Last week we discussed the topic of Ideal Stories, as presented in Jesper Juul's article Games Telling Stories. This week we are going to discuss another point he brings up: games have similarities with narratives, but aren't narrative themselves.
For example, Juul states that many video games start with the player lacking something, with the objective being to resolve that lack. This is a common theme in traditional narratives. Another example he brings up is the fact that most games follow a quest structure and contain a protagonist. Quest structures are again common in narratives: this is when a character has to go on some kind of journey to resolve something. The idea of a protagonist is a huge similarity as well because almost every story has a main character.
It is also an oft-repeated but problematic point that game sessions are experienced linearly, just like narratives. [1] Juul states that this isn't relevant because we are denying the very experience of playing the game, which involves numerous branching paths, replays caused by deaths, quitting, etc. The experience is so different from reading a traditional narrative that a person will lean forward (active) while playing a game, and lean back (passive) while reading a book. [1] Juul also goes so far as to state that the playing of a game includes the awareness that this playthrough embodies one possible path out of thousands.
References:
1. Juul, J. (2oo1). Games telling stories.
Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1 (Issue 1).
Retrieved from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts/
Monday, October 18, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Ideal Stories
Over the course of this blog we have analyzed concepts and devices used in video games to tell stories. But in his article Games Telling Stories, Jesper Juul introduces the question, "Do video games tell stories?" [1] This is a much debated question because video games are vastly different from films and books, mostly because of interactivity. Jesper presents a handful of arguments for and against games telling stories. One of the arguments he presents for gaming as a narrative medium is the concept of ideal stories.
An ideal story is usually presented to the player by means of the game manual, back of the case, intro, etc. It is an ideal sequence of events that the player has to realize. [1] Jesper uses the classic arcade game Space Invaders as an example. In Space Invaders we as players are presented with the ideal story that the aliens have invaded and broken the positive state we were living in. The ideal story ends with the aliens being defeated and our positive state being restored. We fight them to return to peace. As players we are fighting to realize a sequence of events, but the actual playing is not the sequence. [1] And in the case of Space Invaders, the ideal story can never be fully achieved: after a wave of aliens are killed, a new one appears. It's endless.
The first shots being fired in the endless game of Space Invaders.
Ideal stories are not possible in films and books because there is only one possible sequence of events. There is no interactivity from the audience/reader. The story presented exists in its singular possible form.
Next week we will take a look at another one of the arguments Jesper presents in his article.
References:
1. Juul, J. (2oo1). Games telling stories.
Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1 (Issue 1).
Retrieved from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts/
An ideal story is usually presented to the player by means of the game manual, back of the case, intro, etc. It is an ideal sequence of events that the player has to realize. [1] Jesper uses the classic arcade game Space Invaders as an example. In Space Invaders we as players are presented with the ideal story that the aliens have invaded and broken the positive state we were living in. The ideal story ends with the aliens being defeated and our positive state being restored. We fight them to return to peace. As players we are fighting to realize a sequence of events, but the actual playing is not the sequence. [1] And in the case of Space Invaders, the ideal story can never be fully achieved: after a wave of aliens are killed, a new one appears. It's endless.
The first shots being fired in the endless game of Space Invaders.Ideal stories are not possible in films and books because there is only one possible sequence of events. There is no interactivity from the audience/reader. The story presented exists in its singular possible form.
Next week we will take a look at another one of the arguments Jesper presents in his article.
References:
1. Juul, J. (2oo1). Games telling stories.
Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1 (Issue 1).
Retrieved from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts/
Monday, October 4, 2010
Narrative Interactivity: Game Examples
Last week I went into detail on the four main models used when analyzing video game narrative interactivity. This week I will expand on this by using the models to categorize a popular modern game. Let's get started!
Halo: Reach
Halo: Reach is the fourth (and supposedly last) game created by Bungie in the Halo universe. Its gameplay is primarily shooting and is told from a first person perspective. Modern First Person Shooters are almost always Internal Mode and the Halo series is typically a bit Ontological, but Halo: Reach is a decidedly complex game with multiple modes of play and options, so let's break it down further.
In the game's primary storyline, or Campaign mode, you control a character with the call sign 'Noble Six' (as you are the sixth member of 'Noble Team'). This is a character with weight in the game world's story, and is not entirely a user generation. Although interestingly, the user is asked to assign the visual look of the character -- armor and gender (the developers recorded both a male and female voice for the part dependent on player choice) specifically. This definitely tilts the game towards Ontological slightly because the player's choices here decide how the character looks throughout the game.
Noble Six, armored as the player decided.
Now, there is a lot of gray zone with Ontological vs Exploratory in gaming as fully Ontological games are very rare, and many games now have at least some kind of player influence on the narrative. Many people would classify Halo: Reach as exploratory simply because the overall narrative doesn't really stray from its path. Still, I would argue Halo: Reach's campaign is slightly Ontological, with the sandbox nature of the gunfights and the player customization in mind. Campaign isn't the only component of Halo: Reach though so let's break down a couple more modes: namely Forge mode, and Theater mode.
