Things We Think About Games
I have an essay in the new book Things We Think About Games
While I wouldn’t recommend buying the book just for my contribution, I’m happy to report the rest of Will Hindmarch and Jeff Tidball’s little book is terrific, full of observations and advice for gamers and game designers. Having worked with several of the latter, I’m struck by how nascent and unformed that field is. The fundamental questions are still being asked, and answered different ways: How do you make story playable? How explicitly do you set the rules? How much “work” is a player willing to do?
Whether MMORPG or paper-and-dice, alien-zapping or world-building, games have an active social component unlike anything you find in film or television, which makes them a uniquely challenging art form. Yes: you can watch a slasher movie with your friends, shouting back at the screen. But the film itself is unchanged by your participation. Not so with a good game, which demands involvement far beyond passive entertainment.
So if you find yourself thinking about games, I’d encourage to think along with this book.
20 Responses to “Things We Think About Games”
Leave a Reply
RSS feed for comments on this article.
Get a Gravatar. They're free and work on lots of different sites.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I’m a bit confused as to what sort of games this book addresses. The other two authors seem to be coming from the table-top/boardgame background, while your essay talks about a computer MMO game. If you’re saying “thinking a lot about games”, which sort of games are you talking about? Sure, there’s parallels and crossover between board and computer game design, but there’s just as many differences.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:42 am
@Matthias:
You’re right: the Will and Jeff come from the tabletop world, but much of the advice applies to any gaming situation. I slightly amended the post to make this more clear.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I totally agree that the storytelling aspect of gaming is really, really under-developed. (Did you even say that? Eh, who cares, I’m saying it.) I haven’t seen much (in my admittedly limited experience) in game storytelling that goes beyond “Hey, here’s a cutscene with some story.”
I’d love to see a game that has some kind of insanely clever story mechanics behind it, so that you feel like you’re actually playing a part in a story, and affecting the outcome. Not the limited, pick-a-few-options-at-certain-points-and-maybe-get-a-different-ending kinda things, but something more generative.
The Sim games were pretty good for being open-ended like that, but there isn’t much in-game focus on stories; you pretty much just make up little stories in your head. I haven’t seen a game yet that feels like I’m really playing a story, in that I care about the story and can affect it deeply.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Storytelling for games - at least when it goes beyond the typical and established cutscene format and delves into the interactive parts of the medium - is a huge and challenging field. Accounting for the number of possible story permutations in an interactive experience is one of the challenges, as is keeping the game’s protagonist and the player on the same page. If the player isn’t driven by the same (or at least complementary) goals as the protagonist, the disconnect quickly leads to player disengagement. It gets even worse when the player is ahead of the protagonist, but is forced to carry out his actions anyway. Imagine, for example, that the religious leadership of the game is telling the protagonist to carry out a bombing run on a heathen city, and that the character fully believes in this mission. If the player is ahead of the protagonist (because he has already seen through the evil schemes of the theocracy, two missions before the main character will), you have a real problem! The player is forced to do something that he doesn’t want to do, and his opinion of the protagonist is that of a stupid dummy, rather than somebody that he relates to and roots for. (This example is taken from “Lair”, one of the games I’ve worked on. I wasn’t involved in story development on that project, but it’s a great lesson to reference.)
These problems usually don’t exist when watching a movie. As silent observers we don’t have to always agree with the characters’ motivations, and it’s okay to be ahead of them (it’s a great way to build suspense, actually - i.e. knowing that the monster is lurking in the dark corner while the heroine does not) We are also encouraged to pass judgment on the characters. “Sideways” is a great example of two deeply flawed characters that we can still root for, even though they are doing morally questionable things (stealing money from your mother, cheating on your bride-to-be). If you try doing that in a game you’ll have your work cut out for you. I might even go so far as to say that this particular setup is impossible to pull off.
