"It was really embarrassing to find how often I'd look at what I'd made and just think, 'This is exactly the same shit I pan people for all the time in reviews.'"
- Game journalist and writer-turned-game developer Tom Francis reacts to the ham-fisted way in which he tried to jam story into his upcoming game, Gunpoint.
Game mechanics and story are often at odds in video games, and making the two play nice is one of the biggest challenges of game design.
So it's interesting to watch the affable Tom Francis, a PC Gamer journalist and an author, attempt to solve this conundrum in a developer log for his first game, Gunpoint, a stealth puzzler that he's developing when he's not writing about games.
While this is his first attempt at making a video game, Gunpoint has already earned recognition as a 2012 Independent Games Festival Excellence in Design finalist. Veteran and new game developers alike can relate to and learn from from Francis' challenges, which he lays out here in simple terms.
Not again. It's the "Nathan Drake is a mass murderer" argument. Since when is killing an armed combatant in self defence "murder"? He's pushing it by wilfully entering these scenarios, but they all seem to involve saving the world.
Is it because you can kill people without them firing the first shot? Because that's down to YOU, the player. You can choose to fight honourably or dishonourably.
ON topic, I pretty much agree with everything else he's saying. Unless it's something like an RPG, which is simply a story-conveying device.
The whole "ludic story" argument about games is complete pseudo intellectual nonsense. Ever since Metal Gear Solid revolutionized game design by incorporating high production story, there have been people railing against it. Outside of throwing around made up jargon, they have yet to actually prove their point. If you don't want the "imposition" of story, then play solitaire.
I agree with Dan. The problem is not that story is an imposition, the problem is just when it is not good. The solution is simply to make it interesting.
Well, Metal Gear Solid was a major influence in the way story is incorporated into games, for better or worse. I'd say a mix of both.
I think the problem with Kris's analysis is that not everyone agrees that removing player agency is a "problem." Though if you already accept his premise then his analysis is fine.
btw I dont mean Francis' take on the argument---I mean I disagree with the premise. It is just a bunch of naval gazing on part of developers so that they can posture as these great intellectual crusaders. The attitude raises a bunch of arbitrary creative barriers and deters games from realizing themselves as entertaining mainstream products.
I think resolving this problem somehow is one of the most interesting challenges in front of designers. There are various ways to handle it, but fundamentally the dissonance between the authored narrative and the so called ludo narrative is a real problem.
I think, when we're talking about big budget titles, that Ico and Shadow of the Colossus handle it best. They solved the problem by keeping the authored narrative very minimalist and abstract and keeping the player in control as much as possible.
If you think about it that's how most classic games worked too - Super Metroid, Super Mario and Zelda all have barest possible "plots" justifying the game. Super Metroid in particular seems very sophisticated in how it handles narrative - there is almost no text or cutscenes in the game except at the very beginning, and yet the environment design and overall atmosphere are more than adequate to provide a sense of purpose.
Another game that I actually think did a pretty good job was the first Metal Gear Solid. The later games often featured cutscenes that dragged on too long, but the first game seemed to get it right. I replayed that game recently actually and I realized some things about why the narraitive works for me. The first thing I noticed was that Snake doesn't know anything that the player doesn't know. This is an incredibly important conceit. Probably this is a good idea in all forms of story telling but I think in games it is essential. Secondly, the fact that most of the friendly characters are not actually present (you only communicate with them through the codec) is very helpful. It immediately resolves the whole question of "What if the player shoots the colonel?" You can't. There's no one you can shoot that you aren't supposed to shoot - except for a few instances where there are. And in those cases the third thing comes into play, which is that Kojima deliberately breaks the fourth wall throughout the game and because of that other "gamey" things ALSO seem like deliberate fourth wall breaking choices. Instead of a game that seems to be trying for realism but then suddenly has this one really unrealistic thing, it just seems whacky all over and so it works. Helpful too then is the fact that the story itself is about as sophisticated as a made for TV movie (on the SyFy channel). It would be harder to pull all that off in a more serious, grounded story.
I think story probably works best when it's voluntary. For instance, you can kill your buddy and the story will end, but the game will go on without him. So if you are into planting potatoes and selling them or whatever, then you can do it as long as you want. If you want to further delve into the story, go back to an earlier save and don't kill your friend.
Story as a forced narrative mechanism that requires the derailing of mechanics for the sake of telling is not crafted to live in symbiosis with the game dynamics. This disruption of game flow is the result of discord between the message of the mechanics, and the message of the narrative.
The first thing to be sacrificed for the sake of story always seems to be player agency... this is typically the case when the narrative shows little respect for the players desire (agency, ultimately) and when the writers own desires for the narrative take priority over crafting an entertaining - playable - experience. Certainly there are some concessions to be made, especially in an FPS where shooting a quest giver or some innocent could have unforeseen or undesirable impact.
The trick is bridging the role of the protagonist in the story with the role of the player. Giving the player agency while at the same time being able to buffer that agency in a "soft brake" when necessary. All for the sake of maintaining a balance between the narrative and the dynamics of the game.
