|
[In this essay originally posted on the What Games Are blog, and reprinted in full with his permission, UK-based game designer and Gamasutra contributor Tadhg Kelly explains why he believes there's no such thing as a player character, and analyzes what's really going on when most people play games in context.]
"There is no such thing as a player character" is the kind of tagline that gets me into trouble in some places. So is "the emotional connection between player and character that many game makers believe exists in fact does not."
Both contain a powerful subtext, questioning everything from a player's sense of identity to the validity of their experiences. Read the wrong way, they can seem to say that all the emotion you feel in playing games is made up.
Of course that's not my intent. When I say "there is no such thing as a player character" I don't mean that there is nothing. When I say play occurs through "dolls," likewise. My intent is to reinterpret the emotional experience of play within a game-native context, and so derive useful insight that could apply to all games. In other words, the emotions are real but our way of talking about them is broken.
This is an essay to fully explain this concept, to set what's really going on when most players play games in context, about the importance of identity and self expression.
A personal story of emotional experience
When I moved to London I didn't really know why I was moving. I had had a long background in games at a kind of pro-amateur level, creating role playing games, card games and live action role playing games for the Irish convention scene. I had also had some experience in the industries surrounding games, such as working in the retail sector and as a technical writer at Havok. However, I didn't really know where I fit in. So I emigrated.
Luckily I landed my first game design job soon afterward, and the following year was a wild ride. I learned and did so much, from level design to scriptwriting to action design, but -- as happened to many others in the UK at that time -- ultimately the studio collapsed through a lack of funds. I took it hard, became depressed and needed to find a job. I was willing to take the first thing that came along, which happened to be a contract tester position.
Where my first year had been amazing, my second was miserable. My employers seemed to have a culture of shipping software in whatever state it happened to be in to meet release dates. So they produced a lot of churn content, and it was the sort of place where issues like quality were a non-starter. I was paid little, lived in fear of redundancy (testers are often only hired on rolling contracts), and spent my days testing crapware. For a long time I wallowed.
To avoid feeling that funk, we testers played games. Our lab had a local network of PCs, so we might play Call of Duty at lunch. However, the lab also had glass walls, which bred a classroom mentality. Management sat outside and looked in on us. Producers wandered by and stared into see if their game was being tested. Various people came in at the drop of a hat and complained over what they saw being done (or not). It was like a real world version of the office in the movie Brazil. We were the students being made to do our homework and our managers were essentially invigilators.
The truth was that testing was not difficult. We could go through each new build in about an hour to verify fixes, play new content, button-bash the interface, and so on. So we had a lot of free time, but had to appear as good workers being productive. This meant no Call of Duty, but we could get away with smaller and more hideable games such as emulated GBA ROMs. In so doing, I got surprisingly hooked by a soccer game.
I'm not an avid fan of soccer. When national competitions like Euro 2012 roll around I will cheer for my beleaguered Irish team, but I have no interest in leagues or the soap opera of the transfer markets or which player insulted who. However, this soccer game caught me. It had simple controls. It was fun. I would always play as a particular team because I liked their color and knew that they were supposed to be good. At first I played just single matches lasting four minutes, but later realized that the emulator could save game states. So I could play leagues, and I did. Hundreds of them.
I imagined that the different players on my team had identities, and I started playing preferential tactics on the basis that I liked one player over another. I became emotionally connected to these little dudes, and when I developed a winning strategy (which usually meant I won a match by 5-0 or more) I kept playing anyway. It was a wonderful place to go and to feel success, to imagine cheering crowds and trophies and so on. I even imagined a sort of backstory to what was going on behind the game.
At a time when my career felt like it had stalled, that little game became the highlight of my day. In retrospect it also proved to be a personal example of everything that games are, and I often look back on it as an example of modality.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAXqwewejwU&feature=player_embedded
We only really run into problems when the specifically characterized player character in the cutscene doesn't match up with the infinite optional actions available to players in something like GTA.
