The Gaping Hole at the heart of Gaming

[rsvp42]

At worst, we're looking at a broad trope that is used throughout gaming, not a narrative hole, or rut, or anything negative like that. Games are about giving a player control of an agent or agents--be it a single character or a host of units/resources--and presenting them a challenge to overcome with the resources at their disposal. There is a lot that can be done within that basic structure, but it usually requires some kind of external antagonist and a recognizable goal. "Defeat x to save y" is the same as "overcome x to achieve y" or "solve challenge x to earn y." Objective and obstacle. Basing most games around the extremely broad concept of objectives and obstacles is hardly a problem. It's probably what makes them so successful, really.

True, but i don't think a game has to be an "out there"/crazy concept to overcome the hurdle. I mean, as I've said, look at Fallout 3? You can't boil that down to the basic.

But you can. Please avoid spoiling anything for me, as I've only just had a chance to start playing it, but just about every mission in there involves defeating/overcoming something to save something else. There's some personal and moral choices in there as well, but same goes for Mass Effect and others.

 

[Iron Mal]

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?

To be brutally honest I kinda do enjoy how stubbornly you defend your points as if it is holy ground that must be held at all costs, it makes arguements all the more interesting.

But back to the point at hand, you said that you had worked around these supposed 7 basic plots but when asked to actually prove this you refused to explain, in short, to me it sounds like you were making it up so you could sound smarter.

The reason these seven plots were established is because you can look at pretty much any story out there and after stripping away enough fluff and lore you will find that somewhere it will be something along the lines of one of the seven (I'm gonna take a guess that you're supposedly 'unique' stories are no exception, you just haven't looked far enough to find it).

Just because you didn't intend to have an arguement doesn't mean someone else can't inititate one, after all, forums are supposed to be a place of discussion and debate, arguements are an important part of discussion (if you don't like it then perhaps you shouldn't have joined a forum).

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Not gonna name names here, but the bulk of this thread consists of one guy generalizing to the point of uselessness and another guy using obnoxious semantics to escape the trap.

I don't feel like I'm reading much in the way of honest intellectual debate here. Just seems like folks arguing foregone conclusions with whatever evidence happens to support their desired outcomes.

 

[Omnific One]

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?

Sorry, I guess being insulted and told that I was "completely wrong" and "hadn't played the game" made me a bit edgy. Surely you understand...

Bioshock is about assuaging your mental drives, thereby preventing mental breakdown (if you played the game, you would know this). In effect, you are saving yourself.

Also, please tell me you are ESL because the things you misinterpreted about what I said are pretty obvious to anyone with a grasp of the colorful nature of English idiomatic expressions. I'm not looking to insult you and I would like you to return the favor.

Edit: I'm done with this topic. For more on the concept of "man vs." style of conflict, please see any recent literature textbook. That is all.

 

[veloper]

So, I'm going to state something, and try to prove how important that single statement is:
Defeat [this], to save [this].

So my question is a simple one:
Why do you think this is so?

Because challenge and gameplay are inseperable. Challenge implies an obstacle to overcome (Defeat [this]). The rest is fluff (save [this]).

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

snip

The trouble is everything can be boiled down to move to point A do stuff move to point B do stuff, repeat.

For films you need a good narrative and story, for games mechanics lube the narrative and story and make it work or not.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

to me it sounds like you were making it up so you could sound smarter.

Yeah. Because trying to impress total strangers who I barely even consider to be human, while at the same time doing it under a completely anonymous persona would improve my life how, exactly? (you can take a look at my profile if you want, and you'll see that my "general details" section is lacking any sort of content about my real identity)

So tell me, what do I stand to gain in trying to impress you or anyone else for that matter? Because I sure as hell can't see anything about it that would improve my existence in the slightest. But being the mindreader that you seem to portray yourself as, perhaps YOU can tell ME about ME.

The reason these seven plots were established is because you can look at pretty much any story out there and after stripping away enough fluff and lore you will find that somewhere it will be something along the lines of one of the seven

Is that a scientific statement on your part?

(I'm gonna take a guess that you're supposedly 'unique' stories are no exception, you just haven't looked far enough to find it).

Yeah, I sure wouldn't know. I only wrote the fucking things and spent hours upon hours re-reading, re-writing and polish them. I certainly don't have an in-depth understanding of my own products. (yes, I am being sarcastic. People talking out of their ass tend to make it somewhat rewarding)

Just because you didn't intend to have an arguement doesn't mean someone else can't inititate one, after all, forums are supposed to be a place of discussion and debate, arguements are an important part of discussion (if you don't like it then perhaps you shouldn't have joined a forum).

