Notgames Forum

Nice article (http://frictionalgames.blogspot.com/2010/10/story-what-is-it-really-about.html) by Thomas (http://notgames.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=15) about how non-linear games can still be story-based, because plot does not equal story. What we want to deal with is a story's essence instead. Good read. And very clear-headed, as usual.

Very inspiring!

I'm still a bit worried about how to get interesting details into the story though. All good linear stories have a lot of those things Thomas talk about but they also have very specific details that mesh perfectly together (like jokes in a comedy for example). Without details we just get a very broad brush to paint with, so to speak. Or do you guys think that I am being too negative, or do I misunderstand something?

My idea is that you can have the game luring the player into doing specific events too. For example, in Amnesia there is a part where the player is supposed to hide an closest and wait there until the enemy has moved. The player gets no instruction to hide in the closest the first time, yet most players hide in the closet and play it exactly as they should. There is a text giving a player a hint if they fail, but most players get it directly. Also worth noting is that hiding in the closet is not required, it is just a placed in such a way that there is a natural thing for an immersed player to do.

Now this is a simple example, but it shows how you by setting up the world correctly, can make the player play along and get the right experience. This without having any specific plot points that need to be hit. One could argue that there are plot points here but that they are optional, but I do not think that is really true. If you put this into a wider scope, then having these sort situation that set up for certain behavior then you can not design it as a specific order of events that the player should do, because that will break down very fast. Instead it requires you to focus on how the world is made up and what kind of storytelling it allows.

I also think that caring about specific story details as vital is also a bit of a bias. I mean, pretty much all stories we have heard/seen have been plots. And thus when thinking of a story that really means something, we think about its plot. I also think about it like this and I think some work is needed to think of it in another way. For example, take your joke example. The way you might set this up in a game is not to have a specific events that needs to be hit, but a game world that changes in such a fashions that the player gets a certain kind of overarching experience.

Of course, it might also be that certain kind of stories are not fit for non-linearity. Just like some books are impossible to make into movies, etc. I think this might be extra true for jokes and humour in general, where timing is of such an essence. That does not mean videogames cannot make comedy though, and given how few true joke games there are (mostly it is just a normal game with some gags insert into dialog, etc), there is tons to explore.

I hope some of this made sense :) And glad you (and Michael!) liked the post!

I think the important message is that, the real-time medium is, in essence, not a narrative medium. At least not in the sense that we are used to thinking about narrative (as causal chains of events). But if we can start thinking about narrative in a different way -by removing the element of plot, e.g.-, it is perfectly possible to make story-based videogames.

I personally think, however, that this is sort of a round-about way of working. I find it simpler just to start from a non-narrative concept as a basis (what I like to call "designing the moment"). And the to allow for narrative elements on top of that (but not require them for a satisfying enjoyment of the game).

In The Path and Fatale, we assume the player already knows the story (a fairy tale and a biblical legend). And the game is about exploration of this knowledge.
One problem with this approach, however, is that sometimes people don't actually know the story (or not very well). But I think we might solve that in a future project by simply including a text version of the story in the game. I don't want to tell stories through a game. It's tedious, and it feels more like constantly trying to solve a problem (negative approach), instead of actively acting on opportunities (positive approach).

I want to build worlds in which players can discover delight.
I'm reminded of how a player of The Endless Forest happily recounted how she made her deer put its head in a patch of flowers and the flowers actually stuck to its antlers and it looked so pretty. If we can create such simple moments of pure joy, I'd say we don't need jokes.

While I DO want to tell stories in games, I see your point Michael. I also think that for many (most) people playing Amnesia, they liked it not because of the story as such, but because of a slightly deranged version of the flowers on antlers. Hiding from monsters (often only existing in the player's mind) in closets, knowing that light is about to run out, being chased, etc. It is these moment-like experiences that really stuck with players, and not the crafted experience as a whole. Which is why it might be impossible to take extra care at these kind of stuff and improve what these moments can express.

A good read (as per usual). The essence often seems to be underappreciated I find, though maybe it's more important to me since after playing games / reading books / watching films etc. I often don't remember many plot details or even character names, just a vague idea of what happened. Though I'd say it's worth noting that you can't remove all low-level elements of narrative.

