Saturday 22 March 2008

Shush you, I'm writing you a poem

This week, I'm looking at narratives. In all the reading I did, there were certain key questions that came up; things like "Are (all) games narrative?", "Do games need narratives?", and "How can narratives be interactive?". These questions mostly seemed to end up unanswered or answered in unsatisfactory ways.

To look at the relationship between games and narratives, I'm going to look at a couple of extremes. First, is Tetris. Tetris has no narrative. There's no story telling you why you need to move these blocks around and make lines disappear and there's nothing to recount to people outside of the game (except maybe a particularly high score) as no one wants to hear exactly where you put the L-shaped block or whatever. So this seems to easily answer the question of whether games need narratives. But then what happens when games become more complex? If you removed all the story and characterisation and description from even a games as simple as Doom (walk around, shoot things, occasionally solve simple puzzles), what would be the point? The enjoyment of Tetris is in quick and logical thinking, whereas in Doom, it's being able to shoot various monsters. Though for this, you don't need an in-depth story.

To go to the other extreme, you can look at a game like Zork. Without any narrative, a text-only game like Zork becomes utterly pointless. The game relies on description for everything. But the narrative is still incomplete, your character is never described and the motives behind your "adventures" are never given. So even in a game that needs narrative, this can be incomplete.

Of course, there are more modern games where the narrative really is everything. Games like the Final Fantasy series are all about the story and because of this become much less of a game and more like a film where you push buttons occasionally (something I've mentioned before when comparing Final Fantasy X to Kingdom Hearts). There are other games where the narrative is more flexible. The story is defined and so are certain events, but things like the sequence of events and how certain tasks are carried out can differ from player to player. Most games will have only one ending/way of "winning", whereas games like Fable or Knights of the Old Republic are much more affected by the player.

Then there's games like The Sims, which are as open as possible. Instead of defining a story and making the player try to complete that story, the game developers create a world and give the player the tools with which to create their own stories.

Games like The Sims highlight how narratives in games are different to those in film or literature. In the latter, the writer controls everything and the viewer/reader is passive. They are told the story and that is that. In game narratives, the writer builds a world. They then choose their control over the "history" of the world. Whether everything is prescribed (like in Final Fantasy) or whether everything is open (like in The Sims). The player then dictates
how they experience this history. In a fully prescribed history, every player will have the same story, but it will be tempered by how difficult it was for them to discover. In an unprescribed history, each player will have their own history, but there will always be common elements as they are all in the same created world.

The problem with most analyses of game narratives is that they're compared to standard narratives of film or literature. They try to see the writer as active and the reader/player as only passive. The control the player has over their experience confounds this view. Much better is to see the player as experiencing the story in a "writerly" fashion. The game's creators/writers have put the story to them, but it is up to the player to give the story meaning and to create their own experience.

Imagine a game as a series of books. You can read these books in any order but parts of certain books rely on other books. So, you can read the books detailing certain events at any time you like, but you need to first read the book that explains who the characters are and why they do certain things (or maybe you don't, such as in Zork). Some of the books you could skip completely as they aren't needed for you to know the main plot, but maybe they are of interest because they reveal extra details about the characters or they could simply be about something enjoyable. Others would be major books that tell of major events that would result in a very boring story otherwise. Imagine the story of Star Wars as this series of books. You can skip the books where Obi-Wan uses his Jedi powers to influence the Stormtroopers or where he cuts off the arm of the alien in the bar as, while they are important, you can know the story without them. In contrast, you can't skip the book where Luke destroys the Death Star, otherwise there's no (major) ending to the story.

So, once again, the questions I began with have gone unanswered. Games can be narrative, but they don't need to be. More important is whether players want them to be (Tetris could have a story, but I doubt anyone would want to read it). Game narratives can be interactive because they're not the same as films or books. Just as a "writerly" view of reading means the reader defines the meaning of a piece, the player defines their experience of a game.

13/03/08 - 20/03/08

Once again no gaming this week. This time because I've been to France and then back home in Bristol, so I've had no access to games. Also, I've no new games, so my next post should be looking deeper into games I've already mentioned or playing various games I haven't played in a while...

Thursday 13 March 2008

ExerGaming



So, this week I'm looking at exergaming. Contrasting with the other portmanteau-named genres I've looked at before, the object of exergames isn't to teach anything (though, as with most games, this is somewhat of a side-effect) but instead they intend to promote physical activity.

Exergames can be seen as sort-of a subset of games that use non-standard control apparatus (whether simply in the form of something like a light-gun or something like a Guitar Hero controller). The intention of these controllers is usually to elevate the gaming experience away from something simply controlled by pushing buttons. In the end, you're still just pushing buttons, but it's the way you're doing it that's important.

