The Gaping Hole at the heart of Gaming

[GrizzlerBorno]

Why would it be silly? Suicides happen by the truckload every year. Why would it be so unthinkable that a suicidal character could be the protagonist of a story?

Also, Kane and Lynch: Dead Men was pretty much about this in the beginning of the game. Kane knew that The7 would kill him once he completed the task for them. He only pursued the task because if he succeeded then they wouldn't kill his wife and daughter along with him.

Of course Lynch fucks it all up along the way and it turns more into a revenge/rescue story after that. But for all intents and purposes one of the protagonists knew that he was going to die. His motivation was to insure that people he cared about didn't die along with him.

No but that isn't "suicide". That's "inevitable homicide", more like. I mean, as you said, playing as an actual Suicidal person. I dunno.

And i thought this thread would go on for longer than this. it kinda seems like it may have plateau'd. Shame

 

[Dexiro]

Why is video gaming as a storytelling medium stuck in this narrative hole in the ground, of 'daringly saving something from what we define as "evil"?' and how do we ameliorate ourselves from this situation?

I'm pretty sure Extra Credits did an episode on this last Thursday. "Defeat this to save this" is just one way of describing combat, which is an easy structure for games to follow.

It's not a bad thing, games can have that very basic structure and then layer things such as relationships onto it.

Spoiler: Shadow of the Colossus is a very simple example of this....

Shadow of the Colossus is a very simple example of this. The goal of the game is just to defeat enemies, but as you progress you start to question the morals of what you're doing and you see the main characters physical state start to degrade.

I agree that developers should try some more less combat orientated storylines, kind of like Heavy Rain perhaps but without the weird QTE format. Essentially it'd be like bringing back adventure games.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The idea of "conquest" and "being heroic" usually lies at the heart of all videogames. Simply because videogames are an escapist fantasy where we can be brave, badass and heroic, and actually make in impact on the world eventhough it is a virtual one.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

No but that isn't "suicide". That's "inevitable homicide", more like. I mean, as you said, playing as an actual Suicidal person. I dunno.

And i thought this thread would go on for longer than this. it kinda seems like it may have plateau'd. Shame

Of course he was being suicidal. I mean, they let him go travel around the world pretty much on his own. He could very well have gone: "Eh, fuck it. I like to live. Sure my wife and kid will be killed, but you win some you lose some."

But he didn't. He accepted death. In fact he was on his way to be executed in the beginning of the game and was pretty set on dying.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

The idea of "conquest" and "being heroic" usually lies at the heart of all videogames. Simply because videogames are an escapist fantasy where we can be brave, badass and heroic, and actually make in impact on the world eventhough it is a virtual one.

It quickly becomes cliché and boring to be a "heroic conqueror".

That's why it's nice that there are games like Silent Hill 2. No real heroics, just normal and extremely flawed people put through a seriously scary hell partly created by their own damaged minds.

 

[lvl9000_woot]

What about Pong? Sure you could call scoring the most points defeating the other player, but you're not saving anybody from anything.

 

[Eddy-16]

Hey, if it aint broke don't fix it.

 

[Iron Mal]

such as?

Unfortunately that's a private matter.

I am a hobby writer as well as an artist during my sparetime, but only a small percentage of my work are things that I wish to share with other people.

Sometimes this is due to the work in question being only in a kind of prototype/draft stage, and sometimes I've just drawn/painted/sculpted or written something purely for my own satisfaction with no intention of showing it to anyone else.

And the pieces I am refering to falls into these categories.

Though I wasn't really going to argue or try to convince anyone else why the article is wrong. It was merely somewhat flattering to read that someone studied this matter and came up with the idea that there are only seven "basic plots" in the world that all stories follow, and at the same time knowing that I've written stories myself that do not conform to these supposedly omnipresent basic plots.

Without evidence then this is just us taking your word for it (which is never a reliable thing on the internet), so for all we know you're talking out of your arse to sound smart.

Even if you have managed to come up with 'unique narratives', this doesn't mean that said narratives are good or interesting (in which case they can't really be held up as notable exceptions the the seven basic plots because...well, they blow).

 

[Peter Pottorff]

Really? Then read "I have no mouth and must scream". Then play the game.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The idea of "conquest" and "being heroic" usually lies at the heart of all videogames. Simply because videogames are an escapist fantasy where we can be brave, badass and heroic, and actually make in impact on the world eventhough it is a virtual one.

It quickly becomes cliché and boring to be a "heroic conqueror".

That's why it's nice that there are games like Silent Hill 2. No real heroics, just normal and extremely flawed people put through a seriously scary hell partly created by their own damaged minds.

Yes, but the game is still about conquest.

