game theory: Game Narratives

Retr0gamer

You should play the 2 shin megami tensei games. Way ahead of FFVII and anything else at that point, and well even now. there's plenty of other games that told a better story than FFVII and predated it including Phantasy Star IV, Lufia 2 and I would also rate FFVI higher than it.

Kama

Fascinating OP...

The games I've loved most are those where the constructive narrative was dominant, especially in rpg's, being told who you are is somewhat immersion-breaking, and the more projective aspects of character identification go out the window. Similarly, when plot progression has that complete rail-shooter feel, choice and involvement reveal themselves as meaningless. Taking Fallout 3, I can shoot all sorts of nice people in the head, but so long as I give enough water to beggars sure it's all ok, I'm a 'Good Guy' with a halo on my head. 'Choice' (like in Fable) turns into a cosmetic superficial layover on the underlying structure...would you like Coke or Pepsi with your fries, on the ethical drive-through...

Compare this with the Black Isle/Troika tradition in rpg's; Fallout 1 and 2 through Arcanum to Planescape: I'm choosing, ethically, practically from the get-go, and those choices matter. Planescape: Torment for me was the most extreme in terms of narrative engagement; the choices you make expressing an ethical outlook and worldview, with the horrible nagging feeling that this is going to kick you in the ass at some point. Who you choose to be becomes the point of the game, rather than being pre-determined or revealed, with a underlying plot substrate that can 'hang' whatever approach you take, and invites this kind of self-interpretation and self-creation, where your role is creatively enacted rather than pre-determined.

Narrative-based games have to have an end point, otherwise the narrative has no focus. Build towards liberating (or conquering) a planet, killing a tyrant, rescuing a loved one, discovering your origins.... they are tangible goals. Games can have multiple routes to these outcomes (and even multiple outcomes), but they are always going to be finite.

Take a classic example of emergent constructive narrative, from the dawn of gaming: Elite. There's a world of star systems, more than you can feasibly visit, and you make up your own mind what to do. It's fascinating reading about when they were developing it, that the more dynamic-interpretive aspects emerged: 'hmm we can put a scoop for debris in...ah, if we can scoop debris people can be pirates!'. Adding tools created the possibilities for alternate methods of play, and people projected their own character and meaning onto this Rorscach-like structure. There wasn't an end, but there was a beginning; I'd agree you need the beginning, but an end less so.

Wind forward, and take the now-dated follow-up, Privateer2: The Darkening, merging a linear Main-Quest, with a more open-world space-trader-pirate-etc, through to a more player-generated model currently terminating with EVE.

Perversely, this sort of thing was easier with old games, or currently with small indie games like Uplink from Introversion: provide the tools, and let the constructive side emerge from play dynamics. Uplink scores highly here: 'heres how to hack, heres all sorts of things that are hackable, now go to!'. Age of Decadence would be a forthcoming rpg where the dynamic construction of narrative looks to be more fully foregrounded, following the Troika/BlackIsle approach.

The most fun with 'closed' systems tends to be screwing around with them; one of my favourite moments when I used WoW was an impromptu naked fistfighting party in AV, that was scrupulously enforced by the onlookers: anyone messing with the 'neutral zone' was put down. It's this kind of emergent play fascinates me.

retr0gamer wrote:

These types of games would require a huge investment in time and money and since it's such an unknown quanity a publisher would not be will to invest in such a project. The ones that do get made are very ambitious but ultimately only noble efforts since they are bug riddled messes.

Agree...Troika's games were phenomenally aspirational, but tended to be released in a woefully buggy and unfinished form, hence the quote that they were 'a hole from which great ideas failed to crawl out of'. Some of it is also the constraints from high-budget graphics-intensive expectations, and the desire to make 'blockbuster' games. Not many people actually want open-ended dynamic games, or narrative and meaning based games, and they're a b*tch to do...The exceptions are weird little indies: Eskil with Love, Mount and Blade, Introversion Software etc. I'm more excited about Love than any game in the last 5-10 years...

L31mr0d

Retr0gamer wrote: »

young, dumb and full of cum.

