Frictional: “How gameplay and narrative kill meaning”

[Michaël Samyn]

Another take on why notgames:
http://frictionalgames.blogspot.com/2010/01/how-gameplay-and-narrative-kill-meaning.html

I have invited Thomas Grip to join the forum.

[Thomas]

And now I have joined!

Thanks for posting the article and glad you liked it.

The post is pretty much a summary of thought regarding design that I have had for some time and is an attempt to make sense of it. I would therefore be very interested in hearing feedback on it and to know if I have made any errors in my thinking. Perhaps there is something I need to reconsider.

[Michaël Samyn]

Your thinking is very similar to ours. Especially regarding our thought process when making The Path. I hope to express some of this in the Post Mortem we plan to write next month.

We tend to be a bit careless with our terminology. I like how you draw very clear lines between things.

I really liked reading it. It's like we're all coming out of the woodwork with similar ideas. It's very nice after feeling alone for so long...

You might want to proofread the post one more time, though. I remember seeing some awkward grammar here and there.

[Thomas]

I really like to have hard definitions It helps when discussion, but more importantly I think it makes you think through what you really mean with something. If one has the goal to get "meaning" into games, how can that be accomplished if one does not have a clear vision of what that meaning would be?

*Starts doing another round of proof reading*

[David]

thank you for this article.

the only point i have not understood is the opposition between gameplay and narrative.
if "gameplay" = "obstacles to overcome" (...i am right?)
and if "narrative" = "preplanned sequence of events" (...i am right?),
so maybe "gameplay+narrative" = "preplanned sequence of obstacles to overcome".
where is the opposition ?

i think that why the combination of gameplay and narrative often leads to a so poor meaning, is mainly because gameplay reduces the freedom of the "user"... and narrative does the same. Thus when we add the two, the user have twice less freedom. Maybe in a notgame, every user could more freely chose what to do, according who he/she is and what he/she needs to evolve in his/her real life.

in virtual experiences as in real life, i think we need some gameplay (~goals, directions) and some narrative (~rythm).
but we don't need imposed goals or imposed rythm.
the user or the human should be able to freely find or "create" the goals and rythm that he/she needs.

all of this is about the freedom to act according of who you are, i think.

in my opinion, the perfect notgame would be a notgame that would speak to everybody. Not only to the formatted masses, but to really everybody. Each human could, inside it, find some elements that are enriching for him/her. Maybe this is only a dream...
i hope it isn't!

[Thomas]

Having thought about this point a bit, I am not sure that what I how express is veryclear and it might even by that I am not entirely correct in my thinking. Here is another attempt to expand, please comment!

The most basic point I am trying to make is that the goal generated gameplay does not go in the same direction as the narrative. And here is where I should have described it a bit differently. Because, thinking about it, the problem is not so much that gameplay is in the way of narrative, but more that the goals of the narrative can be very different from the goals of the gameplay. As long as goal is to slaughter monsters, all is okay. But when it comes to talking to other people or something like that the gameplay totally fails to portray that. So usually you have to end up in a cut-scene or something similar to force this narrative into the game.

That said, there is also the problem of pacing the story correctly and if you want a scene with a lot of emotional impact then replaying it will seriously damage the feel. But, repeating might be important for the gameplay (here I mean repeating as in failing and trying again) and thus you either have to cut down on gameplay (make it easier) or cut down on narrative (loose impact on the scene).

There is of course also the problem of freedom, and this does not have to be sandbox game like freedom. This can just be as simple a room with several doors and a narrative that demands that the player a certain door, while gameplay wants the player to visit them all. The same problem is with gameplay allow (and encourage) the player to kill people, and narrative demands that some are interacted with.

Also, unless gameplay is very connected to the narrative, it will detract as they will not have much to do with one another. If the narrative has some love plot, it will be a lot harder to care, when all you want to do is to blow shit up

Hope that cleared it up! I am trying to wrap my head around all this too, so very happy for any feedback. I have gotten these feelings about it gameplay and narrative after working for a while and part of reason for writing it down, is to make sense of it all

[Michaël Samyn]

I think that's an important point to make: that games allow for a certain type of narrative. Typically, a narrative about conflict resolution through elimination of opposition. Described like this, you can clearly see that there is still a lot of potential within the games format for storytelling. It doesn't have to be about war.

