Are video games narrative devices or any good as narrative devices?

[Anonymous1038853]

Since it is still a debatable issue on the Internet, do you consider Visual Novels games (technically, they are, but some don't agree)? If you do, I believe they handle the part I quoted in your post quite well due to nature of the genre.

There is a profound difference between a game and a visual novel. For something to constitute a game, it must ask something of the player in terms of strategy or skill (often both). There has to be some kind of struggle to be overcome, in some form or another. In the absence of these qualities, by contextual definition, something cannot be rightly classified as a game.

There are plenty of interactive mediums, and many of them are very good. One notable example is linked below, by Jester Joe: The Stanley Parable - It's extremely well-made. But there is a strange controversy over semantics in this respect, and while I'm intimately familiar with the debate, I still find it extremely vapid. While they are not mutually exclusive, the core concepts meant to be conveyed by either term are fundamentally distinct. The conflation of "game" and "visual novel" seems to be largely political, as though the former title has more status or merit. But this is silly. The quality of an artistic work shouldn't be determined by its style or medium alone.

Ultimately, people need to be intellectually honest about nuanced distinctions. Otherwise, why bother classifying anything at all? We could just call everything "squanch" and be done with it. Obviously, I have no issue with people calling an interactive story a "video game" in the causal sense, just to convey a basic meaning. But falsely conflating the concepts in all respects is just silly.

[Jester Joe]

You ask if video games can narrate a story?

I respond with this-

"This is a story of a man named Stanley..."


But seriously, yes, aside from the simplistic games that purposely forgo having a plot. I'm not sure what the huge difference would be considered between a book and a game with a linear plot. It's not like you affect the book's plot.

[Qualia]

There is a profound difference between a game and a visual novel. For something to constitute a game, it must ask something of the player in terms of strategy or skill (often both). There has to be some kind of struggle to be overcome, in some form or another. In the absence of these qualities, by contextual definition, something cannot be rightly classified as a game.

There are plenty of interactive mediums, and many of them are very good. But there is a strange controversy over semantics in this respect, and while I'm intimately familiar with the debate, I still find it extremely vapid. While they are not mutually exclusive, the core concepts are fundamentally distinct. The conflation of "game" and "visual novel" seems to be largely political, as though the former title has more status or merit. Ultimately, people need to be intellectually honest about nuanced distinctions. Otherwise, why bother classifying anything at all?

Plenty of visual novels have those qualities (quoted in bold), though. You probably already knew, but to explain for people who aren't familiar with the term - just because they are named "Visual Novels" doesn't mean they are simply novels with extra visual effects. Obviously, they are consist of mainly "novel" part. However, there might usually be RPG, RTS, puzzle solving or fighting parts in them, which require "strategy or skill (often both)". In fact, they are usually released under "Games" category and categorized as such.

Still, it's true that the issue of "Can we call VNs games" has been debated to hell and back since VNs became more popular with Western players and it doesn't seem like we can get everyone to agree on it anytime soon. Personally, I don't really care much about it, but seeing the OP was bringing up the topic of games as narrative devices, I think it's worth to bring VNs up (I did ask if OP consider them games just in case).

[Anonymous1038853]

However, there might usually be RPG, RTS, puzzle solving or fighting parts in them, which require "strategy or skill (often both)". In fact, they are usually released under "Games" category and categorized as such.

This still completely ignores the crux of my point. The Stanley Parable, for example, wouldn't be accurately categorized under the same nuanced medium, as say Skyrim. Not solely for the sake of genre, but because of the specific mechanics of each "game's" respective design. I would rebut this counterpoint by arguing that if it walks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, is called a duck, it's probably not a chicken. But that's my point about the "debate" being centered almost exclusively around semantics.

[Theodarzna]

Plenty of visual novels have those qualities (quoted in bold), though. You probably already knew, but to explain for people who aren't familiar with the term - just because they are named "Visual Novels" doesn't mean they are simply novels with extra visual effects. Obviously, they are consist of mainly "novel" part. However, there might usually be RPG, RTS, puzzle solving or fighting parts in them, which require "strategy or skill (often both)". In fact, they are usually released under "Games" category and categorized as such.

Still, it's true that the issue of "Can we call VNs games" has been debated to hell and back since VNs became more popular with Western players and it doesn't seem like we can get everyone to agree on it anytime soon. Personally, I don't really care much about it, but seeing the OP was bringing up the topic of games as narrative devices, I think it's worth to bring VNs up (I did ask if OP consider them games just in case).

