DDL on 10/8/2009 at 17:46
It IS notable. It's A to B to C to D and so on until you chose Z1, Z2 or Z3 (don't do Z2, tracer tong's a dick).
This fact in no way detracts from the fact that the story is gripping and memorable, and this is about narrative, not necessarily MASSIVELY MALLEABLE narrative.
Bioshock was also A to B to etc etc, but also had a fairly gripping storyline narrative to keep you going, so again memorable (if you..overlook the faults).
Sure, Bioshock is far more corridor-shooter styled, but this is about narrative, rather than level design or whatever.
What papy was talking about was illusion of choice being a powerful tool for narrative-driven games: DX has so much freedom of individual mission handling that you begin to believe there's more choice in the plot than there really is, which is perfect for an incredibly memorable first playthrough. Everyone remembers shooting Anna on the plane and having the game allow it. It's not till subsequent playthroughs that you realise she's basically gotta die somehow anyway (baring exploits).
DDL on 10/8/2009 at 18:50
I'm really not sure what your point is.
It's a thread called 'Narrative in video games'..I would assume narrative is kinda the theme here, rather than combat, gameplay mechanics or physics engines or whatever.
(though yes, it is a shit article)
demagogue on 10/8/2009 at 20:05
What gets to me about these kinds of articles ... Well, I have to back up. These days I'm tending to read a lot of articles and interviews by old school art movements and critics -- the Symbolists, the Dadists/Surrealists & Paris avant garde, the Lost Generation, New Wave cinema, Abstract Impressionists & the 50s-60s NY scene, blah blah etc... What immediately strikes me about these game articles trying to grapple with some major mechanic of their medium is that they are no where near caring about the things actual, culturally influential artists and writers cared about when they talk about their mechanics.
The really influentail movements start with some kind of cultural or artistic agenda, and then they develop their mechanics out of that. If you listen to Fellini talk about how he structures a scene, or even arranging the camera or lighting, he's talking about how these mechanics let him confront post-war Italian hopes and anxieties, or the zeitgeist they're a part of, in his visual storytelling. Or looking at the mechanics of dadism and abstract impressionism (both following bitter wars), they were all about completely purging ideology out of their art, the shit that started their wars in the first place, like you can literally feel their disgust kicking it the fuck out, and then their methodology fell out of that, one gutting their images of meaing and the other surgically gutting it of representation altogether, but then you get positive mechanics coming out of that that ends up being influential.
My point is just that so much criticism about games seems to go at it backwards. They start with talking about the mechanics first -- what can we do to improve "immersion" or "narrative" or "player freedom" or whatever -- and then expect a movement or a style or an approach to come out of that ... when they should be thinking about what the agenda is first, and then thinking about how different mechanics affect or fall out of that. After so much reading of what I'm reading, it sounds like they have a recipie for games full of mechanics and empty of soul. Or if they articulate a goal, it'll be things like "entertainment", "more fun", "immersion", "better storytelling", "more freedom" ... things practically empty of actual content.
I won't say there's one "right" path that would make more headway, or that they're "wrong" in thinking in really surface-level goals like "fun" and "story", but one way is that talk about games could be about the zeitgeist that they're in the bloody center of ... the internet generation disembodying themselves into avatars, spreading their agency thin over space and time, paring their own "freedom" down to its atomic units of Nash game-theory, and so detatched from a "social manifest destiny" that reading history is like reading science fiction. Now holy fuck, there's a discussion that makes you think critically about game mechanics. "Frobbing a tool" or "puzzle busy-work" isn't just about what control the developer has to make his more-or-less engaging plot go forward anymore, but also about what players think they're really doing walking around in this game world at all.
[/manifesto]
Ok, all that said, I'm still an open-minded guy and a consumate democrat, so have no problem scoping out new ideas and ways of thinking from anybody that cares enough to talk about them. I wouldn't discourage these kinds of articles from putting their thinking out there, but it's a testament to how inspired I've been by reading the writings of really influential artistic movements that I'd like to see more of that here, too. I mean, one problem with this kind of article is it doesn't leave me with much to talk about; ok, some decent ideas. Let's see how they play out in some real games...
Sulphur on 10/8/2009 at 21:19
Hear, hear! Well said, sir. That's the sort of thing I would dearly love to see in game development.
