The Interactive Visual Musical Story

by Seventhwind

Three recent editorials have managed to say some very interesting things about the RPG videogame genre and what I believe to be its inevitable future. They are:

- Michael's Corner: Thorns in the Side, Part I
- RPGs vs Movies: Review of The Spirits Within, and RPGs as Storytelling Medium
- Philosophy 101

I’d like to not only expound upon the ideas in each one, but also connect them together to reveal what I hope will be the future of RPGs.

"Michael’s Corner" by Michael Harnest dealt with the concept of interactive storytelling, a way to achieve it by controlling the save game feature, and the divergence of RPGs from the entire videogame medium.

"RPGs vs Movies" by Usagi Vindaloo explored the differences between RPGs and movies and why RPGs are a superior form of story-crafting.

"Philosophy 101" by Andrew Long lashed out at the falsely philosophical and deep storylines of today’s RPGs.

Although I agree with the majority of the arguments presented in all three editorials, I do deviate from several of their assumptions. The first is from Michael’s editorial. His insight I believe is exceptional, because he does away with the notion that RPGs require gameplay. Games require gameplay, but RPGs, or at least what RPGs will become, do not. I believe it is imperative that people realize RPGs are becoming something more than games. As Michael says, "Videogames...will forever remain a niche market." When I first read that, I misinterpreted the statement. It sounded like an attempt to dash my hopes of the RPG one day becoming something people will acknowledge is the truly beautiful. However, I was mistaken, he did not say "RPGs," he said "videogames." It is true that the button-mashing, puzzle-solving, and platform-jumping videogame of the past will never appeal to the older audience, for the same reason (to begin my comparison of movies to RPGs) films like "Swordfish" and "Jurassic Park III" will never appeal to them: Because they are entertainment strictly for the younger audience of 5 to 25 years old (of which I am by the way a part). The RPG of the future on the other hand, to give a definition, is interactive like other videogames, but is far more dependant on story, art, and music than that of, say, Asteroids or Mario (classic "videogames.") I will talk more about the separation of RPGs from the rest of the videogame medium later in this editorial, for now I am beginning to digress.

As I was saying earlier, I agree with Michael on this point. What I disagree with is his notion that the interactivity must be moved from the "game and gameplay" to the actual story. He proposes that the decisions in an RPG must be decisions that affect the course of the story. I think this is the worst thing you can do to an RPG as a story-telling medium. While a few multiple endings isn’t necessarily a bad thing, changing the entire course of the story, or even a segment of it, is. The story will lose its effectiveness. To compare Michael’s idea to books, it would be nothing more than a choose-your-own-adventure book, which if you’ve read them are entertaining only for pre-teens and very young teens. An RPG needs a strict central aim or intention (the story in this case), like all other creative endeavors. This is because creativity is a way for a creator to express him- or herself. An RPG that attempts to allow the player to do the creating can not be considered genuine art. The creative players will find a way to be creative, by creating an original game themselves or by any number of other ways.

There are some who would argue that the RPG would then be nothing more than a lengthy animated movie where the player simply moves the character(s) from plot-point to plot-point. There are some games that already adhere to this formula, Xenogears comes to mind. Although I loved Xenogears as much as anybody, and although it is somewhat in the correct direction, it is not what I am talking about, for Xenogears is far too uninteractive. So am I contradicting myself? It would certainly seem so: I want an RPG with a strict adherence to the story, yet a game like Xenogears doesn’t fit the bill? No, because although the plot of Xenogears is very captivating, even I find it tedious to sit through hours of bland dialogue while being unable to control my character. It is also jarring to transition from the actual game to the story-segments. It is almost as though there are two entirely different parts to Xenogears: One where you control your character and battle baddies, the other where you plod through pages of dialogue. The RPG of the future will seamlessly integrate these two parts.

In addition, my idea of interactivity is not (as stated earlier) the presentation of decisions that shift the direction of the story, or for that matter what is more fittingly termed "gameplay." Although gameplay is interactive, interactivity does not have to be gameplay. My idea of an interactive RPG, then, would not only integrate the story and "game," but would also enable the player to really make an impact on the world that the Interactive Visual Musical Story takes place in. This means being able to do any number of a million different things to the environment and the characters that inhabit the environment. You can probably think of hundreds of things that can be done: from chopping down bushes (Zelda), to putting bullet-holes in walls (Doom), to pushing around objects, jumping through windows, killing NPCs, constructing traps from available materials, destroying buildings, digging holes in the ground, turning on and off electrical appliances, climbing trees, sweeping floors, changing clothes, equipping toasters, etc. Moreover, the changes are there to stay throughout the RPG unless you, or someone else, fixes the change. I don't believe this is as impossible as it sounds. It can be progressive. Interactivity used in previous games can be reused in future games, thereby steadily increasing the level of interactivity game by game. It's an evolution, not a revolution. Of course, you can only allow so much interactivity with the world. The story must be an obvious constant. No amount of interactivity should be able to significantly alter the course of the story.

So by now you may be asking "why?" What is the purpose of being able to better interact with the RPG’s world? Well, the point is not these individual interactivities, but the combined result. First of all, it makes the experience far more immersive than it might normally be, more than any amount of "mute" main characters that try (but fail) to put me into the game, more than an option that allows me to name a character after myself, and more than any branching plot that supposedly "reflects my values." This is because interactivity with the actual world adds a third "sense" to the experience--that of touch. In a way, this sort of interactivity allows you to "feel" the world. This is especially critical because it gives the player the impression that he or she is actually making some kind of difference in the world, that he or she is important, regardless of the fact that the player merely follows the main character(s) and is not actually a character him- or herself.

