Interactive Narrative Means Choosing How Invested You Really Want to Be

[CaitSeith]

Casual gaming wouldn't even exist if games were all challenge all the time

I think you and me are interpreting constant challenge in a different way. Tell me if you agree: challenge brings the players' skill to test, but the test isn't necessarially hard or long. Candy Crush and Angry Birds are games of challenge, because they are mostly gameplay (pure puzzle solving) and almost no story (they have as much story as the original Doom). They are games of challenge all the time (the reward for finishing a level is another puzzle level), and yet they are considered the main representatives of casual gaming (clickers are not).

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Literature, apart from schooling both Video Games and Cinema still, is the God of these mediums. Yes, to a certain extent, it is closer to games than movies are to games. That may seem strange, but it really ain't.

No way books are closer to games than movies. Both games and movies are at least a visual medium. Stopping both interactivity and the visual aspect of playing a game to actually get the story is worse than only stopping gameplay while keeping up the visual experience. The word VIDEO is in the title of the medium, VIDEO games.

Why not use tried and true storytelling methods that have been fine-tuned to a near science from other mediums when that method works for that particular scene?

Because they have been tuned specifically for expectators. But if the player is the protagonist (or has a role in it), he can't just be an expectator the whole time. The fine-tuning falls appart when the player's freewill is prioritized over the story. If you want to apply those methods as they were intended, the easiest way is to render the player passive (hence cutscenes, QTEs or just taking control for a few seconds), but overusing it kinda defeats the purpose of games focused in action (and frustrates the players that want gameplay action over story). Ironically, the action games genre is one of the most common places where narrative-driven games are found nowadays.

But I agree. Better stories are definetly needed. One of the reasons that restricting the players' actions to corridors, cutscenes and QTEs fell out of grace in the past generation was because the stories weren't very good to begin with. It's amusing how the AAA "cinematic" games tried so hard on emulate the movie techniques, but they never seem to get any better in writing their stories (pretty similar to having better graphics but worse gameplay). Just remember, the AAA doesn't aim to make their things great; just good enough.

PS: I have never played MGS3. I missed the whole PS2 games library (except for a couple of PS3 remakes).

Most stories require characters talking to each other. You can do some to most (depending on the story and dialogue) dialogue during gameplay but there's going to some important things said and important moments that can't be missed because of the player being distracted by gameplay and to me that's where the cutscene comes into play and works just fine in a game. Video games can improve upon movies with regards to cinematography just due to being able to put the camera literally anywhere. And, you can still have some basic interaction in cutscenes like being able to look around to pressing a button to do something (like shoot someone ala MGS3). You can soon play on MGS3 on a pachinko machine lol.

 

[CaitSeith]

Video games can improve upon movies with regards to cinematography just due to being able to put the camera literally anywhere.

Movies can already do that (specially now with animated movies and CGI scenes). If camera freedom is the best improvement that videogames bring to movies, then it's a pretty pointless one (from movies perspective), because it comes at the loss of several film techniques that can't be recreated in games. Add interactiviy, and it makes it even worse: allow to look around and the player may not focus on what it's important. Press a button to make an action, and the pacing falls on the players' hands (risking the scene to not have the intended impact). Give interactivity in such scenes, and you make the players to be its filmmakers (and more likely than not, they won't be good filmmakers).

I think that trying to make the games imitate the movies as much as possible to deliver the narrative, just because the two are visual mediums, is a trap that ends up making both the gameplay experience and the narrative experience worse (at least in action games).

 

[Transdude1996]

Video games can improve upon movies with regards to cinematography just due to being able to put the camera literally anywhere.

Movies can already do that (specially now with animated movies and CGI scenes). If camera freedom is the best improvement that videogames bring to movies, then it's a pretty pointless one (from movies perspective), because it comes at the loss of several film techniques that can't be recreated in games. Add interactiviy, and it makes it even worse: allow to look around and the player may not focus on what it's important. Press a button to make an action, and the pacing falls on the players' hands (risking the scene to not have the intended impact). Give interactivity in such scenes, and you make the players to be its filmmakers (and more likely than not, they won't be good filmmakers).

I think that trying to make the games imitate the movies as much as possible to deliver the narrative, just because the two are visual mediums, is a trap that ends up making both the gameplay experience and the narrative experience worse (at least in action games).