So that's what the Sakura outfit was for :pac:

BlitzKrieg

I'd get back with a more *INTENSE* response when I have time (at work) but two quick things

1.

ultimately what i think games have the advantage story telling wise is the fact that you have to play them

I could argue for story telling, games are at a disadvantage because you play them and therefore the viewer is locked into a single perspective. Consider how few games would have cutscenes following characters that are nowhere near your current location. The game's are put in a difficult position to write the playable character into every event in the game. Some games have worked ways around this (multiple playable characters being the most straightforward.)

2.
Secondly if people are interested in these sort of threads, we could do more and get a sort of series of threads together covering numerous topics.

Kama

I'm really interested...

I could argue for story telling, games are at a disadvantage because you play them and therefore the viewer is locked into a single perspective.

I could argue back that for story-telling, where you are told the story, they are in just as good a position; you are given a story, as you might be read a book as a child, and you may have a dynamic or projective involvement or identification, but it cannot alter how the story unfolds. You are more locked into the perspective than in a game.

Games, or plays, like original rolepaying, the participant has an active involvement in how the story unfolds, although this is generally within the constructive limits of the programmed narrative. A pre-computer mid-point would have been things like choose-you-own-adventure books, where the set of possible endings is constructed, but the dynamic element is selecting what endings you enact. The effects of my involvement, whether shallow or deep, tend to factor into how immersive and enjoyable I find a game.

Once we get into games where more of the experience is user-constructed, it changes radically; the rise of 'sandbox' open-world play, or the genre coming from SimCity: here are some tools and abilities, here is a world, go enjoy it.

Where games have the advantage on other forms of media, films books etc, is your potential influence on outcome. You can have multiple perspectives on the same world; I'm currently playing an idiot savant in Arcanum, a technological genius with the mind of a 4 year old conversationally; it's a very different playthrough and experience to being a socially-adroit character.

NeoKubrick

Vegeta wrote: »

[...]

An Elder Scrolls moderator talks at length about 'dynamic narrative', but fails to cite either of the greatest examples, Morrowind or Oblivion?

L31mr0d wrote: »

It depends on the genre really. I think most gamers accept that some genres have the capacity to greatly improve on the narrative and impact of film.

That's not related to film. There's a difference between a narrative that is sentimental, immature, pandering to that of which is subtle, intelligent, and uncompromising. The evolution from the former to the latter is not the sole enterprise of filmmakers; it's the enterprise for all artists on any medium. There's a difference between aspiring to attain standards other mediums have set and aspiring to be other mediums.

Retr0gamer

NeoKubrick wrote: »

An Elder Scrolls moderator talks at length about 'dynamic narrative', but fails to cite either of the greatest examples, Morrowind or Oblivion?

There's a start, there's a middle and there's an end. There's also some side quests that are optional and have no affect on the story scattered around a huge landscape. It's hardly dynamic really.

Kama

There'll always, necessarily be a start. Barring fully emergent content, or continual expansion, there'll be an end, in most games.

What counts is the middle, and what you can do with it. Morrowind, you could walk away from the main questline right at the start, and just play around and find stuff. There not being an invisible wall or a banner dragging you back on 'you must fulfiul your destiny' lines was what was so liberating about Morrowind, for me.

Some form of narrative coherence demands a degree of constructive, laid-down structure. Ideally, there's a main story arc or arcs, that is affected by your choices, but you can wander off and do your own thing too.

johnny_ultimate

I think one thing Bethesda games do well is at least give you some sort of room to tackle subplots in your own way. While this often is merely a typical 'good or evil' dynamic, it is still very welcome to be able to go in either all guns (or swords) a blazing, or try and talk through the situation instead. I think this kind of shows up the weakpoints in the central storylines though, which are far more linear compared to the sidequests you have to go looking for. I do like Oblivion / Fallout 3, but the worlds in those two games still feel a little too artificial to fully pull you in.

