game theory: Game Narratives

BlitzKrieg

This has been running over my mind for the last few months, and I want to get it out into discussion.

Video Game Theory, Like Film Theory, probably also will be looked at with the some *pretentious over thinking b*sterds*

But I enjoy it and I think it encourages people to look at games differently.

So the one that has my mind going at the moment is of course Game Narrative. The story each game tells and how it is told.


My own personal theory is that a game's narrative can be divided into two sections and the time the game was made, the technology, the genre etc affect how these sections play off each other.

They are the constructed narrative and the dynamic narrative

The constructed narrative is the story the game itself tells you, this is cut scenes, character dialogue, level design, sound design etc. The same building blocks essentially that would go into making a film pretty much. Its the bits the player has to do to progress

The dynamic narrative is usually the smaller of the two today but I would argue it is probably the more important. Its the story the player himself tells by how he plays the game, this is the aspects of the game where the player chooses the use specific elements in a game they way they choose. How they kill an opponent or even if they bother to kill one or not, its the narrative that is directly tied to the gameplay. And as we know Gameplay is king.

Quick point, just because the dynamic narrative is in the players control does not mean its the player exploiting elements the developer didnt intend, that rarely happens its more often the case the developer designed it to be used in such a manner, but the choice is left to the player.


As a case study, the resident evil series is an example of a series that has moved away from a constructive narrative heavy series to a much more dynamic narrative narrative series.

The initially resident evil games offered very little player freedom, pretty much the only dynamic elements was the limited combat and the exploration. Item usage beyond weapons and herbs all had specific defined roles. The player's dynamic narrative literally focused on how well he was managing his resources and what he could find, there were choice moments where players could catch monsters in specific situations that allowed him to kill them with ease .

The constructed side of things was very extensive, the game dictated to the player the game's plot via cutscenes and text, it controlled many key elements from camera control, situations tended to have only one solution and a number of the bosses in the series tended to have only one solution. Environment interaction was very limited and monsters tend to be only killed by the direct combat element.

Resident evil 4 and 5 took a big swing towards the dynamic narrative (4 being the most) the player took control of many key elements, such as camera control, something I consider a vital element of dynamic narrative as it gives the player freedom to focus on what interests them. Items diversed into optional elements, greater choice was given to how weapons were used and developed. The enviroment expanded and numerous options were given to the player. Add to this optional items and bonuses and you have a much more dynamic game in comparison to the earlier titles.

The impact the initial village scene in resi 4 had on the series is easily noticeable it shook the series to its routes, changed how people percieved the series. It also changed the overall theme of the series, it took away the constructed slow pace of the original and replaced it with a much faster and dynamic experiance.

As a narrative it is a big shake up, it pulled the focus away from the series's original appeal with a conspiracy mystery, notebooks filling in unseen events and the horror that is slowly unfolding. In 4 the narrative changed to reflect how the player played, the focus was on those tense chases through the village, how the player escaped specific situations or took down specific creatures in the more open environment, the back story to 4 and 5 was no longer the central focus of the game's narrative, the players personal experience with the game's series of challanges were.

Its not the most dynamic series by a long shot (games like civilization and sim city would hold that title) nor were the original entries the most constructed (point and click games would probably hold that title) But there is a clear progression in how the game tells its story throughout the series.



So discuss...

Retr0gamer

I still think we are waiting for a genius to come along and give us a game where the dynamic narrative will live up to the levels of a constructed narrative. There are games like for example Deus Ex that allow you to approach levels differently but when you think about it, it's all just level design and you are still on a roller coaster but with diverging routes. I think the best examples of dynamic narrative are in horror games. The first alien vs. predator had little to no story but you're own fear made up for that.

I'm more interested in games that have constructed narrative told through gameplay. Ico and Shadow of the Colossus are good examples even though they had the odd cutscene. I think the best example is Super Metroid.

Dont be at yourself

Great post. Hopefully it will be a springboard for some in-depth discussion.

Anyway, I wouldn't really describe what you mentioned in Resident Evil 4 as "dynamic narrative" - things like player-controlled camera, upgradeable items etc. don't really impact on the narrative in any real way. To draw analogues with cinema, a controllable camera is more akin to cinematography or direction rather than screen-writing or acting.

For me, narrative is one thing that the videogame industry has struggled with, both in terms of creativity and execution.

It's damning that, with the industry now well established, the biggest blockbusters are regurgitating stories that have been told since the dawn of the medium. Halo 3 and Killzone are basically Space Invaders, and for all their lip-synced Hollywood voice acting, their stories offer comparable depth. How many videogame stories have truly stood out, and deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as classics from literature, film or television? The industry seems incapable of looking past muscle-head space marines or melodramatic Anime-styled teenage boys.

In some ways, this creativity can be excused, as it can be argued that it is merely the product of the structure of videogames. If, in an FPS, your only method of interaction is via a gun, it doesn't lend itself to creating a layered, well-rounded narrative. However, that doesn't totally excuse things - as there is much room for building a narrative through cut-scenes, character models & animation and level design. It's disappointing that most games - including the biggest in the industry - are unwilling to use these to the fullest.

The other problem, alluded to above, is execution. The developer may have an excellent story in their hands, but it's another thing to translate that into an interactive videogame. A narrative is linear, and so to implement it into a videogame requires a lot of constraints. The player must be led down a linear path to follow the narrative. And with even the most ambitious and fully-featured game will struggle to convey a decent story without resorting the more traditional methods like cut-scenes, title-cards and so on.

But then, maybe we're looking at storytelling the wrong way. The industry fails because it tries to fit traditional storytelling (the three act linear arch) onto a medium that's not really fit for it. If, instead, the story was built around the videogame, there may be better success. But is it really possible to throw off the straight-jacket of linear storytelling and embrace freedom and interactivity that videogames provide?

There's been little success so far. GTAIII, for all its freedom, still insisted on funnelling the player down a linear story. KOTOR and Fable alluded to player choice, but it was reduced down to binary, black-and-white stories.

There's a game on the horizon, Heavy Rain, which is trying to push the envelope here, and it will be interesting to see if it succeeds. I suspect it wont, but even laying the foundations for true interactive storytelling will be a considerable achievement.

BlitzKrieg

I still think we are waiting for a genius to come along and give us a game where the dynamic narrative will live up to the levels of a constructed narrative.

I would argue it is impossible to have a game without a constructive narrative.

The mere existence of a title or ending is constructive narrative.

The closest you will get is games like Littlebigplanet and garry's mod which limit constructive narrative to its most basic elements (go here > to win level in LBG) The best games are usually the ones that are able to use both forms of narrative to their strengths.

Metal Gear Solid series has a very restricted dynamic narrative but thats because there is such a strong focus on characterisation (especially on the lead) that players need to be put into his mindset.

Also consider games like the open ended GTA series, the original and early entries had very limited constructive narratives (go here and kill x, told by text) but as the series progressed, cutscenes became a major factor of the game because the dynamic narrative alone could not carry the games, people ignored the mains main progression and focused on quick fix 20 minutes of carnage, the improving of the constructive narrative enticed players to actually play through the game's main plot progression to its conclusion rather then ignoring it primarily.

Aside from them the civilisation series (maybe some sim and spore games aswell, but I wouldnt know as I have only player 1 or 2) would be next, the constructive narrative literally bookends the dynamic narrative. You start here with the following and you end there when you achieve one of these challanges. Everything between is dynamic narrative.