But, to reinforce your whole thesis, the most magical moments in Ico happen while playing--play don't show--like leading the princess by hand through a flock of birds she'd rather be chasing, or holding your breath as she leaps across a chasm to clasp your hand. And then, come the end of the story, you realize you care for these two characters a very great deal, despite the game not "showing" you much anything about them.
And look, I did it just there. I didn't say "his" but "your".
Perhaps it's telling that I used a game with roughly two lines of understandable dialogue and meager cutscenes, to illustrate a point. So I'd have to agree; games are not film. Storysense has always been more convincing (Metroid Prime), though there are the rare games with genuinely well done cutscene storytelling (Vagrant Story), which succeeded because of the quality of writing and cinematography. Now we could get into an argument about games with cutscenes not being a "pure" game, so to speak, but what would be the point in that? I'm just saying, not being bad at storytelling helps.
Overall, great post. I enjoyed it a lot.
And I was wondering: so what was that little soccer game that kept you so enthralled?
I think you're too quick to give up on adult roleplaying or make-believe, though. I've personally had experiences in D&D and (oddly enough) Civilization II in which I generate narrative and meaning beyond what the mechanics and official story have provided.
You're right that players will almost always privilege mechanical meaning over their story, but I see this as a problem for designers to solve rather than a fundamental feature of our medium's modality. Some games are far more heavy-handed than others, including many of the mechanically-focused or character-driven games that you call out. But a more open design that does less to push players around may be able to support true roleplaying. Minecraft could be a good early example.
Also high in my list I'd put Borderlands, Minecraft, DayZ. And all Survival/Horde modes are way better than the Campaign in every game.
Starting with some of the later DLC in ME2 and throughout Mass Effect 3, Bioware elected for that "cinematic style" over player agency. Players, especially vets, had to sit uncomfortably as their Shepards ended off talking in ways and saying things that were not at all reflective of the players' views of their characters or the game plot. This took away from the experience immensely.
Loved the article, thanks for writing it!
I don't think games are evolving because games have become so self centered and immediately rewarding. Stories provide long term goals and added reason for exploring. I want to play a game where I don't loot carcasses and sell the spoils. If I kill, it's because I have to, and there isn't enough ammunition for it to be constant, so I also have to use my wits. There's too much choice in games. When you are forced to do things you don't choose, you learn more. You get more creative.
The issue for many players as they get older is that the tone of the gaming medium seems younger and less relevant to them as time goes on, and that matured voice in the medium isn't really there. Partly it's because the play brain gets bored of playing the same frames, and partly it's because of tone.
Maybe this is why we look to story at all, but I think over time we'll increasingly look to storysense and situation. When we're making deep games intended for 50 year olds that aren't historical sims, I think we'll really see a shift in how games are thought of.
somewhat related from 2004...
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2168/the_state_of_church_doug_church_.php
Videogame RPGs need a huge leap forward in NPC characterization AI and simulation tech before reaching anything comparable to the tabletop RPG experience of live human interaction modelled reality. AR videochat RPGs and AR HUD Larping might be an easier target than AI characterization in single player games.
One thing that I find lacking in discussions of story games is pure entertainment value. In film you hear about development execs hiring a room full of comedy writers to spitball jokes in a table read. I've never heard of game developers doing anything like this - (having professional comedians or slam poets ad lib context specific dialogue over game play).
It's a modality thing.
hecker-interview-video
However, it's a multiplayer game, which I think is different from what is discussed in the article. You do get performers in a multiplayer game because there is an audience.
Also the game is about copying mechanical actions rather than trying to be a character other than yourself
tionallyDriven_Content_to_the_Future_of_Gaming_Why_Storytelling_Matters_More_Tha
n_Powerful_Graphics.php.
Play, don't show. Ideally, to me, video games would not have cutscenes. For the most part, the industry doesn't understand this medium's unique need in terms of story. Its similarities with film are so great that it's understandable why the mistake is being made, but I don't understand how die-hard gamers can stand to have cutscenes continue to encroach more and more into the "play"space.
