Ambiguous Storytelling - Yay / Nay?

[Stuebi]

Hey there. I hope I chose the appropriate term for the thread title. I searched online for a term that describes Stories who leave certain things unexplained and open for interpretation, or outright not tell you certain stuff at all. Ambiguous seemed to hit closest to the thing that I was going for.


Anyway, the other day I did a rerun of Shadow of the Colossus, which remains one of my favorite games in the PS2 library to date. After finishing I made an offhanded comment to a buddy about how much I hated the ending, and how it had almost ruined the experience for me back when I first played it (Mind you, I was fairly young at the time of my first Playtrough). We had a longer discussion about the topic and I realized that this was something that I would like to hear other peoples opinion about.

Now, I dont want to spoil the ending for SotC here (Altough Wikipedia should provide a plot summary for those who want to have a frame of reference for the specifics), but the game ended in a rather abrupt and inconclusive manner (In my opinion). I had a similiar problem with Bloodborne, where a lot of the story is either just implied, or so open to interpretation that it started to infuriate, rather than intrigue me towards the end. Now, this is a purely personal preference, but this kind fo stuff just strikes me as lazy. If you leave too much open for interpretation, I feel like I have to make up half of the Story myself. And that just slowly drains any investment I might have had at some point.

So I'm curious, what are other peoples thoughts about this? Do you like it? Do you hate it? When is it properly executed?

[Zevox]

I tend to agree with you about Shadow of the Colossus (story-wise, anyway - personally I don't think too highly of the game overall, either). As far as I'm concerned, it looks more like the outline of a story than an actual story to me: there's a couple of characters, they do a couple of things, but there's no details, context, motivations, barely any dialogue, no way to make sense of the ending, etc. I believe "lazy" is exactly one of the terms I used to describe its style of "storytelling" when discussing it on these boards after I played it. Other posters here did argue that is was supposed to be open to interpretation, but like you that to me just comes across as the game designers wanting me to make up the story myself. Essentially, they want the story to be filled in by fan fiction, which is not an artistic choice that I can say I respect.

And yeah, I think similarly about the Souls games (haven't played Bloodborne yet, but I presume it's much like them in that regard). They basically don't have a story, as far as I'm concerned, because what little is there is too little to make any sense of. They certainly aren't putting any real effort into telling a story in those games, and as a result I don't find that I care about what little they do tell me. I just play them for the gameplay, which is at least good.

[Stuebi]

And yeah, I think similarly about the Souls games (haven't played Bloodborne yet, but I presume it's much like them in that regard). They basically don't have a story, as far as I'm concerned, because what little is there is too little to make any sense of. They certainly aren't putting any real effort into telling a story in those games, and as a result I don't find that I care about what little they do tell me. I just play them for the gameplay, which is at least good.

I was actually happy with the way DS 1 did it. Because I was able to give a general Story Overview of other people without having to mention that half of it is just pure speculation. Sure, you still have to read quite a few Item Descriptions and exhaust a lot of dialogue, but the pieces are there for you to complete. Dark Souls 2 and Bloodborne on the other hand, to this day I cant give anything that comes close to a satisfying plot summary, at least without having to add "probably" to half of it. And that's what aggravates me. I can deal with ahving to do a little digging to puzzle something out. It actually makes some discoveries more satisfying. It's at the point where half of the stuff is just left out on purpose that I start to have problems with a narrative.

It's also sad in a way, because I thought that Shadow of the Colossus in particular would have a lot of stuff that would make for interesting backgrounds. And it really makes it seem that there is gonna be this big reveal at the end, it almost teases you with it, and then it snaps it away from you last minute. It just soured those last 15 minutes for me.

[Zevox]

I was actually happy with the way DS 1 did it. Because I was able to give a general Story Overview of other people without having to mention that half of it is just pure speculation. Sure, you still have to read quite a few Item Descriptions and exhaust a lot of dialogue, but the pieces are there for you to complete. Dark Souls 2 and Bloodborne on the other hand, to this day I cant give anything that comes close to a satisfying plot summary, at least without having to add "probably" to half of it. And that's what aggravates me. I can deal with ahving to do a little digging to puzzle something out. It actually makes some discoveries more satisfying. It's at the point where half of the stuff is just left out on purpose that I start to have problems with a narrative.
I don't see DS1 as any different than DS2 in this regard. You shouldn't have to dig through item descriptions to understand the basics of a story. And I'm not convinced that even doing that really gives you anything I'd call a full story, given nobody in the Dark Souls thread was able to give me a straight answer as to what the heck the "First Flame" was, how it related to the setting, or what the choice at the end between kindling it or not actually amounted to. Without information like that, how can I even care about the supposed "story" of DS1? After all, as near as I can tell that's supposed to be the important plot MacGuffin at the end of the day (though I didn't know that until literally the end of the game), and I couldn't tell you the first thing about it besides "it's a fire."

Yeah, no, Dark Souls gets no respect from me as far as this goes.

[Rodin]

I think there's a difference between a subtle story and an ambiguous one. For most of Shadow of the Colossus, the story is very subtle. It doesn't clearly tell you what's going on, but you can work out a lot of the details for yourself. Even in the ending, most of it is pretty clear.

The power that was saying it was going to help Wander was actually tricking him all along, he stole the body of his beloved without permission and the guys coming after them are the high priest and his bodyguards trying to stop him from releasing an ancient evil. They fail to arrive in time to stop him from completing the ritual, but fortunately the area they were in was specifically designed to banish said creature so they're able to seal it away again.

And then, it gets mind screwy.

How the heck did Wander end up as a baby? The resurrection worked, that I'm okay with. But what's the deal with baby Wander? And what's going to happen now?

The stuff in the first spoiler I'm okay with. The story is understated because it's basically a fairy tale that you could find in a children's book. The length of the story doesn't match the gameplay, so they didn't try to - they let the story unravel slowly and let the player make the connections. The stuff in the second spoiler is infuriating - there's no explanation given for it, and no way to work out what it all means from in-game information.

The Souls games' storytelling leans more toward the ambiguous than the subtle. In every Souls game except for Demon's Souls I have missed a critical NPC for telling me what I'm supposed to do next, because I wasn't psychic enough to know to go visit that NPC at that point in the game. In Bloodborne, by not understanding the plot I got stuck without knowing what to do next.

It's okay to have a simple storyline with oodles of sub-text and hidden lore. But please don't mindscrew me with impossible to understand endings (looking at you, Bloodborne), and the simple storyline should be freaking comprehensible. Dark Souls 2 asks you to find the King for no obvious reason. When you do find the King you...ignore him and go rooting through the memories of his enemies? And this lets you fight the final boss in order to do...something. Why you care is never explained. In the first game at least, you're being guided by prophecy.

The most recent example of failing to explain your plot comes from Bloodborne, and it happens early enough that I don't even have to spoiler it. You reach the gates of the Cathedral Ward, and find that they're barred against you because of all the wild beasts running wild throughout the city. Fine and dandy. The only hint you're given as to what to do next is to "seek a Chalice" from the town of Old Yarnham...which is where, exactly? You aren't told that in any detail, so you pretty much just have to explore until you find it. You find the Chalice and it...opens a previously locked door in the previous area.

...Why? The Chalice didn't do it. You don't hold the Chalice up and it broke a seal. The door is closed, and then you go back and it is open. I don't recall any lore reason for that to be the case. It just inexplicably happens. And Bloodborne is full of stuff like that.

As much as I love the Souls series, I wish they would put just a little more meat into their storylines. Enough so that I can tell what my character's motivations are, and what I'm supposed to be doing next.

[Zevox]

In the first game at least, you're being guided by prophecy.
News to me. I remember an early NPC in that game saying he thought I was interested in "the fate of the undead," or something to that effect, but if that's what you're referring to then the idea that that was some sort of prophecy wasn't communicated effectively - what it was in any case wasn't communicated effectively. And if you're referring to something else, I don't remember it being communicated at all.

As far as I could tell, in DS1 I did everything I did for lack of anything else to do besides turn the game off. The main character was never given any motivation of any kind at any point.

[Rodin]

News to me. I remember an early NPC in that game saying he thought I was interested in "the fate of the undead," or something to that effect, but if that's what you're referring to then the idea that that was some sort of prophecy wasn't communicated effectively - what it was in any case wasn't communicated effectively. And if you're referring to something else, I don't remember it being communicated at all.

As far as I could tell, in DS1 I did everything I did for lack of anything else to do besides turn the game off. The main character was never given any motivation of any kind at any point.

Well, the story throughout refers to you as the "Chosen Undead", which implies a prophecy.

Also, when the giant crow picks you up at the beginning I believe a prophecy of an Undead that would go on a pilgrimage to re-light the fires is also mentioned. The knight in the beginning also asks that you do what he failed to do and perform a pilgrimage to "ring the bell of Awakening".

