Why can't we do the little things: A thread about videogame stories

[Pogilrup]

We have mystery, crime, sci-fi, fantasy, war, dystopia, and sometimes just non-sensical.

But there seems to be one type of one story we have yet to properly express in this medium.

This type of story is the type story you are required to read in your high school literature classes. Examples included The Great Gatsby, My Antonia, The Crucible, and To Kill a Mockingbird.

We have some games that tell of a story of a mundane life revolving around an occupation. Games such as Recettear, Papers, Please, or Harvest Moon.

For games that do try to tell a mundane story, such as Gone Home, gameplay tends to be reduced to point-and-click or a simple platformer.

This medium in its current state can't seem to express the mundane without making it revolve around an occupation or by limiting the gameplay complexity.

 

[gargantual]

Sorry for the long post...

Because it's easier to create a game system around things that are externally expressed than internally expressed. The mundane is our first world lives, thus we wonder more about what is beyond our capacity rather than what is in front of us because we are already playing that game. The game of life. I remember when Greg Kasavin (of Bastion fame) used to be senior editor for Gamespot, on one op-ed he reviewed life the way he'd review a video game.

Plus, let us not forget how much these forums blew up over the problem with dialogue choice wheels on Mass Effect for not conveying the right balance of agency between two parties, or representing the grey area of choice as best as could. It's doable but it's just not easy to systemize.

The interalized values seen within mundane activity have to be often abstracted for many different players to get a sense of what they should feel about something, and people internalize what they interact with in the world in a multitude of different ways. In short, thats a LOT more dialogue trees bioware would have to write to fully capture the spectrum of human expression

It may have been a sensible question for Edge magazine and other review sites to criticize DOOM when it came out on the market by simply positing "If only you could talk to these creatures, and demons, now that would be something."

But imagine the mechanic thrown into a loose fast paced, rhythmic, fireball-dodging monster maze of suprise. Where due to its rhythm, that sort of engagement would break the flow of how the video game primarily communicates to you.

While mario was ruling the side scrollers because it was easy to understand the rules, there were rpg or strategy games so thick you'd need paper and pen just to memorize the game stats and systems and participate accordingly, all measuring representational systems the game couldn't give visual feeback to.

In contrast look at the quote from Max Payne 2....

"Firing a gun is a binary choice. You either pull the trigger or you don't."

most anyone who picks up a controller understands what they're engaging with in that situation.


I'd also say, Look at how people will say electronic music or hip hop DJ's are not music performers (even skilled ones who manage a good mix) partially because of tastes and bias, but also because they can't SEE them masterfully handling the decks as others masterfully handle a guitar, drumset sax or violin, but we know there are examples of bad DJing and good Djing such as any performance aspect of music.

So its a matter of expressing ideas in a way that gives player feedback with the same rhythm and efficiency. Papers Please does this, but other than that, how many devs are burning to make a papers please?

 

[Pogilrup]

Perhaps this failure to capture the general mundane is why videogame are not yet regarded as art on par with that of older forms of art.

 

[pilouuuu]

What about The Sims? It's the most mundane you can get and it's one of the most successful franchises ever. It doesn't have a scripted story, but it allows to create many stories.

 

[Pogilrup]

What about The Sims? It's the most mundane you can get and it's one of the most successful franchises ever. It doesn't have a scripted story, but it allows to create many stories.

It is a dollhouse then.

While it has its strengths, the point of this thread is that videogames have trouble telling a scripted story about a mundane life. Currently the medium can do the special cases quite well where the story revolves around an occupation.

 

[gargantual]

Context is everything. Mundane activity has relevance in context of a situation, and some people I suppose want to make games that tackle the most base and taboo in order to set a foothold for it to be normal that games or all kinds of media explore dark territories.

You have to ask what other game systems or factors are being affected by seemingly harmless moves and decisions, while that is being embraced by some developers in the indiespace, it can do so in a way that some players exalt and unfortunately flies over other players heads.

I'd say the art critique is more because those who don't play only have facetious understandings of video games value without engaging themselves. There was a time when film was regarded as popcorn, and literature was the definition of high brow art. But those two were EXPRESSELY concerned with exploring the humanities from their origins. (i always keep bringing this up for some reason) while the very first video game (technically) was 'Spacewar!' in 1961.

Look at Half-life and Half-life 2. There are many quiet sections of temporal exploration, and the combat is isolated around set pieces. Rather than a 100% mindless brawlfest, there are many angles, and multiple types of feedback a player can get from one situation.

If you look at the history of competitive sports, teams with goals? whose objective is to defend and attack the net of others, chess, etc? We've simulated conflict in all types of narrative and game like expression as a species, apparently for centuries.

