CONTINUATION OF: The "Versus" Series - Round 1
Last week, I presented two ways of looking into the interactivity of games and how they would ultimately create a "fun" experience. As a refresher, and if you can't figure out by the editorial title, these two ways would be the gameplay (ludological aspects) and narrative. The gameplay is the set of rules and overall game structure that govern and bolster the competitive spirit; while narrative, on the other hand, is that force that appeals to human sensibilities at the same time injecting meaning and purpose into the game. The argument here is: is it the act of playing that motivates us to play or is it the meanings that we derive from playing? This week, I still ask the same question; for last week, I only provided the argument--not the answer. In this editorial, I will discuss my findings and I will hopefully present a clear cut answer to that long-time debated issue: play vs. story.
When I conducted my research for my dissertation last year, I used two methods to gather my qualitative data. The first method involved the observation of my flatmates as they played two games of my choice. Game number one was Fahrenheit which was localized in North America as Indigo Prophecy. It's a cinematic game that's heavy on narrative and has a unique story-making aspect where the player’s minute actions and non-actions will drastically alter the games path. Game number two was Pro Evolution Soccer 4, a popular sports title in that part of the world where I was studying. This game fits the ludological shoe perfectly as it's all about competition, evaluation, and strategy. The second method was a focus group discussion where we all gathered together and discussed about gaming. The point of having both methods was to triangulate the data collected; this is with the consideration of what people say about games and how they actually play them, are two completely different things.
Between the two games, there was a significantly longer duration of play for Fahrenheit. Three out of the six subjects had played Fahrenheit for more than twice the time they played PES4, two subjects played both games at equal lengths, and only one played PES4 more. The initial reactions (before actually playing the games) showed that all six subjects were interested in playing Fahrenheit, and there were only three interested in PES4. Most of the subjects showed great determination in playing Fahrenheit, when they made a mistake they played better and wanted to continue; while in PES4, there were more outward expressions of frustration and anger towards the game. But these findings are still general observations; and while both games have a primary focus in either narrative or pure gameplay, it's still an undeniable truth that the games have two sides to the coin, and it may very well be their less dominant sides that are more influential. So how does this information compare with the data collected from the focus group discussion? Well for one, most of the subjects mentioned that the gameplay (generally speaking) was the most important thing to them; however, most of their complaints derived from gameplay issues and hardly any complaints, if any at all, came from narrative. The major issues were difficulty, issues of AI cheating, and the controls. Every example of a game they hated was purely based off of how the game was controlled and consequently, played out. It would seem that gameplay became more of a basis as to what determined what a bad game was, as opposed to a more positive spin. Most games that were mentioned to be favorites were games with strong narrative, such as the Final Fantasy series and the Zelda series, just to name a few. Even so, Mario Kart was easily a favorite of the majority; the interesting thing about Mario Kart is that it's essentially a racing game, hence a sports game and a game with very little in terms of plot. Primarily, the cast of famous characters in Mario Kart series and the atmosphere they create are what really appealed to the subjects; however, this does not discount the fact that the game has an excellent, unique racing gameplay. But what about a series of games that don't rely on a continued repetition of star power? Take Final Fantasy for example, where each entry in the series is a self-contained story disparate from the others. The popularity of Squall Leonheart in FFVIII doesn't necessarily guarantee that the all-new heroes in the next several entries will have the same appeal. Characters, while appealing are not always consistently there, while plot is nonexistent in about a third of the games released each year. The only true constant of narrative is setting--in terms of art, design, and narrative genre: fantasy, sci-fi, et al. In fact, setting is the first thing players can identify with, and recognize if a particular title is something that is worthwhile to experience--as this is not an indication of how a game plays, but rather an indication of what to expect from the overall experience the game will provide.
After taking a look at all the evidence, I've come to a number of conclusions. First is the idea that gameplay is not a motivation, but rather it is an expectation. Without good gameplay most games are considered horrible; however, this does not necessarily follow that good gameplay equals an instant classic. Instead, gameplay has become a basis for what is typical, and is not a deciding factor in what makes games extraordinary or what encourages people to play. As for the narrative, it is not essentially the characters of the story or the plot but the power of emotion and meaning created from the game that is important. This is a process called story-making and it creates a personal narrative for different players. The reason why Pro Evolution Soccer 4 failed was that it only relied on its expected gameplay and there was little in the way of narrative since it was limited to the soccer fan base. Although characters are memorable and plots intriguing, these are all factors which don’t create a will to play. This is achieved only by the setting. The reason why Fahrenheit was more successful was that it succeeded in creating the right atmosphere for the players. From the moment the subjects saw Fahrenheit, they were hooked into its realm and lore. If the characters were not so memorable, at least the setting was, and despite the clunky controls of Fahrenheit they put up with it, learned it, and still wanted to play. Narrative, for the most part, has always been an aspect of games that's been taken for granted; however, this in itself is a powerful point--most powerful influences are the ones we never knew influenced us in the first place. Perhaps if narrative was taken more seriously in the videogame industry, there would be even more, interactive, exciting, thought-stimulating, and artistic games out there just waiting to be explored and enjoyed.
|
RSS feed
iTunes