The exception to this is certain specialist controllers that don't just rely on buttons for control. Where a dance mat is just buttons you push with your feet, something like a Guitar Hero controller or the rod controller from Sega Bass Fishing rely on motion input on a varying scale. This is of course ubiquitous in the Wii controller.

So, to move to exergaming, why is it popular and why does it work? Anyone who's played games can tell you of the phenomenon of how often people will move their controller as they move their character/vehicle/etc. They'll jerk the controller up when they try to jump, or they'll lean the way they're attempting to turn a car. It seems that, as we become involved in a simulation, subconsciously, our bodies want to be involved. And this extends to exergaming. So when playing DDR, players don't just tap the pads with their feet in a disassociated manner, they move with the rhythm of the music and involve their whole bodies. When playing something like Wii sports, while they could just use a small and precise flick of the wrist to return a shot in tennis, it feels more natural to do a proper tennis swing. Even to do it in the proper point in space, when you could just as easily do it while sat down.

But why do this instead of playing a regular game? Why put in this effort when you can just push buttons? There's the obvious reason of the benefits provided by more physical games, but that's not what I think about when playing them. I don't play Wii sports because it'll make me fit. I play it because such an immersive simulation makes a simple game much more fun. Not just that, but because these games have somewhat of a performance aspect, they become very social. People at parties have Guitar Hero battles or they sit around playing bowling on the Wii (the fact that you don't compete simultaneously in bowling on the Wii allows it to transcend certain limitations, such as the fact you might only have one controller).

Another aspect of the appeal of these games is the fact you get instant praise for how well you play. If you begin to play an actual sport or going to the gym, your initial experiences could be horrible and you can fail to see any progress. But, like my experience with Burnout, you are easily able to track your progress in these games and see yourself getting better over time. If you play football, there are few obvious goals other than things like scoring a goal or contributing to your team winning in some way and these goals can seem very far off. Playing DDR, the goals are smaller and show progress far more easily. You could get the chance to score in football, only to have it denied by the keeper, but in DDR you get to experience yourself progressing through the game without any hindrances other than your own skill.

This positive reinforcement doesn't end at any specific point in the game. You don't complete every song and get the highest score and that's it, you can carry on and see if you can repeat that phenomenon. The performance aspect of the games fires your desire to "show-off" to others. You're not content to just load up the high score board and point to your score, you have to have them watch you get that score (or close to it) or you have to challenge them. And so you keep playing so you can maintain that skill.

There's also the element of the outsider. Not trying to delve too far into stereotyping, but the personalities of people who play video games tend to be different to the ones pre-disposed to sports or exercise in general. So, what exergaming allows these players to do is to partake in these activities in an environment they're comfortable with. They're not dancing or exercising, they're simply playing a game. Playing games is something they can do, so a perceived barrier is brought down that would otherwise be there without the gaming environment.

To bring this back to something I mentioned in my previous posts, while these simulations are no substitute for the "real thing" they have their place and are "their own thing". You obviously wouldn't suggest breaking into a Tennis match at a party, but in the same way you'll never think playing tennis on the Wii will help you improve your Tennis game. It's like the people who criticise Guitar Hero and say people should just "learn to play a real guitar". That's not what people want to do. They want to play a game and they want to be good at that game. I don't get a high score when I play a song perfectly on a real guitar...

28/2/08 - 13/3/08

Games I've been playing this week:

Ok, so I missed a post last week, so today you're getting two weeks for the price of one!

X-men: Next Dimension: Once again, it's X-men, so it was pretty obvious I'd like this game even if it wasn't so great. Definitely an enjoyable game but very hard when playing against the computer opponents. I couldn't work out how to get my characters to do any kind of ranged attacks, so I'd be constantly getting beaten as I just attempted to get close enough to the other character in order to just hit them. Apart from this problem, which can be overcome with practice, I found the range of moves and ease of executing them to be very good. Definitely one I'll have to play more (even better if I can get a human opponent).

Mortal Kombat: Shaolin Monks: I've always loved Mortal Kombat games. Ever since I spent a day just sat with my old Master System, working out all the special moves for all the characters on the original. I even have the first film on DVD! I own Mortal Kombat Gold for the Dreamcast and it's not very good. Shaolin Monks has renewed my love of the series. It's not a traditional "beat-em-up" like other MK games, instead (in single-player mode, at least) it's more like an
RPG, but with the bonus of keeping a beat-em-up style fighting system. So rather than just hitting one button repeatedly, so you can hack and slash with a sword, you get to perform combos and (the ever-popular) fatalities.