Perhaps games are more of continuum with a gradually increasing amounts of interactivity in which the the "thing," I.E. the game or game world will be morphic or alterable by the person interacting with it.

So a movie is 0% a Video game, Minecraft is nearly 100% a game. The emphasis being on the Game aspect and less the video. The very word Video Game representing the continuum with Video and thus zero interactivity on one side and Game and thus maximum interactivity on the other.

Visual Novels I think are a kind of video game. They are visual and to an extent have a interactivity? Admittedly I am unfamiliar with Visual Novels. If I understand Sakura Spirit on Steam is a kind of Visual Novel? Or someone described it as such.

- - - Updated - - -

This still completely ignores the crux of my point. The Stanley Parable, for example, wouldn't be accurately categorized under the same nuanced medium, as say Skyrim. Not solely for the sake of genre, but because of the specific mechanics of each "game's" respective design. I would rebut this counterpoint by arguing that if it walks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, is called a duck, it's probably not a chicken. But that's my point about the "debate" being centered almost exclusively around semantics.

I suppose my definition of a Game is something with a degree of interactivity,

Plausibly with a fail condition and for which you can interact with.

If a Video is purely a system of symbols, a Video game allows you to alter, change the order of, and ignore the symbols at your whim. Were as a pure video, you either watch it or don't.

[Oozlz]

Portal 2 is probably the best sci-fi movie ive ever played.

[Anonymous1038853]

I suppose my definition of a Game is something with a degree of interactivity,

As I keep saying, the semantics are convoluted. But here's my question, would you classify something like this, to be a game? Perhaps more importantly, would it be roughly analogous, to something like this? This is where I differentiate. Obviously the nuances I'm showing you - irrespective of whatever terms one uses to describe them - are not mutually exclusive, but the ideas themselves, the underlying concepts, are entirely distinct. They should not be conflated, even if words sometimes fail to convey proper meaning.

[Theodarzna]

As I keep saying, the semantics are convoluted. But here's my question, would you classify something like this, to be a game? Perhaps more importantly, would it be roughly analogous, to something like this? This is where I differentiate. Obviously the nuances I'm showing you - irrespective of whatever terms one uses to describe them - are not mutually exclusive, but the ideas themselves, the underlying concepts, are entirely distinct. They should not be conflated, even if words sometimes fail to convey proper meaning.

That is the most interesting thing I've probably seen all week. The second one I would call an actual game, the first perhaps is a visual representation.

[Anonymous1038853]

That is the most interesting thing I've probably seen all week. The second one I would call an actual game, the first perhaps is a visual representation.

It's something I've thought deeply about for awhile now. It's discussed extensively in the horror genre, as well. Because there are times where certain gameplay elements can directly impede on the quality of a final work. I maintain the stance that some gameplay is ideal, however, as I believe if properly designed, it can actually draw the player into the setting instead of breaking a sense of immersion. It creates a sort of cognitive investment, and makes the game itself more plausible (Stockholm Syndrome of a sort). I'm not entirely sure if that's true, but I've found it to be so on my part, anecdotally. But yes, the terminology is still very simplistic. Likely because the medium is still so young.

[Theodarzna]

It's something I've thought deeply about for awhile now. It's discussed extensively in the horror genre, as well. Because there are times where certain gameplay elements can directly impede on the quality of a final work. I maintain the stance that some gameplay is ideal, however, as I believe if properly designed, it can actually draw the player into the setting instead of breaking a sense of immersion. It creates a sort of cognitive investment, and makes the game itself more plausible. But yes, the terminology is still very simplistic. Likely because the medium is still comparatively young.

I think its both a function of newness, but also uniqueness.

Art criticism and literary analysis and criticism are as old as dirt. Or at least as old as stories and written works and more recently movies. But movies are not too different from stories in that they are simply audio-visual books at its core. Video games represent something very new and very alien.

Using the system of symbols idea, games are unique because the set of symbols one sees varies from person to person in a very material way. The mechanics of interaction are on some level paramount to the actual narration. We haven't had to grapple with this sort of medium before and there is nothing like it. Video Games to me are more akin to regular games in that respect. I.E. Shoots and Ladders and Baseball have more in common with Super Mario Land than say it does with Night of the Living Dead. Both from an Arts criticism standpoint and a what the interactor does with the medium.

The level of personal cognitive involvement is very very high compared to other mediums, and its fundamental alien to other mediums even if it has many similarities to other mediums. I would argue its even a mistake to compare it to books, movies and music in that respect.

