BioWare On Narrative, Wii Gaming, MMOs & More

[Kamalot]

GameDaily recently had a nice long discussion (http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/interview-bioware-on-narrative-wii-gaming-mainstream-press-mmos--more/?biz=1) with Bioware's Ray Muzyka (CEO & GM) and Greg Zeschuk (President & GM) where they discussed their idea that storytelling is a cornerstone of the future of gaming.

BIZ: If narrative or storytelling is really the future of gaming and driving the industry forward, that sort of conflicts with Nintendo's approach because most of their games are very casual.

Muzyka: There's a narrative there, too, between people playing sports. It's actually a narrative between the people playing it. It's sort of one level abstracted from the game; it's like people playing the game and there's people in the community around the game, but if you're playing a game and laughing and having fun, instead of the game having those elements, the audience playing the game has the elements between them. I think it's still part of the game experience.

Greg Zeschuk: I think another, tangential view on that is those kinds of experiences are much more like a toy experience. They're playing, together or not, but you're not 'gaming' anymore. What's different than you actually playing tennis?Is it still considered gaming if I'm playing a racing or a fighting game? Is multiplayer deathmatch still considered gaming since it doesn't have a story? Do all games need a narrative before they are to be considered a game any more?

Excellent interview (http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/interview-bioware-on-narrative-wii-gaming-mainstream-press-mmos--more/?biz=1) that touches on a number of subjects from mainstream press coverage to MMOs.

[Kamalot]

Awww... Someone changed my headline from "Games Without A Story Are Toys?" :D

[Variable Gear]

I agree with Muzyka in the quoted excerpt. Currently reading the rest of the interview.

[AndrooGee]

Eh... It's an issue of semantics. Nothing more. Zeschuck defines gaming as a narrative experience (probably because that's where so much of Bioware's and I assume his experience lies.) While I disagree with his definition, he's not saying that games without a narrative experience are bad. It's simply not where his interest lies, and he doesn't really see it as progressive because it doesn't progress the things he's interested in. It's worded poorly, but that's the impression I got from his quote.

In that regard I do agree with him. I love party games, but I'm much more interested in the future of narrative gaming at this point. A lot of developers are putting all their effort into exploring how interaction can create an experience unique to gaming.

Bioshock would have been nothing more than a decent-to-mediocre movie.

[Kamalot]

While I disagree with his definition, he's not saying that games without a narrative experience are bad.

Actually, he says playing games without a narrative isn't gaming.

they're playing, together or not, but you're not 'gaming' anymore. What's different than you actually playing tennis?

Personally, I think he's wrong. Chess isn't a game? Bejewelled isn't a game? Breakout isn't a game? Even his example of tennis is weak, since tennis itself is a game (http://www.realtennis.gbrit.com/tennis.htm). The act of partaking in a game, at least to me, is gaming.

Isn't pong a game?

I'm of the mindset that games are becoming more like movies or books by adding narrative, something I'm okay with. Yet that does not mean that anything that does not have a narrative is no longer a game.

In fact, Gamasutra has up an excellent article about how Dungeons and Dragons is the cornerstone of modern video games. Think about it. D&D was a game with a narrative (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3631/dungeons__dragons_the_pen_and_.php) yet without the graphical trappings and a whole hell of a lot of imagination.

[Variable Gear]

Personally, I think he's wrong. Chess isn't a game? Even his example of tennis is weak, since tennis itself is a game (http://www.realtennis.gbrit.com/tennis.htm). The act of partaking in a game, at least to me, is gaming.
I agree. It's fine to discuss narrative in games, especially the different kinds of narrative there are, and what works best in a given genre, but it's unfair not to call a spade a spade. Narrative is not, and will likely never be, a requirement for a "good" game to have. Just look at classic revivals like Geometry Wars: Galaxies or Alien Invaders Extreme for proof positive of that.

[mister_slim]

Zeschuk is more poking at the distinction between a toy and a game. I can see his point, in that when I play Wii Sports with people the point is not victory but rather the shared experience. More like hackey-sack, or the difference between throwing a frisbee around and playing Ultimate. The rules and goals are subordinate to the play.

[Heretic Machine]

If narrative or storytelling is really the future of gaming and driving the industry forward

Big if there, buddy.

