Games as Literature

[Thaius]

I am currently in the conceptualization and outlining stages of a book about video games as a storytelling art form. The goal of the book will be to a) inform people of the merits of video games as a powerful storytelling medium, and b) set standards and coin terms that will be commonly referred to when dealing with video game "literature" in the future. There will be a bit of preliminary explanation as to what video games are, why people play them, and a section about their competitive value, but the main focus of the book will be storytelling.

However, when writing about something that one is familiar with, the writer tends to make assumptions about what is known by the reader and what has to be explained. For instance, I've been studying games as a storytelling medium for years, so there will be a lot of things that should be addressed in this book that I will not think of due to the fact that I already have a pretty good understanding of the subject: I'll assume that the reader understands something without even thinking about it.

Long story short, I need input. Many of you see video games the way I do, some of you prefer to think of them as competitive games (arguably sports), and many of you see no value in them besides entertainment. From all perspectives, I have a question to ask of you.

Let's say you're walking around in a bookstore and you see a book that promises to explain the value of video games as a powerful storytelling medium. What questions would you have? What would you expect the book to answer? What kinds of content would you want to have in the book?

And if you happen to come up with a good title for the book, don't be afraid to share it. I suck at titles.

 

[ioxles]

Firstly good luck on the book and I look forward to picking up a copy.

Now, games are very different to other forms of media, they present an experience not possible in other media (the power of it depends heavily on the quality of the game) and as such writing a book about video game as a storytelling art form, especially when wanting the game illiterate to understand you need to explain in passionate, hook-worthy words why storytelling in video games are so important.

Describe some classics of storytelling's with a personal view, anecdotes as such to grab attention as a bridge to factual information. That's what I would do.

As to titles. I suck at them too.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Hackneyed though it may sound, drawing parallels between classic stories and actual gameplay may be interesting.
Comparing the storyline/narrative and the style of play may also get some points across. You know, the medium is the message [dude..]
I'm not very good at this, but I hope it helped.

Let us know when it gets published.

 

[Thaius]

Hackneyed though it may sound, drawing parallels between classic stories and actual gameplay may be interesting.
Comparing the storyline/narrative and the style of play may also get some points across. You know, the medium is the message [dude..]
I'm not very good at this, but I hope it helped.

Let us know when it gets published.

You mean between classic books or movies? Like drawing parallels between non-interactive media and exploring how it would be affected by interactivity?

 

[L3m0n_L1m3]

It's funny, I was just watching a video that was somewhat related to this yesterday.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Hackneyed though it may sound, drawing parallels between classic stories and actual gameplay may be interesting.
Comparing the storyline/narrative and the style of play may also get some points across. You know, the medium is the message [dude..]
I'm not very good at this, but I hope it helped.

Let us know when it gets published.

You mean between classic books or movies? Like drawing parallels between non-interactive media and exploring how it would be affected by interactivity?

The latter. How the gameplay itself conveys a small story of it's own, so to speak. Say..Zelda. Or Metroid. That's the archetypical rags to riches story in the face of oppression, no? Maybe I'm being an idiot.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Let's say you're walking around in a bookstore and you see a book that promises to explain the value of video games as a powerful storytelling medium. What questions would you have?

Is this just going to be some self indulgent piece by a burnt out games journalist who is trying to tell the world about how while games are are round shaped they will most definitely fit into the square hole that is his the main interest he has now that he is thoroughly bored of games and is he going to spend page after boring page ramming the round shape of games until it's form is bent and mangled enough to fit into the square hole? It it going to be overly reverent about popular crap that is obviously crap in order to appeal to people and make a case?

What would you expect the book to answer? Why most game stories are so bad but people still act like they are the most important thing about them.

What kinds of content would you want to have in the book? Interviews with David Lynch and Neil Gaiman.

And if you happen to come up with a good title for the book, don't be afraid to share it. I suck at titles. The shocking truth of video game stories: An adventure in time and space.