I'm more interested in games that have constructed narrative told through gameplay.

I was saddened when after sonic 1-3 & knuckles and Nights, Sonic team opted to have extensive cutscenes in all their future titles. the original sonic series and Nights are the equivilent to the greatest silent films, these is not one piece of text in either game. Yes Nights has cutscenes bookmarking the game, but the only plotlines given in either series are found in the manual (which in the case of the sonic games caused loads of problems as each region told a different origin story) Everything else in the game is told through the gameplay and little pantomime moments. Its almost universal in its ability to tell narrative, no worries about translation errors or misunderstandings in cultural differences etc. Wonderful.

Half Life 2 is also fascinating because while a constructive narrative clearly exists, large elements of it are scattered and hidden among the levels rather then dictated to the player. best example is of course the backstory of the 7 hour war and the invasion, which is found by listening to key conversations, observing pieces of newspaper clippings around specific rooms and how the mise en scene was laid out in others.

BlitzKrieg

Anyway, I wouldn't really describe what you mentioned in Resident Evil 4 as "dynamic narrative" - things like player-controlled camera, upgradeable items etc. don't really impact on the narrative in any real way. To draw analogues with cinema, a controllable camera is more akin to cinematography or direction rather than screen-writing or acting.

Uhmm, cinematography and direction are hugely important in cinema narrative. Of the 4 elements you named you have named all but 1 of the 5 crucial elements to making a good film narrative (you left out editing) cinematography is crucial when you consider how much of a role it had in telling the story (films like Once apon a time in the west and 2001 would have nowhere near the same strength behind their narratives if it wasnt for the amazing cinematography.) And to argue that direction is not important to cinema narrative is a one way street to a lynching. It is the direction that dictates how a story is told and is crucially important.

The writer writes the story

the director tells the story

the cinematographer shows the story

the actor gives it life

and the editor paces it.

the 5 crucial elements to making a film narrative.

Dont be at yourself

I take your point, but it's really a question of definitions and semantics.

Anyway, I think an area where videogames and cinema differ is in camera work. In videogames, by necessity, function takes priority over aesthetics. It is rarely - outside of cutscenes or fixed-camera games - used to set the tone, pacing or story of a game, as is the norm in cinema. To do otherwise would be falling into the familiar videogame mistake: applying conventional TV/cinematical ideas onto a medium where they don't really fit.

Mr E

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

... is it really possible to throw off the straight-jacket of linear storytelling and embrace freedom and interactivity that videogames provide?

There's been little success so far. GTAIII, for all its freedom, still insisted on funnelling the player down a linear story. KOTOR and Fable alluded to player choice, but it was reduced down to binary, black-and-white stories.

I think this is a very tough thing to do. Narrative-based games have to have an end point, otherwise the narrative has no focus. Build towards liberating (or conquering) a planet, killing a tyrant, rescuing a loved one, discovering your origins.... they are tangible goals. Games can have multiple routes to these outcomes (and even multiple outcomes), but they are always going to be finite.

BlitzKrieg

Anyway, I think an area where videogames and cinema differ is in camera work. In videogames, by necessity, function takes priority over aesthetics.

All very true. Function always takes priority, thats why bad films tend to be ones that fail at the function. While good films tend to be ones that achieve the function but then pushes each aspect beyond simple function. Its function in writing to introduce characters and explain key plot points so that a reader can follow, but it does not make good writing. You might be restraining the idea of camera too much to the notion of a 3rd person/1st person action game, where the notion of camera control was and still is (*cough* 3d sonic games) an area where difficulties rise.

The role of the viewer is different in film then to video games. Film theory writes about the audience taking the role of a voyour, a disembodied view spying on someone else's life, invading privacy. The power of film *supposable* comes from the viewers inability to control, they are spying on some event and are unable to stop it or look away, creating a direct link between the viewer's sub concious and the film on screen. Hence why people talking in the cinema is one of the universe's pet hates.

Of course video games full stop cannot do any of this. The player is required to take control for the majority of the narrative. This means the view at which the player observes his control is vital not only as a functional role, but also in enforcing the player's role in the game's narrative.

Consider back to my case study, the resident evil series, up until 4 they did use fixed camera angles and this did have a noticable impact on the game's narrative as well as you point out the games function. The pace between resi 1-3 and resi 4 is very different, 4 is a much faster hectic experiance, even when the levels are confined to corridors, the camera does effect this because unlike the initial games, here the player has control over what to focus on which I would argue greatly enhances dynamic narratives and as you say pushes games very much in a vastly different direction to films.

Consider the amount of work a developer must put in if they decide to develope a plot point while leaving camera control in the player's hands. It would be easier to hand control over to a cutscene, but how does that affect a game? it takes the player out of the game, they relax because they know that for the period of the cutscene they are in no danger.

This tends to make the plotpoint in question a *wow* factor moment. Especially if its an action game and the plotpoint is a boss or monster being introduced.

If the player remains in control during this period, it tends to be less of a *wow* factor and more of a *oh sh*t!* factor because they are still at the time responsible for their character.

This desire to get both a *wow* and * oh sh*t!* response from the player to the scene in question led to the dreaded rise of QTE moments, taking the safety net of cutscenes away forcing the player to remain in control.

its not a good comprimise, QTE is on spot choices the player is forced to choose between limitations, while the narrative they had been playing up to this point might have involved them hording rockets that they may wish to use.

So if a developer opts to leave players in control, they need to consider other narrative elements to set the player up to get a sort of wow and oh sh*t factor combined, hence restrictions in level design and shuffling of players to specific spots. The best of these are the one's that tempt to player into freely exploring around the event by leaving visual ques for them to show interest in, broken shackles, a trail of blood etc, leading the player to where the developer wanted him to be to get the most out of the set piece, problem is like movie cliches alot of gamers have gotten wise to these set ups.

Jazzy

the best stories in games are always told in the most humble ways imo. there is a lot of games with good stories but little depth and also a lot that are deep but with vague stories. part and parcel of games i suppose. i think for depth developers should look to bioshock for inspiration. its easy to get inspired from a good story as there are so many out there, ff7, crono trigger, half-life, deus ex, freespace 2 etc.
problem is they tend to go with what sells so stories become slapped on and are often stupid, over the top and pointless.

Retr0gamer

I think it's also got a lot to do with the fact that games makers aren't trained in film making but a lot of them have aspirations of being film makers or showing them up. The worst of the bunch is of course Hideo Kojima who doesn't know how to tell a story or direct. Western games just seem to be copying dumb action or sci-fi flicks and japanese games are heavily anime influenced with very few truly original and well told stories coming from the industry. Just look at some of the mainstream games that are considered to be the pinnacle of storytelling in games, Halo 3, MGS 4, FFVII etc. Most of these are pretty shoddy works and fall into the unoriginal and derivitive category I talked about.

Sorry Jazzy but FFVII hasn't got a great story. It's got a good setting in Midgar but when it leaves there it goes to crap and is very inconsistent. It turns into a evangelion, godzilla, any other japanese 90's pop culture rip off really.