The only problem is that even if you look at designing a game by defining its own agenda first and letting the game's development branch organically out of that, you have public perception and a conditioned market to battle first.
Games - in the mainstream, at least - are by definition designed to be relatively accessible, shallow entertainments. I suppose there's an analogy there with the advent of cinema and its early days, but the barriers to more intellectual explorations of the medium must surely crack first, and to do that games will have to move beyond the comfortable territory they've mined for the past 20 years.
In that way, I'd suppose that experiments like The Path have made some amount of headway, but there's still more to do. In that regard, I'd say that even a game like Bioshock has its place in making public awareness of what a game is capable of, and the extent of what themes it can approach, that much broader.
Aja on 10/8/2009 at 21:29
We need more games like LSD.
Sulphur on 10/8/2009 at 21:30
Well, that's one way to sum it all up. :D
Aja on 10/8/2009 at 21:56
It just seems to me that LSD is one of the few games that actually uses interactivity advantageously toward its artistic goals. On the one hand we have these art games that are as tedious as they are pretentious (that awful marriage game, for instance, or the one where you feed ghostly animals). And on the other hand are games like Braid, which merely superimpose a kind of shallow artistry over a traditional gaming framework.
I guess some might call LSD tedious or pretentious, but unlike the other art games I mentioned, LSD isn't trying to convince us that games can be art—a counterproductive goal, to be sure—it is simply a project that would not be possible in any other medium. I suppose it doesn't make any grand artistic statements, but neither do many of the exhibits at MoMa—aesthetically I think LSD would fit right in.
Chade on 10/8/2009 at 21:57
Quote Posted by demagogue
The really influentail movements start with some kind of cultural or artistic agenda, and then they develop their mechanics out of that ...
My point is just that so much criticism about games seems to go at it backwards. They start with talking about the mechanics first -- what can we do to improve "immersion" or "narrative" or "player freedom" or whatever -- and then expect a movement or a style or an approach to come out of that ... when they should be thinking about what the agenda is first, and then thinking about how different mechanics affect or fall out of that.
I don't think this is really true "at the coal face", so to speak. You follow the developers enough, and you will often see them discuss how they wanted to make some sort of artistic statement with their work (depending on the game, obviously). It's true that there isn't a really well defined movement in response to some singular gigantic cultural issue, but there still seems to be an awful lot of passion about games and cultural issues that seems to be lost somewhere in the transition from developer to player experience.
I think there are two problems here.
The first problem is that, as has been pointed out, no one really has any idea how they can scale interactive art from simple gimmicks to a fully fledged games. So "artistic" statements in games either form a small portion of the total product (Far Cry 2), or make for short "gimmick games" (Brenda Braithwaite's Train).
The second problem is on the demand side. There is no well developed consumer niche with an acquired taste for the cultural meaning of formal abstract systems. A game like Far Cry 2 comes out, for instance, and most people's reaction ends at "hurr, respawning sux". And hardcore gamers as a group seem to have a deep seated cynicism of any game that tries to have a message (e.g., most gamer's gut reaction to Train).
EDIT: A large part of the second problem is probably due to the first problem: artistic games usually aren't very good at being *games*. Aja, I'd like to know hear you elaborate on why you think "The Marriage" is pretentious. I can appreciate "not very good", but why go the extra step and call it pretentious? Why the extra cynicism?
Papy on 10/8/2009 at 21:57
Quote Posted by Vivian
Yeah, beauty in
death, man. Thats deep.
I don't recall saying it was "deep". In fact, I recall saying video games (and that includes BioShock) lacked depth. But just out of curiosity, did you understand more Sander Cohen after The Waltz of Flower?
Having said that, I'm curious about how you define depth and art. What do you think is the difference between depth and complexity? Also, do you think an essay on modern philosophy can be classified as art?
Shakey-Lo on 11/8/2009 at 08:26
Fellini had the advantage of working about 70 years after film was invented and long after the base mechanics were sorted out. In gaming we are still around the DW Griffith era of film, where it really was about figuring out how to do practical things like parallel action, and the themes ("Yay for KKK!") were secondary. This isn't a poor reflection on games either, as the timelines for each medium line up pretty closely. If gaming follows film's timeline exactly, we won't see the fabled "Citizen Kane of Gaming" until 2025.