The good vs evil polarity is one thing developers either need to reconsider though. The problem with the gamers is they often demand rewards, which makes it very difficult to create more ambiguous morality. I'd love to see a game create a world where decisions weren't always as expected - like somewhere where doing what you perceive to be the 'good' thing has a negative outcome, outside of your control. Fable II made some efforts at this - in creating incidences where trying to remain morally composed led to some significant in game losses. Braid also had that crushing but brilliant ending when the developer revealed that you may not have been doing the right thing all along, and tied the gameplay mechanics wonderfully into that painful conclusion. But these games are too rare. For narratives to truly advance, not all games should be intent on rewarding the player with more experience or unlockables - let them suffer for a change.

BlitzKrieg

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's a start, there's a middle and there's an end. There's also some side quests that are optional and have no affect on the story scattered around a huge landscape. It's hardly dynamic really.

dynamic narrative are the bits between those constructive elements. They are the ones the player chooses, how he plays the game and the resulting experiance from it.

All games use a combination of dynamic and constructed narrative, but from genre to genre the level of dynamic and constructed narrative varies.

third person and first person action games, tend to be heavy on constructed narrative and limited on dynamic narrative as the level design + variety of options given to the player (shoot, run live, to paraphrase half life's original advertising) are focused on combat gameplay. So obviously the dynamic narrative for the player is going to be locked into how he takes down the waves of opponents (course there is variety there between weapon choice, gameplay styles and set pieces) essentially telling an action flick with the player controlling the action sequences while the game dictates the bits in between.

The Elder Scrolls series the constructive narrative is dictating a fantasy romp across some lands, but the dynamic narrative *should* be that how the player tells the story of how this story plays out. Course Oblivion is an example of the challange between dynamic and constructive narratives butting heads as the design of the constructive narrative coupled with the auto leveling of monsters caused difficulties for players who tried to go a route where they were not combat focused, resulting in certain sections required in the main quest being controller breakingly annoying and pulling them out of the narrative they had created themselves.


Dynamic narrative is seen as the desired result. But I would argue that GTA 4 is the better game over the original GTA because it put more constructed narrative into the game, directly rewarding me as a player when I progressed and crafting variety in set pieces or opening up new ideas that left to my own affairs I would not have considered, of course it created problems aswell, with the constructed narrative butting in when I didnt want it to.


Maybe it should be written as a sort of rule of videogame storytelling, if you give player's freedom do not create some element to bug them back onto the main plot. There are many many many many examples of characters or devices in video games that just end up P*ssing players off and the internet is full of webcomics etc showing how P*ssed off it made them.

examples include

Navi from Zelda Ocarina of Time

the mobile phone from both Dead Rising and GTA 4

It is something that developers should be aware of that they shouldnt bug players to get back to their constructive narrative.

Some nice touches I noticed recently were the ones where it was optionable to ask for a pointer back to the main quest (Prince of Persia) or in one case with Red Faction 3, the game bugged you to go off and do random sh*t rather then the main quest (which varied from annoying to ooh! break sh*t!) when it dropped you messages every now and then saying something was over here, go blow it up if you want or stick to the main mission.

I could argue back that for story-telling, where you are told the story, they are in just as good a position; you are given a story, as you might be read a book as a child, and you may have a dynamic or projective involvement or identification, but it cannot alter how the story unfolds. You are more locked into the perspective than in a game.

Yes but being read a book as a child is the first step into story telling, it shouldnt be looked at as some example of triple A quality storytelling, its more like cycling with the training wheels on, you get the task done but its nothing special. Reading books become the the great cultural rock of civilisation when the child moves from having the story read to them to reading it themselves.

comparing video games to the first steps into reading is really drawing a large gap between the strength of literature and the ability of video games.

Which is a genuine gap, the question is how do we close it.

Kama

Exactly. Reading as an interpretive act supersedes being 'told a story'.
Stories in games tend far more to be told to us, there's no ambiguity or participation, whereas (in contradistinction to most literature) we are actively involved as a supposed actor in games, and our role potentially far more generative of meaning, than interpretive of a story told to us.

Keeping with story-telling, oral storytelling seems to have been a far more flexible, malleable, open-ended phenomena; stories grow with the telling, change and mutate, and can be actively reconfigured to new ends. A printed story is more 'fixed' in form and meaning than this, but an interactive world potentially less fixed.

