Minor Narrative Interaction

As promised in my last post, here are a few games I recommend to see good use of Minor Narrative Interaction.  Some are obvious, and some less so.  These games make good use of interactivity without making the entire story hinge on the interactive elements and the player's input, and they do a very good job of increasing emotional impact and character empathy through these techniques (though for the sake of spoilers, I won't describe exactly how).  There are more that belong on this list, of course, but these are some particularly good examples.  If you feel there is another game that should have been included, feel free to say why in the comments!

Bioshock
If you're interested in games as a narrative art enough to be reading this blog in the first place, you probably know what I'm talking about.  Bioshock has not only a fantastic twist in the story, but it presents said twist in a unique way that not only emotionally involves the player through excellent use of minor narrative interaction, but hammers the point home like a railway spike straight to your intellect.  A truly brilliant moment in a truly brilliant game that must be experienced.

Beyond Good and Evil
The final boss fight of this game is one of the best examples I've seen of symbolism in actual gameplay.  The controls during the final battle very accurately reflect the struggles of the protagonist and her state of mind at the time in a rather brilliant way.  It's rare to see a game play with the controls to give meaning to even the game's basic control scheme.

Final Fantasy X
I mentioned this in the actual article.  Final Fantasy has a bit of a reputation among some for not involving interactivity at all, for just being long stretches of gameplay punctuated by cutscenes.  For one, that's not true.  Secondly, there's no reason those stretches of gameplay can't be great examples of minor narrative interaction.  This game takes a normal gameplay sequence and, through emotional music and the weight of responsibility on the player, makes the entire process a battle within you between the desire to leave and the need, from both the game and the story, to continue on.

Shadow of the Colossus
The death of a colossus in this game is not a triumphant or exciting experience.  The battle is epic and exhilarating  but once you have killed them, the magnificent beast falls to the ground, life pouring from it, as tragically beautiful music plays.  It's a beautiful moment that evokes more sorrow than triumph.  Seems kind of weird, seeing as killing these colossi are the key to reviving your dead loved one.  But it will all make sense in the emotional ending, in which your efforts certainly make the scene more impacting than yelling at an onscreen character ever could.

Major and Minor Narrative Interaction

These concepts are hardly new, but much like the Narrative/Gameplay Paradigm, this article is my attempt to label and define these two concepts and explore how they work.

It's important to keep in mind that the dramatic story-altering forms of interactivity employed by developers such as Bethesda and Bioware are not the only way to use interactivity in meaningful ways.  It's great to be able to shape the entirety of the story's protagonist, or determine the course of events as the story progresses, but it would be a mistake to think that is the only way for video games to convey their narrative through the unique lens of interactivity.

I'm going to separate interactive storytelling techniques into two categories; there could be many more, obviously, but as a first step let's keep it simple.

The first is major narrative interaction.  This is interactivity on a major scale, the kind of interactivity that allows the player to have a large impact on the game's characters, story, and world.  When you make a decision in Mass Effect that carries over to its sequel and affects its events, that is an instance of major narrative interaction.  This kind of interactivity focuses on letting the player have control and putting the story and characters in their hands.  The player is allowed to choose the type of experience they want based on the options given them by the developer.

The second category is minor narrative interaction.  This is the more subtle use of interactivity, the one that doesn't have any real effect on the story or characters of a given game.  This is what's used at the end of Shadow of the Colossus, the end of Halo: Reach, the plot twist in Bioshock, the final walk to Zanarkand in Final Fantasy X, and the nuclear bomb in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.  Most examples are rather spoileriffic, so I can't describe specific examples without ruining some truly amazing moments, but hopefully you be familiar with at least one of the moments I named.  The basic idea of these is that they put the player in control for an important story point that will not change based on the player's interaction, but the emotional impact and even the story's main points are hammered home in a way that cannot be accomplished without that interactive element.