[Zevox]

Well, the story throughout refers to you as the "Chosen Undead", which implies a prophecy.
Not necessarily. And in any event I'd call that much too weak to count as any kind of story, since it doesn't give you any idea what this supposed prophecy would entail.


Also, when the giant crow picks you up at the beginning I believe a prophecy of an Undead that would go on a pilgrimage to re-light the fires is also mentioned.
I don't remember that, but supposing it's there, it's still vague as all heck - and mentioned exactly once and then forgotten about. And the importance of the fires is never explained in any way (see also what I said earlier about the First Flame).


The knight in the beginning also asks that you do what he failed to do and perform a pilgrimage to "ring the bell of Awakening".
Yes, and he never gives you any idea what that will actually do, he just expects you to do it because... well, they're there and you have nothing else to do, basically. Which pretty much sums up what you're told about what you're doing throughout that game.

[factotum]

I guess it depends on what you play a game for, when all's said and done. I started playing computer games more than 30 years ago, back in the days when the entire plotline of a game might be a paragraph of text on the cassette inlay if you were lucky, so I've never been that interested in the story side of things--an attitude which appears to be reflected among a large number of game developers, judging by the awful hack jobs that often pass for game storylines. :smallwink: It's nice when a game has a decent storyline for a change, don't get me wrong, but it's not something I consider a requirement.

So, generally my satisfaction in a game comes from actually finishing it, and the ending cutscene is pretty much just the proof that I did so--it can be as ambiguous as it likes, I won't generally care unless it's setting up a very obvious sequel I'm interested in playing. SotC didn't do that--the ending, while a bit on the ambiguous side, was nonetheless complete in itself, and it wasn't necessary for us to know "what happened next".

[Rodin]

Yes, and he never gives you any idea what that will actually do, he just expects you to do it because... well, they're there and you have nothing else to do, basically. Which pretty much sums up what you're told about what you're doing throughout that game.

Yeah, like I said originally I do wish the games had a little bit more meat to them. Not a lot, but the motivation of the player character is always extremely weak. Dark Souls 1's motivation was weak, but there - you've accepted a quest from a dying knight, and eventually get given more information on what that quest will accomplish. Dark Souls 2's motivation is even weaker - you seem to be compelled by some mysterious force to seek out the land, then wander around following vague statements from a lady you just met. Bloodborne was the worst - they give no motivation other than "seek Paleblood" and then never really explain what Paleblood is. You can find out that information by reading between the lines, but that's the sort of information that should be explicitly revealed in-story.

The best story-telling in the Souls games, in my opinion, was Demon's Souls. You get given a clear motivation in the opening narration - killing fog is slowly covering the world, and only by slaying the demon causing it will you stop the fog. You're taking in the power of the great demons in order to gain enough power to confront said creature. The rest of the world information is tangential and can be discovered by listening to NPCs and doing quests for them.

[Zevox]

The best story-telling in the Souls games, in my opinion, was Demon's Souls. You get given a clear motivation in the opening narration - killing fog is slowly covering the world, and only by slaying the demon causing it will you stop the fog. You're taking in the power of the great demons in order to gain enough power to confront said creature. The rest of the world information is tangential and can be discovered by listening to NPCs and doing quests for them.
That is indeed far better than either of the Dark Souls games. Simple, but to the point and actually communicated to you from the outset. Why the heck can't they seem to manage anything like that in the successor titles? :smallconfused:

[GloatingSwine]

Because it would make the games worse at what people actually like them for.

People don't like Dark Souls for its narrative, they like it for the depth and variety of its mechanics and the intricacy of its level design and how the level design supports exploring and exploiting the mechanics.

People who like Dark Souls don't just play it once, hear the story, and then wander off, they play it repeatedly in different ways trying different things and testing them against the challenges the game offers, and the game is explicitly intended to support that in its design.

Having to sit through narrative exposition every time (like having to go up and talk to the bloody Monumental at the start of every game) would explicitly detract from that because the variety of play available from a fixed narrative is much lower than that available from an open ended set of mechanics.

Souls games put their narrative in places where the player has to actively want to engage with them to find them, because they are a secondary concern to the game.

[danzibr]

Nay.

I like me some closure. You chose the perfect word for the title btw.

[Stuebi]

Because it would make the games worse at what people actually like them for.

People don't like Dark Souls for its narrative, they like it for the depth and variety of its mechanics and the intricacy of its level design and how the level design supports exploring and exploiting the mechanics.

People who like Dark Souls don't just play it once, hear the story, and then wander off, they play it repeatedly in different ways trying different things and testing them against the challenges the game offers, and the game is explicitly intended to support that in its design.

Having to sit through narrative exposition every time (like having to go up and talk to the bloody Monumental at the start of every game) would explicitly detract from that because the variety of play available from a fixed narrative is much lower than that available from an open ended set of mechanics.

Souls games put their narrative in places where the player has to actively want to engage with them to find them, because they are a secondary concern to the game.

Have to agree with that. Even tough it wouldnt hurt, imho, to have more of the story they allready give.

It's cool that they dont force the story down your throat, and I actually liked that you can play the game basically without caring about it (Because on second playtroughs, games who just have you rewatch cutscenes, or listen to hours of exposition again tend to be tedious in this regard). On the other hand, IF you actually care, there are quite a few key things that the game quite simply never tells you, even if you dig.

Zevox hit the nail on the head with the ending to DS1 for example. It quite simply does not matter in any way shape or form, what you do. It gives you a vague ending and nobody knows what happens afterwards. What's the point? And why is it necessary to omit that? I know that Souls Fans really like that the story has to be discovered or guessed at, but the missing bits just make no sense to me, beyond the Dev going "Ah well, they will make something up either way."

Plague of Gripes said something on this in one of his videos, I dont remember the exact quote but it was something along the lines of:

"They dont have to do story for a lot of the game, because it's at the point where Fans will just make the missing parts up, so why bother?"

That's why I call it lazy, at least to an extend. And this is also why it's just a matter of taste, because I know a lot of people who are absolutely not bothered by this kind of thing.

Bloodborne made me pretty mad at points, and I think it's the absolute best example. Rodin mentioned the bit with the Chalice, and that's stupid enough on its own. But there are a lot of other examples. The hunt going on in Yarnham has a ton of little hints and bits about where it COULD have originated and how exactly it happened. But the game never explains. Why do Clerics appearantly turn into super powered monsters, while others just grow into Pseudo-Werewolves?

I almost stopped caring at about the midway point:

Troughout the entire game, they hype Byrgenwerth as a location where a lot of spooky stuff was going down. Quite a few characters mention it and you find notes about it. So I was expecting some really juicy storybits once I got there. And what did I get? More questions. Most of whom wouldnt not be answered later. The whole business about surrogate children, cuthulu babys being born and the Moon presence were really interesting concepts, but the game never botheres to give me details. And I tried, I really tried. But it ends up in specualtion and "Maybe" again and again. It was fun for a while, but eventually I was so drained of the enthusiasm to hunt a story that wasnt there, that I stopped caring towards the end.

The sidestorys are pretty good. I liked the bit about Gascoigne and the Powder Knights. Because you CAN actually figure out their story without having to make half of it up.

[Zevox]

Because it would make the games worse at what people actually like them for.
No, it absolutely wouldn't. The gameplay does not need to change one bit for the game to have a clear story. It doesn't even need to emphasize the story more than it does now - something as simple as what Rodin said Demon's Souls had would work fine. Heck, that's basically just as simple as the story of a Mario game: here's your goal (save the princess from Bowser/slay the fog demon), spelled out clearly at the start of the game, go do it, and there's not much more to tell besides the obstacles that stand between you and doing it, which is all gameplay.


Having to sit through narrative exposition every time (like having to go up and talk to the bloody Monumental at the start of every game) would explicitly detract from that because the variety of play available from a fixed narrative is much lower than that available from an open ended set of mechanics.
Narrative and mechanics don't need to be related in any way. And having to sit through narrative when you don't want to is easily solved by having skippable cutscenes, as most games these days do - including the Dark Souls titles, if memory serves.

[Avilan the Grey]

I tend to dislike it when it comes to the major stuff. Minor Mysteries (tm) is fine, but no, if I'm dedicating 20+ (or in RPGs 40+) hours to a story it better tie most loose ends together.