Then why not stop treating narrative games like a film and instead treat them like a radio show?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Movies can already do that (specially now with animated movies and CGI scenes). If camera freedom is the best improvement that videogames bring to movies, then it's a pretty pointless one (from movies perspective), because it comes at the loss of several film techniques that can't be recreated in games. Add interactiviy, and it makes it even worse: allow to look around and the player may not focus on what it's important. Press a button to make an action, and the pacing falls on the players' hands (risking the scene to not have the intended impact). Give interactivity in such scenes, and you make the players to be its filmmakers (and more likely than not, they won't be good filmmakers).

I think that trying to make the games imitate the movies as much as possible to deliver the narrative, just because the two are visual mediums, is a trap that ends up making both the gameplay experience and the narrative experience worse (at least in action games).

Fair point about movies and CGI, I was just thinking about standard filming.

The opening of TLOU and looking out the windows of the car is a great way to implement a cutscene while giving interaction. Does that work for every scene? Of course not. I'm not wanting games to imitate movies but there are scenes where a cutscene works best so use a cutscene in those situations. One of the gaming medium's strengths is being able to pull elements from any medium and use them when appropriate; saying that a cutscene is always wrong will only hurt storytelling in games. There's a great scene in Uncharted 4 (a very average game IMO) with Elena and Drake on the couch talking and eating dinner, and how would that be done if cutscenes weren't allowed? I don't see any way to do a scene like that within gameplay that would have more emotional impact than using a cutscene. Or are games not allowed to have such scenes because there's not enough interactivity?

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

Fair point about movies and CGI, I was just thinking about standard filming.

The opening of TLOU and looking out the windows of the car is a great way to implement a cutscene while giving interaction. Does that work for every scene? Of course not. I'm not wanting games to imitate movies but there are scenes where a cutscene works best so use a cutscene in those situations. One of the gaming medium's strengths is being able to pull elements from any medium and use them when appropriate; saying that a cutscene is always wrong will only hurt storytelling in games. There's a great scene in Uncharted 4 (a very average game IMO) with Elena and Drake on the couch talking and eating dinner, and how would that be done if cutscenes weren't allowed? I don't see any way to do a scene like that within gameplay that would have more emotional impact than using a cutscene. Or are games not allowed to have such scenes because there's not enough interactivity?

It isn't so much of "being allowed". It's more about when it's "being overused/misused" and being in odds with the gameplay (which happened often in shooters the past generation and in The Order 1886). When that happens, we get games with lousy gameplay and (usually) a pretty bad story.

 

[CaitSeith]

Movies can already do that (specially now with animated movies and CGI scenes). If camera freedom is the best improvement that videogames bring to movies, then it's a pretty pointless one (from movies perspective), because it comes at the loss of several film techniques that can't be recreated in games. Add interactiviy, and it makes it even worse: allow to look around and the player may not focus on what it's important. Press a button to make an action, and the pacing falls on the players' hands (risking the scene to not have the intended impact). Give interactivity in such scenes, and you make the players to be its filmmakers (and more likely than not, they won't be good filmmakers).

I think that trying to make the games imitate the movies as much as possible to deliver the narrative, just because the two are visual mediums, is a trap that ends up making both the gameplay experience and the narrative experience worse (at least in action games).

Then why not stop treating narrative games like a film and instead treat them like a radio show?

Like Portal 2 did in its Perpetual Testing Initiative campaign? (yes, that happened)

 

[Transdude1996]

Movies can already do that (specially now with animated movies and CGI scenes). If camera freedom is the best improvement that videogames bring to movies, then it's a pretty pointless one (from movies perspective), because it comes at the loss of several film techniques that can't be recreated in games. Add interactiviy, and it makes it even worse: allow to look around and the player may not focus on what it's important. Press a button to make an action, and the pacing falls on the players' hands (risking the scene to not have the intended impact). Give interactivity in such scenes, and you make the players to be its filmmakers (and more likely than not, they won't be good filmmakers).

I think that trying to make the games imitate the movies as much as possible to deliver the narrative, just because the two are visual mediums, is a trap that ends up making both the gameplay experience and the narrative experience worse (at least in action games).

Then why not stop treating narrative games like a film and instead treat them like a radio show?

Like Portal 2 did in its Perpetual Testing Initiative campaign? (yes, that happened)

I wouldn't know since I have yet to play Portal 2. It's just that I figured that it would solve the problem of the player missing something visually because they're focused somewhere else.

Because my post seems to become quite flabby and disconnected trying to explain this in detail, here's the best way I can sum it up. Imagine something like the event 11 minutes into The War of the Worlds broadcast (Link to the audio [http://www.mercurytheatre.info/]) playing out in the world. Then, there's you, the game's protagonist, who watching the broadcast live (The fictional one, that is), or wondering about the area while the report is still clearly heard.

