|
Arguably, the most unique capability of games when compared to other media is their interactive nature. Because of the chaotic nature of player demands, games to this point have typically provided a very linear experience, hidden or otherwise, to ensure that the player experiences what the developers want them to experience.
Even games that are open-world, such as Fallout 3 or GTA IV still have a very directed story that the player chooses to progress through over the course of the game. But, stories are being told every minute of every day, we just need to look at it with different eyes.
A recent example of ceding authorial control to the player is the Left 4 Dead franchise. Valve provided a set of unique locations, interesting theme, characters in the game, giving players all of the tools they need to write a story. The AI director ensures that the pacing and drama is provided uniquely with each play of the game.
The characters provide contextual responses based on the players current performance in the game. The key difference is, however, that the story comes not from anything delivered directly by the developers, but from the experiences by the player (or players) during each play through.
Some might say that Left 4 Dead doesn't provide true authorial control - the player can't deviate from the provided content, they cannot change the story or the characters interactions beyond what has been provided by the developer.
These are all established limitations for any game, and is ignoring the strength of games when compared to other media: the authorial power of games doesn't end with the content provided by the developers, that is where it begins. True authorial power comes from player interaction - how the player progresses through the game is where the real story for games is derived.
Looking at my last example, Left 4 Dead (but certainly NOT limited to L4D, one could use any of the Civilization games, or The Sims series, or even the Battlefield series) merely provides a context and set of mechanics for the players to deal with. The story is derived from how the player deals with the challenges established by the relatively (or explicitly) dynamic nature of these games.
The story is further randomized by the choice of playing solo or cooperatively, and can be even more unique if played in an adversarial match. The stories that are created are unique with nearly every level played, and only change further based on the player's decisions in playing the game.
Of course, some might say that the stories generated by these sorts of games aren't really stories at all. But aren't they? They have a protagonist, or protagonists, and antagonists. The have an exposition, a climax and denouement. The story changes based on who is participating - in that, I would pose that the stories created and told by these sorts of games are closer to the oral traditions of the ancient storytellers. More importantly, these stories are based around the one thing that makes games unique: interactivity.
|
The L4D franchise is most certainly built to elicit these kinds of stories. While there is some designed narrative content, such as the character definition, the settings, the level progression, etc., the primary action of these stories is driven by the player; not by the characters specifically or by designed authorial control.
To me, what's interesting to look at is what the developers did put their blood, sweat and tears into instead of a more strict narrative experience: the AI director and the balance of the A.I., weapons, enemies and levels. What does this effort result in? A player experience that is clearly about cooperation; specifically the need for cooperation to survive. One telling anecdote is the decision of player count; which went through iterations of three and five before landing on the namesake "4", due to its tendency to encourage the necessary cooperation. During testing, teams of three or five more often resulted in loners and pairs breaking off from the team.
This is a procedural game that has managed to focus its efforts successfully toward the concept of cooperation; even in solo play with A.I. teammates. Does that mean that the stories that come out of such player experiences compare to a designed narrative? This root question in the 'water cooler' narrative discussion misses the point, in my humble opinion. It is possible, through the variation and possibilities of the procedural game, to arrive at a player experience that mirrors aspects of the designed narrative experience; particularly if the procedures employed can address common narrative conventions, such as pace, emotional arcs and management of expectations. But, to point at an arbitrary series of events, delineate a beginning, middle and end, define a protagonist and challenge, and then to assert that is equal to, or even on par with, a designed narrative is to miss the point of both the designed narrative and the procedural experience.
The advantage of the procedural game is variation in structure; it is never the same game twice. The advantage of the designed narrative is the ability to present a deep and nuanced message. While playing a series of games of L4D can, over time and through interpretation, speak to the advantages of cooperation and loyalty to a team, a single play-through of a designed narrative has the potential to speak directly as to why community is important, the ramifications of teamwork and sacrifice, how in-game decisions can relate to real life choices, etc. At a more granular level, the designed narrative has a distinct advantage of being able to set up a specific expectation in the mind of the audience, so that the results of action can have the greatest impact on the widest audience. While constrained, the designed narrative is targeted as compared to the procedural experience; and this gives the authored story its power: the power to present a finely crafted experience.
In the end, the 'water cooler' narrative discussion must realize we're talking about two different tools in our toolbox. Neither is inherently better. And it would seem to be a mistake to confuse the two.
