Thanks Rob. I don't really subscribe to his stance, but his ideas are totally valuable and Dyad is wicked awesome.

I don't think it's any secret around here that I do, heh. Linear-narrative games are inherently self-limiting, and his Mass Effect observations are absolutely correct. Your decisions are ultimately meaningless in the crafted story arc because its all been predetermined. But because BioWare wants to give you the illusion of choice, you can decide whether characters live or die ... but because that is a decision you can make, it robs those characters' deaths of any true meaning to the overarching narrative.

In other words, Aeris' death has meaning because you can't choose to save her. But Aeris' death is also an example of limiting interactivity, which is where the medium of video games really shine.

I look forward to the day when the linear-narrative chokehold loses its grip on game developers. That's when we'll really see what games can do that other mediums cannot become the norm.

Mention Dark Souls and Rob's spidey sense tingles :D

Haha!

I don't think he's glossing over that at all. Instead, he's talking about emergent storytelling versus linear storytelling.

In the former, game design becomes one of building interactive systems that create the possibility of events happening based on the player's input. In the latter, the game designer scripts sequences for the player to experience. Interactivity is inherently limited.

I definitely want to see more of the former as it better illustrates gaming's narrative strengths. The latter is just games aping other mediums, and games aren't particularly good at it, either (as McGrath notes).

I think that when McGrath says "any attempt to put storylines in games in any traditional sense is completely idiotic," it's fair to say that he's glossing over this type of storytelling.

I can play a game like Portal 2, with a fairly straightforward narrative, and experience the sense of isolation and despair far more acutely than in a passive medium because of my input, alone. That's one way to do it.

Another way is to allow the player to customize the outcome via a series of choices and real consequences. Make their decisions matter. The "branching paths" in Mass Effect are fairly lightweight, but it can be done in an intelligent manner.

Naturally, both of these methods entail a limited number of outcomes, whether you influence them or not. But they still involve the player.

I'd love to experience "interactive" or "emergent" storytelling as well, but the fact that we both argue so passionately for different narrative techniques shows that a "one-size fits all" approach is foolhardy.

You know my opinion on storytelling in gaming. You've edited several of my pieces lambasting the games industry for this very problem :)

But the day that games become entirely like Dark Souls or Heavy Rain (or move largely in that general direction) is the day the medium becomes boring. I want my blockbuster, linear narratives like Uncharted, branching narratives like Heavy Rain, and emergent storytelling.

Forgive me, but I'm very suspicious of a firebrand (by which I mean McGrath, not you ;) who insists that an entire medium should move in one general direction.

I disagree (surprise, surprise).

I don't think Portal 2, to use your example, has anything on other mediums regarding isolation and despair due to interactivity. I can read The Road and feel more despair and isolation from such a passive medium because Cormac McCarthy is a brilliant writer, for example. Portal 2 being interactive alone doesn't make the possibility of merely feeling emotion more acute.

McGrath's discussion of branching makes it clear that it's an unsolvable problem. You're still going to get a crafted, linear narrative because you can only code for so many possibilities before the task of just creating the game essentially becomes impossible to complete. Multiple endings doesn't make a work more engaging, either. (In fact, I'd argue it signals a lack of vision on the designer's part). And the fact that we're even talking about endings means that we're not quite focused on what games can do uniquely from other mediums.

And I think you're putting up a strawman there with that last bit. No one's arguing that all games need to me alike; however, McGrath is arguing that linear narratives don't suit games well. I don't see how that's saying that all games should be Dark Souls. He's saying that you can have story that's derived from gameplay (a quality unique to games), not passive devices (cinematics, text, etc.), and that such story is better suited for games.

Let me put it another way: Would you watch a movie that's just a long sequence of scrolling text that you have to read? In the most basic sense, it's a "movie" but it's not taking advantage of what makes movies unique from books. In other words, movies tell stories differently than books. I don't see why games shouldn't tell stories differently than movies and books, too, by taking advantage of the qualities of games that are unique to games. (And choose your own adventure ain't it.)

At no point does McGrath say (or infer) anything like the following: "Telling a story via the gameplay is one way to present a narrative in video games, but it's one idea among many." No, he categorically dismisses linear narratives -- be they branching or no, which to me suggests that he's calling for fundamental change. If we implemented his ideas, and radically reformed all of gaming, the medium would become very homogenous.

So I’m forced to conclude that he does want games to become similar.

Instead of taking great pains to tear down most of gaming, I would suggest that, instead, he act as a proponent for his particular brand of storytelling.

