Yggdrasil
Educated
This post was partially inspired by an recent thread about whether games can be art:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=43224
I want to argue against the points made mostly by ScottishMartialArts. Here I have copypasted some interesting fragments of posts which support the opposing views:
Aaaaand, a nice finishing touch, which opens right into this discussion:
Similarly to SMA, I am interested in the question whether games can reach the same narrative depths that good literature reaches. (I think the original question "can games be art" is so broad and ill-defined that it's basically pointless.)
On the other hand I don't agree with his/her conclusion. I think that such games can be made, and that they most likely will be text-only games.
First, there's a plenty storytelling elements with literary merits that can be included in games in exactly the same way they can be included in books or movies. Let's take a game like Grim Fandango as an example, and analyze it's story.
Did it have great supporting characters? Yes.
Did it have a good main character? One that was not without faults, but still likable; a character that while was far from being an ideal human, still was someone sympathetic, and even possible to identify with? Check.
Did it have strong dramatical motives for the main character to get going? Check.
Was they main character's journey not only physical, but also a spiritual one? Sure; Manny had to learn to become a better human being to get his ticket out of the Land of the Dead.
Did the story was ended with an effective climax? Of course.
Are there some aspects of "great" literature that Grim Fandango didn't have at least to some minimal extent? If yes, I'm not sure what they were.
So what did Grim Fandango *didn't have* as a game? The answer is simple: interactivity. The player was tied to the railroad of the story. He can choose what to do on each particular occasion, but to progress in the game, he has to do exactly what the authors of the game are expecting him to do (bar the order of the quests in some part of the game). There is still only one way to reach the goals. As all the other adventures, Grim Fandango was more of an player-controlled cartoon than a game.
Second, there are games that had the potential of having not only good, but a great dramatic story even if choices & consequences were included.
Take the first Gothic as an example. In my opinion, it had one of the best stories in RPGs I have seen. You had a clear motivation to both to rise in ranks in the penal colony, and to save your own skin by fighting a greater evil. Saving the world (actually, only the Valley of Mines) was just a nice, but totally unnecessary aftereffect. It didn't really matter in what way did full the promise of they story; you had a lot of freedom, a lot of *role playing* in the middle; the story still was great in any case, by having only the same beginning and the same ending.
Here's one more (quite primitive) example which shows that having choices & consequences are not detrimental to a good story. Imagine this situation: You are in a haunted house. It's dark. You just heard a board creaking somewhere nearby. What are you actions?
This situation can be resolved in a multiple meaningful ways that *all* can lead to good dramatic storytelling. The player can be provided with choices like these:
a) go investigate the source of the sound;
b) try to ignore the sound;
c) fall into panic;
that all can resolve to different, albeit interesting plot developments.
Chris Crawford also expresses similar views:
Now, Gothic somewhat lacked in literary expression. I think it was partly because most of the story was carried out by actions. It seems - paradoxically - that text only medium actually has a greater potential for moving the reader emotionally than almost any other medium. In text-only games, the author has the maximum amount "control" over the player. It's the medium where he has the best options to give only choices that are "dramatically interesting". In other mediums, such a restriction can be seen as either too limiting, or (when “done properly”) as technically too hard to achieve. Also, text-only games are the form of games that is closest to literary fiction.
With "text-only" I don't necessarily mean something like Zork. My idea is closer to the so called "gamebooks". As opposed to mainstream CRPGs, where the majority of dialogue choices are in a way meaningless because they have no consequences, gamebooks were different. When you had to choose in a gamebook, you knew that it was very likely that the wrong choice would lead to your death. In my opinion, the best aspects of gamebooks coupled with the computing powers of moder PCs, could provide some truly memorable gaming experience.
As for the areas where interactive fiction still would fall short as compared to "real" literature:
1) It would be hard to write something like morality tale. Macbeth is good example of what would be hard to do;
2) Writer -> reader "conversation" would be less possible;
3) The main character could easily become not "too nice" to be interesting, especially if he always did just what the reader wanted him to do (i.e. if the reader, not the character made all the decisions). I believe that having some tension between the reader and the protagonist is actually good;
4) Often the unhappy ending is a dramatically better one. Consider Hamlet. It would not be just as good tale if Hamlet simply went and slaughtered all the enemies of his father. A possible solution would be to make all endings unhappy - but would that appeal to players?
Unsurprisingly, I think that a breakthrough (although I suspect it will be more of an evolution than a revolution) in this direction is more likely to come from indie rather than mainstream developers. Not only because making an artsy-fartsy "literary" game would be a creative and financially dangerous experiment, but also because the plethora of the artistic means games developers have available at their command actually are more likely to interfere with, rather than to help having a good "literary" experience.
tl;dr version: video games can be art in the same ways literature can be art; well, at least theoretically and with some limitations.
http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=43224
I want to argue against the points made mostly by ScottishMartialArts. Here I have copypasted some interesting fragments of posts which support the opposing views:
SMA said:Literary narrative and gameplay are two competing priorities and are exclusive from each other. Even in RPGs with dialogue, that dialogue is weighed down with gameplay information -- "Where can I find the village blacksmith?" -- that disrupts the thread of characterization, often minimal, and plot development. Furthermore, developing coherent thematic meaning depends on the actions and feelings of the characters, and the events of the plot happening in a certain way. If Player Achilles tells NPC Patroclus not to worry that the ships are on fire, because he's returning to action, and then after an epic battle through the Trojan ranks, he slays the boss mob Hector, then the themes of the Iliad are never developed and you're left with mush. Likewise, if Player Achilles keeps dying to boss Hector and quits the game. Of course, you can tightly control all of this, but then what room is there for the player's skill and choices if he can't die to a boss because the plot demands it? Again, gameplay and narrative are competing forces, and for that reason games in so far as they're games and not long uninteractive cutscenes, i.e. movies, won't ever be a literary medium.
SMA said:By and large, gamers spend their time playing games instead of reading great literature. Without an example of something truly profound and beautiful, they have nothing to which they can compare their games, and are unable to discover how lacking games are when it comes to thematic meaning and true, awe-inspiring beauty. [..] Still games can be a hell of a lot of fun, but works of art which shape and change how you view the world, leading you to become a more humane, and human, person? Not so much.
Lumpy said:I can't help but roll my eyes whenever somebody recommends playing a game "for the story" - I have yet to see any game rise to the quality of some books I've read, and I'm hardly a well-read person.
SMA said:Again, narrative and gameplay are competing forces in games. The stronger the focus on the narrative, the less and less it can be considered a game, e.g. Heavy Rain. Meaningful narrative depends upon certain things, happening in a certain order, for certain reasons. Alien doesn't work as a movie if Caine makes his saving throw vs. the face hugger, or if they catch the critter when it is still in the chestburster stage. In order to make video game narrative effective, you have to take control away from the player otherwise they're going to screw up the sequence of events, and when you do that, the game ceases to be a game.
You criticized me for judging video games with the same criteria applied to other narrative media, like literature or film. Video games, in so far as they are art, are a narrative medium however, so how else should they be judged?
SMA said:Again, the more control you give to the player, i.e. the more of a game it is, the less coherent and meaningful the narrative -- by narrative, I'm referring to characterization, setting, theme, etc. in addition to plot, i.e. the whole which is the story itself. Any game that is actually a game, i.e. gives the player influence over the outcome of any action, will necessarily have a narrative that only serves to create context for the game, rather than existing for itself as a film or novel does.
Aaaaand, a nice finishing touch, which opens right into this discussion:
SMA said:The games as art folks all seem to be arguing that there really isn't an artistic masterpiece of gaming, but there is the theoretical possibility of one being made. Unless there is some revolution in game design which is inconceivable now, I just don't see how it would happen.
Similarly to SMA, I am interested in the question whether games can reach the same narrative depths that good literature reaches. (I think the original question "can games be art" is so broad and ill-defined that it's basically pointless.)
On the other hand I don't agree with his/her conclusion. I think that such games can be made, and that they most likely will be text-only games.
First, there's a plenty storytelling elements with literary merits that can be included in games in exactly the same way they can be included in books or movies. Let's take a game like Grim Fandango as an example, and analyze it's story.
Did it have great supporting characters? Yes.
Did it have a good main character? One that was not without faults, but still likable; a character that while was far from being an ideal human, still was someone sympathetic, and even possible to identify with? Check.
Did it have strong dramatical motives for the main character to get going? Check.
Was they main character's journey not only physical, but also a spiritual one? Sure; Manny had to learn to become a better human being to get his ticket out of the Land of the Dead.
Did the story was ended with an effective climax? Of course.
Are there some aspects of "great" literature that Grim Fandango didn't have at least to some minimal extent? If yes, I'm not sure what they were.
