The Escapist has an article and GrandTextAuto has a response about the Ludology vs. Narratology debate. There are a few things that I can agree with in the article, though I most strongly agree with Andrew’s response. I think that one of the parts I can most clearly identify with is Jesper’s complaint that the debate is partially a “battle of words that tells us nothing about games, but is mostly about how to define narrative.” I definitely have to agree with that. I’ve spend many an hour talking about what constitutes narrative in a game, and many sleepless nights just trying to wrap my head around it. But it’s because of this, not in spite of it, that I think that actual critical examination of the terms would help when attempting to talk to someone about story in games. Let me explain.

When I talk about story or plot in games to people, I almost always first have to get past a preconceived notion that what I’m talking about is linear story sequences interspersed with game-like sequences; like the stories you might experience in games like Final Fantasy. Once I start to get them past the idea that all the events that occur to a character in a game compromises the “story,” I can begin to start working on explaining concepts like “interactive discourse” and where and when elements of story can be manipulated. By this point, I’m usually out of time with this person, and I don’t really get to the meat of the real conversation. Maybe they’re interested and we can continue the discussion later, but most of the time all I succeed in doing is making someone understand that not everyone who talks about “story in games” or “interactive narrative” is specifically referring to cut-scenes and back stories.

If, instead, an actual critical decision on what we mean when we say “story” versus what we mean when we say “narrative” versus “interactive narrative” versus “interactive fiction” versus “story game” versus “game” (the list goes on…) we might actually be able to hold interesting conversations with other people interested in similar topics. Better, if we could figure out in game specific studies or critical examination where “game” ends and “narrative” begins, I might be able to actually start a discussion about story in games without having to first explain that I understand that games are not necessarily “about” story, and that there are perfectly wonderful games without story at all.

To me, this isn’t a Ludology vs. Narratology debate; it’s a debate about how to make ludology work with narratology. It just gets packaged as a vs. debate, I guess because battles sell more tickets. I think what most of the people in the article were trying to say is that both are important, though I’ve heard many seasoned designers come out swinging even at that statement. I think that most people think story and game are mutually exclusive. Story is linear, game is interactive. That’s the argument right? But, since I don’t see it that way, I either can’t have a conversation with a person who does, or (if I want to take the time), I have to explain in gory detail why I don’t believe they are mutually exclusive. Worse, I have to re-state that every time I want to start a new conversation on the topic.

So, what really irks me in the Escapist article (and I think what really irked Andrew) was Barrett’s quote:

People with vested interests have succeeded in putting forward a masturbatory, ego-driven, politically-motivated debate that is never going to help anyone make a better interactive product.

Obviously, I have my own political agenda. I want to be able to discuss story in games critically without having to repeat myself every time I meet someone new. I even have my own “masturbatory work” towards that end.

But I also have another major political agenda: I want to play more plot based games, damn it. Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, and Beyond Good and Evil were great, but they don’t even come close to the experience offered by the original Deus Ex. Furthermore, as much as I liked Deus Ex, it doesn’t even come close to what I’d really like to see in a fully realized interactive narrative. Hell, I have more of an emotional response to old Sierra “lock-and-key” adventure games that I do for any character in Deus Ex. Just ask me to talk about the themes of sacrifice and prejudice in Quest for Glory 4 some time. I’ve yet to play another game that’s done it better.

Here is what I want to play. I want to play games where I care about a character and where I can feel a real sense of agency toward unfolding events and character evolution. I want games where game and story aren’t divided like they are in pretty much every game on the market. I want a game where the story emerges not only as part of the play, but through the crafting of people that are good at “telling” stories; that are experts at manipulating emotion through dialog and action. Honestly, I’ve never played a game like this, and if we continue to have the ludology vs. narratology debate simply on the level of mutual exclusion and whether games should / shouldn’t have story, I’m sure I never will.

I’m also of the opinion that, in order to make these games, I need to get a real understanding of where narrative fits in the grand scheme of the rules of a game, how the player interprets rules as narrative, and how stories can be modified predictably to allow for the feeling of agency without the unpredictability (and suspension of freedom shattering potential) of story generators. I want games where story and game are not mutually exclusive, but an integrated whole, governed by the mechanics of a larger system, generating dynamics in the form of story based play, and establishing aesthetic themes and emotions that can’t be generated from traditional media.

So, I guess I’d say I am looking for a way to make a better interactive product; one that I actually want to play. Of course, whether I can actually do that remains to be seen; somehow, though, I think the key lies in all of that masturbatory, ego-driven debate somewhere.