[Rodin]

I also feel like there's a difference between a defined ambiguous ending and a vague one. For instance, the ending of Inception is ambiguous. Is Cobb awake, or is he still dreaming? There are really only those two interpretations before you start getting into the really wild and wooly theories like "everyone is dead". The ending is ambiguous in that it can mean multiple things, but those different endings are clearly defined. I'm quite happy with that sort of ending, as it lets people make up their own minds and debate what actually happened afterwards. Vague ambiguous endings where you stare at the screen and wonder what the heck just happened....not so much. If you can't even make sense of the ending without a dozen viewings of the movie, research into ancient religions, and poring through supplementary material...well in that case I would argue that the ending fails.

[Winter_Wolf]

Anything I partake of needs resolution to have any hope of being satisfying. Sometimes a little--a little--ambiguity works but for me most of the time it does not. The one time I can recall not being terribly put out by a lack of proper closure was the movie Ninth Gate, but even then there was arguably enough of an explanation that it counts as "wrapped up nicely". In games I find ambiguity kind of unforgivable. At best it's saying without saying, "if sales are good enough, expect a sequel." Mostly it induces a "that can't be the real ending, there must be a secret/better ending" response. Even when ther isn't, and I know there isn't.

As one might surmise, I detest "cliffhanger endings" and also ambiguous "the end (?)" scenarios.

[Nerd-o-rama]

I think what a story, interactive or otherwise, needs is resolution. You don't have to explain everything, or tie up every storyline, but what I can't stand is stories that just stop without having a conclusion.

I actually feel the same way about most second movies in trilogies, actually. They all try to copy The Empire Strikes Back's open ending without realizing that that worked because of the emotional depth of the climax of that specific film. Instead it's just Keanu Reeves talking to an old man for 20 minutes and then something weird happens and smash-cut to black. That's the same feeling you get from games like Shadow of the Collosus where stuff just sort of happens at the end without adequately explained reasons other than a general sense of "we told you not to, bro, and you did anyway."

[Hiro Protagonest]

For the prophecy thing in Dark Souls, it's implied that you're presented with the idea of a prophecy, but in reality the serpents and whoever else is involved are just trying to manipulate you by making you think you're ordained to be special by some outside force.

Anyway, yeah, its story is not implemented very well. What it should be is that if you don't explore a lot, you get hints that there's a lot going on in this world, and that if you explore thoroughly you find out what happened. What it IS, is that if you don't explore much you think it's just a pretty standard story in a world that's kind of dark, and if you DO explore, you get hints at things that happened in the past but ultimately don't find out much about the politics of the gods/giants or anything. Or the politics of humanity, on the other continents of Astora and such. And the information you get is mostly through item descriptions, which makes no sense. It either means your character somehow knows all these things that's going on (despite the implication that Lordran is pretty much mythical to the human realms), or all these items come with pamphlets. Give me wall writing, books, magic audio logs, more NPCs who know what happened and are willing to talk! There are so many ways to implement it better.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I found Bioshock Infinite's story to be pretty much unambiguous, but it turns out my interpretation isn't that popular. That game is more about a simple narrative with a bunch of confusing noise on top and at the sides than actually confusing itself.

I really liked the original The Witcher's ambiguous ending where the hero is implied to be in denial about the just hinted about possibility.

I also hate sequel hooks, but the abundance of bad sequels that make me wish first game existed in isolation helps me deal with it.


Other posters here did argue that is was supposed to be open to interpretation, but like you that to me just comes across as the game designers wanting me to make up the story myself. Essentially, they want the story to be filled in by fan fiction, which is not an artistic choice that I can say I respect.

The thing is, every game has an element of that inherently. The ones that have a very detailed story just limit that aspect of play.


You shouldn't have to dig through item descriptions to understand the basics of a story.

A mystery needs some level of investigation, it can't just be split up into spoon sized reveals.

Dark Souls just seems to go too far, its approach isn't that different to games where most of the story is in optional documents/audio logs.


I've never been that interested in the story side of things--an attitude which appears to be reflected among a large number of game developers, judging by the awful hack jobs that often pass for game storylines. :smallwink:

Whether or not the story was part of the premise or an afterthought doesn't seem to be that relevant to how good the story turns out.



People don't like Dark Souls for its narrative, they like it for the depth and variety of its mechanics and the intricacy of its level design and how the level design supports exploring and exploiting the mechanics.

From what my friend whose got a lot farther in the game than I ever did talks about, that doesn't seem to be universally the case.

The narrative style is supported by the game mechanics/focus on exploration. Didn't help keep my interest though.

Dark Souls appears to be good at hooking certain people with its mystery but doesn't actually appear to have any real solution to that mystery, which in my opinion breaks a major rule of mystery stories.

When I was doing ambiguous work in my film student days I was always aware that while you can leave things ambiguous to the audience as a creator you have to know the answers, even if those answers aren't in the final work outright, or you're simply not telling a story. Allowing the audience to make a choice is not the same thing as the writer being allowed to not make one.

I worked on a student film that where the writer didn't really research the symbolism very well and it impressed a lot of people and got top marks (unjustly in my opinion) but fell apart for the one member of the audience who actually knew what it was supposed to be about.


Narrative and mechanics don't need to be related in any way.

Well no, but they probably should be. Otherwise one should read a novel instead.

[Knaight]

I'm fine with ambiguity, but there's a matter of how it is placed there and what purpose it serves. Ambiguity can easily emerge just from neglecting the narrative entirely, slapping something together at the last minute, and then having that something be terrible. It can also emerge through things like the skillful use of unreliable narrators, or through the implication that the story as seen is only one part of a bigger picture that looks different from other angles, or any number of other uses where the ambiguity actually has some value.

[Avilan the Grey]

Sidenote about Dark Souls and it's fellow games:

Outside of this thread (although I have not really looked hard) the only thing I have seen about them that attracts players is "get gud". Meaning the difficulty, and the difficulty alone, is the selling point. The story is never mentioned.

[Knaight]

Sidenote about Dark Souls and it's fellow games:

Outside of this thread (although I have not really looked hard) the only thing I have seen about them that attracts players is "get gud". Meaning the difficulty, and the difficulty alone, is the selling point. The story is never mentioned.

I've seen plenty of different things highlighted. The difficulty is part of it, encounter balance gets mentioned, the way it brings you back to the action gets mentioned, so on and so forth. Lore is included in that list, though it rarely makes it anywhere near the top. I've never seen narrative mentioned - only the setting-side aspects.

[Zevox]

The thing is, every game has an element of that inherently. The ones that have a very detailed story just limit that aspect of play.
Um, no. I don't see how that is in any way the case.


A mystery needs some level of investigation, it can't just be split up into spoon sized reveals.
Sure it can. If the mystery is important to the plot, it probably should be - it's rather dumb to have it be possible for the player to have no idea what's going on in the plot because they missed something optional that would explain it but were still allowed to move the story forward anyway.

Of course, part of the Dark Souls games' issue is that there are no answers to many of their mysteries within the games at all.


Well no, but they probably should be. Otherwise one should read a novel instead.
I would - and as many posters here probably remember, have on multiple occasions - argue that video game narratives should be like a novel. They work best that way.

[Lethologica]

I would - and as many posters here probably remember, have on multiple occasions - argue that video game narratives should be like a novel. They work best that way.
This is even more narrow than the idea that video game narratives should be like a movie, which is itself a pretty limited and limiting view of the medium. As if aping another medium is the best that should be expected.

[Zevox]

This is even more narrow than the idea that video game narratives should be like a movie, which is itself a pretty limited and limiting view of the medium. As if aping another medium is the best that should be expected.
Movie and novel both basically communicate the same idea to me, here. Pre-written storylines that don't try to pretend that the player can really determine the outcome, since the most the medium is capable of there is choose-your-own-adventure-book style branches that have to be just as pre-written as anything else and often result in weakening the overall story in one way or another. Tell a single story as best you can and it will turn out better than trying to tell many based on however many branch points you can imagine.

[Rodin]

Tell a single story as best you can and it will turn out better than trying to tell many based on however many branch points you can imagine.

Mass Effect (and Bioware games in general) proves this wrong, in my opinion. Yes, you need a defined story at the core of the game - a backbone, if you will. However, you can radically change the details and still come up with a great story. It also allows more daring story-telling that wouldn't make it past focus groups otherwise - my "canon" run through the games has multiple major character deaths that would have caused a fan outcry if there was only one plotline, because I find that it tells a better story than a perfect run through the game would.

Additionally, the pain of loss on those runs was far greater than it would have been otherwise - if there is one unchanging plotline and a character dies, my response is just "Darnit, I liked that character! Why'd they have to kill them off?" In a game where player choice matters, I wind up horribly guilty because it was MY choice that sentenced that character to death. It could have been avoided if I had just done things differently. It's one reason I enjoyed Telltale's Walking Dead games far more than I did the TV series.

Games have an opportunity to involve the "reader" in ways movies and books don't, and I think that more games should try to take advantage of that.

This is, however, drifting rather off-topic.