You're trying to conquer your own fears and the mess that is your mind to be with the one you love. Not to mention the amount of puzzles you have to solve. This might not be the same as conquering a dragon to save a loved one or vanquishing an alien race to save Earth, but it's still all about overcoming obstacles in order to reach an objective.

 

[Mr Companion]

Mirrors edge: Regime, sister.
Littlebigplanet: Collector, creations
Sports games: Opponent, career
Crackdown: Gangs, city
Overlord: Poorly designed puzzles, tower
Limbo: Insects/puzzles, sister
Patapon: Other tribe, your tribe
Minecraft: Creepers, building you spent hours making
God of War: Gods, ???
Resident evil 4: Zombies, Annoying little *****
Spore: Desire to buy, money
Neverwinter nights: Hilarious lizard people, city.
Mafia 2: Mafia, yourself
Gears of war: Aliens, planet
Halo: Aliens, planet
Half life 2: Aliens, planet
Resistence: Aliens, planet
Detroy all humans 2: Aliens, planet
Beyond Good And Evil: Aliens, planet
Borderlands: Alien, planet
Mass effect: Aleins, Tiny galaxy.
Crysis: Aleins, game before it crashes again

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Mirrors edge: Regime, sister.
Littlebigplanet: Collector, creations
Sports games: Opponent, career
Crackdown: Gangs, city
Overlord: Poorly designed puzzles, tower
Limbo: Insects/puzzles, sister
Patapon: Other tribe, your tribe
Minecraft: Creepers, building you spent hours making
God of War: Gods, ???
Resident evil 4: Zombies, Annoying little *****
Spore: Desire to buy, money
Neverwinter nights: Hilarious lizard people, city.
Mafia 2: Mafia, yourself
Gears of war: Aliens, planet
Halo: Aliens, planet
Half life 2: Aliens, planet
Resistence: Aliens, planet
Detroy all humans 2: Aliens, planet
Beyond Good And Evil: Aliens, planet
Borderlands: Alien, planet
Mass effect: Aleins, Tiny galaxy.
Crysis: Aleins, game before it crashes again

Haha that last one (and the spore one) was pretty funny. And yeah i was sort of running out as i wrote that so i just ended it with Mario. Also, God of War isn't so much a rescue as it is....genocide. or diety'cide, i guess. It's the "other" great gaming boil down of "Killed someone I love! Im'a Get you!"

Come to think of it, there are plenty of those as well, aren't there? :S

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Without evidence then this is just us taking your word for it (which is never a reliable thing on the internet), so for all we know you're talking out of your arse to sound smart.

Even if you have managed to come up with 'unique narratives', this doesn't mean that said narratives are good or interesting (in which case they can't really be held up as notable exceptions the the seven basic plots because...well, they blow).

What part of:

Though I wasn't really going to argue or try to convince anyone else why the article is wrong. It was merely somewhat flattering to read that someone studied this matter and came up with the idea that there are only seven "basic plots" in the world that all stories follow, and at the same time knowing that I've written stories myself that do not conform to these supposedly omnipresent basic plots.

... Is it that you don't understand?

 

[Omnific One]

So you figured out that most games have conflict... like most movies, TV shows, books, etc.

Everything, except for the few really artsy-indie things, has conflict. It is a tenet of story construction.

Portal: Defeat GLaDOS to save self
Bioshock: Defeat Ryan/Fontaine to save self
Fallout 3 (because I haven't played the first 2): Defeat Enclave to save Wasteland

Pretty much everything with a storyline has conflict. Hence, nearly everything can be applied to this formula.

I don't really consider "saving myself" as actually saving anyone. As in, it's more of an instinctual thing like breathing. I'm not saving myself from burning by not holding my hand in the fire; I'm just being not brain-dead.
The Fallout one is not true at all, since you can alternatively lay waste to the pentagon and kill everyone in DC just as easily. And no offense, but i don't think it's fair to comment on games you haven't played. (you got Bioshock completely wrong btw)

Um, according to literature, saving yourselves is saving someone. It's called man vs. [insert thing here]. It could be nature, man, society, the supernatural, self, whatever. It's all still conflict.

I don't think it's fair to make stupid assumptions that are false (yes, I probably played more Bioshock than you). Do you kill Ryan? Sure, because

Spoiler

you were directed to

. In the end, it is assuaging your mental cues, thereby saving yourself mentally. You kill Fontaine as a means of escape.

Maybe you should use your brain and check my gamertag. Note the Orange Box, Bioshock 1 and 2, and Fallout 3 twice (for PC and 360).

You aren't saying anything amazing here, you are just reiterating obvious stuff that people grasp from birth: story is based on conflict.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Yes, but the game is still about conquest.

You're trying to conquer your own fears and the mess that is your mind to be with the one you love. Not to mention the amount of puzzles you have to solve. This might not be the same as conquering a dragon to save a loved one or vanquishing an alien race to save Earth, but it's still all about overcoming obstacles in order to reach an objective.