Is it still considered gaming if I'm playing a racing or a fighting game? Is multiplayer deathmatch still considered gaming since it doesn't have a story? Do all games need a narrative before they are to be considered a game any more?


Only if you're a developer who has yet to make a polished, fun game that can stand on it's own two legs without pumping up the derivative story. Many of the games that get me excited are the ones without a real narrative. Hell, Audiosurf, for example, has no story, but it is an immensely fun game.

[Deadend]

Every game that you can win at has a narrative, it's about winning. The narrative of Virtua Fighter is what is happening on the screen. Same with Quake 3, the narrative is the gameplay is the conflict.

A toy game then is one with no victory goals then, such as Nintendogs maybe... even though you can still compare your pet to your friends.

[AndrooGee]

Actually, he says playing games without a narrative isn't gaming.

Way to ignore the first half of my post, buddy. ;)

I know it's easy to focus on the semantics of what he said, but do try to look past that for a moment and focus on the actual meaning.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I've maintained for some time that gaming isn't "the next big storytelling medium". The strength of games is the player's control over what's going on - any time the player doesn't have control, you might as well be watching a movie.

Your other option is to give the player story choices and then tell them what happens, in which case, that shtick has already been done for years:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f0/Cave_of_time.jpg

[Baron Samedi]

This thread has a narrative! The internet has a narrative! Me typing this has a narrative! Jesus has a narrative! Your mom has a narrative! My big throbbing slab of meat has a narrative!

[Variable Gear]

I guess Pazaak (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Pazaak) isn't a game. I really thought it resembled a game, but I was wrong. You had me that time, Bioware.

[Isamura]

Every game that you can win at has a narrative, it's about winning. The narrative of Virtua Fighter is what is happening on the screen. Same with Quake 3, the narrative is the gameplay is the conflict.

A toy game then is one with no victory goals then, such as Nintendogs maybe... even though you can still compare your pet to your friends.

I think you're skewing the line between goals vs. narratives when you put things so simply.

Muzyka: There's a narrative there, too, between people playing sports. It's actually a narrative between the people playing it. It's sort of one level abstracted from the game; it's like people playing the game and there's people in the community around the game, but if you're playing a game and laughing and having fun, instead of the game having those elements, the audience playing the game has the elements between them. I think it's still part of the game experience.

This right here, sounds like he doesn't have an immediate answer, so defensively hides behind abstract ideas. I totally disagree with his statement, because a narrative should not be something that exists outside of the game. This is like saying the narrative of a porn movie is the audience getting off to it. In my mind, even if there is no story, then the narrative should never be about the experience the audience has, but rather something as thin as "a woman having sex with a man for cash to support her drug habit".

The question isn't whether a game has a narrative, but HOW much it contains, or how deep and involved it is.

[DaXIthR]

Holy shit! This is a great thread with a great discussion going on. I completely missed it. I was going to post it here myself but figured it would have burned faster than the Totilo one from a few days back.

That, and Kamalot's title didn't help.

Personally, I think he's wrong. Chess isn't a game? Bejewelled isn't a game? Breakout isn't a game? Even his example of tennis is weak, since tennis itself is a game (http://www.realtennis.gbrit.com/tennis.htm). The act of partaking in a game, at least to me, is gaming.

Isn't pong a game?

I'm of the mindset that games are becoming more like movies or books by adding narrative, something I'm okay with. Yet that does not mean that anything that does not have a narrative is no longer a game.

There's a lot more to it than that. Bullfighting is a game. Each Olympic event is a game. When you say an actor 'plays' a role, it's not a frivolous expression. It is playing. When little girls 'play house' or 'doctor and patient' or boys play 'cops and robbers', those are all instances of games being played. If you sat and thought about what little structure there is in cops and robbers, and how much structure and elaboration there is in a cricket match or chess match, you'll realize how much depth and weight there is associated to playing.

If all this and so much more is a game, where can you draw a line around the definition? 'Gaming' is a neologism, and it means little when we have a perfectly valid term in 'playing'.

I agree. It's fine to discuss narrative in games, especially the different kinds of narrative there are, and what works best in a given genre, but it's unfair not to call a spade a spade. Narrative is not, and will likely never be, a requirement for a "good" game to have. Just look at classic revivals like Geometry Wars: Galaxies or Alien Invaders Extreme for proof positive of that.