Dont be at yourself

I think this is a very tough thing to do. Narrative-based games have to have an end point, otherwise the narrative has no focus. Build towards liberating (or conquering) a planet, killing a tyrant, rescuing a loved one, discovering your origins.... they are tangible goals. Games can have multiple routes to these outcomes (and even multiple outcomes), but they are always going to be finite.

But ultimately, shouldn't the industry be chasing these multiple-ending, multiple-paths, choice-laden narratives, rather than shoehorning traditional linear narratives into the medium? To do otherwise is to ignore one of videogames' greatest strengths.

Retr0gamer

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

But ultimately, shouldn't the industry be chasing these multiple-ending, multiple-paths, choice-laden narratives, rather than shoehorning traditional linear narratives into the medium? To do otherwise is to ignore one of videogames' greatest strengths.

We've seen plenty of games do this and all of them have failed. These types of games would require a huge investment in time and money and since it's such an unknown quanity a publisher would not be will to invest in such a project. The ones that do get made are very ambitious but ultimately only noble efforts since they are bug riddled messes. They are a Q&A nightmare. Maybe some videogame auteur that hits it big will get the funding to do what he wants and create this type of game and open up te doors for imitators. However remember Peter Molyneaux has already tried to do this and had to severely cut back on Fable just to get it out the door in a timely fashion. Look at the mess that Boiling Point was.

I think the next big step is character and story building without cutscenes or text but through gameplay. SotC has done this well by building Agro's character as something you really care about despite being an uncommunicative animal. Super Metroid has told a decent story while using only the enviroment to to tell it. Maybe believeable talking character interaction is the next logical step.

Jazzy

ff7 tells a good story retr0 one of the few games that can actually make non-gamers stand up and take notice, and it isnt because of the gameplay.

agree about hideo. although i liked the mgs story it was all just a big mess and was told in a very confusing manner. he reminds me of graham linehan without arthur matthews co-writing. has good ideas but gets too carried away and loses sight of the objective.

Halo is the ultimate in this sort of false greatness. itself and gears might as well have been perceived and made by michael bay. the amount of money put into these type of title means that the publishers just tell you that its story is awesome and epic and 'off the chain' and of course the pelicans gobble it up and ask for more. then they sit down and read twilight. i hate to sound boastful here but thank god im not stupid. it sounds so f**king boring

Dont be at yourself

I think it's also got a lot to do with the fact that games makers aren't trained in film making but a lot of them have aspirations of being film makers or showing them up. The worst of the bunch is of course Hideo Kojima who doesn't know how to tell a story or direct. Western games just seem to be copying dumb action or sci-fi flicks and japanese games are heavily anime influenced with very few truly original and well told stories coming from the industry. Just look at some of the mainstream games that are considered to be the pinnacle of storytelling in games, Halo 3, MGS 4, FFVII etc. Most of these are pretty shoddy works and fall into the unoriginal and derivitive category I talked about.

Sorry Jazzy but FFVII hasn't got a great story. It's got a good setting in Midgar but when it leaves there it goes to crap and is very inconsistent. It turns into a evangelion, godzilla, any other japanese 90's pop culture rip off really.

While I totally agree that videogames' best stories fall short of what's achieved in other mediums, I think you are being a little harsh on Kojima. He's one of the few in the industry who has tried (and, it must be said, come some way short) of creating fully realised, ambitious stories.

What's more, he'd embraced various traits of the medium to tell the story. From the much maligned cutscenes, to codec briefings, to peering through vents or sneaking around while a speech is being delivered, the story unfolds in many ways. He also endeavours to give his cutscenes an element of interactivity, even if it's only directing where Snake looks.

Kojima should be praised for trying to meld traditional narrative and videogames. Sadly, the story itself is often lacking.

BlitzKrieg

curious thing about FF7 and storytelling.

I understand that a large chunk of the reaction to that scene is because not only was it a key point in the plot, but also up to that point the character in question played quite a prominant role in most players gamestyle. That if she wasnt such an important asset to the players own gameplay (and as such his own dynamic narrative) then the resulting scene would not have been as tragic as it ended up being.

johnny_ultimate

Great thread - always interested in a bit of intelligent discussion about games!

I was just thinking about this topic t'other day, and for me it always comes back to Half-Life. A game, in theory anyway, is designed for interactivity, but is also shaped by a designer somewhere who has his own message to get out there. For a film director, the audience is just going to consume his/her creation from a distance. For a game developer, the target audience is going to live it. For me, Half-Life is a fascinating example of an interactive narrative, because even though you have little to no control over events - you are playing Valve's story, after all - control is never taking away from you (with notable exceptions - the painful finale of Episode 2 for example). Therefore you feel far more integrated with the story, and the developer's vision isn't compromised by the needs to create a more user-driven story. This of course has problems - the game has certain limitations (like who can or cannot die by your hand), and the lack of freedom is frustrating. And of course Freeman not talking adds further complications. But the constant control is something games should strive for. There are others - Retr0 mentioned Super Metroid, and for all it's faults Prey tried too if I remember correctly. It just makes a game seem like it is trying harder to be a game.

Take something like Bioshock. In many ways it gives the player far more narrative freedom than Half-Life - for example, whether you choose to harvest or save the Little Sisters. Gives you more of a connection to the world. But then it goes and does something stupid like having a cutscene for important dramatic events, and endings which barely differ even when you make radically different decisions. Of course, the game itself makes a commentary on the nature of game narratives - you are always just funneled down a pre-decided path with little room for experimentation, with the use of 'Would you Kindly' a clever play on the fact that gamers rarely question this - but unfortunately the game shows it's own limitations when it funnels you down a path itself, and frustratingly so.

I always think that cutscenes break the diegesis of a game, but in some cases are necessary, and it will be a long time before game design is efficient and advanced enough to do away with them. Half-Life is one example of a tightly directed interactive story, but a user-generated one is a far more complicated prospect. The developer always needs some control, and attempts so far to create fully open worlds have largely been glitchy as hell - with a linear narrative to boot. With current technology, I think there has to be a fine line drawn between a developer's direction and a player's decision. In an ideal world, there would be games that give the player meaningful but pre-decided situations and decisions, and the player can decide themselves on the permutations, of which there would be many. The game and narrative should have multiple routes, and at the very least create a very good 'illusion' of choice, because until some programming genius appears, that is all we're going to be able to manage. Heavy Rain seems to have the balls to try this, but from some of the previews I've read this is just going to show up the game's own limitations. Edge described a scene that despite their efforts turned out the same everytime despite different approaches. Practically this makes sense, but also shows how limited we are at the moment - to create the hundreds and thousands of permutations necessary for a narrative to feel noticably different each and every time would be nigh on impossible!

But even as we stand, there are some examples of dynamic narratives that weren't specifically designed by a developer. Think of a good, experimental, ambitious multiplayer incident you've encountered. Some of these stories can be extremely dynamic, completely designed by the player within the limitations and rules set by a developer. So perhaps there is hope of a player generated narrative. But there are always going to be game designers out there, who want to tell a story to their audience. And it's important and beneficial to get them out there too. I for one just wish they'd stop using cutscenes to do it. Games ain't films - and the sooner we embrace that the better.

Retr0gamer

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

curious thing about FF7 and storytelling.

I understand that a large chunk of the reaction to that scene is because not only was it a key point in the plot, but also up to that point the character in question played quite a prominant role in most players gamestyle. That if she wasnt such an important asset to the players own gameplay (and as such his own dynamic narrative) then the resulting scene would not have been as tragic as it ended up being.