Low-level is the part most people focus on, while high level is more like an overall subconcious impression. Without the low-level people would probably not be able to focus on it at all, it'd be like showing someone an abstract painting and saying "feel". Some people would probably get it, but I think most wouldn't. You could potentially get around this with videogames by focusing on interaction instead of traditional details, but most interactions within videogames are too mechanical which either makes them fairly transparent, or if they're too complicated, it can just make them seem inpenetrateable. Although those examples from Amnesia are pretty good at showing some that worked. I think some narrative framework is necessary for most people to be able to appreciate it (although I don't think you're arguing against that idea anyway).

I had another idea related to this.

All stories have already been told.

This is why Hollywood seems to keep repeating itself. And why auteur cinema often seems plot-less.

Maybe there are only a few possible plots in the world. Maybe there's only one, in the end.

If so, it makes sense to stop repeating it. It makes sense to assume people know the story. It makes sense to focus on something else: the other elements of narrative. And abandon the idea of plot (as, by and large, even Hollywood has done, by continuously repeating the same plot).

Another thought I had was that what we really want our work to do is to generate the effect of a story in the player. We want the player to be moved, to gain insight, to be inspired, to improve their lives, etc. In fact, this is the goal of story-tellers too. To them, plot is the means to this end. But their goal is not the plot. Their goal is the emotional and intellectual effect on the player.

This effect can be achieved in any medium. But the means to achieve it is different for each. The written story uses the device of plot. Music uses harmony and colour. Sculpture appeals to the memory of your hands. And interactive media need to figure out their own medium-specific tools to achieve the same effect.

Maybe that can be the subject of a follow-up article, Thomas: to figure out what is "X" in the equation "X is to interactive media what plot is to the fictional text"

I love that! :)

(especially when realising that the monsters only exist in my mind -it's a sublime feeling)

That's a great argument against abstract art.
I agree with it. Because I refuse to accept the body-mind duality. We experience the world through our senses. A big part of our intellectual life is nourished by physical experiences. I understand the purity that abstract artists desire. But I think it's an illusion. It functions like a placebo. Why not dive straight in and call a tree a tree and skin skin and make people smell the blood and the roses? I believe it is through these physical sensations that we can get to the deepest understanding of our world (beyond anything mere words can reach). And I think the interactive medium is the greatest medium for simulating the materiality of the world.

Already have some stuff brewing in the brain :) Hard subject though, so will see if I can form anything concrete out of it.

If stories (and art) depict concepts and their connections then a story in a game world very intricately shows these connections.

While enthusiastic about your idea it has some echo of the hypertext 'revolution' which claimed a single book can now tell you 'all the stories'. I think it works for specific themes - with Amnesia you took fear and I think that is a great one because there is less interaction with the object of fear. But if your game is about a brilliant manager at DB achieving the brilliant current development of having trains compete with airplanes, then you could only tell me that story (conceivably) by distilling it down. Because you could say this story is about 'achievement of your goals', but I already am ahead of you and have worked out that this story also says something about the arrogance of planes in assuming for so long all their had to fear was one-another; and that this all takes place at the highest tables, the hardest workers, the men who make the world continue spinning and make it possible for us to get in at point A and exit at point B with as little trouble as possible. If we work out some more important moral points to make, some connections to show, some heroes and antagonists, this story becomes quite locked down when also adding interesting personalities. For all of this to exist within an open game world means that there has to be an incredible amount of luck for all of this to occur.

Of course, your point is that story is not about these things specifically - but how will you convey the feeling of seeing your first train go through the canal tunnel bringing your first clients and seeing your profits skyrocket? Because I do not want to just convey 'pride' to the player, I personally am not interested in such abstractions. I want that pride of a fully functional moral system. And for that to occur, some elements just cannot be up to the player. It is like the castle in Amnesia: so much is dynamic, but the player is in a castle. My player is in a very complex morally charged world.

Minecraft can entertain someone for weeks, I really prefer to read a book in which I have no power but the outcome is far superior because of incredible amount of small events: Hugo speaks about the French revolution so much I feel tempted to be physically ill hearing one more word, but then the scale of the story becomes larger and larger and the plight his characters has such an amazingly large context. With his epic themes he can make the falling of a napkin the absurd longing of youthful love. All of this can only happen because the entire story is a huge, complex mechanism. Make one element up to me as a reader and I will fill it in with something not quite as good as Hugo. This is one of my old problems with games: pause the play and ask me from the audience to play Hamlet, and I will quite definitively not be as good as a trained actor - kindly just let me sit down and watch it be done by someone who actually can do it.

