This
is a topic that I have touched on in the past, but recently, I have
been given the opportunity to talk about it. A couple of weeks back,
David Jaffe, creator of Twisted Metal and God of War, said, regarding
to storytelling in video games, “If you've really got something
inside of you that's so powerful, like a story you've got to share or
a philosophy about man's place in the universe, why
in the fuck would you choose the medium that has historically,
continually been the worst medium to express philosophy, story and
narrative?”
While that sentence is taken only slightly out of context, and the
underlying point that developers should focus more on gameplay is
sound, I would have to partially disagree with Mr. Jaffe. If a
developer wants to have a tightly woven, complex, extremely linear
narrative, then I would agree that said developer would be
significantly better off by writing a book or making a movie instead.
However, if the developer wishes to explore a particular philosophy
or a “What if?” scenario, then a video game would be the perfect
method of expression, and here is why.
The main
reason that a linear narrative does not work so well is also one of
the main reasons that games continue to flourish: Games are
interactive by their very nature. People who play games always make
decisions and affect the game world, even in linear games. What type
of weapons will I use? What is the best way to defeat all of these
enemies? Should I play it safe or go all out? These decisions are
constant being made, consciously or not. Games thrive on ability to
thrust players into situations they are not used to and force them
into the actions. Linear stories are the antithesis of this.
Linearity suggests that there is only one, proper way to go through a
player's journey and every other possibility is incorrect. Some games
even have sections where there is a trap in the room that is dead
obvious, but the player is forced to trigger it in order to advance
the story. In an environment where interactivity and decisions are
everything, this is the kiss of death of any serious story. Movies
and books can get away with this because the readers/viewers are not
insert themselves into the situation: They are passive observers
watching a story play out. In a video game, this is not the case.
Players of video games are active participants, affecting the outcome
of events through their inputs. It is easy for a video game player to
project their own emotions onto the protagonist of the game because,
in a way, they are. The character becomes a culmination of the
decisions and actions a player has made to that point. When somebody
asks a reader of book how far into the book they are, they respond
with “I'm at the part where the protagonist does X.” However, a
gamer would respond to the same question about a video game with “I
just did X, and I'm about to do Y.” For an interactive narrative
that takes player choice into account, this is a huge boon and be
taken advantage of to great effect. For a linear story, this can
spell doom if, at any time, the player is forced to do anything that
runs directly contrary to their logic or beliefs. There is a term for
this: Railroading.
It can even get worse when a story directly
contradicts what is happening in the gameplay.
Either of these circumstances can break immersion with the game and
bring the player back into the real world. While I cannot be sure, I
would imagine this is why Mr. Jaffe suggests that writers with
sprawling narratives in mind should visit another medium.
Does
this mean that I think video games should never have stories? NO!
However, a game's story does need to keep the nature of the medium in
mind. The most important thing to consider is that players will want
to have a sense of agency. That is, they want to be a part of the
world, they want to have their actions affect the world, and they
want the world to respond to the effects of these actions. Again, if
at any point a player loses his/her sense of agency on the events of
the game, they go from active participants to passive observers,
losing the one advantage the writer has: The fact that the player
will care about the protagonist because the protagonist is an
extension of the player and the ability of the player to assert
his/her own will. The key is to use this concept of player choice and
player influence to encourage the player to explore. I will use
Fallout: New Vegas
as an example.
While
I have a few criticisms of New
Vegas (chief
among them how Caesar's Legion a little too evil and hard to
sympathize with), this is one thing it did very well. In the game's
first half, the player travels to New Vegas. Along the way, the
player is introduced to all the major factions of the game at one
point or another. The New California Republic(NCR) is the stand in
for old school American politics, with all it pros and cons. Its
leaders are shown to want the best for the people, yet they are
incompetent on many levels and often do not understand the plight of
the common folk. The opposition of the NCR, Caesar's Legion, has
opposing ideals. The Legion subjugates tribes under its rule. The
tribes lose all their heritage, the men forced to become soldiers,
the women and children forced to become slaves. (The boys are
conscripted when the come of age.) Furthermore, they reject all kinds
of advanced technology, in favor of old school “Roman” ideals.
However, they are all united and a sense of order can be found in the
Legion. Between these two factions is Mr. House, the enigmatic leader
of New Vegas. After the player has been given a chance to meet and
learn about all three major factions, they are given a choice. He/she
can choose to side with any of the three major factions, or reject
all three ideals in favor of a completely independent New Vegas,
overseen by the player character. The game and the ending radically
change depending on both which of the major factions the player works
with/against and how he/she deals with the other sub-factions in the
game.
While
it is far from perfect, this is an excellent example of how video
games can tell good stories. Inform players of different ideologies
and let them learn about and explore them. Once they feel like they
know enough, allow them the chance to pass judgment. Let them say “I
believe that X is the best choice, and as such I will support them.”
It does not even have to be the grand, arching narrative. Even on a
small-scale, such as with a side quest, this ability to choose is
what makes games unique as a medium for storytelling. This is why so
many people still laud Deus
Ex
as an excellent accomplishment in gaming, even though it was made all
the way back in 2000. The main crux of the game was that it
encouraged the player to make choices, both in the way the story
unfolded and in the way they play the game. The game explores
transhumanism,
both in gameplay and in story. It the story, it talks about the
positives of transhumanism, like how augmentations could drastically
improve people's lives. However, it also explores the negatives, such
as the fact that it can essentially render certain people obsolete
when newer, better augments get released. The game ends by having
multiple factions give you their opinion on what to do and having the
player decide which is best. This sense of exploration and choice
extends to the gameplay, allowing the player to go through the game
as an expert in combat, stealth, hacking, conversation, or some
combination of the four, and beat the game his/her own way.
While I say that games can be used as storytelling devices, that is
a little misleading. What I really mean is that games can be used to
explore philosophies and concepts and give the player an environment
in which he/she can discover the pros and cons of particular
ideologies without causing any sort of real-world harm. If a game
developer wished to do this, I would advise them to go for it, but to
do his/her best to not insert their own biases into the game. The
point is to let the players form their own opinions, not to feed them
opinions. It is important to avoid veering into the unfortunate
category of “propaganda”. For better or worse, games can be used
as tools to learn and explore.
No comments:
Post a Comment