 

[Thaius]

The latter. How the gameplay itself conveys a small story of it's own, so to speak. Say..Zelda. Or Metroid. That's the archetypical rags to riches story in the face of oppression, no? Maybe I'm being an idiot.

Okay, got it. You're not being an idiot: good idea.

Is this just going to be some self indulgent piece by a burnt out games journalist who is trying to tell the world about how while games are are round shaped they will most definitely fit into the square hole that is his the main interest he has now that he is thoroughly bored of games and is he going to spend page after boring page ramming the round shape of games until it's form is bent and mangled enough to fit into the square hole? It it going to be overly reverent about popular crap that is obviously crap in order to appeal to people and make a case?

No. It's a book by an aspiring, college-age writer who sees genuine power and potential in video game storytelling. It is an attempt to spread awareness of video games as more than worthless pastimes and to explain the art of storytelling as portrayed in video games.

What would you expect the book to answer? Why most game stories are so bad but people still act like they are the most important thing about them.

Are you at all aware of movies or books? Most stories suck. In general. Most movies suck, most books suck, and most video games suck. In fact, that is a testament to their artistic status. Anyone can express themselves artistically, but only so many people are actually any good at it. Thus, we have a bunch of people expressing their artistic ideas, and very few who actually do it well. The fact that most video games suck means absolutely nothing in this case.

I welcome people with your ideas, but I was hoping I could get some questions from that perspective. Like, what do you disagree with about the idea of games as literature, or what questions would you have about the concept. Point being, if you're just going to insult my ideas, you have nothing to contribute. If you have genuine questions or problems, however, please share them.

 

[Good morning blues]

I've written essays with similar ideas and themes, and one of the areas that you'll want to research is ludology versus narratology. You'll also want to look into the work of Henry Jenkins.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

It is an attempt to spread awareness of video games as more than worthless pastimes and to explain the art of storytelling as portrayed in video games.

Games are no more or less a worthless pastime than literature. Why not write a book about that instead of one that starts from the assumption that games are worthless until you add a story.

The fact that most video games suck means absolutely nothing in this case.

I'm aware of Sturgeon's law, but that is not a very good case for games having stories as good as novels. It doesn't go into any detail as to how high or low the bar is to creating a game story vs creating a novel. It doesn't talk about the variety of story telling methods available to each. It doesn't compare the qualities of the best that each has to offer.

Both cars and trucks have good and bad drivers but that doesn't mean they hurt the same when they hit you.

I welcome people with your ideas, but I was hoping I could get some questions from that perspective. Like, what do you disagree with about the idea of games as literature, or what questions would you have about the concept. Point being, if you're just going to insult my ideas, you have nothing to contribute. If you have genuine questions or problems, however, please share them.

If your only idea is that games are literature then all I can contribute would probably seem insulting to you because games are obviously not literature apart from a few special cases like text adventures that could be related somewhat to literature. I have given you some pure gold in how some people will react to your book that you can choose to ignore or use to improve your concept as you will.

 

[Thaius]

It is an attempt to spread awareness of video games as more than worthless pastimes and to explain the art of storytelling as portrayed in video games.

Games are no more or less a worthless pastime than literature. Why not write a book about that instead of one that starts from the assumption that games are worthless until you add a story.

I never said I was assuming that. Rather, I do think that storytelling adds value to games beyond "it's fun" (which is hardly worthy of any real value). It's not the only thing that adds that value, but it is one of the two main ones: story and competition.

The fact that most video games suck means absolutely nothing in this case.

I'm aware of Sturgeon's law, but that is not a very good case for games having stories as good as novels. It doesn't go into any detail as to how high or low the bar is to creating a game story vs creating a novel. It doesn't talk about the variety of story telling methods available to each. It doesn't compare the qualities of the best that each has to offer.

Both cars and trucks have good and bad drivers but that doesn't mean they hurt the same when they hit you.