As you hear the events unfold, there's nothing that the player can easily miss out on. Everything is told clearly, and the story comes across as detailed enough. There's no need to hold the player to the ground to deliver the story, or forcing them to have their attention focussed on one character for very long. And, everything just unfolds naturally.

Do you see where I'm coming from with this idea?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

It isn't so much of "being allowed". It's more about when it's "being overused/misused" and being in odds with the gameplay (which happened often in shooters the past generation and in The Order 1886). When that happens, we get games with lousy gameplay and (usually) a pretty bad story.

I agree with that. I mainly posted to begin with because games that use, I guess, "game-y" storytelling elements I usually find very underwhelming in the storytelling department like Dark Souls as mentioned by Yahtzee in the article. And, more often than not, I would've usually preferred a cutscene. I think gameplay and storytelling are both naturally at odds with each other to some extent. For example, if you are making a shooter, you kinda have to stop with the shooting to have meaningful dialogue and exposition whether it's a cutscene or walking around your hideout in Wolfenstein The New Order. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I also feel giving the player some input in those "scenes" is important.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

I wouldn't know since I have yet to play Portal 2. It's just that I figured that it would solve the problem of the player missing something visually because they're focused somewhere else.

Because my post seems to become quite flabby and disconnected trying to explain this in detail, here's the best way I can sum it up. Imagine something like the event 11 minutes into The War of the Worlds broadcast (Link to the audio [http://www.mercurytheatre.info/]) playing out in the world. Then, there's you, the game's protagonist, who watching the broadcast live (The fictional one, that is), or wondering about the area while the report is still clearly heard.

As you hear the events unfold, there's nothing that the player can easily miss out on. Everything is told clearly, and the story comes across as detailed enough. There's no need to hold the player to the ground to deliver the story, or forcing them to have their attention focussed on one character for very long. And, everything just unfolds naturally.

Do you see where I'm coming from with this idea?

Not as good or detailed, but it was something like that (hearing a voice reporting briefly what's happening, without interrupting your actions).

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I think that games, as an interactive medium, should force players to advance the storyline rather than be a simple participant in it. A lot of games' stories are set out in a way that makes us players little more than an outside observer. But if we are to be truly invested, the game has to make us work for the morsels that explain 'why we are here'.

 

[CaitSeith]

It isn't so much of "being allowed". It's more about when it's "being overused/misused" and being in odds with the gameplay (which happened often in shooters the past generation and in The Order 1886). When that happens, we get games with lousy gameplay and (usually) a pretty bad story.

I agree with that. I mainly posted to begin with because games that use, I guess, "game-y" storytelling elements I usually find very underwhelming in the storytelling department like Dark Souls as mentioned by Yahtzee in the article. And, more often than not, I would've usually preferred a cutscene. I think gameplay and storytelling are both naturally at odds with each other to some extent. For example, if you are making a shooter, you kinda have to stop with the shooting to have meaningful dialogue and exposition whether it's a cutscene or walking around your hideout in Wolfenstein The New Order. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I also feel giving the player some input in those "scenes" is important.

I think here is a good place to note that not all players like same things in games (even "average player" is a generalization here). What I like about Dark Souls and Uncharted narratives is how well tuned is the delivery with the rest of the game (in both cases). DS lore demands time and effort as much as the gameplay (it's certainly delivered the way the fans of that game like the things to be). Uncharted attempts to make the transition between gameplay and cutscenes as smooth as possible by not disturbing the pacing.

I can't tell which one is better, because they were designed with two different types of audiences in mind.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I think here is a good place to note that not all players like same things in games (even "average player" is a generalization here). What I like about Dark Souls and Uncharted narratives is how well tuned is the delivery with the rest of the game (in both cases). DS lore demands time and effort as much as the gameplay (it's certainly delivered the way the fans of that game like the things to be). Uncharted attempts to make the transition between gameplay and cutscenes as smooth as possible by not disturbing the pacing.

I can't tell which one is better, because they were designed with two different types of audiences in mind.

With Dark Souls, I'd at least want the very basics of the plot told in some manner that the player can't miss. I have no problem with lore expanding on the details, characters, etc.

You are looking at this way too simplistically. The fact that they are both visual is correct, but many of the tenants of good story design work better on games than on cinema (the ones that are applicable to literature, the superior art form to both).

