The Story So Far

OK. Quick recap: this is now a dev blog (assuming I do it right), and I'm now working on a private project. Why? Well, here:

This whole thing started because I can't let go of a feeling that bothers me. I've never made anything that was 100% my own, from scratch. At least nothing I could call remotely presentable. This is what it's all about right now. I'm working in games, I've been part of small projects and large ones and I love all of it. But this one thing has bugged me for years, and recently reached the point I just can't shove it down anymore - the feeling that I NEED to make something on my own, no matter how small or how crappy. And I NEED to share it. I need to share the process and the result. again, no matter how crappy. And that thing needs to be a game. A small, shitty game.

That's the gist of it. And I've started doing it. My first real step was coming up with a certain guideline - I must never push myself too hard. From previous experiences, I know that if I push myself too hard (and too hard is relative, in my case it can simply mean I'm spending too much time thinking about it), I would back down. I always feel that whenever I try to undertake an endeavor I fear is too much for me, I end up avoiding it because I keep treating it as such. I decided that the only way this would get done is if I take baby steps. Micro-baby steps is the way. That is, to do whatever I can whenever I can, and never begrudge myself or not doing something, or not feeling like it. Never try to create a deadline, and if I do, never feel bad for not having reached it. Because then I hammer it into myself that I just can't do it and then I don't do it. The idea is that at some point, even if it takes years, I'll have SOMETHING to show. It's a stupid approach, I know. It's counter to everything I've read about being productive. But honestly I think so far it's working. I do try to be sort of consistent, but I can never stress over it, that's my one rule. Of course I keep breaking that rule because I constantly stress over it, but in that case I never let it influence what I do. I can stress all I want as long as I never let that stress dictate what I do. So far, this has worked for me.

That guideline was probably the most important and crucial part. The next step was trivial by comparison: figuring out what to do. I decided to study Unity because people use it and it seems cool. I didn't look too much into it. I know there are other options, but the imperative was to not obsess over what doesn't need to be obsessed over. I wasted enough of my life thinking what was "best" to study, so that I never actually studied enough of anything. Now it's time to do, to create. So Unity is it. After that, it was time to take courses.

I enrolled in a few Udemy courses and did a few projects focusing on coding. It's been interesting and informative, and it's gotten me on my way. As long as I was doing courses, I was heading in the right direction. Because most classes weren't much longer than 20 minutes anyway, it all fit perfectly with my baby-step plan. I could keep inching towards a feeling of achievement.

But after a few course projects, I felt I needed to take another big step. I wanted to take what I learned and now make something of my own. A prototype. Just to practice. I won't call this a mistake but this has proved the hardest hurdle so far. Now I don't have a helpful helping of courses I can just give my attention to, I have to actually do my own planing and divide my time accordingly. This has been a problem, but I'm persevering. It's taking longer but I'm doing it and I'm doing my best not to stress.

So what am I actually working on?
A frickin' text adventure prototype. It's not even a full-length game, whatever that would mean. Like, the easiest thing in the universe, right? Well, for me it's not. But I'll be happy when I get it over with. I took one of the Unity essentials courses to get me started. Not sure if it was the best way to start a text adventure but it's the only one I found for Unity and even though it went about doing things in a slightly different way than I expected it's been working for me. In the last couple of months I've been taking what the course gave me and adding and chancing things. A few weeks ago I finally finished tweaking the architecture and now I'm finally ready to work my own design into it. Now I just need to finish a proper game design document for it. Then ill start building it. I don't know how long that'll take, but I know I'll get there.

But, actually, the last bit of struggle I've had since then has actually been just writing this post. I decided I didn't want to start writing the design until I made a post about my work so far. And I hate doing this, you see. It takes me ages to write something and I'm pretty sure I've mentioned I'm not good at it. But, as I said at the beginning, sharing the process is important to me. It's part of this whole project. Not just making something, but documenting it. So I'm forcing myself. And finally I'm done with this and can get back to designing the prototype.

The next time I feel compelled to put something in writing, I might delve deeper into what I want to do and why I'm working on a text adventure to begin with.

So this is a dev blog now, I guess?

Look, I'm awful at blogging. It's not even hard for me to admit. I'm in love with writing, but holy cow am I bad at it. So I don't know how to make this statement read as dramatic as I imagine it is; from now on I'm going to be writing about game development. 

I've been a game designer for a good few years now, but just recently I've decided to just get into it and make games for myself. If I can get a few people to play them that's awesome, but really all I want is to make something that's totally mine. 

