Interactive Storytelling

I think we need to recognize that interactive storytelling is not a new concept. In fact, I suppose you could say that static storytelling (what I am calling the types of narratives that are pinned down in the pages of linear novels) are relatively new, in the history of humanity. Stories, fables and myths that were passed on through oral tradition are easily the first examples of interactive storytelling. It is easy to recognize that these sorts of tales are altered depending on the audience, on the environment, and on the message that the storyteller is trying to get across. Why else would there be so many different versions of the supposedly "classic" fable of Snow White?

So interactive storytelling in video games is nothing groundbreaking. Well, let me rephrase that. The programming behind interactive storytelling is exciting - imagine the coding! And the processing power that one might need for a world of "infinite" possibilities!

But it isn't surprising that interactive storytelling has entered the realm of video games. This format of gaming gives a sense of power to the player, even though the player's actions are restricted to certain parameters by the framework of the game. Randy Littlejohn writes in his article Agitating for Dramatic Change that the world presented in interactive fiction is "ripe with atmosphere, populated by intelligent actors, and supplies a dramatic goal/challenge for the experiencer and experiencer's allies, and counter-goals for the antagonist, and antagonist allies. What happens within this dramatic context is unpredictable."

While I agree that the worlds presented within interactive narratives are often very rich in detail, I disagree with the assertion that these worlds offer an unpredictable dramatic context. As I said before, the worlds of video games, and of other narratives, are frameworks that simply offer the illusion of unlimited choice. An example, you say?

When Oblivion came out in 2006, everybody was excited because it presented a "real" game world. You could choose any number of quest lines, or you could choose none at all. You could choose to wander around the world slaughtering everyone you came across, or you could stay in one town and do nothing every day. However, your actions are limited by the locations that you are able to access - for example, nothing exists beyond the game island, which you cannot leave. If you attempt to access content that the game is not ready for you to access yet (in order to skip to the end of the game, for example), you are killed by soldiers with whom you have not built up a strong reputation with yet.

A guard "escorting" you out of a house that you are not allowed to enter yet.

Certainly, one can argue that the limitations of the game world are no different to those in the real world. We can't suddenly decide to take flight in the real world, or to spontaneously turn everything we touch into gold. However, we do have more free will than that which is bestowed on us as players within videogames. Free will in interactive games is just an illusion that the gamemakers bestow upon us.

This doesn't mean that games aren't good, and I for one absolutely adore playing the interactive storytelling form of games. I find them a lot more satisfying than platform based games, that's for sure. But I do think we need to recognize that this form of media is not the epitome of what video game narratives can be. There's a lot of growth to come in this media, and I for one look forward to trying out every evolution and iteration to come.

A Person of Character

EDIT: I'm not sure why this didn't publish properly the first time, so here it is (again)!

The word "character" used to be used to describe somebody with moral or ethical qualities. Today it is more used to describe the personality, history, and story that combine to make a "person" in a fictional narrative.

Characters in films need to be well developed before they can be shown to an audience, otherwise the narrative tends to be boring or unbelievable. These characters are discrete, concrete individuals. Obviously, varying narratives can allow for a character's motives and actions to be ambiguous, however it is clear that there is indeed a character there, causing those things to happen.

In the case of video games, the definition of character is a lot more ambiguous. First there is the issue of PC's versus NPC's - characters that the player controls versus characters that the player interacts with. NPC's tend to be very similar to the types of characters that we encounter in films and books. They need to be, as they are driving forces to the overall narrative of the game.

But what about PC's? There are so many types of games that is difficult to come up with a definition of the term character that can be used across the genres. So I'm going to briefly look at two genres - RPG's and Shoot 'em Up games. Specifically, Fable 2 and Team Fortress 2.

In Team Fortress 2 the player is proved with a range of prebuilt characters that s/he can slip into. These are Pyro, Engineer, Sniper, Spy, Heavy, Demonman, Medic, Scout, and Soldier.



In this "Meet the Spy" promotional trailer released by Valve, we can see that each character has a collection of distinct traits that, added together, make a semblance of a complete character. However, these characteristics are unnecessary to the overall gameplay of Team Fortress 2, instead they are just fun quirks that add to the overall originality of the game. The names of each of these characters reveals just how superfluous "character" is - merely reflecting the function that each role plays in a match.

In Fable 2, character is the driving point behind the whole game. Focus is placed on the actions that a player chooses to make, which are able to change the entire game plot. Gender is flexible. Actions are broken down into "good" and "bad", "corrupt" and "pure", and when a player does enough bad actions to become evil, his or her appearance will change to reflect this, growing horns and leaving burning footprints in his or her wake. Likewise if the player chooses only good actions - their appearance becomes angelic, and they develop a halo. Eating a lot of pie causes fatness, while munching on celery leads to fitness.


The player can wander around a simulated world, taking on quests as s/he pleases, buying houses, doing jobs, getting married or sleeping around, murder or save whomever s/he likes. While the game does not offer infinite choice - after all, our technology is not quite that advanced yet - it does offer choice within the boundaries of the game. If one likes, one can completely avoid the main storyline of the game and spend time making money and buying houses instead.

In this form of game, the character is a shell that the player steps into and then defines, much more interactive than the static characters in movies. Certainly, characters in games like Team Fortress 2 are interactive, too, however their actions are limited to a specific range of possibilities, while RPG games like Fable 2 give the player an illusion of infinite possible combinations of actions.

And just for fun, here's the "Meet the Sniper" video, which only shows the Sniper character so isn't really a good example of all the characters available in Team Fortress 2. Also, he's Australian.