If I want to read a story, I will grab a book. If I want to watch a story, I will get a movie or TV show. When I pick up a game, I want to *play* -- participate in -- a story.
Like many who've commented, there are times when I find myself roleplaying theatrically, whether it be single-player titles like Skyrim or tabletop games like D&D. Even so, I have to agree with you that these are the exception rather than the rule.
Nonetheless, I'm not sure I entirely understand the difference between your use of the word "doll" and the term "player character."
http://www.whatgamesare.com/glossary.html
A lot of gaming gems feature story that is "told". One can often look at them and see this delineation between the doll and character and it would be silly to argue that the player ever performs, but he doesn't have to. It's not the case that players universally don't observe depicted stories.
We can all think of horrible examples of overdoing it; a 15 minute opening cutscene about how "9000 years ago the 9 pieces of 8 descended upon yon valley to spread their seed" and etc. etc. but there's just as many horrible Tetristic games where the designer bloviates about the spirit of Design (capital D!) yet it's just flat as a board.
It's just sturgeon's law.
No shortage of people love the hell out of games that feature storytelling. This is not the same as pretending that players -perform- and I don't think what Squaresoft's done with themselves after their mid-90s glory days negates this.
If anything their mid-90s wins exemplifies your theory as they (Chrono Trigger, FF7, Mario RPG, others) did straight cutscenes without trying to engage the player as a performer and offered rich, emergent systems play.
While the "play it out" approach of Journey and whatnot is very cool, I don't think your theory really suggests it's the only way to entertain.
Do I have it all wrong or were you simply more focused on this "the player is an actor" notion?
I think he's just pointing out it can be done better. I'm not sure if I can agree, but if modality is in essence what we are matching up for significance it could make sense that these cut scenes aren't optimal.
however I think cut scenes just employed as visual cues for greater fidelity to demonstrate only thsoe things which could not be expressed otherwise are a good thing.
And I think that's why Kotor resonates better than Mass Effect for example, Mass Effect just happens to have a more believeable story and faster emotional roller coaster.
Kotor isn't as 'exciting" but it has modality that resonates better.
Which also explains why ME2 (for a whole lot of shooter fans) was such a huge hit despite it being such a stinker.
Ever DM a table top game? You use EVERYTHING at your disposal to create a great experience for your palyers - from music to film clips to paintings to wild gesticulating and funny voices. And what you use always depends on the experience you want them to have.
You'll know if you succeeded as a game designer when you hear/read someone talking about the great experience they just had ("...and then I did this, and then I did that and it was awesome when..."). And you think to yourself "yup, that's what I was after".
There's a fine line between an interactive movie and a game. I'll know I've crossed it based on how the story is told. If it's me telling them the story of the experience...it's passive (appropriate as an article/lecture/film). If it's them telling me their story of the experience then it's a game.
((Also, point of note, can make the same distinction between a tech demo and a game. If it's you telling me about all the awesome features, it's a tech demo. If it's me losing myself in the gameplay and telling you about what I did - it's a game. How I work out what's worth caring about when walking around E3 :P)).
I'm a huge fan of player as actor. I come from a theater background and see a lot of parallels between the two.
What I'm not a fan of is any kind of "definition by exclusion". As in this is a Game...because it doesn't use cinematic techniques.
Games, as we all know, are defined by more than what they're made of. They're defined by the experience of the person interacting with it.
"Here, I have this experience I want to share with you" is easily done in a book, film or piece of music.
"Now, tell me about the experience you just had" is unique to games.
Use whatever you need - go nuts. We're digital magicians making magic. Have fun with it :)
I'm all for using every tool at one's disposal. I'm not advocating a "definition by exclusion," but rather "exclusion by effectiveness", i.e. things should be taken out not because of a definition, but because they aren't creating a *game* or *play* experience. But, indeed, definitions play an important part. One can't make a painting and call it a game, or make a movie and call it a game, etc. I'm not saying you're claiming that, but just that definitions have their place in how we try to create.