I heard the director David Cronenburg echo some quote on a BBC interview. "Conflict is the essence of drama. Sure that could mean all sorts of non violent conflict, but if you are a 'dramatist' you're addicted to conflict." strange assertion I know but not without some grain of truth. Look at how most fictional stories or prioritized news media revolve around conflict.

It seems conflict is deeply ingrained in many of our creative expressions throughout human history, many people have different ways of contextualzing it, I'd personally like to see conflict, no longer consolidated as much as the later half of the 7th gen has done with Call of Duty sequels, and for things to be more paced out, for all decisions or events in games to have more weight, competitive anxiety and tension like they used to

 

[Pogilrup]

Context is everything. Mundane activity has relevance in context of a situation, and some people I suppose want to make games that tackle the most base and taboo in order to set a foothold for it to be normal that games or all kinds of media explore dark territories.

You have to ask what other game systems or factors are being affected by seemingly harmless moves and decisions, while that is being embraced by some developers in the indiespace, it can do so in a way that some players exalt and unfortunately flies over other players heads.

I'd say the art critique is more because those who don't play only have facetious understandings of video games value without engaging themselves. There was a time when film was regarded as popcorn, and literature was the definition of high brow art. But those two were EXPRESSELY concerned with exploring the humanities from their origins. (i always keep bringing this up for some reason) while the very first video game (technically) was 'Spacewar!' in 1961.

Look at Half-life and Half-life 2. There are many quiet sections of temporal exploration, and the combat is isolated around set pieces. Rather than a 100% mindless brawlfest, there are many angles, and multiple types of feedback a player can get from one situation.

If you look at the history of competitive sports, teams with goals? whose objective is to defend and attack the net of others, chess, etc? We've simulated conflict in all types of narrative and game like expression as a species, apparently for centuries.

I heard the director David Cronenburg echo some quote on a BBC interview. "Conflict is the essence of drama. Sure that could mean all sorts of non violent conflict, but if you are a 'dramatist' you're addicted to conflict." strange assertion I know but not without some grain of truth. Look at how most fictional stories or prioritized news media revolve around conflict.

It seems conflict is deeply ingrained in many of our creative expressions throughout human history, many people have different ways of contextualzing it, I'd personally like to see conflict, no longer consolidated as much as the later half of the 7th gen has done with Call of Duty sequels, and for things to be more paced out, for all decisions or events in games to have more weight, competitive anxiety and tension like they used to

I know there has to be conflict, but the sooner we can discover a way to tell a more general story of mundane life conflicts while keeping the gameplay satisfyingly complex the better.

 

[Albino Boo]

Games are crap at narrative. Long cuts scenes where you sit passively for the game to tell you the story its the opposite of the active involvement of game play.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

What about The Sims? It's the most mundane you can get and it's one of the most successful franchises ever. It doesn't have a scripted story, but it allows to create many stories.

It is a dollhouse then.

While it has its strengths, the point of this thread is that videogames have trouble telling a scripted story about a mundane life. Currently the medium can do the special cases quite well where the story revolves around an occupation.

The sims did have a story mode in one of their games. It was the get a life mode and had you completing tasks like cooking, hosting parties. The sims midevil was also very story focused. It may have been a fantastical setting, but most of the stories could be very mundane.

 

[Pogilrup]

Games are crap at narrative. Long cuts scenes where you sit passively for the game to tell you the story its the opposite of the active involvement of game play.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to conquer this frontier.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

The "problem" is that a game's primary objective is escapism, not narration. It's like John Carmack said - "Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important". It CAN be important, but it's not inherently important. Just look at the origin of games. Pong, Pacman, Tetris, Asteroids...

 

[gargantual]

Context is everything. Mundane activity has relevance in context of a situation, and some people I suppose want to make games that tackle the most base and taboo in order to set a foothold for it to be normal that games or all kinds of media explore dark territories.

You have to ask what other game systems or factors are being affected by seemingly harmless moves and decisions, while that is being embraced by some developers in the indiespace, it can do so in a way that some players exalt and unfortunately flies over other players heads.

I'd say the art critique is more because those who don't play only have facetious understandings of video games value without engaging themselves. There was a time when film was regarded as popcorn, and literature was the definition of high brow art. But those two were EXPRESSELY concerned with exploring the humanities from their origins. (i always keep bringing this up for some reason) while the very first video game (technically) was 'Spacewar!' in 1961.

Look at Half-life and Half-life 2. There are many quiet sections of temporal exploration, and the combat is isolated around set pieces. Rather than a 100% mindless brawlfest, there are many angles, and multiple types of feedback a player can get from one situation.

If you look at the history of competitive sports, teams with goals? whose objective is to defend and attack the net of others, chess, etc? We've simulated conflict in all types of narrative and game like expression as a species, apparently for centuries.