But this is why you make Amnesia and I make Dinner Date - I think both approaches are very interesting; your experience is that of personal fear whereas my story evokes sympathy, not personal experience. I have been thinking about making a game about pure joy and what that would mean; and I decided to drop story right off the bat. But the moment I started thinking about showing any causal relation within this world ('what pride makes joy possible!') I found myself having to introduce more plot; leading me to consider a more ballet-like concept where the experience is about a singleton emotion; that carries better, like fear in Amnesia or rage with Kratos (though I think God of War games are incredibly childish and far better games about rage are possible). But again, the ballet brings you an abstracted experience of emotions, not the fine grained emotion of Agora.

Perhaps that is a good question - how do you see more complex themes work in your view (the pride a son has of his father as he finally breaks from the leeching mother and marries a wife who is noble) and how do you view themes other than fear (the experience -not the act!- of walking through Hamburg and discovering each new street is as pretty as the last).

I have been tempted for a long while to build a story which is clearly Objectivistic but kept falling in the trap that my story was, every single time, essentially 5% of Atlas Shrugged. Then in one of her lesser known works Rand writes a story about an author who needs to write a story appealing to the masses but keeps turning his 'evil businessmen' into heroes, his murderers into people with reasons - in other words, he is incapable of switching off his mind and writing lowest denominator fiction. When I heard the story I realized that all these ideas are incredibly good and that I should read mre and work harder instead of complaining it is impossible to write an Objectivist story.

I think story ideas are very much like good art - when I do not see any for a while, I stop realized how good it is. Then I go to the ballet and I realize to what heights human art can reach. Wong Kar Wai makes films which for me have all been unique and not catcheable in a quick summary.

These two realizations make me think that not all stories have been told, some authors have just run out of words.

A final note, this thread makes me just want to build 4 games to stop all this discussion and just see whether I can make a ballet game about joy - we are sometimes discussing so much and there has been tried so little.

Certain story may be hard, and probably impossible, to make into a videogame. If your story requires that very specfic events unfold, then it will become harder and harder to make a decent videogame from it. The sort of larger scale events that you describe, might also be extra hard to convey.

I also think it is a matter of the degree of persuasion that is required. I feel that videogames are more open experience, both in terms of actions and interpretations. In films and books, it is easier to lure your audience into a very specific frame of mind. A videogame can only give the opportunity to do so, by setting up mechanics in a certain way. Some games try to push views by mechanics, but I am not really fond of this approach (as there is so much that can go wrong) and prefer a more open and in a sense random experience.

Regarding the Hamlet example: This is quite interesting and makes one question how much freedom a player should have. The less input the player has, the less they can screw up. This is especially true (as I think we discussed elsewhere) when the protagonist is required to have plenty of knowledge in a certain field. For the player to act as something like a 16th century nobleman is very hard since there is so much that needs to be known about the world. But I believe it can be solve, for example by letting the player's input connect to the protagonist instead of the actual world (this is how Diner Date works right?).

And as for other themes, I do not have any concrete solution, but see now reason for it not to work. We are currently working on a new game where I will try out new and a bit more difficult themes and concepts. Still keeping it at a very personal level (as in a strong player-world connection) though, as that is what I am interested in exploring currently.

That's because you're doing it wrong.  :P

If you already know what the outcome of the experience of your game will be, write a book instead or make a movie. Procedurality is about creating opportunities. It's not for expressing opinions or sending messages.

Again, this is not a good medium for that kind of "indoctrination".
The moral system you need to work with is the one of the player. Your work should hook into that. You can make some assumptions about what this moral system will be. But you have to accept that you could be wrong. And then accept that people are going to have a very different experience. Or simply not get it.

It's not about information.
And it's not about triggering an emotion (like "pride"). It's fine to have that as a goal, to guide the design process, much like telling a story can be a fine guide. But if all you do is express your own ideas and tell your own story, then you're not using the medium to its best capacity. And you will not achieve the sublime.

The Endless Forest has been called exactly that. :)

But we didn't set out with the intention to "make a game about pure joy".
No, we wanted to make a game in which you play a deer in an endless forest and where players could not hurt each other. That's all. The rest was painting.

Oh, and in conclusion: Fuck Hamlet!  :D

We can do much much better than that.
But not by imitating or repurposing other media. We need to find and use our own strengths.

The problem is that it is so easy to lean back on past experiences and think "I want to achieve that!", often think of a movie or book. I find myself into this line of thinking all the time, and I think the problem is because of good role models. For many of the things I want to achieve I know no videogame that have come close to this, and so instead think of books or movies. This is very hurtful, because then one might get stuck into thinking that is not working or get goals that are unrealistic. So I think having an open mind is very important here and also thinking out of the box. But I guess that is one of the difficulties that one face when trying to evolve a medium :)

There we disagree.

