We will discuss Halo, as an example of a game that did many things correct in this sphere, and also had a few failures as well. This is an introduction.
Design question:
Breadth vs. Depth.
Is it better to give a player a host of non-essential abilities that are not story critical, that on the surface present 'complexity?' Or, conversely, is it better to limit the player's control over the amount of things he may do in a game system and focus on what he can do inside of this boundary?
Are we telling an actual story or subjecting the player to an endless amount of system-user interface relationships? The latter model is extremely inconsistent and replies in large part on chance and weak storytelling elements to generate player emotion.
Examine the most culturally relevant and successful movies, specifically those that have been deemed works of great art. Even in those successful movies that are not deemed 'art,' (or high art, to be more specific), there is a calculated use of film in these instances. In a movie like Star Wars, the moment-to-moment and even minute-to-minute beats compose a work that has a profound impact on the viewer. The Godfather (I and II) is viewed as a supreme work of mastery because of the attention to detail by Francis Ford Coppola. One need only look at the notes of Coppola on Mario Puzo's script to know what insight the director brought to the picture, and why very few movies exist in modern day perception at that level of quality. Examine also the movies of James Cameron (Terminator 2) and Christopher Nolan (Dark Knight)
Terminator 2 and the Dark Knight are important to examine because they are transcendent pieces of action cinema. This is to say that they escape the trappings of their supposed target demographic (18-35 year old males come to mind) and have indelibly etched themselves in the pantheon of American cinema. Games naturally lend to action, so examining the success of these properties will tie into the proposed mechanics that we are seeking.
What all of the aforementioned titles have in common is the fact that they are focused. The answer to this statement is, quite obviously, that they are also movies. This again begets the question of breadth versus depth when applied to games. Depth of design will eschew all things not essential to telling a story, and will instead focus on the production of an interactive experience that will tell a story.
This again references that wonderful example of Gears' intersection of aesthetic and gameplay form. Though from a narratological standpoint the game is still lacking in a few key respects, it is worth noting how much the gameplay compliments the story's universe. Games will do well to shed the aspects of their designs that do not focus on aptly telling a great story.
Begging the question, I must point out that this does not mean that games should become super-streamlined pieces of artificial entertainment. A game may boast a wealth of facets to its gameplay form, but each of these must serve that game's point. Since most games involve a story, and that is the main takeaway for most experiencers of the form, it would follow to declare that a game involving a story should tell its story well.
Examining games as pieces of narrative language will confirm the need for depth versus breath. Novels in which the prose is scattered (however good those disparate parts may be) are not prime for the consumption of a story. Analagous to focused game would be any novel by Robert Ludlum. The great spy novels are renowned for their twisting yarns, and yet the prose is quite readable, and works within the ambitious frameworks without becoming too heady or convoluted.
A game must not be convoluted; rather, it must serve its narrative purpose with clarity and strength.
1 comment:
If film tells stories through images, and literature tells stories through words, then games must tell stories through gameplay. Thus, gameplay must be as refined and focused as shots in a film, or sentences in a novel, to be effective works of art.
Post a Comment