James wasn't conquering his fears in Silent Hill 2.

James was ridden with guilt and felt a subconscious need to be punished. That's what the whole pyramid head thing was all about.

The player might be scared shitless though and in a way conquering his or her own fears, but the point of the story wasn't to conquer fear, it was about penance and learning to move on from grief and a sad and troubled past.

Also, that thing you said about "overcoming obstacles and reaching an objective". That's not really a plot, it's game theory. A game is always about overcoming artificial obstacles and reaching an objective in some way. If this isn't included then it wouldn't be a game anymore. But that doesn't mean that the obstacles and objective serve a significant role in the actual plot of the story.

 

[Omnific One]

Snip.

I don't really consider "saving myself" as actually saving anyone. As in, it's more of an instinctual thing like breathing. I'm not saving myself from burning by not holding my hand in the fire; I'm just being not brain-dead.
Snip.

I'd like to add that the whole point of portal is attempting escape, GLaDOS just tries to stop you from doing that.

Argh, it's like I have to explain basic literary devices. Do you fight GLaDOS? Yes, hence it is conflict. Honestly, how difficult is this to understand? Circumstances may be different, but in the end it is all conflict. If the circumstances weren't different, we would just get a bunch of games that were identical.

 

[phantasmalWordsmith]

I would like an anti-hero game. get in tight with Mafia, butcher them,"evade" the cops. a game where you decide the way to get things done, with actions having reactions. Kill this man, his friend gets paranoid and runs away. I'm sure that sounds a lot like Assassin's Creed but I see it in a mega city. no definitive story just an objective to reach and you figure things out; understand how people are going to react to something and plan ahead

 

[TyrantGanado]

I think the issue is that most narrative structures are intrinsicly tied to their medium. For example, God of War would probably not work as well as a movie due to the fact that most of the challenge in the game comes from defeating the tougher and tougher enemies you encounter. Watching someone slash away at minotaurs for two hours isn't as fun as doing it yourself (well, controlling the guy yourself, DIY would result in swift death). Likewise an RPG would be a horrible movie, if translated literally.

Just as Lost would not work as a book, or series thereof. The constant viewpoint and temporal shifts would become a bucketload more confusing in text format since the series relies quite a bit on visual and audio cues (watch it and you'll realise it if you think about it). Lost would also not work as a game. No, Via Domus does not exist shut up!

Just as Christine would make a crappy game, unless they up the body count and let you control her yourself and ...okay bad example. It (the book, and yes another Stephen King example) would make a bad game due its heavy reliance on characterisation and reams and reams of dialogue. There are maybe three major conflicts in the whole book, not really prime set up for a game.

That's not to say stories can't be altered to fit, but they're adaptions, not the original source material. This is why adaptions often differ wildly, what works in one medium sometimes simply does not work in another. Sure writers can look into ways of changing the status quo but a lot of studios simply can't afford to hire such experimental writers.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Um, according to literature, saving yourselves is saving someone. It's called man vs. [insert thing here]. It could be nature, man, society, the supernatural, self, whatever. It's all still conflict.

I don't think it's fair to make stupid assumptions that are false (yes, I probably played more Bioshock than you). Do you kill Ryan? Sure, because

Spoiler

you were directed to

. In the end, it is assuaging your mental cues, thereby saving yourself mentally. You kill Fontaine as a means of escape.

Maybe you should use your brain and check my gamertag. Note the Orange Box, Bioshock 1 and 2, and Fallout 3 twice (for PC and 360).

You aren't saying anything amazing here, you are just reiterating obvious stuff that people grasp from birth: story is based on conflict.

First of all, I'm sorry I fucked up. When you said

Portal: Defeat GLaDOS to save self
Bioshock: Defeat Ryan/Fontaine to save self
Fallout 3 (because I haven't played the first 2): Defeat Enclave to save Wasteland

I misread that to mean that you hadn't played the first two games on that list i.e. Bioshock and Portal. I just now got that you were referring to Fallout 1&2. My mistake, so i'll unfortunately have to let that grotesquly aggressive comment pass. Shame on me. :S

Other than that, No bioshock has nothing to do with Saving anyone, since your not really a "person" anyway. you're what, A stunted 2-3 year old experiment/fail-safe gone wrong, You basically have no real personality cause your brain is messed up. You kill Ryan cause he asks you to. You kill Fontaine because your pissed off about him exploiting you. It's revenge. Your not "redeeming yourself" or saving anyone (except maybe the little sisters, but that's a tacked on side-note, not the objective)

And that last line was such a pathetic hyperbolic insult. Is that really necessary? You quote something ambiguous about how literature tells you stuff (in your sleep?) and then make silly insults like that?