I heard the director David Cronenburg echo some quote on a BBC interview. "Conflict is the essence of drama. Sure that could mean all sorts of non violent conflict, but if you are a 'dramatist' you're addicted to conflict." strange assertion I know but not without some grain of truth. Look at how most fictional stories or prioritized news media revolve around conflict.

It seems conflict is deeply ingrained in many of our creative expressions throughout human history, many people have different ways of contextualzing it, I'd personally like to see conflict, no longer consolidated as much as the later half of the 7th gen has done with Call of Duty sequels, and for things to be more paced out, for all decisions or events in games to have more weight, competitive anxiety and tension like they used to

I know there has to be conflict, but the sooner we can discover a way to tell a more general story of mundane life conflicts while keeping the gameplay satisfyingly complex the better.

well you've got Actual Sunlight, The Novelist, and Cart Life etc, so its not like people arent out there pushing. Brothers: A tale of two sons won a well deserved award. We've also got moments in Mass Effect 2 where you have to be a legal advocate for Tali, sandbox games where you can develop active friendships with NPC's in a wierd controlled yet interesting fashion. Its that only certain types of mundane activities can inform the same level of competitive anxiety that other games do. Journey has tension, but its co-op ingrains different player behaviors.

Ahh. Oh wait. I see. Rather'd have a time, where the gamestop walls and XBOX PS4 store main splash pages reflected a healthy catalog of games that systematize mundane civil life.

Well sure it'd be nice to have safe titles that look more presentable to people who are adverse to violent conflict, at the forefront of popular games, but I think that already exists tho, just not in the AAA space. This publication, you tube reviewers and other games media sites have made much effort to heighten awareness of games with unique mechanics.

and then you've got to ask. If violence and taboo in games is a consumers only mark of complete disapproval, how tolerant would they be of a game that started off nice but went in a direction they don't like? Games should be recognized as art by us, rather than saying "they have to be more civil and thoroughly neutered to earn that badge of merit." see what m' saying? Because that's the goalpost that non-gamers hold over gaming.


So I think there could be some healthy change in the industry, but just to vary up the catalog because there are a lot of games out there that systemize the mundane and human emotion, even if that's not their sole means of play through.

I think art has to be given the benefit of the doubt for the nature of its format or what subject matter or precedents it declares for itself. Rather than standards of merit it doesn't expressly aspire to.

 

[Albino Boo]

Games are crap at narrative. Long cuts scenes where you sit passively for the game to tell you the story its the opposite of the active involvement of game play.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to conquer this frontier.

Games are crap at narrative. Long cuts scenes where you sit passively for the game to tell you the story its the opposite of the active involvement of game play.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to conquer this frontier.

Why? You have to work within the limitations of the medium. There are a large number of successful games that have no narrative at all. What's the narrative in sandbox games, the whole point of sandboxes is to give the player freedom. Civilization is franchise that has been going for 20 odd years with no narrative at all. TF2 has no story, all those COD and battlefield multiplayers are not using narrative. The goal in most multiplayers is to win. Why try to turn games into film and TV when then can function perfectly well without narrative and character.

 

[Pogilrup]

Games are crap at narrative. Long cuts scenes where you sit passively for the game to tell you the story its the opposite of the active involvement of game play.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to conquer this frontier.

Games are crap at narrative. Long cuts scenes where you sit passively for the game to tell you the story its the opposite of the active involvement of game play.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to conquer this frontier.

Why? You have to work within the limitations of the medium. There are a large number of successful games that have no narrative at all. What's the narrative in sandbox games, the whole point of sandboxes is to give the player freedom. Civilization is franchise that has been going for 20 odd years with no narrative at all. TF2 has no story, all those COD and battlefield multiplayers are not using narrative. The goal in most multiplayers is to win. Why try to turn games into film and TV when then can function perfectly well without narrative and character.

I know games don't need a story, but being complacent about the limitation isn't good for this medium.

 

[Lovecrafts Sunny Day]

It's an interesting point.

I'm guessing that, to an extent, the purpose of playing games (and also watching/reading fiction to be fair) is a form of escapism. Appropriate considering the name of this site

These forms of fiction allow us access to an imaginative alternative to our current lives, and are ultimately designed to concentrate on the more dynamic aspects of that alternative, rather than the mundane, purely because the dynamic aspects are just that, radically different from our current lives, and therefore different and more exciting.

That said, as mentioned there are well received games which concentrate on the ordinary, Papers Please deserves a mention, I cannot imagine an experience more removed from what you would conventionally expect from a video game.

I've played a lot of battlefield, yet never been in a gunfight. I've completed Dead Island Riptide (I liked it ) but have never fought the living dead hand to hand. I've completed Mass Effect 3 twice, but never been an Alliance Commander/N7 Soldier/CSec Spectre/Cerberus Operative/Specialist Trainer's lover (took me awhile) or saved every one of us in real life. (I'm not Flash Gordon or Jesus).