Forge is a mode entirely based on user content, and it's designed to fully support Reach's robust multiplayer suite. In Forge mode the player is given the tools necessary to create his own worlds: walls, ramps, doorways, archways, pillars, etc. The player simply chooses one of the pre-made environments shipped with the game (called 'maps') for base terrain and he's ready to go. With full control the user is able to create limitless content and distribute it online with the rest of the world.
Here a player has reconstructed the Eiffel Tower in Forge.
A mode like this would almost always be External, but there is a problem: the player still has his created character in this mode. Instead of flying around body-less as an invisible camera, the player controls a character while he is constructing worlds. This keeps it from being External, but Forge definitely has typical External qualities.
Theater mode is the other interesting mode in the game. Remember last week when I said External/Exploratory games are basically non-existent? Well, I do believe Theater in fact falls under that category. Here's how the mode works. Basically whenever you play Halo: Reach the game is recording your gameplay. Be it in multiplayer, Campaign, Forge, anything. When you go into Theater mode in Halo: Reach it will bring up a list of your recently played footage. Let's say you pick the footage of a competitive multiplayer match you just played. When you boot up the match in Theater mode, the game recreates the match exactly as it played, like a movie (with pause/play, rewind, and fast forward options as well). Only, unlike a movie, you control the camera and can fly around in the world while you control the time. This is completely External: you don't have your character like the other modes in Reach. You are simply an external camera source. That being said, it is still Exploratory because you don't affect the events at all; they already happened. You're simply viewing them at better angles, taking pictures, saving clips, etc. Hence the name 'Theater' mode.
Theater mode enables the player to view any previously played match from
any angle, at any speed, at any time.
I hoped you like this analysis of the concepts in Marie-Laure Ryan's article, Beyond Myth and Metaphor: The Case of Narrative in Digital Media, as this is the last week I will spend on it. See you next week!
References:
Ryan, M. (2001). Beyond myth and metaphor: The case of narrative in digital media.
Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1 (Issue 1).
Retrieved from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/ryan/
Halo: Reach
Halo: Reach is the fourth (and supposedly last) game created by Bungie in the Halo universe. Its gameplay is primarily shooting and is told from a first person perspective. Modern First Person Shooters are almost always Internal Mode and the Halo series is typically a bit Ontological, but Halo: Reach is a decidedly complex game with multiple modes of play and options, so let's break it down further.
In the game's primary storyline, or Campaign mode, you control a character with the call sign 'Noble Six' (as you are the sixth member of 'Noble Team'). This is a character with weight in the game world's story, and is not entirely a user generation. Although interestingly, the user is asked to assign the visual look of the character -- armor and gender (the developers recorded both a male and female voice for the part dependent on player choice) specifically. This definitely tilts the game towards Ontological slightly because the player's choices here decide how the character looks throughout the game.
Noble Six, armored as the player decided.Now, there is a lot of gray zone with Ontological vs Exploratory in gaming as fully Ontological games are very rare, and many games now have at least some kind of player influence on the narrative. Many people would classify Halo: Reach as exploratory simply because the overall narrative doesn't really stray from its path. Still, I would argue Halo: Reach's campaign is slightly Ontological, with the sandbox nature of the gunfights and the player customization in mind. Campaign isn't the only component of Halo: Reach though so let's break down a couple more modes: namely Forge mode, and Theater mode.
Forge is a mode entirely based on user content, and it's designed to fully support Reach's robust multiplayer suite. In Forge mode the player is given the tools necessary to create his own worlds: walls, ramps, doorways, archways, pillars, etc. The player simply chooses one of the pre-made environments shipped with the game (called 'maps') for base terrain and he's ready to go. With full control the user is able to create limitless content and distribute it online with the rest of the world.
Here a player has reconstructed the Eiffel Tower in Forge.A mode like this would almost always be External, but there is a problem: the player still has his created character in this mode. Instead of flying around body-less as an invisible camera, the player controls a character while he is constructing worlds. This keeps it from being External, but Forge definitely has typical External qualities.
Theater mode is the other interesting mode in the game. Remember last week when I said External/Exploratory games are basically non-existent? Well, I do believe Theater in fact falls under that category. Here's how the mode works. Basically whenever you play Halo: Reach the game is recording your gameplay. Be it in multiplayer, Campaign, Forge, anything. When you go into Theater mode in Halo: Reach it will bring up a list of your recently played footage. Let's say you pick the footage of a competitive multiplayer match you just played. When you boot up the match in Theater mode, the game recreates the match exactly as it played, like a movie (with pause/play, rewind, and fast forward options as well). Only, unlike a movie, you control the camera and can fly around in the world while you control the time. This is completely External: you don't have your character like the other modes in Reach. You are simply an external camera source. That being said, it is still Exploratory because you don't affect the events at all; they already happened. You're simply viewing them at better angles, taking pictures, saving clips, etc. Hence the name 'Theater' mode.
Theater mode enables the player to view any previously played match fromany angle, at any speed, at any time.
I hoped you like this analysis of the concepts in Marie-Laure Ryan's article, Beyond Myth and Metaphor: The Case of Narrative in Digital Media, as this is the last week I will spend on it. See you next week!
References:
Ryan, M. (2001). Beyond myth and metaphor: The case of narrative in digital media.
Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1 (Issue 1).
Retrieved from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/ryan/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)