My main point is that story is needed, but games, at this point, don't use it to the medium's greatest effect. Whether one wants to use cinematic techniques or literary or whatever, none of that really matters until it starts encroaching on "play", which IS what a game IS. We can USE some of these things in making a game, but the more we diverge from a "play" experience the less of a "game" it is.
There shouldn't be anything off limits so long as it makes a better *game*. I point out cutscenes (more to Joe's comment) because they are the most glaring example of a technique (in this case, cinematic) that seems to be have gotten out of hand while adding practically nothing to the game experience. My main complaint is that too often when games use these "other" techniques or media that it feels tacked on and superfluous, and is irritating because it's stopping the *play* experience.
It may be some time before we learn the unique way video games can "tell" a story and still preserve the "play", but I think it's possible and that we haven't really seen much of it yet. Tadhg may actually be making a materially different point than I am, but the phrase "play, don't show", to me, sounds pretty close to what we should be striving for if we're trying to create a game.
Heh, well, not everyone. Folks who aren't testing and trialing are just sticking to the storytelling methods they know - you're right in that we're overemphasizing passive storytelling techniques (cutscenes) in an interactive medium. I don't think the answer is to drop them in favor of something else...but we shouldn't be using them as an excuse to stop iterating and stop testing.
I'm keen to see how Chris Hecker's Spy Party will change the conversation. Focusing on the fluid and flexible aspects of storytelling over rigid and linear things like plot and narrative.
I'm not convinced that story is something the game designer has to provide in every game. Tetris wouldn't be significantly improved with story.
Creating the Conditions for a Shared Experience:
1) Define the feeling/understanding you want your player to grok
2) Brainstorm which conditions will lead to that "ah HAH!" moment
3) With your ideal players*, test the conditions you think will create that moment
4) Query: Did they have that experience? No? Iterate and test again.
5) Have awesome chats with your players when you succeed in creating conditions that lead to the experience you wanted to share with them. This is my favourite part of experience design :)
Definition of "ideal players": folks you understand and want to make games for.
This works live, digital, analog, etc.
What I gather is the big takeaway is that games are best -- the most game-like -- when they maximize self-expression through play. That seems reasonable.
But there are some places where this argument gets warped unnecessarily, and it's in the puzzling repeated put-downs of non-Achiever players. If there are different kinds of gamers -- and even 10% of millions of gamers is not negligible -- and if enabling self-expression is the summum bonum of game design, then why shouldn't there be games made that emphasize their preferred style of self-expression?
I'm thinking of assertions like this: "The dramatic player wants that modality to change, for the conversation to be different, and for the ratio of roleplayers to literal-players to change from 1:9 to 9:1." Where does this come from? Is there evidence that what non-Achievers really want is to take games away from other kinds of gamers, as though they believe in a zero-sum world? Why isn't it possible that what the dramatic-performer and world-understander gamers want is just some games made that are designed to be fun for them to play?
If self-expression is the goal, should collecting status markers from shooting people in the head be the only kind of self-expression permitted by games? If not -- if games respectful of other natural styles of play are equally worth making -- then there's no need to try to marginalize non-Gamist/Achievers. Doing so only weakens the good argument in defense of designing for self-expressive play.
(pdf: https://www.taik.fi/kirjakauppa/product_info.php?cPath=23&products_id=163 )
Just let me share this: I once played Ogre battle 64 when I was in High School and there came a decision about letting my father join my army or telling him to protect my childhood friend...
I choose the latter and I regret it to this day. It was a stupid decision that wasn't acknowledged inside the game in any way (just a 3 second appearance in a cut-scene in which he simply dies)... since then, I've always wanted a game that doesn't punish me for playing "in-character" but haven't had much luck.
I think all of my personal favourite games were very low on forced characterization, and high on player agency and emergent meaning. In other words, I decided for myself why I was playing, and what was important.