Anyway, it’s a huge field, and probably not one that should be discussed here in the comments section. But I would suggest the following as further for anybody who’s prepared to look down this rabbit hole: “Do, Don’t Show!”. It’s a talk by Patrick Redding’s on the narrative design of Far Cry 2: http://holesinteeth.typepad.com/blogginess/2008/03/gdc-2008-slides.html
That talk starts scratching the surface of interactive storytelling. Of course this is also why I was asking for clarification on “Things We Think About Games” earlier. A good dissemination of the subject will help everybody! Will pick up the book at Borders tonight.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:00 am
@ Paul & Matthias
I got my first screenwriting gig because I was offered the script after writing a game. And I’ll tell you this… there’s an ENORMOUS elephant in the room that everyone’s completely aware of in the studio… that makes it so nobody reacts to ‘letting the player think ahead of the avatar’ the way screenwriters would. And that is: THE QUEST FOR A BIGGER SWORD. A player will religiously commit to any level of drudgery, AS LONG AS you provide him the information that he needs. — which is almost never, “what turn happens next” but is almost always, “the God weapon is around the corner”.
You’ll see this at work as a development landmark in DARK CLOUD, where story was given a complete pass (each village with the same story - bad guys in cave at edge of town - go get ‘em.) but the weapons are evolutionary and can be sculpted into colorful things no one else had created yet. - The model was then used for good games with story-forks like Knights of the Old Republic and Fable. While games based soley on story seemed to die horrible deaths. (Morrowind)
Why?
Collecting a Jawa bounty? 10$… Tossing Thermal Detonators from a Ton-Ton? 20$… Building your own lightsaber? — Fucking Priceless.
So the question isn’t really, “Where am I going?” so much as, “Will my fingers be dripping with lightning when I get there?”
October 1st, 2008 at 2:40 am
Not available on Amazon.co.uk, apparently - is it being published in the UK anytime soon? I need to dress my Warcraft addiction in a veneer of intellectualism.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:25 am
Bioshock.
October 1st, 2008 at 6:30 am
Does it touch on the fundamental stuff of gaming? Like the fact that even animals develop games among themselves?
October 1st, 2008 at 7:07 am
Paul, et al:
My boyfriend is a video game concept artist and my snobby writer view of video games have change drastically since we started dating. One game I recommend for good integration of story and gameplay is Mass Effect. There are cut scenes but the overall plot is very comprehensive and well-written and the choices you make throughout the game change the outcome of the plot. It also feels like Battlestar Galactica to me, which I consider a good thing.
I’ve heard great things about Bioshock but I haven’t checked that out yet.
Left Behind is a zombie game coming out that has a unique twist: there is a complicated algorithm controlling the zombies so you never have the same game as anyone else. Also, you have to have four players working together to be able to beat the game–definitely taking the “friends yelling at the campy horror film” experience to the next level. Unlike Dead Rising, which played like a bad Dawn of the Dead rip off, this new one sounds pretty cool.
I never, ever thought I would sound like this much of a video game dork.
Welcome to the 21st Century.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:56 am
@Lacey After a bit of searching I realize you meant Left4dead, not the apocalypse based ‘left behind’. For a second, I thought a Christian media company was developing a zombie based end days series, which doesn’t sound too bad.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:48 am
Thanks for the heads up, John. As it happens, this is a very timely piece of information for me.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Want an example of poor writing? Try Metal Gear Solid 4. Sorry but some of the dialogue in that is so OTN, and the completely ridiculous plot twists just frustrated the hell out of me. Although I admit, like Synthian, I went with it because I wanted to kick Liquid’s arse.
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:17 am
Thanks for mentioning the book, John.
As noted, Will and I both come at games primarily from the board, card, collectible, and tabletop roleplaying angle, but we’ve both done digital work in the past, and we tried to give all game categories equal think time in the book.
@Edraid: Does it touch on the fundamental stuff of gaming?
We think so.
Like the fact that even animals develop games among themselves?
That’s news to me, so no, we didn’t hit that one.
That said, we’ve got a comment thread going to accumulate Things everybody else thinks about games over at our game commentary site, gameplaywright. Please do tell us about animal games, sir.
http://gameplaywright.net/?page_id=118
@Matthew: is it being published in the UK anytime soon?