Most new players didn't use her because they thought she was weak. Why it worked is that the storyline made you like her. If you will, she insisted upon herself. It also wasn't the first time a game did it and it certainly wasn't the best at the time. The game was trying to build on the success of Shin Megami Tensei, Lufia 2 and Phantasy Star IV which were celebrated for doing similar and better might I add.

Seriously FFVII is not great storytelling. People think it is because of a few things. When they played it they were of a young impressionable age. Console game stories consisted of 'thank you mario but the princess is in another castle' so it seemed amazing at the time. There's a rake of 16-bit games with far better stories, just then never received wide acclaim or made it to the west. It's also very derivative trying to ape Evangelion which was itself interesting but in the end pseudo intellectual tripe. FFVII is worse. It's pseudo pseudo intellectual tripe. It managed to draw a lot of people in because the opening act is genuinely interesting in it's setting and it does well in character building but after that it's nonsense. Also the 'emo' Cloud and Sephiroth are actually very weak characters with appealing designs. Good game but nostalgia is clouding a lot of peoples memories. Funny thing is ask a person who was into western RPGs at the time and they will say the same. At the time they were playing well written black isle, bioware and Tim schafer games that were well written and didn't have anime wannabe scripts that were put through the meat grinder of a terrible localisation process.

Anyway enough about FFVII.

I have to say I really respect Half-lifes narrative style they way you experience it from the first person and never lose control of your character. It was a very brave move that added an extra level of immersion. The only problem was Gordon Freemans character that never talked or interacted. It's the same problem silent protagonists in old RPGs have. It's meant to represent the player but it never can unless the player can use his avatar to interact and change the preceedings in a game instead of being on a roller coaster ride with no way off.

Has anyone played either the Westwood Blade Runner or both Fallout games? I heard they do a pretty good job of creating a non linear narrative.

Cunny-Funt

Jazzy wrote: »

Halo is the ultimate in this sort of false greatness. itself and gears might as well have been perceived and made by michael bay. the amount of money put into these type of title means that the publishers just tell you that its story is awesome and epic and 'off the chain' and of course the pelicans gobble it up and ask for more. then they sit down and read twilight. i hate to sound boastful here but thank god im not stupid. it sounds so f**king boring

I seriously seriously could not agree more with this. Its almost sig worthy.

Retro I've read your opinions on FF7's storyline a few times alright.

I played it when I was 13, it blew me away like nothing else, it was like what star wars was for me when I saw that when I was even younger. But this was different, as I was 13 and it had a deeper impact being a game, so I was participating in it. I've not had the experience of the other games that you bring up, so I'd say your probably right although maybe FF7 was not as entirely ****e as you say either.

But anyway, yeah, characters like cloud and sephiroth probably wouldn't appeal to me if I played a game now at my age like that, more so cloud. But I think being a young teenager your gonna be more prone to liking such a character too.

Ah **** I was gonna go on but lets not make this an FF7 thread.

One thing I think that holds games back in the regards we are discussing is well, their name...video games. When they are so so much more then that. They'll move beyond it even more so (Or some titles will I mean) They need a new name I think. Also the term video games is still what leads to some of the ignorant views from those who still don't understand 'games' how they really are such a revolution in entertainment and potentially story telling, they still view them ignorantly as little kids toys... its infuriating. Interactive entertainment is too long winded. I dunno.

One thing about story telling recently thats bugged me is the use of voice actors. For example I think if FF7 was voice acted back in the day it would have actually taken something away from the experience. Then theres Mass Effect.. versus kotor your character has less interaction with your teammates and the world because he/she was now voice acted, and thus they had to reduce a lot of what could be said.

Of course really good voice actors can add to things. It'll be interesting to see when/if voice recognition gets to the stage where you as a player interact with the games character by ways of dynamic conversation, solving puzzles by talking to the characters yourself and so forth. Evolving story lines etc. That could be game play in itself, of course it'll be awhile before we see this, voice recognition is dodgy atm, and AI dynamic conversations/responses is a long way off (look at ArmA/ArmA2 etc).

Stev_o

Well one of the more predominat dynamic narative techniques these days seems to be morale choices. Most modern games fall flat on their head when they try implement it and in fact the only game that i have personal played that really made me feel that i should think about what i was doing or going to do or play was The Witcher.

There are countless times in that game where you are asked to make a decision and your like "crap if i mess up here what will be the repercussions down the line". It was probably one of the few games that i played while consulting a online walkthrough as i felt there was a specific way i wanted my character to be but yet i still managed to feck up on certain choices either through lack of thought or infact just plain laziness

The autopsy quest in fact is one of the few game experiences where the game lets you do it whether you have either taken the advice of the other characters and read autopsy books or not. Lazy gamers end up inevitably getting things horribly wrong and start wandering down a path they would later regret

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I have to say I really respect Half-lifes narrative style they way you experience it from the first person and never lose control of your character. It was a very brave move that added an extra level of immersion. The only problem was Gordon Freemans character that never talked or interacted. It's the same problem silent protagonists in old RPGs have. It's meant to represent the player but it never can unless the player can use his avatar to interact and change the preceedings in a game instead of being on a roller coaster ride with no way off.

Half-Life just about gets away with it because it is just a (fantastic) summer blockbuster / action game. The presence of the G-Man helps give some kind of narrative sense to your character not being able to interact - Freeman is just stuck on a rollercoaster with someone else calling the shots. HL works even with the limitations, but as you say RPGs suffer more. At least in Bioware games or the Persona series you have the ability to choose from a limited amount of options, which at least gives you some sort of influence over the way conversations unfold.

Actually, on Persona 3/4, which I'm pretty much obsessed with at the moment and are fast becoming my favourite games in a long, long time. Outside of the main, linear narrative I think the design of the subplots are fantastic. Not only can you choose when and if you want to befriend characters, but your interactions with them have massive impacts on the world and the combat system. This is one thing a lot of games fail to do - build relationships established in narratives into the overall game. Take Final Fantasy or any other RPG - the gameplay and narrative are often far removed. Your relationship with Aeries had no effect on her combat skills, to take one example. In Persona 4, your relationship with your social links DOES effect the underlying gameplay. Nice little touches like characters helping you out more in battle if your friendlier with them help create a more believable relationship. It is just one way that narrative events can tie in with the game itself. The Persona games really feel like you have a significant impact upon the characters and the world, which very few other games have managed to pull off. Yeah, you may have to put up with walls of text, but no game I have ever played has featured such memorable and likable characters.

Cunny-Funt

Stev_o wrote: »

The Witcher.

Hmm I may actually take a look at this game, sounds interesting.

Retr0gamer

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Actually, on Persona 3/4, which I'm pretty much obsessed with at the moment and are fast becoming my favourite games in a long, long time. Outside of the main, linear narrative I think the design of the subplots are fantastic. Not only can you choose when and if you want to befriend characters, but your interactions with them have massive impacts on the world and the combat system. This is one thing a lot of games fail to do - build relationships established in narratives into the overall game. Take Final Fantasy or any other RPG - the gameplay and narrative are often far removed. Your relationship with Aeries had no effect on her combat skills, to take one example. In Persona 4, your relationship with your social links DOES effect the underlying gameplay. Nice little touches like characters helping you out more in battle if your friendlier with them help create a more believable relationship. It is just one way that narrative events can tie in with the game itself. The Persona games really feel like you have a significant impact upon the characters and the world, which very few other games have managed to pull off. Yeah, you may have to put up with walls of text, but no game I have ever played has featured such memorable and likable characters.