Burnout 3: Takedown: I've mentioned this game before, but I thought it deserved another mention. As I mentioned in my last post, I'm getting better at this game. This is pretty much unheard of for me in a racing game. I've found I'm no longer just holding the accelerate button all the way and bouncing off the sides of the track, rather than braking and turning properly. I'm being strategic and learning when to boost and when not to, so I don't go flying into some obstacle. This learning is making me enjoy the game even more and I'm finding I enjoy redoing tracks over and over, learning how to drive them best and how to get the best times. My one complaint is that I can't edit the playlist enough so that I don't have to hear some of the horrible tracks on there (New Found Glory and My Chemical Romance, I'm looking at you).

Friday 7 March 2008

EduGaming

So, this week's topic is "EduGaming", games that teach.

I gues I'm what Marc Prensky would call a "Digital Native" (not a digital narrative, as my brain kept trying to fill in). I grew up with computers and so of course I used them in school. I remember the games we had at school being very simple. Often they wouldn't be "games" as such, more programmes that would attempt to make practising things like multiplication more entertaining by adding whimsical animations, etc.

But times have moved on and computers in schools are no longer dull grey boxes running Windows 3.1. Games have become larger and more complex and can therefore teach much more and in much more subtle ways. I mentioned Will Wright last time and his idea of "learning toys". The game SimCity is a good example of a game that teaches in subtle ways and doesn't just promote "twitch speed". On the surface of the game, you build a city and maintain it. A cursory glance will tell you that the game teaches things like planning and resource management. But looking deeper, you find you can learn things like statistical analysis. You learn things like multi-tasking, a skill that Prensky thinks is integral to being a "digital native".

While I'm mostly a casual gamer, I've found that I do have this multi-tasking capability. I have no trouble keeping track of multiple things in a game. I'm not just watching what's going on on the screen, I'm keeping track of what information it's giving me and what I'm doing with my controller. In my normal life I'm constantly multi-taking. Right now, I'm watching Top Gear while typing this blog. Sat in my system tray, I have multiple applications waiting for things to happen. I have a couple of instant messaging programmes, an RSS reader, a music player (on pause as I'm watching TV), e-mail, and a programme to download podcasts based off RSS feeds. While I'm not constantly interacting with these things, I'm seeing them in the corner of my eye, watching them for any change that might give me new information.

To give a gaming example of learning, I was playing Burnout 3 last night. I've said before that I'm not very good at racing games. I don't drive so I don't know much about how to manoeuvre a car at speed. I've never learnt where to brake and how hard in order to take a sharp corner. But, as I played trough various race events in the game, I found I could retry them. In order to unlock new events, I had to do well in the previous events, so I did retry the events and I found myself learning the tracks. I learnt what corners I could take at top speed and which I had to slow down for. I also learnt other tricks, like what to do in order to gain "boost" which would allow me to go faster (of course, I also learnt where was a sensible time to use this boost and where I'd end up plowing into a wall).

While I doubt I could now go out and drive a car (and definitely not what I was driving in the game), I've learnt skills that could help me in other driving games and also in other things. I've learnt things like analytical skills and the benefit of practising and retrying things. This takes us back to EduGaming and the idea that games that try to teach aren't always necessarily the best. Especially for children/people who may be somewhat resistant to traditional learning.


Sunday 2 March 2008

21/2/08 - 28/2/08

Games I've been playing this week:

Another different platform this week as well as a game genre I haven't covered before. This week I played three RTS games for the PC.

Total Annihilation: A game I've loved for years and one I keep returning to but have never completed. It was a ground-breaking game back in the day and it still holds up well to games much younger than it. I found playing the game to be just as enjoyable as it always was, though there are some noticeable bugs. One being that I'd completed a mission by escorting a certain unit back to my base but the game still carried on. Eventually, after a while of waiting for the game to end, I realised the game hadn't decided the unit was in my base, so I had to get it to wander around a bit more.

Total Annihilation: Kingdoms: Not quite a "sequel" (or even a prequel) to the original TA, but they're still related (if only in certain gameplay elements). Just as fun as the original and at times even more so (like the level where you just get given a pack of dragons are told to go kill whatever you can find). However, it doesn't hold quite the place in my heart that the original TA does, so it will sadly always come second.

Supreme Commander: Often seen as the "spiritual successor to the original TA game (as they were both designed by Chris Taylor). Unfortunately, a lot has changed in the world of games and PC hardware in the near-decade between the two games. This means I was unable to install SC as I didn't have enough space on my laptop's hard drive. Sadly, this game shall have to wait.