From a commercial point of view games (currently) are bound to be more Buckaroo Banzai than nuanced social observation. As such we lose the 'ordinary'.

 

[L. Declis]

Games are crap at narrative. Long cuts scenes where you sit passively for the game to tell you the story its the opposite of the active involvement of game play.

Isn't that... films? A long cut scene where you watch what happens. Video games can do that AND get you involved in the acting. That means the video games have far more potential.

Perhaps this failure to capture the general mundane is why videogame are not yet regarded as art on par with that of older forms of art.

At the risk of being the boring film person, the reason that video games haven't gotten the "art" label yet is because we are only 20 years in. It took films about 60 years or so before they were regarded as art, and it had a massive movement to do so.

Video games have only properly kicked in our generation. It will be our grandchildren who have video games as art, probably about the time that some new media has risen which will corrupt the children and breed murderers.

It doesn't help with the label "video games", which was fine then by doesn't really sound very impressive now. Literature has a ring of gravitas to it.

Also, if you want the "great mundane", play Dear Esther.

The "problem" is that a game's primary objective is escapism, not narration. It's like John Carmack said - "Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important". It CAN be important, but it's not inherently important. Just look at the origin of games. Pong, Pacman, Tetris, Asteroids...

... I was going to knee-jerk a slap down to this, but you have a point. Even the earliest film attempts were trying to be stories, admittedly very simple and basic ones.

However, literature was originally developed to educate, not tell a story. We told stories as a way to pass on knowledge; the stories of films, compared to those of traditional literature, are basically escapism as well.

For example, Twilight and (I'll add so the lit people don't jump me) Harry Potter are just popcorn stories, designed mostly to entertain and nothing else. Not entirely different than Crash Bandicoot or Battlefield, is it?

 

[Pogilrup]

How many videogames can do drama without revolving around crime, war, horror, or disaster?

It seems Papers, Please stands alone.

 

[L. Declis]

How many videogames can do drama with revolving around crime, war, horror, or disaster?

It seems Papers, Please stands alone.

Katawa Shoujo.
Catherine may be horror, but it's really not.
Port Royale was about a trader trying to make enough money to attract a rich lass.
Analogue: A Hate Story.
Braid.
Democracy 3
Eve Online
Stanley Parable

Honourable Mentions:

Heavy Rain
Walking Dead
The Wolf Among Us

 

[DrOswald]

The problem is that there is very little to interact with in the subtle or mundane. You can't really gamify a scene where a man reads a book and reflects on his past. I mean, what are you supposed to do? press X for feels? And even if you found a way how do you gamify the next scene where he rides down 20 miles of empty road talking to his daughter? And the next scene, and the next?

Game design is about abstraction. In Uncharted the process of a gunfight is nothing like the reality of a gunfight. But it is abstracted into a system that gives us a level of control. Many things cannot be abstracted effectively. Mundane things are often on this list.

This is not a limit of the medium in it's current state, it is a limit of the medium period. The more complex, varied, or subtle the interaction required the more difficult it is to create a system of abstraction.

In any case, what makes you think video games are a medium worth telling a mundane scripted story in? It plays against the strengths of the medium in all the worst ways. It is largely non interactive and is especially difficult and ineffective to gamify. Would you insist on telling a grand epic in the form of a painting?

 

[Frission]

The "problem" is that a game's primary objective is escapism, not narration. It's like John Carmack said - "Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important". It CAN be important, but it's not inherently important. Just look at the origin of games. Pong, Pacman, Tetris, Asteroids...

It depends. RPGs like Planescape Torment and Baldur's Gate are compelling because of their story.

I think it's a bit limiting to say whether story can be a strong point in games.

OT: It's because "mundane" isn't an entire genre. There are segments in many games where they portray the day to day life, but they're rarely the core appeal. I think I heard that Mass Effect, Persona games and probably any game where the player has to sit down and act like a normal person counts as a "mundane" game. There are also games which try to portray of moment in a persons life, such as Catherine with marriage (sort of, it's a weird game) or occupation games, like you mentioned. The thing is that the "mundane life" is just not the central intrigue.

Take the example of the Crucible, the Great Gatsby and To kill a Mockingbird. In the first there's a witch trial, the second has the death and struggle between Tom and Gatsby and To kill a Mockingbird has the trial for one. An example with the day to day combined with trials is the Phoenix Wright series. They're good as long as you don't mind a bit of surrealism.

Those stories incorporate the day to day, but they aren't faithful recreations of the day to day either. They have intrigue, action in their own right and climaxes.

How many videogames can do drama with revolving around crime, war, horror, or disaster?

It seems Papers, Please stands alone.

What's wrong with that?

I'll use the example of "The Unbearable lightness of being" by Kundera. That deals with the relationship between two people. The invasion and occupation of the Czech by the Russians is part of the story, but doesn't make it any less valid as something about life.