Some of the authors you’ve been reading (and will be reading) discuss the difference between storytelling and game-playing. In fact, some of the ludologists (game theorists) are really rather annoyed with “narrative” analysis of games. What do you think is the relationship between game-playing, story-telling, and/or film-watching? What is similar and what is different in these different mediums? Are games also stories, or not?
09
Feb
08
I think that game-playing, story-telling, and film-watching are essentially the same: they all have a beginning, middle, and end, with a plot. They are all stories. The difference lays in the level of control the player, teller, or watcher has. The watcher of a film has almost no control. The story is already set and the watcher is just an observer. In regards to game-playing, the player has control over some aspects of the story. The player generally can choose a character for which the story to revolve around. The player also controls the speed at which the story unfolds. For most games, the player can choose, or not choose, to complete the missions of the game or just play in the world. The player also controls the outcomes of some games. With story-telling, the teller has complete control over where the story goes. The characters and plot are created by the teller and he or she knows where the story is going.
I think almost all games are stories. Each game you play, there are usually cut scenes or a comic-style story or text which tells you why you are completing the missions of the game. Otherwise the game would seem pointless. Questions would arise; the player would contemplate why he or she is playing at all. “Why am I fighting this bad guy, what did he do wrong?” the player might ask. The story aspect of games is there to make the player feel as if he has a purpose for playing the game. “I have to save the princess from the evil dragon,” the player might think. Stories make games feel real and purposeful.
When comparing game-playing and story telling I think we have to be very open minded and take the terms for face value (what the typically mean, not what people assume them to mean). I guess what I’m trying to say is that to me, story telling is just the passing of information from one person to another. It could be about something in the past, it could be made up, but it is a dialog, language sharing. In game playing, there are directions, sometimes there is a background, etc. In the very basic definition of the word, this is story telling. So I would have to say that I do believe that game-playing has narrative/story telling aspects in it, but that game playing itself is SO much more. Why? Because it is interactive. It allows you to become part of the story, to change it, to make it your own. You can succeed, you can fail, you can sit, run, shoot, jump, fight, hide, the list goes on and on. In just a story, you do not have that ability. A game however, which integrates a story, gives you so much more; such a wider scope of ability.
Film watching is a bit of a chameleon. It includes story-telling but not game-playing. However it can be a part of game-playing. For example, KumaWar the game integrates video to tell you (story) where you are and what your mission is. It also adds a bit more of a realistic nature to the game, showing you a REAL place with REAL people, not just digital/animation creations. It seems to be a link, story-telling -> film -> game. The game does not have to include the film, but it can. But both of the later need the first to exist in my mind. It is just something that cannot be avoided.
The important thing to start off with is what kind of video game is on the being discussed because there are two main strains of them which make them relate to the topic at hand in different ways.
Linear games - Things like the Final Fantasy series are linear games because there is essentially one overarching quest or journey the player cannot deviate from without just not playing the game and failing to complete the main quest in ways such as like dying leads to the game ending. Games like this are much like film-watching because the essentially narrative arc is already laid out and it probably includes such film like devices like foreshadowing or twists.
Non-Linear Games - These are the ones that “ludologists” might be referring to when saying games are more experiential than narrative. And for that I would agree because many of them have either such a loose story with sometimes not even the barest of narrative arcs they are more focused around letting the player do stuff. Entries into this category might be a recent game about the Incredible Hulk which I’m pretty sure was focused around the idea of destroying a city with some sort of really bare-bones plot about how the Hulk got there.
I agree with Joni that all three–games, stories, and films–have the same structure: beginning, middle, and end. Each has some kind of conflict, but perhaps a difference is who is solving the conflict? In games, it’s the player, who is immersed and considers him or herself “in” the game as the protagonist. In stories (like books) it’s a protagonist that the reader often doesn’t relate with–you feel a sense of distance, just observing the conflict being resolved. (You could make an exception for mystery books). And in film, it’s similar with a protagonist that the viewer does not see as him or herself, but as someone he or she can at least relate to. So I guess the difference is agency–who is performing the actions that solve the conflict of each, and how the player/reader/viewer views him or herself in that environment. So I think most games are stories. The obvious examples are role-playing games in which a story is clearly set up and the player is living the story. But we could also make a case for basic games like Tetris, as some of the authors so far have mentioned, because the player is still an agent in a basic conflict, and to me, that’s the most basic form of storytelling.