[Zevox]

Mass Effect (and Bioware games in general) proves this wrong, in my opinion.
I disagree. Bioware's titles are not stronger for their MO, in my opinion, only weakened by it. The lack of a well-defined main character to build their stories around is a huge loss, among other things. That they turn out so well despite it speaks well of Bioware's talent, but that just makes me feel they'd be capable of something truly great if they abandoned that MO.


This is, however, drifting rather off-topic.
Quite true.

[Lethologica]

Movie and novel both basically communicate the same idea to me, here. Pre-written storylines that don't try to pretend that the player can really determine the outcome, since the most the medium is capable of there is choose-your-own-adventure-book style branches that have to be just as pre-written as anything else and often result in weakening the overall story in one way or another. Tell a single story as best you can and it will turn out better than trying to tell many based on however many branch points you can imagine.
That is one very particular way in which video game storytelling can be like a movie or book. I disagree that this is universal across video games, but even if it were, it wouldn't lead to the conclusion that video games should be like novels in other ways.

[Zevox]

That is one very particular way in which video game storytelling can be like a movie or book. I disagree that this is universal across video games, but even if it were, it wouldn't lead to the conclusion that video games should be like novels in other ways.
What other ways are you thinking of, exactly? I'm not sure what you could be referring to, to be honest.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Pre-written storylines that don't try to pretend that the player can really determine the outcome

In a novel the reader determines the whole thing, the text just provokes things.

You can change a story without changing the sequence of events because its the experience and understanding that matters.

Its probably just the case that I don't read novels the way you read novels and we won't agree on this because our brains work differently.

To tie this back into the topic I'd say that a good novel is ambiguous and allows for reader interpretation. But good = ambiguity is not quite the same thing as ambiguity = good, because in my opinion ambiguity just inherently arises from narrative and character depth while deliberately adding ambiguity first often decreases depth.


Tell a single story as best you can and it will turn out better than trying to tell many based on however many branch points you can imagine.

That's basically saying that the best stories are the easiest ones to write and one is best off not challenging yourself. In most cases you're probably right and I kind of agree with you as a player but as a writer I find your opinion devoid of hope.

In most branching stories there will be one branch I like best and wouldn't mind if it was the only one, but my least favourite branch might be someone else's favourite.

The best stories always have counterfactuals and possibilities in them. The option that something can go wrong can add meaning to it going the other way. If one path was always the best path people wouldn't write/read alternate history novels or fan fiction.

For example, Shepard choosing to save the Rakni Queen wouldn't have any meaning if the game made that choice for you (it doesn't have that much meaning anyway but it at least has some illusion of it this way). That choice does stick with people and provoke discussion despite it being ultimately pointless because its a real choice you can make.


In a game where player choice matters, I wind up horribly guilty because it was MY choice that sentenced that character to death. It could have been avoided if I had just done things differently.

The ability to save and reload usually ruins this though.

[Lethologica]

What other ways are you thinking of, exactly? I'm not sure what you could be referring to, to be honest.
...You know, I thought I had something in my head for this, but I checked and checked and it came up blank. Maybe it's 3 AM shenanigans. Forget I said anything.

[Avilan the Grey]

In a novel the reader determines the whole thing, the text just provokes things.

I definitely disagree 100% with this.
Your EXPERIENCE from reading the story varies, but the story is 100% fixated and unchangeable. Dumbledore dies, no matter "how you read" the story. Etc.

Edit: Of course sometimes a story can be ambiguous without the writers intending it to be. A typical example is the very common misunderstanding (?) that the Firefly terrorist group is responsible for the zombie outbreak in The Last Of Us. I never played it, I just watched it played, and I was 100% sure that was the case. So are many many others. That's just clumsy writing, I guess, but it happens a lot in all kind of media.

[Guancyto]

I disagree. Bioware's titles are not stronger for their MO, in my opinion, only weakened by it. The lack of a well-defined main character to build their stories around is a huge loss, among other things. That they turn out so well despite it speaks well of Bioware's talent, but that just makes me feel they'd be capable of something truly great if they abandoned that MO.

For all their faults, Bioware understands that they're writing a game. There's no well-defined main character because you are the main character, there's branching paths because you are the writer (or want to feel like it, anyway), there's no one linear storyline because it's your story.

Are you going to fault choose-your-own-adventure books for their disjointed storyline too?

If you want a single story told well, a straight progression from A to B, there are novels and short stories and movies and graffiti and darn near literally every other form of media in which to do that. Games are a medium where you are in the driver's seat instead of just a passenger, and getting railroaded in them (*coughDiabloIIIcough*) is an unpleasant experience if it's done poorly.

Shadow of the Colossus doesn't hit you over the head with its storyline, but it's far from ambiguous. In fact, I think it's pretty straightforward.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Zevox's points are interesting, but I can vouch for the fact that they've already been heavily debated in every single thread about a Bioware game in this entire forum, so perhaps it would be best to continue the tradition of posting them there.


Now, on interpretation vs. text...that raises an interesting point for me, if only because I just finished reading a (summarized form of a) story about this very thing. Interestingly, it's even a type of Visual Novel, a kind of story some people consider a video game but I do not because its interactivity is limited to, at most, choose-your-own-adventure mouse clicks (and 87.5% of Umineko no Naku Koro Ni hasn't even got that much). That's another work that's deliberately ambiguous, even though it's impossible to miss most of the information presented, because it's trying to make the point that what you get out of a story or a memory is what you take from it, not the factual reality of what it's describing, or lack thereof.

The real question of modernism vs. postmodernism is, I think, whether a "story" takes place in the physical recording of the story or in the imagination of the audience. Closet_Skeleton's view seems to be the latter, and Avilan's the former. I honestly refuse to pick a side here - I believe that the text is the text and, for the sake of reading a story, there's no way around taking what's presented as part of the story. However, a story's also meaningless without being experienced, and part of experiencing a story is interpreting it and relating it to your own worldview as a member of an audience.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't know what the argument is here.

[Zevox]

In a novel the reader determines the whole thing, the text just provokes things.

You can change a story without changing the sequence of events because its the experience and understanding that matters.

Its probably just the case that I don't read novels the way you read novels and we won't agree on this because our brains work differently.
That is the only explanation I can think of, since your claims make absolutely no sense to me.


That's basically saying that the best stories are the easiest ones to write and one is best off not challenging yourself.
I don't see how that is the case at all.


For all their faults, Bioware understands that they're writing a game. There's no well-defined main character because you are the main character, there's branching paths because you are the writer (or want to feel like it, anyway), there's no one linear storyline because it's your story.
No, it's not, in any way. They simply try to present you with the illusion that it is. Every single thing in the game, by its very nature, is pre-determined by Bioware's writers, just as much so as in any book or movie. You just get to pick a few things from a small menu of options. And those things never alter anything genuinely important to the outcome of the overarching story - notice how all of their decisions points occur at the end of sub-plots, and then never get brought up again, or have at most negligible effects on sequels. Simply put, it's not practical for them to do anything else, because it would multiply their workload - and the cost of making their games - exponentially to actually have to create more meaningful changes to their plotlines as a result of options they gave the player. They'd essentially be creating multiple games worth of content if they tried to do that. And with limited time to work on the game, time spent on each branch would be less time spent on the others, likely weakening the overall quality of each in the end.

That type of thing is why I say that this style is a weakness for them. They try to pretend that the medium can do what tabletop RPGs do via having a GM who can react on the fly to whatever the players choose to do, but it simply can't do that, and it shows. They are, and likely always will be, only able to emulate it to a very limited degree, and the result is something that, I'd argue, is definitely weaker than they'd get by embracing a more movie-style approach to storytelling. That games can definitely do quite well.


Are you going to fault choose-your-own-adventure books for their disjointed storyline too?
I will certainly say that they end up as weaker stories for their style than novels do, if that's what you mean.

[Rodin]

The ability to save and reload usually ruins this though.

Meh. Not the developers fault if the player doesn't play the game the way it was meant to be played. Besides, you can work around this for properly plot important deaths. It can become impossible to save a character in Mass Effect 3, for instance - all based on prior decisions.

I will say that I am terrible at allowing my characters to stay dead in Fire Emblem though. I guess what matters is having an important story decision hinge on whether the character lives or dies. The choice of whether to sacrifice someone for the greater good is always pretty heart-wrenching.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Shadow of the Colossus doesn't hit you over the head with its storyline, but it's far from ambiguous. In fact, I think it's pretty straightforward.

Perhaps, if the goal of SotC's story was to be completely unambitious. It may be straightforward, but it also gives no context. It's... it's like an indie game. Indie games are best done by doing one thing and having no unnecessary extra stuff. They're allowed to be this way because of low budgets.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The real question of modernism vs. postmodernism is, I think, whether a "story" takes place in the physical recording of the story or in the imagination of the audience. Closet_Skeleton's view seems to be the latter, and Avilan's the former.

