Narrative in Games
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Patrick
Jul 21, 2009, 3:53:17 PM7/21/09
to Thinking about Games
Until recently, I never associated "narrative" with games at all.
Even when I saw others using the term, I couldn't quite imagine how it
fit with games. To me, a narrative is a story, so it's part of a book
or maybe a movie or something. Not a game.
Of course, I know about RPGs. I've never played one face-to-face, but
I have a mental concept of what they're like--and I know they're kinda
like stories being acted out. But I've always thought that was a very
peculiar kind of game--almost not a real game at all.
For years, I was an avid (albeit usually solitary) wargamer. And
wargames are simulations of battles or campaigns or wars. But in all
the years I played them, I never thought of one as telling the *story*
of a battle or campaign; to me, they were just games *about* battles
or campaigns. The starting conditions were represented, matched up
with history, but then players would take over and play the game just
about like chess or anything else.
Reflecting on the concept of narrative, it occurred to me that every
game does have a beginning, middle, and end--just like a story. Move
by move, a game progresses from start to finish. So, in some sense,
even an abstract game has a "narrative" of sorts. Abstract games just
leave out the specific details and keep things completely generic.
I find myself still a little uneasy with the notion of narrative in
games, though. If a game has a story line, can we also say every
piece of music ever written also has a story line? After all, there's
a beginning, middle, and end to music too; it's a progression through
time.
To me, both songs and games defy the usual notion of "narrative,"
though. Because they're infinitely repeatable (or replayable), a song
or game seems to occupy a timeless niche in the universe--like a
painting or sculpture.
Maybe stories do too, but I perceive them differently. And the longer
the story, the less it seems like a stand-alone work of art to me. A
novel is a long narrative, and it takes a while for the reader to get
from the beginning to the end. Hence, one is unlikely to reread it
many times. It may very well be a once-in-a-lifetime thing. In
contrast, a short story could be reread fairly often. And at the
extreme, a poem seems purposely designed to be read repeatedly.
The ideal game, to my mind, has always been akin to the ideal poem (or
song)--a stand-alone work that's infinitely repeatable and yet
inexhaustible in meaning or value.
So, anytime I come across a game that tells an explicit story--i.e.,
has an obvious narrative aspect--I tend to think less of it. Such a
game might be an amusing diversion, like the latest Harry Potter
movie, but it's not going to call me back again and again all my life.
If a game tells an explicit story *and* is long--like a novel--I'm
likely to feel I've finished the game after one playing, maybe two.
By then, I know the story. It's not going to be a surprise to me next
time, so I won't be as interested. An example is the "Legend of Link:
Phantom Hourglass" game I played on my DS several months ago. Once
through, and that was it. I passed the game cartridge on to my wife,
in case she wants to play it someday. She played awhile, then lost
interest.
One of the reasons I think I finally got fed up with Squad Leader and
Advanced Squad Leader is that it began to seem like the same story
over and over and over again. To hold players' interest, designers
are always coming out with new scenarios. And there are some pretty
unique ones. But many of them are alike. How many times can I enjoy
the challenge of capturing a few buildings or exiting my units off the
far end of the map?
That may sound odd, considering that I really like games like
backgammon, dominoes, and cribbage. Surely those games are the same
over and over again. Well, yes, they are. But to me, they seem more
like poems or songs than stories. That is, they're *meant* to be
repeated or replayed. Part of the joy is in discovering something new
with each reiteration. One never gets the feeling that he's "been
there, done that" and is finished with it.
The other thing about classic games that appeals to me is the
abstraction. Maybe they do tell a story in some sense, but it's never
an explicit story. You never know just what the story is about. You
can imagine what it might be about, but that can change from one game
to the next. Chess isn't necessarily a medieval battle; it could be
an abstract representation of high-level business dealings or
political intrigue. Depends on how you interpret the symbolism. In a
game like Hearts or Cosmic Wimpout, the symbolism may go
uninterpreted, and the game will then have an undefined narrative.
I guess I admire a game that maximizes a player's freedom to interpret
(or not) as he sees fit--and which somehow lures him back time and
time again, affording continual challenge and seeming to offer
something meaningful (however vague that might be).
Even when I saw others using the term, I couldn't quite imagine how it
fit with games. To me, a narrative is a story, so it's part of a book
or maybe a movie or something. Not a game.
