The debate over whether narrative is important or necessary for games to thrive has been in progress for years. I am amongst those who believe that narrative, however one chooses to define the term, is an important part of many video games (though I don’t think it is inherently necessary for a game to be worth playing.) Today, games have been increasingly including narrative direction that might not have been present if there had been less demand for or interest in its inclusion. Much like books, t.v. shows and movies, there are an innumerable amount of games which are dependent on their narratives. This is to say that they are driven by themes, plot points, and word-building techniques in the form of dialogue and, occasionally, gameplay mechanics. The narratives of games can even be the primary drawing factor. This can be true for games that are totally narrative driven to games which have minimal or optional narrative aspects. Examples of “optional” narrative games include big titles such as Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. Many who play these games primarily play online and therefore do not experience as much narrative—or at least not something easily identifiable as narrative—as they would by choosing to play the games’ single player campaigns instead. However, even these games form fanbases of individuals solely invested in portions which include an obvious narrative. In other words, narrative can be what makes people care about the reasons they are playing and what they are working toward in the digital, fictional worlds of video games. Entire online communities have formed on the basis of fans discussing the plots, character development and writing of their favorite games. I’ve seen this everywhere from twitter to instagram.

This being the case, I found it odd that Ian Bogost’s piece “Video Games Are Better Without Stories” is dismissive of the very implication that games can both have narratives and do them just as well as books, t.v. and movies. Bogost writes, “The best interactive stories are still worse than even middling books and films.” This statement in itself implies that books and movies being “better” than video games is an immovable truth as opposed to an individual opinion. There are definitely game narratives which have been met with less than positive reception or have just plainly been viewed as bad. However, this tends to be the case for media in all its different forms. Importantly, thoughts on narratives across the board are far from objective in that they are not universally shared by 100% of those who interact with them. There are brilliantly written games whose narratives are continuously praised just as there are those deemed as poorly done. This is true. It is also true that books, t.v. and movies are met with this divisive kind of feedback all the time. To argue that video game narratives are unimportant or should not be included is to suggest that interactive modes of story-telling are less worthy of being paid attention to than those that are typically non-interactive. Furthermore, Bogost’s piece seems to ignore the fact that different forms of media have been intertwined together for decades. Interactive stories such as Netflix’s Bandersnatch as well as choose-your-own adventure books have become more and more prominent in today’s world and undoubtedly boarder on the thin lines of definition. In Bogost’s eyes, should these, too, drop the inclusion of narrative, and would they truly be better off if they did? Personally, I think narratives have their important places across different forms of media and can be especially beneficial to interactive stories (due to those interacting usually being able to decide the direction of things.) To ignore them is to dismiss the distinctiveness between the ways in which games, t.v., films and books utilize them as well as how they uniquely impact different individuals.

Works Cited

Bogost, Ian. “Video Games Are Better Without Stories.” The Atlantic, 25 Apr. 2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/video-games-stories/524148/

            I will preface this post with a SPOILER WARNING for BioShock Infinite.

I wanted to share my interpretation of BioShock Infinite for my blog post this week. It’s one of my top 5 favorite games, so I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about it (I even have tattoos from the game!) Very briefly in class we touched upon the representation of race or minority classes in the game and how the creators may have negatively portrayed them. I wanted to argue that I don’t think the decision to demonize the minority group in the game was meant as a slight on minority groups nor was it out of line with the over-arching story.

As mentioned in the readings, the game takes place in a religious, white supremacists idealized version of 20^th century America. You play as Booker DeWitt, hired to rescue a girl named Elizabeth from the floating city of Columbia. You quickly learn that what seems to be an enlightened utopia has many of the same problems that the real America back down on the ground has. Mainstream society is very whitewashed, while minority groups live in poverty and squalor. A resistance group forms in the game as move throughout the floating city with Elizabeth called the Vox Populi. The group is led by an African American woman named Daisy Fitzroy. At first, the group’s rallying cry for equality sounds appealing and like something many players would root for in the game. However, as things between the Vox Populi and the privileged members of Columbian society get more and more heated, you quickly see an ugly side to the group. They become violent and overzealous, arguably “just as bad” as the oppressors they’re working so hard to overthrow. It ultimately culminates in a destructive all-out civil war in the streets of Columbia.

At face value, this could be seen as belittling the efforts of the real-life equality movements that the Vox Populi are clearly emulating. However, I would argue that this is less about the invalidation of minority struggles and more about Booker’s struggle with his own personal demons. There are clues strewn throughout the game that Booker has been struggling to process events from his past. During the baptism scene in the beginning, he has a strange dream about being in a room with someone hammering on the door and shouting at Booker that he is required to repay a mysterious debt. Throughout the game, he revisits this dream often, with more details emerging as you continue to play.

There are also various mentions of the battle of Wounded Knee throughout the game, including an extremely racist interactive diorama depicting the battle that Booker and Elizabeth are forced to walk through on their journey to escape Columbia. In this depiction of the battle, you see a lot of the same demonization of a minority group (in this case American Indians) that is currently going on with the Vox Populi. At the beginning of the scene as well you hear Slate, one of the game’s villains, explaining to Elizabeth that her “companion,” Booker, “wrapped himself in glory on December 29^th, 1890.” Elizabeth asks Booker what Sate means, and Booker replies, “You don’t want to know.” This interaction implies that Booker is trying to keep his past a secret from Elizabeth and one can be left to assume that it’s because it’s not something he’s proud of.