My view is the the story is recreated completely anew every time its told, it can't be stored at all. A narrative text is like following lego instructions, its not a finished product in itself.


I honestly refuse to pick a side here

I don't feel any need to worry about whether or not the point of view I'm currently exploring is ever going to be my final opinion on anything. I'm happy to spend ages working out a long argument that I'll later decide was stupid.


I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't know what the argument is here.

I wasn't trying to argue anything, just state an opinion. I've probably failed at both.


I definitely disagree 100% with this.
Your EXPERIENCE from reading the story varies, but the story is 100% fixated and unchangeable. Dumbledore dies, no matter "how you read" the story. Etc.

There's more to a story than the sequence of events. I'd argue that the sequence of events is probably the least important thing going on. Dumbledore's death is very open to interpretation, that it happened is a prerequisite for that not a hindrance.

Otherwise people wouldn't write historical fiction. Two novels about the same set of events can tell completely different stories.


And those things never alter anything genuinely important to the outcome of the overarching story

If you have a messed up idea of what's important, sure. A story is not just plot/narrative, but theme and tone as well. I would argue that being able to choose the theme and tone is a putting much more power into the hands of the player than being able to choose the narrative.

Paragon Shepard saves the Galaxy can be a completely different story to Renegade Shepard saves the galaxy (talking about the first game in isolation here) even if the events are basically the same since Mass Effect's choices are really about process rather than outcome. You can't choose if Shepard is a good guy or not, the game is neutral about whether or not Paragon or Renegade is the best. But once you've chosen one of them (if you do, I didn't really), that changes for your playthrough. The game is morally ambiguous (or maybe ambivalent) but playing it isn't.

Mass Effect is also a good example of where ambiguity is sometimes more interesting. The Reapers became a lot more boring once I knew what their deal is. The first two games were allowed to keep them ambiguous because they were about other stuff, as a finale the third game wasn't allowed to do that.

As (not all that) recent Bioware titles go, Dragon Age:Origins was much better at character ambiguity than Mass Effect was since it didn't just brainwash its antagonists (which is almost ironic seeing how one is fantasy and the other is science fiction).

[GloatingSwine]

I definitely disagree 100% with this.
Your EXPERIENCE from reading the story varies, but the story is 100% fixated and unchangeable. Dumbledore dies, no matter "how you read" the story. Etc.

A story which generates no meaning beyond the simple sequence of events it catalogues is very dull indeed, but that generation of meaning takes place only in the mind of the reader.

Dumbledore always dies, but what that means is dependent on the reader and what they bring to the reading (eg on the simplest level what they thought of the character of Dumbledore to begin with colours their interpretation).

The sequence of signifiers which comprise the story is fixed, the meaning those generate in the reader is wholly dependent on the individual reader and the sum of all their other experiences.

[Zevox]

If you have a messed up idea of what's important, sure. A story is not just plot/narrative, but theme and tone as well. I would argue that being able to choose the theme and tone is a putting much more power into the hands of the player than being able to choose the narrative.
If you honestly think that what Mass Effect - or any Bioware title - does allows you choose the theme substantially affect tone, you have a much higher opinion of their writing than I. I don't think they come anywhere close to that. The fixed elements of the story determine those, not the minor alterations you get from their illusory choices.

And personally, I'd argue that even if they did, a story where you could choose the theme would likely be one where each theme was underdeveloped, compared to one that focuses on a set theme or themes. That, I'd say, is one of the most important reasons I'd rather see video game stories done in a movie/novel style fashion.


Mass Effect is also a good example of where ambiguity is sometimes more interesting. The Reapers became a lot more boring once I knew what their deal is. The first two games were allowed to keep them ambiguous because they were about other stuff, as a finale the third game wasn't allowed to do that.
Personally, I thought the Reapers were boring from the get-go. Giant robots trying to claim they're beyond human understanding? No, not impressed. They just became stupid on top of that once we found out what their actual motives were. Fortunately the other characters and plotlines in the series were much better.

[Guancyto]

No, it's not, in any way. They simply try to present you with the illusion that it is. Every single thing in the game, by its very nature, is pre-determined by Bioware's writers, just as much so as in any book or movie. You just get to pick a few things from a small menu of options. And those things never alter anything genuinely important to the outcome of the overarching story - notice how all of their decisions points occur at the end of sub-plots, and then never get brought up again, or have at most negligible effects on sequels.

Witcher 2 more or less gives you two separate games based on one of your choices midway through. There are a couple games that do this. It's an obscene amount of work for writers, and it's unwieldy. That doesn't stop you from building your Shepard and your universe out of the thousands of menu options, some of which... yeah, they actually do kinda matter. (Witcher series does it much better than Mass Effect, for the record, but that's because Witcher series is fabulous)

It's unfortunate that so many of your choices in Mass Effect wind up boiled down to their very essentialist 'War Assets' system, but. You can kill the Rachni Queen and then try to recruit another of its kind, and it will go horribly poorly. You can save Wrex and try to keep him and the genophage, and it will go horribly poorly. You can determine the fate of literally every character you cared about over the course of the series (except Joker, who always lives). The story and fate of absolutely everyone who is not Shepard, Joker or a Reaper is up in the air over the course of three games. Do the Krogan withdraw from galactic society after you screwed them? Do the geth flat-out cease to exist? Does Miranda die horribly (god I hope so)? Does Conrad finally get to be a hero? In a sense you get four endings, in a sense you get hundreds, and the fact of the matter is that nobody really gave a crap about the galaxy anyway except as a reason for Shepard to kick ass and take names.

If you reduce the story of Mass Effect to "Reapers were going to eat everything so Shepard went to a number of planets and shot a bunch of dudes while quipping or making speeches and acquired MacGuffins" then of course you're going to look at the choices you make within the game as an illusion. By the same token, you wouldn't be able to distinguish betweenmaking the player pull the trigger on The Boss, or Snake just doing it, possibly because you live in a joyless existence. You can't stop the framework. There's no story where Shepard goes and gets wasted on the Citadel and Conrad Verner saves the galaxy instead. There's no story where he decides to give up the heroing life to weave lyrical magic as Music Man. There's no iteration of Alpha Protocol where Michael Thorton decides to change his identity and become a trucker instead of fighting global conspiracies (except perhaps my headcanon for Eurotruck Simulator) because you can't escape the skeleton around which the story is built, but the fact that there are at least a hundred different iterations of who lives and who dies and who has had their secrets found out and who has been sided with and who has been eternally cheesed off should count for something.

The main plot of Mass Effect was always weak, and was always a bit railroaded. It's the everything else that's the strength, and it's the everything else in which your choices matter. If you reduce everything down to the main storyline with that style of game you miss the entire game, so yeah, of course you think it's weak. You wouldn't think a medical skeleton was attractive, either, I bet.

[Avilan the Grey]

A story which generates no meaning beyond the simple sequence of events it catalogues is very dull indeed, but that generation of meaning takes place only in the mind of the reader.

Dumbledore always dies, but what that means is dependent on the reader and what they bring to the reading (eg on the simplest level what they thought of the character of Dumbledore to begin with colours their interpretation).

The sequence of signifiers which comprise the story is fixed, the meaning those generate in the reader is wholly dependent on the individual reader and the sum of all their other experiences.

And I still don't agree. It might be that we use different definitions, but the STORY is fixated. To claim the reader changes the story is simply false, not to mention physically impossible, from my POW. What the reader takes away from the story, on the other hand, is completely different.

[Lethologica]

And I still don't agree. It might be that we use different definitions, but the STORY is fixated. To claim the reader changes the story is simply false, not to mention physically impossible, from my POW. What the reader takes away from the story, on the other hand, is completely different.
This (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1476526?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) is the sort of meaning Gloating Swine might be applying here. The text is fixed--but it's not the whole story, because not every layer of the story is explicitly represented in the text. And distinguishing 'the story' from 'what the reader takes away from the story' is pretty difficult.

[Avilan the Grey]

This (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1476526?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) is the sort of meaning Gloating Swine might be applying here. The text is fixed--but it's not the whole story, because not every layer of the story is explicitly represented in the text. And distinguishing 'the story' from 'what the reader takes away from the story' is pretty difficult.

Lots of complicated sentences in that one. Also quite old; written 1985 calling forth theories from the 70's and early 80's.

