Slashdot Mirror
Interactive Storytelling
First, this is a book that everybody who wants to make compelling games should read. That said, however, it isn't really a book you would read for fun -- it's more of a textbook. The first half of the text is a necessarily rather dry presentation of concepts: for example, nine pages on 'Narrative Devices.' Glassner uses copious examples from movies that you've probably seen and games that you've probably played, and the text is certainly an easy read and well written, but it's still a very step-by-step presentation. You can't hide the fact that you're supposed to be learning something here. The second half of the book does open up a bit as he goes beyond just priming you on story and game theory.
He starts out by assuming you know almost nothing about storytelling. You might think that this is too obvious, but if you've played enough storytelling abominations like 'Sudeki,' you will know that game creators usually don't make very compelling storywriters. So the first quarter of the book is a crash course on the fundamentals of writing stories -- characters, plot, and techniques. The second, slightly shorter, part of the book examines the mechanisms of games in general. Not video games in specific, but all types of games. The five types of games, scoring rules, structure, and theory.
We're now ready to actually tackle merging stories and games, and at this point our cunning vision falls apart. Glassner's strongly held opinion, which he argues quite coherently, is that a great story is the product of one (or a few) expert storytellers presenting a strong, consistent vision to you, the consumer. The fabled holy grail of gaming is letting the player do whatever they want -- full interactivity. And this is to a point fundamentally incompatible with telling a great story. Conflict drives most stories -- what if the player quite reasonably minimizes conflict? But there's a lot to be learned from where they do contradict each other, and some common ground to be found. In my favorite chapter in the book, 'Common Pitfalls,' he uses specific video games that blatantly demonstrate how to not apply even the simplest rules of good storytelling and user immersion.
Many of the fundamental insights in this part are 'obvious,' yet demonstrably unobvious to most video game designers. For example, that people gravitate toward the entertainment that has the highest fun-to-work ratio. Television is hugely popular since the fun is high to very low, but the work is near zero. They will do more work if it offers a lot more fun. Which means you shouldn't force your players to do stupid, boring, unnecessary work like running through a dozen screens again and again to get between important locations. "A game should offer the fastest and easiest possible way to do everything unless there is some entertaining or informative reason to prevent it." Preach on!
The last part of the book finally deals with the 'interactive storytelling,' slowly building up ever more ambitious plans till we're in the realm of the purely experimental. Several reasonably fleshed out examples are given, and some of them seem quite plausible even with today's technology. The balance between future technology (holograms and AI) and the reality of today is considered. Glassner is quite a skeptic about AI and the holodeck from Star Trek, but explores how tricks such as emergent behavior and setting expectations low and then beating them can work for you. For instance, if your AI is driving an animal (rather than a human), the players will be much more forgiving. Or if you give the user attractive, static graphics up front, they will be projected onto the cruder in-game graphics. Because of the conflict between a great story and complete interactivity, he suggests 'participatory storytelling' is a better goal than fully interactive storytelling.
Particularly interesting is the discussion of 'living masks.' Most people don't like to act, because they know it takes skill and that bad acting is very painful. But what if you could be 'in' a character that would take what you were doing at home and then do it in character on stage, so everyone involved could act to the best of their abilities but still 'be' a good actor? You'd have some control over the gross reactions, but the details would be up to the software. Obviously, we're nowhere near that level of sophistication, but there's a lot of time left in the 21st century. It does mean that a large portion of the book deals with techniques that are right now totally impractical.
My biggest disappointment with this part of the book is that it implicitly seems to assume that all games in the future will be multiplayer, as they're the focus of all the examples. And at this point Glassner has pretty much transcended mere 'games' for his vision of the future of entertainment. But it's easy to see how they could be adapted to the single-player games which will hopefully still be available in 2099.
To summarize, I think anyone with a serious interest in telling stories via video games or interactive fiction should read Interactive Storytelling. It's well written and does a good job of teaching concepts that most people making currently making video games could use a lot of help with. Furthermore, Glassner's vision of the future of storytelling is fascinating, even if it doesn't play out that way. However, I would not recommend that you pick this book up as a casual read. If you're looking for that, you might be better off with Creating Emotion in Games by David Freeman or perhaps The Art of Interactive Design by Chris Crawford. Or, though it somewhat destroys the rigorous chain of thought, skip the first half of Interactive Storytelling, then go back and digest it piece-by-piece later.
You can purchase Interactive Storytelling from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
I question the premise. Although games and stories are both entertainment, that does not imply that they can be successfully merged. On the one hand, what makes a story great is the ability to hear how someone else handled a problem or situation -- learning from another person's life and NOT controlling the story line. Call it lazy, but a passive vicarious experience can be pleasurable.
On the other hand, what makes games great is the ability to take control and run your own life in the game. You get to be someone you are not or try a persona or just compete for the thrill of it. Games are pleasurable for a diametrically different reason than stories. We like stories because they let us be passive and we like games because they let us be active.