I am not the provider of a playground, I am a thinker and an author. I wish to create stories about things on which I have an opinion and see in a certain way. If I think 'achieving knowledge' is noble I will make a game in which the feat of achieving knowledge is shown as the ideal the heroes of the story have. And why - because I myself enjoy reading works in which heroes have traits I find noble and where their struggle is shown in a way which allows me to consider the world in a more complex way. This is not 'indoctrination' as you call it, it is the romantic-realistic ideal of art: to show concepts relevant to people's life, present a moral system in which these concepts lie, and display in artful way the manner in which things occur. This can be as abstract as the depiction of the hardened beauty of gypsies in the work of Bougereau or as fine-grained as the twists and turns of Les Misérables. It can even be the study and glorification of the tension of attraction, shyness and coercion as in the heart of Swan Lake.

I will not argue this is at all contradictory to interaction. But your assertion that I should work with the moral system of the player and should not express messages is completely contradictory to what art is: showing an implementation. If you do not implement any values and just hand the player a playground where he can have things you did not expect or intend then I would say your work is art as much as chess is art, organizing a role playing summer camp is art or, indeed, designing a card game is art.

But here I think you yourself are not being fair. Because if you create a playground where things happen you will invariably express cause and effect. Even Sim City is a clear expression of how cities are built in America as your citizens will respond to cultural principles and Monopoly before it meant to illustrate how unguided capitalism will lead to a big monopoly and the rules are slanted in such a way this will always happen. By engaging with those games you learn values. So you can build a world with certain rules and values and have them expressed through causal events. This is expressing values too. If you honestly intend not to express any values then you are not an artist but a provider. But I do not think you do not express any values - for all its abstractions The Path expresses something. You may say it is open for interpretation and indeed it is - but a game in which you learn to break the big rule, explore a strange new world and invariably make a mistake causing you loose your life; such a game already says something.

To make this clear: I think you say you want to work with the moral system of the player but despite this (thankfully, in my view) are still operating as an artist rather than a provider because you express vales and thereby gave some moral system. And I have no problem with you being abstract in the manner you are, I have no intention of finding a problem with this. I may not be fulfilled with abstraction and desire to read detailed values - bien, that is a difference.

You are telling me to either be the provider of a playground or, bizarrely, to be surreptitious about my intentions and display a moral system while feigning a free world. The former is not art, the later is being corrupt in your claimed intentions as an artist. This you describe as 'the sublime'. I am going to be harsh and say you say that to strive towards this ideal you will need to say this:


Rather than:


I agree with the later. Yes, we need to find our strength, for games of any kind. My games will be more closed and your games may be more open. I will use interaction to make sensations of characters more purposeful, you will use interaction to show how choices play out. But to find our strength we need to look at philosophy of games and art in general and examples of games and art in general.

I would need to find a way to make an wonderful complex series of events such as Crime and Punishment into a game - I will have to see that doing Raskolnikov's actions and being part of his mental conflict is the experience I found interesting about it and that to show this I do not allow the player to give himself in. You would sooner make a game in which you can give yourself in (if I may be so bold as to imagine what you would do); my game shows what it feels like not to be capable of handing yourself in, your game what it feels like to have the choice of handing yourself in. Depending on what one intends to express one of our methods will invariably be better. But both are valid means for expressing something. Only if you argue I should not express anything your way becomes superior and indeed, fuck Hamlet, we will give the player the means to express something. But that will always be dull to me - yet from my view of expressing content both our ways have interesting consequences.

I need to be judged by the standards of classical literature because I want to create similarly fine-grained experiences. And those experiences require things which are not up to the player - therefore the opportunity for me is to make the other things playable.


I think we need to find ways to 'dissect' elements from books and films... You can see it when a film is made from a script rather than with a director who knows how to make a film, I always think - there is something in the camera and the rhythm. In that sense copying a cutscene from a film would be being a bad director... making a scene playable would be a good film-like director.

Perhaps you can tell what makes you reach for books and film... I keep thinking of it as 'fine grain', a level of detail I cannot find in games. Thinking on how to express the complex relations and character traits in Deadwood in a game.. remains impossibly tempting.

I'm not denying you that at all. On the contrary!
My remarks were technical, not philosophical.