But no, I still stand by my point of view; you cannot change the story, just like you cannot change music (the other great art form that takes place in your mind besides literature). You might take away something entirely different from that other guy, but the music is still "A-B-A-CCA-BA-CFD" etc.
And I still don't think it's that hard to tell the difference btw. That said, this might be a reason why some people have such hard time acknowledging WOG; when what the readers takes away from the story, and what the writer actually wrote, clashes, some readers cannot come to terms with that distinction. At best, they just say "Hey, if I had written it, this is what would happen" or "Huh, that's not how I interpreted that event" (Worst case scenario is when you go and write Anna / Elsa inter-sister Slash Fic Fanfiction (yes I know, not a book, but anyway) arguing that you know better than the author what happened and that he or she doesn't deserve to handle those amazing characters).

[GloatingSwine]

In terms of literary criticism, the mid 1980s is as bang up to date as it gets (especially compared with the critical approach you're espousing which has been out of fashion for over a century now, it was the advent of the New Criticism in the early 20th Century that did away with things like author statements to focus on close reading of the text itself).

I think your problem is that you refuse to see "the story" as anything other than the words in order on the page, the simple chronicle of a set of events.

That's not the story, that's just the sequence of symbols which allows a reader to construct the story, the story doesn't exist until it is read by a thinking reader and every reader reads it differently. And no actually good story ever is only a simple chronicle of events, there are always other layers which are not explicitly stated by the text but are just as present. (eg. in a mystery novel there is the always unspoken assumption that the book is itself a game between author and reader with the goal to figure out the mystery before the text gives it away)

And no, not even the author has a priveleged position on what the "correct" reading of a story is. The whole point of deconstructionism as a field was to demonstrate that the tools (particularly close reading) of the previously orthodox New Critical position that there was a single "correct" meaning of any given text which could be carefully teased out as a route to the mind of the author* could equally be used to support any reading, and so there cannot be reasonably argued to be a single "correct" meaning.


* this actually has its roots in the theology of the Middle Ages, close reading and interpretation of scripture in order to know the mind of God, and earlier in the idea of the ideal Platonic forms.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Gloating Swine is right.

A text remains the same. A plot remains the same. Text and plot never change between readers.
A story is an interpretation. A story involves semi-consciously vocalizing sentences; many times I was reading a story aloud, and realized that changing the stress on a single sentence hugely changed a character's motivations, or prior knowledge or a prior theory. Take Lord of the Rings. The plot says that the Hobbits, escaping through the Old Forest, come across a strange old man who can talk to trees, they have strange dreams, yet feel protected, and under a spell, and he seems not at all affected by the ring, and he disappears. The story, however, is VERY different if you go into this chapter blind, as my girlfriend did, than if you go into it with the theory that Bombadil is a shard or aspect of Eru and Goldflower is Middle Eart itself. Her story was fraught with danger, and a sense of dread hanging over the otherwise idyllic landscape, as she felt certain that the strange powerful man would seize the Ring, changed to profound wonder when the Ring didn't affect him in the slightest. My story was flatter, it didn't have those heights of emotions, it wasn't a story about the Ring at that point, it was a story about introducing the Hobbits to a taste of the magic and strangeness that they would encounter on the journey.

Now we experienced these two stories at the EXACT SAME TIME, as I was reading the book aloud to her. We both were experiencing the exact same emphases and vocalizations of the story, yet we emerged with very different stories. She heard a story centred around the Ring, I heard a story centred around Magic. Neither of us is wrong. Yet we heard different stories.

[Avilan the Grey]

And I still disagree with you.
It might just be a language barrier, or again, what we define as "the story".

You don't change the story until you actually change the writing. Period.

And of course the writer has the final say of what's written. You might feel like the LOTR is an allegory about the atomic bomb. But it does not make it so. You can use the story to fuel your experience and to boost your argument, but if the author point blank tell you "no, it is not", then you are wrong wrong WRONG in claiming the story IS an allegory for the nuclear bomb.

This all starts to sound like the old Tree-forest-falling argument (that people still think about this one is hilarious, since it means they have not finished 1st grade physics class. If there is an atmosphere of any kind the tree makes a sound. Period.)
A tree falling in a forest, or under water makes a sound. If anyone hears it is completely irrelevant on all levels.
A story in a book is a story even if the book has never been opened...
...Just like a story on a DVD is a story even if you never press "play" on your remote...
...and just like cave drawings still tell a story even if you are not looking at them.

As for using Deconstructionism as the final "truth" for the argument... no. It is a specific philosophical approach to literature, but it does not make it the only theory, or the final theory (the latter is most important) and above all it is, indeed, a philosophical approach which means it is debatable, and more than that: It is possible to disregard.
Unlike say the theory of gravity, philosophical theories are not only theories in the "other" way (as in they are only made up) they are also, as philosophies have always been subject for debate and you are not in any way required to heed or subscribe to any of them.


She heard a story centred around the Ring, I heard a story centred around Magic. Neither of us is wrong. Yet we heard different stories.

From my point of view there really isn't a difference in LOTR between "the ring" and "magic"... So I'm a bit confused. :smallsmile:

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

What I mean is the story in that chapter to her was an intrigue centred about the Ring itself, the physical object, while for me it was an exploration of magic and wonder and strange things that will appear later, introducing the idea of being put under a spell to the book.

So, what would you call what we're talking about, if not "story"? We call what you're meaning "text" and "plot", so what do you call what we call "story"? Perhaps you prefer "interpretation" or "meaning"? In any case, I advise you to seriously considering where each of these terms originates; when do certain patterns of ink-stains on a page transfer into words, when do words transfer into sentences, when do sentences transfer into meaning? Text is simply a set of words. Plot is simply a set of factual meanings about events. Description is simply a set of factual meanings about objects. Story is the meaning of how the events and objects intertwine in complicated manners to evoke emotions and reactions. This is how I define story. Descriptions may evoke different emotions in different people, leading to very different stories. Is Romeo and Juliet a tragedy or a comedy? I find it more comedic than tragic, because the descriptions and events in it evoke a certain set of emotions for me. To others, it's a tragedy, because the descriptions and events evoke a very different set of emotions. The plot is the same, the text is the same, the descriptions and events are the same, the things you refer to as the "story". Yet what would you call the way that the text, descriptions, plot, and events can intertwine to create differing emotions and reactions? That is what I call story.

Without human interaction, there is no story. Imagine, in a world with no people whatsoever, just free-floating particles, a group of particles came together to create what, if there WAS a human, would be Romeo and Juliet written in a book. Yet there are no observers, all you can FACTUALLY say is that there are certain particles adjacent to other certain particles, with certain wavelengths of vibrations and emissions. There is no story. There is not even a text yet, because a text requires words, and there are no words, only particles. The answer to the tree-falling-in-the-forest is that the tree creates certain waves of air-pressure. That exists without anyone to hear it, just as a book can exist without anyone to see it. But you need something capable of sight to see the different wave-lengths of the particles, capable of pattern-recognition to group particles into shapes, and capable of assigning meaning to things to be able to create language, and reading, and all that such. If by "sound" you mean certain waves of air-pressure, which I would agree with, than yes, a tree falling in the forest makes a sound. If by "story" you mean a certain set of particles adjacent to other certain particles, with certain wavelengths of vibrations, then yes, you can have a story without anyone drawing meaning from it. I would say, however, that until you have someone recognize those particles as groups, you don't even have shapes, only particles, and without someone able to create meaning and understand language, you don't even have words or text, only shapes, and without someone able to understand that SPECIFIC language, you don't even have a story, only incomprehensible text.



Regarding the other part of your post, you seem to be saying that there is only One True Interpretation of any text, and that is the interpretation in the mind of the author, irrespective of their actual success in getting across that interpretation to their readers, and that anyone who comes across a different interpretation is guilty of BadWrongFun.

By that logic, anyone who comes up with any theory as to who Tom Bombadil is is wrong, because the correct answer is the one Tolkein said, that he's a mystery. Any attempt to place him in the world other than simply throwing your hands up is capital-W Wrong.

That seems like a very strict and judgmental interpretation. We're not saying that the story you read (or interpretation if you prefer) is wrong, we're saying that it's just as legitimate as any other knowledgeable interpretation. You're saying that you read the mind of the author and that is the only correct interpretation and all others are wrong, passing judgment on everyone else who differs slightly from what you claim is the intention of the author (which, given the natures of language and meaning, is impossible to know with certainty).

I'd be interested to know how, by your argument, a cave painting, without anyone drawing meaning from them, can in a vacuum create meaning.

edit:
the TL;DR is, you can't simply say Story is Text without creating an argument as to how the two are equal. I laid out an argument about as to how certain particles turn to shapes, turn to words, and turn to story. Please show me a better argument, or critique my argument to show where I am wrong.

[GloatingSwine]

And I still disagree with you.
It might just be a language barrier, or again, what we define as "the story".

You don't change the story until you actually change the writing. Period.

