Ludology versus Narratology

[faytmye]

Hello everyone,

I posted quite a while ago in regards to research I was doing on my disseration in my final year at university. It was based around narrative and storytelling in video games but the topic has slightly shifted since that time.

The paper is now to do with Ludology versus Narratology in the video game industry and what I hope to conclude is which of the two is better to emphasise when the game is being developed. I hope that makes sense.

I know a lot of people don't like questionnaries but it's only 15 short questions and I would appreciate it greatly if I could get information on how the players feel about the design of the game compared to the narrative structure of the game.

http://www.pollograph.com/ask/993/LudologyVersusNarratology/

Some of the questions may not make sense and i'll try to explain them as best as I can if needed

Thanks

Stephen

Ludology - Deals with the design of the game mechanics, (combat, puzzles, movement etc)
Narratology - Deals with the story structure, dialogue and narrative of the game
Gameplay Time / Narrative Time - Usually the time it takes for the player to make a decision (strategy games) compared to real-time
Game world / Story World - Some players see progression within the game as seperate, i.e. progressing to gain a new powerup as opposed to progressing to complete the story path

EDIT: Apologies if the website goes down, it hasn't been very stable in the past few days

 

[AuntyEthel]

Only took about a minute to complete. Though I think most people would agree that a well-made game with no story is better than a game with a great story and zero playability.

 

[faytmye]

Only took about a minute to complete. Though I think most people would agree that a well-made game with no story is better than a game with a great story and zero playability.

Thanks for filling it in, it really only does take 1 minute to complete.

I totally agree with you as well but you'd be suprised of how many people just want to see the story

 

[johnman]

This is why half life is loved by so many. the story and gameplay merge seamlessy together and when you take a look you see how much has gone into the story and its affects upon the world.
But thens theres games like metal gear solid where there is far to much needless exposition that gets in the way of gameplay. Its all about ballance.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

Only took about a minute to complete. Though I think most people would agree that a well-made game with no story is better than a game with a great story and zero playability.

Nope, not me.

 

[faytmye]

I actually find this difficult to answer.

In a single player, i am willing to compromise on mechanics for the strength of story. In games designed for multiplayer mainly, i am willing to forgo story completely for mechanics being top notch.

For me there are two very distinct types of game. Is this questionnaire aimed at the single player perspective only?

I have found that the genre of the game is the biggest influence when it comes to deciding between the two. I enjoy RPG's mainly for the story but when I am playing a game much like Team Fortress 2 the story or background isnt important to me.

The questionnaire is aimed at all video games, both single and multi.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

I found the survey to be very strongly divided. The main purpose of any game is to be played, but I feel that strong story should be encouraged over just relying on gameplay, however neglecting gameplay is neglecting the interactive nature of the medium.

Basically I found it hard to convey this opinion via your survey.

 

[Hellion25]

I completed the survey, however I felt that it may have presented the issue in too much of a black and white context. Although mention was made as to genre affecting to level of plot vs game, it would perhaps be better if we were allowed to elaborate on why we think certain game types require less plot than others or vice versa. Assumedly this will all be convered in your dissertation though.

 

[rossatdi]

For me a videogame is very much an emphasised game. The mechanics are vital for my enjoyment of a game.

I've believe its for pen & paper RPGs but there is a 3 way delineation I find useful: Gameplay, Drama, Simulation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_Model

Personally I find the game the most important thing because I'm quite a competitive but also systemically minded person. I, for example, don't get much from winning Mario Kart Wii because the system mechanics are so awful. There's no joy in winning if the rules aren't fair/challenging.

 

[faytmye]

Thanks for all the replies, I know the survey isnt particular open to free responses but the main emphasis of it was the last 6 questions. These questions were proposed by ludologists and narratologists and make up "the debate" that exists between them.

I probably should have included a better question as regards to genre but i've already covered that section so far in the paper.

If anyone has strong feelings with the debate then I will definately quote you in the paper.

 

[Nutcase]

I don't think there was even one question among the 15 where one of the offered answers matched what I really wanted to say. Filled the questionnaire regardless, just to help out.

Mechanics come first. If you don't have any, you don't have a game, but a movie/book/etc. That's by definition.

You can legitimately look at a game without a fixed story and say the player creates their own narrative. That's a point of view. But how useful is that point of view? I think it depends on the game.

"I messed up and that block ended the wrong way." "Desperation time, the blocks are almost at the top of the screen." "Whew, got that straight block in at the last second. I was about to give up and just distribute the blocks evenly in the remaining space."

I'm not very familiar with the toolset of "serious" writing and narrative, but I doubt you can use it to do anything meaningful to improve upon Tetris.

 

[Wicky_42]

With regards to the separation of gameplay and story time, this has been enforced in the majority of games to date through the use of non-interactive or pre-rendered cutscenes. Games such as HL2 create and reinforce the cinematic experience throughout (if you get into it, as not everyone seems able to), without needing to take enforced breaks for story updates and the such.

So really, that point there is entirely up to how distinct the developers make the gulf between story and game, and is entirely mutable as game design develop,s and story writers and game designers learn how to work together better in general. Video games as a media is still in development - we've gone through the early phase where games were small and a guy in a bedroom could put a mainstream game together, through a period of rapid growth of small, imaginative companies competing in a new market, to the development of large corporations swallowing up the competition to limit the majority of the market to standardised, unimaginative money spinning sequels to well established brands. Now there's a potential for the independent sector to flourish again as the corporations realise the potential money to be made by making small imaginative games available on their networks to the masses.

Where things will go next I have no idea (and I may be a little bit off on most of that, what with it not being backed up by much factual knowledge, just the industry as I understand it.)

 

[Sylocat]

Some helpful reference might be this [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jdG2LHair0].

 

[GregorV]

My favourite analogy is that story is to gaming what lyrics is to music. It can enhance the experience a great deal, but is not really essential and masterpieces can be created completely without it.

 

[Anarchemitis]

I think there's a sujective crossroads at which one must choose which they prefer- story or gamplay.
(There's one of these crossroads for each genre)