I have a problem.
I want to be a video game designer, but I don't always agree with how the industry and culture is moving, behaving, and expecting, especially when it comes to story and narrative design.
You see, 0ne of the fancy shmancy terms tossed around by game designers from time to time is "player agency." It is the idea that the player is in control of the story. Games like Oblivion or Grand Theft Auto put quite a lot of agency into the hands of the player - their stories are mostly optional, discovered through what missions the player chooses and how they complete them. These games take pride in the agency of the player - the ability for the player to determine the course of the story. These games stand in stark contrast to many role playing games like the Final Fantasy series, where the story unfolds in a linear fashion and the player makes limited decisions that don't really affect the outcome of the characters' actions.
Popular opinion in the video game industry is to put more and more power in the hands of the players - let them make their own stories. In this camp, the role of the designer is to create an interesting world and starting conditions for the player's own creative expression. The player is free to participate in the telling of the story by telling it how they want it told. They determine protagonist, antagonist, conflict, desire, obstacle - everything. Through this, players can compare notes (stories) revolving around the question, "What did you do?" or "How did you get past that boss?"
But are players ever going to really interact with the game in a meaningful way? Will they be changed by the stories they tell in the same way that an audience is changed in other media?
I don't think so. I tend to think that players, when left to their own devices, are highly unlikely to tell a story of nuance, meaning, and thematic significance, no matter the tools they are given.
So why the obsession with player agency? Why do we buck so much the hand of a good designer/storyteller?
More personally, why am I so comfortable with it? My favorite games are ones in which I am a participant in a larger story - games where I assume the role of a character, rather than creating one myself. These games, through their gameplay (to a small extent) and their story, create meaning, thought, and, ultimately, change in how I view the world. (Drop everything you're doing and play Final Fantasy Tactics all the way through - you'll understand what I mean.)
Perhaps it all comes down to theology.
I think a large part of my struggle is that I have little problem trusting someone else to tell my story. I submit myself daily to the story that God is telling, to following his son with my life, and to the wonderful power of his themes and signficance. I have no problem believing that someone behind the scenes knows more than I do and has something to teach me.
Maybe running to player agency is really just a small part of the rebellion coming out in a new way - people trying to control their own lives and tell their own stories, and meaning nothing in the process.
Now before anyone reads this and gets all upitty about some judgmental Christian banter and blah-blah-blah, I'm not writing this to condemn the idea of player agency or to suggest that those who hold to that narrative theory are rebels, sinners, and godless fools. Rather, I write it to defend my own instinct toward authorial control.
If video games can be (and are) a powerful and somewhat accurate metaphor for life, then just as I believe there is a Designer of the world who arranges things for meaning and purpose for our good, so too I believe a human designer can inject some of that meaning and purpose for the good of his characters and players. Just as we as humans find life most fulfilling while following Jesus, I think it can be apt that players will find a well designed game most fulfilling when they follow the plan (or story or whatever) of the designer.
As with so many of my ideas, I'm not sure if everything came through effectively, so I'll summarize as simply as I can: If life has a designer who has a plan that we should follow, why shouldn't video games?
(Inspiration for this post brought to you by The Brainy Gamer. Read the comments and follow links. There's good times in there.)
3 comments:
kemp,
i really liked this post; you brought up a lot of interesting thoughts. so many interesting thoughts in fact, that i might need to re-read your post twice just to respond fully.
first, i think there is room for both types of video game design, and i know you'd like yours to be the end all be all, but i think both forms could be beneficial. i believe the only reason it seems nothing meaningful comes from "player agency" (did i use that correctly?) is because the video game designers set it up poorly. i am sure that when done properly, it could be set up in a way that so much could be taken away from the video game; now that is what makes a great video game desiner in my opinion.
i also believe, if telling a story and laying it out is how you personally (and others like you) find most meaning (by being "shown" some direction), then there is a perfectly good niche for that type of video game design as well.
both are wonderful tools when used properly (as most things in life). and i understand your urge to just "show" people a story and change their life or impact it in some way, but i'm sure god wishes things were only that easy as well.
i mean, when you think about it, every day god is showing the world miracles, and only a small bunch of us are really willing to be open enough to hear and see them. so i feel that that type of video game design cators to those amongst us who will open their ears and eyes and really take in what is being offered to them.
i feel a lot of the world is more stubborn. and if a video game designer could some how use that knowledge to let the player try things in a virtual world, that helps them end up at major conclusions themselves...well, that would be a great designer. i mean, what if in the video game, it helped people come to the right conclusions, through their own experimentation? it was a gentle guide, that did not force feed any sort of answers, but just helped them on their path; a yoda of sorts. i feel like, something like that has equal value in the gaming world, and would take a wonderful designer to think through its intricacies.
but if you're more comfortable with laying out a story for the player to follow, by all means, run with it. i believe we're most effective in the means we're comfortable in.
just some thoughts; again, i enjoyed your post!
-jenny
Jenny, thanks for reading that really long post. I'm glad you made sense of it.
I would also agree that a balance is necessary and that there is a place for both extremes.
I think the ideal would definitely be the kind of game where the player is gently guided towards the best path and meaning is there when you look for it. Sometimes there would be times when it's an almost all out assault, but if the player ignores it, they can.
I'm really digging the video games as a metaphor for life thing (right now) and I think what you describe is definitely the best way to accomplish that.
I am not an experienced gamer, or even close... (Though I wish I'd been given the chance to be). But from all the articles, video game scripts, etc that I've read and games (and gamers) that I've observed, I have to say the most satisfying is the kind that you (Kemp) seem to prefer... In which the player is given the power of choice (like we are in life) but ultimately the big picture and the end turn out exactly the way the creator intended it to. So, you- the creator- can decide how complex you're gonna make your flowchart (or whatever that term is... for the decision making), but don't sacrifice the ending of your story. But then, I completely agree with Jenny on this... That a Great designer would give characters/players choices that shape their fates in a meaningful way and turn out a thought-provoking story no matter what. Just for instance... I had a dream that I was in a world.... and it felt like a video game, because there were certain main characters; we traveled around, had different tasks, quests, etc. And though we seemed to mold our separate stories, our fates were connected. I, at one point, chose to go out alone (thinking it best to sacrifice just one life to accomplish something). And as I left my planet I "felt" that a few of my companions were dying. I later found it was because they had tried to search for me and then follow me. And somehow I knew that if I'd chosen to bring them along, they would have survived with me. That's the weird thing about dreams... It kind of rewound and I was sitting in the dessert with them again ready to make my choice, and I chose differently and spared two lives... (atleast for a while). Ok, what I'm trying to say is that perhaps the final outcome - or "the fate" - for the world/ the-overall-story doesn't need to be in the player's hands. But to have other characters' fates affected by your choices... is good experience for a player, I think. (And having different possible endings for subplots too... -like does this village get saved or conquered, burned out, etc?- is also a good way of making player's choices worth actually thinking about).
Anyways, it was one of many long and fascinating sci-fi/fantasy dreams. But I hope I made a point without having to tell the story. (*
Post a Comment