Major narrative interaction is often the only recognized form of interactive storytelling.  Understandably, the most thrilling potential for interactive narrative is the ability for the player to actively help shape the story and characters, to make important decisions that could take the story in different directions.  The involvement of the player in the artistic experience is an important and exciting development in the arts, and we rightfully have a desire to explore it to its furthest potential.

However, it is important that we not overlook the importance of minor narrative interaction.  This type of interaction does not allow the player to shape the story, at least not in any huge way, but rather endeavors to quite literally put the player in the place of the protagonist, to walk a mile in their shoes so to speak.  In well-crafted uses of minor narrative interaction, the player's actions (or lack of ability to interact in a certain way) reflect the struggle of the protagonist in a way that increases the player's sympathy and emotional connection to the character and events.

It sure added a lot to Crisis Core.  No Final Fantasy VII
fan kept dry eyes at the end of this game.  

A classic example of minor character interaction is at the end of a story, often a prequel starring a different character, when they have their last stand.  Enemies pour in from all sides, and more come no matter how many you kill, until eventually your character is overpowered and falls in battle.  This concept is far from new; it has happened in all sorts of stories.  But there's something different about playing it and actually experiencing that lack of control.  You can fight all you like, kill as many enemies as you want.  You could be the best player in the known world, and you will eventually lose.  Despite all you've been through, all the good your character has done in the game's world and story, it comes to an end here, and you can't do anything about it despite your best efforts.

Some games have also made your character, under the control of some unknown force, do something neither they nor you want them to do, and whatever buttons you press, they only bring the character closer to this action, never stopping them.  Or perhaps rather than putting the death of the final boss after your epic boss fight in a cutscene, the game allows you to deliver the final blow yourself.  Some games have even forced the player to do or watch terrible things, such as the controversial No Russian level in Modern Warfare 2.  These are seemingly small touches, but they really add a lot to the emotional impact; the player feels a sense of responsibility when this interaction is present, and for them to fail when in control, even if the game allows no other course of action, is a far more emotional experience than seeing a character fail in a story.

I've often seen people consider major narrative interaction to be the only type of interaction that truly separates video games from other media.  But as important as major narrative interaction is, it is not the only important or even the most important type of interaction when it comes to interactive storytelling.  Major narrative interaction is great, and very important, but it requires a large financial commitment, a lot of manpower, and the type of story that lends itself to multiple branching paths.  Minor narrative interaction, on the other hand, is not only easier on the workers and the money, but can also apply to every type of narrative imaginable.  This is because it does not demand non-linearity, but instead works to achieve heightened emotional impact regardless of whether the narrative branches.

In short, it's important to consider both major and minor narrative interaction when studying a given work of interactive art.  Too often a game is condemned for having no real interactive value simply because of its lack of major narrative interaction, despite having a strong presence of minor narrative interaction, and recognition of both types is vital to truly understanding how interactivity and story work together in this medium.

On Wednesday I'll post a list of games I recommend checking out to see good examples of minor narrative interaction.  I imagine some people will agree and some will disagree with what I'm saying here, so feel free to comment and let me know!  Until then, remember to like Binary Narrative on Facebook if you like what I have to say!

Relative Inferiority: How Video Games Stack Up

We live with the constant idea that, though video games are a narrative art form, their stories are not the best stories ever told.  That video game stories are not yet as good as stories told in other mediums.  This irritates me.

You will not find me denying that most video game writing sucks.  I think it's pretty well established that most developers do not spend enough effort or give enough priority to storytelling, and the writers end up needing to work around a half-finished game.  There are also problems of writers being brought in from non-interactive mediums and having no idea how to write for the relatively new idea of interactive storytelling.  Most game stories and writing are pretty terrible; you won't find me denying that.

But first of all, that is true of everything.  Everything artistic, at least.  The arts almost always follow the second principle of Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.  There are many people out there with the creativity to create great works, but lacking in the skill to bring their creative vision to life.  There are also many people out there with the technical skill but lacking in the creativity.  Many people think they can do great things artistically, and only so many people actually can.  This is why Youtube is simultaneously home to some great talent and a lot of pointless video blogs and stupid music videos.  It is why most movies are derivative and badly-made, but many are quite good and a few per year will be remembered for decades to come.  It is why books are the host medium of some of the greatest literary works in history, yet the harlequin romance section of the library takes up about half of the building.  And it's why most video games tell terrible stories.  It is a widespread artistic principle, not some disability only video games bear.