So what did Grim Fandango *didn't have* as a game? The answer is simple: interactivity. The player was tied to the railroad of the story. He can choose what to do on each particular occasion, but to progress in the game, he has to do exactly what the authors of the game are expecting him to do (bar the order of the quests in some part of the game). There is still only one way to reach the goals. As all the other adventures, Grim Fandango was more of an player-controlled cartoon than a game.
Second, there are games that had the potential of having not only good, but a great dramatic story even if choices & consequences were included.
Take the first Gothic as an example. In my opinion, it had one of the best stories in RPGs I have seen. You had a clear motivation to both to rise in ranks in the penal colony, and to save your own skin by fighting a greater evil. Saving the world (actually, only the Valley of Mines) was just a nice, but totally unnecessary aftereffect. It didn't really matter in what way did full the promise of they story; you had a lot of freedom, a lot of *role playing* in the middle; the story still was great in any case, by having only the same beginning and the same ending.
Here's one more (quite primitive) example which shows that having choices & consequences are not detrimental to a good story. Imagine this situation: You are in a haunted house. It's dark. You just heard a board creaking somewhere nearby. What are you actions?
This situation can be resolved in a multiple meaningful ways that *all* can lead to good dramatic storytelling. The player can be provided with choices like these:
a) go investigate the source of the sound;
b) try to ignore the sound;
c) fall into panic;
that all can resolve to different, albeit interesting plot developments.
Chris Crawford also expresses similar views:
Chris Crawford said:I noted in your early definitions of the topic [..] a reference to the difficulty of reconciling interactivity with narrative. This is a commonly held belief, and one that I reject. [..]
The basis of this falsehood is the belief that any purposeful action on the part of the user is likely to interfere with the pre-planned plot. What if our user decides, as Luke Skywalker, not to go after the missing droid and goof around at home instead? What if Macbeth decides that his wife is a nagging shrew and bumps HER off instead of the king? There went your best-laid plot.
The error here lies in identifying one particular plot with narrative in general. Yes, if Macbeth bumps off Lady Macbeth, then the result isn’t Shakespeare’s “Macbeth” — but does that mean that it’s ruined? There are countless variations on the basic storyline that remain true to the overall theme.
This does not mean that we must permit dramatically destructive behavior on the part of the user. Giving him choices doesn’t require us to give him stupid or boring choices. We can still confine him to dramatically interesting options.
Now, Gothic somewhat lacked in literary expression. I think it was partly because most of the story was carried out by actions. It seems - paradoxically - that text only medium actually has a greater potential for moving the reader emotionally than almost any other medium. In text-only games, the author has the maximum amount "control" over the player. It's the medium where he has the best options to give only choices that are "dramatically interesting". In other mediums, such a restriction can be seen as either too limiting, or (when “done properly”) as technically too hard to achieve. Also, text-only games are the form of games that is closest to literary fiction.
With "text-only" I don't necessarily mean something like Zork. My idea is closer to the so called "gamebooks". As opposed to mainstream CRPGs, where the majority of dialogue choices are in a way meaningless because they have no consequences, gamebooks were different. When you had to choose in a gamebook, you knew that it was very likely that the wrong choice would lead to your death. In my opinion, the best aspects of gamebooks coupled with the computing powers of moder PCs, could provide some truly memorable gaming experience.
As for the areas where interactive fiction still would fall short as compared to "real" literature:
1) It would be hard to write something like morality tale. Macbeth is good example of what would be hard to do;
2) Writer -> reader "conversation" would be less possible;
3) The main character could easily become not "too nice" to be interesting, especially if he always did just what the reader wanted him to do (i.e. if the reader, not the character made all the decisions). I believe that having some tension between the reader and the protagonist is actually good;
4) Often the unhappy ending is a dramatically better one. Consider Hamlet. It would not be just as good tale if Hamlet simply went and slaughtered all the enemies of his father. A possible solution would be to make all endings unhappy - but would that appeal to players?
Unsurprisingly, I think that a breakthrough (although I suspect it will be more of an evolution than a revolution) in this direction is more likely to come from indie rather than mainstream developers. Not only because making an artsy-fartsy "literary" game would be a creative and financially dangerous experiment, but also because the plethora of the artistic means games developers have available at their command actually are more likely to interfere with, rather than to help having a good "literary" experience.
tl;dr version: video games can be art in the same ways literature can be art; well, at least theoretically and with some limitations.