I've been writing a journal - well, it's more like a messy bunch of notes - to help me as I try to make a prototype, because this is also my first steps in coding. I figured that maybe putting all those jumbled thoughts in this blog, which was just sitting here gathering dust anyway, was not a shabby idea. So there you have it. Hopefully this will also help push me to working on my stuff more regularly.

Honestly? I have no idea how this will go. I'm not kidding at all when I say I'm bad at writing. I could persuade myself that I'm occasionally not crappy at putting words together, but planning out posts, editing them and making them interesting for someone else takes so much out of me that I'm not sure I can do it on a regular basis. But I'm going to try. Trying counts, I think. And I love games and game-making so much, writing about it CAN'T be that hard, right? 

First post will be up soon. Don't know what it'll be about, but game development will DEFINITELY MAYBE be a part of it. 

I'm Still Here!

Hi! Just wanted to confirm that yes, I'm still here!

Clearly full-time blogging isn't for me, but I've been thinking about what to do with this little corner and I think I finally have something. More info soon!

Oh. Yeah. It's 2014...

Guess I should make a list of my top 5 games of 2013, then. Sure, it's July, but what the heck.

I picked the games on this list not just because I enjoyed them. The reason they're here is because of the way they each handled their story; from the quality of its presentation to the way it melds with the gameplay. I'll give a short rundown of why I picked each game, but I won't go into specific plot details. So no need to worry about spoilers.

Let's get right to it, shall we? And the top five are:

5. Outlast

I think you could say that the most important thing in a horror game is its atmosphere. Sure, you need spooky monsters and the occasional jump scare, but these don't provide any lasting sense of dread. A good horror game saturates the world with fear; it's in the sounds around you, the architecture, the color... often what you don't see is scarier than what you do.

Outlast gets this. Oh boy, does it get it.
I'm not even touching the actual story here yet. The way you experience it is what makes it unforgettable. From the environment to the body you inhabit as the player - the game is filled to the brim with terror.

One of the two things that stand out in how well the game immerses you in its world is your character's body. It's clear that efforts were made in making every head-bob feel authentic, as well as every step, crawl and scurry. You are not a floating, bodiless eye. Your hands and limbs are visible in almost every action you take. Try to peek around a corner and your hand will reach out to grasp it, slowly inching your head past the threshold. Crawling on the floor feels like you'd imagine it; clutching at a hiding spot so the baddies won't see you. This constant physical contact with the environment is a powerful anchor; it makes you very aware of the fact that you are a person, a frail and jittery person.

The other element is your camcorder. Its brilliance lies in it being your most useful tool, but also a constant source of the fear you experience. Sure, it lets you see in the dark, but do you really want to see what's out there? The game encourages you to use your camera often, and looking through it gives the game the eerie sensation similar to that of found footage films, making everything around you seem way too real.

And let's not forget about the location, of course - a fantastically detailed insane asylum whose every room and door could hide a potential horrifying threat. But it also does a swell job of telling the story within the story. It feels both wonderful and terrible to explore; wanting to dig around and find more about the world and its characters, but fearing the psychological damage it might cause you to try.

For scaring me senseless and doing it brilliantly, Outlast makes my list.


4. Tomb Raider

Tomb Raider did a fair job with its cinematic storytelling. It conveyed action and drama throughout the game both in captivating cutscenes and intense gameplay. But that's not the reason I picked it. The reason is, quite simply, Lara Croft herself.

When the first Tomb Raider was released millions of years ago, it was a huge hit. Lara became a cultural phenomenon. She was touted as a strong female video game character, and the fact that she became so popular made her all the more remarkable, solidifying her place in video game history.

But y'know what? I never liked her. She always seemed to me to be more male-oriented than anything else, as the most prominent element of her character was her sexuality. So you could argue that with her generic snappy dialogue and action-woman stunts she was indeed a strong female character, but to me she just wasn't a particularly good character to begin with. There have been many more Tomb Raider games since then. Some better and some worse, but Lara's always been the same, and I never connected with the series because of it.

Earlier this year, that finally changed. Lara Croft of the new Tomb Raider is a whole new woman, and one much more interesting than her last incarnation. Yes, this game is a prequel, or an origin story if you like. As such it's good but doesn't particularly stand out. But the transition Lara undergoes as you're playing her is astounding to experience. She transforms, slowly, through hardship, from a capable but frightened girl who weeps and whimpers as she is forced to slay vicious people who want to kill her, to a strong woman who stands up to a challenge and comes out on top against the odds. By the end of the game you yawp with her as she strides to battle, ready to fight.

