narrative as a skinner's box, or why I love Witcher 3.

An outline of what I am talking about here.

1. Games are not a good medium for narrative
2. Games often use various forms of 'skinner's boxes' (rewards given at irregular intervals) to encourage continued play
3. Narrative can function as a skinner's box
4. .
5. .
6. .
7. Also, I love Witcher 3

So lets unpack that a bit. I am not going to try to prove the first two bullets though I would like to expand on them, but would like to demonstrate point 3 if you give me the benefit of the doubt on the first two. 

1. I don't believe that games driven by narrative can work. Storytelling simply cannot be that rich when the player can interact with it. Both the fact that there is a player and that interaction has to happen restrict the depth of narrative. Any narrative has to be focused on the player as real tangible person. That means that the narrative has to be driven by modern morals and philosophies, the preference of certain demographics, the desire of a person to be entertained etc. You cannot explore the inner life of protagonist that is an extension of an average player as you would a protagonist that is the imagination of a creator. And the fact that ultimately a game is about interactivity you cannot explore the specific character as you would had you had full control of it. In a movie or a book everything exists for narrative, in a game everything exists for the player and that dramatically limits what is possible. 

2. Many games are based around a continual drip of rewards. A divine column of light when you level up, a baritone 'delicious' when you crush some candies, a golden burst when you find an ultra rare thing. In some games this occasional reward is the entire point, in some it is just an element to keep you engaged. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. This design ensures a continuous burst of dopamine and makes the game pleasurable in the long term. I do think games that rely on this exclusively are cheap and somewhat exploitative (see slot machines) but that's a separate point. 

3. Here we get to the point of this blog. I think story in games can be used very effectively as that skinner's box. I adore witcher 3. I think the characters and voice acting is well done, the writing is solid, the topics ambitious for the medium, etc etc. But never in a million years would I suggest that what makes the witcher good is the story. The inner life of characters is shallower than the B grade fantasy novel, and the acting and expression is below your most low brow summer blockbuster. What I believe makes the game great, and what is the core value proposition of the game is exploration. There is a million places, and things, and beasts, and stuffs of all kinds. The pleasure of the game is in discovery, of trying to see if there is something neat lurking around the hill that you had no reason to go to. I think the main narrative (which by the way stirs really no emotional response from me) provides a useful road map for the order in which you should experience the world in the broadest sense and are rewards for accomplishing the main task. And all the little side pieces are just random rewards for engaging with the games core mechanic of exploration. Knowing that the ruler had a gay son and that said ruler killed a subject for using the fact as an insult, and  then the ghost of the subjected haunted a well and made life for the locals is not brilliant story telling but it is a brilliant reward for taking the time to see, talk, and walk about the world. 

There are many similar games that encourage exploration by the promise of better loot and bigger baddies. Some have even done it successfully (I played vanilla WoW back in the day and I loved seeing new areas in a massive world, and the promise of loot kept me digging around all the dungeons and seeing all the stuff). But I think story is a better reward for a game that promises exploration. The reward system supports the core aspect by making the world richer. You don't have to have the precise writing of 'old man and the sea' or the character building of furiosa, or the deeper themes of citizen kane. You simply have decent morsels of story that support and extend the overall purpose of the game. I would also add that the loot system in the Witcher is much more restricted to end game content, it motivates the latter bits of exploration. For much of the main game you are happy plowing away with whatever you find in the course of reasonable play. Forcing a player to grind mobs for a sweet drop goes against exploration mechanic and is minimized. Alternatively, most towns have a simple way to boost the effectiveness of your gear with a whetstone  which does encourage additional travel back and forth furthering the main theme of exploration. Isn't the Witcher great?!

I firmly believe that when talking about games that the only discussion worth having is about how good is the 'play' . Sound, mechanics, visuals, story, all of it exists only to advance the game play. If the game is about understanding and mastering systems everything should be a conscious choice of either simplifying, clarifying, extending, etc the system. If the game is about exploring a system everything should be to facilitate, enrich and encourage that exploration. Witcher 3 does this incredibly well. 

on twitch

I don't understand why twitch.tv is not more hyped in broader media and why money is not rapidly pouring into the platform. Or why even after a purchase by Amazon the engineering of the service has not been polished. It's baffling.

Do people not realize that this is the creation of a new medium! Sci-fi level stuff.And not old timey sci-fi but today sci-fi. How crazy is it that Saga (a fantastic comic that everyone should read) has a whole plot line dedicated to actors performing live streaming theater where audience members are able to interact with the performer. Or the 1995 utterly fantastical Diamond Age has a major plot feature of performers able to interact with audience in a mass market platform. This is twitch! Today!

The platform is still looking for it's bearings. It feels like it offers two somewhat distinct products. Large audience youtube style video game content where magnetic personalities and smaller more intimate performer-audience interaction is the key. The lines between the two are blurry at times and even at the extremes they share commonalities (live content and live chat). But i suspect that the two types of content will gradually diverge more and more.