And of course the writer has the final say of what's written. You might feel like the LOTR is an allegory about the atomic bomb. But it does not make it so. You can use the story to fuel your experience and to boost your argument, but if the author point blank tell you "no, it is not", then you are wrong wrong WRONG in claiming the story IS an allegory for the nuclear bomb.

The author can tell you whether he intended to communicate something or not in the text, but only the actual text can tell you whether he did.

Your view appears to be that the text is the whole of the story, but it's trivially demonstrable that that isn't the case. Every text contains elements which are not explained and for which the audience must insert their own understanding, which ably demonstrates the concept that no story exists without a reader, because there are things which are not in the text but on the understanding of which the existence of a story relies. (And we're not just talking technical concepts here, many texts rely on implicit social or moral understandings which may not be present outside the society in which they were written but which are never explicitly stated, they are unstated because the audience is assumed to know them. Romance of the Three Kindgoms, for instance, implicitly assumes familiarity with Confucian moral principles at multiple points in the text. A reader without those principles, or even one who only knows them intellectually not as intuitively as a 15th century Chinese reader might, is reading a different story to the original audience. Whereas Chronicle of Narnia implicitly assumes Christian moral principles but never actually states them, the audience is assumed to know the moral significance of faith at several points throughout the cycle).


As for using Deconstructionism as the final "truth" for the argument... no. It is a specific philosophical approach to literature, but it does not make it the only theory, or the final theory (the latter is most important) and above all it is, indeed, a philosophical approach which means it is debatable, and more than that: It is possible to disregard.

I don't think you actually know what deconstruction is. Deconstruction is a method of criticism, it's a thing you do not a theory or philosophy. It doesn't seek to explain a set of facts or make a particular case, it's a tool.

However, unlike the tools which preceded it it is a highly portable tool. Prior to the twentieth century most critical understanding relied on relatively fixed foundational assumptions. For instance "art holds a mirror up to nature" was widely understood to be the foundation of understanding art. However, the increase in communication and travel speed in the twentieth century meant that all of a sudden much more work which lay outside that foundational assumption was currently available. If you only have one Kandinksy to deal with then you can safely ignore him and art is still a mirror to nature, but if you suddenly have to also cope with the entire tradition of nonrepresentational art in Islam it becomes much harder to cling to that fixed foundation.

Deconstruction is a method of metacritical analysis which also addresses the process of critical response itself. It examines the process of meaning-making as a way to explore what meanings a text can support, without making a claim that one of the supported meanings is privileged above the others. What that means is that deconstruction works in a vastly broader range of situations than do prior forms of critical engagement.

[JBPuffin]

Huh. This is odd - I walk into a thread about whether an ambiguous plot is a positive or a negative, and now it's a debate about the "correct" definition of story. Strange.

Anyway, I enjoy choice and ambiguity to a degree. Spore was fun - I was directly in charge, and up to the gridlessness of Space Age I still had a plot I could follow easily when I needed to. Chrono Cross, Dragon Age and Mass Effect were fun - who cares if my choice of suitor or Paragon/Renegade alignment affected the actual story, I did some fricken awesome stuff. Skyrim, however? Or Fallout? Heck, Minecraft and Terraria, even? I needed more plot than I was getting to really be involved in those games the same way I'm involved in my first full playthrough of DA:O or second of DA:I. I enjoyed the crap out of Skyrim while I had it, don't get me wrong here, but there just wasn't enough cohesion or significance - plenty of choice, but no reason to make choices. Dark Souls, from what y'all say - dude, WTF? That's a game, sure, but a story/motivation that you can't find without effort isn't much of a story/motivation.

On the other hand, the Final Fantasy series (9 and the Tactics, specifically) is definitely more rigid, and I enjoyed them as well. That was probably because of my age when I played them and the mechanics more than the story, but I do like their plots. Still haven't start-to-finished one of them (that list is like 10 games, not quite half being Bioware), but I enjoyed what part I played of them.

To each his own, however, and game designers design games for different target audiences. Sure, they wish everyone would buy their game and give them their fat stacks'o'cash, but they also know that's not possible, so at least subconsciously they filter through the audience of "the world" into something more like "people who would like DnD, too" or whatever. Some designers agree with Zevox and build games Zevox will like better, others agree with Gloating Swine and build games Gloating Swine will like better based solely on what the story does and the illusion of choice involved.

Avilan, they're definitely using different definitions than you. Yours from what I read seems closest to "plot", where there's is more like "experience" - you're about the structure, they're about what impact said structure makes on their brain surfaces (or something like that). They do agree that the plot itself isn't subject to variation, though - the facts are the facts. How someone remembers said facts, including being dead wrong about whether a character died or not, will differ, as will what kind of emotions/reactions the plot incurs from a person.

So, last remark - there is no correct way of writing a story for the entire world. There are, however, ways of writing a story specifically for an individual's enjoyment. I write stories for my enjoyment, especially those I actually publish online, for no other reason than I would want to read them if someone else wrote them. Each one of us prefers a different kind of narrative, and none of us has the wrong view. Can we leave the petty debates aside so I can hear more about the dismal failure of Dark Souls or other video games as narratives :smalltongue:?

[GloatingSwine]

Mass Effect were fun - who cares if my choice of suitor or Paragon/Renegade alignment affected the actual story, I did some fricken awesome stuff.

Actually there's an interesting thing about narrative choice in games.

Narrative choice tends to produce gamist responses. This is pretty clear in people's response to Mass Effect, where people tend to pick either Paragon or Renegade and stick with it throughout, optionally to game the system for the bonuses that attend to its extremes (free skill points in the first game or more persuasion options which tend to lead to higher gameplay rewards in ME2), but actually just because they decided in advance of starting that this time Shepard was "a Paragon" or "a Renegade" and chose the options that fit with that predecided strategy and would do so even in the absence of mechanical reward.

When a narrative choice isn't totally cosmetic, people incorporate the choosing of narrative into their game strategy. They're not responding to the narrative choice in a naturalistic "what I would do" sense but attempting to produce a desirable game state they chose in advance.

This is also one of the reasons some people are annoyed by the somewhat vaguer choices on the ME dialogue wheel or the times that Cole Phelps goes insane and accuses people of murder instead of asking them pertinent questions about the victim's glasses when you choose the "question" option in L.A. Noire. Because what looked like it should have been the route to their desired game state wasn't and was some other wildly unpredictable route instead.

It's probably worth reading about GNS engagement (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/) at this point as well, because a lot of people tend to have a dominant perspective and assume that games which aren't catering to their perspective are "bad", if a game doesn't have a "strong story" then it's bad because a strong story is a thing they assume games should have.

Which, of course, isn't true. Story is only one of the core engagements of games, a game can have no story at all and still be a great game. Crticising a game for its story when the game isn't trying to deliver on narrativist engagement (and no, games shouldn't necessarily attempt to balance GNS engagement) in the first place is like criticising a bicycle for being a terrible golf ball.

Dark Souls is the obvious example, people criticising it for having a "bad story" are mostly people who have a narrativist perspective, but Dark Souls isn't built to provide narrativist play, it's built with a firm eye on gamist and simulationist play and narrativists are largely left to make their own fun. Even the story is fundamentally gamist* (because most of the engagement with it is actually in the act of putting it together not following it as it happens)

Dark Souls is built to provide challange to gamists and deep mechanical systems for simulationists to explore (in both cases closure comes from actually beating the game or other players rather than finishing the story). Narrativists can get by (eg. people do "cosplay" runs using some boss or NPC or other's armour and weapon), but the game wasn't built with them in mind and even those are partly simulationist (because they require mechanical exploration).


* Gamist storytelling isn't actually confined to games, nor is grumpy criticism of it. The earliest and one of the most famous examples predates computer games (and almost electronic computers) entirely, the essay "Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd" was a lengthy grump about the whole concept of the mystery novel. Mystery novels (fair ones at least) are fundamentally gamist experiences, the reader isn't just engaged by following the story but by figuring out the mystery before the book gives it away at the end. Some people don't understand the attraction because they don't engage with that fundamental precept of the genre, just as some people go to games like Dark Souls looking for something that was never meant to be there and then complain when it isn't.

[factotum]

That's why I'm not a big fan of these simple either/or moral choices in RPGs. They do tend to lead to you gaming the system to get the biggest benefits (because being neutral doesn't offer any bonuses). They also lead to some ridiculous plot elements--for instance, Bioware are always very sure to tell us that Renegade doesn't mean "evil", then they have the Renegade option for one quest in Mass Effect 2 be "Yes, I'll take this sexual serial killer onto my crew for the lulz". Even when I did a Renegade playthrough I didn't do that, because I just couldn't imagine anyone other than a psychopath doing it!

