To decide whether narrative needs to be in video games-- which is apparently a hotter topic than I ever thought it was-- first you need to define two different things. What is narrative, and what is game? No one can decide on the exact meaning of either of those things, particularly as narrative pertains to video game and particularly as game pertains to video game. Meaning, video games are a new art form (and yes, whether video games are actually art is another hot topic, which I'll discuss at some point later), and no one quite knows how it fits into the larger structure of the world, including pre-existing games, I.E. hopscotch, tag, etc.
But, for the sake of simplicity: a game is a system of rules which the player voluntarily agrees to obey for a set period of time. These rules may or may not resemble those of the real world. A narrative: a structure in which a story progresses, suggesting the existence of a story, and relying on the release of some information pertaining to where a character is from and where he is going.
At this point, I would like to note: there does not need to be a set narrative for the main character, provided that the player is allowed to make choices which can dictate past, present, and future for their character. I would also like to note that narrative does not HAVE to exist for a game to be successful (or in other words, entertaining). ExciteBike for the NES was definitely entertaining. And it had absolutely no narrative or story to speak of. Eventually, the player inferred that they were intended to go around the track. Yes, it was fun, and yes, there was no narrative.
Does narrative BELONG in video games, however? The answer to this is a question: why not? Games that have narrative are proven to be successful. Games that do NOT have narrative are also proven to be successful. They cater to different audiences, or to the same audiences who have different entertainment needs at the time they play the game. When I want some quick entertainment, I play Vexx, an arcade-type PS2 game that involves slashing up monsters and solving puzzles. When I'm in the mood for a gigantic soap opera of a narrative, I go for the Sims-- and note that in the Sims, the entire narrative is of my own design. When I am in the mood for what I term "hardcore gaming," I tug on the headphones and hunker down in front of the PS2 or computer. DND: Gaming Now. I play Spider Solitaire; I play Fallout. I play Portal; I play Zoombinis. People play different things at different times, and many will try anything at least once. The argument that the producers and designers need to be given is that narrative belongs in video games because there is a market for it. But there are other arguments.
In his book, Extra Lives: Why Video Games Matter, Tom Bissell quotes John Hight as saying "Why do we have so many first-person military shooters? Because it's proven these things can sell" (86). First-person military shooter is the genre of game. It is the system of rules that the player agrees to follow in his or her pursuit of fun. But why pick THIS shooter over THAT shooter? There are a lot of RPGs on the market, a lot of shooters, a lot of this and a lot of that. Those are the genre-- genre in games being the set system of rules that certain types of games follow, where most games in a genre contain the same or similar sets of rules.
Fable III. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Dragon Quest IX: Sentinels of the Starry Skies.
These are three RPGs that I have played recently. There are thousands of RPGs on the market-- and granted, Dragon Quest IX is part of the JRPG sub-genre, but it is also known as a Western RPG fusion with the genre, so can stand for both. I could get any of those other RPGs. I HAVE many other RPGs, including a few I haven't played much yet, or at all. Why choose these?
Fable III is a game that I have noted issues with. (Many, many issues.) I chose the original Fable: The Lost Chapters because it had new variations on the same-old RPG genre system. Namely, I could choose my morality. I played The Lost Chapters and was astounded by its humor, its meta ability to poke fun at its own RPG status (à la Heroes' Guild), and my own ability to be badass with a bow. Fast-forward to Fable III. It offered no new genre innovations, yet I bought it anyway. I did this because I wanted a different story for the game that I already knew and loved. Sure, there were different window dressings. My inventory was actually in an entire awesome tower instead of on my back; the bows turned to guns-- which were better and awesomer. But those little details, while occasionally great and occasionally gigantic failures (such as the lack of hit points and will points, eff you Lionhead), where not why I bought the game. I bought it for the change in story, not in the window dressings. I may have preferred the original story-- and I do-- but being a princess whose brother has wrecked my reputation in a destitute nation, fighting to overthrow the man who's killed my lover? Dude, that's awesome. And, that's a story. I can choose whether I want to be a good ruler or a bad ruler; I can roleplay and decide how I think my character would feel about the things she's doing, and I can decide whether she'll keep the promises she makes. In terms of giving me that, Fable III pwned. But Fable III was an instance where the story worked for me, the narrative, and not the game play, thus making it a failure to me: they changed the game mechanics too much from the original, took away all the things I loved. Game mechanics cause a game to succeed or fail. But it's the STORY that gets the game bought for the majority of RPGs, at the very least. Often a radically new setting will work as well, or a new game mechanic, but in a series? It's always the changed story.
Oblivion has no story, pretty much. I don't care about the gates to Oblivion when I play it. I care about the world. I want to live and work and play in the world Oblivion has made for me. I want to affect it, to own it, to be relevant in it. (Ideally, I'd like to own a business, quest for things to sell, and occasionally save my neighbors, just because.) Oblivion is a sandbox RPG: I want it to be my second life. In this case, I want to make up my own narrative, invent my own story. Sandbox games are for a different audience than other RPGs, and always should be DIY narrative. Game mechanics are the end-all, be-all to the sandbox RPG. The story that Bethesda came up with can fall flat if it wants, as long as the mechanics are strong enough for the player to invent her own story.
With Dragon Quest IX: Sentinels of the Starry Skies, I've played Dragon Quest games before. I've played them since they were known as Dragon Warrior and I was playing it on the NES. I bought DQIX because of the story: an angel going around trying to save the world. Cool story is cool. The one failing of DQIX is that its story isn't deep enough, though its mechanics rock. As in Fable, I would have enjoyed the ability to be good, be bad, be whatever I want to be. But DQIX is on rails; it's linear, and has only one outcome. If the story is linear, it HAS to be a compelling story, otherwise the player won't be willing to surrender to it for 50+ hours.
With Fable III, a game can fail because of its mechanics even if it has an intriguing story. With Oblivion, the mechanics are so strong and the story so open that its main storyline is almost irrelevant. With Dragon Quest IX, as with all linear JRPGs, the story is everything.
From these examples, we can extract the conclusion that the more open-ended a game, the less structured narrative necessary. The more linear a game, the more structured narrative necessary.
And let me be clear: regardless of the amount of narrative necessary for a game to succeed, that narrative must be well-written. This means psychologically believable characters. It means fewer stereotypical characters, more well-rounded characters. Characters with personalities. A sense of past and a sense of future, for every character. And it's necessary. Even with a game like Oblivion, it deepens the experience, the sense of realism, the immersion in the world. Complete immersion is imperative to a sandbox game, and it's impossible without decent writing.
Does narrative belong in all games? No. Does it belong in a lot of them? Most definitely. And is writing important? Hells yeah. Of course, I'm a writer, but the point still stands. Virtual reality is the Holy Grail of video games. Complete immersion, and it will be impossible without decent writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment