Introduction – Narrative Representation in Video Games

Narrative elements have been intertwined into video games almost since their inception; ‘Pong’ is an electronic version of a tennis match. ‘Breakout’ uses prison imagery to provide context to the block smashing action. ‘Space Invaders’ tasks the Player with defending earth against alien threats.

While some like John Carmack, creator of Doom, is often quoted as having said that “Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It’s expected to be there, but it’s not that important,”, questing towards a true ‘interactive narrative’ experience has continued unabated.

In the world of interactive entertainment, this is a noble and meaningful goal: what could be more engaging and immersive than a world and characters that respond to your will and desires?

(Carmack has since softened his stance and admits a place for Narrative in video games, but maintains the gameplay elements are still most important)

The Promise of Narrative ‘Role Play’

As the capabilities of gaming hardware developed, the reality of a ‘digital narrative’ started to become more clear.

The early games in the ‘King’s Quest’ series released in the nascent 80’s were a watershed in representing narrative into an interactive format. They put the Player in a place that wasn’t possible before; the text entry and point-and-click systems provided a freedom and an agency that other games hadn’t yet breached.

As great as they were for their time, they still followed a mostly ‘linear path’; few choices that the player can make actually translate into ‘changes’ in the game. You can’t decide to role play your fantasies by going off the beaten path, or truly control decisions for your character.

The Start of ‘Choice Consequences’

Naturally, developers wanted to cross a threshold of actual choice; things that the player can decide which affect outcomes in the game. 

As Kings Quest evolved, and their progeny in the 90’s became more robust (and budgets increased), they were able to explore the ‘choices with macro consequences’ in narrative; for example 1997’s ‘Blade Runner’ features 13 different endings.

These games pushed game narratives further, increased immersion, and ultimately, cost.

Production Reality

These increases in costs didn’t stop the drive to make bigger and bigger narratives, with more and more choices into the 2000’s/10’s: Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Mass Effect, The Witcher – these are just a few examples.

While it’s undeniably exciting to play through these adventures, especially as they were pushing the envelope for when they came out, It’s also extremely expensive to build all of the ‘spider webs’ for potential choices the Player may make. The permutations can quickly become almost endless, along with the budget.

The prevailing attitude during these times was a focus on a ‘big’ reaction to Player choice: a completely different ending, an area of the map that is available, or not, because of your relationship with a faction, a questline that is opened up because of something you said to a shopkeeper.

The big problem with this focus is that the larger the consequences of each thread, the more each is required to be meaningful. The stakes are raised and complexities are expanded.

Narrative Reality

Beyond the reality of elevated costs from pursuing a grand narrative with ‘choices with macro consequences’, one can dare ask a question – can a narrative survive this type of Player choice?

Many might immediately answer ‘yes’ to this question – and they wouldn’t be wrong. If D&D has taught us anything, it’s that ‘player choice’ is at the core of what makes the experience worthwhile.

But that’s just it though; the narrative needs to be constructed in a way that allows for Players to ‘steer’ the major plot points to their desired destinations. This is extremely hard with a video game that has a pre-constructed set of rules, rather than a live, easily adjustable ‘dungeon mastered’ experience.

Some games come closer than others, but very few allow for this true kind of control. Even the undeniably excellent narrative in ‘Detroit: Become Human’, which allows for more choice and control than most titles, has been criticised for the quality of some of the different strands that the game allows the Player to explore.

What’s Next?

Some games will continue to go bigger; provide even more ‘choices with macro consequences’, and have more threads for Players to explore. Hopefully these games will embrace the lessons that D&D has taught us and steer narratives towards a playground for Players, rather than the narrative lessons taught to us by the ‘linear’ media of TV and Movies. Baldur’s Gate 3 is a great example of this philosophy; no wonder it exists in the D&D universe.

Choices with Micro Consequences

For those games that don’t have the absolute biggest budgets (and even some that do), there is a newer emphasis on narrative elements that, at first, doesn’t seem like a big deal, but provides an excellent way for Players to feel in control, provide ‘role playing’ opportunities, without the costs associated with ‘choices with macro consequences’.

Simply showing a reaction through the game without any true ‘macro consequences’ for gameplay is often enough. Letting the Player feel like their actions have a reaction in the world, even without any consequences, improves feelings of immersion and role play.

In Avowed you have several companions that travel and fight with you through the adventure. In many cases they may comment and provide their opinion on your choices – both good and bad. Their thoughts never have any real consequences for gameplay. They never decide to leave the party because of the Player’s choices, no quests are locked because of how much one of them hates you.

The point here is that there is a reaction; a line of dialogue, some animations, that provide a sense of what this NPC thinks of your decisions. These reactions do a lot of the heavy lifting in providing this sense of immersion and role play.

In Assassin’s Creed: Shadows the Player is tasked with being a part of a tea ceremony in the earlier parts of the game. Through a series of quests, they are taught the correct way to perform the tea ceremony; what to wear, the correct way to bow, how to rotate the tea bowl, and that you should bring a gift.

Once they have completed these quests, and collected the requisite items, the ceremony begins. Within, there are choices that the Player has to make, that sometimes test their memory (‘was I taught to rotate the bowl to the right, or to the left?’).

Everything that you choose – the color of the fabric of your outfit that you wear to the ceremony, how you choose to bow, and how you choose to rotate the tea bowl has a reaction from NPC’s. They approve and disapprove through dialogue, and animations. At the same time, none of the things that you choose during the ceremony have any consequences on how the quest plays out.

Takeaways

What strikes me about these 2 examples is how connected I felt to the experience, even though there were no macro consequences. Being able to choose, react and decide, especially when the micro consequences are immediate and visible, meant more to me than building towards some larger marco consequence. 

When making your game you don’t have to only focus on the big, macro ‘choice consequences’; they are costly, and can have ramifications for your narrative. Supporting your title with as many small reactions from characters and the world in general can go a very long way.

Meaningful narratives are derived from making the Player feel their presence is acknowledged in the world, not necessarily from how big of a change they were able to affect in it.