I think you're equating "narrative" with "story" and as technical terms, they aren't the same. Narrative is a sequence of events, whereas story is a realization of those sequence of events in a particular way, focussing on character, dialogue, setting and so forth. In this way, a lot of what you say is true. The designer sets up a narrative for them to frame their own story around.The other problem you fall into was addressed by postmodernist thought (particularly literary theory) last century. You seem to suggest that there is a single story from a single text that a player must experience, and that story is the one specified by the designer. Even in something totally (traditionally) noninteractive as books, this is false. Whatever the designer intended is completely secondary to what the reader reads. Art is the engagement of the art object with a viewer and whatever comes out, comes out. The designer can try to bias it in some way, but they have no control over the result. Not only can a viewer fill in what hasn't been explicitly stated, but they can interpret what *is* in whatever way they like and the designer has no say in it. In this way the narrative is concrete, but the story is malleable.
Fair points. If narrative is technically defined as nothing more than a series of events, then I guess it is possible to create narrative from gameplay alone. However, I've never got the impression that this is what Extra Credits believes is "narrative", particularly not when it comes to games.As for the "single story" syndrome, I may have come across a little heavy there. I'm all for allowing the reader/viewer/player leeway in terms of their interpretation of the story. In fact, I think it's a great thing. But if the slate is so open that the entire context of the story can be removed or adjusted entirely, then surely this weakens the story? Imagine if every story was so open that you felt as though you could say "then he woke up and it was all just a dream" at the end? The impact of the story would be lost in a great many cases.I don't disagree that players can and should be allowed to have their own interpretations of a story; countless debates about endings or character motivations or actions demonstrate without doubt that such ambiguity is a good thing. My argument is that gameplay mechanics alone can't deliver this, though they definitely can do a lot to augment storytelling within a game.
First: I think the difference between story and narrative isn't related with the topic here. And it help only to get confused.Just to be simple. A story is an experience lived (in their minds) by the players (also readers and others, but I want to focus on Videogames). A story could be communicated in many kind of ways.About the statement: "gameplay mechanics alone can't deliver this [a story]".I'm doubtful.I mean gameplay alone surely can. Defend the moon from alien invaders IS a story. Delivered by graphics, without words.Maybe you mean to say that it's not compelling enough, and I can agree with this."But in order for this to happen the players must be told some story."In writing there's the rule "Show don't tell". And I think is appliable (with some alteration) also in videogames.Plain narrative can be used, but it's more boring.But.Graphics can deliver a story (for example can show the character social class).Gameplay can deliver a story (for example can show the character motivation to defend the moon).Dialogues can deliver a story (don't abuse this :p, otherwise it goes to plain narrative).And all three of these can be melted. Graphics can be melted to gamplay and deliver a story, and the same is for dialogues.I think that, yes, it's not a mistake to use dialogues alone, or graphics alone. Such as a really nice view doesn't need to be tied to the gameplay. The same for the story-dialogues or story-alone-events.But I think is better to melt them with gameplay.
I think you're equating "narrative" with "story" and as technical terms, they aren't the same. Narrative is a sequence of events, whereas story is a realization of those sequence of events in a particular way, focussing on character, dialogue, setting and so forth. In this way, a lot of what you say is true. The designer sets up a narrative for them to frame their own story around.
ReplyDeleteThe other problem you fall into was addressed by postmodernist thought (particularly literary theory) last century. You seem to suggest that there is a single story from a single text that a player must experience, and that story is the one specified by the designer. Even in something totally (traditionally) noninteractive as books, this is false. Whatever the designer intended is completely secondary to what the reader reads. Art is the engagement of the art object with a viewer and whatever comes out, comes out. The designer can try to bias it in some way, but they have no control over the result. Not only can a viewer fill in what hasn't been explicitly stated, but they can interpret what *is* in whatever way they like and the designer has no say in it. In this way the narrative is concrete, but the story is malleable.
Fair points. If narrative is technically defined as nothing more than a series of events, then I guess it is possible to create narrative from gameplay alone. However, I've never got the impression that this is what Extra Credits believes is "narrative", particularly not when it comes to games.
ReplyDeleteAs for the "single story" syndrome, I may have come across a little heavy there. I'm all for allowing the reader/viewer/player leeway in terms of their interpretation of the story. In fact, I think it's a great thing. But if the slate is so open that the entire context of the story can be removed or adjusted entirely, then surely this weakens the story? Imagine if every story was so open that you felt as though you could say "then he woke up and it was all just a dream" at the end? The impact of the story would be lost in a great many cases.
I don't disagree that players can and should be allowed to have their own interpretations of a story; countless debates about endings or character motivations or actions demonstrate without doubt that such ambiguity is a good thing. My argument is that gameplay mechanics alone can't deliver this, though they definitely can do a lot to augment storytelling within a game.
First:
ReplyDeleteI think the difference between story and narrative isn't related with the topic here. And it help only to get confused.
Just to be simple. A story is an experience lived (in their minds) by the players (also readers and others, but I want to focus on Videogames).
A story could be communicated in many kind of ways.
About the statement: "gameplay mechanics alone can't deliver this [a story]".
I'm doubtful.
I mean gameplay alone surely can. Defend the moon from alien invaders IS a story. Delivered by graphics, without words.
Maybe you mean to say that it's not compelling enough, and I can agree with this.
"But in order for this to happen the players must be told some story."
In writing there's the rule "Show don't tell". And I think is appliable (with some alteration) also in videogames.
Plain narrative can be used, but it's more boring.
But.
Graphics can deliver a story (for example can show the character social class).
Gameplay can deliver a story (for example can show the character motivation to defend the moon).
Dialogues can deliver a story (don't abuse this :p, otherwise it goes to plain narrative).
And all three of these can be melted. Graphics can be melted to gamplay and deliver a story, and the same is for dialogues.
I think that, yes, it's not a mistake to use dialogues alone, or graphics alone. Such as a really nice view doesn't need to be tied to the gameplay. The same for the story-dialogues or story-alone-events.
But I think is better to melt them with gameplay.