Underlying narrative always seems to be there. Bullfighting is as much about the culture and history of Spain, as it is about civilized man overcoming raw and powerful nature. The need to compete is a human characteristic.

In the examples you cited, it's as simple as identifying a certain group of pixels onscreen as yourself and erecting a mass of opponents, as Others. Because we're hardwired to compete, we don't need more narrative.

Every game that you can win at has a narrative, it's about winning. The narrative of Virtua Fighter is what is happening on the screen. Same with Quake 3, the narrative is the gameplay is the conflict.

A toy game then is one with no victory goals then, such as Nintendogs maybe... even though you can still compare your pet to your friends.

Again, Cops and Robbers. There's no winning condition. Sometimes Cops win, sometimes Robbers win, but there's no rule about scoring a certain numbers of points as in tennis, or scoring with a time limit in mind, as in basketball.

Adopting a role, in virtually every sense, is playing. I haven't come across a videogame that hasn't made the player resort to some sort role-playing. Where it gets interesting is when the game gets the player to acknowledge that he is pretending to role-play.

This thread has a narrative! The internet has a narrative! Me typing this has a narrative! Jesus has a narrative! Your mom has a narrative! My big throbbing slab of meat has a narrative!

Simmer down, Karl Marx.

[Kamalot]

Bullfighting is animal cruelty and more spectator drama than a game. It would have been nice if you could have picked a better analogy, cause bullfighting is a really poor example.

Mass Effect - Its Bullfighting

[DaXIthR]

Bullfighting is animal cruelty and more spectator drama than a game. It would have been nice if you could have picked a better analogy, cause bullfighting is a really poor example.

Mass Effect - Its Bullfighting

Regardless of how you feel about it ethically doesn't make it less of a game. The term 'game' doesn't trivialize the player or his endeavor. Michael Schumacher risked his life every time he climbed into his Ferrari race car, but it's still a game. And he and the rest of the Formula 1 drivers play their game at a significant environmental cost (perhaps an immoral one) to all of us.

It's still a game.

I'm sure if there are parts of Spain and Mexico where a tagline like, "Mass Effect - It's Bullfighting" would have an effect opposite to what you intend. Calling me out on the analogy as being an inhumane one doesn't make much sense to me.

It is, after all, bullfighting. Clubbing a baby seal in Canada is not a game, regardless of the spectacle. Clubbing a baby seal in an arena does not make it a game.

I could reconstruct my argument with a different example, but I think we should be able to agree the cruelness of an act shouldn't undermine its role in a game.

[Isamura]

Bullfighting is animal cruelty and more spectator drama than a game. It would have been nice if you could have picked a better analogy, cause bullfighting is a really poor example.

Mass Effect - Its Bullfighting

I agree with you, since it certainly doesn't look like much fun for its participants.

[Baron Samedi]

Simmer down, Karl Marx.

Hey, I'm having fun playing my little narrative. Help a brotha out.

[MacD]

I got frustrated reading the interview.

Way to miss the point, guys. Yes, most Wii games are party games, and thus, yeah, you have a point.

BUT, and this ties directly to the quote, it's like they're treating the Wii as a 'nintendo party game machine', not as a general purpose computer which can play any type of game a dev happens to program for it.

(from article:) If narrative or storytelling is really the future of gaming and driving the industry forward, that sort of conflicts with Nintendo's approach because most of their games are very casual.

And that's what bugs me: it doesn't! If narrative and storytelling is the future of gaming, any console/pc can play! Maybe the wii more than some, because it sure as hell can't compete on teh pretties gfx. Look at Metroid, or Zelda: game/story interaction is key. There is no conflict here, except some bullshit manufactured one.
Party games are a different kind of gaming than what consoles/gamers are used to...so what?

-edit-
Right on, TheFlyingOrc! I feel ya.

[DaXIthR]

I agree with you, since it certainly doesn't look like much fun for its participants.

Fun is not so easily defined.

What's so 'fun' about Tetris? Tetris is a suicide mission. The computer will win and every move is a stall, delaying the inevitable suffocating death by a split second. What about that makes you want to jump up and scream, 'sign me up!'?

