The Gaping Hole at the heart of Gaming

[Gigano]

Well, since most games are about violence, and since most games with a story try to justify the exertion of that violence - by giving it a purpose that goes beyond the protagonist - I'd expect that most of them could fit that very general categorization.

Look at a Uncharted, and how the macguffin always turns out to be a threat to the world; because how would Nathan Drake look if he'd shot 700+ guys on a quest to net himself a hefty profit and put an old statue in a private collection? He'd be the scum of the earth! Likewise, I wouldn't expect Call of Duty: Oil Conquest to sell too well.

Games like God of War II and Manhunt doesn't quite fit the bill despite containing violence though, and most non-violent games won't fit it either.

 

[RA92]

You've a good point, but I kinda disagree with one thing:

Mass Effect: Defeat the Reapers to save the Galaxy

If you're talking about the franchise, then yeah. But if you're talking about the first game itself, then you're a wee bit off, considering how it was about avoiding the fight with the Reapers.

One facet of ME1's story I liked was the fact that Sovereign was not the main antagonist - Saren was. And it wasn't the usual 'kill X to save Y' business, since both the protagonist and antagonist were trying to save the same thing. Only difference being while Saren was trying to embrace the inevitable and survive it, Shepard was fighting destiny - which pitted these two against each other. With each of their perspective on existence at the cost freedom differing from each other, they were not only fighting for the Galaxy, but for their philosophies as well.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

You've a good point, but I kinda disagree with one thing:

If you're talking about the franchise, then yeah. But if you're talking about the first game itself, then you're a wee bit off, considering how it was about avoiding the fight with the Reapers.

One facet of ME1's story I liked was the fact that Sovereign was not the main antagonist - Saren was. And it wasn't the usual 'kill X to save Y' business, since both the protagonist and antagonist were trying to save the same thing. Only difference being while Saren was trying to embrace the inevitable and survive it, Shepard was fighting destiny - which pitted these two against each other. With each of their perspective on existence at the cost freedom differing from each other, they were not only fighting for the Galaxy, but for their philosophies as well.

Herp derp! That is not the point! You are off-topic! If you keep posting off-topic comments i like Ignore your posts from now on!

Oh sweet irony XD

But yeah, no, that's not the point.

 

[RA92]

You've a good point, but I kinda disagree with one thing:

Mass Effect: Defeat the Reapers to save the Galaxy

If you're talking about the franchise, then yeah. But if you're talking about the first game itself, then you're a wee bit off, considering how it was about avoiding the fight with the Reapers.

One facet of ME1's story I liked was the fact that Sovereign was not the main antagonist - Saren was. And it wasn't the usual 'kill X to save Y' business, since both the protagonist and antagonist were trying to save the same thing. Only difference being while Saren was trying to embrace the inevitable and survive it, Shepard was fighting destiny - which pitted these two against each other. With each of their perspective on existence at the cost freedom differing from each other, they were not only fighting for the Galaxy, but for their philosophies as well.

Herp derp! That is not the point! You are off-topic! If you keep posting off-topic comments i like Ignore your posts from now on!

Oh sweet irony XD

But yeah, no, that's not the point.

Umm, I'm just pointing out that if you were talking about ME1 when you mentioned Mass Effect, there is a possible interpretation that since both the protagonist and antagonist (Saren was the main antagonist - they had the huge picture of him on the box art!) were out to save the same subject (the Galaxy), there was only their ideals creating the conflict (i.e. whether one should sacrifice their freedom for protection). So Shepard wasn't killing Saren to protect the Galaxy (since Saren was out to do the same), but to fight for his philosophy (it was only at the end - before the battle at the Citadel, when the Prothean VI told the entire story of the Reapers - that you understood the inevitability of Saren's failure). And I distinctly remember you saying this:

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?

Touché?