It is balance between narrative and game dynamics that produce a strong and immersive experience. Story driven games that are successful at this tend to build an intimate relationship between player and protagonist. Dishonored, System Shock, the latest Tomb Raider are all excellent examples of games that craft good storytelling without being obtuse and robbing the player of agency. The story provides a clear course, sheppards the player (not railroads) to course, and relinquishes agency to the players range of choice.
Most importantly the players desires, and the protagonists tend to be resonant, they augment one another in some way. The character is sympathetic to the player and the player likewise sympathetic to the character, with goals and desires in alignment at all turns. They are in balance.
The player's desires are always going to be first and foremost to make progress and finish the game. In that sense, there's always going to be some resonance between the player's desire and the protagonists, but there will always be discord as well. I think the best way to create a strong and immersive experience is simply to treat story and gameplay as their own beast, not try so hard to merge them, but rather to make them both interesting in their own way.
I think that good storytelling most often comes from games that rob the player if agency. When I think of the most memorable stories from games, I think of cut-scene heavy games like Silent Hill 2, Persona 4, Metal Gear Solid 3, etc. And the reason for this is precisely because those creators has their own vision that they were "forcing" on me. That is the role of a storyteller, I want them to have a clear vision. If that vision is interesting, then I won't mind losing agency.
Is it because you can kill people without them firing the first shot? Because that's down to YOU, the player. You can choose to fight honourably or dishonourably.
ON topic, I pretty much agree with everything else he's saying. Unless it's something like an RPG, which is simply a story-conveying device.
killed fifty doods (all minorities), blow'd up a Hind Helicopter...
HEY look swimming pool!
"Marco..."
You can't possibly be serious.
I actually thought his analysis of the problem was pretty spot on.
I think the problem with Kris's analysis is that not everyone agrees that removing player agency is a "problem." Though if you already accept his premise then his analysis is fine.
I think, when we're talking about big budget titles, that Ico and Shadow of the Colossus handle it best. They solved the problem by keeping the authored narrative very minimalist and abstract and keeping the player in control as much as possible.
If you think about it that's how most classic games worked too - Super Metroid, Super Mario and Zelda all have barest possible "plots" justifying the game. Super Metroid in particular seems very sophisticated in how it handles narrative - there is almost no text or cutscenes in the game except at the very beginning, and yet the environment design and overall atmosphere are more than adequate to provide a sense of purpose.
Another game that I actually think did a pretty good job was the first Metal Gear Solid. The later games often featured cutscenes that dragged on too long, but the first game seemed to get it right. I replayed that game recently actually and I realized some things about why the narraitive works for me. The first thing I noticed was that Snake doesn't know anything that the player doesn't know. This is an incredibly important conceit. Probably this is a good idea in all forms of story telling but I think in games it is essential. Secondly, the fact that most of the friendly characters are not actually present (you only communicate with them through the codec) is very helpful. It immediately resolves the whole question of "What if the player shoots the colonel?" You can't. There's no one you can shoot that you aren't supposed to shoot - except for a few instances where there are. And in those cases the third thing comes into play, which is that Kojima deliberately breaks the fourth wall throughout the game and because of that other "gamey" things ALSO seem like deliberate fourth wall breaking choices. Instead of a game that seems to be trying for realism but then suddenly has this one really unrealistic thing, it just seems whacky all over and so it works. Helpful too then is the fact that the story itself is about as sophisticated as a made for TV movie (on the SyFy channel). It would be harder to pull all that off in a more serious, grounded story.
The first thing to be sacrificed for the sake of story always seems to be player agency... this is typically the case when the narrative shows little respect for the players desire (agency, ultimately) and when the writers own desires for the narrative take priority over crafting an entertaining - playable - experience. Certainly there are some concessions to be made, especially in an FPS where shooting a quest giver or some innocent could have unforeseen or undesirable impact.
The trick is bridging the role of the protagonist in the story with the role of the player. Giving the player agency while at the same time being able to buffer that agency in a "soft brake" when necessary. All for the sake of maintaining a balance between the narrative and the dynamics of the game.
It is balance between narrative and game dynamics that produce a strong and immersive experience. Story driven games that are successful at this tend to build an intimate relationship between player and protagonist. Dishonored, System Shock, the latest Tomb Raider are all excellent examples of games that craft good storytelling without being obtuse and robbing the player of agency. The story provides a clear course, sheppards the player (not railroads) to course, and relinquishes agency to the players range of choice.
Most importantly the players desires, and the protagonists tend to be resonant, they augment one another in some way. The character is sympathetic to the player and the player likewise sympathetic to the character, with goals and desires in alignment at all turns. They are in balance.
I think that good storytelling most often comes from games that rob the player if agency. When I think of the most memorable stories from games, I think of cut-scene heavy games like Silent Hill 2, Persona 4, Metal Gear Solid 3, etc. And the reason for this is precisely because those creators has their own vision that they were "forcing" on me. That is the role of a storyteller, I want them to have a clear vision. If that vision is interesting, then I won't mind losing agency.