That being said, this type of narrative is only one of very many. And none of the other types can be told through a game. We need new formats for those.

But thanks to the interactivity, generativity and (potential) non-linearity of computer software, we don't need to limit ourselves to translating a narrative into a game (or "notgame"). We can go a step further and create "narrative environments" in which any story comes out of the collaboration between player and software.

Now, I don't think that "freedom" is exactly the right model, or the elusive "sandbox". Because this always seems to imply that whichever (linear!) path the player takes through the environment ends up being "the story". And of course, nine times out of ten, this story will be rubbish.
Which is why clever authors like "David Cage" carefully construct roller-coaster rides through their content. But I think we can go further. I think we can abandon linearity.

A painting is not linear. A building is not linear. A sculpture is not linear. Yet any of these can be very meaningful. It's not so much the path we take through the building or the order in which we observe the elements in a painting, that creates this meaning. It is our understanding of the whole that generates the meaning. Which path we took is irrelevant.
Furthermore, repeated visits to a certain building or seeing a sculpture several times on different occasions, perhaps over multiple years or even decades, can deepen its meaning for you. I like to think of software as such objects. Things that exist, that I can come back to and find something new in. Peaceful things that become a part of your life. And that don't necessarily take hours to enjoy.
Perhaps this is why I prefer to think of our software as computer applications or tools rather than as games or movies or stories.

[Michaël Samyn]

I've been meaning to add this to the discussion: Aristotles' Six Elements of Drama! Of all six elements (plot, theme, character, diction, music and spectacle), only one is not compatible with interactive experiences: plot. But all the others are! And this is plenty to build a story with, especially considering the new elements that are added thanks to the technology (interactivity, generativity, immersion, intimacy, etc). With all these elements, who needs plot?

[David]

Thomas, so you say that the story in an interactive experience could be everything we want, but unfortunately the gameplay (obstacles to overcome) leads creators to:

1. tell only stories that fit with it (obstacles to overcome). For example, aliens are attacking and you have to kill them all... Or widely said by Michaël "conflict resolution through elimination of opposition".

2. tell stories that don't fit with the gameplay, thus they are put in cut scenes that are completely separated from the gameplay.

in 1. the story is limited,
and in 2. there is a "schizophrenia" between what you see in cut scenes and what you do in game.
i think i understand. Thanks, this is interesting.
to sum up we could say that gameplay reduces stories possibilities, i guess?

We can go a step further and create "narrative environments" in which any story comes out of the collaboration between player and software.

Now, I don't think that "freedom" is exactly the right model, or the elusive "sandbox". Because this always seems to imply that whichever (linear!) path the player takes through the environment ends up being "the story". And of course, nine times out of ten, this story will be rubbish.
Which is why clever authors like "David Cage" carefully construct roller-coaster rides through their content. But I think we can go further. I think we can abandon linearity.

very interesting.

have "sandboxes" preplanned pathes like in David Gage's creations? i thought that they hadn't...
about the "narrative environments" you have in mind, why couldn't we call them "sandboxes"?

[Thomas]

alphonse:
Yeah, that is pretty much what I mean! I think that was a nice summary. This also means that good stories can be created with gameplay, but it will greatly limit what they can contain.

[God at play]

Nice work guys, I feel like I learned some deeper meaning about your theories here.

I created a crude prototype of a narrative environment last summer.  The intent was that you could explore the environment while someone was giving a lecture, and in that way you'd help to visualize what the speaker was saying.

My very rough prototype was pretty linear, but my vision for it was similar to what is being discussed here:
http://www.godatplay.com/2009/05/interactive-sermon-tool-prototype/

[Michaël Samyn]

have "sandboxes" preplanned pathes like in David Gage's creations? i thought that they hadn't...