You're assuming my point is very simple. Don't think I'm going into a novel with content fitting for a short essay. I was simply responding to your statement, not writing my entire thesis. Of course the bar is different for video games as opposed to novels (to the point where I'm not sure a comparison can really be made at all). Of course there are different storytelling methods: the thing that really separated games from any other medium is interactivity, and that opens a whole world of other storytelling methods unavailable to any other storytelling medium. And of course the book will include comparisons of video games vs. various other mediums. All that to say, the points you just mentioned will be addressed: my statement to you was in response to your comment, not in summary of my book.

I welcome people with your ideas, but I was hoping I could get some questions from that perspective. Like, what do you disagree with about the idea of games as literature, or what questions would you have about the concept. Point being, if you're just going to insult my ideas, you have nothing to contribute. If you have genuine questions or problems, however, please share them.

If your only idea is that games are literature then all I can contribute would probably seem insulting to you because games are obviously not literature apart from a few special cases like text adventures that could be related somewhat to literature. I have given you some pure gold in how some people will react to your book that you can choose to ignore or use to improve your concept as you will.

True enough: so thank you. Just don't make the mistake of thinking I'm not prepared to write this: I need input to make sure I cover everything I should, but that doesn't mean I haven't thought through it and developed theories through study.

Literature does technically involve the written word, but there are few terms that relate to storytelling in general. Film is now being considered literature. Stage drama has been considered literature for a long time. The word's meaning changes as new ways to deliver it are created, and it is being expanded to involve storytelling in general. So if you're saying that only text games are technically literature, you're just being more literal than I am. Of course many people are like this, which is why I've started using the word "storytelling" more often than "literature." But my point is that video games are capable of telling incredible stories, and that interactivity allows them to tell stories in a way no other storytelling medium could ever hope to tell them. That point stands regardless of the dictionary definition of a word.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I never said I was assuming that. Rather, I do think that storytelling adds value to games beyond "it's fun" (which is hardly worthy of any real value). It's not the only thing that adds that value, but it is one of the two main ones: story and competition.

So I correctly deducted that you assume that games are worthless. I think you will find if you look into it that there are multiple theories for what attracts people to games and the ones worth their salt are not as simple as story vs competition.

Escapist reported on one this year.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.133301

They have the categories Seeker, Survivor, Daredevil, Mastermind, Conqueror, Socialiser and Achiever. Only one of these is mainly concerned with competition and there are many people who are not driven by competition and who are very happy playing games with minimal stories.

All that to say, the points you just mentioned will be addressed: my statement to you was in response to your comment, not in summary of my book.

All I can say is, why bring up Sturgeon's law if it doesn't represent your views?

Interactivity is one level of games and isn't a property that is unique to games although immediate and reliable interactivity is something that computers do very well. Games generally have more rules than just being interactive. Something that is just interactive is called a toy when compared to a game. If you are only concerned with interactivity then you might want to talk about digital toys and narrative and not game narratives.

Film is now being considered literature.

Yes, that also sounds silly to me. It sounds more like English Literature professors trying to build their academic empire than a serious classification.

 

[AgentNein]

Hackneyed though it may sound, drawing parallels between classic stories and actual gameplay may be interesting.
Comparing the storyline/narrative and the style of play may also get some points across. You know, the medium is the message [dude..]
I'm not very good at this, but I hope it helped.

Let us know when it gets published.

You mean between classic books or movies? Like drawing parallels between non-interactive media and exploring how it would be affected by interactivity?

The latter. How the gameplay itself conveys a small story of it's own, so to speak. Say..Zelda. Or Metroid. That's the archetypical rags to riches story in the face of oppression, no? Maybe I'm being an idiot.

No you're not, it reminds me a lot of Anna Anthropy at auntiepixelante.com, she's this amateur game auteur of sorts, and she really pushes the idea of videogames being able to give us a narrative purely through the gameplay and interactions with that world. She's always pointing out games that do it well, too (usually fellow amateur developers).