Computer games are comparatively such a recent development, that the gap between current state, and the visible potential, seems so large because, McLuhan style, the message still takes the form of the older mediums: linear, passive-participant, narrative and meaning as given-to; the story is 'read to us', with very little scope for the play of imagination (eg. prolonged cinematics between railshooty-checkpoints), while the new medium has more qualities of active participation, and involved negotiation and creation of meaning, and of what the 'fun' in the 'play' actually is; niches of ecological fun being created within the terrain of a game, that the developers may never have even considered.

Ambiguity is a rarity in games; good is good, and good choices lead to good outcomes. There are good characters and bad characters, and bad characters do bad things. Developmentally, this is still quite primitive as narrative goes; again, why I loved Planescape so much was that it invited and supported so many views and interpretations of your role in the world...but this took phenomenal writing ability to pull off.

I don't think we've seen the equivalent of AAA story-telling in games yet, ...which is great news, that the best is yet to come.

NeoKubrick

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's a start, there's a middle and there's an end. There's also some side quests that are optional and have no affect on the story scattered around a huge landscape. It's hardly dynamic really.

Morrowind and Oblivion are the very definition of 'dynamic narrative'. 'Dynamic narrative' refers to the narrative created by the player, not the designer. You state that there's a constructed narrative scattered around a huge landscape with a start, middle and end, but the player can ignore it and erase it from the player's narrative. Players have the freedom to choose to be whomever they want, without ever being shackled or forced into the constructed roles of The Hero of Cyrodiil or The Neveraine.

Hence, Morrowind and Oblivion are games that are best played with your own rules/narrative. When I play Oblivion, sometimes I impose the invisible rule that I push the difficulty slider to the point where enemies take only three or four hits to kill and I don't wear armour or anything that levels-up my defense so that I only can take three or four hits myself; this is to simulate a more realistic experience. Sometimes I impose the invisible rule that I can't use 'wait' or 'fast-travel' ad infinitum. I read a thread by a guy who started a game on Morrowind with the intention of solely living off of the land and nature. In both games, the player can craft his/her own tale, and from the variety and difference of those recounted on all the fan forums, it's incredibly dynamic and more importantly, interesting.

Retr0gamer

Well I've got to totally disagree there. Mirrorwind and Oblivion have one linear storyline and the sidequests are just small self contained narratives within the same universe that can be ignored. Also the level of choice in these stories is only barely affected by player choice since all the options are predetermined by the developer and how you achieve them is set in stone. As for the invisible rules you set, it doesn't really count as dynamic narrative. I've finished Rocket Knight Adventures without taking a hit and played a competitive game of 'chuck off the helicopter' in Gunstar heroes with my brother. I wouldnt' call it dynamic narrative.

Something like GTA 3 on the other hand has a lot of dynamic narrative. You are given an object but the player can go about how he achieves this any way they want. It's something I feel is sorely missing from the later GTAs where all the missions were instanced and the game world was reset at the start of each mission.

Jazzy

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I've finished Rocket Knight Adventures without taking a hit

nice

BlitzKrieg

I would argue something between neokubrick and retrogamer. As I already said Morrowind and Oblivion tried for a strong dynamic narrative in its games but it is conflicting with the game's constructed narrative, You should in theory be able to complete quests by any means you decide but the game's constructed narrative tends to have such specific win conditions that you are usually forced to do it a specific way. There are dynamic elements, with the multiple roles the player can assume with their own quests (thief) and also the leveling system, but the quests within each role tend to be very firmly defined. Saying it lacks dynamic narrative though is also wrong. elements like *invisible rules* defined by the player would be something I would consider dynamic narrative.

which reminds me there were a number of people who played silent hunter 3 in real time. Which means to do one mission literally took them weeks to complete with the machine left running.


And on the rocket knight completion with no hits...PICS OR GTFO!

Retr0gamer

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

And on the rocket knight completion with no hits...PICS OR GTFO!

I could easily do it again. The only pain in the arse is you have to play it multiple times to get the extreme difficulty mode that was 1 hit kills.

