As prior articles I have written may have led you to believe, I tend
to take story in games seriously. I am heavily critical of plot-lines
in games and I expect narratives to be sensible. However, there are
some people who are as critical as I am that I take issue with. When
discussing the plot lines in video games, some people like to make
the argument that “If this was a book/movie, then it would be so
stupid!” More often than not, I would agree. However, that
statement demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding. The stories of
video game should not be compared to the stories of books and/or
movies, just as movies should not be compared to books.
One of the big reasons for this is that script-writing in a game
works differently than in a book or a movie. This difference is a
very crucial and fundamental one. With a book or a movie, one of the
primary concerns is the overall storyline. Plot, character
development, continuity, conflict: In a book or movie, these are the
focus of creative energy. In a game, this is a secondary concern. The
primary concern (as it should be) is in the gameplay. Developers are
focused on making sure that the level design and game mechanics are
top-notch. They test and test to make sure that players are
challenged to avoid the game getting boring, but not so much that it
gets frustrating. Now, you can argue that some companies do not do
this as well as others, but most of them make this the biggest thing
on their checklist. The writing takes much more of a backseat. What
happens more often than not is that the levels are completed and the
writing team has only a rough idea of who the characters are and what
the plot is supposed to be. They take these levels and the plot and
form a loose story that tells the tale they want while justifying
going through the all of the levels that the design team created or
are currently creating. Some scenes may often require entire rewrites
because of a problem on the designer end of things.
The
best examples this style both working and failing can be found in the
Uncharted
series. The first two games had very well-written and gripping
narratives with character the audience would come to love and grow
attached to. The third game, while still very good, had a noticeably
less-stable plot. Many of the new characters went underdeveloped,
certain plot lines went nowhere, and there was an entire section of
the game could have easily been cut with no effect on the narrative.
The developer
commentaries
included on the disk gave a very good indication of why. To be fair,
Amy Hennig and the Naughty Dog writing team are very talented and the
story is still quite good despite its flaws. It still serves as a
good example of why narratives in games are not the same as in books
or movies. The argument can be made that this process may or may not
work and may need to be experimented with, but, for now, it is a fact
of life in the industry.
Which
brings me to the next point: That gaming as a storytelling medium is
still in his infancy. Unlike book, which have had hundreds of years
to perfect their craft, and movies, which have also had a long time,
though not nearly as long as books, games have only been in the
entertainment market since 1972 with the Magnavox Odyssey. Games as a
storytelling medium have been around for even less time, since the
NES (Nintendo Entertainment System) era, when games like the original
Final Fantasy
were released for the first time. Before then, they were nothing more
than small experiences devoid of any real story. While people have
written tons of material regarding how best to write a book or make a
movie, but games have little in the way of that. The visionaries of
the medium are only just now really starting to experiment with how
to tell really compelling stories using it to its fullest.
Which
again serves as an adequate transition into may last point. Games, by
there nature, are interactive. This is the biggest separator between
them and other mediums. The audience is an active participant in what
is going on. This lends itself to new approaches in telling a good
story unheard of in other mediums. Now, I have already discussed how
stories in games can benefit from this interactivity several
times
before,
but I nonetheless find this fact is something I need to repeat again
and again. The strengths of interactivity are that you are able to
use the environment and the situations the player has to deal with to
tell the story in much more effective ways than movies or books can
with descriptions or dialog, something which Bethesda, despite all of
its flaws, is known for doing very well. Also, a game can be used to
explore philosophies and concepts by letting the player immerse
themselves in a world and discover for themselves the implications
behind them, allowing them to learn and make choices in an
environment free of any real-life consequences, demonstrated in games
like Fallout:
New Vegas
and Deus Ex.
Lastly, since the player is going through the game as the main
character, he/she is automatically sympathetic towards the
protagonist and/or is allowed a glimpse into the protagonist's
beliefs and idiosyncrasies through the mechanics of the game,
something that movies and books are completely unable to do. These
are storytelling technique completely unique to games. Books and
movies cannot utilize this tool-set. Because interactivity makes the
story in a video game so completely different than movies and books,
it is unfair to compare these mediums.
Games have their own set of strengths and weaknesses when it comes
to storytelling, as do books and mediums. However, they are in no way
similar enough to these other mediums to warrant comparison. We have
evidence of this. Whenever the make games based off movies, they are
very rarely any good. If they are, the game either takes place in a
different time period than the movie or the player is playing as a
new character who has previously never been mentioned in the plot.
The same can be said of games that are made into movies. That is what
makes this particular comparison so egregious. It is possible to
argue that video game plots are bad. I do all the time. However, we
should not be comparing apples to oranges. Nothing will come out of
it. While I am sure many of you already know this, it is such a
common misconception that it needed to be addressed.
2 comments:
Great post, couldn't agree with you more on the point the the game industry is still in its infancy. For me, most game stories fall into two camp: the ones with a brilliant idea but were executed terribly and the ones with solid execution but is not exactly deep.
Funny how you mention Uncharted because one of the first reaction I have after finishing Uncharted 2 is 'Wait, did I just play through an Indiana Jones movie?' I would say that the Uncharted series is the closest game that we have to a movie.
I know what you mean with putting most games into those two camps. There aren't a lot of games that reach for the stars and succeed. I mean, I applaud New Vegas but it is hardly perfect. That game has a few major flaws plot-wise.
I always did like the Indiana Jones feel Uncharted had. It does the whole cinematic thing very well and it's stories are generally stable, if not very deep. One thing they definitely get right is characterization, which is why I and many others love the series so much. Part of me wishes they would do more storytelling in the gameplay part of the game, but aside from that and Uncharted 3's mediocre-by-comparison plot, I don't have many bad things to say about the series.
Post a Comment