Of course, I know about RPGs. I've never played one face-to-face, but
I have a mental concept of what they're like--and I know they're kinda
like stories being acted out. But I've always thought that was a very
peculiar kind of game--almost not a real game at all.
For years, I was an avid (albeit usually solitary) wargamer. And
wargames are simulations of battles or campaigns or wars. But in all
the years I played them, I never thought of one as telling the *story*
of a battle or campaign; to me, they were just games *about* battles
or campaigns. The starting conditions were represented, matched up
with history, but then players would take over and play the game just
about like chess or anything else.
Reflecting on the concept of narrative, it occurred to me that every
game does have a beginning, middle, and end--just like a story. Move
by move, a game progresses from start to finish. So, in some sense,
even an abstract game has a "narrative" of sorts. Abstract games just
leave out the specific details and keep things completely generic.
I find myself still a little uneasy with the notion of narrative in
games, though. If a game has a story line, can we also say every
piece of music ever written also has a story line? After all, there's
a beginning, middle, and end to music too; it's a progression through
time.
To me, both songs and games defy the usual notion of "narrative,"
though. Because they're infinitely repeatable (or replayable), a song
or game seems to occupy a timeless niche in the universe--like a
painting or sculpture.
Maybe stories do too, but I perceive them differently. And the longer
the story, the less it seems like a stand-alone work of art to me. A
novel is a long narrative, and it takes a while for the reader to get
from the beginning to the end. Hence, one is unlikely to reread it
many times. It may very well be a once-in-a-lifetime thing. In
contrast, a short story could be reread fairly often. And at the
extreme, a poem seems purposely designed to be read repeatedly.
The ideal game, to my mind, has always been akin to the ideal poem (or
song)--a stand-alone work that's infinitely repeatable and yet
inexhaustible in meaning or value.
So, anytime I come across a game that tells an explicit story--i.e.,
has an obvious narrative aspect--I tend to think less of it. Such a
game might be an amusing diversion, like the latest Harry Potter
movie, but it's not going to call me back again and again all my life.
If a game tells an explicit story *and* is long--like a novel--I'm
likely to feel I've finished the game after one playing, maybe two.
By then, I know the story. It's not going to be a surprise to me next
time, so I won't be as interested. An example is the "Legend of Link:
Phantom Hourglass" game I played on my DS several months ago. Once
through, and that was it. I passed the game cartridge on to my wife,
in case she wants to play it someday. She played awhile, then lost
interest.
One of the reasons I think I finally got fed up with Squad Leader and
Advanced Squad Leader is that it began to seem like the same story
over and over and over again. To hold players' interest, designers
are always coming out with new scenarios. And there are some pretty
unique ones. But many of them are alike. How many times can I enjoy
the challenge of capturing a few buildings or exiting my units off the
far end of the map?
That may sound odd, considering that I really like games like
backgammon, dominoes, and cribbage. Surely those games are the same
over and over again. Well, yes, they are. But to me, they seem more
like poems or songs than stories. That is, they're *meant* to be
repeated or replayed. Part of the joy is in discovering something new
with each reiteration. One never gets the feeling that he's "been
there, done that" and is finished with it.
The other thing about classic games that appeals to me is the
abstraction. Maybe they do tell a story in some sense, but it's never
an explicit story. You never know just what the story is about. You
can imagine what it might be about, but that can change from one game
to the next. Chess isn't necessarily a medieval battle; it could be
an abstract representation of high-level business dealings or
political intrigue. Depends on how you interpret the symbolism. In a
game like Hearts or Cosmic Wimpout, the symbolism may go
uninterpreted, and the game will then have an undefined narrative.
I guess I admire a game that maximizes a player's freedom to interpret
(or not) as he sees fit--and which somehow lures him back time and
time again, affording continual challenge and seeming to offer
something meaningful (however vague that might be).
Sukunai
Jul 22, 2009, 9:33:14 AM7/22/09
to Thinking about Games
Pat, you are one of the few people I know, in gaming, perhaps in
anything on the net, that can write that much, and still be an
interesting read.
I like the comments you made.
I agree with the ASL comment. As much as each scenario will be a
different moment of time gamed out, eventually, it is the same board
being used to tell it. You learn that to take building X on board Y it
is best to approach from direction Z. And eventually he game's
mechanics become known and it's hard to see it other than some card
board counters traversing the board.