If you've read Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud, I would guess that you got some inspiration from his reasoning about why many comic book heroes have faces drawn in a very simple style. They let readers put themselves more easily into the character's place. It's not the same thing, exactly, but there's definitely overlap.
When I first started reading, I had a really powerful urge to argue with you. But it seems you were just trying to get my attention. Well, you did! But more importantly, you didn't waste it once you had it.
This is a fantastic example of serious thinking about games, without being pretentious or obnoxious (despite the threat implicit in the first few lines). Your smashing some idols, but damn, you smash them with class. And they definitely need smashing. Hats off. "Play, don't show" needs to be taken heart.
I learned a lot reading this, and I really enjoyed it. Thank you.
I love it when my writing encourages thought (whether I turn out to be right or wrong).
Looking for new areas to explore: Are there are any co-op games that allow players to act as game master in real time? I also wonder if there is room for live actors in RPGs. High end haunted houses employ actors to enhance key scenes. Another approach that can be explored is breaking the magic circle and basing the game avatar off of the players online footprint. If some games are extention of cinema, what are exciting directions in the use of montage?
I've been working on this issue quite a bit myself. Let me ask you, do you see a useful distinction between linear edited stories as demonstrated in cut scenes, and emergent story, as demonstrated through play? Or do you feel the the word story ought to simply be excised from game theory due to it's inherited baggage?
In the Four Lenses of Game Making I make a strong distinction between games that strive for experience vs emergence, and role vs rule. The idea is less story-plot-tell, but that experience led games tend to be more constrained with the idea of delivering specific emotional payoffs (think single-player CoD for example), whereas emergence by necessity has to lay off such guidance (think multiplayer CoD).
Does that help?
In much the same way as we can regard many 'cinematic' games as being basically a movie attached to a game with a nominal connection between them, we can regard role-playing type experiences with branching dialogue trees as being a connected strategy game and dialogue-exploration game. And I think people enjoy those kinds of dialogue-exploration games, and they are an experience very different from movies, so I don't think it's fair to completely discount them as a viable form of game.
I think generally what's important is that we allow the player to explore the narrative space in a way that feels natural for the game they are playing. It's not natural in games like GTA because the narrative components of the action game and the narrative components of the expository film are so often contradictory, but in adventure games (where we do not expect the characters to be player-avatars) the minimal exploration gameplay, the more intricate dialogue-exploratory gameplay, and the occasional cinematics all more-or-less agree with each other.
I love Left 4 Dead, but it's easy to break the fiction of the game by griefing; this was possibly actually a clever move on Valve's part, though, because that makes it feel even more transgressive than it would otherwise. Not that that's helped stop griefers much. However, as long as players play according to the goals the game sets, the fiction holds. I think the real lesson to take from this is one of concordance between the actions the player must take to play the game and the fiction presented in the narrative layer, whatever form those actions and that layer take.
"Whether starting with a great tune, a basic three-act-and-two-plot-point script, or move-and jump in a simple game, the fundamentals matter. They teach us a great deal about what an art form is and what tends to function well versus what does not. So in a sense, all media can be interpreted as elaborations of the same forms over and over.
It could be called "modalism," and what it means is: The simplest form defines the rules by which the rest of the form operates because, while the work changes, the mode of use does not."
This is a great point to make, but I see in your following analysis a mistake that has been popping up a little recently: treating games as a medium, or at least, isolating games from a larger medium. Games are not a medium - they are an offshoot of the medium of interactive systems. Even those who understand this (http://gamasutra.com/view/feature/172587/a_way_to_better_games_.php) will still place games at a point of prominence within interactive systems, separate from the rest. Games are different from other interactive systems in the same sense Fauvism is separated from Suprematism in the painting world.