Tomb Raider is on this list because Lara is now an actual character, rather than a mere sex symbol combined with boring action hero tropes. And I am so happy that, as far as I'm concerned, Lara has finally earned the place in history she received so long ago.

3. Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons

Brothers posed a bit of a problem for me at first. I knew I wanted it on my list but placing it turned out harder than I thought. The top two spots were easy to sort, but the bottom three proved to be more challenging. I felt that Brothers should be at number three, but I had trouble justifying that choice to myself. Both Tomb Raider and Outlast are excellent in their own right, and they each have a much more intricate story than that of Brothers, with more varied characters, locations and plot twists. In the end, Brothers won out because it has an incredibly powerful story that quite simply outdoes the other two games in every substantial way.

Firstly, the game's writers made a very smart decision in setting the game in an unnamed fantastical land, inhabited by characters that don't speak English or any other recognizable language for that matter. It gives the game a distinct mythical feel and a sense of timelessness, like a fable or a folktale.

Then we have what the game is probably most famous for; the fact that you control the two titular brothers at the same time. Its main function in-game is to solve puzzles, of course, moving the brothers appropriately to get past obstacles. More importantly for us, however, it has a great influence on the narrative. This mechanic emphasizes beautifully the way these two brothers work as one, and the bond they share. It's a refreshing mechanic that adds a lot to their characters. Without any words or scripted scenes, you simply see these two boys work together perfectly. You almost forget that it's you who are moving them. It's one of the most mesmerizing examples of interactive storytelling I've seen. But the game isn't content to leave it at that. That mechanic is the center of the relationship and interaction between the brothers and their world, and as the game progresses the mechanic does as well.

As promised I won't get into the story details, but I will say that even though the story relies heavily on this 'gimmick', it does so perfectly. It doesn't hold back, and takes the core idea of controlling two characters to the extent of its narrative potential.

For creating an amazing way for story and game to work together and then making that story flourish, I'm proud to put Brothers at number 3 on my list.

2.Bioshock Infinite

The Bioshock series has always been about big ideas; towering manifestations of human ambition tested against the reality of human nature. Bioshock Infinite undeniably lives up to that pedigree. Indeed, the floating city of Columbia is nothing if not a plethora of ideals made real. However, where the previous games centered on conflicting philosophies and the results of their clashing, Infinite places the heart of the story in its main characters, namely Booker and Elizabeth.

Booker is the first playable character in the Bioshock games to have a prominent speaking role. The game is experienced in Half-Life-esque manner, so we never get to see much of Booker; we experience everything that happens through his eyes. Just as in Half Life, this helps create a believable flow to the events of the story and keeps us immersed in the tale. Unlike Gordon Freeman, however, Booker speaks. Often. That in and of itself wouldn't be notable except that it is so wonderfully executed here. Since we never see Booker, there isn't a chance for him to give a visual performance; the entire strength of his character is conveyed through his dialogue. The fact that it is done so vividly and authentically is a testament to the outstanding writing and vocal performance. Since the game takes control fairly sparingly, much of the dialogue happens during gameplay, organically flowing from the actions the player performs. It's a wonderful approach that gives more context and narrative value Booker's actions. Of course, he's only half the heart of the story. The other half belongs to Elizabeth.

Far more than a run-of-the-mill AI escort, the character of Elizabeth is remarkable to behold. From the moment you meet her she'll be examining the environment, making comments and questioning your actions. She's a constant source of narrative development; her interaction with Booker and the way their relationship evolves throughout the game is possibly the most important aspect of the story. The way that relationship is handled during the game is absolutely brilliant. For starters, it's pretty evident that Elizabeth was designed with the intent of being less aggravating than AI partners tend to become. She can't die, for one thing. That already eliminates the majority of causes to hate your AI companion (there's probably nothing more annoying than having to reload a game because an AI sidekick died doing something stupid). If that wasn't enough, Elizabeth was also made to be useful; she will occasionally toss you supplies and ammo during a firefight, as well as locate strategic tools you can use to your advantage. These mechanics don't serve only a gameplay-related function, but they narratively help assert the notion that these two characters become a strong team. But even more engaging are the character-driven moments that happen incidentally, while simply exploring parts of the city. This type of character-building doesn't happen much in games. It's a technique that breathes life to the game's characters and gives them a strong feeling of authenticity. Bioshock Infinite executes it flawlessly.