The same can be said about Chess of course, like you hinted at. 3 move
checkmate is always a good option if the opponent hasn't a clue what 3
move checkmate looks like.
Anything with any depth of thought, likely will have an opening state,
a middle and a conclusion naturally. To call it a narrative is likely
a stretch, but, every wargame is about a recreated event even if
loosely. It all depends in the player though. If one is steeped in the
lore of the event, one can see the event transpiring in the mind.
While assaulting France, a person might ponder, 'is this what Rommel
felt?'. If playing a global grand strategy design, does one say 'it's
1941 and could I really send anyone else other than Rommel to sort out
the situation in Afrika?'
Games usually have an opening state, a mid game stretch, and a
conclusion where victory is determined, or a storyline concludes. It
is common for players to state 'I beat game X in Y hours'. But that is
only if the game has a specific objective that never changes. And it
is only if the journey is generally always pretty much the same. Chess
has only one ending, that being Checkmate. Finally defeating your
opponent though, doesn't mean you 'beat Chess'.
Each scenario of a wargame has a winning conclusion, and many wargames
have many scenarios. This gives them limited replayability that is
fixed. And a lot of wargamers will often say a game is lacking if it
can only be played a few times with a few scenarios. Some has a great
wealth of scenarios, and they take great lengths of time to complete
them. But, they also need to master immersion. It is easy to play a
'turn' in Chess, as you simply move a single piece. In some wargames
it is just assumed you make your move, and it takes quite a while to
resolve it and your opponent doesn't even bother to wait anxiously for
their next turn as they know it will be a while before it arrives.
Thus some games benefit from a 'fast paced narrative'. They keep the
players actively involved. I personally think this is the ONLY value
of real time strategy. It panders to the gamer that simply wants to be
doing something constantly.
It's not so much they don't want a slow involved narrative, they just
don't wish to be doing nothing. Then again, maybe they could care less
about the back story too. I personally think only the truly devout
history nut is going to play long involved turn based wargames.
Everyone else is more interested in 'playing'. And that is not good or
bad, it's just a case of identifying what your target audience wants.
I think a lot of the Nintendo DS games make it plain, the gamer
doesn't want long term involved complex entertainment, they want fast
furious and quick action.
Civilization Revolution on the DS is a very good example. I LIKE the
full blown PC game, but on the DS, the quick playing and fast
finishing version is generally acceptable. I don't think it was as
successful on the consoles though. I never hear talk of it any more.
Then again, they totally botched the multiplayer.
anything on the net, that can write that much, and still be an
interesting read.
I like the comments you made.
I agree with the ASL comment. As much as each scenario will be a
different moment of time gamed out, eventually, it is the same board
being used to tell it. You learn that to take building X on board Y it
is best to approach from direction Z. And eventually he game's
mechanics become known and it's hard to see it other than some card
board counters traversing the board.
The same can be said about Chess of course, like you hinted at. 3 move
checkmate is always a good option if the opponent hasn't a clue what 3
move checkmate looks like.
Anything with any depth of thought, likely will have an opening state,
a middle and a conclusion naturally. To call it a narrative is likely
a stretch, but, every wargame is about a recreated event even if
loosely. It all depends in the player though. If one is steeped in the
lore of the event, one can see the event transpiring in the mind.
While assaulting France, a person might ponder, 'is this what Rommel
felt?'. If playing a global grand strategy design, does one say 'it's
1941 and could I really send anyone else other than Rommel to sort out
the situation in Afrika?'
Games usually have an opening state, a mid game stretch, and a
conclusion where victory is determined, or a storyline concludes. It
is common for players to state 'I beat game X in Y hours'. But that is
only if the game has a specific objective that never changes. And it
is only if the journey is generally always pretty much the same. Chess
has only one ending, that being Checkmate. Finally defeating your
opponent though, doesn't mean you 'beat Chess'.
Each scenario of a wargame has a winning conclusion, and many wargames
have many scenarios. This gives them limited replayability that is
fixed. And a lot of wargamers will often say a game is lacking if it
can only be played a few times with a few scenarios. Some has a great
wealth of scenarios, and they take great lengths of time to complete
them. But, they also need to master immersion. It is easy to play a
'turn' in Chess, as you simply move a single piece. In some wargames
it is just assumed you make your move, and it takes quite a while to
resolve it and your opponent doesn't even bother to wait anxiously for
their next turn as they know it will be a while before it arrives.