I like green olives and I like chocolate and they are both food, but that does not mean they should be merged.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
One of the things we DON'T hear in all the writings about "how to get great stories/writing" into games is a good analysis of "what percentage of games should be story-related and what percentage should be otherwise, and why?" Games like tetris, solitaire, minesweeper, chess, pinball, card games, etc. are certainly quite popular with little or no story elements, and deservedly so. More story-oriented games like Secret of Monkey Island or the Final Fantasy series have their place too - but it seems clear to me that they'll always account for a minority of the overall game market. Discussions or studies of "what should we do within that portion of the market" are fine with me, but overly broad talk of "what should games do" that imply ALL games should be striving for more story and more writing bother me a bit. Games can validly focus just on action, like robotron, asteroids, or quake 3, they can validly focus just on strategy, luck, trivia questions, relaxation, or socializing. (In studies by GameTrust, when asked "what's your main reason for playing this game", 40% answered "to win", 43% answered "to relax", and 17% answered "to socialize".) What to do with storytelling and writing in an interactive setting is an interesting and useful question for the game industry to keep exploring. But it is less central to the question of how to make games than issues like "What role do different kinds of game mechanics play in the social and heirarchical interactions between human beings, and how could they do it better?" Or "What kind of single player games can best develop inductive reasoning skills?" The Super Mario games were huge hits in large part because they develop a young person's inductive reasoning "mental muscles" in a very satisfying and very rapid way. But discussion of these other types of questions is, I feel, sadly lacking in the game industry. -- Dr. Cat
Furcadia - A free online game with user created content, DragonSpeak scripting, & more.
That's why they call it play. Remember playing cowboys and indians, or hide-and seek? How about adult paintball?
Play is inherently with other people.
"Playing" against the machine (solitaire, chess, solo FPS, whatever) is just a diversion, it's not really "fun" if it isn't shared.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
is that until they figure out a way to make games capable of being played out in our own brains, they will never have the quality of a good book.
;)
What makes a book special, beyond character development, sympathetic characters, great story line, plot, drama, and all the rest, is the fact that we live the book in our own minds.
If I watch the movie Timeline based on Crichton's novel, I am seeing that Fast and Furious guy adn some other people on a ride through time. Its a fun movie, I suppose, not the best, but not the worst, but its still vicarious. I am experiencing it through their lives.
When I READ Timeine, I actually got to LIVE the adventure. Since it was all in my own mind, the scenery, people, etc were all up to my own imagination. The lead character looked, in my mind, or at least personified my ideal self in that story.
Reading is a hell of a lot more mentally engaging than watchign a movie or playing a video game. So far the closest anyone has come to a game being close to the book experience is the FPS. The FPS puts YOU in the game. You arent just playing some character, directing his/her/it's life. The character you play in a FPS, esp in somehing like a MMORPG, is an extension of YOU.
When I played Resident Evil, I controlled a character. When I play Battlefield Vietnam, I AM in Vietnam fighting it out.
THAT is the difference between a book experience and a game/movie experience.
Of course, I am just holding out for the chance to jack in to interactive pr0n
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
One of my favorite games is (was) Ico. It told a great story and was tons of fun to play. Getting an entire movie audience interacting with the movie in a sort of story video game would be impressive. That's what I want to see.
... how did this article get posted without a single link in the preview for us to slashdot?
And
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Yes - of course I never had any REAL fun reading a book, watching a movie, solo climibing a mountain, doing archery in the back woods, doing lego as a small kid (sadly no more), torturing my linux boxes, reading slashdot, learning to juggle, doing martial arts training, tracking animals, etc. etc.
You have a pretty limited life if you can't find fun when alone...
Nicely put. May I suggest that you, like all poor artists throughout time, forgo all the little pleasures that cost money and invest in your craft at the expense of all else. Remember, daVinci had to grind and make his own paints, he didn't purchase them. Valesquez even went so far as to invent his very own way of doing it. If you need a good computer, work at Kentucky Fried or whereever and save. At the end of the year you can purchase said machine. In the meantime, there's nothing stopping you from doing the design and layouts without it.
Best of luck.
Hey look. there's ALWAYS a way to exploit your creativity.
:)
I've done it myself. I _SUCK_ at drawing. But i'm a wonderful storyteller. So instead of suffering because I can't draw manga, I don't lose time and start writing.
The key here is: Use what you have handy. People have different ways to express themselves: Music, poetry, literature, movies... etc etc.
And it's funny you mentioned Disneyland - because you know? There was some guy who wanted to turn the Pirates of the Caribbean tour into something more tangible. Voila, "Secret of Monkey Island" was born.
So, don't lose hope! I'm sure someday people will take your ideas when they're realizable and use them. But until then, there are always ways to exploit your creativity
And remember: What makes I.F. so compelling is that inside the human imagination, there are NO limits.
Maybe... you should start focusing on your capabilities, and not on your limitations.
You've gotten a couple of encouraging replies, and I'll add one more. It is often said that the game industry doesn't need any more "idea people." Looking at the current market, I don't agree. Develop your ideas so that you can pitch them to a team capable of realizing them. Prototype with hypertext, or even paper. Today's market may seem to be dominated by first-person shooters, but The Sims proved that there is a market for something different.