Play Me a Story
When video games aren't video "games"
on February 6, 2014 at 8:00 amInteractivity does not make a game.
The definition of a “video game” is broad by standards such as Wikipedia’s
an electronic game that involves human interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device.
But those of us who have grown up with the medium tend to define games more by their mechanics and challenges, rather than narratives. In the olden days, plot was conferred by still images and a few paragraphs (at most) at the start of a game. Without it, solid and understandable gameplay was still required. It was a challenge, and the story was a mere framing device.
We’re obviously well past that stage now, with multi-million dollar productions that are more akin to movies than Tetris. So perhaps a new distinction is needed. Maybe we call them “Interactive Fiction”, “Digital Stories”, or another term some marketing geniuses may find more appropriate.
We’ve hit a point where there are a lot of “games” coming out that aren’t really games. They are focused on telling stories – engaging the player’s emotions and interest – without mechanical challenges and resistance.
These things masquerade as games. They have character models and worlds built for those character models to move around in. They were programmed and tested. They look like the games we play, but they aren’t… because there’s no “game”.
This lack of distinction never really bothered me until titles like “Gone Home” and “The Walking Dead” started bubbling up and garnering praise as “games”. Loved for their storytelling abilities, seldom criticized for their lack of actual gameplay. Nominated and award-winning in a field where they don’t really belong.
Not that I have anything against these types of experiences. When they’re well done, I think they can be a great alternative to other forms of entertainment. But we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking they’re pushing the boundaries of what people perceive video games to be, because they’re something else entirely.
Let me plop down some examples to explain myself a little better.
First, there is Telltale’s “The Walking Dead” game, which actually IS a video game… but SHOULDN’T be.
One question: Did anyone actually enjoy the rudimentary shooting sections or QTE events in the game?
No, because they were terrible.
Instead of just sticking to what “The Walking Dead” does best – decision making and storytelling – Telltale decided it would be a good idea to add gameplay elements. Awesome. But they weren’t committed to actually making the game. They were committed to telling the story and threw in random interactive bits because they thought it would make people happy, for whatever reason.
Instead, those sections did nothing but cause pointless frustration for the player. They came out of nowhere; most people probably lost the first time they were encountered, then they were repeated. Because repeating something stupid and clunky is always a fun design element.
“Hey, I know you’ve been doing nothing but meandering around and listening to dialogue, but here is a shooting segment. Surprise! I know it’s what you’ve been waiting for this whole time!”
…no. It did nothing but bog down the experience.
Interactive fiction like “The Walking Dead” shouldn’t feel obligated to include bits of actual gameplay. They should just embrace what they are: interactive stories. A digital medium where you have a chance to be a little more immersed, a little more involved with what’s going on. Trying to force it to be a game just ruins that.
I guess now is the time to talk about everyone’s favorite Master of the QTE, David Cage. I’m not going to bad mouth him, though I don’t really jive with his view of how video games should be. But I do think that his games would actually be better received, and that people would cut him a lot more slack, if he just took out the QTEs. Focus on the story, not on a design element no one cares for.
People looking to play a game don’t like QTEs and people looking to enjoy a story would also prefer they weren’t getting in the way. So, I have to ask, why have them there to begin with? What is their purpose, other than being able to call anything they’re in a “game” in the very loosest sense?
It’s even more awkward when product can’t tell whenever it wants to be a game or a story. One of recent examples I saw was The Last of Us.
On one hand it’s a game – you have shooting and stealth sections that require some skills to complete, and you have lose condition(usually die) and win condition(usually “get trough the area without dying”). To survive you have to increase your abilities, improve weapons and manage items you find. Sounds a bit like survival game.
Unfortunately it also has story, that tends to go in the way of the game. If one of rules you estabilished is “manage your resources or you’ll lose” and then for story purposes you create sections with infinite ammo it means that the story gets in the way of the game. If your story requires the game to cheat to work then it’s also bad design. “The Last of Us” cheats constantly. If the game wants to surprise you your hearing suddenly won’t hear enemies on the other side of the door. The game shows that Ellie when attacked by clicker can hold it off for almost a minute, but when you play as her you have no way at all to protect against clicker(if it comes too close to you it’s instant death).
Changing rules during the game isn’t exactly bad. There are games that do that. For example in some tactical RPGs missions have victory and lose conditions, and additional conditions that apply for the mission. Why are those alright? Because the player knows the rules at the start of the mission, and the game doesn’t have to cheat for the story purposes.
“The last of us” does everything it can to cheat while not being caught. Ever tried running out of the ammo or medpacks? Oh, don’t worry, NPC that assists you will always be there for you and will give you some ammo or medpacks. Just to make sure you can get trough the story even if you decide you don’t want to play the game. Why should I bother to play the game if the game is just there to fill the time? Just let me skip the sections altogether and show me the story.
As I mentioned, the game has some basic resource management and upgrade system. To use it you have to salvage items from locations you visit. This takes time, and requires you to look trough every nook and cranny of every room you are allowed to go. Unfortunately even here story gets into the way. The story is written in a way that always moves forward. Like some action movie. That means that you are not supposed to stop and spend half of a hour looting. The game makes it apparent. NPCs won’t wait for you. They will move on, while talking. That means that if you decide to loot you will only see subtitles, and won’t hear/see the story. Sure, NPCs will stop at some time, waiting for you, but you can’t even follow them up to that point, as the game might permanently close the door behind you(or start an ambush/story sequence that will otherwise cut you off from looting place).
If it was just looting for trophies/some artifacts to find it would be alright. One would just do it after completing the game. But what you are looking for are essentials for completing the game. Vitamins that give you level ups. Screws that improve your weapons. Parts, that let you build knifes etc. without which you can’t survive. So if you are following the story you are not playing the game, and if you are playing the game you miss the story…