Thinky stuff: Narrative is top dog

I was being a bit cynical and daft when I wrote two posts ago about how video game storytelling sucks! I still stand by my belief that conventional forms of plot and narratives are horrifically juxtaposed with the play element of those new titles mentioned.

But I cannot consider myself a gaming enthusiast if I didn't think about this a little harder. There are a lot of arguments to counter what I said in that post, a whole lot of them much more respectful of the notion of video games, and what they have to offer as a form of expression, separate from other mediums.

I guess I've lost my way a little in understanding games deeper than the flashbang of shiny graphics and exciting gun play. So I had a chat with a good friend, Dr. Thomas Apperley who is a lecturer at the University of New England in Australia. I've transcribed our discussion below as if it were a faux Socratic dialogue.

Read on if you want some truth bombs on gaming as a form of narrative.

---

Me: I stand by my point that the latest video games out there have really bad storytelling. I know you're all like "meh, storytelling is not the point of games" but man, I'm so sick of playing something that doesn't compel me on.

Tom: If you are playing video games for the story you have missed the point. That doesn't mean games should be allowed bad stories though.

Me: I think it depends on how some video games are sold to audiences. Take Mafia 2 for instance. You can't go into that title without expecting a damn good "Godfather"-like plot. Of course, how it plays is important too but that is an example of a game that is married heavily to its story. It's no Mario, where you can just go, "Okay, I don't really care that Bowser's kidnapped the princess. I've got to go eat me some stars."

Tom: Yep.

Me: So I guess my point is, games that want to act like they've got a really important story to tell should tell a damn important story. Like Assassin's Creed 2, that game may have played well (although certain parts were unnecessarily pointless), but the story could've been a whole lot better.

Tom: It doesn't have to be a conflict, story vs gameplay. Think instead of gameplay as a mode of telling stories that has yet to be realized (fully).

Me: OMG I'm such a dumbass. You're right, I've been so caught up in storytelling as a completely separate element. This is like Gaming 101.

Tom: Right, people always tell stories. And storytelling adapt to the medium. But we've been very busy imposing current ideas about stories onto games which doesn't acknowledge the moves [games] have made towards being their own medium of communication.

Me: I feel stupid LOL. That's the fundamental point isn't it? It's because games exist as a separate medium, from the conventions we already know for storytelling through film, TV, books.

Tom: Yeah, games can use normative forms of storytelling but sometimes it doesn't work. It doesn't drive the game forward; think of gaming as de-hierarchizing narratives and foregrounding action.

Me: This is new. "De-hierarchizing". So what you're saying is narratives as not conventionally told.

Tom: Narrative is top dog. But in games, narrative is tied up with a bunch of other stuff. Or even deliberately suggested, e.g. multiplayer shooters. No narrative needed. Just weapons and environments.

Me: Or you could say the narrative is the whole "war story" in which you are placed.

Tom: Yep, the narrative is the world.

Me: Okay, then here's an interesting thing to consider. Kane & Lynch 2, a story about a bunch of gangster dudes causing a riot in Shanghai. I guess I'd LIKE there to be a plot other than just two guys who keep getting caught up in shit and having to shoot everybody that moves. But that's a kind of storytelling too right? It goes in line with the action which is all about running from one level to the next, and shooting things. But it fails only because the action is unvaried, therefore the plot is unvaried.

Tom: Right, but that sounds like a design flaw too.

Me: Yeah, exactly. Which is why Kane & Lynch 2 reviewed poorly amongst critics.

Tom: Because it's a poorly designed game.

Me: That, and also because the story really does suck. Okay, if I were to throw this ball out of left-field, what would you say is the best storytelling in a game you've seen in the last couple of years?

Tom: Half-Life 2, KotOR, Mass Effect, Bioshock...

Me: I would be most inclined to say that out of all those titles you've mentioned, Bioshock does it best. The first three compel a player to keep playing because of the immersive world, characters, and everything. Bioshock at first glance, does the same with Rapture. But there is that meta-narrative about "players playing video games and being blind sheep" that blows my mind. Which is why it's kind of a shame that Bioshock 2 didn't have anything new or profound to say. But then again, we can't expect it to pull as epic a concept as the first game.

Tom: How could it? The joke was revealed.

Me: Yeah exactly. But my point is, are there other jokes still to be told?

Tom: Sure, man.

Me: Just our brains are not as capable as Ken Levine's LOL.

In conclusion, I think a lot of gamers take for granted, as I have done, the capability for video games to combine interactivity with storytelling. Which is why Starcraft 2 is not about some dude who is trying to save the galaxy. The narrative is about your Protoss play, the strategies you employ, or my Zerg rush or how I won despite being outnumbered and outgunned. Just as Left 4 Dead is about everyone's personal horror story with zombies, with teammates, or how you survived a crazy onslaught at some shopping mall just a hair's breath away from death.

In other news, if you like what Tom spoke about up there, he's written a whole book on video games which is available for download here.

TOD #6: Gaming Rhythms: Play and Counterplay from the Situated to the Global by Dr. Thomas Apperley. I command you to read it, you'll learn something.