An outline of what I am talking about here.
- Games are not a good medium for narrative
- Games often use various forms of 'skinner's boxes' (rewards given at irregular intervals) to encourage continued play
- Narrative can function as a skinner's box
- .
- .
- .
- 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.
