« Microsoft, We Want Our Money Back | Home | Not Sure What To Title This… »
Ludology, Narratology, Poketology
By Corvus | July 24, 2007
Whee! More storytelling talk. AI chatter will happen later this week, honest.
As I go through my first major rewrite of the white paper, I’m trawling the web looking for more evidence that I’m not a complete nutter (I’m not). I’ve found some interesting posts which certainly add fuel to the fire. There’s Michael’s gauntlet dropping post, Ten reasons why computer games are not games (link), which has ruffled a few ludic feathers. My ‘narratology’ spider-bot caught a post in its web which struck me as unnecessarily contentious, How To Argue on a Subject You Know Nothing About (link). Fortunately, the author appears open to discussion which pleases me to no end.
These two posts in particular frame the extremes of the debate quite nicely, but neither of them were quite was I was looking for. Luckily for me, Gabe went to the Pokemon tournament at his LGGR and brought back the most charming tale I’ve read on Penny Arcade in some time (link). Further down on the page, he posts a letter he received which is so much super-sweet cream-cheese frosting on the dense-n-rich goodness of the carrot cake (link).
Those two posts were exactly the bridge I was looking for. The framework to solidify and clarify my central point. That related experience exists, not on one end of the academic spectrum or the other, but solidly in between–out here in the real world where everyone is busy playing the games, not analyzing the social impact of them.
I’ve said before that I find the narratology/ludology debate to be practically meaningless, but I don’t know that I’ve clearly stated my position on it… at least, not as clearly as I’m about to. I obviously don’t believe video games fall under one of the other of those camps exclusively–I write about gameplay, I write about storytelling. I’ve also come to believe that a “balanced” approach incorporating both the schools of thought draws too many divides between the elements that comprise a video game and, I feel, is the cause of much confusion when framing the debate. I think that to extricate the storytelling elements from the gameplay elements is to ignore and abandon the power and potential of the video game medium.
My contention, and the premise behind the white paper, is that storytelling can be built from gameplay or, if you prefer, gameplay can act as the building blocks of storytelling. Let’s take Pokémon as an example…
You don’t get much more ludic than Pokémon. Although there is a sparse plotline involving a group of baddies intent on doing something terrible and utilizing Pokémon in their nefarious schemes, the game narrative* itself is an elaborate complication of Rock-Paper-Scissors. If we’re really aggressive in our deconstruction of the narrative, we can break down the player controlled verbs to about four primary ones–move, attack, defend, modify stat (I’m ignoring the non-core gameplay such as the dance competitions and such). The complications in the game are controlled by its modifiers, adjectives and adverbs.
As will often happen with strongly ludic games, a hardcore elements has converged upon Pokémon with their calculators and spreadsheets at the ready, wringing every last bit of data from the experience that they can. They have formulas to calculate the hidden stats and strategies to dominate any competition.
But clearly there are a great number of kids, arguably the true target audience of the Pokésperience, who have deeply internalized this parade of algebraic proportions and experience a rich and rewarding fabula when they play the game. For them it isn’t about EVs and natures, it’s about Pokémon, cute and personality filled Pokémon. Where in the game are Pokémon explicitly portrayed as having these rich and diverse personalities? Nowhere. But kids can talk to you about which is their favorite and why. Clearly, they are experiencing a story and it’s all built out of gameplay.
There’s a lot of talk among the ludic camps about the “danger” of a narratology approach to video game design. Those who focus on it are said to be straying into “treacherous waters.” I think this is bunk. First of all, where is the danger? It’s clear from the explosive growth of the “new” casual demographic that there’s more room in the pool than many are strictly comfortable with. Surely there’s also room for those who wish to abandon the conventions of ludology to focus on the video game platform’s use as a strictly narrative medium? Is the fear that this approach will be inordinately popular and no one will play ludic games anymore? That’s ridiculous.
However, I do feel that ignoring the social impact and importance of games in our storytelling might be a mistake. My assertion is that storytelling and games have been important social tools for tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years. Each is a powerful communication and educational medium in and of itself. But together, they are far greater than the sum of their parts. There is, after all, a reason that chess pieces have names with cultural resonance–king, queen, knight. It’s more than just convenient labels, it tells a story–a story about the origins of the game and a story about why it was played.
So, from now one when faced with “pure” narratology or “pure” ludology, I’m going to present a unified alternative, rather than a balanced one. Not a message of “both are important” but one of “inextricable social links.”
