Thinking out loud…

After reflecting on the three articles, I’ve come to see the importance of stressing the difference between stories and games. Koster makes the comparison of the two on page 88 and though he only states the differences briefly, it is clear that stories are completely different from games. Stories are teachers. They usually involve some kind of moral lesson to allow those listening to learn from the main character’s mistakes. Games involve learning to master a skill to win. The fun is in winning, or “mastering a problem mentally (Koster, 90).” The fun of a story is relating to the characters and pretending to be part of that story. It was interesting to think about how the story surrounding a game is not that important. What is important is the base or foundation of the game, actually playing the game. Changing the story does not change the way the game is played. Then what is the point in having the story as part of the game? Is it so people will not get bored easily? Can they relate better to the game if they consider themselves part of the story? In order for games to become true interactive narratives, they would have to find some way to incorporate the complex relationships involved in a story. Games and stories will continue to be separate as long as the purpose of the game is to master the skill involved to win. Narratives should involve interaction with other players, relationships with other people. Most games do not involve relationships with others; they are more focused on the ability of the self. These self-focused games cannot truly be called interactive narratives, can they?

This entry was posted in First Readers. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Thinking out loud…

  1. I like the breakdown Koster makes between stories and games, but I sometimes wonder whether he (and the other writers we read this week) simplify the distinction between the two. What’s interesting to me are edge cases in which both the narrative and the game are so tightly interwoven that it’s nearly impossible to distinguish one from each other. I wonder if anybody in class can think of some examples like this?

  2. cole says:

    @Lauren
    There are a lot of great games that have a corresponding great story. Any AAA title made by a large gaming company is bound to have both a somewhat engaging story and a fun game in the same package. I enjoy good stories and I enjoy good games. I think part of what makes stories useful for games is that they provide a point for game developers to say “ok you win.” At the end of a story you have proven your mastery of the game mechanics, and finished the plot. Stories provide a mechanism for allowing players to beat a game, where as in older storyless titles the only end to the game was the player’s death.

    @Sample
    I can’t think of any game where the mechanics cannot be represented by a different plot (“super press space to win” that I mentioned in my blog is maybe an example). Narrative aspects seem like something that can be used to enhance the fun of a game, but the game itself is not dependent on a plot.

    • Jason Ko says:

      Games such as Atlus’s Persona series are starting to change this relationship between game mechanics and plot. In Persona, strengthening one’s “social links” or relationships between the avatar and other characters, allows the player to create more powerful personas which results in higher battle stats. Also, the more the player interacts with other characters in the game, the more proficient he becomes in advancing social relationships. In fact, there is even a whole separate system of statistics which tracks social attributes, such as confidence and intelligence, which contribute to how the player is allowed to respond to a given social situation. I haven’t had the time to play much of Persona yet (specifically, I’ve been playing Persona 4) but I would assume that the player’s relationships with other characters influence those characters in some manner as well.

Comments are closed.