*Italics for word I invented.

[Anonymous1038853]

I would argue its even a mistake to compare it to books, movies and music in that respect.

I don't think it's a mistake, intrinsically. Comparing two things doesn't imply they are analogous. Quite the contrary, really. I mean, books and film are comparable, but there are still a great many differences between them. Often times, the full scope of these differences don't become evident until directly working with them, or finding works that already emphasize their relative strengths or weaknesses. I actually think a great deal can be learned by comparing and contrasting across mediums.

[Theodarzna]

I don't think it's a mistake, intrinsically. Comparing two things doesn't imply they are analogous. Quite the contrary, really. I mean, books and film are comparable, but there are still a great many differences between them. Often times, the full scope of these differences don't become evident until directly working with them, or finding works that already emphasize their relative strengths or weaknesses. I actually think a great deal can be learned by comparing and contrasting across mediums.

I think this is true, but to a lay person the constant comparison does cause people to form an incorrect mental association. I think it was a forbes article I heard about that got me on this mental track. Essentially some are comparing Video Games to Scripture, Mythology, and Fairy Tales, arguing in the "system of symbols," methodology that effectively games are the chief or will be the chief narrative tool by which people form their identity, community and sense of self. I, maybe I am biased, but I just don't see games in such a light or as necessarily that important or maybe its that I don't think they by their natural function do this.

[Anonymous1038853]

Essentially some are comparing Video Games to Scripture, Mythology, and Fairy Tales, arguing in the "system of symbols," methodology that effectively games are the chief or will be the chief narrative tool by which people form their identity, community and sense of self.

Yeah, there is a great deal of... Pseudo-political nonsense, for lack of a better term. Video games are ultimately just like any other medium, in that realm. They will not make any other obsolete, because almost all mediums have their own respective merits and faults. No medium is strictly better than others, they're all just different. But I think this phenomena - People putting games on an ideological pedestal - can also be attributed to the medium's youth. Look at how people claimed rock and roll music would lead to murders and whatnot. It's all such nonsense.

[Theodarzna]

Yeah, there is a great deal of... Pseudo-political nonsense, for lack of a better term. Video games are ultimately just like any other medium, in that realm. They will not make any other obsolete, because almost all mediums have their own respective merits and faults. No medium is strictly better than others, they're all just different. But I think this phenomena - People putting games on an ideological pedestal - can also be attributed to the medium's youth. Look at how people claimed rock and roll music would lead to murders and whatnot. It's all such nonsense.

To me it strikes at a core difficulty in understanding games from a literary perspective I suppose. To me Video Games have a degree of alterity that makes them wholly alien to the other mediums. Sort of like a Squid is biological and alive, but so different from a tree that only the most superficial of glances make them alike.

Alterity of video games makes them really difficult to describe or understand in the same way as books or movies. I totally agree the youth of the medium is one core aspect to it. To a degree though I think, maybe, games are a type of art, but the artform is fundamentally alien to others making it unlike the other mediums of conveying artistic creation.

Also you have pointed out to me something I never thought too deeply on. Horror games actually occupy odd territory. They are very much like a horror movie, except one were YOU are the character in the film and you have no script. As a matter of fact, Horror games may be the closest to a simulated horror movie ever as a means of form. Your not watching Nightmare on Elm Street, your not plopped into that scenario in a psuedo-IRL "what would you do?" challenge. Horror games are almost the offspring of all those discussions people have about how they would handle a real life horror movie scenario.

Or "Walking Dead," which conveys a story, but the story is effectively different each time depending on the choices you make. Or "Until Dawn," which recently came out.

[Anonymous1038853]

Also you have pointed out to me something I never thought too deeply on. Horror games actually occupy odd territory.

Oh, I love it. If there's anything I can ramble at length about, it's the horror genre in gaming. In-fact, as someone who (non-professionally) works with the horror genre, it's such an interesting thing to bring up when others discuss gaming in the abstract. For example, there's a body of social justice that wants to claim that certain tropes are directly psychologically damaging (eg: Anita Sarkeesian). But you'll note that these people never look at the horror genre. Neither do their dissenters, interestingly.

You'd think they would, since the genre typically embraces and openly glorifies the violent and morally depraved. That's half the point really. But there's no evidence that playing a game like Outlast or Amnesia does anything but scare your pants off. Furthermore, the joy these sorts of games can bring people really shuts down any compromise on free creation that people might otherwise be inclined to take. Because sure, you could argue aspects of necessity. Does a story require such a such heinous act to progress? In horror, the answer to that question almost always yes. That's almost the entire point of the genre: To elicit almost entirely negative emotions.