To explain my meaning, let me take up your point on modalities, which is particularly insightful. In the painting world, it is understood that there are 4-5 different ‘modalities’ (to borrow your language) in every painting - color, value, edge, drawing, and lastly, surface. Every single brush stroke you make alters every single one of these modalities at once. Different combinations of these 5 elements are responsible for every single 'style' of painting that exists. In this manner, we have a language for talking about painting. We have a way of comparing two paintings which are wildly different.
The same principle applies to music, where we have tone, harmony, rhythm, and melody. Again, the placement of every single note affects each one of these four elements at once. Differing combinations of these modalities are in large part responsible for the differing styles of music.
Now, because we have a bias towards games, it is easy to attempt the same process with them as our focus. However, because I believe games to be an offshoot of the medium of interactive systems, I assert that this is a flawed approach. We need to be thinking about what the modalities of interactive systems are, and then try to figure out how games are specific manifestations of these. So to be clear, there are no "modalities of games", but instead, there are "modalities of interactive systems" through which we arrive at games.
I think this concept might elucidate why it is been so difficult to come to a definition of what "games" really are. It is like trying to define, in specific terms, what "indie rock" is. This isn't possible because of how manipulation of modalities work - manipulation of specific elements (tone, harmony, rhythm, and melody) to arrive at a certain result. So, just as "indie-rockness" is a gradient that defies compartmentalization, so too is "gameness" a gradient, just as “suprematismness” and “fauvismness” are clear concepts, yet it is still possible to create a painting which exists somewhere in the middle between the two (Kazimir Malevich might disagree, but I am just arguing in terms of visual perception of the principle modalities of painting).
So, with this perspective in mind, I think that statements like, “In the cold light of day they're ham-handed games trying to be something other than their modality allows” are missing the mark by a thin margin, simply because you are trying to apply principles of the modality of games (something which doesn’t exist) to an interactive system. I’m not trying to say that L.A. Noire was a landmark game by any means, or a landmark interactive system for that matter. It just seems to me that you may be blaming tools (e.g. cut scenes) for bad decisions being made with those tools, as well as mistakenly expecting a certain level of “gameness” from something purporting to be a ‘game’. My point here is, there is an obsession with clearly defining boundaries between different types of interactive systems, so much so that the entire spectrum that lies outside of these boundaries is totally ignored, and anything which exists there is declared to be an abomination, or worse, not worthy of study. The fact of the matter is, as an interactive system - not a game – L.A. Noire was thoroughly enjoyed by many, something which no critique can take away from it.
There is a whole lot more I would like to say on this subject, but I don’t think this post is the place for it. I would like to point out however, that I do agree with an awful lot of what you say, and found your post to be very enlightening. I just take a slightly different perspective on it all, I suppose. And despite everything I have written here, I am completely open to the argument that L.A. Noire, in borrowing too heavily from Cinema, is not paying close enough attention to the modalities of interactive systems, and would have been a more engaging system if it had done so. I just think it is a mistake to say that, because it is influenced so heavily by cinema and its storytelling techniques that it fails as an interactive system. What about a painting of a sculpture? What about a painting that uses so much paint that it becomes sculptural in itself? The latter example borrows so heavily from another medium, but do we say it is a failure of painting? Not necessarily. It might however, be a failure if we looked at it through the lens of Suprematism, but why would we do that?
Functions, Structures, Involvement, Timing.
As an art type ~ computers could be:
Motor key depression, motor mouse function, listening, visual recognition, conscious or unconscious decision making.
And the irony is that roleplayers are on your side! Pen and paper roleplaying thrives on story sense. Their player characters are the perfect dolls, moldable and under complete control, an epitome of self-expression. You will never encounter an NPC with a dialog tree. And have you ever had a game master take over the players' characters in order to deliver an exposition? So why the hostility?
I do have one bit of confusion, though: while I agree "dolls" are probably the best term to describe the puppets players possess in most games, my experience is more or less that people appropriate the term "player character" to mean pretty much that. Was it your intent to use the word in the same sense as the persona an actor dons for performance to demonstrate some sort of inaccuracy, or did I more or less miss the point on this?