I've never said anything about disliking discussions. It is a prime-time hobby of mine (oh, that rhymes!) after all.

I merely said that in this particular case I had no interest in debating it or trying to convince anyone. It was just a personal remark, and I made it ABUNDANTLY clear in my post by writing the disclaimer in question.

Now you can try to initiate an argument all you like, but it will ultimately make you look pretty stupid when I basically told you and everyone else that I had no intention of discussing the point, and yet you insist on trying to provoke an argument anyway.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Ummm, there are tropes. They are common. Human beings tend to think in tropes. Every read "hero with a thousand faces?"

Every games that has been made needs a couple of things to be "good." It needs some overall goal so the player has direction and something to move towards and it needs some opposing force to stand in between you and that goal. This is the broadest estimation of the basic conflict of a stories (game or otherwise) and every game fits into it in some way (unless its complete crap). We could easy change your estimation to "Defeat X to complete Y" and we have an estimation of conflict from the micro-scale (defeat goomba to move right) to the macro-scale (defeat Reapers to save universe). Therefor the only really troupe here is that lots of games tend to focus on wanting to save someone or something. If we add "yourself" to the list of options we get pretty much every-game ever made. (Bioshock: Defeat splicers to escape and save yourself; portal: defeat challenges to escape and save yourself).

The clear reason why this is so is that its essential to good story telling taking out the goal or the conflict turns your story to crap. Taking out the evil wizard between you and princess reduces the game to "go to princess, win" taking out the prize at the end of the game just leaves the player wondering why the hell they are doing anything and lost. (every play a game where you wonder what the point is and get bored with it since there's no driving force?).

 

[Atmos Duality]

The conflict itself isn't the issue; how it's presented matters.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

If there isn't one example you could give, then I don't believe you.

Then don't. See if I care.

You can't make a good story without some sort of conflict. That's it. No conflict, no story. Sorry, that's the way the world turns, every story ever written can be boiled down to simplicity. That's not to say there isn't any originality, or that your stories are bad, it's just that all stories fall into certain trappings.

Who said anything about writing a story completely without conflict?

I just made a remark about these "ultimate" seven stereotypes that some person claims that all stories come down to in the end.

If you think about it, it is pretty unlikely. And it's reasonable to assume that adamant believers in such a theory probably have a pretty biased view if they make such a claim. In other words: they review a story in a rather far fetched manner in order to make the evidence fit the theory, rather than adapting the theory after the evidence (as a scientist would've done).

As for this fellow - I don't think there is anything that falls out of those seven basic plots.[/quote]

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

-snip- There is a lot that can be done within that basic structure, but it usually requires some kind of external antagonist and a recognizable goal. "Defeat x to save y" is the same as "overcome x to achieve y" or "solve challenge x to earn y." Objective and obstacle. -snip-

Yeah, This is something that a lot of the people seem to be getting stuck on. I fully understand that gameplay could never EVER work without a clear goal with a visible obstacle in the way. My problem does not lie there.

"Defeat x to save y" is the same as "overcome x to achieve y" or "solve challenge x to earn y."

My problem is that we always see the first example (refer to the list) and very rarely to the other variants. well not the last one, but that is more limited and mechanic based, like puzzles.
Specifically the middle one, then: "overcome x to achieve y". Why can't we have more of these? This is a very open to interpretation option and can be used to tell great stories, because "overcoming something" generally feels more cathartic than "beat across the head with a baseball bat" Refer to Silent Hill 2 vs. God of War 3 for proof.

 

[Chibz]

I think what he was getting at is that video games tend to have far more shallow plots than well written books, film & television.

 

[Casual Shinji]

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.

But if that was the case, the plot would be interchangably from the gameplay. And it isn't, or atleast it shouldn't.

 

[rsvp42]

"Defeat x to save y" is the same as "overcome x to achieve y" or "solve challenge x to earn y."

My problem is that we always see the first example (refer to the list) and very rarely to the other variants. well not the last one, but that is more limited and mechanic based, like puzzles.
Specifically the middle one, then: "overcome x to achieve y". Why can't we have more of these? This is a very open to interpretation option and can be used to tell great stories, because "overcoming something" generally feels more cathartic than "beat across the head with a baseball bat" Refer to Silent Hill 2 vs. God of War 3 for proof.

