"The needs of gameplay impose harsh demands on writers that must be heeded -- demands that novelists and filmmakers can ignore -- and create a bottleneck that forces redundancy. [...] It is a contentious point, but I strongly believe the claim that games are primarily about what the player does, and not necessarily the story or theme."
I'm with McDevitt. Games don't do narrative well. But wait, there's good news! Games do other things well, which I'll get to in a minute.
I want to go even one step further than him: there is no good reason why the point should even be considered contentious. Almost all the Characterization, Dialog, Plot, Drama, and Acting I've ever seen in games has been on the same level of quality as the script of an old porno or sci-fi B-movie. The dialog is as bad as a porno, and it's just as pointless. Games are an inferior medium for narrative, compared to books or film. The only reason that what McDevitt said is contentious is because modern technology has allowed game developers to become wannabe filmmakers, film being the dominant and most glamorous and most omnipotent art form currently in existence, whereas earlier game technology had no chance whatsoever of even remotely mimicking anything cinematic. Sadly many players actually *like* the wannabe-movie games.
Movies and books are superior for delivering narrative, because that's all they are. Games are superior for *doing things* and *having experiences* in a cool environment that is governed by particular rules. Games engage our motor systems, our tactical planning, our reflex system, and our feelings of "play" and power and capability.. They also happen to be a prime medium for great visual and aural ambience-- for aesthetic treats-- though this is hardly ever exploited in any remarkable way, simply because artistic talent and vision is such a precious and limited resource. Anyway, a game lets you jump off of a skyscraper and live, or repel a battalion of crazed stalinists. Movies and words don't.
Imagine the best game ever, given current technology, and imagine for a moment that it is universally undisputed that it is the Best Game Ever. Let's say, just for the heck of it, that it involves your character doing a lot of running/jumping/grabbing, all of which appear in many popular games, and all of which are primordial and inherently exciting actions shared by almost every living organism on earth. Imagine that every kid on your block is going around saying "THIS IS THE BEST GAME EVER!", and you play it, and you actually agree with them. Now imagine that it happens to have amazing dialog and acting, and a great story. My point and my contention is that if you removed all the amazing dialog, acting, and story-- just cut it out completely-- it wouldn't change anybody's reaction to the game, unless they are some kind of dim-wit who was actually bored by the game itself to begin with. A good game is enhanced by great narrative/cinematic elements, but it is so rare and so uncommon for those things to be done well that it really shouldn't even be encouraged. For me: Geometry Wars, Outrun 2, Street Fighter, Limbo, and Quake 2 MULTIPLAYER are what I would call benchmarks for "pure games" because they are outstanding and have no baloney; Modern Warfare and Super Metroid are rare examples of great games that masterfully, rather than crappily, incorporate narrative elements (like "words") that you read or hear.)
Enough with meaning. I *want* more of a focus on fun, not meaning. I want more of a focus not just on fun, but on the SPIRIT of fun. The spirit of fun is CHEERFUL. I'm sick of chainsaws and blood, and I'm sick of that being such a popular idea of "fun". I'm sick of cringe-inducing dialog lines that are supposed to have some profound relevance to society, or politics, or warfare. I like explosions, but I'm sick of deadly interpersonal violence. Maybe I'm straying from the point, which is that games are an inferior medium for "narrative", and furthermore that most developers are amateurs when it comes to narrative.
Within an interactive medium, my freedom and choices should not be constrained by some developer's half-baked amateurish script or vague recollections of high school english class. They should only be constrained by the rules of the game, and by the constraints of a well-crafted environment. If a developer is really good at "meaning" than he or she should be making movies, writing books, or serving as a well-paid consultant to a talented game designer.
No comments:
Post a Comment