Thus some games benefit from a 'fast paced narrative'. They keep the
players actively involved. I personally think this is the ONLY value
of real time strategy. It panders to the gamer that simply wants to be
doing something constantly.
It's not so much they don't want a slow involved narrative, they just
don't wish to be doing nothing. Then again, maybe they could care less
about the back story too. I personally think only the truly devout
history nut is going to play long involved turn based wargames.
Everyone else is more interested in 'playing'. And that is not good or
bad, it's just a case of identifying what your target audience wants.
I think a lot of the Nintendo DS games make it plain, the gamer
doesn't want long term involved complex entertainment, they want fast
furious and quick action.
Civilization Revolution on the DS is a very good example. I LIKE the
full blown PC game, but on the DS, the quick playing and fast
finishing version is generally acceptable. I don't think it was as
successful on the consoles though. I never hear talk of it any more.
Then again, they totally botched the multiplayer.
Patrick
Jul 22, 2009, 8:59:08 PM7/22/09
to Thinking about Games
> I think a lot of the Nintendo DS games make it plain, the gamer
> doesn't want long term involved complex entertainment, they want fast
> furious and quick action.
> Civilization Revolution on the DS is a very good example. I LIKE the
> full blown PC game, but on the DS, the quick playing and fast
> finishing version is generally acceptable. I don't think it was as
> successful on the consoles though. I never hear talk of it any more.
> Then again, they totally botched the multiplayer.
As I've probably said before, every version of Civilization (I've
> doesn't want long term involved complex entertainment, they want fast
> furious and quick action.
> Civilization Revolution on the DS is a very good example. I LIKE the
> full blown PC game, but on the DS, the quick playing and fast
> finishing version is generally acceptable. I don't think it was as
> successful on the consoles though. I never hear talk of it any more.
> Then again, they totally botched the multiplayer.
played them all, except for a few expansions) has had the same effect
on me: it's compelling, yet maddening.
Civilization building is so cool. It's a wonderful feeling at the
start of the game, when all I've got--all anybody has got--is a
Settler and a big, unexplored world. So much to do, so much to
discover, so much to create. I'm in gaming heaven.
That lasts right up until I encounter a rival civilization. Even
then, it's OK at first. They've got their territory, I've got mine.
Plenty of room for both of us to expand. So, we make friends, and I
just keep an eye on them. If I can, I guard or settle areas of the
map that will cut them off. Otherwise I know they'll eventually
conquer me. I have to get big faster than they do.
But they're always such belligerent bastards! While I'm minding my
own business, exploring, expanding, and building, they launch a
surprise attack on me. Maybe I can deal with it, but that turns my
production to military stuff and interferes with my ability to do
other things. I can't get bigger if I'm busy fighting. Unless I
attack and conquer--but this is supposed to be a civ-building game,
not a wargame.
CivRev DS is the best--and the worst. It's small and reasonable in
length; so no matter how things go, it's over soon enough and I can
start again. But the enemy civs are more aggressive than ever!
They'll all offer friendship at first, but they almost never stay
peaceful for long.
I've managed to win a couple times on Emperor level, but King level is
more my speed. Yet I got so tired of having to be "on" all the time
that recently I've gone back to Warlord level. On that level, I'm
almost assured of winning every game. That means I can relax enough
to enjoy playing. Otherwise I'm all tensed up and cursing out loud at
my virtual opponents.
Even on Warlord level, the enemies are wildly aggressive, and I find
that very annoying. In PC Civ, I can adjust that and make the other
guys leave me alone.
Sometimes I think I'd like to play an economic game instead--no
fighting. But I've played Railroad Tycoon, and I wasn't much
happier. There I struggled in vain to comprehend the economic model,
and I was always going bankrupt or losing out to competitors.
I'm not sure what kind of game really suits me best. Sometimes when
I'm in the middle of one, getting frustrated and wondering how to gain
some kind of advantage, I throw up my hands and say, "I hate games!"
Maybe I do. I'm not sure.
Sukunai
Jul 23, 2009, 8:46:39 AM7/23/09
to Thinking about Games
No, you're just human Pat :) Losing sucks.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages