195: String Theory: The Illusion of Videogame Interactivity

[theSchlub]

IMO, games these days focus way to much on the story, emotionally investing or not. Games are not art, and should not be regarded as such.

I'm an art major, a media arts student to be exact, and I have to disagree, but with concessions. Games are a valid medium of expression, but you have a point that there is a threshold between a game and a movie. Both operate in a visual-motion medium, the only real difference being human influence on the outcome of events.

I have to say this: CHOICE IS OVERRATED.

A game completely driven by our own actions and choices would be boring and uneventful because there would be no NEED to really do anything. The game would essentially be Garry's mod; the only things that happen are whatever you cause yourself. The story is the effects of NPCs and other characters/elements at work, and a game like HL2 requires that there be some sequence to these actions for the sake of clarity, pacing, and rhythm. It would have seemed very awkward if you went and screwed around for the entirety of bioshock and then were told that you did all that you did because you were told to, not because you wanted to, because that wouldn't be true. You went and goofed around, you didn't even fulfill major plot points or encounter proper characters. The end result is a game that feels like there is ANOTHER character running around in your guise that is doing the same stuff you're supposed to be doing and being the hero.

Games Do give you choice, but only in the places where either way would be fine. Do you use the shotgun or the pistol to kill an advancing headcrab zombie? Do you do a quest the good way or the evil way? THAT is the extent of nonlinearity in games. You will end up at point Z, but at least you get there how you want to.

 

[wiper]

I actually found this article really interesting, but not for what it said, so much. Rather, it was interesting to compare to ancient literary criticism (bear with me here).

The talk of games ?lying? to us by trying to convince us that there is more freedom on offer than they actually simulate is very, very similar to the ancient problem of literature ?lying? to us by trying to convince us of the reality of their fiction. These days, we talk about the ability of literature to help us ?suspend our disbelief? - we accept that while fiction is, well, fictional, it works best when it convinces us, albeit temporarily, of its ?truthfulness?. This doesn?t bother us at all, but in early literary criticism it was a huge stumbling block to get over; there simply wasn?t a culture of literature in place to allow critics to accept that while lying was bad, the ?lies? of fiction were an altogether different kettle of fish.

It would seem that games criticism is currently at that stage, where the ?lies? of games in their attempt to immerse gamers more fully are still seen as troublesome, and not simply accepted. I wonder how long it?ll take us to get over the problem?

(It took the Greeks a few hundred years, by comparison)

 

[atol]

The HL2EP2 example is a bit misinterpreted. No matter what you do, the Striders always spawn in the same place and take the same path. It's designed so that in the beginning, they slowly waddle in taking the outer buildings and continue waddling on. In the middle, they charge up to take the buildings and continue waddling on, sometimes ignoring certain buildings. In the end, they charge straight up and ignore most buildings, then waddle up the last few steps. When they charge, it gives you the illusion of urgency, but then they slow down. That's the only deception, and it was most likely obvious to everyone who played it. They weren't really lying, per se.

I really don't care if a game lies to me, though. If deception makes a good game, then deceive me.

 

[Alex_P]

It would seem that games criticism is currently at that stage, where the ?lies? of games in their attempt to immerse gamers more fully are still seen as troublesome, and not simply accepted. I wonder how long it?ll take us to get over the problem?

I violently disagree with any theory of gaming that makes immersion the main and universal goal.

-- Alex

 

[wiper]

It would seem that games criticism is currently at that stage, where the ?lies? of games in their attempt to immerse gamers more fully are still seen as troublesome, and not simply accepted. I wonder how long it?ll take us to get over the problem?

I violently disagree with any theory of gaming that makes immersion the main and universal goal.

-- Alex

I didn't intend to imply that it should be: however, as the 'lies' demonstrated in the article were all those intended to immerse the player, and indeed those are the only occasions I can think of (off the top of my head) where 'lying' in computer games happens - the mechanics in more abstracted and less 'immersive' games tend not to have such sleight of hand applied to them - it is specifically in that context which I described them and passively defended their usage.

Of course, if you think that criticising such 'lying' in games is sensible because you think attempts to immerse the player should not be made in any titles, then that's a very different argument, but I don't think that was your implication.

 

[sketchesofpayne]

I'm actually used to games featuring scripted failures. One classic example is a boss fight early in the game that you can't possibly win. When you lose the fight the game still continues on with the story.

 

[achilleas.k]

Enjoying scripted events is something I can't possibly do ever since I played the original Deus Ex back in good old 2000. I remember playing through the game believing it was scripted and then finding out that most things I let happen were more or less optional. Kinda the opposite of what's described in the article when you think about it, however that wasn't because of bad design but mostly because of the times. You didn't expect optional story arcs or different conversations with NPCs because it wasn't something that happened a lot back then and, when it did, it was explicitly pointed out by the game or its marketing, mostly because game developers want the amount of work they put in a game to be appreciated. So when you try 2-3 times to beat the part where the NPC dies and keeps yelling "go, you can't save me" you just think "maybe he's not supposed to be saved, since he dies and I get no GAME OVER screen".

Now I will admit I can't remember if HL2E2 fooled me into thinking I could have kept all the towers intact but it was extremely fun. Though I have come to accept that the HL series is strictly linear in all its parts and if someone in a game like that says something like "OMG THAT WAS CLOSE I WAS A GONER" then he'll probably say it every time you play through it.