Oh, and please don't overanalyze my Dark Souls example. I mentioned those two games because I know you love Dark Souls and I love Heavy Rain, and they both endorse very specific visions for storytelling and the future of gaming ;)

And yes, a scripted narrative, whether it’s branching or 100% linear, is inherently limiting. There's only so many possibilities. I like David Cage's solution to this problem:

"My trick to do this is to create a situation providing a clear context for choices. By doing this, you limit the options of the player to what makes sense in the context. He has the feeling that the game allowed him to do whatever he wanted, although in fact he only did what was logical in the context."

So you feel like you have unlimited choices (unless you go out of your way to test the boundaries of the game), but in reality your choice is limited. And you may not notice those invisible boundaries.

Ironically, Cage also says something that's very much in line with what McGrath is proposing:

"The key problem we face is to find ways of telling an interacting story not through cut scenes but through gameplay. Ideally, it is up to the player, through his actions and choices, to tell the story as he plays, instead of having cut scenes between levels to make the story progress."

And yet his method is diametrically opposed to McGrath's because it still entails a definite beginning, middle, and end.

I would argue that no conclusion and/or no ending shows a lack of vision on the part of the creator. This method hands over the storytelling responsibilities to the player, to create it as they play. I would prefer to see the creator's artistic vision, even if that means a conclusion I find unfulfilling (Mass Effect 3) or multiple conclusions.

I would say that the fundamental difference between games and other mediums is our participation. So, while I think 30-minute cutscenes dilutes that quality, I don't think traditional narratives -- which serve as motivation -- detract from that.

Take the recent Portal 2 DLC, In Motion. Apparently, it focuses almost entirely on the puzzles, with little plot or dialogue to speak of. I loved Portal's mind-bending puzzles, but I don't think it would've become a nerd zeitgeist without the clever writing ... even if the game never interrupted itself with cutscenes over which you had no control. The point is that the gameplay alone wouldn't -- in my opinion -- have been enough to sustain players' interest. Or in any case, it wouldn't have made a similar impact on gaming.

My Portal 2 example stands, but I should've added prefaced it with "all things being equal." Take a similar story, with similar characters and dialogue, and I believe the interactive element elevates gaming above movies or TV. I think it's unfair to compare gaming with books, because the latter isn't a visual medium, and the comparisons should really end there. One can prefer reading to playing video games, but at least there's fewer fundamental differences between games and movies, and I'd hazard a comparison between the two.

Personally, I'd get bored quickly with a game that relied entirely on its gameplay to tell its story, without an overarching narrative (whether it relied on cutscenes or not) to push me along. Maybe I've just become more impatient as I've gotten older, but I need a bigger hook than just compelling gameplay.

To take my Portal 2 example further, compare that game to Kim Swift's Quantum Conundrum, another physics-based puzzler. The gameplay is solid in QC, but I lost interest quickly, because it doesn't have the wit or storytelling excellence of the Portal series.

No, I wouldn't watch a movie that was scrolling text, and the gameplay-cutscene-gameplay-cutscene structure doesn't explore the full potential of gaming. But I don't see why we can't marry the interactive nature of gaming with select, traditional storytelling methods.

"I need a bigger hook than just compelling gameplay"

There's little point in discussing further because this sentence is really revealing. I see that and think, "Well, why don't you just watch a movie or read a book?" I just can't fathom playing a game with horrible, reductive gameplay just because the designers have dangled a narrative hook in front of my nose.

If merely playing the game is not compelling in-and-of itself, why continue? Conversely, if compelling gameplay cannot hook you, why play?

Rob, you're oversimplifying things, here. I said that I need a bigger hook that just compelling gameplay, and I mean every word of that, with a particular emphasis on just. I want the whole package -- a compelling story, witty dialogue, robust gameplay, good music, etc.

A game like Koudelka -- which had a great story but abominable gameplay -- is just as bad as a game with compelling gameplay and a horrible (or no) story. Both extremes seem like half a game to me.

Gaming is unique from movies or books because -- among other reasons -- it has the capability to combine all those sensory functions.

Whenever any developer tries to dismiss traditional storytelling as idiotic, I often just assume that they've lost their mind. I mean, we all love stories, right?

On the other hand, I think Shawn has a point. There's not much variation between science fiction games or fantasy RPGs, etc. I have no idea what he thinks of Braid and various other games that change up the formula, but I really would like something a little more unpredictable in current-gen games.

No, he's saying that it would be nearly impossible to have true 'freedom' with such a network of choices. It's like true AI; many, many experts consider it impossible (or that it has such a small possibility that we'll never see it), and we're so far away from finding out that you can't really prove them wrong.