Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Snarky
"Emergent story" is a term I introduced in a post a while back. I'm quite chuffed that Ken Levine has picked it up and uses it several times in the interview.  |
"Emergent story" and "emergent [any other gaming term]" have been extremely buzzy buzzwords in the games industry for a while now, sorry to say.
I don't know where I stand on the "gamers tell the story" thing. People really really like to say that gamers tell their own story in a game - it was mentioned in a very large percentage of the panels and sessions I attended at this year's GDC - but I really don't know if it's true. Or, if it is true, I don't know if gamers really see it that way. "Whoa I totally took my motorcycle off a jump and the cop landed in the water" is an awesome thing to recount to your friend (especially if s/he too plays the game and knows what you're talking about), but I think gamers equate that with "cool thing I did" more than "a story."
People at my old job who played Metal Gear Solid 3 recounted to each other the insanity of the game's predetermined plot as they worked through it - it occupied a decent part of the daily conversation during the days after the game first came out. Not once did I hear either of them recounting a time they took out a guard. One time when I asked how the gameplay worked they said that it was cool that you snuck around and stuff, but they were far more interested in the fact that you could kill off a character who appeared in one of the earlier games (which are set farther in the future from MGS3) and create a time paradox by breaking continuity, or how the history and actions of the character they were playing related to the Snake fellow you play in MGS1 and 2. And these guys were pretty casual gamers (who happened to enjoy the MGS series).
So that is a very wishy washy way of saying that I am dubious of people saying that emergent storytelling (at least in a large scale sense) is the future of interactive storytelling. I don't know if gamers really want that.
It makes me wonder how many people who say that have really ever played a good interactive story that's "on rails," because to me there is a huge very tangible difference between playing an interactive story with a set plot and watching a film with a set plot. I know I go back to this time and again, but Grim Fandango, as it's assembled in its PC game form, would adapt really poorly to film, in my opinion. That game has a tangible emotional impact on many people who play it because, I think, they feel like they've taken this huge journey along with the characters, helping them along every step of the way. As a film, you'd merely be watching what was happening with no involvement, and therefore, probably a lot less emotional attachment.
Erm what I'm trying to say is that things like Grim Fandango, due to being interactive even if their story is on rails, manage to tell a story in a different way than you can in a linear medium - it has different impacts on the player than it would if they were merely a viewer. There is something to be said for that, and I'm sure people adknowledge that, even the ones who say "the gamer tells the story," but it's one of those things that to me seems like one of those facts that I take for granted but maybe I'm not so sure that everyone does, when talking about storytelling in games. Like, maybe it was taken for granted for so long that it's been forgotten about.
It's a very simple, possibly stupid example, but I don't think people consider it (or at least don't give that matter enough weight) when they say that the only good interactive story is an emergent one.
