» Fri May 11, 2012 11:51 pm "The bulk of the argument lies with the claim that Deus Ex had started to develop a unique method of narrative development, merging the story with the game mechanics in a terribly effective way. Essentially, instead of the main narrative being unfolded to the player from level to level, the player would acquire information mainly through his own actions. The player would only find out as much as his character would uncover.
The idea here is that most, if not all games suffer from a major disconnection between action and story. Most of the time, you either play a game, or watch a story. Bioshock would be a prime example of this. An interesting story with a splendid setting, and some good (albeit overly-simplified) action mechanics, but the two of them are never merged together. You're either walking around and shooting someone, or you're watching a part of the story. This disconnection has been exposed and addressed for over twenty years, each time with one explanation or another as to how it is so, and the difficulty of putting a solution together. Long after DX was released, the issue has been raised again, as lately as last E3's, while the solution has been available for at least ten years.
DX did not push its own logic to the limit, nor has it fully developed the potential this type of story-playing provides, but it was an enormous push in the right direction. The issue here is not that DX was perfectly handling this, but rather that no one has since explored this venue and further expanded on it. It provided the blueprint of story-telling, and for obscure reasons, no one ever picked it up.
The most difficult aspect of story-playing is to put together a story hand in hand with game mechanics that would ensure the game responds accordingly to your actions, and look as though it was specifically designed to support your own personal decision. I always give Paul's apartment sequence as the flagship moment of this design philosophy. The game never pushes you in one direction or another, nor does the action stop to expose a plot element. You are put in front of the situation which suggests you should leave, and if you do so, by walking away all by yourself, the game simply follows through. However, because the scene is not handled through a cut-scene, nor a "press A to leave, press B to stay" sequence, deciding to attempt to stick around and not leave your brother behind becomes an active decision, and, remarkably, the game also follows through as if it had been designed for you to stay.
There is also an important distinction to make between story-playing and uncovering plot elements. Many games have hidden plot elements inside of Easter-eggs, or have made allusions to existing plots from other works of fiction, which require the player to have some general knowledge outside of the game. Half Life, for instance, has a lot of story elements hidden in the background, and so one might suggest this to be story-playing. After all, if the player does not pay attention to very tiny details, he may miss some of the plot. While this story-telling technique is interesting, the narrative of Half Life was still delivered to the player in a rail-shooter fashion. So long as you survived and walked forward, the narrative would unfold. The same is true of Max Payne.
And so the distinction to make here is between story elements and the narrative. In order for a successful story-gaming to take place, one must understand that it is the narrative we are addressing. It is the narrative that should be uncovered through the character's actions, not mere plot elements observed by the player.
What I specifically like about this approach is that it eliminates all of the problems related to sandbox games, all the while giving a fully-interactive experience, more so than a sandbox, in fact. Interactivity is, after all, about the player's perception of the game and his relationship to the universe, and has little to do with the choices themselves, or the liberty of movement. This would be worthy of a chapter in itself, but is closely linked to the importance of the game unfolding and reacting logically according to your actions.
This is a disorganized draft of what I've been exposing, along with a handful of others, throughout the years. I'd need some time to turn it into a comprehensive argument, but you get the gist of it. Immersion should also be properly addressed, as it is too often thrown into the argument with a questionable definition. I've been meaning to put something together for a while now, but haven't gotten around to it yet."
The idea here is that most, if not all games suffer from a major disconnection between action and story. Most of the time, you either play a game, or watch a story. Bioshock would be a prime example of this. An interesting story with a splendid setting, and some good (albeit overly-simplified) action mechanics, but the two of them are never merged together. You're either walking around and shooting someone, or you're watching a part of the story. This disconnection has been exposed and addressed for over twenty years, each time with one explanation or another as to how it is so, and the difficulty of putting a solution together. Long after DX was released, the issue has been raised again, as lately as last E3's, while the solution has been available for at least ten years.
DX did not push its own logic to the limit, nor has it fully developed the potential this type of story-playing provides, but it was an enormous push in the right direction. The issue here is not that DX was perfectly handling this, but rather that no one has since explored this venue and further expanded on it. It provided the blueprint of story-telling, and for obscure reasons, no one ever picked it up.
The most difficult aspect of story-playing is to put together a story hand in hand with game mechanics that would ensure the game responds accordingly to your actions, and look as though it was specifically designed to support your own personal decision. I always give Paul's apartment sequence as the flagship moment of this design philosophy. The game never pushes you in one direction or another, nor does the action stop to expose a plot element. You are put in front of the situation which suggests you should leave, and if you do so, by walking away all by yourself, the game simply follows through. However, because the scene is not handled through a cut-scene, nor a "press A to leave, press B to stay" sequence, deciding to attempt to stick around and not leave your brother behind becomes an active decision, and, remarkably, the game also follows through as if it had been designed for you to stay.
There is also an important distinction to make between story-playing and uncovering plot elements. Many games have hidden plot elements inside of Easter-eggs, or have made allusions to existing plots from other works of fiction, which require the player to have some general knowledge outside of the game. Half Life, for instance, has a lot of story elements hidden in the background, and so one might suggest this to be story-playing. After all, if the player does not pay attention to very tiny details, he may miss some of the plot. While this story-telling technique is interesting, the narrative of Half Life was still delivered to the player in a rail-shooter fashion. So long as you survived and walked forward, the narrative would unfold. The same is true of Max Payne.
And so the distinction to make here is between story elements and the narrative. In order for a successful story-gaming to take place, one must understand that it is the narrative we are addressing. It is the narrative that should be uncovered through the character's actions, not mere plot elements observed by the player.
What I specifically like about this approach is that it eliminates all of the problems related to sandbox games, all the while giving a fully-interactive experience, more so than a sandbox, in fact. Interactivity is, after all, about the player's perception of the game and his relationship to the universe, and has little to do with the choices themselves, or the liberty of movement. This would be worthy of a chapter in itself, but is closely linked to the importance of the game unfolding and reacting logically according to your actions.
This is a disorganized draft of what I've been exposing, along with a handful of others, throughout the years. I'd need some time to turn it into a comprehensive argument, but you get the gist of it. Immersion should also be properly addressed, as it is too often thrown into the argument with a questionable definition. I've been meaning to put something together for a while now, but haven't gotten around to it yet."
