This moment, right after I’ve just put the work of Ken Levine and the work of the Homeric tradition alongside each other (in the previous post in the series), actually makes an ideal place to throw out an answer to a question that’s been bubbling under the surface of this blog from the very beginning, and is now ripe for a little more attention. Am I saying, a critic of video games might ask, that Halo and Bioshock are capable of the depth of artistic-philosophical expression reached by the Iliad in the Choice of Achilles? After all, when the Homeric bard has Achilles say that maybe the undying glory isn’t really worth it if you lose your life, he’s doing an artistic thing that we’re not used to thinking video games can do.
Here’s the answer: Yes, I am saying that. I’m also saying, though, that Halo and Bioshock and the other wonderful, thought-provoking games we’ve seen lately haven’t yet done that. They’ve come close, as I talked about in that previous post about the non-Choice of Achilles and the non-Choice of Killing Andrew Ryan, but, at least in my view, no artistic-philosophical cigar yet. (Tim Rogers’ eloquent way of putting it, that the artistry of Bioshock is the “very least we should expect from now on,” seems to me to be a slightly different way to say the same thing.)
The Iliad’s artistic-philosophical cigar, to refer back to our main point of discussion, has been awarded by generations of readers, for that moment when Achilles questions everything. That moment, with all its profundity, came into existence originally as an improvisation on—an interaction with—the pre-existing traditional story. That’s where we’re headed next, because in the moment before the player of Bioshock kills Andrew Ryan, he or she has an infinite number of tiny variations available within th game, despite the truth that until he or she goes ahead and kills Andrew Ryan, the game as we think of it—the story of the game—won’t proceed.
The profundity of that moment, or of corresponding moments in Halo when you absolutely must do something or the game won’t proceed, comes from the interaction of the necessity of doing that thing with the meaning of the thing you must do. The most obvious example in Halo is I think the end of the game, when the player must drive a jeep through a hostile landscape in a short enough time that the Master Chief can make it off Halo (the ring in space) before it explodes.
Even Ken Levine, the developer of Bioshock, hasn’t found a way to get to the depth of the way that interaction works in the ninth book of the Iliad, where the bard finds something for Achilles to say in relation to his necessity that’s so achingly sad as to make us better people for having read it. But we’re getting there.
The fact that we’re getting there along this particular road of exploring the power of interactivity means that we should spend some time looking at how it worked in ancient epic. The first thing we should talk about is probably the extent of the interactivity that was possible, to see what resemblance that interactivity bears to the interactivity of video games. The exact degree of interactive change that would have been allowable in the Homeric tradition is a subject of hot debate among the professionals who study this stuff (and probably always will be), but Book 9 of the Iliad actually presents us with a really interesting bit of evidence, which is so fascinating that I’m going to risk boring you, and give you the Ancient Greek tools you need in order really to understand it.
Next time: more than you ever wanted to know about the dual number.
(Note: I'm away next week, so I'm afraid you'll just have to wait to learn all about the dual.)
Posts
39 comments:
And the profundity of Donkey Kong, when you realize that you'll have to run up to that Monkey and smack him with the hammer, or the game won't proceed
Good job interpreting the left over limitations of another genre as depth.
You never have to hit Kong with a hammer in Donkey Kong to proceed. :P
Yes, but that makes the Oddyssey to Donkey Kong even more profound, because no matter what you do, that damn beast always climbs one stage higher on the building. I sense some Syssiphos here.
Also, every movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger. The movie just won't proceed until all the bad guys are dead. Isn't it remarkable that a genre decried as shallow has produced such storytelling as Halo, Doom, Tetris and Mario World Party?
*sigh* Halo is thought provoking?
Somthing just died within me.
You are mad and should have your teaching licence revoked.
Have you even ever read the Epics you speak of (via a decent translation that conveys the same feelings with detailed notes, or better yet the actual original Ancient Greek pieces) or did you just watch the Hollywood editions to save time for some more Halo?
Seriously, is there ANY (non sandbox I guess?) game, simple or complex, with or without any meaningful storyline or characters, where you DON’T have to do something very specific to proceed?
Super Mario sure was as good as studying the Odyssey then. Going on a lengthy journey through foreign lands in order to save his beloved princess. Such self sacrifice, dedication and willpower he displayed as he endured the harsh conditions and all those potentially lethal attacks without once thinking of quitting. And let’s not forget the apparent divine interventions of extra lives and continues, as well as the fact Mario possibly thought he was going through his journey alone when in fact a God-like (player) entity was helping and guiding him throughout, unnnoticed. Deep stuff.
Judging from this blog's appearance you really just want to stir things up and make a name for yourself for your breakthrough progressive theories that merge the old with the new in meaningful significant ways. Or something. I'm sorry to say that you have failed, but at least I hope that's the case because that would only make you an idiot while actually believing the things you wrote would make you far worse than that.
@practically everybody :D, I think you kind of missed the point--I'm saying that Donkey Kong and Halo and even Bioshock don't do it yet.
@Alexander, I kind of have read the ancient Greek. It's kind of my job. Have you read the battle books of the Iliad, where a hero kills warrior after warrior after warrior to gain ground of no real significance? Remind you of anything? Doom (or Halo or Gears of War), maybe?