You'll notice I haven't spoken much of the actual storyline. That's intentional. I can't really go into it much without spoiling it. However, I can say that, true to Bioshock form, it's full of twists and turns, and will have you scratching your head long after you've played through it. Yet even disregarding the complex plot and symbolism, the core of Booker and Elizabeth's journey would be enough for me. What we have here overall, as well as in the previous games of the series, is a story that respects its audience and their capacity to comprehend big ideas. For all of these, Bioshock Infinite has become my favorite game of the series and it has earned the second place on my list.

And now we finally reach my favorite story of 2013:

1. The Last of Us

I suppose this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who has played this game. If there is one game on this list that deserves a full story-post it's this one. There's simply so much to say about it. For now I'll try to be brief, since this post is already ridiculously late.

I don't like it when I give in to hyperbole, but in this case it's difficult to avoid since The Last of Us might actually be the best story I've ever experienced in a video game. Oh, I'm sure it has its flaws; things that could be fixed, writing that could be improved upon. Honestly, though, you could say that about anything. Regardless, The Last of Us has come the closest to delivering what I think is the optimal narrative experience.

The thing is that The Last of Us just gets everything right. Everything that has to do with the game; the level design, the player choices, the challenges - they are fantastic. The AI is actually one of the best I've played against. It proves to be challenging but completely beatable, if you play right. But a superb gaming experience is just the tip of the iceberg.

And now we come to the meat of it; the actual story. It's hard to talk about without revealing anything, because so much of what makes it amazing is in its characters, its setting and its wonderful plot. but I guess it should be enough to say just how impressed I am by the quality of all of these. This is a real plot, people. This isn't a series of missions strung together with a boss at the end. This plot is character-driven, multilayered, and designed to perfection. Naughty Dog really do have a knack for bringing life to their characters not only through the intricately woven cutscenes but during actual gameplay as well. The atmosphere seeps through to every facet of the game itself, and into everything you do.

It's not that it just works well on the technical level, either. We've seen games like this; games that have engaging gameplay, good writing, compelling characters and a great atmosphere. They aren't easy to create, of course, but we have seen the likes of them before. Games have mastered presentation. But in The Last of Us, all these are brought together to create a deep, rich and honest-to-god narrative. These characters don't just have good written dialogue; they are themselves written well. They have motivations, goals, faults. The story revolves around them. This. This altogether, is not something we see very often, and surely not something we see done so well.

I really could write a whole lot more but I have to end somewhere. For making an amazing game, merged beautifully with an even more amazing story, The Last of Us This is my top choice for narrative-led games in 2013. And with the PS4 version coming out this year, it might just well take my top spot for 2014, as well.

An Able Parable

I think anyone who is interested in the way games tell stories owes themselves a look at The Stanley Parable. It's not perfect, but it's definitely a delightful way to ponder the concept of game narratives.

It's been touted as a kind of experiment exploring narrative within a virtual world, but structurally it's pretty run-of-the-mill. It uses a basic branching story structure, where each choice the player makes leads to another and so on. Stanley highlights these choices by making the narrator respond to each of them, and nearly all of them result in a wildly different ending to the game. But behind it all this is the exact same build as any multi-path story-driven game.

It's not the structure itself that's interesting, though, but the game's constant self-referencing and breaking of the fourth wall. These underline the game's focus; the conflict between narratives which attempt to tell a story within virtual spaces, and player agency which invariably exists to some degree within these spaces.

The choices and the endings that ensue are a lot of fun, and they all essentially discuss the same thing: the narrative fighting for control with the player. Of course, the game also makes it clear that as long as the player is in the game, she is under the control of the narrative and part of its design.

It's a point I thoroughly support. I think the game tackles gameplay and narrative in one of the best ways I've experienced and raises a lot of questions about the issue. I also think it answers more of these questions than it would care to admit.

In Dead Space 3, You Co-op Buddy Can Hear You Scream

There's actually not a lot I can say about the single-player story in Dead Space 3. That is, it doesn't do anything exceptional in terms of presentation or content. Playing it in co-op, however... well, that's a different issue. I've recently completed it with a friend and that experience was undoubtedly unique. The reason I found it so interesting is because, unlike other co-op games I've experienced, DS3 attempts to provide a story that changes based on the way it is experienced.

The story (if there is one) in most other co-op games I'm familiar with usually revolves around one character, and is experienced individually by each player. In Diablo 3, for instance, the main quest is pretty much the same for all players but each player sees story clips that are unique to the character he's playing. There is never any acknowledgement of the fact that you're a group of people instead of just one. The same approach can be seen in other co-op games. One exception I can currently think of is Portal 2. That game has a co-op mode whose story revolves around both its characters. Besides them not being very talkative, though, that game's co-op campaign is separate from the main storyline. In that sense it's more along the lines of conventional multiplayer, I think. Resident Evil 5 also manages a a story with two main characters, but there the co-op character turns into an AI partner when the game is played alone.

Dead Space 3 goes in another direction; it wants to provide a proper single player experience that will adjust seamlessly when experienced in co-op. Thus, when played alone, Dead Space 3's single player story focuses entirely on Isaac Clarke, the series' resident protagonist. In this mode, John Carver is just another supporting character, albeit a more central one. When played in co-op, however, all the game's cinematic moments are adjusted to have Carver in on the action alongside Clarke. I like this approach because it doesn't sacrifice the single player experience for the sake of co-op. The developers intended to provide a decent story that would work when played alone or with a partner, without sticking a crappy AI who'd get itself killed most of the time (I'm looking at you, RE5!).

The problem is that even though it creates a seamless experience when playing as Clarke, the same can't be said for anyone playing as Carver (which I did). Even though the game's story moments are tweaked to accommodate two players, these moments are entirely focused on the character of Clarke. And I don't mean that only in the narrative sense. Literally, when an event happens, the camera shifts to Clarke, leaving Carver somewhere out of sight. To be fair, there are Carver-focused missions in the game that are exclusive to the co-op mode. However, they're not part of the main storyline; they can be skipped or even just missed while playing. The real reason this is an issue is because it highlights the fact that Carver isn't really relevant to the central plot. And it's true, in a way. Playing as Carver in co-op produces a sensation of being almost entirely disengaged from the story, and worse - like the story is intentionally leaving you out. It makes it clear that Carver's inclusion in the game's story to begin with is for co-op purposes only.

My guess would be that the story making sense in co-op came second to providing good gameplay experience. As a fan of stories I'm a bit disappointed, since that attitude effectively ruined my experience of the story in co-op (even though the gameplay was fantastic). I still like the idea, though, and I think that their approach could work if they adjust the story appropriately next time (assuming there is one). All I know is I would love to play a co-op game that embraces its two protagonists fully.

Bit of News

I hope you found the Black Ops II storypost interesting. While there's more that can be discussed about the game, I'm satisfied with what I managed to get through. And of course I'd be happy to join any discussions on the subject, if any should arise.

Next on my plate is Dead Space 3. I've recently completed the game in co-op mode and it is definitely worth a look.

Before I write about that, though, in my next post I'm going to discuss a recent video by TotalBiscuit. In it, he discusses gameplay and narrative. As it's pretty much all this blog is about, I was eager to watch it.

Here's the video:




Funnily enough, I found the video to represent most of what I believe is wrong with the discourse around game narratives. So I'll have plenty to write about it, when I get the chance to.

Storypost: Black Ops II

We kind of take Call of Duty for granted now, don't we? With it's yearly releases and over-the-top, explosion-filled stories, I think we've come to treat the single player experience as a silly byproduct to the multiplayer. But really, if you think about it, CoD has always cared about story. From its first remarkable cinematic representation of World War II, to that scene in CoD 4, the series has been experimenting with narrative since its inception. Black Ops II lives up to that pedigree by doing something fairly interesting with its narrative. Now, the story itself never quite reaches the levels of intensity that some of its predecessors accomplished, but it gets bonus points for trying something new.

This is, obviously, a First Person Shooter; an action game wrapped in a thriller full of intrigue and danger on a global scale. It's what we've come to expect from the series. CoD's action structure - particularly that of the later games in the series - complements the narrative style; each mission takes the player to a different exotic location or, in this case, a different time. The pacing works well within that framework;  a cut-scene or briefing sequence preludes an action-filled mission, which ends in another cut-scene, and so on. It makes the game story very easy to control.

There are game-related problems with this kind of rigid frame structure - most notably that it ends up being awfully dull as the game becomes way too repetitive. To alleviate this, BOII's missions will usually include a gimmick or two to freshen things up (such as swinging across a cliff, wing-suit flying, or playing for a moment as a rage-infused psychopath).

Regardless of the repetitive gameplay, this structure seems perfectly suited to telling a story in a game - and it is, in a way. The problem this game faces is the same problem that all narrative-led games must face - balancing game-length with story-length. One of the challenges of creating stories for video games is that the story needs to be able to accommodate the obligatory amount of game time. Since the game's main story is independent of the game's world, they both operate in a different time, so to speak. That's why many games have side-quests and optional missions; to make a game more worthwhile, developers try to find ways to prolong the game experience without damaging the integrity of its story.