We choose which stories are good by re-telling them to others and thereby re-living them ourselves through memory. Hearing a new story conjures up images and emotions feeding a desire to experience the story ourselves. The best stories are shared and understood by many, so aren't quite unique.
The success of a movie or game that offers a singular experience (i.e. Call of Duty series or Avatar movie, to use current mass success stories) is determined by the quality of story influencing the re-telling of moments within the story. They provide an obvious story to follow, since everyone goes through the same experience - but each viewer is uniquely influenced by what they see and understand, or don't, along the way.
When provided control, the quality of the player's experience (story) is dictated by themselves. That is, if they are alone in the environment.
For me since 1999, I have only liked to play multiplayer games, since they offer more unique experiences that are shared with others. Not only is every moment unscripted, you must devote complete attention to the task at hand, but also experience it with other people at the same time. The quality of the experience increases as others communicate with you while going through the same experience.
There is a different satisfaction that comes from being engaged in game with humans rather than a pre-scripted event. Often the scripted events are too obvious or not in line with what you think they will or should be.
Left 4 Dead is great because when your human partner takes out the zombie about to eat your face off, you can instantly share your relief and intensity of the moment with that person.
You can't talk to AI about it (some exceptional AI talk to you about it). You can talk to others who have experienced a similar adrenaline-filled moment, but in a different place at a different time, since those moments are designed to potentially be played out by many others.
Thinking about and sharing with others will provide the impulse to find who on your Steam Friends list is currently playing, and go collect some more stories you can share.
The cynical side of me wonders what sells a game. If you are looking for an actual story more akin to books/movies, then a narrative/quasi linear game is probably for you. If you are looking for a unique experience to share with others, then perhaps the multiplayer games like L4D, MW2, etc. are for you. Of course you can always enjoy both, and get the best of both worlds.
I personally wouldn't call the MP or game experience story. That tends to confuse me. Everyone's experiences can be turned into a story--doesn't mean it should. When I was looking into the first L4D I was told a variety of stories that meant nothing to me. The experience stories tended to be very personal, unfocused, and boring. "Hey this one time me and Keith went on a roller coaster, and...." What got me interested in the game was the description of the gameplay--fast paced action, first person shooter, zombie apocalypse. So the stories that I've experienced since then seem more like a bonus then something that was inherently great about the game when I first purchased it.
To sum up my idea in hopefully a more coherent thought. I don't buy MP games (L4D, Halo3, MW2) for stories. I buy them for experiences. I actually think about the story when I buy games like Dragon Age, Mass Effect, and to a lesser extent Force Unleashed and Batman:AA. Yes, gameplay is still important, but it is not the sole determining factor for my purchase--unlike the MP games mentioned.
The difference between experience and story are also quite blurred. A story is technically any given series of events leading from a beginning to some conclusion. An experience is capable of being an entire story or merely a subset of any given story. More importantly an experience is filtered by a person while a story can exist prior to such personal interpretation. As such a game like L4D tends to be a story that IS an experience. Not only is it a crafted series of events (via play), but as it is experienced as it's developed it's already traveled through that human lens of interpretation and understanding.
I switch between both depending on what kind of mood I'm in. When I want to follow someone else's story, I play something like Final Fantasy. When I want to make up my own, I play Oblivion and ignore the quest plots, instead just fooling around and messing with the game systems. Almost every time I find a fun narrative that I'm weaving myself (which usually involves cleaning out all the valuables from castles).
If someone else's story about a game experience feels personal or unfocused, that's because the person herself isn't the storytelling medium. Ever have a friend explain a movie to you in a way that made you fall asleep? And then you go to see the movie and it's amazing? This is kind of like that, except the "movie" was an unrepeatable moment in time. I think we are so used to our stories being recorded and reproduced that we've forgotten the importance of stories and experiences that can't easily be mass-produced.
I'd be interested to see a sandbox game that tries to capitalize on the player-spun story. It would have to be similar to Left 4 Dead in that the main story elements would be more symbolic than anything else. If you take out direct, literal characterization and plot, it might be a little easier for the AI Director to steer players into a cohesive story.
Back to the topic. I find myself going on little side-stories in Fallout 3 all the time. I'll go and explore some place which isn't related to the quest. Someone rubs me the right way and I'll give them an item they seek. Or someone rubs me the wrong way and I empty my Combat Shotgun reel into their temple. Either way, the outcome keeps me entertained and I feel like the experience becomes a little anecdote in a much-more colossal world and a part of how my character in the game behaves, which is vicariously how I would behave. Scarry thought. Don't worry I don't own any firearms.