The game not proceeding in and of itself doesn't make much difference, though I'll maintain that there's an exact analogy to the way certain parts of a myth can't be altered, unlike genres other than ancient epic and narrative video game. What matters is the interaction between that necessity and the meaning of what you have to do. Getting to end of a level doesn't have a profound interaction. Even the end of Halo doesn't have it; Bioshock kind of has it, which I think is cool.
But the Iliad. . . the Iliad really really really has it, which means that games aren't there yet, but you can see it in their future.
Thanks for stopping by!
But the main question is essentially hollow. Of course computer games can do that. They can be more than any written stories, because the underlying mechanisms are far more complex than written text. They could also be as much and more than any narration, given that anyone would think it profitable to sink as much time and money into a game, and assuming that technology progresses. It's like comparing a mule cart to a spaceship and finally concluding that the driver of the spaceship isn't as experienced yet, or doesn't sink enough time into developing his skill.
Also, Halo is terrible, just terrible. For good storytelling, try Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. For meaningful choices, try Planescape: Torment or Fallout. The latter is an RPG that given the right approach allows you to talk the end boss into suicide, by revealing all his aspirations to be fruitless and hollow. That game is from 97. The market for these games is just not big enough, and they are far more complicated to produce than a gung ho Halo.
Thanks for engaging at so deep a level, anonymous-just-above.
On Halo: I'm a fan of that game as a topic for discussion because it's so mainstream, and so reviled by commenters like you. Above all, I'm a fan of it because I think the reason it played so big was that it was released in September 2001. I would submit with a completely straight face that Halo is just as profound as huge swaths of the Iliad; it's only in books like 6, 9 and 24 that the Iliad is what most people think it is.
I've played all the games you mention, and I agree that their storytelling is wonderful and engaging, and worth discussing in the way I'm discussing Halo and Bioshock here. But that doesn't change the point I'm trying to make, which is that games have a special power to be profound, which they share with ancient epic, which comes from the essentially interactive nature of the storytelling in both media, and is there whether the developer uses the interactivity to provide fascinating alternative choices or non-choices that expose the illusion of choice.
Doesn't the Illiad really start with the fight of the three representations of power, wisdom and beauty, and how a choice between them necessarily leads to tragedy? And doesn't Halo start with Humanity discovering some alien ring world (an idea that has been introduced in sci fi 30-40 years ago)?
And if you like to go deeper into that stuff, I would recommend you also look out for the Pen and Paper RPG storytelling discourse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing_game_theory
That one has already progressed to a much deeper level and much of it can be easily adapted to computer games.
The Iliad actually starts with a general who won't give up his slave-girl. At some point, that story was new, maybe--but it wouldn't have been new to the audience of the Homeric bards.
The Iliad had a plot just as hackneyed as Halo's.
Thanks for the tip--that's a not a subset of game criticism I'd seen before. I certainly agree that RPG's are capable of things that shooters aren't; indeed, at some point fairly soon I'm going to be talking here about the relationship between levelling in RPG's and the storytelling of the battle books of the Iliad.
Here is where all of this theorizing falls flat on its face:
Games aren't books.
I wish people would just get that through their heads at some point. The moment you can directly compare any game with a book or film, that game has failed.
Why? Because it's a different genre and should play up its own strengths, not the strengths of others.
Games are never a single layer, they're never just what they tell you they are. Superficially, Fallout is just a game where you wander around and kill people. Beneath that, Fallout has a lot to say not by telling the player a story, but by allowing the player to tell his own story and let the world react to that. That is something gaming can do that the Iliad can never do, and that's where the strength of this medium lies.
Meanwhile, BioShock superficially shouts Objectivism at you and continues in its "ayn rand lol"ercoast, but when you look at what the game actually is (apropos), you'll soon realise it's a failure. It's not that hard to figure: it's just a shooter. It employs the mechanics and the storytelling structure of a shooter. It tries to tell you a story without giving you any meaningful ways to interact with the world other than to shoot at it, with no logical structure of choice and consequence.
And then, after not being any more profound than any other shooter, it throws a lot of philosophy at you and tells you it's really very smart.
Assuming you're just adding Halo to be obtuse and controversial - which appears to be the case - it all comes down to this: you're making a non-point. You're constructing a pseudo-intellectual story where there's none to tell. It's like the kid who spraypainted a garbage heap and put a sign in front of it saying "mother". Intellectuals can tumble over one another explaining why it's so profound, but when push comes to shove, it just isn't.
BioShock and Halo are linear stories on roughly the same level - in another medium - of a Steven Seagal film (with BioShock kind of being like Seagal's On Deadly Ground in that it is just an action film but then pretends to be really about something at the end).
Meanwhile, gaming has vast untapped potential in non-linear interactive storytelling where the player truly gets to determine what happens and is faced with the consequences of it. Even if you skip all the niche games, Deus Ex would not be the worst possible example of this (if not a very good one either).
Instead, you try to construct an intellectual façade around the medium's weakest products.
Nice.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Brother None.
I think my central disagreement with you is about what you seem to see as the impropriety of comparing games to other forms of art.
I would never suggest that that's the only way we should criticize games, as you seem to imply I'm suggesting. What I intend to suggest is that the comparison I'm making (which is actually, and crucially not to books but to an oral tradition later fossilized into books) is one that can help us understand where games fit in culture.
You seem to be of the opinion, as am I, that games should be taken seriously as artistic productions. Doesn't it help your cause, as well as mine, in the end, if more people take even games like Halo seriously?