It's actually pretty amazing how the tool of telling a story through gameplay is sadly left out of many major-release games in favor of cinematic cut scenes. Not that that's always a bad thing! Uncharted 2 is in my opinion masterful with this approach.

 

[Sonofadiddly]

If you need a title, just find a good Shakespeare quote and incorporate video games into it somehow.

I think of games as having more in common with movies than books, but movies are still considered to be form of literature by many. And it's true that the vast majority off all three (stories, movies, and video games) suck. Video games have the added element of gameplay, obviously, so they have more opportunity to suck. A video game with a good story and sucky gameplay will still suck. A game with good gameplay and a sucky story can still be good, but if both are good, you get something worth talking about. Something akin to literature.

Most books I've read on the subject have dealt with video games as interactive literature and discussed the idea of immersion. I believe that anything that has a story in it can be considered literature. If Hemingway's six-word story is literature, and a game has at least six words in it...

 

[Thaius]

I never said I was assuming that. Rather, I do think that storytelling adds value to games beyond "it's fun" (which is hardly worthy of any real value). It's not the only thing that adds that value, but it is one of the two main ones: story and competition.

So I correctly deducted that you assume that games are worthless. I think you will find if you look into it that there are multiple theories for what attracts people to games and the ones worth their salt are not as simple as story vs competition.

Escapist reported on one this year.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.133301

They have the categories Seeker, Survivor, Daredevil, Mastermind, Conqueror, Socialiser and Achiever. Only one of these is mainly concerned with competition and there are many people who are not driven by competition and who are very happy playing games with minimal stories.

That is good stuff, for sure. But those are all ways that people enjoy playing games, specifically regarding gameplay. All of those classifications have to do with playstyle, and do not relate whatsoever to storytelling. That quiz is about how someone plays a game, and consequentially what aspects of gameplay they enjoy: I'm talking about why someone plays video games in the first place.

There are three reasons people play video games: for entertainment, for competition, or for storytelling. Entertainment, though useful, is hardly reason to consider something to have immense worth. Competition is a social event, and in a culture that recognizes it as genuine competition (see South Korea for this one) it can lead to a good career. Storytelling has immense cultural significance, and is capable of changing much about how society functions. People play games for one of these three reasons. The seven Brainhex categories simply display how people play, and thus some of the specific gameplay elements they enjoy, but that does not explain why they play in the first place.

So no, I don't think games are worthless at all. But when something holds no significance beyond simple entertainment, its worth is very little.

All that to say, the points you just mentioned will be addressed: my statement to you was in response to your comment, not in summary of my book.

All I can say is, why bring up Sturgeon's law if it doesn't represent your views?

Interactivity is one level of games and isn't a property that is unique to games although immediate and reliable interactivity is something that computers do very well. Games generally have more rules than just being interactive. Something that is just interactive is called a toy when compared to a game. If you are only concerned with interactivity then you might want to talk about digital toys and narrative and not game narratives.

It does represent my views, but you seem to be saying that it completely summarizes them. As relevant as it is, my views are much more complex and full than simply Sturgeon's Law. Again, you seem to be thinking that I haven't thought this through: I have a lot more foundation to my thinking than one simple law.

The same mistake seems to be made when you talk about how I am only concerned with interactivity: my interest is how interactivity affects storytelling. You are simplifying my thinking to the point where it makes no sense: it's more complex than you seem to be getting.

Film is now being considered literature.

Yes, that also sounds silly to me. It sounds more like English Literature professors trying to build their academic empire than a serious classification.

Rather, it is the evolution of terms over time. Instead of creating an entire new word for compelling and important storytelling through film, we adapt the term already used to encompass it in writing. Either way, the dictionary definition of the term is not the point: many storytelling mediums are capable of telling great and powerful stories. Video games are one of them.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

The seven Brainhex categories simply display how people play, and thus some of the specific gameplay elements they enjoy, but that does not explain why they play in the first place.