Jazzy

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I could easily do it again. The only pain in the arse is you have to play it multiple times to get the extreme difficulty mode that was 1 hit kills.

wats your fastest super metroid time then champ? ^^

NeoKubrick

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well I've got to totally disagree there. Mirrorwind and Oblivion have one linear storyline and the sidequests are just small self contained narratives within the same universe that can be ignored. Also the level of choice in these stories is only barely affected by player choice since all the options are predetermined by the developer and how you achieve them is set in stone. As for the invisible rules you set, it doesn't really count as dynamic narrative. I've finished Rocket Knight Adventures without taking a hit and played a competitive game of 'chuck off the helicopter' in Gunstar heroes with my brother. I wouldnt' call it dynamic narrative.

'Dynamic narrative' is the gameplay and how much or little freedom the player has to create within is the crux of its application. Aside from the obvious and irrelevant, there is little difference between the Grand Theft Auto series and the Elder Scrolls series: you can't logically say one has a lot of 'dynamic narrative' and the other, little. Morrowind and Oblivion, and Grand Theft Auto series are at the very top scale of 'dynamic narrative': the player can ignore the constructed narrative and feasibly create their own narrative. Both Elder Scrolls games have a linear storyline, but within the 'dynamic narrative', a player can complete the storyline by hack'n'slash, archery, stealth, magic, or any of the combination of skills available to the player, which isn't linear gameplay. Parts of the main quests in both games are linear, but, are the exception in both, not the rule.

Neither Morrowind nor Oblivion force the player to participate in the main quest or side quests: it's the player's choice. The invisible rules and objectives a player sets will define the 'narrative' in the 'dynamic narrative' of the game: an invisible rule to avoid using 'wait' or 'fast-travel' is played different to an experience without this imposed rule.

To your two examples. I wouldn't say that to go through a game of that type without getting hit is an invisible rule: games of that type should be designed that players can achieve that and aim to; otherwise, it's a flaw in the game. It is another way to play the game; therefore, it adds to the 'dynamic narrative' of the game. And, competitive or multiplayer gaming is irrelevant to this thread (at least my post, anyway): that's a different subject altogether.

I agree, though, with you on GTA3 in relation to the games later in the series, but I think that San Andreas offered a trade-up in the lack of freedom in the 'constructed' missions for uniqueness, which wasn't an unwelcome trade, for me, in a very open sandbox world.

Jazzy wrote:

wats your fastest super metroid time then champ? ^^

His best time is: 0h:31m:0s

Retr0gamer

Jazzy wrote: »

wats your fastest super metroid time then champ? ^^

By the time I got around to playing super metroid I had a summer job and more videogames I could realistically play. When I had my megadrive I was a teen with no money and very few games. I played the **** out of rocket knight adventures. I could also 1 credit Ghouls n' ghosts in the arcade because I played the **** out of the excellent megadrive conversion.

Sorry for going OT

Kiith

I realise that some people may disagree with me here, but the only real examples of truly dynamic narratives in games that i can think of come from online games, specifically MMO's. The reason i see these as dynamic are because they were in no way planned by the developers. I know story telling and narratives are something that a lot of MMO's suck at, but if we are talking about stories dynamically created by the player, then they win hands down.

Take Eve Online as an example. There's no other game (that i can think of) that allows you to play it any way you want to. It basically gives you the setting, and then allows you to write your own story. Take some of the more well known examples of (what i understand would be) dynamic narrative, such as the Guiding Hand Social Club incident (http://eve.klaki.net/heist/) or Goon's hostile takeover of BoB (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7905924.stm). Would these not be the very definition of dynamic narrative?

I realise that not all (or even many) MMO's allow for this level of player control, but its the first thing that came to mind for me for an example of dynamic narrative.

Super thread btw.

Retr0gamer

I still don't think dynamic narrative has ever matched a good solid constructed narrative and probably never will, especially for me. I like an ending to my stories. Anyone who finds the tales of the exploits of a couple of nerds playing EVE online a riveting read needs to get out more.

Jazzy

i suggest a race around Zebes. We shall begin once finished afternoon tea and the Queen herself shall be there to drop the flag.