While I agree that game-playing does have the same narrative structure as storytelling and film, I also think it differs in its depiction of the story. With both storytelling and a film, the audience function as inactive observers: they sit by and passively watch as the story unfolds before them. It is the level of interactivity that sets game-playing apart. The audience is no longer passive, but rather has a direct influence on the outcome of the story- their individual participation will change this outcome. Five people watching a movie will all experience the same story: they will witness the same characters deal with the same tribulations and receive the same rewards. However, in game-playing, five people can play the same game, yet experience an entire different story. Depending on how they interact with the medium will decide what door they take to the next level or which other characters in the game will be saved. Also, while the viewer may relate with the protagonist in storytelling or in film, they actually are the protagonist in game-playing. I feel that game-playing places the participant on a more personal, interactive level with the medium, and occasionally blurring the line between fiction and reality further than film and storytelling ever do.
The similarities between the three media are that they are all non-personal entertainment experiences (or at least they are supposed to be). What I mean by that is that someone will play a game, read a book, or watch a movie for some sort of entertainment purpose. Each is a way to get away from the reality of life. True that games have a higher level of participation that the other two (most of the time; audience participation like in the Rocky Horror Picture Show, and the books where you make choices on where to continue the story), but the individual outside the media is merely an observer to the actions of the actors, characters, or avatars. In movies and film, there is no way to change the outcome of the story. Star Wars begins with an attack on Leia’s ship, and ends with Luke, Han, and Chewbacca getting medals. This will never change over the course of wactching the movie. Books are the same way. The print on the page is fixed and there is no way around it. In terms of the video game, the ones that contain stories, the change comes in the middle. While the beginnings and endings are generally the same, how you get to them can happen in any variety of ways. The two games that come to mind are Fable and Mass Effect, which both deal with a central character who is always making decisions that affect his/her alignment. Games of this type are relatively new, or at least only becoming popular in the last couple years. Before the advent of advanced gaming systems, I would say that games too fell under the same constraints as books and movies. Super Mario Brothers certainly didn’t have the depth of a decision based game.
So what I would say to the above question is that while video games have shared the court with other media, they are beginning to distinguish themselves in a new way.
Games are stories, I don’t think that anyone can deny the narrative aspects of games. Even some of the most primitive games out there have story telling aspects. It’s just the nature of how that industry works. I think there is definitely a relationship between game play, story telling and watching a film or a tv show. All three integrate narratives, which is fairly obvious when talking about films and television. It might be a little bit harder to notice sometimes in video games that don’t involve video clips or animation to set up what the parameters of the world you are in but the story elements are still there. Even the early Nintendo games had story telling aspects, The Legend of Zelda comes immediately to mind. Storytelling has been a part of video games since Nintendo was first introduced (even somewhat earlier with Atari with some games) and, to me, it is actually an essential part of any game I choose to play.
I’d like to think of narrative as more htan just a way of giving the player information vital for gameplay. It depends on the game and the voice used as to determine the meaning of the narrative. If it is a man’s voice, somewhat calming, quiet, reserved, yet commanding, it is probably a representation of a father figure of sorts, even in cases, God. This feeling of comfort and trust is easily given to such a figure, and allows the player to slip more easily into gameplay. Some narratives do not use voices, but rather flashbacks and virtual rhetoric to tell a story. The use of images flashing, sometimes in an undeterminable pattern, relates to how people think. We do not think in complete sentences or understanble patterns, but rather quick thoughts, jumping from one to another. We can comprehend this images easily becuase our minds think this way. The use of narration is to help immerse the player more into the game, without any doubt that what is happening is real. Sometimes we need to think like the character in order to become it, or we need to coaxed and reminded of our mission from a trustworthy source, much like we would need to in real life.
Personally, I think there’s a really big correlation between the inclusion of a story in a game. Having a story line in a game is what gets a person invested in the goings-on. One of the best examples I can think of off the top of my head is Assassin’s Creed which I know we’ll be looking at later on.