I'm not against people making statements and having opinions or telling stories. I just feel that there are better media for that than the interactive one. This medium is perfect for authors who want to deal with "the postmodern condition". It's a medium for author who accept that their own opinions are the fruit of their cultural context. For authors who want to play with their audience, and explore and discover things with them. I believe there is great depth in this and that we can go further than anywhere modernism has been able to go.

I believe there's a lot of authorship involved with this. It's just a new kind of authorship.

I think you underestimate the new authorship that I am proposing. But I can't express it. I can only hope that people get it. And maybe you do. Even if, intellectually, you are resisting.

My point is not to give the player "freedom to do whatever they want". My desire is more for creating a sort of laboratory context in which both players and creators can discover things. With this, I'm completely accepting, and even celebrating, the manipulative nature of such a context. But that doesn't mean that I'm only looking for a single outcome of this "research".

Perhaps you can compare it to different interpretations of the same sculpture. For some a pieta might look like a picture of a mother's sadness, for others its an expression of the soul of christian love and yet others will find it an erotically charged scene of a naked man lying on the knees of a fully dressed woman. For some, all of these interpretations may co-exist. I think it is this wealth of interpretations that gets us close to the sublime. And the interactive medium lends itself so much better to dealing with this wealth as authors rather than simply as audience. By creating living mechanisms, we can continue the conversation with our audience, long after we stopped programming.

You're right. But these values are not dogmas. They are part of the material of the work, that is open to investigation. Ultimately a player's response to our work says more about themselves than about us, or the work. And that's where I want to be, as an artist.

Maybe the only difference is that, yes I'm offering a moral system or a value judgment, but I'm not doing this in order to convince anyone. I'm just offering it as a suggestion, for people to do something with. A challenge if you want. As such, even the values are artistic material. And it's perfectly possible that I put values in our work that I do not agree with personally. But I just want to give the audience (and myself) a chance to be confronted with them and think about them.

For me, art is very much about asking questions. Not about giving answers.

And very often the question starts with "What if".

But I'm probably wrong in trying to generalize my own artistic attitude to be the only one for using this medium properly. I apologize for that. I'm just so happy with this medium. It's so perfect for where I am as an artist (in doubt, curious, asking questions, wanting to experiment with emotions, etc) that I sometimes forget how flexible it is and how it can allow for many different types of art. And when I see people struggling, I just want to share some of my joy. Where other experience problems, I see opportunities. It's hard not to share that when it's so obvious to me that the problems are caused by trying to do things with this medium that it doesn't seem ideal for. But I shouldn't forget that dealing with hard problems and doing what may seem inappropriate can also lead to great art.

I'm also glad to find someone working with this medium who is even more "traditional" and romantic than I am. :)

I know. It's tricky.

In my experience, it's good to start with very few expectations.
Only with the desire to create a great piece.
I think for me this is made easier by collaborating so closely with another human. Trust is a big part of our creative process. We never know what the other person will come up with next. Or what they really mean with this or that thing they did. But we have learned to accept this, and work with a certain level of uncertainty. As a result, the outcome of our work is often very different from our initial ideas. But I think that's a good thing, especially when working with a new medium.

I think the "fine grain" that Jeroen is talking about, is better developed during the production, in the game world, when you see and feel your material, rather than in concept in advance. Then creating videogames becomes a process of responding to opportunities rather than solving problems.

It does require you to keep your "author" cap on at all times! As the distinction between conception and production ceases to exist.

Michaël,

I just wanted to say that I have not stormed out of this thread - in fact, I am very happy to have read this and I appreciate our different methods.

I look forward to discussing this subject further and wish I could do so now... but I am sure that present company will excuse me for looking at the big calendar on my wall, the one with all the tight release deadlines! No weekend for me - dotting every 'i' indeed.

:)

Good luck, Jeroen! :)

Maybe you will know what I mean when I say this Michaël, but this reminds me of the book of Ecclesiastes.  The man being referenced by the teacher sometimes seems to be arguing with himself, offering up a series of different philosophies about life, before the teacher concludes.

From what I've learned, this was a common practice for philosophical debate in ancient times.  To dance around the issue from multiple angles.

I see it as an essential part of art creation and appreciation.

I just have read Thomas article and i like the example of the campfire story. Details change each time the story is told, but the heart of the story is always the same. Video games allow us to tell nearly "campfire stories", through randomness, non-linearity and the player's actions. They change each time we play it. Just as life is never the same.

And video games are fine to tell stories, i agree.