They describe what people find rewarding in games and people generally play games to experience something that they find rewarding. Discounting motivations like idle curiosity and a desire to experience a life changing story, maybe. Competition just isn't a major motivation for a very significant proportion of gamers. If you look into how people play some games that you would think of as mainly competitive, only a few ever actually even try the multiplayer component. Yeah, some people in Korea play Starcraft on the boob tube but so what?

So no, I don't think games are worthless at all. But when something holds no significance beyond simple entertainment, its worth is very little.

It's hard to argue with this, but someone could also make the same argument against other forms of "literature." And by literature, I mean tennis balls. People crave entertainment because being bored sucks almost as much as being hungry and cold.

You are simplifying my thinking to the point where it makes no sense: it's more complex than you seem to be getting.

If anything, I think that your views are probably very complicated and you could probably write volumes about them. I'm not sure about your foundations. I'd rather read a book about how we don't need stories in games because games are so much more interesting than traditional stories.

 

[Thaius]

The seven Brainhex categories simply display how people play, and thus some of the specific gameplay elements they enjoy, but that does not explain why they play in the first place.

They describe what people find rewarding in games and people generally play games to experience something that they find rewarding. Discounting motivations like idle curiosity and a desire to experience a life changing story, maybe. Competition just isn't a major motivations for a very significant proportion of gamers. If you look into how people play some games that you would think of as mainly competitive, only a few ever actually even try the multiplayer component. Yeah, some people in Korea play Starcraft on the boob tube but so what?

Thing is, though people do find those things rewarding in games, they don't look for games based on that criteria. They may review them by it, but by and large someone who likes RPGs will get one regardless of whether it has "seeker" or "achiever" aspects to it. Because regardless of what they find rewarding in gameplay, they like the genre for a much more simple reason than the Brainhex categories. Of course those categories help break down exactly what they do and don't enjoy, but generally people don't buy a game because it has lots of items for them to find.

Competition includes when you have friends over the play a round of Smash Bros, or get together for a LAN party. Online or off, multiplayer is actually a huge thing. Regardless of whether they do it for fun or for serious competition, it falls into the competition category, just like football is competition whether it's played for fun in the backyard or professionally in a stadium.

So no, I don't think games are worthless at all. But when something holds no significance beyond simple entertainment, its worth is very little.

It's hard to argue with this, but someone could also make the same argument against other forms of "literature." And by literature, I mean tennis balls. People crave entertainment because being bored sucks almost as much as being hungry and cold.

Wait... how on earth can you call tennis balls literature? Am I missing something?

You are simplifying my thinking to the point where it makes no sense: it's more complex than you seem to be getting.

If anything, I think that your views are probably very complicated and you could probably write volumes about them. I'm not sure about your foundations. I'd rather read a book about how we don't need stories in games because games are so much more interesting than traditional stories.

But that's the thing: games aren't traditional stories. Adding interactivity to stories has given video games so much more power than books or movies. Stories are important: arguably one of the most important cultural components in any society. And video games can use interactivity to tell them in a more powerful way than any other storytelling medium: nothing before video games has been able to do that. I'm trying to bring out their significance besides just an entertaining pastime, because they can be so much more than that.

So the thing about this is that we do need stories in games, because they can tell stories better than traditional media could ever hope to. But if we replace storytelling with story-less games, we're screwing ourselves: we can't afford to do that from a cultural standpoint.

EDIT: Also, thanks. The input is helpful, and since the thread didn't get as many responses as I was hoping, maybe our banter will keep it alive so more people will contribute.

 

[ultrachicken]

I think you should talk about Bioshock for a small portion of the first chapter. It had an interesting way of making an unbelievable concept(an underwater city) believable enough to scare the pants off you. It also had some themes/symbols like the great chain, a man chooses a slave obeys, etc.
However, I don't think it would work as a movie. That would be something to talk about, how as a video game the story was above average but as a movie it wouldn't have been up to snuff(that can apply to more than just Bioshock).