It sounds like you want to see more internal conflicts. There's basically three kinds of conflicts: man vs. man, man vs. environment, and man vs. self. We see a lot of the first two in every medium because they're external. Such conflicts are easier to portray in comparison to internal conflicts. A man fighting off an invading army is simpler and clearer than a man fighting with his past and feelings of inadequacy as a father. The kicker is that such internal conflicts are often more emotionally compelling. It's a trade-off.

But compare to film and you see a similar predominance of external conflict. Film and books have the luxury of being passive. We as viewers and readers can simply sit back and take in the story as it's presented. With games, there is an expectation of Play, which makes internal conflicts harder to convey. It's one thing to craft an emotional cutscene, but how do you make a player feel that internal conflict, not just witness it in the character they control? Therein lies the challenge. Add to that the tastes of most gamers who prefer fantastic worlds and high octane action and quiet, internal conflicts become an even harder sell, both creatively and commercially.

I have no doubt that games--and the experiences we have in them--will mature and evolve as time goes on. We may very well see a wave of critically and commercially successful games that tackle the human condition in ways that will make modern games seem as trite and toy-like as the multitude of forgettable arcade games of the past. But at the same time, we can't try to paint external conflicts as lowbrow or un-evolved. After all, there's a reason action titles still kill at the box office. And the video game industry didn't rise to its current prominence on the backs of "art" titles.

I'll stop there, at the risk of dredging up a slew of related, but wildly tangential issues like commercialism vs. artistry or idealism vs. realism

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

It sounds like you want to see more internal conflicts. There's basically three kinds of conflicts: man vs. man, man vs. environment, and man vs. self. We see a lot of the first two in every medium because they're external. Such conflicts are easier to portray in comparison to internal conflicts. A man fighting off an invading army is simpler and clearer than a man fighting with his past and feelings of inadequacy as a father. The kicker is that such internal conflicts are often more emotionally compelling. It's a trade-off.

But compare to film and you see a similar predominance of external conflict. Film and books have the luxury of being passive. We as viewers and readers can simply sit back and take in the story as it's presented. With games, there is an expectation of Play, which makes internal conflicts harder to convey. It's one thing to craft an emotional cutscene, but how do you make a player feel that internal conflict, not just witness it in the character they control? Therein lies the challenge. Add to that the tastes of most gamers who prefer fantastic worlds and high octane action and quiet, internal conflicts become an even harder sell, both creatively and commercially.

I have no doubt that games--and the experiences we have in them--will mature and evolve as time goes on. We may very well see a wave of critically and commercially successful games that tackle the human condition in ways that will make modern games seem as trite and toy-like as the multitude of forgettable arcade games of the past. But at the same time, we can't try to paint external conflicts as lowbrow or un-evolved. After all, there's a reason action titles still kill at the box office. And the video game industry didn't rise to its current prominence on the backs of "art" titles.

I'll stop there, at the risk of dredging up a slew of related, but wildly tangential issues like commercialism vs. artistry or idealism vs. realism

Hang on a minute. can I ask what is specifically meant by Player vs. Environment? That doesn't mean, you know, beating up spiders or wolves. That means, beating natural forces around us right? Why not go with that? Like say, Hardcore mode in Fallout New vegas, but less...hardcore, to see how well you can survive in a nuclear wasteland. Or Minecraft. Or even fighting societal forces like in GTA4 or RDR to some extent. There are so many of these untapped resources, taht can be fought both literally and metaphorically.

And besides it's not really the obstacle that bothers me. It's more the goal. The "saving obsession" as it were. I don't mind fighting other men. But why not fight them for some philosophy I believe in, and they don't? To be fair, WWII games were kinda like that in a sense, or better yet Fallout games, (again) where you fight for factions that are competing in a war of philosophies....but with guns. (Ironically, i didn't like Fallout 3 much) Those can be deep, and be man vs. man conflict but still introduce interesting new thought concepts.

Other than that, yeah i get what you mean. Given time, i guess?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

But if that was the case, the plot would be interchangably from the gameplay. And it isn't, or atleast it shouldn't.

Okay, take the majority of FPS games ever created and ask yourself: How is the plot actually completely dependant on the gameplay? Could the same plot not be switched to another FPS game with another kind of gameplay?

Story and game mechanics tend to be seperate from eachother in most games. And it doesn't necessarly make the games bad either.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Why there is concern about what interest may be employed in video games is because more than one narrative means must be crafted into making a video game.
Games with stories are driven by Narrative AND Interactivity, and people who make games are still trying to find the right balance.

 

[Wintermoot]

it would else be a bad game lets say there is nothing to defeat no big bad then what,s the point of the game?