What I like about Persona as a whole is that it manages to successfully graft on a contemporary setting on to a videogame. You've got an excellent and quite accurate account of japanese teen school life graphed successfully on to a typical japanese RPG with demonic summoning and dungeon crawling. There's far too much space marines and generic fantasy that we never see a modern normal enviroment outside of the odd exceptions like Shenmue and adventure games.

I can't believe Shin Megami Tensei passed me by until recently. The SNES games are way ahead of their time and don't aspire to the usual anime style story. It's vision of the apocalypse also predates evangelion so there's thankfully no influence from that. Bit off topic because it doesn't exactly tell it's narrative in any special way.

If anyone wants to see some excellent narrative that uses the medium of videogames to tell it's story they need to check out Panzer Dragoon Saga. It's the usual japanese RPG way of story telling until the very end (albeit one of the best stories of any videogame) with one of the cleverest endings I've seen that really ties up everything. It also would never have worked in anything other than a videogame.

There's really not many games that actually tell a story that could never have worked in any other medium. Shadow of the Colossus is one of the exceptions. Taking down a colossus by your actions is rather cathartic due to the fact that it was the players actions that took down such a magnificent being selfishly and this feeds into the general narrative. I'd like more videogames to use the interation element of videogames to tell a story since it's the main advantage they have over any other artist medium.

NeoKubrick

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

He's one of the few in the industry who has tried (and, it must be said, come some way short) of creating fully realised, ambitious stories.

Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater treated as a blockbluster popcorn film is as good as any film of that type released in recent times, and all within a game that most rank as the best in the series. He didn't fail or come up short with that iteration in the series in neither as a narrative nor, game.

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Metal Gear Solid series has a very restricted dynamic narrative but thats because there is such a strong focus on characterisation (especially on the lead) that players need to be put into his mindset.

That's incorrect. Metal Gear Solid 2, 3 and 4 hasn't a restricted 'dynamic narrative'.


The problem this discussion has is that gamers erroneously want games to be films, the same way that bookworms wanted films to be written fiction.

rizzla

Didn't read everything but thought I should mention Chris Crawford, he coined the term "Interactive Storytelling". Here's a quote..

"The experience of interactive storytelling differs substantially from that of a conventional linear story. A linear story 'runs on rails' from start to finish in the most powerful and expeditious manner possible. The interactive storytelling experience meanders through a dramatic universe of possibilities. It lacks the sense of directed inevitability that gives conventional stories such power. It is like a butterfly flitting across a meadow, not a hawk plummeting down on its prey. The closest form of traditional storytelling is the soap opera, which concentrates on the relationships among the characters rather than the particulars of plots."

Good article here..

http://www.costik.com/gamnstry.html

L31mr0d

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Why it worked is that the storyline made you like her. If you will, she insisted upon herself. It also wasn't the first time a game did it and it certainly wasn't the best at the time.

It affected me because I thought, finally, Aeris was going to invite me in for some pixelated "hot coffee"... but then Sephiroth jumps in and completely ruins it... goddamn you Sephiroth... *sob* goddamn you

NeoKubrick wrote: »

The problem this discussion has is that gamers erroneously want games to be films, the same way that bookworms wanted films to be written fiction.

It depends on the genre really. I think most gamers accept that some genres have the capacity to greatly improve on the narrative and impact of film.

I think an issue with games is that you don't play them in 1 sitting, you break immersion and then come back to it at your leisure. I've done this with movies on occasion, where I would stop them and then finish them the next morning. Whereas I could slot back into the story the next day, the immersion and emotional changes the film might of been evoking had been lost.

Games like Portal mean more to me because I sat down and played them from start to finish in 1 sitting. I went right from the feeling of being trapped, to hesitating in killing my companion cube, to closing my mind and hoping the wall scrawlings where actually the lie, to feeling fooled and merely a worthless test subject for glados to then escaping and breaking out into freedom.

When I play games I try to complete them in as few sittings as possible. I find if I do this, it keeps the motives and feelings of the protagonist fresh in my mind so that I can more easily immerse myself into the game. This is one of the main reasons why I like FPS's with a ~10 hour campaign. I can start the game early in the day and play through it to completion in one sitting.

Vegeta

What a great thread.

I have never put phrases on the "dynamic" or "constructed" narratives but I do bitch and moan about them a lot

Just to touch on some games mentioned. I think some games have suffered by introducing more constructed narrative. GTAIV is one of them. I liked those games because they were big open ended cities were you could go around and crash into lines on monks. Now you have to endure lots of cut scenes depicting clichéd rehashes of gangster films. You decide you want to just have a bit of fun and immerse yourself in the dynamic elements of the game and your annoying cousin tries to ring you every 5 minutes.

The best part of GTAIV, for me, is the multiplayer. The constructed narrative in that is very simple, kill the other guys. The dynamic one however is quite broad and hugely enjoyable.

Generally as a rule for me, the more dynamic a game the better. The big caveat of course is if the dynamic elements are done poorly. I think RE4 was done really really well but it was pushed too far in RE5 and they kinda broke the game. It just became very unrealistic, I know games are not real but I expect humans, especially highly trained agents, to move at normal human speed.

This brings me to a point. If I had to choose between a game with an excellent constructed and poor dynamic, or the opposite, great dynamic and poor constructed then I would pick the great dynamic in most cases.

I am playing Too Human, a 3rd person action adventure RPG, at the moment and man the constructed narrative is horrible. Very long cut scenes, a mish mash of a setting. You play a Norse mythological character, in a futuristic, technological world, where the internet (cyberspace) is implemented as a fantasy realm and accessing it is considered magic. The flow is very, do this now, go here now. Complete mess and not very interesting at all.

I just had to kill a character there and I didn't want to at all, as I can see the twist coming a mile away, but I had zero choice. Annoying to be forced to do it

The dynamic narrative isn't too hot either, camera can be a bit off. Its not user controlled. I think the combat is acceptable and the levelling system is a bit of a waste as the enemies level with you.

Still the dynamic elements are keeping my interest and I will probably finish it.

Also playing some Forza 2 which has about as limited a constructive as you can get. Win the race, the end. The game is amazing though. I am a car fan and everything about the dynamic elements of the game satisfies me. From the physics to the tuning options.

So if I were to advise people designing games, use the dynamic elements which are pretty unique to the medium of games to tell your story. Don't overly rely on constructive narratives.

Jazzy

i dunno, i think retr0 has a lot of unnecessary hate towards ff7. sure its the 'big one' but ultimately it tells its story well and there is a surprising amount of depth including undertones of great expectations set against a backdrop of the fight for nature and is it justified. its an easy enough game to hate because of the fanfare around it, but that happens.

ultimately what i think games have the advantage story telling wise is the fact that you have to play them. in films and books its easy to nod off and you dont really have to put in the work.. they are right in front of you. with games you have to play them out and you have to do everything yourself. this can be a great boon for stories that are planned properly and executed with style but if you're story has any weakness then it is going to be magnified 500 times more. thats often why it can be a case of the simpler the better (see Super Metroid) and if you do go for the complex (deus ex) you better make sure you take your time and know which chaff to cut

Winters

tl:dr.