[GungHo]

I prefer unambiguous plots with ambiguous metaplots and subtext that that reveal themselves in the final act. That being said, that subtext and metaplot has to actually make sense and have had some obvious tells in the balance. It's gotta be more Sixth Sense than Signs.

[Mx.Silver]

It's probably worth reading about GNS engagement (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/) at this point as well, because a lot of people tend to have a dominant perspective and assume that games which aren't catering to their perspective are "bad", if a game doesn't have a "strong story" then it's bad because a strong story is a thing they assume games should have.


I don't think I'd entirely agree. Not because the observation that you're making here is wrong (it isn't), but because trying to frame it that way clouds the issue.
I doubt anyone who's seen a non-academic conversation about videogames hasn't come to the conclusion that there's a definite tendency amongst people who play them to equate what works in one game to what should work in all games; that design decision that they personally enjoy are the correct decisions. This is at the core of most 'X isn't a videogame' non-conversations.

I simply do not think that GNS helps contextualise this. If anything, trying to force this phenomenon into what is at best an over-simplified way of categorising just serves to make the conversation more confused (even if it wasn't talking about a completely category of game altogether, which it is). This just drags things into the same mess of labels and compartmentalising things that is already a fairly persistent problem in these sort of conversations to begin with (see also: the 'X isn't a real game' non-discussion; 'which games are really RPGs'; using of the D&D alignment system to describe anything other than a D&D character etc.).


It's a bit of a nitpick, I'll grant but I think it's worth keeping in mind.
Especially since this thread already seems to have been running with the misconception that mechanical storytelling largely means the same thing as having a narrative that changes based on player interaction for the last two pages :smalltongue:




Sidenote about Dark Souls and it's fellow games:

Outside of this thread (although I have not really looked hard) the only thing I have seen about them that attracts players is "get gud". Meaning the difficulty, and the difficulty alone, is the selling point. The story is never mentioned.

I've seen it get some commendations about it's use of implicit or environmental storytelling (that is, the way it conveys and suggests information through environment and character design, placement of items). I've also heard praise about it's ability to evoke atmosphere.

I don't think anyone has much to say about it's story though. The general attitude seems to be more focussed on it feeling like you're piecing together an understanding of the game's world and its history through exploration (often through multiple playthroughs, as it has an extensive New Game+ system); not that what little narrative arc you see playing through until the end is at all compelling.

[GolemsVoice]

Actually there's an interesting thing about narrative choice in games.

Narrative choice tends to produce gamist responses. This is pretty clear in people's response to Mass Effect, where people tend to pick either Paragon or Renegade and stick with it throughout, optionally to game the system for the bonuses that attend to its extremes (free skill points in the first game or more persuasion options which tend to lead to higher gameplay rewards in ME2), but actually just because they decided in advance of starting that this time Shepard was "a Paragon" or "a Renegade" and chose the options that fit with that predecided strategy and would do so even in the absence of mechanical reward.

When a narrative choice isn't totally cosmetic, people incorporate the choosing of narrative into their game strategy. They're not responding to the narrative choice in a naturalistic "what I would do" sense but attempting to produce a desirable game state they chose in advance.

This is also one of the reasons some people are annoyed by the somewhat vaguer choices on the ME dialogue wheel or the times that Cole Phelps goes insane and accuses people of murder instead of asking them pertinent questions about the victim's glasses when you choose the "question" option in L.A. Noire. Because what looked like it should have been the route to their desired game state wasn't and was some other wildly unpredictable route instead.

It's probably worth reading about GNS engagement (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/) at this point as well, because a lot of people tend to have a dominant perspective and assume that games which aren't catering to their perspective are "bad", if a game doesn't have a "strong story" then it's bad because a strong story is a thing they assume games should have.

Which, of course, isn't true. Story is only one of the core engagements of games, a game can have no story at all and still be a great game. Crticising a game for its story when the game isn't trying to deliver on narrativist engagement (and no, games shouldn't necessarily attempt to balance GNS engagement) in the first place is like criticising a bicycle for being a terrible golf ball.

Dark Souls is the obvious example, people criticising it for having a "bad story" are mostly people who have a narrativist perspective, but Dark Souls isn't built to provide narrativist play, it's built with a firm eye on gamist and simulationist play and narrativists are largely left to make their own fun. Even the story is fundamentally gamist* (because most of the engagement with it is actually in the act of putting it together not following it as it happens)

Dark Souls is built to provide challange to gamists and deep mechanical systems for simulationists to explore (in both cases closure comes from actually beating the game or other players rather than finishing the story). Narrativists can get by (eg. people do "cosplay" runs using some boss or NPC or other's armour and weapon), but the game wasn't built with them in mind and even those are partly simulationist (because they require mechanical exploration).


* Gamist storytelling isn't actually confined to games, nor is grumpy criticism of it. The earliest and one of the most famous examples predates computer games (and almost electronic computers) entirely, the essay "Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd" was a lengthy grump about the whole concept of the mystery novel. Mystery novels (fair ones at least) are fundamentally gamist experiences, the reader isn't just engaged by following the story but by figuring out the mystery before the book gives it away at the end. Some people don't understand the attraction because they don't engage with that fundamental precept of the genre, just as some people go to games like Dark Souls looking for something that was never meant to be there and then complain when it isn't.

I'm not sure I agree 100% on your policework here. While it's obviously true that, when a narrative choice has ingame effects, people will at least evaluate these effects ("the evil response gives me 1000 gold, the good respons +1 to charisma"), I'd say that people getting upset about misleading options in L.A. Noire are upset that what they imagined for their character wasn't what actually happened, which is a very narrative approach. Because by choosing your type of character ("paragon vs. renegade") you're setting the story you want to experience. That is because in games which present story options, a certain branch of narrative IS a game state, but a game state totally seperate from abilities or weapons.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Huh. This is odd - I walk into a thread about whether an ambiguous plot is a positive or a negative, and now it's a debate about the "correct" definition of story. Strange.

Same thing happened to me last time I happened to pick up a murder mystery. At this point I just kind of expect it.

[warty goblin]

And no, not even the author has a priveleged position on what the "correct" reading of a story is. The whole point of deconstructionism as a field was to demonstrate that the tools (particularly close reading) of the previously orthodox New Critical position that there was a single "correct" meaning of any given text which could be carefully teased out as a route to the mind of the author* could equally be used to support any reading, and so there cannot be reasonably argued to be a single "correct" meaning.

Funny, I always figured the whole point of deconstructionalism was to allow people a certain subset of people who get paid to read books in air conditioned offices to never have to worry about being wrong about anything. Or at least that's how I choose to read it. :smallwink:


Personally I enjoy an ambiguous story so long as it actually bothers to be a story; that is something genuinely happens. I rather like not being told all the details at the end. Having some things left blank is often a lot of fun; it feels like a door left just barely ajar, a little light sneaking through the crack. But I've got little patience with absolutely nothing being made clear, and then the author's all "Well it's supposed to be ambiguous and for the audience to figure out." Listen Mr./Ms. Author Person, if I wanted to write a story, I wouldn't have bought your book, so stop acting like not finishing the book is some sort of accomplishment.


Mind, I don't think games usually do ambiguous very well. In part because games are so obviously built out of Boolean logic; which doesn't do ambiguity at all. In part because games tend to be very much focused on action; it's all about what I Choose To Do, and Boolean actions aren't particularly ambiguous either. There's a certain level of non-specificity about why you do something that a game generally needs in order to not be too jarring to the player (aka avoid the whole "You pressed X because you are this kind of person" even though I pressed X for an entirely different reason), but I think that's less ambiguity, and more the game not having enough information to be usefully specific. Plus games tend to not be very well written, and I'm inclined to think simply aren't enormously well suited to storytelling in the first place. They can do it; humans can swim, but whales swim better.

[ekestrel]

Ambiguous Storytelling - Yay/nay?

My answer: Maybe. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity)

[Zrak]

Funny, I always figured the whole point of deconstructionalism was to allow people a certain subset of people who get paid to read books in air conditioned offices to never have to worry about being wrong about anything. Or at least that's how I choose to read it. :smallwink:

Wait, what job pays people to read books in air-conditioned offices? I'd assume you were talking about lit professors, but obviously that can't be right, because it's a well-known fact that no English or comp lit department in history has ever paid to air condition a room, let alone multiple offices. Is deconstruction bigger than I thought in computer science and engineering departments? :smallwink:

[Knaight]

Wait, what job pays people to read books in air-conditioned offices? I'd assume you were talking about lit professors, but obviously that can't be right, because it's a well-known fact that no English or comp lit department in history has ever paid to air condition a room, let alone multiple offices. Is deconstruction bigger than I thought in computer science and engineering departments? :smallwink:

I think you're overestimating engineering building qualities. We're not doing so hot on air conditioning either.