BOII has a crack at this - there are a few optional missions that go along and affect the main story, but for the most part the main storyline is the only one we have. BOII's frame structure doesn't allow for a lot of deviations. Unfortunately, what this means here is that a lot of the game's plot is pure filler. This includes playing multiple characters, in different times and places - all without it being necessary to the plot. To mask all this filler material, the game's briefing sections are presented in a tense Tony Scott style shaky-cam, the characters blabbering a hectic hodgepodge of names of people and places you can't possibly hope to remember, and practically none of which matter later on. The point of this, it seems, is to disorient the player with a tidal wave of supposedly important information in an attempt to imbue the mission with purpose. It makes the missions feel relevant even though they're not, and the developers manage to squeeze in another 30 minutes' worth of game time.

It's not the most elegant of ways to solve the story/game balance problem, to say the least. It's a shame, too, because a lot of the elements in the game could have been used for something more than just filler. For example, in one level you get to play as the villain. Think of the possibilities! Not many games offer the experience of playing from multiple perspectives, and as a narrative tool it's woefully underused. Alas, here it ends up as merely one of the aforementioned gimmicks. You play a level in a slightly different way to how you usually play. Game-wise it's refreshing but, again, offers nothing substantial to the plot. To be fair, there does seem to be some commentary about the villain's motivation; there is an attempt to humanize a type of character that is usually depicted as monstrous. As far as this level design is concerned, however, there is no play on points of view, no use of dramatic irony. Nothing. It's a wasted opportunity.

So yeah, BOII's story is nothing to write home about. Despite the lackluster presentation, however, the story does have a saving grace: its branching plot structure. It is by far the most intriguing aspect of the game's story. I'm not usually partial to multiple-end narratives - I find that allowing the player to affect a game's story does more harm than good to the plot -  but I do like what they did with the mechanic in this game. The only other game I could think of that does something similar is Heavy Rain. The way the game's plot proceeds, then, is determined by the player's actions. Certain characters may live or die, missions succeed or fail, depending entirely on how the player performs in the level. I like this method because it is feels more authentic and organic than simply offering the player a clear "choice" between options A and B. Another reason this method is interesting is because the actions that affect the plot in a "good" way are directly related to how well the player plays. In this sense, the plot branching acts as a kind of scoring system; the better you play, the better the ending you get. That's why this method kind of works - because there's a correlation between wanting to play well and wanting a good ending.

I say "kind of works" because even though this is a very innovative approach to storytelling (and scoring, for that matter), it's essentially anchoring the story to a game mechanic. I prefer to be free to enjoy a game's story without having my experience of it hinge upon my gaming prowess. Ultimately, I believe the story would be better off with a single plot that actually used all of its characters in an interesting way within the narrative, rather than use them as part of a complex system to indicate whether I've played well or not.

The Reorganization Declaration

One of the problems blogs like this usually encounter (and why they often end up being abandoned), is time and content. Trying to constantly update with what you believe is interesting, quality content never ends up being as easy as you'd hope.

My intent was to provide an in-depth analysis on game stories. It's what I do in my head anyway, and I felt that looking at strengths and weaknesses of various forms of game stories and story-structures was a fairly unique thing to write about in the gaming circle. But, as with many aspiring bloggers, I have a job, I have a family, and other duties which must take precedence.

So instead of trying to force a format on myself that I can't possibly keep up with, I'm changing the way I'll handle my main story posts. They will be shorter, less structured and not nearly as in-depth as I'd like them to be, but they'll do what I essentially wanted them to do - focus on the story and spark a discussion of the narrative nature of games.

With that in mind, I feel hopeful in saying that the Black Ops 2 post - which has been delayed for a long time already - will finally be out within the coming weeks. Might not be soon, but it will happen.

Next Up: Black Ops 2

Right now I’m working on my first major story analysis for the blog, and it’s about Black Ops 2.

I never thought that, of all game stories out there, the first mainstream one I’d be examining would be a Call of Duty sequel, but there you have it.

I stopped being excited about CoD games more or less after the first Modern Warfare (CoD4). I don’t mean that as a critique of the series’ quality; more that they simply came out too quickly - and remained too expensive - for me to think about buying them. However, since getting a PS3 I’d been toying with the idea of playing a big budget shooter on it.

I usually play shooters on PC, you see, and for me it’s really the optimal way to experience them. Nevertheless, the thought of experiencing one on a console intrigued me enough to want to try it out. Then Black Ops 2 came out and I decided to give it a go. After playing it through I have to say that, while the PC still wins in terms of control and comfort, the PS3 experience wasn’t half bad.

So I finished the campaign and now I’m mulling it over, trying to organize the typhoon that is my thought process. When that’s done I’ll post my conclusions. 