I still don't understand why the Deus Ex formula isn't popular. I explicitly remember thinking that branched story-lines would become the norm since games are the only medium that allow that level of interactivity. Maybe some people don't like the fact that they can't see the every piece of conversation or every bit of alternative story in one go, which is something I found hard to get used to. I especially remember the agonizing curiosity of what would happen if I was a bastard towards Bastilla instead of Mr. Nice Guy when playing KotOR. I know it wouldn't change the story dramatically, I just couldn't get used to the idea that I can't see it all!

Then again, it's a slippery slope since games can go as far as Blade Runner that was said to have dead ends in the story if you miss certain choices (though that might have just been that a lot of people decided they hit a dead end when they couldn't figure out where to go next).

 

[Ekonk]

In the end, it's all about the experience. If a carefully manufactured lie maximizes the impact of the experience, by all means, go ahead, developers.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Well, I see how MGS4's was an illusion, but how is Episode 2's? Can someone please explain this to me?

 

[Sanaj]

I can't really say how effective the section in MGS4 was because I've never played it.
However, I can see why they choose to make the player feel guilty and frantic even when your actions have little control of the results.

As for the strider/hunter battles at the end of Half-Life 2 Episode 2.
Even if part of how it plays out is an illusion, I found it to be quite effective and enjoyable.

Whatever the lie is...can developers please stop using or minimize using Quick Time Events (QTE)?
Especially the ones that are thrown in randomly with cut-scenes those need to stop.

 

[Jonatron]

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?

We all knew it was that, but we didn't know that tapping like snake's life depended on it was neccesary. Raise a broken finger all who are missing some finger meat.

 

[Sewblon]

Outright failure states are an obsolete hold-over from arcades. If developers never did this, every game would be Garey's Mod, all of the content, and none of the structure.

 

[Twad]

so.. that last battle in HL2-EP2 was a pointless piece of work then. I never bothered to finish that fight anyway, the gun didnt work half the time, and knowing that there is a "emotional manipulation script" inside makes me even less likely to try that battle again.
I didnt finish the last fight in episode 1 either.. seeing the odds magically stacking up against me turned me off right there.

 

[Bluttaube]

These are two very good examples of how developers try to integrate story with gameplay.
Stuff like this is way more enjoyable to me than switching between game mode and video mode (aka cut scene) or a story without actual pace to it (for example fallout3.... was I the only one who had a quest like "urgent: rescue your dad from some madmans lab" quest and ignore it for about 3 weeks?).
I hope we will see some improvements and more developments in this direction, instead of endless repetittion of the established storytelling methods in games.

 

[FuRy 056]

I view it less as interactivity, and more as participation. I'm there to follow the story of the protagonist, to ride along and feel what they feel, see what they see. Their journey is something that I progress with the, but at no point during their journey, does it become mine.

Even in RPGs, just because the character is referred to as me, bears my name, it's not me interacting with the story. It's me following the story of the character (who happens to bear my namesake).

 

[raankh]

When I play games, I don't wan't a grand finale, I want to WIN. I will never treat the story as the main point of a game; even in story based games. Gameplay is first; failure states have to be definite, varied and the result of a set of actions that I understood led me there.

Truly rich stories can be created through the gameplay, just look at the stories that grew out of the early nintendo games like Zelda, Mega Man and Metroid. Those were told by small pieces of text in-game, a few images and then told through articles in magazines and references in other media.

There is a sort of meta-story rolls eyes that can be told only relative to the gameplay. I guess Mega Man is actually a pretty good example of that.

If I wanted to play a game I cannot beat, I would play Pen & Paper RPGs.

 

[The Youth Counselor]

The HL2:E2 showdown is questionable. The article made it seem like it was impossible to slow the enemy onslaught and that buildings were scripted to be destroyed.

When in fact the enemies would always spawn from the excact places, and memorizing these spots helped end the battle sooner. There is also an achievement for saving every building, (Only the crouching striders would attack the buildings. And they were spawned by specific triggers.)

 

[A Gray Phantom]

Funny thing is I just had a conversation with someone about something similiar: Do we have control, and freedom of choice? Or is freedom of choice only an illusion. He was the type of guy to believe that everyone has freedom to make choices and control their own lives and their environment (he's also kinda cocky). I told him that, no, choice is an illusion, and there are so many out there that don't get to choose the situations they're in - sometimes life just dumps on you and there ain't nothing you can do about it.

Somewhere in between there is where I'm certain the truth lies.

But during our discussion I actually brought up the original Half Life game. At the end of the first game, after defeating the final boss, the G-man offers you a job, and if you refuse he'll kill you (or more specifically, put you in a position for which survival is impossible). They reference this at the end of the second game, calling it the "Illusion of Free Choice."

And that seems to be what all games are. The only endings usually are dying before the proper end and getting a game over, or completing all the content and ending it that way. Sometimes games have multiple endings, but typically (like in Half Life) they have one sort of ending.

Now I see the point about the MGS4 climax. I saw that on youtube, and thought that it looked like a lame QTE (not a fan).

But the final battle in HL2-E2 delivered a challenging fight. I failed a couple times because I couldn't get to the final strider in time, and I still haven't been able to get the achievement for saving all the buildings.

If it does precisely creciendo at a certain arbitrary point, then does it not do precisely what Left 4 Dead does? The AI director in L4D drops health and ammo when the player needs it, while continuing to bombard the players with zombies at a challenging, yet not impossible pace. Isn't that the same thing?

I'm honestly asking. What's the difference between the final strider battle, and L4D's pacing?