25/04/08 - 02/05/08

Games I've been playing this week:

This week, I borrowed a couple of games from the IOCT. As I'd just studied violence in video games, I decided to choose a couple that were overtly violent.

Fahrenheit: Before I borrowed it from the IOCT, I'd never even heard of this game before. I have to say that I was very pleasantly surprised. I ended up somewhat addicted to it and after only borrowing it last Thursday, I've already completed it (in the sense that the story of the game is over, there's still a fair amount that I can still do with the game). Due to the fact that you control both the killer and the detectives trying to catch him, it makes for an interesting game, as you're essentially playing against yourself. You have to make decisions about how well you play each character in order to help yourself in the other roles you play. The game is fairly open in the style of play. You're taken through a story in quite a linear fashion (though the order in which you experience certain parts is up to you) but you still have a lot of freedom of choice about what exactly happens in the game. It's not as open as a game like GTA, but it's nowhere near as restrictive as a game like FFX.

The story is good, though there are certain parts where you have to suspend disbelief greatly as they can be rather fantastical. Where it really stands up is the characters. I found myself liking them and choosing what scenes to play first by which character I liked best. Another great part of the game is the atmospherics. Certain parts of the game I found very unnerving and I was genuinely unsettled, which made for a very immersive gaming experience.

The control system of the game is also very interesting. I've never encountered a game with a similar system. The way it forces you to do certain things that make it so that when your character has to make a physical effort, so do you, really adds to how you're sucked into the game. I found myself feeling slightly exhausted after prolonged sections where I had to do a lot of these challenges.

Overall, it's been a very enjoyable experience and I think it's likely I'll replay parts of the game even though I've finished the story. I've got the game for another week, but I may have to buy a copy of my own at some point.

True Crime: New York City: This game I didn't enjoy quite as much. It struck me as basically an alternate take on GTA, where you're a cop instead of a criminal. While the game can be enjoyable, it doesn't really add anything to the concept of GTA. Instead it loses something as the missions don't work well with causing mayhem, which is the most enjoyable part of the game. Also, it lacks the humour of GTA, which is really an integral part of the enjoyment of the game. One major criticism is the physics engine when you're driving. The cars are sometimes rather bouncy. I found myself bounced across a road into a pile of pedestrians when I hit a lamppost! One very good part of the game is the soundtrack, it provides a great range and has some great tracks available to listen to. It also allows you to decide which tracks you want to hear more of and which ones you don't want to hear at all. All in all, I'd still rather play any of the GTA series.

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.

24/01/08 - 31/01/08

Games I've been playing this week:

Kingdom Hearts: Been playing this for a while and I still love it. I'm currently on the Atlantica (Little Mermaid) level. It's not too hard, so I don't get frustrated, but it's not like Final Fantasy X where I feel like I may as well just be watching a film so I could do away with having to press some buttons...

X-men Legends: An X-men RPG? I am quite obviously in heaven. The 2-player mode is great too, as it's a welcome change to be working with a partner rather than against them. Especially enjoyed the part of a mission where pretty much everything could be destroyed...

Capcom Vs. SNK 2: A very frustrating game. The controls are simple (like most fighting games), but getting to do anything other than simple moves is a lot more difficult. We read through the instructions multiple times and still had no idea. Not to mention having no clue what the various "grooves" did...