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.