Retr0gamer

Jazzy wrote: »

i dunno, i think retr0 has a lot of unnecessary hate towards ff7. sure its the 'big one' but ultimately it tells its story well and there is a surprising amount of depth including undertones of great expectations set against a backdrop of the fight for nature and is it justified. its an easy enough game to hate because of the fanfare around it, but that happens.

I don't hate the game but do think it's horribly overrated. It really doesn't tell it's story well at all. The 'deep undertones' and themes are actually handled incredibly hamfistedly, on par with a captain planet episode and it's full of plot holes and deus ex machina. The worst thing about it though is that it's not told wel, the story is a mess and nothing really gets resolved.

Here's a good case for nostalgia vs. the benefits of hindsight.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=947367&postcount=1

I was 19, impressionable, young, dumb and full of cum.

Really dumb. (thought I was much younger when I wrote that though?

There's not one game with the exception of Grandia and FFVII in that l would regard as having a good storyline now.

I shouldn't have been allowed vote then.

Stev_o

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I don't hate the game but do think it's horribly overrated. It really doesn't tell it's story well at all. The 'deep undertones' and themes are actually handled incredibly hamfistedly, on par with a captain planet episode and it's full of plot holes and deus ex machina. The worst thing about it though is that it's not told wel, the story is a mess and nothing really gets resolved.

Here's a good case for nostalgia vs. the benefits of hindsight.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=947367&postcount=1

I was 19, impressionable, young, dumb and full of cum.

Really dumb. (thought I was much younger when I wrote that though?

There's not one game with the exception of Grandia and FFVII in that l would regard as having a good storyline now.

I shouldn't have been allowed vote then.

[/QUOTE=Retr0gamer]3. Metal Gear Solid (Love the 'it could really happen' storyline)[/QUOTE]



Clearly physic enemies that could levitate were nearing a scientific breakthrough in 2003 :pac:

Jazzy

it tells it just as well as any other rpg from the 90s tbh, with the exception of crono trigger

Retr0gamer

You should play the 2 shin megami tensei games. Way ahead of FFVII and anything else at that point, and well even now. there's plenty of other games that told a better story than FFVII and predated it including Phantasy Star IV, Lufia 2 and I would also rate FFVI higher than it.

Kama

Fascinating OP...

The games I've loved most are those where the constructive narrative was dominant, especially in rpg's, being told who you are is somewhat immersion-breaking, and the more projective aspects of character identification go out the window. Similarly, when plot progression has that complete rail-shooter feel, choice and involvement reveal themselves as meaningless. Taking Fallout 3, I can shoot all sorts of nice people in the head, but so long as I give enough water to beggars sure it's all ok, I'm a 'Good Guy' with a halo on my head. 'Choice' (like in Fable) turns into a cosmetic superficial layover on the underlying structure...would you like Coke or Pepsi with your fries, on the ethical drive-through...

Compare this with the Black Isle/Troika tradition in rpg's; Fallout 1 and 2 through Arcanum to Planescape: I'm choosing, ethically, practically from the get-go, and those choices matter. Planescape: Torment for me was the most extreme in terms of narrative engagement; the choices you make expressing an ethical outlook and worldview, with the horrible nagging feeling that this is going to kick you in the ass at some point. Who you choose to be becomes the point of the game, rather than being pre-determined or revealed, with a underlying plot substrate that can 'hang' whatever approach you take, and invites this kind of self-interpretation and self-creation, where your role is creatively enacted rather than pre-determined.

Narrative-based games have to have an end point, otherwise the narrative has no focus. Build towards liberating (or conquering) a planet, killing a tyrant, rescuing a loved one, discovering your origins.... they are tangible goals. Games can have multiple routes to these outcomes (and even multiple outcomes), but they are always going to be finite.

Take a classic example of emergent constructive narrative, from the dawn of gaming: Elite. There's a world of star systems, more than you can feasibly visit, and you make up your own mind what to do. It's fascinating reading about when they were developing it, that the more dynamic-interpretive aspects emerged: 'hmm we can put a scoop for debris in...ah, if we can scoop debris people can be pirates!'. Adding tools created the possibilities for alternate methods of play, and people projected their own character and meaning onto this Rorscach-like structure. There wasn't an end, but there was a beginning; I'd agree you need the beginning, but an end less so.

Wind forward, and take the now-dated follow-up, Privateer2: The Darkening, merging a linear Main-Quest, with a more open-world space-trader-pirate-etc, through to a more player-generated model currently terminating with EVE.

Perversely, this sort of thing was easier with old games, or currently with small indie games like Uplink from Introversion: provide the tools, and let the constructive side emerge from play dynamics. Uplink scores highly here: 'heres how to hack, heres all sorts of things that are hackable, now go to!'. Age of Decadence would be a forthcoming rpg where the dynamic construction of narrative looks to be more fully foregrounded, following the Troika/BlackIsle approach.

The most fun with 'closed' systems tends to be screwing around with them; one of my favourite moments when I used WoW was an impromptu naked fistfighting party in AV, that was scrupulously enforced by the onlookers: anyone messing with the 'neutral zone' was put down. It's this kind of emergent play fascinates me.

retr0gamer wrote:

These types of games would require a huge investment in time and money and since it's such an unknown quanity a publisher would not be will to invest in such a project. The ones that do get made are very ambitious but ultimately only noble efforts since they are bug riddled messes.

Agree...Troika's games were phenomenally aspirational, but tended to be released in a woefully buggy and unfinished form, hence the quote that they were 'a hole from which great ideas failed to crawl out of'. Some of it is also the constraints from high-budget graphics-intensive expectations, and the desire to make 'blockbuster' games. Not many people actually want open-ended dynamic games, or narrative and meaning based games, and they're a b*tch to do...The exceptions are weird little indies: Eskil with Love, Mount and Blade, Introversion Software etc. I'm more excited about Love than any game in the last 5-10 years...

L31mr0d

Retr0gamer wrote: »

young, dumb and full of cum.

So that's what the Sakura outfit was for :pac:

BlitzKrieg

I'd get back with a more *INTENSE* response when I have time (at work) but two quick things

1.

ultimately what i think games have the advantage story telling wise is the fact that you have to play them

I could argue for story telling, games are at a disadvantage because you play them and therefore the viewer is locked into a single perspective. Consider how few games would have cutscenes following characters that are nowhere near your current location. The game's are put in a difficult position to write the playable character into every event in the game. Some games have worked ways around this (multiple playable characters being the most straightforward.)

2.
Secondly if people are interested in these sort of threads, we could do more and get a sort of series of threads together covering numerous topics.

Kama

I'm really interested...

I could argue for story telling, games are at a disadvantage because you play them and therefore the viewer is locked into a single perspective.

I could argue back that for story-telling, where you are told the story, they are in just as good a position; you are given a story, as you might be read a book as a child, and you may have a dynamic or projective involvement or identification, but it cannot alter how the story unfolds. You are more locked into the perspective than in a game.

Games, or plays, like original rolepaying, the participant has an active involvement in how the story unfolds, although this is generally within the constructive limits of the programmed narrative. A pre-computer mid-point would have been things like choose-you-own-adventure books, where the set of possible endings is constructed, but the dynamic element is selecting what endings you enact. The effects of my involvement, whether shallow or deep, tend to factor into how immersive and enjoyable I find a game.

