How To Argue on a Subject You Know Nothing About
Did you know that, in academic circles, there are two points of view on how to study video games? No? Syntheticist doubts many gamers do. In a very condensed version, here are the two warring camps.
Narratology
Narratology is the study of video games as "cyberdrama"; that all games have an inherent narrative element that cannot be separated. The classic text on narratology is "Hamlet on the Holodeck" by Janet Murray. Star Trek's holodeck is an example of a cyberdrama, the "player" takes part in a story.
Jane Douglas, who wrote "The End of Books - Or Books Without End?: Reading Interactive Narratives", which primarily studied interactive fiction, describes a section of "cybergaming geeks" (boys who play games) that are too obsessed with their "joysticks".
Many narratologists have a media studies background.
Narratology is the study of video games as "cyberdrama"; that all games have an inherent narrative element that cannot be separated. The classic text on narratology is "Hamlet on the Holodeck" by Janet Murray. Star Trek's holodeck is an example of a cyberdrama, the "player" takes part in a story.
Jane Douglas, who wrote "The End of Books - Or Books Without End?: Reading Interactive Narratives", which primarily studied interactive fiction, describes a section of "cybergaming geeks" (boys who play games) that are too obsessed with their "joysticks".
Many narratologists have a media studies background.
Ludology
Ludology is the study of video games which places great importance on the rules of the game. A video game is a modern way of playing a traditional game, and the interface and ruleset are very important. The narrative that comes with a game is a sideline to this. This does not exclude narrative as an important part of games, but just that games themselves cannot be meaningfully analysed without looking at the way a game plays.
Jesper Juul is oft-cited as an influential ludologist, and writer of "Half-Real", a book which attempts to create a framework for video game studies. Syntheticist is currently reading this book, and heartily recommends it for those interested in video game criticism above and beyond that of mere reviews.
Quite aside from the insulting stance of Douglas (which one would hope is not typical of all narratologists), this argument, from an external viewpoint, is utterly absurd. How many narratologists have actually taken the time to ask a video game player what they think? Surely 99% of gamers today understand that a video game relies on its gameplay, or in some cases, it's story. But games absolutely cannot be "reviewed" without looking at the gameplay. Or the social interactions it enables. Or the feelings they invoke.
Can one truly analyse genre-defining games such as Doom, Civilization, or Super Mario Bros. from a narrativist perspective? Absolutely not. It's nonsense. These games are fundamentally reliant on their rulesets and interfaces. To study Mario 64 without analysing its control scheme will miss everything that is wonderful about the game. It seems that by virtue of having a PhD, this is a qualification to study things that obviously you know nothing about. This is rather akin to Syntheticist releasing conference papers about "insular spotty bookworms" who read mountains of books, without ever actually reading any of the great novels that our culture has created.
Fortunately, this debate hasn't spilled out into the wider gaming society, but it is tying up conferences and research time that could be much better spent actually understanding where video games fit into our culture and how we can use that knowledge to create better gaming experiences.
Ludology is the study of video games which places great importance on the rules of the game. A video game is a modern way of playing a traditional game, and the interface and ruleset are very important. The narrative that comes with a game is a sideline to this. This does not exclude narrative as an important part of games, but just that games themselves cannot be meaningfully analysed without looking at the way a game plays.
Jesper Juul is oft-cited as an influential ludologist, and writer of "Half-Real", a book which attempts to create a framework for video game studies. Syntheticist is currently reading this book, and heartily recommends it for those interested in video game criticism above and beyond that of mere reviews.
Quite aside from the insulting stance of Douglas (which one would hope is not typical of all narratologists), this argument, from an external viewpoint, is utterly absurd. How many narratologists have actually taken the time to ask a video game player what they think? Surely 99% of gamers today understand that a video game relies on its gameplay, or in some cases, it's story. But games absolutely cannot be "reviewed" without looking at the gameplay. Or the social interactions it enables. Or the feelings they invoke.
Can one truly analyse genre-defining games such as Doom, Civilization, or Super Mario Bros. from a narrativist perspective? Absolutely not. It's nonsense. These games are fundamentally reliant on their rulesets and interfaces. To study Mario 64 without analysing its control scheme will miss everything that is wonderful about the game. It seems that by virtue of having a PhD, this is a qualification to study things that obviously you know nothing about. This is rather akin to Syntheticist releasing conference papers about "insular spotty bookworms" who read mountains of books, without ever actually reading any of the great novels that our culture has created.
Fortunately, this debate hasn't spilled out into the wider gaming society, but it is tying up conferences and research time that could be much better spent actually understanding where video games fit into our culture and how we can use that knowledge to create better gaming experiences.
Comments
Completely ignoring how many years of mythology, folklore and religion?
A video games interactivity is absolutely fundamental to its core being. To then ignore that in order to use out-dated frameworks to describe them is something that I cannot fathom.
I don't disagree that "Humans don't have a tendency to interpret the linear experience of systemic events in a narrative fashion", but by applying them we ignore ideas such as interface, immersion, challenge and everything else we find wonderful about video games over other mediums.
I think games, beyond the arcade, with poorly fleshed out narratives are very difficult to move through to completion, the impetus to continue gets lost.
But, as I said, games are games, and need to be seen as such.
In fact, I think that our definitions of storytelling must be evolved to incorporate video games. The existing definitions seem to be used to deny ludic elements, which is a mistake.
And I'd argue that video games need to rely more on player-based fabula (in essence, the emotional experience of participation with a narrative) in order to fully maximize their storytelling potential.
I also agree with your feelings of player narrative, the feeling of being a director rather than a puppeteer is certainly far superior.
In brief, the use of an element called 'story' within the model was throwing a lot of people for a loop. I was hoping to forge a radical shift in perspective, but it looks like I need to be sneakier about it. So, I'm going back to the source term of that element's definition, fabula, which is borrowed from the Russian folklorists by way of Umberto Eco. Regardless, the white paper can be downloaded from the sidebar of my blog.
I'll wrap this up, but I'm writing a post about Pokemon today which encapsulates some of my feelings on game-as-story and story-as-game. I ought to have it up by mid afternoon if all goes well.