Koki on 17/7/2010 at 10:20
[spoiler]Check out the thread title[/spoiler]
Thirith on 17/7/2010 at 10:22
It would probably help if people were more explicit about what makes the game narrative they mention historically important. I'd agree with Sands of Time, because it is perhaps the most elegant, best integrated example of game self-awareness I've seen (i.e. it doesn't do the funny but in-your-face "You're playing a game, Max!" thing but actually makes it part of the game and its conventions). I would also add Modern Warfare because that game does some pretty cool subversive things with respect to making the player the hero of the story and then taking away his agency almost every time it counts, at least until the end.
Aerothorn on 20/7/2010 at 23:19
I actually think Koki has some legitimate points in there, though I suspect he's using a much narrower definition of narrative than mine. His posts don't really encourage engagement for obvious reasons, but hey, Koki: if you want to make a pitch for Modern Warfare being on the brainstorm list (and remember, it is that - some, including the likes of Baldur's Gate, will likely be cut) then go ahead. I played it, found a few interesting moments, but not enough to really cement it for me. What are you referring to? The PC death scene? The gunship level? What is radically different about what this game does than any of its predecessors (since clearly, you consider difference by degrees to be an invalid selector)?
Koki on 21/7/2010 at 05:13
It's all about the Al-Fulani execution. Half Life estabilished the whole "player's perspective" theme but the camera never really left the main character so far. Giving the player a limited control over an NPC in what is essentially introductory cutscene was damn clever as getting shot in the face gets the story across much better than whatever non-interactive movie or dialogue could.
Thirith on 21/7/2010 at 06:11
The game compounds that initial scene over and over again. First person shooters are so often about facile (male) wish fulfilment, giving the player the illusion that they're the hero who can save the world. Modern Warfare with its "ooh-rah!" setting and narrative would seem to do the same, yet:
- It starts with a level where you're basically shooting sleeping men in their beds. How heroic.
- The gunship level pretty much does the same thing, highlighted by the chatter that's going on.
- You have the Al-Fulani execution and the post-nuke scene. Both are about giving you agency in small ways but taking it away in larger terms - you can look around or walk around, but you're not even given the illusion that you have a say in how the scene plays out.
- There are also other, less clear examples that go in the same direction: Zakhaev's son shoots himself in front of you, so you essentially fail that mission; in the final scene, you watch everyone else get killed just before you manage to get off the heroic killshot.
I'd still maintain that Modern Warfare is one of the most subversive mainstream games in terms of storytelling, because it looks and feels like testosterone-riddled wish fulfilment and caters to those fantasies, yet when you look at it more closely it frustrates exactly that wish fulfilment again and again.
Koki on 21/7/2010 at 06:21
It's still war porn.
Thirith on 21/7/2010 at 06:42
Well, that's the thing, though: it's like Starship Troopers in that respect. I don't particularly like the film, but it does work on both levels - as satire and as sci-fi war porn. Modern Warfare isn't satirical, but it does have a subversive subtext.
Like so many subtexts, though, it's easy enough to ignore it and just enjoy shooting bad guys in the head.
nicked on 21/7/2010 at 11:37
Oh no, someone said Starship Troopers.
Koki on 21/7/2010 at 12:27
Yeah, I'm outta here
Aerothorn on 21/7/2010 at 20:49
I'm ashamed to admit that I barely remember the execution scene. Do you have a choice to *not* kill him? It seems like the complicity would be somewhat compromised if you didn't have a choice.
I agree that both the opening level and the gunship level are brilliant moments of subversion, but my impression was that the devs weren't fully committed to it, and it spiraled more into legit hoo-rah nonsense towards the end. I get the impression that the sequel pretty much abandoned the whole subversion thing, too, though I've never played it - any thoughts on that?
p.s. Koki - given that you apparently have a better understanding of narrative than I do, could you define it for me? I consider dialog systems to be elements of the narrative experience - how does your definition exclude this?