(BTW, I think Halo deserves discussion in this connection not because it will annoy those who think as you do, but because its basic themes have such a strong resemblance to the themes of ancient epic. Above all, I think Halo deserves this kind of attention because it evoked an enormous response in September 2001.
I disagree with your general thought - interactivety is unrelated to the introduction of self-reference into a story.
With the case of bards, the interactivety he displays can become permanently ingrained and artistic. With the case of games, nomatter what the player does before he faces off with andre ryan, it won't become part of the story.
I also disagree that profound meaning is inevitably archieved through inevitability and interaction with that.
Even with grand inevitability around, it suffers from the fact that inevitability does not exist in reality. It's always conditional. I think that moment of the iliad is magnificent because it is so rare for it to be done so well.
Furthermore, profound meaning can be found in games that have very little inevitability:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Express
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner_(video_game)
You don't discuss this at all, and the prospects that lie there.
I suppose you could say that you could fraction unlinear narratives up and establish inevitability in each one and then establish relations to those within each narrative fraction, but that's a completely different landscape from what is done in the iliad. The impact could easily be completely different.
You also seem to discuss only inevitable situations without choice. How does choice play into it?
This is central; for now, ludology is not advanced enough that you can be allowed choice during inevitable situations unless you spend huge resources on that, but there are examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Deus_Ex_characters#Juan_Ivanovich_Lebedev
What of that? Should games cut themselves off of all these marvels that neither bards nor other mediums have access to?
The lebedev choice has a profound impact exactly because your hand is forced into doing _something_, but the outcome is up to you.
Finally...since games allow all of these options, you should at least present a convincing argument that the death of Andrew Ryan was artistically supreme and compare it with the alternatives...For instance present your alternative, that the game does a self-reference to his death without revealing it before it happens. Present how that can be done without spoiling the self-reference, namely, that all you've done up to that point in the game has been a result of the main character being brainwashed.
Where's the room for this improvement that you speak of?
Brother None, you were almost there.
Interactivity does NOT equate to choice. Some people, including Travers, and yourself, confuse the two.
Narrative is PERFECT as a linear experience. The best game narrative will be and is linear. (Portal, SotC, Ico.) 'Emergent narrative' as Will Wright among others calls it, is laughable.
The idea is that the designer now has little to no control. They give you tools (the camera, the canvas, the paper and pen) and YOU are now the one creating the story.
That is not art, that is not profound, that is NOT the direction games should go. Only once we have every single path logically planned out for the player can we begin to give them choice. Otherwise, we are left with incomprehensible limitations in a supposedly open world.
Unless we account for every choice, artistic meaning could not be derived. It would give grounds to Miyamoto games as art. *Shudder*
What good would it do to ignore actual artistic achievements, the complex and insightful ideas found in Shadow Of The Colossus, expressed interactively, in favour of finding and attributing expressive meaning in Mario's triple jump. Or in this case, Halo's 1 man massacre.
Of course, and it's apparent that you're past the point of no return on this topic, Mr Travers, Halo being taken seriously - as an example of the medium, as art, as comparable to the Iliad - does NO ONE any good.
If we heap praise on smoldering heaps like that (in comparison to truly deserving works), there will be NO progress.
Grey: of course choice and interactivity are different things. I'm saying that as a medium, gaming is uniquely situated to explore choice and consequence. Gaming is not uniquely situated to explore linear narratives. Don't get me wrong, it can, but why limit gaming or definition of what is good in gaming by constraints of pre-existing media?
In other words, linear games are indeed the way to go if you want to tell the player your story? But why do you want to do that? MGS4 and Mass Effect are essentially just failed films put into gaming format. Y'know what I'd call that? Damned stupid.
Prof Travis: I'm not sure I'm with you all the way on this one. To begin with, a simple question: why focus on Halo simply because it was popular? If you need it to vault your own work, fine, but "popular" does not equate "made a profound impact". The Halos have always been cookie-cutter games, and as such it'd make sense to take them as cookie-cutter examples for games in general, but exceptional :whatevers:? No.
Does it help my case if people take Halo seriously? No. Because Halo is not a good game. The overbearing popularity of such mediocre titles as Halo 3 has a negative impact on gaming's development. In fact, progress is almost solely being made in accessibility and graphics. Not exactly of interest to someone like me.
To the main point: it is not so much that it is inappropriate, it is more that gaming is struggling to set itself free from other media simply because people refuse to adapt their discourse. Rather than focusing on what makes games great, a company like BioWare is focusing on what makes films great and trying desperately to shove that into game form.
I think even sandbox titles are preferable to that. But even they dodge the possibilities gaming offers by excluding a lot of gameworld reactivity, especially titles like Oblivion, or even the GTAs.
Anyway, I never studied ancient times much, one university course was enough for me ('s just not my time period), but I do think I see your point in how narrative construction is similar in epic songs and games.
I'm not sure that is particularly useful, though, and more importantly, I'm not sure if that's the best way for games to go.
Several great comments. Thanks.
I'm sensible of the criticism that to praise Halo may serve to encourage lowest common denominator titles, but I disagree that that's how the market works. Nor am I really willing to give over the point that Halo has a claim to profundity that arises in its role within our post-9/11 culture.
Most of all, though, I want to make sure that I say as often as I can that I think my claims are being taken as more extreme than I actually made them. As Grey wrote I think over at RPS, last fall I was quoted as saying that I would feel comfortable putting Halo on the shelf next to the Iliad. But I'd also feel comfortable putting a whole bunch of other stuff there alongside it, just to see how it looked. In the post Jim Rossignol excerpted, I said that I think games can achieve profundity this way; what I definitely didn't say, because I didn't mean, is that that's the only or even the best way for them to do so, nor that Halo in particular does achieve profundity this way.
The thing is, people are going to keep making narrative games about heroes; some of us are going to enjoy them even if the artistry that goes into them breaks no new ground. To suggest that they're not worth analyzing seems to me to be to lose an opportunity to show gamers and the people who love gamers that what they're doing when they play is significant, and that that significance may well be good.
Great stuff, keep it up! Also, this blog has been posted on a site were alot of the users dislike the Halo franchise, which is why you might get some negative comments.
Brother None:
Agreed on MGS4 and Mass Effect. I feel people don't comprehend the medium when they insist that these are great examples of video game narrative.
Same with Half-Life and its story rooms.
All those games are doing is empowering cinema and confirming it to be a superior narrative tool.
I admit I was overly harsh in condemning non-linear use of the medium, though I see that particular path as undeserving of merit - as I've said - the designers are no longer artists, but are providers of tools. One could not read into a non-linear experience (which will always vary and will always have unintended "artistry") the way one could evoke meaning from the linear, carefully composed form.
Remember however that Mass Effect intends to be non-linear, with a focus on the cinematic. It is little more than a choose-your-own adventure book with a contrived cliche plot and annoyingly inconsistent characters - a HUGE issue arising from CHOICE! Sheperd can tear into someone one minute, praise them and peacefully resolve something the next, all while his companions change their opinions on a whim to empower the player. Uggh.
My idea of linear narrative does indeed use visuals (though this is because this medium is a visual one as well as an interactive one), but under the assumption that interactivity isn't sacrificed or lost for the purposes of furthering a plot/narrative/story/idea/emotion. I'm not saying eliminate non-player chosen dialogue - the aural experience (if intended) is just as important as the interactive and visual if used correctly.
The reason I give SotC as my prime example is because loyalty, dependence and loss are based on the Wanderer's interactions with Agro, his horse. Control over the Wanderer involves calling the horse with delayed results (though he always obeys) or relying on him to navigate or evade harm. That bond is explored within the game unavoidably by each player. It cannot be emulated within a purely visual medium without losing much of its effect. That is character development in the interactive medium AS IT SHOULD BE.
Of course, this is all my opinion. It is also my opinion that the Halo franchise is nothing more than mediocre, but that goes for most games, regardless of manufacturer or console preferences. I do understand its popularity, but I do not encourage it. There are a handful of great games. No...less. Praise them please. Give us more of those.
I agree with the Prof. that games (the medium) can achieve heights. The greatest of heights. It has, by far, the greatest potential of any medium, and is inherently superior as a whole. Some achieve greatness, and hopefully, most will in the future. None listed in your arguments do, Professor.
"Post 9/11 culture"
"Bioshock"
"Halo"
"Games as art"
Now all you need to add are "Tila Tequila" and "nude celebs" and your list of meta-tagged search words will be complete! Internet celeb is you.
I have a suggestion for you Roger Travis. Just as you spent time examining original copies of the stuff you are a professor of, why don't you actually educate yourself with regards to the history of gaming before spouting off about it?
I wish it was not so obvious, but you are sorely lacking in video-game historicity if you think Bioshock has something to say about the Iliad. A playing of system shock 1 and 2 would show you that. Levine is a one-trick pony when it comes to narrative.
Furthermore, attempting to analyze Halo without understanding the circumstances that resulted in all the levels involving backtracking, its origin as an RTS, etc. is asinine.
Finally, the commercial nature of big budget games today is such that they are horrendous compromises of vision. Both games you have chosen to praise are castrated compared with the intentions of the people behind them due to budget and market forces. You would be far better off looking at games that have not been under such strict deadlines, and you would know that if you were actually a gamer. I'm guessing you only have an Xbox. Not having a gaming PC is like being a professor of the romantic languages and never having heard of Latin. It shows.
HOWEVER, Brother None is acutely correct here. What you are trying to do is equivalent to looking at stills from every 5 minutes in a movie and comparing them to a painting. The concept is so fractally wrong that no result from your wishsy-washy methodology can be anything but wrong.
J1M
@Grey: I can't disagree, especially since greatness is in the eye of the beholder. I see some of it in Halo, but then, as some of the commenters here and elsehwere have astutely pointed out, there's really not a ton of it in the Iliad either.
@J1M: for the record, I play on a huge range of platforms. I'm really a bit mystified why so many people commenting on my post seem convinced that I'm saying that Halo and Bioshock are the most, or the only, profound games. I'm eager to agree with you that [insert game that you think a classics prof would never have played] is far greater than Bioshock.
So you don't have a gaming PC, but play on a "huge range of platforms"?
That's nice, but almost everything on consoles is a derivative and watered down version of ideas that appeared on PC first. Console games can be an interesting diversion to play with a girlfriend or something, but they are more akin to an Archie comic than literature.
Obviously there are games better than Bioshock. You are missing the main point. You cannot compare games to other forms of media in the fashion that you are doing and say anything interesting about GAMES. Using your methodology the best you could hope for is something similar to an analysis of a choose your own adventure novel. I doubt you would find it very thought provoking if I compared one of those to the Iliad, and that is how people who know games view you right now.
