A few weeks ago the internet was a buzz about David Jaffe and his opinion on narrative in games. If you haven’t read the piece (which you can find here) it basically boils down to “why make stories for a medium where it doesn’t fit?” While Mr. Jaffe is all for narratives derived from choices the player chooses, the idea of cutscenes, dialog, or anything the player does not have any real interaction with is something he thinks video games as a medium are not meant to do. While this point of view is not necessarily unique, David Jaffe is a rather credible game developer (whose credits include the Twisted Metal series and the first God of War) who has made games with storylines and cutscenes, so his point of view carries a bit more weight than the average anonymous internet user. The problem I have with Mr. Jaffe’s point of view is that is seems to be based on the incorrect assumption that the only reason there are games with narratives is because the developers of these games want to tell stories and have picked the wrong medium to tell it in. Developers don’t always put stories in their games because they have a story they want to tell, often times there is stories in games because that is what some players expect and want.
To explain that point it is important to explain the origins of stories in games in the first place. Stories in games started back in the 1970’s when the visual element of games was primitive when compared to today’s standards. In the graphics in the very first video games, a person could count the pixels on screen, and the shapes the pixels made did not necessarily make any sense. The “story” of the game became something like “imagine these pixels are playing tennis” or “imagine that pixel is a spaceship.” This explanations were not just created because the game creator wanted to tell that story, but to give context to the player in order for them to figure out what they are even trying to accomplish. Around the same time, other games relied completely on text for their interactions, and the game world existed pretty much in the players head. Games like the Zork series put the player in the game world by text, and how the player could interact would rely on what commands they would type (for example: “You are in a cave surrounded by goblins, what will you do?” and depending if the player typed in a command the game could understand, then that action and another story beat would commence and lead to another text prompt). These games are called text adventures, and their entire existence relies on games having a narrative. So at the beginning of games, narrative was an integral part.
As graphics, UI, and other elements of games emerged, the need to take the player aside and explain to them what is exactly happening and how the player can react became less and less necessary. Story in games became much more about providing specific contexts and marketing. If a game about airplanes doesn’t sell, why not take the same gameplay and make the game about spaceships? The problem became that a lot of these “clones” were paper thin and players could intuitively figure out whether not a game was exactly the same or offering a similar experience, even if players could not express that vocally. It was near this time that games based on the popular tabletop game Dungeons and Dragons began to take off. Dungeons and Dragons was a game based on a “dungeon master” creating a scenario and then the other participants had to rely on statistics, luck, and wit in order to go through the scenario that was put in front of them. This “dungeon master/participant” was extremely similar to how game creators and game players interacted with each other (especially text adventures) and game developers began to take advantage of the similarities and put the already established system of statistics and wit into their games. This started a wave of games called “RPGs” (role playing games) that began to take PCs by storm. The idea of being able to have the dungeon master integrated into a visually represented dungeon is something that appealed due to its complexity, but also appealed because it took much of the busywork of calculating the math necessary to play Dungeons and Dragons and let the computer handle it.
It was the process of simplification that lead to games like Wizardry and due to the slower pace of RPGs in general (nothing usually would happen until the player made a choice first), it allowed for the developer to insert more story for context and a more expansive game world. This simplification process began to accelerate in Japan where these Dungeon & Dragons PC RPGs were simplified for the Japanese market and made accessible for a wider audience. Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy were made out of the simplification process, and their legacy is still alive and well today. As the popularity of RPGs began to rise, the elements that were contained within them (slower pace, statistics based action, gaining experience in order get stronger) began to permeate through all the genres of video games. Slower story based games were also prominent in the adventure game genre, which was descended pretty directly from text adventure games. Because of their slower pace, adventure games and RPGs could integrate more presentation elements such as better graphics and voice acting in order to appeal more to a wider audience. Action games then began to compete with games like Doom that had both action and presentation, but were still seeped in context (though with the faster pace, the stories were not nearly as integral to the experience as it was with RPGs and Aventure games).
As games continue to simplify and are paced faster and faster, David Jaffe’s criticism of game narratives seems to become more and more valid, why should games have any stories at all? I think the major reason is because the context of the game is still integral to the video game experience. In the metaphorical match between player and game developer “dungeon master,” there forms a contract that the player trusts that the developer will deliver a fair and fulfilling experience in the end. Story and context go a long way in communicating what the player should expect and how they can react to things. Without at least context, the player is signing on to a game where they don’t really know what is going on, and unless the developer makes their game extremely transparent or just simple, the contract between game and game creator is unbalanced. This unbalance leads to players saying something is “unfair” and quickly moving on to something else. Context is important for giving the players more control over their environments and giving their decisions they make in the game have more weight and make more sense. The more ambitious that context, the more risk the game creator’s takes on as the money, time, and energy required to create those contexts can be exponentially larger than a game with no context, but as Bethesda has proven with games like Skyrim, it is an investment that can pay off handsomely.
The final question then is if cutscenes and non-interactive parts in games are necessary. In the end, I think it just depends on the game. In a game that the game creators want to be slower paced and contemplative experience, then cutscenes are a valuable tool in creating that sort of experience. The assertion that using cutscenes in games is “lazy” is something that I just think is a mistake. It might be true for some games, but games that use them correctly make a game experience that is more fulfilling in my opinion. As a general rule of thumb, the key for good cutscenes in games is two-fold, one, providing some sort of context for the game and the world, and two, making sure that those cutscenes have a valid reason for not being interactive. For example, if the game is an action game, and all the mechanics are action based, then cutscenes that are primarily dialog with no real sort of fast movement is perfectly acceptable. Also, if the game is very dialog and exploration mechanics driven, then cutscenes that involve action that the game creators have no mechanics for is also fine. The problematic cutscenes for me are the one that could have been interactive considering the mechanics of the game, but are not for whatever reason. Only then do I even begin to consider whether they are “lazy” or not.
I think David Jaffe has valid points, and his openness with his opinions is refreshing in an industry that seems bent on controlling every single word that comes out of game creators mouths. If it is he does not want to create games that focus on narrative that is his prerogative. For me and others that enjoy narratives in games, the stories that games can tell is both fun and exciting to see what game creators can cook up for the future. Games as narrative is still a relatively new idea (especially considering books, music, etc.) but storytelling in games comes from a valid place in the human experience and I would hate to think that sort of creativity is snuffed out just because people have the notion that it can’t be done. Stories in games are a way to both communicate and contextualize mechanics in games, but also a way that games can transcend those mechanics into something a person brings into their own lives. I look forward to what stories people can tell via game and hope one day we can look back and laugh at the notion that games were once considered a medium that has no story-telling ability.
No comments:
Post a Comment