Once we get into games where more of the experience is user-constructed, it changes radically; the rise of 'sandbox' open-world play, or the genre coming from SimCity: here are some tools and abilities, here is a world, go enjoy it.

Where games have the advantage on other forms of media, films books etc, is your potential influence on outcome. You can have multiple perspectives on the same world; I'm currently playing an idiot savant in Arcanum, a technological genius with the mind of a 4 year old conversationally; it's a very different playthrough and experience to being a socially-adroit character.

NeoKubrick

Vegeta wrote: »

[...]

An Elder Scrolls moderator talks at length about 'dynamic narrative', but fails to cite either of the greatest examples, Morrowind or Oblivion?

L31mr0d wrote: »

It depends on the genre really. I think most gamers accept that some genres have the capacity to greatly improve on the narrative and impact of film.

That's not related to film. There's a difference between a narrative that is sentimental, immature, pandering to that of which is subtle, intelligent, and uncompromising. The evolution from the former to the latter is not the sole enterprise of filmmakers; it's the enterprise for all artists on any medium. There's a difference between aspiring to attain standards other mediums have set and aspiring to be other mediums.

Retr0gamer

NeoKubrick wrote: »

An Elder Scrolls moderator talks at length about 'dynamic narrative', but fails to cite either of the greatest examples, Morrowind or Oblivion?

There's a start, there's a middle and there's an end. There's also some side quests that are optional and have no affect on the story scattered around a huge landscape. It's hardly dynamic really.

Kama

There'll always, necessarily be a start. Barring fully emergent content, or continual expansion, there'll be an end, in most games.

What counts is the middle, and what you can do with it. Morrowind, you could walk away from the main questline right at the start, and just play around and find stuff. There not being an invisible wall or a banner dragging you back on 'you must fulfiul your destiny' lines was what was so liberating about Morrowind, for me.

Some form of narrative coherence demands a degree of constructive, laid-down structure. Ideally, there's a main story arc or arcs, that is affected by your choices, but you can wander off and do your own thing too.

johnny_ultimate

I think one thing Bethesda games do well is at least give you some sort of room to tackle subplots in your own way. While this often is merely a typical 'good or evil' dynamic, it is still very welcome to be able to go in either all guns (or swords) a blazing, or try and talk through the situation instead. I think this kind of shows up the weakpoints in the central storylines though, which are far more linear compared to the sidequests you have to go looking for. I do like Oblivion / Fallout 3, but the worlds in those two games still feel a little too artificial to fully pull you in.

The good vs evil polarity is one thing developers either need to reconsider though. The problem with the gamers is they often demand rewards, which makes it very difficult to create more ambiguous morality. I'd love to see a game create a world where decisions weren't always as expected - like somewhere where doing what you perceive to be the 'good' thing has a negative outcome, outside of your control. Fable II made some efforts at this - in creating incidences where trying to remain morally composed led to some significant in game losses. Braid also had that crushing but brilliant ending when the developer revealed that you may not have been doing the right thing all along, and tied the gameplay mechanics wonderfully into that painful conclusion. But these games are too rare. For narratives to truly advance, not all games should be intent on rewarding the player with more experience or unlockables - let them suffer for a change.

BlitzKrieg

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's a start, there's a middle and there's an end. There's also some side quests that are optional and have no affect on the story scattered around a huge landscape. It's hardly dynamic really.

dynamic narrative are the bits between those constructive elements. They are the ones the player chooses, how he plays the game and the resulting experiance from it.

All games use a combination of dynamic and constructed narrative, but from genre to genre the level of dynamic and constructed narrative varies.

third person and first person action games, tend to be heavy on constructed narrative and limited on dynamic narrative as the level design + variety of options given to the player (shoot, run live, to paraphrase half life's original advertising) are focused on combat gameplay. So obviously the dynamic narrative for the player is going to be locked into how he takes down the waves of opponents (course there is variety there between weapon choice, gameplay styles and set pieces) essentially telling an action flick with the player controlling the action sequences while the game dictates the bits in between.

The Elder Scrolls series the constructive narrative is dictating a fantasy romp across some lands, but the dynamic narrative *should* be that how the player tells the story of how this story plays out. Course Oblivion is an example of the challange between dynamic and constructive narratives butting heads as the design of the constructive narrative coupled with the auto leveling of monsters caused difficulties for players who tried to go a route where they were not combat focused, resulting in certain sections required in the main quest being controller breakingly annoying and pulling them out of the narrative they had created themselves.


Dynamic narrative is seen as the desired result. But I would argue that GTA 4 is the better game over the original GTA because it put more constructed narrative into the game, directly rewarding me as a player when I progressed and crafting variety in set pieces or opening up new ideas that left to my own affairs I would not have considered, of course it created problems aswell, with the constructed narrative butting in when I didnt want it to.


Maybe it should be written as a sort of rule of videogame storytelling, if you give player's freedom do not create some element to bug them back onto the main plot. There are many many many many examples of characters or devices in video games that just end up P*ssing players off and the internet is full of webcomics etc showing how P*ssed off it made them.

examples include

Navi from Zelda Ocarina of Time

the mobile phone from both Dead Rising and GTA 4

It is something that developers should be aware of that they shouldnt bug players to get back to their constructive narrative.

Some nice touches I noticed recently were the ones where it was optionable to ask for a pointer back to the main quest (Prince of Persia) or in one case with Red Faction 3, the game bugged you to go off and do random sh*t rather then the main quest (which varied from annoying to ooh! break sh*t!) when it dropped you messages every now and then saying something was over here, go blow it up if you want or stick to the main mission.

I could argue back that for story-telling, where you are told the story, they are in just as good a position; you are given a story, as you might be read a book as a child, and you may have a dynamic or projective involvement or identification, but it cannot alter how the story unfolds. You are more locked into the perspective than in a game.

Yes but being read a book as a child is the first step into story telling, it shouldnt be looked at as some example of triple A quality storytelling, its more like cycling with the training wheels on, you get the task done but its nothing special. Reading books become the the great cultural rock of civilisation when the child moves from having the story read to them to reading it themselves.

comparing video games to the first steps into reading is really drawing a large gap between the strength of literature and the ability of video games.

Which is a genuine gap, the question is how do we close it.

Kama

Exactly. Reading as an interpretive act supersedes being 'told a story'.
Stories in games tend far more to be told to us, there's no ambiguity or participation, whereas (in contradistinction to most literature) we are actively involved as a supposed actor in games, and our role potentially far more generative of meaning, than interpretive of a story told to us.

Keeping with story-telling, oral storytelling seems to have been a far more flexible, malleable, open-ended phenomena; stories grow with the telling, change and mutate, and can be actively reconfigured to new ends. A printed story is more 'fixed' in form and meaning than this, but an interactive world potentially less fixed.

Computer games are comparatively such a recent development, that the gap between current state, and the visible potential, seems so large because, McLuhan style, the message still takes the form of the older mediums: linear, passive-participant, narrative and meaning as given-to; the story is 'read to us', with very little scope for the play of imagination (eg. prolonged cinematics between railshooty-checkpoints), while the new medium has more qualities of active participation, and involved negotiation and creation of meaning, and of what the 'fun' in the 'play' actually is; niches of ecological fun being created within the terrain of a game, that the developers may never have even considered.

Ambiguity is a rarity in games; good is good, and good choices lead to good outcomes. There are good characters and bad characters, and bad characters do bad things. Developmentally, this is still quite primitive as narrative goes; again, why I loved Planescape so much was that it invited and supported so many views and interpretations of your role in the world...but this took phenomenal writing ability to pull off.

I don't think we've seen the equivalent of AAA story-telling in games yet, ...which is great news, that the best is yet to come.

NeoKubrick

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There's a start, there's a middle and there's an end. There's also some side quests that are optional and have no affect on the story scattered around a huge landscape. It's hardly dynamic really.

Morrowind and Oblivion are the very definition of 'dynamic narrative'. 'Dynamic narrative' refers to the narrative created by the player, not the designer. You state that there's a constructed narrative scattered around a huge landscape with a start, middle and end, but the player can ignore it and erase it from the player's narrative. Players have the freedom to choose to be whomever they want, without ever being shackled or forced into the constructed roles of The Hero of Cyrodiil or The Neveraine.

Hence, Morrowind and Oblivion are games that are best played with your own rules/narrative. When I play Oblivion, sometimes I impose the invisible rule that I push the difficulty slider to the point where enemies take only three or four hits to kill and I don't wear armour or anything that levels-up my defense so that I only can take three or four hits myself; this is to simulate a more realistic experience. Sometimes I impose the invisible rule that I can't use 'wait' or 'fast-travel' ad infinitum. I read a thread by a guy who started a game on Morrowind with the intention of solely living off of the land and nature. In both games, the player can craft his/her own tale, and from the variety and difference of those recounted on all the fan forums, it's incredibly dynamic and more importantly, interesting.

Retr0gamer

Well I've got to totally disagree there. Mirrorwind and Oblivion have one linear storyline and the sidequests are just small self contained narratives within the same universe that can be ignored. Also the level of choice in these stories is only barely affected by player choice since all the options are predetermined by the developer and how you achieve them is set in stone. As for the invisible rules you set, it doesn't really count as dynamic narrative. I've finished Rocket Knight Adventures without taking a hit and played a competitive game of 'chuck off the helicopter' in Gunstar heroes with my brother. I wouldnt' call it dynamic narrative.

Something like GTA 3 on the other hand has a lot of dynamic narrative. You are given an object but the player can go about how he achieves this any way they want. It's something I feel is sorely missing from the later GTAs where all the missions were instanced and the game world was reset at the start of each mission.

Jazzy

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I've finished Rocket Knight Adventures without taking a hit

nice

BlitzKrieg

I would argue something between neokubrick and retrogamer. As I already said Morrowind and Oblivion tried for a strong dynamic narrative in its games but it is conflicting with the game's constructed narrative, You should in theory be able to complete quests by any means you decide but the game's constructed narrative tends to have such specific win conditions that you are usually forced to do it a specific way. There are dynamic elements, with the multiple roles the player can assume with their own quests (thief) and also the leveling system, but the quests within each role tend to be very firmly defined. Saying it lacks dynamic narrative though is also wrong. elements like *invisible rules* defined by the player would be something I would consider dynamic narrative.

which reminds me there were a number of people who played silent hunter 3 in real time. Which means to do one mission literally took them weeks to complete with the machine left running.


And on the rocket knight completion with no hits...PICS OR GTFO!

Retr0gamer

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

And on the rocket knight completion with no hits...PICS OR GTFO!

I could easily do it again. The only pain in the arse is you have to play it multiple times to get the extreme difficulty mode that was 1 hit kills.

Jazzy

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I could easily do it again. The only pain in the arse is you have to play it multiple times to get the extreme difficulty mode that was 1 hit kills.

wats your fastest super metroid time then champ? ^^

NeoKubrick

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well I've got to totally disagree there. Mirrorwind and Oblivion have one linear storyline and the sidequests are just small self contained narratives within the same universe that can be ignored. Also the level of choice in these stories is only barely affected by player choice since all the options are predetermined by the developer and how you achieve them is set in stone. As for the invisible rules you set, it doesn't really count as dynamic narrative. I've finished Rocket Knight Adventures without taking a hit and played a competitive game of 'chuck off the helicopter' in Gunstar heroes with my brother. I wouldnt' call it dynamic narrative.

'Dynamic narrative' is the gameplay and how much or little freedom the player has to create within is the crux of its application. Aside from the obvious and irrelevant, there is little difference between the Grand Theft Auto series and the Elder Scrolls series: you can't logically say one has a lot of 'dynamic narrative' and the other, little. Morrowind and Oblivion, and Grand Theft Auto series are at the very top scale of 'dynamic narrative': the player can ignore the constructed narrative and feasibly create their own narrative. Both Elder Scrolls games have a linear storyline, but within the 'dynamic narrative', a player can complete the storyline by hack'n'slash, archery, stealth, magic, or any of the combination of skills available to the player, which isn't linear gameplay. Parts of the main quests in both games are linear, but, are the exception in both, not the rule.

Neither Morrowind nor Oblivion force the player to participate in the main quest or side quests: it's the player's choice. The invisible rules and objectives a player sets will define the 'narrative' in the 'dynamic narrative' of the game: an invisible rule to avoid using 'wait' or 'fast-travel' is played different to an experience without this imposed rule.

To your two examples. I wouldn't say that to go through a game of that type without getting hit is an invisible rule: games of that type should be designed that players can achieve that and aim to; otherwise, it's a flaw in the game. It is another way to play the game; therefore, it adds to the 'dynamic narrative' of the game. And, competitive or multiplayer gaming is irrelevant to this thread (at least my post, anyway): that's a different subject altogether.

I agree, though, with you on GTA3 in relation to the games later in the series, but I think that San Andreas offered a trade-up in the lack of freedom in the 'constructed' missions for uniqueness, which wasn't an unwelcome trade, for me, in a very open sandbox world.

Jazzy wrote:

wats your fastest super metroid time then champ? ^^

His best time is: 0h:31m:0s

Retr0gamer

Jazzy wrote: »

wats your fastest super metroid time then champ? ^^

By the time I got around to playing super metroid I had a summer job and more videogames I could realistically play. When I had my megadrive I was a teen with no money and very few games. I played the **** out of rocket knight adventures. I could also 1 credit Ghouls n' ghosts in the arcade because I played the **** out of the excellent megadrive conversion.

Sorry for going OT

Kiith

I realise that some people may disagree with me here, but the only real examples of truly dynamic narratives in games that i can think of come from online games, specifically MMO's. The reason i see these as dynamic are because they were in no way planned by the developers. I know story telling and narratives are something that a lot of MMO's suck at, but if we are talking about stories dynamically created by the player, then they win hands down.

Take Eve Online as an example. There's no other game (that i can think of) that allows you to play it any way you want to. It basically gives you the setting, and then allows you to write your own story. Take some of the more well known examples of (what i understand would be) dynamic narrative, such as the Guiding Hand Social Club incident (http://eve.klaki.net/heist/) or Goon's hostile takeover of BoB (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7905924.stm). Would these not be the very definition of dynamic narrative?

I realise that not all (or even many) MMO's allow for this level of player control, but its the first thing that came to mind for me for an example of dynamic narrative.

Super thread btw.