Hi Roger. I came here via Michael Abbott's Brainy Gamer, and I have to say that for a gamer and former English major -- albeit one not well versed in classics -- this is fascinating stuff. Keep it up! (And ignore the crap people are spewing in this particular comment thread, if you can.)
J1M, I take particular offense to that idea. Consoles have the same capabilities in terms of artistry as a gaming PC. Their technology may be lacking, but an authorial vision does not necessarily need hundreds of inventory screens or complex gameplay mechanics. Simplicity in my top 3 (a good place for any medium to start) has vaulted them above all others. That includes Portal, a PC game which isn't concerned with the hardcore or casual.
And I don't think ignoring dissenting opinions is a good idea either, Dan Bruno.
grey: Dissenting opinions, no; ad hominem, yes. There's a lot of interesting discussion here, but a lot of angry ranting also.
@J1M: OK, just to be absolutely clear for the record, I DO game on a PC. Whether you, J1M, would call it a "gaming PC" I don't know.
Thanks, Dan and Grey. I'm grateful both for the dissenting opinion and for the encouragement to persevere through the ad hominem stuff.
@Grey: I am talking about FACTS, not POTENTIAL. Sure, console games have potential, but historically and currently console games only push forward action/platformer and fighting games. If the standard interface for PCs was as conducive to these types of games as it is to FPS and RTS we would not even see this niche progress on consoles. As you said, today consoles can do pretty much what PCs can, but they DON'T. Once you concede this point perhaps we can revisit the reasons behind it.
@Roger Travis: As I'm sure you are aware your refusal to engage any of the points I've made is essentially concession of them on the internet. I don't understand the dancing you are doing around the PC issue. If you are as honest as you want to look just say you aren't a PC gamer, if not: just lie. I can't exactly check.
Your answer shows what I accused you of in my first post to be true: you don't have a proper background in games to be making real commentary on them. My grandfather had a PC. He played solitaire on it. I guess he plays PC games too according to you. So much for being absolutely clear, Roger.
@J1m
There's not a single PC game that's done what Fumito Ueda has done on the Playstation 2.
Certainly, I would not remove the PC from discussion because no one has recreated such an experience, but, well, hopefully you see the point.
I have not seen narrative/artistic innovation within FPSes or RTSes beyond say...Portal and to a far lesser extent Bioshock and Half-Life 2 (haven't played 1). Each of those are on consoles, and Portal does not suffer one bit. I mean, are you talking about controls (subjective, though for games like Portal - console pads don't detract from any messages or themes) or about needless interfaces? Because PC sure has those sussed.
There is no way in hell SotC and Ico are derivative of PC games, though, as you've said most console games are. However, insisting that the gap between the two is comics to literature is absurd. PC games are in general more clunky and needlessly complex.
Apart from technical innovations, of which none have narrative or artistic applications within the medium, I fail to see what sets PCs apart.
Oh, and I think its perfectly fine to compare aspects of games with other media.
@Grey: From wikipedia: "Fumito Ueda's main influence for Ico was Another World (video game), which was made by Eric Chahi. It used cinematic cutscenes and a HUDless experience in order to play like a movie."
"While not a great commercial success, Another World was innovative in its use of cinematic effects in the graphics, sound and cut scenes, with characters communicating through their facial features, gestures, and actions only."
Guess what platform it was for? That's right, PC. The same type of PC the designer of ICO owned. So much for "no way in hell".
From my experience, your attitude is typical of console gamers. You can't imagine something else coming before your pet game and make sweeping, fanboyish, statements without doing any research.
Another example is the treatment of Bioshock. Console gamers hailed it as a new high-water mark for storytelling and atmosphere in games. On the other hand, PC gamers had seen these same ideas at least as far back as 1994 in the first System Shock. Attempting to provide insightful commentary on Bioshock without understanding that it is essentially a remake of System Shock 2 (from mechanics right down to plot twists) leaves you sorely lacking in perspective.
As for Half-Life and Portal appearing on consoles: yes they do. They are ports of PC games. Just like Halo or Bioshock on PC is a port of an Xbox game. You have to consider the lead SKU. Praising consoles for the success of these games would be retarded.
Again, you mention narrative in games and you only talk about recent entries. Go play Deus Ex, then we can talk about narrative and atmosphere in FPS games. Lucky for you it came out in 2000, so unless you stole your PC from a museum you will be able to play it.
I said Archie comics, not comics in general. Would that distinction be some of the needless complexity you attempt to deride PC games for?
Surely you must admit that for some types of storytelling using text throughout the world on notes, books, etc. is a good way to go. Do you realize that prior to HDTVs this wasn't even possible on consoles? That until they are required, no publisher would even consider putting out a text-heavy console game? That requiring everything to be voice-acted is expensive and difficult to change? That this is one of the reasons Mass Effect is less than half the length of Baldur's Gate 2?
Would you call the ability to display legible text at a reasonable font size a 'technical innovation'?
@J1M
It's interesting that Another World comes into the conversation. I've always liked it, but never knew it was Ueda's inspiration. Chahi should be proud that the second greatest game of all time was inspired by his work.
