195: String Theory: The Illusion of Videogame Interactivity

[Anthony Burch]

String Theory: The Illusion of Videogame Interactivity

There's a debate raging in the game development community over the role of storytelling in game design. But two recent games have managed to make a compromise between narrative and interactivity. Anthony Burch analyzes how key scenes in Half-Life 2: Episode Two and Metal Gear Solid 4 trick players into believing they have more control over the game than they actually do.

Read Full Article

 

[Skruff]

In my opinion, it's not a crime at all to give the "illusion" of interactivity, particularly for western players. Look at the stark differences between traditional Japanese RPGs and Western RPGs, for example. In one, you traditionally have a very clearly defined storyline that many non-Japanese gamers complain is too linear. The argument that "you're just playing from cutscene to cutscene" shows up in far too many player reviews (and the occasional professional review).

You don't hear those types of complaints regarding western RPGs like Mass Effect, Bioshock, Fable, etc., yet they're doing basically the same thing. They're scripting the story and steering you towards the way they want you to play it. They just may toss in the illusion that you have free will, control over the story, and the ability to do pretty much whatever you want.

Bioshock gave us what many consider one of the best plot twists ever by basically pointing out this very same idea! Not only was it a twist on the plot, but it also doubled as a commentary on the gameplaying experience. You only THOUGHT you were in control, but you're not. Someone else was pulling your strings. Yet, you loved it because you FELT like you were in control.

As western players, we typically want to feel like we're in control. The developers are essentially giving us exactly what we want, while at the same time pulling the strings behind the scene to make sure we get to see a coherent, but exciting story.

In the end, we both win.

 

[Cousin_IT]

sometimes the illusion is necessary if the developers intend the gamer to experince anything but the gameplay. Uncontrollable cutscenes replace interactive control because, often as not, most players if able to control their character during a scripted scene will run about & do other things; ruining the dramatic atmosphere. The illusion of interactivity & control does draw the player in; but it has to be an illusion because good drama takes alot of effort to create, & can be ruined in a second if the player, ignorant of what is unfolding around them, has any control over it.

 

[Estarc]

A very interesting article, to be sure, and I am glad to have this illusion pointed out to me - it reinforces how much work goes into creating a truly marvellous game. That the developers work so hard to ensure players walk away with a specific emotional impact... Awe inspiring. Though it isn't necessary, I admit. A linear story told well can be just as satisfying as a seemingly malleable one also done well.

But I have to wonder at the emphasis on the MGS4 tunnel scene - I thought it was obvious that the scene was scripted. I looked at it basically as a cut scene with quick time events... Which is essentially what it was, right? Am I an abnormality among MGS4 players?

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

The replay value goes out the door when you have a moment like this. Which is not to say they can't work, Call of Duty 4 being the prime example. Rather than try to suck me into the narrative, the game creates an almost pitch-perfect recreation of walking around a nuclear fallout.

Every time I play that sequence I still see something new. But the game is also creating a moment of awe, not drama. I'm not supposed to be sucked into some tense emotional moment, I'm just walking around a painting.

 

[level250geek]

If I want story, I'll read a book.

You want to put a big, emotional finish in your game? Fine. Make it where I can fail. I can always scale back the difficulty if I break out into tears.

As suspect as Valve's tinkering sounded, and trust me it is suspect, Konami just pulled a cheap and dirty trick on gamers that actually want--you know--a game and not an interactive movie.

 

[KDR_11k]

Rule of thumb: If you did it on the first try it's not hard. That's my standard, no matter how little health I had left at the end I assume that any damage taken during the first run was purely because I was new to the scene. If I pull it off on the first try, no matter how close, I just won with a definitely sub-par performance and I can surely do much better on the second or third try (in comparison, I knew that the Tsunami in Disaster wasn't just scripted to stay at a certain distance to me because on my first try I botched it and actually died, too many games have moving disasters behind you that merely advance when you pass certain trigger points though I knew the Tsunami level would end just before the wave reached my car in the attempt where I didn't mess up). Though a QTE death is always a pure frustration death, a QTE doesn't feel like an archievement, it feels like an arbitrary diabolus ex machina thrown at you. I liked them in RE4 but mostly for serving as wake up calls during cutscenes (it's at least pretending to be survival horror so having the player feel safe whenever his character won't obey the analog stick is kinda... fail). I think I've seen cases before where defense missions had enemy cheating designed to make them push ahead to your door in a near-unstoppable onslaught so you'd actually have to fight a "last stand" simply because they were set to invulnerable before reaching the final defense point. Now, defending the base in Onslaught mission 5 on hard, that felt like an accomplishment because I actually had to adjust my strategy to get that mission done after repeated failures.

 

[gigastrike]

Well, now I feel slightly better about being brought down to one house left in Episode 2.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I guess that in the long run you can't fake being a good game but you can fake the experience of winning a game. I would rather win a good game for real than play pretend at beating a bad one.

 

[Krakyn]

That microwave tunnel was a grand finishing to the meal that was the Metal Gear Solid, like some delicious, icing-topped, baked dessert. Now you're telling me it was a LIE???!!!

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

[GyroCaptain]

There's always the option of just writing more story to cope with differences in choices made. The trick there is that the number of extremely consequential choices must be reduced. This can be done effectively by putting players in situations where they don't have direct control and know it, but have options to do anything from spice up to radically alter the narrative at various points. That's a reason why I like BioWare. Playing "you can lose!" with the players is an improvement in a sense over pure scripted events, but it seems to me a truly compelling narrative doesn't have to try basing itself that directly on gameplay.