I guess you're getting at that games can pack much more story like books than a movie. Then replace cinema with TV. Unless it's something else because there's really nothing a book can do that cinema/TV can't do.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

There is quite a bit... that Literature can do that TV and cinema stumble to do(not the same as unable to do mind you). It is a more developed art form after all, so it is normal for it to be better. No shame in that.

TV is closer overall I'd say, but not quite as much as literature is to games.

Yet again you post with nothing at all to back up your claim. What can books do that TV can't do?

 

[Transdude1996]

There is quite a bit... that Literature can do that TV and cinema stumble to do(not the same as unable to do mind you). It is a more developed art form after all, so it is normal for it to be better. No shame in that.

TV is closer overall I'd say, but not quite as much as literature is to games.

Yet again you post with nothing at all to back up your claim. What can books do that TV can't do?

A few things.

First one is that reading requires imagination. Unlike TV (and movies), books require the reader to imagine the events playing out in their head. And, when one sees that directly adapted into a visual medium, the viewer will possibly be disappointed because what the way they thought it played out is often different than what they see happening screen (And, is likely, not as exciting).

The second is that traditional TV shows are designed to hook the viewer to keep watching the series the coming weeks. What this means is that TV shows often fall into the same traps as comic books (You know, the left-field @$$hat plot twists at the end of the issue, watch 24 if you want a great example of this). Some shows have gotten away from this with the rise of Netflix and Amazon Prime, but often those shows also fall into the pit of making sure that the show is shocking enough on the first episode that viewers will continue watching the rest of the series (Despite it's overall quality). The thing with books is that they, often, escape this because you won't honestly know how good a book is until after you bought it and read about a third to half of it.

A third one is the time taken to delivery the story. When one reads through a book, the chapters are not restricted to being a certain number of pages or words. With TV shows, you have to compress everything into a 20-45 minute slot (With breaks for commercials). What this means is that some events become rushed and others are stretched as filler versus books which can take all the time they need.

Also, IIRC, the average person reads about 600 words per minute, meanwhile shows and movies can only muster about 100-150 words per minute (And, with games, it's about 16 WPM).

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

First one is that reading requires imagination. Unlike TV (and movies), books require the reader to imagine the events playing out in their head. And, when one sees that directly adapted into a visual medium, the viewer will possibly be disappointed because what the way they thought it played out is often different than what they see happening screen (And, is likely, not as exciting).

The second is that traditional TV shows are designed to hook the viewer to keep watching the series the coming weeks. What this means is that TV shows often fall into the same traps as comic books (You know, the left-field @$$hat plot twists at the end of the issue, watch 24 if you want a great example of this). Some shows have gotten away from this with the rise of Netflix and Amazon Prime, but often those shows also fall into the pit of making sure that the show is shocking enough on the first episode that viewers will continue watching the rest of the series (Despite it's overall quality). The thing with books is that they, often, escape this because you won't honestly know how good a book is until after you bought it and read about a third to half of it.

A third one is the time taken to delivery the story. When one reads through a book, the chapters are not restricted to being a certain number of pages or words. With TV shows, you have to compress everything into a 20-45 minute slot (With breaks for commercials). What this means is that some events become rushed and others are stretched as filler versus books which can take all the time they need.

Also, IIRC, the average person reads about 600 words per minute, meanwhile shows and movies can only muster about 100-150 words per minute (And, with games, it's about 16 WPM).

-TV does have the imaginations of a group of people putting together a work of art vs 1/2 (the author/the reader). For example, Malcolm Reynolds of Firefly was written differently and Nathan Fillion added his input and the character evolved. If Firefly was book, the character would've been different.

-TV shows don't need to hook the viewer in cheap ways especially not anymore. You always want to "hook" the reader/viewer in some way. Writers are taught to hook the reader just like shows want to hook the viewer. And, hooking your audience isn't a "bad" thing to do either. Seeing a character in a pressing moment can quite quickly convey a lot more about that character and thus the audience gets to know the character faster.

-TV shows can take their time as well. Look at House, which is an 8 season character study of Sherlock Holmes, much lengthier than the literature Sherlock Holmes. That was a network show that accomplished that too. And winter still hasn't come in Game of Thrones yet lol.

-Much of the words read in books are descriptors and adjectives and basically stuff that you'd take in by seeing almost instantaneously in TV/movies. Pretty much all the words taken in when watching TV/movies are dialogue. I bet TV/movies have more dialogue per minute than books. I feel I can take in more content per minute in TV/movies vs books.