Now, it's an admirable precursor, and while I'm not sure of the extent of technical capability at the time, Chahi didn't utilise the medium like Ueda did. Cutscenes (dialogue or no) to primarily communicate ideas is NOT an example of good storytelling in the interactive medium (neither are Ico's - such as the introductary one explaining your location). All it proves is that cinema is still great. It may also prove that Chahi was pushing boundaries in his time, but not that Ico is derivative of Another World. Mean Streets (early Scorsese film) isn't derivative of the Italian culture in New York, it draws inspiration from it.
I think the lack of understandable dialogue is why you think I am praising Ico. Not true. To be more cinematic - to "play like a movie" is a huge step in the wrong direction. The lack of HUD could certainly be ripped straight from Chahi. It's not a narrative innovation, but helps with immersion.
By the way, which PC game is SotC derivative of?
Ueda's narrative techniques rely primarily on interaction (not necessarily gameplay - a distinction must be made). It's very early art, but so far ahead of other games (PC and console), it puts designers to shame.
I understand the Bioshock situation, and as I've said here - only the "Would You Kindly" reveal is worthy of praise. This is in relation to its message unique to the gaming medium. I never insisted it was original, nor do I place it on a pedestal.
If Deus Ex is an example of something that isn't recent, then how is Ico (released one year later) an example of something that is? I'll admit to not having experienced Deus Ex (though it seems the same goes for you and Ueda's games), but I do know very well that it emphasises choice and branching paths.
By the way, Deus Ex seems to be derivative as well! (As per your definition) According to Wikipedia:
"Because of its design focus on player choice, Deus Ex has been compared with System Shock, a game that inspired its design."
As I've already described Ueda's narrative techniques, let's go on to what's wrong with Deus Ex.
Player choice. A HUGE NO-NO for any self-respecting narrative. What themes can be conveyed if they are not even seen? What narrative can be called effective if it can be ignored within the work? So already, it has failed in comparison to interactive storytelling. There are scenes/dialogue some people may never even see - it depends on gameplay choices. It's godawful for character development (see: GTA4 as a more recent example).
This is why Bioshock, Metroid Prime, and all other games which encourage exploration with extra story as a reward fail. This is a unique problem to this medium, but comparable is being able to move a camera around to find out about Ray Liotta's character's childhood in Goodfellas (instead, a flashback depicts it, and, unless you turn away from the screen, it's unavoidable).
The atmosphere, hammered in (meant in a good way) by constantly exploring levels based in the world is the simplest of all narrative devices. Often, it has no message, but Deus Ex could be as much of an exception as any other similar game. However, I haven't spoken of atmosphere, and am not trying to rob PC games of this very simple achievement. That would be wrong.
If you're speaking of the quality of the narrative, then I wouldn't be able to judge as of now, with merely a written plot before me. It's not promising if we're wanting something beyond an action movie at this point, but, again, not my point to make as of this moment.
SotC is a wonderful second entry for Ueda - and, isn't it possible that interactive narrative has emerged only recently? Narrative film came after the age of spectacle at the turn of the century. You would not argue that there have been countless brilliant uses of the interactive medium, would you? (And if you say "yes, but only on PC," I'll have lost all faith in you.)
However, Baldur's Gate 2 is in no way an improvement over anything. Bioware games are simply awful as uses of the medium. As power fantasies and choose-your-own adventure books, they may well be the top of the pack.
I do not admit that written text has a place in games (that could be considered art). Please don't try to pin me as illiterate, I simply see this as an interactive medium first, and a visual second. I don't agree that Lost Odyssey has a good story because the non-generic crap is presented in book form with background music and has been written by a real author. It's entirely seperate from the actual game.
I was hoping you could accept some sort of compromise (it's strange that you seem to take offense to clear innovation, originality and greatness regardless of platform as is the case with Ueda) when I previously posted, but I suggest you *gasp* purchase or borrow a PS2, Ico and SotC and give them a shot before we continue this argument.
@Grey: I have played ICO. I don't feel the need to change anything I said above regarding it. In fact, I never made and claims about its quality. Don't be so defensive. Knowing where the inspiration for it came from doesn't change what it is. As I pointed out, the vast majority of the console games you like use ideas that were pioneered on the PC. Let's say you find an exception, so what? It doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of innovation takes place in the PC space. As I said earlier, once you concede this point we can have a more interesting conversation as to why that is.
(Aside: would you really disagree that SotC is an extension of what ICO did? Seems like a pretty direct link from Another World->ICO->SotC. I don't want to debate SotC for reasons stated above. A simple yes or no will do.)
Next, I don't see why you are responding to Bioshock specifically, I used it to illustrate the console gamer mind-set. As for BG2, I never held it up as an example of something great. You are confusing my mention of things to illustrate a point with an endorsement of them. I used Bioware as a well known company that has recently become a console-darling and the change in their product.
...
You scoffed at the idea of a player choice impacting the story. This is the only unique thing that games bring to storytelling! It is this criterion that matters most of all. I am shocked that reading the posts by Brother None failed to impart this on you, but anything less than player choice and you are not really talking about a game's story. You are talking about a story in a game. Big deal, let’s discuss the deep significance of Tetris’ story.
...
You are contradicting yourself with these comments about atmosphere/exploration. Earlier you praised this sort of storytelling in ICO. Collect your thoughts and present an argument free from hypocrisy or just drop the point. You seem to be confusing the topic. If you know of an FPS that did these things first on console then maybe you have a point, but the subjective value of these storytelling tools is not at issue here.
...