 

[Thaius]

You are summarizing all stories ever. Every story ever told (any good story, at least) involve the protagonist overcoming something in order to save something. Even if he is overcoming his own ego to save a relationship, or overcoming his own weakness to save his own life in the wilderness, it is always a matter of the protagonist defeating something in order to save something. Always. This is a basic element of storytelling as a whole, not a plot cliche or even a trope, just a natural and required element of any story ever to be told.

It is true that in video games this tends to be more straightforward. This is simply a matter of the Gameplay/Narrative Paradigm. It's tough to mix gameplay with story outside of a violent context. When we more easily figure out how to mix narrative and gameplay, we can fix this, but any story worth telling will follow this basic pattern.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Touché?

If i now say "Righto, Noted" are you going to assume that you've won or something, instead of "I'm tired and going to bed you should too?
Sorry mate i just still find that a little funny.

Umm, about Mass Effect, yes i was talking about the series as a whole, and i was boiling it down, which was the point of the thread; a thread that is dead. Dead as Bread. look this bread is red! red like....
_>
I'm going to bed now

 

[lacktheknack]

Out of curiosity... have you played The Path?

Defeat the ____ to save the _____ doesn't apply.

Hint: It's "Get attacked by the ______ to continue the allegory of _______."

Not a particularly fun GAME, but definitely an excellent interactive EXPERIENCE. Sort of like how A Clockwork Orange isn't very pleasant to watch, but it's nonetheless an incredible film.

Also, wouldn't Silent Hill 2 technically not fit either?
It starts as "Defeat *the monsters* to rescue *your dead wife* (????)", but it transforms into "Fix yourself and have a pleasant life". In all but one of the endings, no one gets "rescued".

 

[RA92]

Touché?

If i now say "Righto, Noted" are you going to assume that you've won or something, instead of "I'm tired and going to bed you should too?
Sorry mate i just still find that a little funny.

Umm, about Mass Effect, yes i was talking about the series as a whole, and i was boiling it down, which was the point of the thread; a thread that is dead. Dead as Bread. look this bread is red! red like....
_>
I'm going to bed now

Eh, I was just looking for a chance to use 'Touché'.

If you'll excuse me, I'll now go flame a feminist thread trying to debunk a stereotype... WITH SCIENCE!

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

You're not really onto a new idea here. Joseph Campbell defined the ideas of the heroic archetype and the monomyth back in 1949. Also, defeat X to save Y is either too general or too specific, depending on your viewpoint.

For example, defeat zombies to save yourself. Now does that fit into your category or not? You don't technically kill all zombies in Left 4 Dead, you only kill those necessary in order to make it through alive.

Portal, kill GLaDoS to save yourself. Again, most of the game is not spent killing things, but navigating a maze in order to survive, and the big G is only another obstacle instead of a real enemy in many ways. She stands between you and the exit. If we were to expand this outwards Lord of the Rings is not defeat Sauron to save the World, it's destroy the Ring via a puzzle quest to save the world, Sauron and his army just happen to be in the way.

If we make it more specific though, the Russia revolution was kill the Tsar and his ministers (Anastasia screamed in vain) in order to save the Working Class. Oh look, suddenly Animal Farm and the entire Russian Revolution fit into the category you just said games fit into. Haha I have defeated your monomyth by instituting my own monomyth.

This is the point, according to a lot of scholars, as has been pointed out, there are only about seven stories, or even as few as one, depending on how broad or specific you want your terms to be, so really there's not much point in trying to define all fiction, but instead one must look at each individual work on its own and how it fits into other things. I can say that Shadow of the Colossus is a metaphor for the inevitability of death, fighting each greater and greater challenge, some of which come at you and some of which you attack yourself, but eventually you always fail, and it doesn't fit into defeat x save y anymore, but it does at the same time.

I hope that's sort of clear.

 

[Wayward Man]

Hi, I was reading the 1st page and saw a couple of people mention "Defeat whatever, save self", I'd like to put forward (If it hasn't already been said) that self preservation is basic, and shouldn't be considered among that list.