My brothers purchased the game over winter break and occasionally I would sit down and watch what was happening. The graphics coupled with cut-scenes and the conversations between characters made it almost an interactive movie. Each particular action has positive or negative consequences; this is true of most games. But the more I saw them interacting with the game, the more they wanted to proceed to see what came next not only in way of game-play but in the narrative.
I was actually there when they beat the game. I remember it well because it did really leave you hanging as to what came next, leaving it open to a sequel. The more I thought about it, the more it really was like a film. You invest your time into the process of playing the game, you gather facts and pay attention to the goings-on so that you know what comes next and how to go about progressing the game. And then at the end, you’re irritated at the cliff-hanger indicating a desire for the next chapter. If there hadn’t been a story line, there wouldn’t have been the same level of participation — they might not have even gotten to the end of the game. People need substance — if a story isn’t juicy, you tune it out. Even Tetris progresses; the levels get longer, the pace of the overall game quickens. If it was the same simple tasks again and again, we’d be bored out of our minds very quickly. We need either a challenge or a story to hold our attention, and a game that doesn’t have one or the other just won’t succeed with these modern short attention spans of ours.
When comparing story telling, game playing, and film-watching, it’s easy to see some of the similarities: characters, problems that need to be solved, a goal to reach in order to have an endings; all these similarities are also structures of a narrative. It’s easy to argue that games have a narrative structure, simply because without one the player wouldn’t know what they’re suppose to do or where to go. Film-watching seems to be the most different among the three; when watching a film, a story is written and then played out in front of you. The only role the participant has to play is the viewer. They can not alter the story, nor can they have any other impact on characters or the plot. With story telling, the story is written previously, but it is up to the story teller to follow the plot; they still have the freedom to change a character’s destiny or certain situations. Game-playing is similar in the aspect that a plot structure is already laid out (these are the characters, this is the problem, this is what must be done to get here and solve this), but the player controls the details. Even when a player is creating the movements of the character, there is only a certain order he can move through levels and one ending to resolve the game (whether it is reached or not). Without these narrative structures in games there would only be one point and shoot game, one puzzle game, there would be no variety. It is the narratives that allow there to be different fantasy games and more than one version of a single game (final fantasy, mario, etc.). Narrative is an important aspect of game-playing, it just may not follow the same exact guidelines of, say, film-watching, but then again neither does dance, but that can still be a form of storytelling.
All three medeums suggested can be included in one work, thus they must all be able to work together, making them related in some regard. They are all (at face value) a means of distraction, through which people can use their minds for purposes outside the realms of need, and the physical reality in general. But what game developers, storytellers, and movie producers ultimately want from their creations is for people to take something away, and apply it to reality. The message of a story is supposed to change or modify the way you think about something, the “trick” to a game is supposed to teach you a skill or new way of processing information, and the visual/auditory aspects of a movie are supposed to change the way you perceive reality. If someone wants people to take away more than one of these lessons from their work, then these methods can be mixed and matched because they are all focused on affecting the mind. Notice how hard it is to integrate any of these methods when one’s head is covered. That is the common factor, not necessarily that they can work well together, but what they are ultimately meant to work on.
Games without stories or movies: Checkers, Chess, Tick tack toe, tag.
Virtual experiences enacted via physical objects that can potentially be used to teach about reality.
When considering game stories, films and novels I feel several aspects must be accounted for. First what is the distinction between each of these. A novel is something that is only read and unchangeable by the reader. A film is seen and heard all the information is given through sight and sound as opposed to the book which is only read and the actions are imagined. Games use both sight and sound, but also include interaction. A player can make choices that’ll lead him or her down a certain path. In all three cases we are given a story that leads us in a certain direction.
Games differ from films and novels mostly because a person interacts with it. Some may argue that a game’s successfulness comes from it’s design, but I think story has a lot to do with it. If we take a look at movies that are now drawing from games for scripts I think it’s clear that we have a story and a lot of the time a well written one. Any fan of the final fantasy series will tell you that they get drawn in because of the characters and the story. The game itself is very repetitive and tedious, but the story drives a player to continue. In a very primitive way of thinking about it I find games to be the next step in story telling. Before the novel there were oral stories. Many books are adaptations of these and are given a new style because of writing. The same can be argued about film and novels. Why can’t games hold this idea as well?