I have been playing videogames since the age of three, and from there I have watched this industry grow and change in ways that I could have never imagined. We have reached a point, however where we are at somewhat of a fork in the road, if you will. On one path is experiences like God of War, Twisted Metal, Zelda, and Mario. These experiences are focused on gameplay before story, which isn’t wrong. I love popping in Super Mario Bros. on my SNES or Super Mario Galaxy on my Wii and stomping Goombas just for the fun of it. The other path is where you find your story-driven experiences. Uncharted and Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy lie beyond these paths. These games are enjoyable in a different way, sure, walking around a shopping mall yelling “JASON! JASON!” isn’t mindlessly fun, but it brings you into a story in ways not possible anywhere else.
I watched your DICE speech and, honestly I have a few problems with it. It’s not that you aren’t a fan of story-driven experiences, and I’m fine with that. To each his own in that regard, however, you don’t stop there. My problem lies in your first line of the speech “My talk is actually a warning about why we shouldn’t tell stories with our video games. I think it’s a bad idea, I think it’s a waste of resources and time and money and, more importantly, I think it actually stunts, and has stunted over the last ten years or so, the medium of videogames, sort of at our own peril.” This is essentially a call for the end of the story-driven experience, and I can’t find anything I disagree with more in relation to this industry.
Now, there is something I feel I need to be extraordinarily clear on: The story driven experience will, by no means, kill the gameplay-driven experience. The proof of that can be seen in the success of games like Call of Duty. I think we can all agree that the gameplay, and more precisely, the mulitplayer drives the Call of Duty franchise, and every year hundreds of people line up in front of the little GameStop in town to get their hands on the newest iteration of that franchise. The Elder Scrolls is by no means story-driven, and it won 2011 game of the year at Spike TV’s VGAs. The Legend of Zelda, an Immensely popular franchise is built from a gameplay standpoint and the story is built around that, and let’s not forget everyone’s favorite plumber. The extent of story in Mario games is usually a cut-scene at the beginning showing Bowser, or Bowser Jr. or one of Bowser’s minions carrying off Princess Peach, and Mario giving chase. There will always be a market for Mario and Zelda and CoD and TES, and so on, so, honestly, it’s folly to think that there is any chance that the story-driven experience will drive out the gameplay and fun-driven experiences.
Your first example is the beginning of Arkham City, saying that the control was taken out of the player’s hands for the beginning of the game in service to the story. I find this a little funny, because right before that you mention how IP helps people connect emotionally with the product. I don’t know about you, but I have to say that I wouldn’t have connected with, and come to love Arkham City as much as I do had it not been for that opening sequence. Not only does it, for me, work from a story standpoint – really driving it home that you will find no friends within these walls – but it also works from a gameplay standpoint. When that chain broke, my first thought was “Ok, Cobblepot, it’s on.” When it comes down to it, that moment wouldn’t have meant as much, and dare I say – It wouldn’t have been as fun had that sequence either (a) been a cut-scene or (b) not existed. The reason is that, I was with Bruce, I was the invisible hand guiding him along as he rocked himself out of the chair, as he walked into the city itself, and as he first was confronted by the Penguin. When the handcuffs broke and Bruce was free to unleash all his skills on the Penguin and his henchmen, I couldn’t help but smile and I enjoyed the fight that followed all the more because of it.
Later on you make another declaration as you are talking about the difference between movies and games. You said that in these instances, I’ll use the D-day example, essentially you are storming the beaches of Normandy and your main thought is “how do I get to that rock”. And yes, when storming the beaches of Normandy, you’re absolutely right that will be your thought process, but there is also no context to put in story at that point. It’s not like you’re going to be running up the beach, bullets flying past you and the soldier next to you is trying to tell you about his kids. At that point, it’s all about the fight. However, that moment means nothing with out the before and after. Lets say the game begins and you are in Perl Harbor, you experience the moments before the attack as the invisible hand leading your character – let’s call him Jeff – Jeff has a wife and a kid, you get to experience the first hour of the story leading Jeff through his life, meeting his friends, meeting his wife, his kid, his dog… establishing a connection with this character, without which you would never have. After that, when it comes down to it, the storming of Normandy beach is not just about shooting the Axis, but you are going into battle with Jeff for his wife, his kid, his friends, his dog, every one who’s life was effected at the beginning of the experience.
Next you equated video games to football. Ok, there is a stark contrast here. If anything, you can equate the multiplayer to a game of football because that, actually is focused on being competitive. There is a reason that the singleplayer is called “story mode”. Whether it is driven by the story or the gameplay, that element is there. Whereas in football it isn’t. Football is about the competition, single player story mode is not.
I think games, through the interactivity can provide a greater experience than movies can. The greatest example is Uncharted 3’s desert experience. My roommate, who is nowhere near the story guy I am, came to me after playing the desert sequence in Uncharted 3 and said “Come play Uncharted, you have to experience this for yourself.” When I did I was speechless, something no game, movie, or book has ever truly done. The experience simply washed over me as I went with Drake through the Rub’ al Khali desert. I didn’t watch him, I wasn’t a passive observer, I was with him. Step for step, I went with him through the desert, I, the invisible hand, guiding him along as he tried to survive the harshness of the sands before him. I, to this day, do not have the words for what this sequence means to me. I still get chills when the cutscene ends and all I see is Drake in the middle of an infinite expanse of sand as the camera pans around him, and I only get more into it when I realize that it is me who controls Drake here. That, in a way, with out me, he can’t go on. You don’t get that out of movies or books. Yea, both mediums have fantastic moments, I’ll never forget the image I got as I was reading the segment about Sarah and Kelly chasing the velociraptor in The Lost World by Michael Crichton. I will never forget how I felt when I heard Arigorn’s speech at the Black Gates in Return of the King. But those are not the same experience I got out of leading Drake through the desert. The sense of wonder I got out of that experience can’t be re-created in movies and most definitely not in books.
In the end, the addition of story can immensely help the context of the interactivity, and the interactivity can, in turn immensely aid the story and the immersion into said story, and to say that is dangerous is not only ignorant, it’s down-right offensive to these great experiences and the people who enjoy them. Also, why is so mind-boggling to think that both experiences can exist together? Why is it so preposterous to think that we can have our Uncharteds and our Marios too? We aren’t seeing the future of gaming. We are seeing the birth of a new medium. A medium that can exist along side video games, which can bring story in ways never before imagined. We are seeing the birth of Interactive Cinematic Entertainment.
Edit: I’d like to add one last thought to this. You may not support the idea of story-driven interactive experiences (be it games or otherwise), but don’t go out, call it dangerous and call for it’s end. Sure, it may not be for everyone, but there are people (like myself) who love this direction and love the experiences it produces. To call it dangerous, to try to make people stop, I think is no better than the man standing outside a church or school and burning books because he disagrees with it’s content. Just because you don’t like an experience, don’t tell me that I can’t.
mythicera 