If even the most visceral and uniformly negative games have no notable impact, then why is there so much controversy with respect to the comparatively benign? That in itself becomes the interesting question, rather than the superstition of "cultural brainwashing" from games as a whole. I mean, would anyone want to see works like Bram Stoker's Dracula banned? Maybe some. But then you have to ask why that is.

[Theodarzna]

Oh, I love it. If there's anything I can ramble at length about, it's the horror genre in gaming. In-fact, as someone who (non-professionally) works with the horror genre, it's such an interesting thing to bring up when others discuss gaming in the abstract. For example, there's a body of social justice that wants to claim that certain tropes are directly psychologically damaging (eg: Anita Sarkeesian). But you'll note that these people never look at the horror genre. Neither do their dissenters, interestingly.

You'd think they would, since the genre typically embraces and openly glorifies the violent and morally depraved. That's half the point really. But there's no evidence that playing a game like Outlast or Amnesia does anything but scare your pants off. Furthermore, the joy these sorts of games can bring people really shuts down any compromise on free creation that people might otherwise be inclined to take. Because sure, you could argue aspects of necessity. Does a story require such a such heinous act to progress? In horror, the answer to that question almost always yes. That's almost the entire point of the genre: To elicit almost entirely negative emotions.

If even the most visceral and uniformly negative games have no notable impact, then why is there so much controversy with respect to the comparatively benign? That in itself becomes the interesting question, rather than the superstition of "cultural brainwashing" from games as a whole. Would anyone want to see works like Bram Stoker's Dracula banned? Maybe some. But you have to ask why that is.

I do not create Horror video games, I do tend towards horror themes and mystery when I DM games of Dungeons and Dragons and from a mechanics and gameplay position I understand (I THINK) the basics of a horror game, both at table top and theoretically I have some grasp of it as a video game. Though I could never code to save my life.

I think its a function again of most games occupying a weird space of alterity. Horror, much like the Mongols in history, are the exception. They essentially form a bridge between the elements of film, story, and gameplay mechanic. As a matter of amateur artistic critique and analysis I would even say Horror Games are the veritable Ultimate Lifeform, or even the Jesus Christ of it, it is the "fulfillment of the law," so to speak in Horror since its basically all the things of a horror movie but better and as technology improves horror games natural gifts for instilling fear makes them ever better at it.

Horror I think is ignored by the people involved in a certain unmentionable shitstorm mostly because Horror is itself a really unique thing in gaming since it straddles the boundaries between a Game, a Movie, and a Book. IMHO Most video games are mostly Games, with Video. Horror Games are Intrinsically both and neither.

[breadisfunny]

it depends on the setting the game is in and what kind of a game it is and how it is designed.

[Cosmic Janitor]

Why is this even a question?
Looking at games like the Witcher 3 clearly says yes. Just because some examples of the medium are nothing but busy work does not mean everything in the medium is. The same is true for books, film, etc. You can have non-stories in these media as well.

[Deleted]

Well Video Games might be a good way to tell storys but they are too at risk of creating hideous abominations like the draeneis.

[greeeed]

There is a profound difference between a game and a visual novel. For something to constitute a game, it must ask something of the player in terms of strategy or skill (often both). There has to be some kind of struggle to be overcome, in some form or another. In the absence of these qualities, by contextual definition, something cannot be rightly classified as a game.

There are plenty of interactive mediums, and many of them are very good. One notable example is linked below, by Jester Joe: The Stanley Parable - It's extremely well-made. But there is a strange controversy over semantics in this respect, and while I'm intimately familiar with the debate, I still find it extremely vapid. While they are not mutually exclusive, the core concepts meant to be conveyed by either term are fundamentally distinct. The conflation of "game" and "visual novel" seems to be largely political, as though the former title has more status or merit. But this is silly. The quality of an artistic work shouldn't be determined by its style or medium alone.

Ultimately, people need to be intellectually honest about nuanced distinctions. Otherwise, why bother classifying anything at all? We could just call everything "squanch" and be done with it. Obviously, I have no issue with people calling an interactive story a "video game" in the causal sense, just to convey a basic meaning. But falsely conflating the concepts in all respects is just silly.

Technically, persona 3 PSP version is visual novel with dungeon mode.
Same with Danganronpa and Corpse Party.

Even BlazBlue count was consider as VN in Japan