Finally, you mentioned recent FPS games. I suggested Deus Ex because it conveys the things I wanted you to see and of the choices I think it would be the easiest to enjoy today. If you ran off to wikipedia to read a plot summary in order to try and prove me wrong I feel very sorry for you. You have ruined for yourself what was one of the best gaming experiences I have ever had. Why would you do that? Even if you had proven me wrong somehow Ueda would still have been inspired by a PC game (not that this matters regarding your enjoyment of the final product, it only matters for the sake of this discussion regarding where innovation comes from in the gaming space). If you have any gamer friends you must have heard about Deus Ex before. Seems rather silly to ruin something for yourself like that.
J1M
But I have clearly conceded that 'PC superiority' point.
To quote myself:
"There is no way in hell SotC and Ico are derivative of PC games, though, as you've said most console games are."
Maybe the confusion came from the lack of a comma after "said." If so, I apologise.
But your post in response indicated that Ico and Sotc were in fact derivative, and that is what I took offence to.
Now, my point is that there is no "Another World>Ico>Sotc" link at all. Where exactly is Ico derivative (or whatever word needs to be used) of Chahi? Knowing influence doesn't diminish quality, surely not. Nor does it imply a reapplication of ideas. It seems that you have comepletely ignored my argument and parallels to Scorsese and his Mean Streets and have instead continued with this narrow minded view.
SotC is an unrelated prequel to Ico. It does not share any similar interactive elements, but there is a clear link that Ueda the auteur has created. I would say yes, it is, in a way, an extension. Taking a huge leap and linking it back to Chahi isn't doing anyone any favours. Even if Ico was "derivative" of AW, it would be of certain aspects, and not all, yes? After all, we have two seperate games. The insinuation that Ueda reused those same hypothetical aspects in SotC is something you can not prove, nor is it true.
Now the real problem is assuming choice is the game's way of telling a story. I've already argued against Brother None's points.
The gist of it is that choice negates authorial control, and that the medium's unique attribute is
INTERACTIVIY.
People confuse choice and interactivity often (Ebert for one) when discussing the medium.
It is not about making your own story, but by experiencing a story interactively. For example - character bond between wanderer and his horse is via calling the horse, relying on him to navigate and evade harm. All of this is done with action/reaction. All of this is unavoidable within SotC.
For choices, are we saying that each independent choice is relevant to the central theme in said game? Does that not make choice superficial and only dilutes the existence of carefully constructed moments?
Or that each choice explores its own theme? What if you chose one path then switched to another in that case? Wouldn't that destroy any intention by mixing messages?
Where is the art in that?
As for atmosphere, you seem to imply that it was unique to FPSes. I do not know of a specific original console FPS that utilised atmosphere, but when used correctly, it can be to great effect. (If it isn't simply "Dark, scary world" but instead reveals aspects of the world, motivations etc.)
Just point out where I've praised Ico for its atmosphere. Let me in on what you're referencing.
Exploration is not the same as atmosphere, and grouping them together won't make it true. When I said "exploring levels" I merely substituted movement through a level for the word 'exploring.' Playing that level, if you will.
Whether Deus Ex demands true exploration - whether the levels are built for gameplay (jumping platforms etc) or in tune with the theme, I can't discern without playing. Help me out.
Perhaps my limited opinions concerning Deus Ex's plot would change if I had read, in its entirety, that Wikipedia summary. Either way, it is a hasty and unfair way to judge anything. That is - via a plot summary/synopsis. Stories rely on storytelling. Ueda is the champion of interactive storytelling in my book, but feel free to inform me of the interactive storytelling in Deus Ex. Feel free to use a major plot point as an example. No amount of good writing in games will impress me if it doesn't use the medium. That includes Planescape, which is very admirable, but not a definition of interactive art.
If you're impying here:
"Even if you had proven me wrong somehow Ueda would still have been inspired by a PC game (not that this matters regarding your enjoyment of the final product, it only matters for the sake of this discussion regarding where innovation comes from in the gaming space)."
that Ueda would still have been influenced by a PC game in some manner which you cannot pinpoint, then you are wrong in the way that I mean it.
Hell, for Sotc's basic concept, look to Legend of Zelda. (A favourite tactic among Nintendo fans who insist all innovation comes from Nintendo. Sound familiar?)
For technology (from D-pads to coded physics) there would certainly be a multitude of sources, mostly PC, I assume. For use of that technology, there are no precedents.
I respect the Edison company, the Lumieres and hundreds of years of shadow/picture/canvas entertainment like the Magic Lantern. I do not praise them when I praise early film. Their use of camera angles, positions, lighting - all of that is to the credit of the originator, the artist.
Ueda is that artist.
PCs and PC games could be the technology providers.
Of course, from what I've quoted, the idea that not having a "gaming" PC and judging game quality seems to not be a focal point of your argument with Prof. Travis anymore. You agree that acknowledging the existence of innovation in PC games is enough when discussing or praising the titles which have been built around them or based on them, like Bioshock.
I would consider the matter resolved.
Interactivity, or choice without consequence might be interesting for short periods, but it is ultimately just a diversion when it comes to bringing more to a story.
It is still possible to give the player some choice and railroad a main plot through a game. (Which you insist is necessary, but I disagree with.) Crude example: In Deus Ex at one point your brother is injured and he tells you to leave him behind. If you do as he says, he dies buying your escape. The game makes no explicit mention of this, but if you choose to try and save him by facing the agents outside the room head-on you can escape together. He shows up later with some advice and help if you do this. Along the way characters will have some altered dialogue based on what happened. The mission structure and locations in the game remain the same.