Second of all, this interactivity serves as a sort of substitute for the gameplay that a "videogame" might use. Because of the heightened environmental interactivity, there will be many different ways to overcome each problem that the character(s) encounter. The "fun" then would come not from the gameplay, but from how the player chooses to overcome each obstacle; And the good thing about the Interactive Visual Musical Story is that the fun comes not only from the interactivity, but the visuals, the music, and the story.

Also, in describing my idea of interactivity, it was probably easy to lose sight of what I was originally saying, but to reiterate, the most important components of the Interactive Visual Musical Story that I am talking about is actually not its interactivity, but its story. Interactive, visual, and musical are the adjectives that describe the noun: the story. All three components better enhance our experience with the story. The interactivity merely adds another dimension to storytelling, which brings me to my next point, and finally away from Michael and on to Usagi.

Usagi, like Michael, harbors a revolutionary idea, and one I doubt many people in the older generations are likely to appreciate: RPGs are actually a better story-telling medium than movies. I cannot say I agree completely with him, for several reasons. One, the RPGs of today do not exactly contain the greatest, most sophisticated stories (an issue I will address when I reach Andrew Long’s "Philosophy 101" editorial.) Two, movies do have their place in modern life. It is much faster, and easier, to watch a two hour movie than it is to slave through a thirty to a hundred hour game. This is especially important to those of us who maintain busy lives. Three, I don’t think movies should be judged as necessarily "better" or "worse." Different story-telling mediums may be better in certain areas, but are also worse in others. What they really are is different. With that in mind, I will proceed to in a sense agree with Usagi. I think RPGs have the unique ability to better immerse the player in the story and inspire emotions. It is these qualities which must be enhanced and prioritized in the RPGs of the future if we are to achieve the recognition we desire.

At this point I would like to broaden the subject from not just movies and RPGs, but to books as well. As a vision for the future, I would like these three story-telling mediums to be equally praised, I would rather RPGs not be considered inferior, for they are far superior in many ways. Books. Ideal for conveying information in the simplest way possible. Also ideal for dwelling on the written word, which is a powerful form of storytelling, for often it is not merely what the word says that tells a story, but also how it is used. It is also the most open-ended of the three forms of story-telling, leaving much to imagination. Movies. Short and sweet. Movies usually focus on either dialogue or action. RPGs. I believe these can be the most entertaining of the three, for they combine the written word with beautiful artwork and incredible music while allowing a person like you or me to be a part of it all. Not without its flaws though, as books are far better with the written word, and movies are far better at being quick and easy.

* As a side note, I do not wish to degrade or ignore other forms of story-telling medium such as Opera, but I simply don’t know enough about them.

My description of RPGs is really a description of a future they have yet to achieve. As graphics and technical capabilities of computers evolve, the industry will draw far larger quantities of talented artists and musicians, whose talents will not be restricted by the technology. However, the visuals and music will be meaningless unless the stories and themes of today’s RPGs improve considerably, which at last brings me to Andrew Long’s editorial. Andrew Long is correct in his evaluation of the storylines of RPGs today, though his arguments are less than effective ("Logic" philosophy is really an entirely separate branch of the philosophy that he is actually engaging, and to degrade philosophy is to degrade the very essence of story-telling.) But like Michael and Usagi before him, Andrew also makes a significant point: the storylines of today’s RPGs are really very shallow. That is not to say they aren’t entertaining; but like a trashy novel, they are nothing more. This is due in large part to the Japanese affixation with sword-wielding robots and similar unrealistic plot devices to try and convey some deep philosophical idea, like the meaning of life and existence, which is really very absurd. I don’t mean to knock anime or the Japanese culture, but those sorts of RPGs will forever remain niche due to their juvenile target audience. Movies, on the other hand, have become valid forms of art because of their sophisticated stories and storytelling techniques. In this sense, they are far superior to today’s RPGs.

However, the potential of RPGs to tell a story is far greater than that of film. Usagi Vindaloo gives one reason: movies are too short. This is true, it is impossible to develop a complete and satisfying epic with character backstory in a pidly two to ten hour timeframe. In addition, unless you’re watching an animated film, you won’t see the work of talented artists in a film; and let’s face it, Disney’s storylines are far from detailing complex philosophical issues in a sophisticated way. Furthermore, music cannot play a significant role in movies like they can in an RPG, simply because it would interfere with all the spoken dialogue. It’s also an issue of quantity: How does a wimpy ten song movie soundtrack stand up to a hundred and fifty song RPG soundtrack, assuming both soundtracks are good? It doesn’t have a chance. What’s more, RPGs one-up movies by adding a third dimension, that of interactivity.

In the future, the evolved Interactive Visual Musical Story will be the very pinnacle of entertainment, but it must first secede from the entire videogame medium. It must focus on the interactivity I have described, it must focus on the visuals, it must focus on the music, and most of all it must focus on the story. The Interactive Visual Musical Story will not in itself be an art, but a collection of the arts, and hence greater than the sum of its parts. We have only to worry about the time we will lose within these worlds.