@Lulu_Lulu said:
Passive mediums will always do storytelling better because telling a story is a passive experience, it requires one person to talk and the other to shut up and listen, it doesn't require any input from them. The teller is trying to convey his specific series of events, and the more specific they are, the less input is required from the audience. Games are more than welcome try to do this as well but it would at the cost of interactivity. This is where the push for altering the definition of what a game is comes from, Games are suppose to do Narrative in their own way, not by mimicking other mediums simply because that's what we've grown use to.
Boy, I could not disagree with this more. I could've agreed with the above, all up until TLoU hit and showed me that gameplay can not only be incorporated as a benefit to a narrative, it can be essential to it. TLoU moved me, and I've never really been able to articulate as to why until just recently. Admittedly, it's not at all original. In fact it's pretty standard stuff, but the execution is nailed. Every other narrative-focused game I played prior was always very distinct in its separation of gameplay and story. Always a large disconnect and disparity between them. TLoU changed this.
The true brilliance of Naughty Dog's work is that they were able to provide a feeling of continuity between actively participating and passively experiencing, because nearly every mechanic (as well as its presentation) gave conveyance of what the story was telling. The melee engine, for instance, truly felt like a struggle for life and death....it hit hard. The guns had weight and power, each shot was relevant, and firing a round almost held a sense of significant loss. Scavenging for supplies delivered and reinforced first hand the state of desolation and desperation that pervaded throughout. Gameplay enforced the narrative at every turn. Even tiny things such as the little conversations the player has with other characters, going on while one is doing such simple things as walking from point A to B, helps create that relation far more effectively than any passive experience can ever hope to. Seemingly insignificant things (such as giving Ellie a high-five after a team effort or various optional conversations) to major plot points (carrying an unconscious Ellie out of the hospital while being chased) aids that relation. In Left behind, this is even more exemplified. The costume store, photo booth, brick throwing contest, arcade game, water gun fight. None of those would be nearly so impactful in my caring towards those characters had I simply watched.
The story was so much better due to active participation, that it got to the point that an otherwise generic, forgettable, predictable zombie plot had more of an effect on me than many of the best movies I've seen have. That's all due to me being a part of it, not just watching.
As for what defines a game.....you seem to be saying it's the degree of interactivity that should be the determinant here. That's a slippery slope. In that case, where do you draw the line? Mario? Assassin's Creed? Beyond Two Souls? When does something stop being a game to you? In my view, it's not the amount of interactivity that is at issue, it's the manner and context in which it's implemented. But if it's interactive in any sense, it's a game.
Anyway......it's entirely possible for a teller of a story to convey a series of specific events while at the same time affording a degree of agency to the audience. TLoU is proof this is possible. A story can be a more engaging experience in the interactive medium than a passive one can, it's simply a matter of getting the execution correct and maintaining a sense of parity between what mechanics there are and how they reflect to the player what they see when they are placed in a passive state.
Log in to comment