 

[Bayushi_Kouya]

I can't believe it's taken this long for someone to address this issue.

I do feel a bit like my fourth wall is broken when shenanigans like this are pulled in a game, but I'm not sure I can really feel truly upset about it. I've never played HL2, E2, before, but this sounds like a relatively responsible use of legerdemain. Same for the MGS thing.

Looking back over my 19ish years of gaming, I find myself wondering where the implication that things must be interactive stems from. When I think back to the days of playing the licensed G.I. Joe video games on my NES, there certainly weren't any alternate endings or anything like that . . . there was just one ending, and when you sit down to play the game, the only question is whether or not you have the skill to unlock said ending.

I think perhaps this issue here is clarity. We, the players, do not like seeing backstage, which is what happens when the illusion is broken in situations like the above described. We want immersion in the video game experience, and when we see the tricks that bring us the cohesive experience, we feel a little cheated. It's one thing to be told how the magic happens in a making-of video, quite another to see wheels pop off while the wagon's rolling.

I also think that this is likely to happen because of concept I find personally execrable: hardcore gaming. I've met a fair number of people who compete against each other as much as the game itself. To achieve the ephemeral increase of self-worth that comes with besting their friends in competitive multiplayer modes, they have to practice and practice and practice, and if you stare at a work of art long enough, you'll eventually find the brushstrokes.

Personally, I think that isn't really a big deal. It is a ploy to wring emotion from us, true, but I WANT TO BE FOOLED. I am a player, I want emotions to come out of me when I play a game. If we're going to call the illusionists on this ploy, are we not honor-bound to call them on all others? What makes this trick worse than any other?

 

[Zerbye]

This story reminds me of an issue I ran into with the interactive-space opera Wing Commander III back in the early 90s. My college roommate and I were playing through the game as separate pilots, under the illusion that success or failure in every scenario would lead to divergent plots. It felt very real at the time, until my roommate worked his ass off to beat a mission that I failed, but I had lost and moved on to the next. The following mission he played was the exact same mission I was playing, even though he had won and I had lost. His hard work had not earned him the extra bit of award he was expecting, and the game started to feel like a ride at Disneyland. I don't think he ever played the game after that, as the illusion of interactivity was shattered.

The illusion of interactivity is great, especially if you are in a void. When you play a game without any information regarding the nature of how "things are supposed to go", it's fantastic. But it is getting increasingly hard to play in this ideal state of ignorance, with spoilers abounding all over the internet and players comparing progress in a game's story arc with each other. Just think of how effective the illusion could be without these confounds.

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

very good article, i agree with it

 

[October Country]

As GyroCaptain said, you can always write more story. Certainly schemes like the MGS scene can work fine, but if you truly want the player to be in control, just write another ending based on the different outcomes the player's actions will have.
This is why I am looking forward to Heavy Rain, which will hopefully have a story that change during the game depending on the player´s choices, and not just in the final scene, but throughout the game, creating many different scenarios for the game.

But it is true that narrative and interactivity doesn't quite go hand in hand and players who doesn't take the story seriously will ruin the mood by running around, but then that's their loss. After all, players are different, some want an immersive narrative and some want an interactive experience, some want both and that is why we have these cases where interactivity - or the illusion of the same - is combined with an emotional narrative and I believe that this is positive, but not the only option.

 

[Zerbye]

Looking back over my 19ish years of gaming, I find myself wondering where the implication that things must be interactive stems from. When I think back to the days of playing the licensed G.I. Joe video games on my NES, there certainly weren't any alternate endings or anything like that . . . there was just one ending, and when you sit down to play the game, the only question is whether or not you have the skill to unlock said ending.

Speaking for myself, my introduction to interactive gaming (circa the 80s) was with old PC adventure games, King's Quest and Zork. Playing those games felt like a whole world was out there to be explored, and the story completely depended on your actions. Of course, after you've played through these games (or talked to others about them), you would lose that illusion. Hint guides for these games contained warnings that the game would be spoiled if you used them, for the same reason. Back then, the only hints you could get was by calling a 900 number (not alot of gaming mags, and no internet). Nowadays, the curtain has been pulled, so to speak.

 

[Deacon Cole]

Thank you for writing this. I haven't played very many modern games and did not understand the role of storytelling in these games that I keep hearing about. Asking questions shed no light on the matter. But you've confirmed something I've always suspected. To make a good story, the interactivity needs to be taken away. On these three pages, I learned more about storytelling in gaming than I have in probably the last thirty years of playing video games. This is enlightening. I am unable to comment further than that since this needs to be mulled over a bit. But thank you again for writing this piece.

 

[Svenparty]

I think Half Life 2 was one of my most emotional gaming experiences, thank god for these illusions that it gave us.

 

[Cairo]

I always thought Snake getting hurt in the hallway was an inevitability. MGS4 was a terribly told story.
Games are illusory. The only changing facet is the level to which any game is, but you don't have to change that in any real way to create a good story. I always felt cheated when the shield generator was destroyed in whichever Star Wars game I was playing. I was getting railroaded. My choices should make a difference. If they don't, then I'm not playing a game; I'm watching a movie.
And in the case of MGS4, it was an awful, awful movie.