No plans at the moment.
October 2nd, 2008 at 7:37 am
I’m interested to see how a game like Heavy Rain works out. From what I’ve heard it’s going to be quite a bit of story and not too much interaction. Sadly the title makes me think “Chubby Rain” from the movie Bowfinger.
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:37 am
If a scene were shot such that the movie theater ambience was blended into the scene, and someone in the theater screamed, the audience reaction would likely be blended into the movie experience and certain distinctions might not be valid. Of course, some science-maven has already defined “interactivity” such that my suggestions are invalid.
I hereby invalidate him and all interactivities thereto, therefrom, thereinfinitudianlly.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:57 am
As John says, there are still a lot of foundational ideas to explore in the area of games, especially when dealing with games as stories. The book tries to provoke questions and discussion from game players and designers by putting forward lessons that we’ve learned while playing and making games. John’s essay on World of Warcraft is a great example of how games can get us to examine what we think, just like more traditional storytelling mediums can. I’m thrilled we were able to get it in the book.
Paul, Heavy Rain looks like it’s striving for a new mix of story and interactivity, doesn’t it? What really catches my attention with that game, though, is the idea of an optional internal monologue, accessed at will by the player, to provide exposition and emotional motivation while highlighting gameplay options outright. I can’t wait to see how that actually manifests.
Games have a unique capacity for presenting nonlinear stories, but some of the best-written (not just best-scripted) games I’ve played are pretty linear. Sometimes it’s enough to present the illusion of a larger world, or to prompt the player to consider other possible consequences and outcomes even when those branches of the storyline don’t “really” manifest because, say, the player starts a level over again and, this time, beats it. The story of the Prince of Persia in Sands of Time is full of suspense beats that come from dead-end story branches that get glimpsed and then undone by rewinding time. The true story of the Prince doesn’t end with him getting sliced apart by spinning buzz-saws, right? That game is all about manipulating a time-altering game mechanic to make sure a specific storyline plays out, which is a pretty clever way to mate interactivity with a more-or-less fixed story.
Another great example is Clint Hocking’s writing for Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, which I covered over in this article at The Escapist. Just in case I haven’t talked your ear off already.
October 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 am
Edraid,
Ha, you’re right! All my shock at having Kirk Cameron’s film make the top 5 last weekend must have stuck with me. Guess I’m not as much of a VG dork as I thought.
Actually, I heard there’s a first-person shooter game that came out a few years ago that takes place after the rapture. You’re stuck on earth and must shoot at the anti-Christ and his minions (regular people?) and also pray & convert them until you’ve earned enough points to head upstairs. Whoa.
Left Behind: Eternal Forces, for the PC. That’s the real title, I looked it up this time.
October 3rd, 2008 at 11:58 am
Will, Good point about Heavy Rain. I’d have to agree with you that some of the best games ,storywise, are rather linear. But, it’s the manner in which they are telling that linear story that matters. Metal Gear Solid 4 has ended up being rather boring to me based on the method that the story is being told. Uncharted on the other hand was in my opinion exciting and fun all simply based on the method of story telling. It sounds like Sands of Time was a great game. It’s one that I’ve heard quite a bit about and never got a chance to play.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Lacey wrote: “Left Behind: Eternal Forces, for the PC. That’s the real title, I looked it up this time.”
Guess you should’ve looked up the facts about the game instead of just the title.
1 - It’s a third-person game, not a first-person game.
2 - It’s an RTS, not a shooter.
3 - You don’t shoot at anyone (or do anything else) to earn points to get into Heaven. Violence in the game is possible, but use of it is strongly discouraged and can even often make you lose the game, either by violating a level’s stated goal of avoiding violence or simply by being killed because you’re always outgunned.
October 6th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
There’s a great comment in Tycho’s post for today’s Penny Arcade that briefly mentions the difficulty of attempting new things in gaming, because your audience is thrown off and doesn’t understand the rules, so they can’t enjoy the game. Check it out: http://penny-arcade.com/2008/10/6/