Thoughts? Push back? Full out arguments? Let ‘em fly!
*Remembering that I use narrative to mean every element presented to the audience, not just the literary style text which advances the plot.
Tagged:Design, Games, storytelling. | 7 Comments »
July 24th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
***Surely there’s also room for those who wish to abandon the conventions of ludology to focus on the video game platform’s use as a strictly narrative medium? Is the fear that this approach will be inordinately popular and no one will play ludic games anymore? That’s ridiculous.***
Yeah, what are they afraid of? Another Myst? B-)
July 26th, 2007 at 12:07 am
***So, from now one when faced with “pure” narratology or “pure” ludology, I’m going to present a unified alternative, rather than a balanced one. Not a message of “both are important” but one of “inextricable social links.”***
Amen. And there is no need to solve this complexity – it becomes very boring. Besides, there is no pureness and there needn’t be. We are not wired that way. This does not mean we will not continue researching each element separately but in action, in reality they intertwine. Why, for goodness sake would someone want to purify one of both?
July 26th, 2007 at 6:08 am
I think you have done a much better job of expressing your view than I did! I’m new to this whole debate. Having sat firmly on the non-analysis camp of video gaming for many years, I decided it was time to look at things from a more serious perspective.
I had become increasingly frustrated that the books and papers I was reading took this view of gameplay being a sideshow to story telling; that if we were all sat in a movie theatre banging buttons we would invariably end up with a movie that can be analysed as such. This may in part be due to reading older works, it seems the newer works I read, the more conciliatory it all sounds. It just feels so wrong every time I read these things, and I vented somewhat! Having analysed games from a video game review position, it would be nonsensical for me to ever describe a game without it’s gameplay elements. It’s considered a core part of the experience, and if you take that away, regardless of how well-meaning you are, you’re doing something wrong. *That* was what my post was aiming against, but I went off-target because my writing was unfocused. This blogging gig is hard!
At the same time, I absolutely don’t deny that story-telling such as player narrative, as you describe with Pokemon, drives a greater *gameplay* connection. Deus Ex is a great example of a game where I spoke to my friends about it, found out they had played the game almost entirely differently, and went back and tried to connect to the game at a different level. The developer-provided narrative remained identical, my player narrative was wildly different.
So yes, I agree they are inexplicably linked. The question is where such a theory fits. Where does Tetris go? Where does something like Phoenix Wright, a game with gameplay that is almost non-existent? The thing is, from an outside perspective, it seems like an expanded ludology theory is better placed to encompass these the edge cases than a 50:50 unified or narratology theory. Tetris doesn’t have a player narrative, it has a score that goes up. There is not some internalised struggle versus the never-ending blocks that can be reasonably described as a “narrative”. It is however, a gameplay piece. Phoenix Wright does not work as a narrative in and of itself; the excitement is in triggering OBJECTION! and watching Phoenix slam his desk. That’s a feeling that comes from the challenge of finding the contradiction, even though the game is 95% story-driven. If you remove that other 5%, you suddenly don’t have something so compelling.
It seems to me that games can exist without the narrative, but the narrative can’t exist without the game.
July 26th, 2007 at 6:44 am
I didn’t see this bit:
*Remembering that I use narrative to mean every element presented to the audience, not just the literary style text which advances the plot.
Apologies for mixing up my usage of the term in my last post; I generally mean it to be a story that the game presents, whether it meant to or not. Is that your definition too? Or am I using a completely different playbook at this point?
July 26th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Syntheticist, checkout the white paper linked in the sidebar. It lays out all of my working definitions and even addresses the Tetris question head on.
Keep in mind while reading it, however, that I now use the term fabula where the white paper uses story. I hope to have the revised white paper done before the month is out.
…and no worries about clarity. One has to talk oneself into these things. It’s taken me a while to nail down my terms and they’re still undergoing fluctuation!
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:52 pm
[...] video game reviews. I haven’t gone through all of them yet, but already I’m digging an article by Corvus that I missed when he posted that mirrors my thoughts on theme. Check them out, and lemme know if [...]
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:07 am
Welcome Game Carnival visitors! Be sure to check out the August Round Table while you’re here (link). Unlike a Carnival, the Round Table invites bloggers to post on a central topic and become involved in cross-blog discussions.