For now, here's a trailer:

Another game I'm very excited about is Bioshock Infinite.

The two previous Bioshock games were groundbreaking in terms of their story. Perhaps not so much in how they told it, but in content, themes, and the way they trusted the player with deeper and more complex ideas. This new game promises all of that, and tops it off with the most interesting and interactive AI companion this side of Half Life 2.

Here's a trailer:




In other site related news, I'm currently in the middle of the Assassin's Creed III campaign, and while I already have a few insights, I do want to finish it first. Since that seems to be taking a while, though, I might decide to make a few posts about other games I've played recently.

The Last of Us - Story Trailer

Have a look at the latest trailer for Naughty Dog's The Last of Us. 




This is the game I'm most excited about in 2013.

Uncharted 2 was pretty much the reason I got a PS3, and I'm confident that Naughty Dog will deliver another powerful narrative experience with this. Unlike Uncharted, however, here there seems to be a much stronger emphasis on character. Violence is a prominent feature of most games these days, but in The Last of Us  it's apparently not merely a gameplay mechanic but an important part of the narrative. I'll be waiting anxiously for this one.

The game's out in May, 2013.

Back in the Animus

 I've started playing Assasin's Creed 3 today. I actually have a lot to say about the franchise in general as far as how it tells its story (regardless of one's opinion of it, it's conveyed in a fairly unique way), but I think I'll start with this third outing, if only because it's more topical.

I've only played it for about an hour but so far I love it. I haven't even reached the more open sections of the game, but as always with AC the tangible sense of the world is mesmerizing.

I'll reserve my insights regarding the game's narrative for when I've finished it and can comment on it in its entirety.

Terry Cavanagh's Don't Look Back

A game story that I’d like to give special attention to is Terry Cavanagh.'s Don’t Look Back. It’s been on the web for quite a while, actually, but I’ve just recently become acquainted with it as it was released for iOS.

As this is a blog about analyzing game stories, I can't say there won't be any spoilers. I will try to avoid big things and speak more generally, but at times it's just not possible. With this game specifically, the story doesn't have that many revelations, which is why there is not that much to spoil - this post is more about the rich story experience itself which remarkably is created in such a minimalistic game.

The game takes around 10-15 minutes of continuous play to finish, and the story’s simple enough: the player character grieves over a lost loved one. He decides to go into the underworld to bring her back. When he finds her, he must return to the surface, but cannot look back at her. If he does, his love vanishes.

The plot clearly alludes to the Greek myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. That’s already an achievement – the game sports a single music track and looks as if its graphics were done in MS Paint. Yet it still manages to convey a rich atmosphere.

It’s all about the colors, the smooth, minimalistic animations, that music track haunting very specific parts in the game. It’s proof that a solid story doesn’t need much in the way of expensive graphics and sound.
But what’s really impressive is how that plot is conveyed. It’s astounding how a game that has no dialogue, cinematics or even text in any substantial way can create a clear narrative sensation – creating a clear introduction, providing a suspenseful first act, a twist, a revelation and a dénouement.

The game manages it because of its clever marriage of story to gameplay.  Meaning, the plot progresses as the player progresses. The player learns plot elements as he plays (like ‘I can’t turn around or my love will vanish, and I’ll have to start over’).

I hadn’t completely understood the allusion until my character found his love and she started following him. Then I started backtracking as my character was heading back outside. But when I turned my character to face his love, she vanished and the screen I was in restarted. The plot element of not looking back turned into a game mechanic. The story’s title turned into the game’s instructions: Don’t Look Back.

It was a brilliant moment both in terms of freshening the game’s mechanics and in terms of story. Admittedly, those familiar with the original story of Orpheus receive a more rewarding feeling, but nevertheless, it was a great story moment.

Of course this is due to the structure of the game – being built by screens where every screen is repeatable. This enables the player to try and fail and continue to do so until the story is experienced ‘properly’. I don’t know how much this would work in other types of games, but that isn’t really the point. The point is that with this method, Cavanagh has managed to create a compelling story that works on practically every level and is experienced primarily by playing.

It's a small game but I still don't want to spoil all of it. The ending has a final surprise that again fits as a story and also benefits the gameplay.

