Some thoughts on video game design
So the very day that I returned a book considering this very subject to the Tri-C library, I came across this article at the Escapist: String Theory: The Illusion of Videogame Interactivity. It poses a question about video game design that I've actually been thinking a lot about recently (and yes, I have been thinking about video game design a lot recently - for which I blame oogby entirely :)):If well-told stories rely on specific pacing and structure that necessitate authorial control, then doesn't the interactivity of games run completely contrary to narrative?
Or in other words, how do you tell a good story that at the same time really and honestly gives the game player control over how the story develops?
One possible answer, as the article describes, is to essentially manipulate the player into thinking that he or she has more control over the narrative than they really do. Another possibility is to just do away with story entirely - there's not much character development or narrative in Tetris or in Donkey Kong, but it works out pretty well anyway.
One might argue that there's something more pure and more essential about those kinds of games - that by stripping away any non-essential features, it becomes just about the player figuring out how to play the game. And in the end, maybe that's what people really play games for.
I don't know, though. As story-focused as I am, I have a hard time just dropping the idea of a narrative altogether. This is in part because I like the idea of stories and characters and imaginary worlds; it's also because I sometimes feel like anything I (potentially) do has to have some kind of a practical, real-world point to it. Stories have themes and messages and meanings that you can use to communicate with a user; "pure" gameplay, not so much, or at least that would be my guess. (Though if anyone has a real good argument linking Tetris to the fall of the Soviet Union, I'm open to hearing it.)
That said, it still has me wondering if there are alternative ways of telling stories through games. The book I returned to the library, for instance, argued that the real point of games like the original Mario and Zelda was the exploration of 'spectacular environments', and that the narrative and characters really didn't matter. The user doesn't really care about rescuing the Princess, or who she is as a character; she's just the more-or-less arbitrary goal that marks the end of the game. It's not about the Princess; it's about all the neat stuff the user gets to see and do along the way.
I don't know about that, personally. But it got me thinking - okay, say a game really is just about exploring a virtual environment. Is there a way of telling a story using just the environment? The beginning of story is in character, my playwriting teachers always used to say. Well, environments can have character, and can reveal character; just ask an architect. So can an environment clearly and effectively communicate a story, or a narrative, to a player on its own?
I don't have an answer to the question myself. But I feel it might be a direction worth exploring.
Or in other words, how do you tell a good story that at the same time really and honestly gives the game player control over how the story develops?
One possible answer, as the article describes, is to essentially manipulate the player into thinking that he or she has more control over the narrative than they really do. Another possibility is to just do away with story entirely - there's not much character development or narrative in Tetris or in Donkey Kong, but it works out pretty well anyway.
One might argue that there's something more pure and more essential about those kinds of games - that by stripping away any non-essential features, it becomes just about the player figuring out how to play the game. And in the end, maybe that's what people really play games for.
I don't know, though. As story-focused as I am, I have a hard time just dropping the idea of a narrative altogether. This is in part because I like the idea of stories and characters and imaginary worlds; it's also because I sometimes feel like anything I (potentially) do has to have some kind of a practical, real-world point to it. Stories have themes and messages and meanings that you can use to communicate with a user; "pure" gameplay, not so much, or at least that would be my guess. (Though if anyone has a real good argument linking Tetris to the fall of the Soviet Union, I'm open to hearing it.)
That said, it still has me wondering if there are alternative ways of telling stories through games. The book I returned to the library, for instance, argued that the real point of games like the original Mario and Zelda was the exploration of 'spectacular environments', and that the narrative and characters really didn't matter. The user doesn't really care about rescuing the Princess, or who she is as a character; she's just the more-or-less arbitrary goal that marks the end of the game. It's not about the Princess; it's about all the neat stuff the user gets to see and do along the way.
I don't know about that, personally. But it got me thinking - okay, say a game really is just about exploring a virtual environment. Is there a way of telling a story using just the environment? The beginning of story is in character, my playwriting teachers always used to say. Well, environments can have character, and can reveal character; just ask an architect. So can an environment clearly and effectively communicate a story, or a narrative, to a player on its own?
I don't have an answer to the question myself. But I feel it might be a direction worth exploring.