However, real choice and consequence offers a lot more to the way a game can tell a story. Fallout is a good example of this. You need to find a water purification chip for your vault and must venture into the wasteland to do so. Finding one is not easy and there are a limited number of days of water remaining.
If you choose to ignore the vault there are consequences for it, some that you will not even know about until you return to the vault later. (Or you could not return to the vault at all if you wanted.) You could also pay for a water merchant to go to the vault to give you more time to find a water chip, but then the location is exposed to the outside world. The point is that what you choose to do or not do has consequences. Maybe you even find a water chip before time runs out and return to the vault? How would it feel knowing you didn't have to, but you busted your ass to save these people, but when you return they kick you out because you are viewed as an outsider now?
Being forced to do something in a game that you disagree with and then watching the outcome is not engaging. It is frustrating. The result is something that 'happened', not something that happened to you.
When something triumphant or tragic happens in a game, it always has more of an impact if you had agency over that outcome. This is the unique thing that games can bring to storytelling. Ignoring this in exchange for interactivity, like the asinine "fart button" in Fable 2 is a poor trade.
Furthermore, pretending it is impossible to write a compelling narrative for multiple paths in a game is silly. I concede that the majority of "attempts" at this so far have been primarily aimed at getting a feature on the back of a box and simplified to jedi/sith garbage. Perhaps this has turned you off to the idea.
I would suggest you look into Age of Decadence. The game has several different ways in which you could finish it, and your path through the game is based on the factions that you choose to align yourself with. The premise is to create more than one way to solve a problem. You can't exactly do a Zelda plot this way, and everyone's story will be slightly different, but why shouldn't it be? We already have half a dozen mediums that are completely linear.
@Grey: Just for the record, I still stand by all of the points I raised at Roger. I am talking with you now, because he has chosen not to engage in a real discussion. Hopefully this means he is brushing up on his gaming literacy.
At the risk of sounding contradictory I will say that I think interactivity is good, and games need it, clearly. My point of contention is that you seem to be saying that storytelling in games relies on it, and I think the same stories can be told non-interactively. I'm sure you have seen a movie or two that evoked similar emotions to ICO.
On the other hand, the feeling of shock, betrayal, and lost sense of purpose that I felt when shut out of vault 13 in Fallout has not been replicated for me elsewhere. Not even close.
@J1M, If you looked at Roger's blog, it says he's away this week, thus not responding to any posts. Also, it is possible to attack arguments without attacking people: try it sometime.
I'm checking in about once every two days, with no opportunity to write anything substantive. I'll be replying as fully as I can when I return to full internet access, though I'm sure my response won't satisfy someone who's already convinced of my ignorance and stupidity. In the meantime, feel free to continue the discussion here!
@J1M
I'm not saying eliminate choice completely in video games, but by giving you choice, you are now creating your own story - not playing through the creator's. That creator is therefore not an artist. To reference another discussion I've had on this subject; it would be as if you were able to manipulate the story in Hamlet. It would no longer be Shakespeare's work. It would be your own.
Audience choice is nice for power fantasies, which most digital entertainment with plots is, but a cardinal sin of art.
It's what seperates Ueda from the pack.
I would simply argue with the same points I've already raised, as I do not see where you provide an adequate counter-argument.
For choices, are we saying that each independent choice is relevant to the central theme in said game? Does that not make choice superficial and only dilutes the existence of carefully constructed moments?
I believe that can be directed towards your Deus Ex example or similar ones.
Or that each choice explores its own theme? What if you chose one path then switched to another in that case? Wouldn't that destroy any intention by mixing messages?
Where is the art in that?
Sure, movies have been more effective than Ico, but movies have a had a century, and are completely passive. (If you mean cutscenes in games, then possibly, but they certainly don't impress me in the way that actually using the interactive elements of the medium would.)
When something triumphant or tragic happens in a game, it always has more of an impact if you had agency over that outcome. This is the unique thing that games can bring to storytelling. Ignoring this in exchange for interactivity, like the asinine "fart button" in Fable 2 is a poor trade.
That's your opinion.
Mine is that the artist should not try to empower the player, and the player should not have a direct role in the artist's vision (whereby it is no longer a vision belonging to the artist).
Your definition is fine for basic games, mine is great for art. People respond emotionally to almost any attempt, no matter how half-hearted if they've developed attachment to the character they're playing.
I feel for the Wanderer and for Ico in Ueda's works. I've developed a closer bond to them because I interactively controlled them throughout their journies, but their journies are their own. They are carefully crafted and wonderfully told works, and had they not used the medium's strengths (that's interactivity, not non-linearity), they would not as effective as they were.
Furthermore, pretending it is impossible to write a compelling narrative for multiple paths in a game is silly.
Not impossible. It's merely that choice is pointless. (Refer to the extract from my previous point that I have requoted)
I don't know if I'd try AoD, but I'll definitely give Fallout a go - I'm long overdue, and it'd be great entertainment.
Non-linearity can make for that sort of entertainment, but never for art.
Also: Keen to hear back from you, Professor.
In case you're only following this post: I'm back, and have started responding here.
@grey: Given what people are willing to call art these days, I don't find you making any sort of meaningful distinction by trying to segregate things with that label.
Post a Comment