Retr0gaymer wrote:

I still don't think dynamic narrative has ever matched a good solid constructed narrative and probably never will, especially for me. I like an ending to my stories. Anyone who finds the tales of the exploits of a couple of nerds playing EVE online a riveting read needs to get out more.

yeah i tend to agree here. at the end end of the day a well crafted and well told story will always stand the test of time and will have an impact on the player. having said that, tales from lan parties and online games can be good... but only to the people familiar with the game. but i feel that these break the boundries of the story the game in question is telling, it is more a story crafted amongst a social group who happen to be playing the same game. does a game of football or rugby have its own story or are the stories merely coming from the environment in which it is played?

in many ways story telling in games has a long way to go. games have only really been around 30 years or so and in their current form id say from the mid 90s onward. developers develop egos based on sales and sales become the guiding point for narrative of future games. the gtames we should be embracing are the games that break the mould and actually try. silent hill, bioshock, deus ex and super metroid should all be embraced by developers as a source of original creation... sure these games are all inspired by other stories and other sources but their originality and how the story is told is what can make the narrative so good. games like Halo, Gears, Killzone etc. all remind me of the kind of humdrum narrative you are more likely to find in a daytime soap opera rather then the hollywood blockbusters they attempt to emulate. guns for the sake of guns, drama for the sake of drama. the attachment is lost and the depth is that of a puddle

Vegeta

NeoKubrick wrote: »

An Elder Scrolls moderator talks at length about 'dynamic narrative', but fails to cite either of the greatest examples, Morrowind or Oblivion?

Meh, I am with Blitzkrieg on this one. There are broken elements, especially when it comes to Oblivion, with their dynamic narratives.

I am not for a second saying the game is not dynamic but I don't tend to enjoy their dynamic elements as much as I do in other games. I have yet to find myself going "Hell, I'll throw in Oblivion and go on a bit of a mad killing spree, for the craic"

Its an RPG and I usually play them quite seriously as my aim is to make the best character that I can. When playing them like this I find it quite constructed. Most people will choose a class and character type at the very beginning of the game and play the whole game in that manner, I always go for a thief assassin. So most folk would play in their chosen role for the whole game and therefore have limited exposure to some of the dynamic elements.

Do "invisible rules" really count though? They can be applied to nearly any game. We played CoD4 against some Scottish lads before and we challenged them to play against us with pistols only, while we could use the full array of weaponry. They did and still hammered us Lets play Fight night with uppercuts only.

Kiith

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Anyone who finds the tales of the exploits of a couple of nerds playing EVE online a riveting read needs to get out more.

While i don't find it a riveting read, i do find it an interesting read. And i think its fair to say that anyone who actually was actually involved in this would say that it was one of the best examples/experiences of an interesting story that was dynamically created in game. I'd say that and i had nothing to do with either of them.

Jazzy wrote:

having said that, tales from lan parties and online games can be good... but only to the people familiar with the game. but i feel that these break the boundries of the story the game in question is telling, it is more a story crafted amongst a social group who happen to be playing the same game. does a game of football or rugby have its own story or are the stories merely coming from the environment in which it is played?

That's a fair enough point. It's definitly a subjective thing, of which the same can be said for sports or other social experiences. But from the perspective of the person involved, it can be a fantastic experience.

I'd definitely agree that a solid constructed narrative will be better then a dynamic narrative, which is why Half Life is and will be mentioned time and time again in this thread. I'm all about the story which is why, for me, a single player game will always be better then a multiplayer game.

Kiith

Doh! Double post.

Retr0gamer

Kiith wrote: »

While i don't find it a riveting read, i do find it an interesting read. And i think its fair to say that anyone who actually was actually involved in this would say that it was one of the best examples/experiences of an interesting story that was dynamically created in game. I'd say that and i had nothing to do with either of them.

You need to get out more :P

Agree totally about the single player experience being way better than a multiplayer experience. I knwo which one I'd rather play. I'd choose multiplayer games only if it was with people I knew online or in local company but then it isn't about the game experience but about the experience with mates.

Kiith

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You need to get out more :P

I really do

Jazzy

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You need to get out more :P

hang about, YOU are saying that? :pac:

ive gone off single player completely in the last couple of years. only if the game really appeals to me will i go for it. ive got a lot of friends who play online though and a lot of us know each other in real life so its all peachy. but i dont think that has much to do with narrative in a game, its just people playing games together