Some people are masochists. For them, pain is enjoyable. They have a different understanding of fun, but it is the same 'fun'. It's the exact same emotional response.

I see what you're saying but I feel like you missed my response to Kamalot. At the very least, I hope you see the problem has a lot of gray areas.

MacD is, of course, right but I don't think we're missing the point as he claims. I think it's disappointing that designers - of all people - have these notions and ideas in their heads. Saying the system is built for certain games is absolutely ridiculous. It's tantamount to abolishing the use of fire because it's dangerous and can burn things. The system is a means to an end; it's up to designers to make the most of it.

[Isamura]

Fun is not so easily defined.

What's so 'fun' about Tetris? Tetris is a suicide mission. The computer will win and every move is a stall, delaying the inevitable suffocating death by a split second. What about that makes you want to jump up and scream, 'sign me up!'?

Some people are masochists. For them, pain is enjoyable. They have a different understanding of fun, but it is the same 'fun'. It's the exact same emotional response.

I see what you're saying but I feel like you missed my response to Kamalot. At the very least, I hope you see the problem has a lot of gray areas.

MacD is, of course, right but I don't think we're missing the point as he claims. I think it's disappointing that designers - of all people - have these notions and ideas in their heads. Saying the system is built for certain games is absolutely ridiculous. It's tantamount to abolishing the use of fire because it's dangerous and can burn things. The system is a means to an end; it's up to designers to make the most of it.

You're correct, I did miss your post as I posted mine at the same time. I'm not keen on stretching the meaning of the term "game" when talking about videogames. I would consider Bullfighting to be a sport, which also could be construed as a "game" but since sport is a more specific description of the activity, it is more commonly used.

By your rules, I could describe many things as games which wouldn't typically be described as games, such as "war, fighting, lying, making money". But I think we should keep this discussion (and narratives) within the context of videogames, and not abstract things to a point of obsurdity as I originally posted in my first comment.

[Feltoar]

I think the big mistake here was assuming video games have only one future direction right at the start of that interview. Video games will be pulled in all kinds of legitimate directions. Story telling, user content driven, MMO, online flash/browser and Nintendos direction, plus many more.

Ray seems to spend the rest of the first page after the first question trying to put elements like gameplay, controls and the end user experience under the umbrella of story telling just to try and legitimise both, just because that was the tone set by the interviewer (ie: if this is the true direction for video games, prove it). At the bottom of the first page again the interviewer just assumes there is a singular path for video games "So there are two schools of thought there – games as an art form or merely like toys or entertainment." where Muzyka replied "Maybe they're both. What's wrong with that?"

BioWare specialise in storytelling. Theres nothing wrong with having a focus. I just think its silly the interviewer put BioWare on the defensive. Its obvious Ray recognises Nintendos approach to gaming. But when an interview opens with a tone like "If narrative or storytelling is really the future of gaming ... " and your company has put its eggs into that basket, its bound to spur a wierd response.

Like Isamura said he didnt have an immediate answer. Interviews can be very informal things and with a piss poor interviewer it can lead to dumb stuff being said.

[Baron Samedi]

By your rules, I could describe many things as games which wouldn't typically be described as games, such as "war, fighting, lying, making money". But I think we should keep this discussion (and narratives) within the context of videogames, and not abstract things to a point of obsurdity as I originally posted in my first comment.

By denying the broader implications of gaming, it will never be art. Video games evolved from board games, which evolved from classic games, war games and D&D. Love is often called a game. Sports are games. Poker is a game. And there's the little games we play with each other. I would place play as one of humanity's core traits. Hell, I'd go further yet, because animals play with each other, and I've often wonder if plants don't do the same.

On another note, I didn't the use of narrative as a general descriptor in the interview at first, but after giving it some thought, I think it's a useful one. Narrative may not be fundamental to games now, but I wouldn't be surprised if in a decade or two it becomes so. With this our definition of story will change from something on a page to an interactive framework which I am a part of. Anyone read Diamond Age? I'm still waiting to see ractives.

[kickmybum]

Dude, the guy used the wrong word for "role" (roll) in his article, like, 10 times. Don't people have editors anymore?