There are other things to consider as well, such as the fact that video games are more diverse than other mediums and can include works made solely for competition or social game nights, the artistic status of which can be debated.  But it is usually assumed that when we are talking about bad game stories we are talking about games that tried, at least to the extent of having a story at all.  It is debatable whether we should criticize a game made solely for the sake of online competition for its lack of artistic vision when art was obviously not their intention, but I think it is much clearer that we should not judge the quality of an entire medium based on these examples.

When looking to see if video game stories have told tales worthy to stand with history's great stories, we should not look at the worst of the medium but the best.  We do not determine the comparative worth of film to literature by comparing The Room to The Odyssey, nor should we use Killzone as the measuring stick we put next to Star Wars to determine the relative worth of video games as a storytelling medium. 

I imagine anyone who plays video games for their story can name at least one game that has impacted them emotionally just as much if not more than any other story from other mediums.  I know many people, myself included, can say that about games as far back as the Super Nintendo, possibly even before that.  Thing is, most gamers who claim the storytelling inferiority of video games know that perfectly well.  So why do they say that games haven't told truly great stories?

I think there is one thing games need to get better at before they will more widely be considered able to stand among the greats.  Developers need to figure out how to best integrate interactivity and gameplay with the narrative.

Consider what Citizen Kane is to film.  It used brilliant cinematography and revolutionary storytelling techniques to set the standard for what film is capable of.  It was the first to create many film equivalents to well-established literary techniques, and presented itself visually like no film had.  It took advantage of the medium's strengths and potential to create an experience like no other at the time.  It is remembered now not because it is the best film ever made, but because it set the precedent for what the medium is capable of doing and the ways it can uniquely present it.

Though we have some stories in video games that, in my opinion, deserve to stand among history's best, we have yet to see a game that fully, completely, and effectively ties interactivity into it.  We have had games that do one or more of these, but not a game that revolutionarily does so on the level that Citizen Kane did for film.  Once that happens, I believe people will more easily accept video game stories into the same league as the greats of history.

Is it necessary to take full advantage of a medium's unique strengths to make a good work in it?  Absolutely not; that idea causes a lot of problems that I plan on addressing in a later article, as it's too big a topic to tack on to this one.  Suffice it to say that good, well-told stories are good, well-told stories regardless of their medium or how thoroughly they utilize said medium's unique abilities, else we begin to settle into a decorum-based, systematic art theory.  But despite this, a medium comes fully into its own when it figures out how to separate itself from other mediums in one or more important ways.

The problem?  Gaming will never have a single work that revolutionizes the entire medium's storytelling.  Video games are a much more diverse medium than any other because of the varying styles of gameplay.  For example, storytelling techniques that could revolutionize RPG storytelling do not necessarily work for a shooter, and vice versa.  Take the idea of first-person games taking place entirely from that perspective; the player becomes the character, with no cutscenes or even lack of control to take them out of the experience of being that character.  This simply would not work as well for an action game or a JRPG, or at least it could not have quite the same effect.  The diversity of gameplay styles and the subsequent diversity of storytelling principles that go with them makes it impossible for a single work to revolutionize the way every game and genre tells stories.  Video games will eventually learn to very effectively interweave interactivity and storytelling, but I have a feeling it will sneak up on us rather than arriving in one grand artwork.

If you have not played a game that impacted you emotionally on the same level as a book or movie that you've read, that's fine.  But if you have, I see no reason why that story shouldn't be considered on par with many great stories of other mediums.  However, I bet we will be seeing more and more games that reach the heights set by the great literary works of history, not only because of excellent storytelling, but because of the interactivity that only video games has to offer.