As promised earlier, I'd like to take a moment to explain my position in the narratology vs. ludology argument, a debate which has raged to the point where even the game studies critics involved seem to be growing tired of it. If you're unfamiliar with the debate, allow me to quickly summarize: it boils down to the question, "Should games be studied as narrative texts or as games (challenges, simulations, etc.)?" My answer to this question, and thus my position in the argument, is, "How can you possibly do one without the other?"
My viewpoint boils down to the distinction of video games as, and I cannot stress this enough, a medium for narrative. I mean this in the same way that books or films are also mediums. While it is entirely possible to study the medium for itself - the tools it has to offer, the way in which it may accomplish certain effects of tone or voice, etc. - a true, and truly complete, study of the medium must include individual examples of that medium, and these examples will always include the narrative - for how can you describe what takes place in a narrative game without at least outlining the narrative?
The reverse is similar; although you can technically relate just the contents of a "story," it is nearly impossible to truly study a narrative without studying the medium in which it is present. You may talk about the "what" of a story, but the "how" will be mired in stylistic details unique to the medium. When the medium is video games, this includes all elements of gaming - difficulty level, graphics, gameplay, physics, cutscene types - everything. Therefore, in order for games to be studied as narrative texts, they must also be studied as games. The two are inseperable aspects of the same artifact.
This distinction between the story and the medium in which it is told is recognized in literary narrative theory as "story" and "discourse." Thus, the following book from my reading list:
Chatman, Seymour. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1978.
Chatman's book turns specifically on the differences between story and discourse. It outlines which elements of a work of literature belong to which category, and how both influence and craft the work. For my purposes, I was mostly concerned with supporting the idea of differentiating between the story and medium for video games, and therefore with how Chatman portrays the differences between his "story" and "discourse." Here are some of the quotes I found to be relevant:
"Following such French structuralists as Roland Barthes, Tzvetan Todorov, and Gerard Genette, I posit a what and a way. The what of narrative I call its "story"; the way I all its "discourse." (9)
"Taking poetics as a rationalist discipline, we may ask, as does the linguist about language: What are the necessary components--and only those--of a narrative? Structuralist theory argues that each narrative has two parts: a story (historie), the content or chain of events (actions, happenings), plus what may be called the existents (characters, items of setting); and a discourse (discours), that is, the expression, the means by which the content is communicated. In simple terms, the story is the what in a narrative that is depicted, discourse the how." (19)
"What in narrative is the province of expression? Precisely the narrative discourse. Story is the content of the narrative expression, while discourse is the form of that expression. We must distinguish between the discourse and its material manifestation--in words, drawings, or whatever. The latter is clearly the substance of narrative expression, even where the manifestation is independently a semiotic code." (23-24)
"So far we have considered gaps common to all narratives regardless of medium. But there is also a class of indeterminacies--phenomenologists call them Unbestimmtheiten--that arise from the peculiar nature of the medium. The medium may specialize in certain narrative effects and not others. For instance, the cinema can easily--and does routinely--present characters without expressing the contents of their minds. it is usually necessary to infer their thinking from what they overtly say and do. Verbal narrative, on the other hand, finds such a restriction difficult--even Ernest Hemmingway, at such pains to avoid directly stating his characters' thoughts and perceptions, sometimes "slips." Conversely, verbal narrative may elect not to present some visual aspect, say, a character's clothes. It remains totally unbestimmt about them, or describes them in a general way: "He was dressed in street clothes." The cinema, however, cannot avoid a rather precise representation of visual detail. It cannot "say," simply, "A man came into the room." He must be dressed in a certain way. In other words clothing, unbestimmt in verbal narrative, must be bestimmt in a film." (30)
(Chatman also has several points to make on the subject of reader construction of narrative, but I feel that these points are made more clearly and at more length by Rabinowitz, so I will not include the relevant quotes from Chatman here.)
So what does this duality between story and medium mean for video games? Well, quite a lot actually. As a unique medium, video games become a rich ground for academic analysis. The medium of games has storytelling tools we've only barely begun to think about - and the implications of which can be staggering. (Player/character empathy, in particular, is quite the can of worms, not to mention dynamic storylines.) Being around at the current state of Game Studies is very much what I imagine being around for the beginning of film to have been like. The potential for the great films of the future can be seen even in the most rudimentary early examples of the medium.
And I do think that this duality also implies that such great works are possible in the medium of video games as well. By coming to understand these tools and harnessing them, game designers can create games of true artistic and academic merit. Already we are beginning to see glimpses of genius in the way these tools are used - the manipulation of player emotion in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, or the complex interlayering of distinct and yet unified characters in Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem, or the subtle horror and paranoia of the Silent Hill games. There is more to games than entertainment - entertainment is merely the first and most logical expression of a new medium. But, as it has with other mediums, I am confident that art will soon follow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I didn't see it explicitly phrased, but this seems like a great place to suggest my own humble theory for games and narrative -- that the discourse you describe is something the player enters into with the game itself. So, the interactivity -- the ludic elements of a game -- describes a possibility space, a grammar, with some extra signifiers supplied by the static elements of the game (pictures, 3D models, sound effects).
ReplyDeleteThe player "speaks" with the game, receives feedback in the form of these signifiers, and so the cycle goes: the player having a discussion with the systems and signs of the game, constructing meaning through this interaction. The key being that the meaning is built by the player, in the player's brain, just as the reader is ultimately the assembler of meaning in written texts.
The special position of games comes from the diversity of "texts"--"play sessions"--that a game can produce. To me, viewing the "text" of a game as a specific play session is a really valuable tool for narrative analysis. Whereas everyone reading a book reads the same text, no two play sessions are alike.
So, these are some disjointed thoughts, but they're how I think I feel about it.
Yes, yes, I agree! That's what I was trying to get at - the ludic elements make up the discourse of the game, the "conversation" with the audience, in the same way that the text makes up the discourse for a written work. The difference with games is that it can take the audience feedback and respond to it, continuing the conversation with the user, instead of just ending the conversation at the level of interpretation.
ReplyDelete