 

[More Fun To Compute]

The seven Brainhex categories simply display how people play, and thus some of the specific gameplay elements they enjoy, but that does not explain why they play in the first place.

They describe what people find rewarding in games and people generally play games to experience something that they find rewarding. Discounting motivations like idle curiosity and a desire to experience a life changing story, maybe. Competition just isn't a major motivations for a very significant proportion of gamers. If you look into how people play some games that you would think of as mainly competitive, only a few ever actually even try the multiplayer component. Yeah, some people in Korea play Starcraft on the boob tube but so what?

Thing is, though people do find those things rewarding in games, they don't look for games based on that criteria. They may review them by it, but by and large someone who likes RPGs will get one regardless of whether it has "seeker" or "achiever" aspects to it. Because regardless of what they find rewarding in gameplay, they like the genre for a much more simple reason than the Brainhex categories. Of course those categories help break down exactly what they do and don't enjoy, but generally people don't buy a game because it has lots of items for them to find.

Competition includes when you have friends over the play a round of Smash Bros, or get together for a LAN party. Online or off, multiplayer is actually a huge thing. Regardless of whether they do it for fun or for serious competition, it falls into the competition category, just like football is competition whether it's played for fun in the backyard or professionally in a stadium.

Yes, people buy games mainly because of things like genre. Genres mainly appeal to people who enjoy particular experiences. Of course people don't have an intrinsic awareness of criteria like these, they are invented after the fact to make sense of things. You actually can try to make buying decisions based on these criteria and it could help you to avoid highly rated games that you would find boring. People who like "RPGs" rarely like every type of RPG the same way because they have different gameplay experiences. There are people who really like Nethack but are not especially interested in Dragon Age, and vice versa, but those people are idiots and barely worth considering.

Some people do buy games becuase they have lots of items to find. The same people avoid games with lots of optional items to find becuase they know that if they buy the game they will have to devote weeks of their life that they can't spare to item finding. Go figure.

Mutliplayer is popular but popular is way less than universal or exclusive. Competition is one motivation for playing games and for a lot of people it just isn't a big deal. Some people might just do it to be social but not get much out of it. A small minority of people are driven by it to the point where it is the most important thing in their life.

So no, I don't think games are worthless at all. But when something holds no significance beyond simple entertainment, its worth is very little.

It's hard to argue with this, but someone could also make the same argument against other forms of "literature." And by literature, I mean tennis balls. People crave entertainment because being bored sucks almost as much as being hungry and cold.

Wait... how on earth can you call tennis balls literature? Am I missing something?

Embrace and extend. I'm really going for this expanding the narrow literal definition of literature deal.

You are simplifying my thinking to the point where it makes no sense: it's more complex than you seem to be getting.

If anything, I think that your views are probably very complicated and you could probably write volumes about them. I'm not sure about your foundations. I'd rather read a book about how we don't need stories in games because games are so much more interesting than traditional stories.

But that's the thing: games aren't traditional stories. Adding interactivity to stories has given video games so much more power than books or movies. Stories are important: arguably one of the most important cultural components in any society. And video games can use interactivity to tell them in a more powerful way than any other storytelling medium: nothing before video games has been able to do that. I'm trying to bring out their significance besides just an entertaining pastime, because they can be so much more than that.

So the thing about this is that we do need stories in games, because they can tell stories better than traditional media could ever hope to. But if we replace storytelling with story-less games, we're screwing ourselves: we can't afford to do that from a cultural standpoint.

We can't avoid to clutter up all of our amazing games with boring old media stories more like.

Games are not traditional stories so it is best to not think of them that way at all and concentrate on what they are really good at.

 

[Dark Knifer]

I'd say if you want this book to appeal to people who aren't gamers, explain the culture and benefits for gaming. Also how it's more interactive then other forms of media and how you can make your own choices. Interviews with professionals in the area would also be helpful.
That's my 2 cents worth and I hope you get this published someday.