What is more interesting to me is what is still possible to do with the medium. Norway pioneered soothing slow TV with a trains rolling through a country side or a woman knitting. Imagine a soothing live stream where people watch and interact with a  knitter. Or scenes of domesticity which allow the viewer to join a family for dinner. Or an improve show that feeds off the viewers. There are whole new entertainment experiences that haven't been tried. Would anyone watch me and a few friend cooking and talking about games? Who knows, but it possible, which is damn exciting.

game vs experience

So, in thinking about my game taxonomy I'd hit on an awkward snag. I see four core game archetypes but then social engagement felt like a needed add-on. This was because i think of archetypes are the core features that make a game worth playing and there are certainly games where the social aspect is what makes the game what it is. But it is hard to think of social interaction as piece of game design (excluding ice-breaker games, but those usually suck). Initially, this came about when thinking about the colossal success of LoL but it also extend to the most basic games like charades and tag.

Now, I have come to think that social is not a feature of the game but a feature of the game experience. A game may dominate the experience or the game can be a small piece of the experience but they are not the same. The social interaction around the game can hugely color the experience but so can technological, physical, and timing features. Drinking games are often fairly simple games but they may offer rich gaming experiences. A well designed MMO without people will fail to deliver a satisfying experience and so will fail as an enterprise.

All of this to say, that when thinking about a game I propose to think about the design of the game, and the experience that is afforded by engaging with the game. I believe that this offers a stronger platform from which to critique games.

Why I play too much Hearthstone

I started this blog to think more about games in general and instead I ended up playing one game all the time. 

I am currently looking at games using the taxonomy I laid in my previous post (many months ago). Briefly, I see about 4.5 features that games typically address: Skinner's box stimulation, simulation, narrative, and mastery; with social interaction being the slightly incongruous .5. Most games hit a few of these points but my feeling is that the more successful games have a core feature that they deliver on very well and may then include some ancillary features as well.

Hearthstone addresses these features in a very nicely balanced ladder of importance providing me with what feels like a rich experience. Of course the key part that makes it so likable to me is that the way it prioritizes these features agrees with my personal preference for them.

I would argue that the core value proposition of Hearthstone is mastery. The thing that makes the game compelling is that there are things to learn, to understand, to improve upon. You can climb in ranks of constructed play, you can strive to get good at the draft format. You can try to get good any of the dozen or more popular decks to play, you can try to succeed with more fringe archetypes, or get creative and try to make something weird work. That is a lot of learning and improving upon.

Additionally, I find that for me to have mastery as the most appealing feature of a game I need to feel very in-control of the decision space that a game presents. I have trouble getting this feeling from real time games. In real time games  there are points where you lack the experience to identify the possible options that are afforded to you or there is a a lack of mechanical skill to execute certain things. I find the former to be a limitation of a game like LoL and the latter to be a limitation of RTSs like Starcraft. The solution to these problems is typically raw practice time. And personally I find practice without conscious learning to be less satisfying. It's still really cool to feel like you have fast aim, or great last hitting timing, or great build timing in in an RTS, I just don't find it as satisfying as actively thinking about choices. Hearthstone is all about your choices and your knowledge.

Hearthstone also affords a feeling of exploration. A feature that I would lump under simulation of experience in my taxonomy, but whatever. The randomness of the game ensures that very often you are thrust onto little islands of terra incognita. Just like it is statistically unlikely that there have ever been two identically ordered random decks of playing cards (52! is a really large number) it is really unlikely that there have ever been two identical games of hearthstone. Which is not to say there aren't far too many stales games of hearthstone (but I am not writing about problems with HS right now) but very often you experience situations that you have never experienced before. One of the joys that games can provide is the ability to generate novelty and HS does that.

Collectible Card Games are the historical skinner's boxes of hard core gaming. Getting random shiny rares is always a great way to feed that random reward addiction. It's often feels like a cheap thrill but the rush of dopamine from micro rewards is undeniable. I think hearthstone manages to provide enough of these pleasant pings without giving the feeling of hollow addiction. You get to open packs with their random goodness but they typically come as a reward for game actions. You get special cards with a fancy aesthetic with some regularity. You get to level up and get micro rewards. But none of these things dominate the experience of the game and so you never feel like your are mindlessly pressing a button just for that mini fix.


A brief aside on what I am missing in Hearthstone 

By far, my biggest gripe with Hearthstone is that there isn't more Hearthstone. Some of that is coming: more cards and more mechanics. But I also want to see more game modes, tournaments, more spectating options (more deck slots) etc.

Then, I would also like to see Hearthstone do better with the two pieces of my game taxonomy I haven't mentioned yet. First, that .5 feature of games: the social aspect. I want more ways to screw around with the game with my friends and more ways to engage with the community. Again, more game modes (tournaments, friendly formats) would go a long way towards this.

Lastly, and this is the least important to me but also seems like the easiest from a design standpoint, I would like to see more flavor/narrative features. As someone with limited WoW experience (played before any expansion and only got to about level 40) I have very little lore knowledge. But I would love to see cards have more varied vocalizations based on the the game boards and game states and I would love to read the flavor text of cards in game. Without knowledge of WoW Hearthstone is a bit light on character.

In summary
Hearthstone rocks and it makes me feel guilty for neglecting other gaming.

I promise me to write about other games soon...