Try it out at http://www.kongregate.com/games/TerryCavanagh/dont-look-back

Articles of Interest #1

As if to reaffirm my point, this article came up on CVG mere days after I started the blog. It illustrates perfectly how narratives and the very nature of gaming are misperceived by critics, and demonstrates the counter-productive attitude they have towards different gaming styles. I think Articles of Interest could be a recurring section of the blog – in it I will discuss links or articles I find online and respond to them. So yes, that’s what I’ll do. Now on to the aforementioned discussing of the article:

Admittedly, this article appears to be more concerned with game world design (open versus linear), but that is still very relevant to the issues I’m concerned with. Open world games, by their very nature, defy a coherent, well-paced narrative. Therefore, to imply that open world games are just plain ‘better’ – as this article does – is to dismiss all other games which put narrative and pacing first.

The main error on display here is the notion that a single-path game doesn’t have the same pull as an open world game. That is a gross misrepresentation of how games work. It means that the only real enjoyment to be had in a video game is in exploration and unscripted encounters. That is, that video games’ strength is solely in the way they can produce random content in a non-linear fashion.

But can anyone who is at all interested in fiction say there has never been a special book or film that they have seen more than once? I doubt it. The reason is simple enough: because an interesting narrative is something you want to experience more than once and can be interpreted differently each time it’s experienced. Meaning, there is value and enjoyment to be had in a single-path game.

The writer of this article has a problem comprehending that. According to him, the best reason to play games is, in his words, to take a virtual vacation. Funnily enough, the way he describes the so-called advantage of games over movies can be said of any type of game: “they can transport you to a fantasy world that throws up a steady stream of surprises, even if you're just in the mood for bimbling along with no particular plan”. I would go as far as to say he misunderstands why people are interested in fiction to begin with. 

One aspect of games that indeed differs from films is they are capable of creating random content seamlessly. But I wouldn’t call that a “clear advantage” over films.  Games are fundamentally different from films in that the player takes an active part in them, and that the game cannot move forward without him. This is the most important difference, and it holds true even for the most linear of games.

Fact is, though, we don’t play games to have virtual freedom. Sure, escapism is a draw of most popular literature and film (and yes, video games), but that doesn’t mean an open world is the best way to achieve that. We play games for a variety of reasons, from social to mental exercises to a sense of camaraderie and competition to feelings of personal achievement. Clearly, people are drawn to open worlds and the ability to create their own adventure within that world, but to say that this is the better way to experience the wide world of games is narrow-minded and foolish.

For those of us who prefer a narrative-focused game, open world games are without a doubt the poorer choice. To my knowledge, there is no open world game which manages to maintain proper pacing or characterization throughout its story (the writer of the article seems to be sure that Far Cry 3 is an example of an open world game that does manage it, despite the fact that the game won’t be out until December). It is a testament that narratives prefer linearity that even in open world games the missions – the meat of the game - are linear. The dungeons in Skyrim are an obvious example, but take a more consistently open world game like GTA or Crysis and it's no different. Sure, there are multiple routes to the end but it nevertheless is a single point which is approachable from another single point. Even with a gimmick like alternate endings, the result is unavoidable. It is linear, no matter how much the game’s designers work to mask that fact. Therefore, to imply that open world games are better than movies because they are not linear, and to say that it is wrong to like any other type of game because of this, is an inaccurate and simply unnecessary statement.

And that’s the main issue I have with the article. It's not that the writer prefers open world games. He’s entitled to that and many people share the sentiment. What bothers me is that he has a narrow-minded notion of what a good game is. What bothers me is the dismissal of anything else; that the writer seems completely oblivious to the fact that there are people who like other types of games (or mediums, for that matter) for different reasons and that they are legitimate too. This is why I started this blog – because of this type of writing. I realize the article’s an opinion piece, but even opinions can be snide and misleading. My aim isn’t to convince people that narrative-led, linear games are better (the notion of what's universally 'better' doesn’t enter the discussion). I want to show that a game having a strong narrative and even being, dare I say it, linear isn't necessarily a bad thing. More importantly, I want to make it clear that the more types of games we have, the richer the gaming world gets in general. Hopefully, this is the right first step in that direction.

Game Narratives Matter

So I started this blog thinking that game narratives don’t get proper attention. I have this feeling that, even though many games take narratives seriously, game stories are often neglected or misperceived - not only by developers, but by reviewers and game critics as well.

I also think that what is considered as a good narrative in this industry is deeply misguided. This issue is extremely important to me because misunderstanding how narratives work prevents true advancement in how games tell stories.

But more than anything game stories interest me, which is why I want to focus on them in a way I don’t see happening on popular websites and magazines. So what I aim to do is look at certain game stories. Look at their style - what they get right and what they get wrong, and any interesting techniques they use to tell a story - regardless of whether it's good or bad. I want to explore what makes video game narratives unique.

Because game narratives matter.