No, in theory sandboxes are completely open. I am advocating against this openness. And in favour of authorship. But I don't think a linear roller-coaster ride is the only way of authoring a "sandbox". A smarter way, in my opinion, is for instance the ringing phones in public phone booths in Grand Theft Auto 3. When you hear a phone ring, you can go and pick it up and the voice on the other side will give you a mission. These missions are entirely optional, but they do allow you to get more familiar with elements of the virtual world that you would otherwise not have access to.

about the "narrative environments" you have in mind, why couldn't we call them "sandboxes"?

Because a sandbox is not necessarily authored. You could throw a bunch of random elements together and then tell the player "Play! Be free!" But I don't think this is very interesting. Authorship starts with the selection of the elements in your sandbox, how they trigger meaning on their own, by their juxtaposition and through interaction with each other and with the player. A narrative environment is a carefully constructed scene intended to generate meaning. Not necessarily one specific meaning. Ideally meaning should arise out of the combination of player and game. But this is not "open". And it is not about only the "player's story". The author should consider their player and give them things that they can fantasize about. A little bit of psychological and emotional manipulation is definitely appropriate.

The archetype of a "narrative environment" for me is a traditional catholic cathedral. These are places that are filled with paintings and sculptures and ornaments that all refer to different parts of the stories that underlie the religion. Depending on the visitor's knowledge of the Bible, they will recognize elements or not. But many of the decorations and elements are not explained in the Bible. To really know what they mean, you often need thorough historic knowledge.
But what's interesting to me is not to discover what things really mean. When you enter a nice cathedral, you are overwhelmed with the sensation of richness of narrative. And as you look around, you can't help but feel things and imagine things. And since everything in the place was created from the same conviction, from the same passion (even if it wasn't created by the same person), there is a strong sense of coherence, even if you don't literally understand everything. In the end, you feel the story instead of hearing it, you become embedded in it, you feel connected to it. Those gothic and baroque church designers really knew a thing or two about designing immersive environments!

[David]

Because a sandbox is not necessarily authored.

i agree ; we need the trace of the author(s) in order to make sure there is some meaning.

maybe we could say that
games often limit meaning because they lack stories possibilities (not enough freedom),
and "sandboxes" limit meaning because they lack authors' trace (too much freedom).

The archetype of a "narrative environment" for me is a traditional catholic cathedral. (...)

this example makes it clearer to me, thank you.

maybe we could say that a cathedral contains a sort of "preplanned story" (space arrangement, content of the window paintings...) but it is ambiguous enough to allow the user to make his/her own story.

in my opinion, freedom is once again an important point here.
the user is quite free to imagine a story.
he/she is quite free to "take" the elements that inspire him/her what he/she needs to think about for his/her life.
the environment is deep or ambiguous enough to inspire a different story to each user in order to fit with him/her.

moreover this is not linear... and it doesn't end, ok.

[Michaël Samyn]

It's not just about freedom. We also want to actively stimulate the player's imagination.

[axcho]

The archetype of a "narrative environment" for me is a traditional catholic cathedral. These are places that are filled with paintings and sculptures and ornaments that all refer to different parts of the stories that underlie the religion. Depending on the visitor's knowledge of the Bible, they will recognize elements or not. But many of the decorations and elements are not explained in the Bible. To really know what they mean, you often need thorough historic knowledge.
But what's interesting to me is not to discover what things really mean. When you enter a nice cathedral, you are overwhelmed with the sensation of richness of narrative. And as you look around, you can't help but feel things and imagine things. And since everything in the place was created from the same conviction, from the same passion (even if it wasn't created by the same person), there is a strong sense of coherence, even if you don't literally understand everything. In the end, you feel the story instead of hearing it, you become embedded in it, you feel connected to it. Those gothic and baroque church designers really knew a thing or two about designing immersive environments!

I really like that you bring up this comparison, because I've noticed the same thing (though in this case it was visiting a Hindu temple under construction - I'll have to go visit a real cathedral sometime). On a smaller scale, you can see the same thing in household altars - often there are images, carvings, symbols that reference stories and worlds specific to the religion in question and may evoke these associations in someone who is familiar with them.

I don't know what the connection is exactly, but I'm pretty sure there's a lot that notgames can learn here...