, cut out the comparison processing going at 100 miles an hour you can actually begin to relax and meditate. After you reach that state, then added stuff takes on much more significance. And this is especially true with social chat, which is a constant tug-of-war for power.
"As for your point about Cambell's theory and how it relates to spirituality, I'm not sure I follow I'm afraid. All I could really add is that the wonderful tale of our very own Jesus Christ pretty much encapsulates the entire Monomyth."
I should have explain clearer I speaking in contrast to video game function.
Temptation and atonement are as put on his chart stages of the journey of life (which can keep cycling if I remember correctly). But in video games far more often than not the "journey" is a process of leveling up (self empowerment through exercise and personal experience). It's a quantifiable through inner strength and inner achievement. Temptation comes through several sources, the flesh, spiritual warfare ect. Your characters are almost always above the situation by default because they aren't judged by moral law or even just personal bounds, but rather by unilateral power gain.
Temptation then becomes an untenable subject unless you create a second narrative with a story. Some games do this obviously, but most don't, or they do it in such a low attention manner to make the experience fairly pointless.
I suppose my take on it would look something like this ...
If it did it would look like a linear line, with no known starting point at ending point (until death), at some point on that line you could mark at outward sign for baptism. And across the whole thing in no particular order you could have Call to adventure to ultimate boon. I get the impression everything past this point pretty much is mythology explaining the methodology of "being spiritualized" until the end where we see freedom to live, but freedom to live I believe comes directly after apostasis, and is actually the the better term for ultimate boon.
In a manner of speaking I could say I have experienced personally Magic Flight, Rescue from without and crossing the return threshold. But never master of two worlds, as (I believe)it is impossible. And these things aren't at the end of the journey, at least for me I think they are somewhere nearer to the beginning.
But again this is all an order .. an implicit process, which I don't think looks the same. temptation and trials are there at the beginning, in fact I would say they are that reflection when discerned/percieved spur the call to adventure. Likewise supernatural aid is also there from the beginning, and at this point so is atonement also prepared for which we can continue to recognize the call to adventure.
Where then we can refuse the call or not, knowing so by supernatural aid by meeting with the Goddess, that atonement with the father is crossing the the first threshhold , whereby the belly of the whale and the ultimate boon give us the freedom to live.
The road of trials, supernatural aid, meeting with the Goddess, temptation, apostasis, ultimate boon, freedom to live, call to adventure,refusal of the call... these stretch the entire span of the christian walk with Jesus.
Atonement has only happened once and it's not a part of anyone's doing .. being master of two worlds also only happened once, not by us either.And the reason I go into all this clarification and the reaosn I make the point I did that this is an outside looking in judgement, is because it is so often misinterpreted. (I pray I didn't misinterpret it or miscommunicate it).
And I don't think you need a perfect view of this to understand it, but this is as best as I can say I believe he unrighteously lumps christianity in the whole not really understanding himself being a ex-catholic, gone atheist. I think underlying this all (in Joesph Cambell's case) might be that it comes from a perspective of materialism first.
It's been so long rewatching it again ...