It’s not until the end of the game that it becomes clear that Booker is suffering from extreme guilt and PTSD from his involvement in the slaughter at Wounded Knee. Since the game’s plot ends up relying heavily on time travel as an aspect of the story, you discover that Wounded Knee was a pivotal moment in Booker’s life. As the game progresses towards the finale, Booker and Elizabeth explore alternate timelines to try and repair damages that have been done in the present. Booker, and by proxy the player, soon realizes that from that titular moment in his life, any timeline that extends from the battle ends in chaos, destruction, and despair. In the end, Booker chooses to destroy all timelines by choosing death after the battle of Wounded Knee.

I believe that this game was really portraying a man struggling to rectify his past and failing to do so. There’s a sense throughout the game that no matter how hard he tries, the past will repeat itself. It turns out that the leader of Columbia, Father Comstock, is actually Booker in another timeline. Comstock is just as guilty of demonizing and working to annihilate a minority group as Booker was during Wounded Knee. In a certain timeline, you see how Booker’s hatred and bigotry get passed down to his daughter molding her into an image of himself, who chooses to wreak havoc on mainland America below. Wounded Knee haunts Booker to the point where he can’t imagine the possibility of himself redeemed.

Clearly, BioShock Infinite wanted to draw parallels to current issues with equality in real-life American society. However, instead of strictly being a commentary on racial struggles in our society, this seemed to be a more personal story of being unable to cope with PTSD. The guilt of the blood Booker shed was all consuming to him. Booker felt that no matter what he did, he was beyond redemption for his actions. He felt the entire universe was better off if he chose to die than to continue on living. He kept reliving his past and projecting his guilt onto the world around him. I believe Booker’s personal struggle is the overall message to be taken away from the game.

After reading Bogost’s “Video Games Are Better Without Stories” article it got me thinking… are games really better without stories? I find myself disagreeing with his argument. If you take the stories out of video games then you’re left with games like Tetris and Candy Crush. In reality, I would never rank a game like Tetris over any game with a proper storyline. Games like BioShock allow players to immerse themselves into a fictional world and play as someone they’re not. When I play video games I’m making moves as if I am the character itself. Video games are an opportunity for us all to escape from the real world and story-less games like Tetris don’t provide that escape. Tetris and Candy Crush are games I like to call “Subway games.” They’re games you take out to pass time. You play them on your commute to work or school with no real purpose or goal in mind. However with narrative games they provide a storyline that allows you to continue building or exploring a world you’ve been working on forever. It drives you to keep returning to the game to see what comes next.

In Bogost’s article he mentions why narrative games can’t just be made into films. He says “Real-time rendering tools are as good as pre-rendered computer graphics these days, and little would have been compromised visually had the game been an animated film. Or even a live-action film” (Bogost). My take on why narrative video games should not be made into films is because the experience that video games provides is different from the experience that films provide. People that play video games are looking for choices – the opportunity to pick their own path. However, when you are watching a film, that freedom to choose is taken away. Even if games provide a false sense of choice, there is still opportunity for us to pick our own path. Players are “in control” when playing video games. However, when you watch films, you are forced to sit back and analyze the story. Sure, the story line of games are important and making the game into a film would help audiences better understand that story, but we are not here only for the story, we are here for the experience. We are looking for the opportunity to be someone we are not.

What if games were also made into films? How would that affect the gaming community? What would happen if people playing the game also had the opportunity to watch the full story? I feel like it would be interesting to see the full story play out. However, I also feel as if it would ruin the experience. The element of surprise is one thing that makes playing video games so entertaining. Not knowing what is coming next keeps players on their toes and keeps them wanting more. I do think though that being able to see a video game’s narrative being played out from beginning to end might be cool.

There has been much debate over the years about the role of narrative in the world of video games. While many games today put a lot of effort into the story, whether it is through the environment, cutscenes, or the general fleshing out of setpieces, story-centric video games have drawn some ire from critics over the years. Many, such as Ian Bogost, have accused narrative-driven exploratory games such as Gone Home and What Remains of Edith Finch of trying too hard to emulate films and television while not being as good at delivering the story as other storytelling mediums. These games, sometimes dubbed “walking simulators,” focus on linear storylines with emphasis on exploration of the game world in order to reveal narrative. 

I feel like some people direct ire towards these types of games due to the lack of typical gameplay elements and the linear nature of the stories, meaning that the player cannot exert as much control over the game world as other games that exhibit complex game mechanics or stories where player decisions produce consequences in-story. However, having less control over the world does not mean the player does not have control at all. The player is still able to control the protagonist of the game, even if there will always be one destination that the protagonist can end up in. In short, I think critics like Bogost are mainly expressing their dislike of a specific type of game, rather than actually delivering criticism on narrative-driven games. 

It is interesting to note that games that are narrative-heavy are receiving debates now when narratives have existed in games since very early on. Aside from the walking simulator, saying that stories do not belong in games calls into question entire genres of games. Off the top of my head, visual novels and role-playing games are both genres where a narrative is central to its games. Expanding outside of video games, tabletop role-playing games such as Dungeons and Dragons, which has been around for decades, rely heavily on some kind of story in order for a session of gameplay to even exist. Even genres that don’t necessarily rely on a narrative, such as platformers, still have some kind of story. If these are all classified as games, even good ones, then there should not even be a debate about whether or not narratives should be in games.

I also disagree that films and television can execute stories better than games. I think that games offer a unique mode of storytelling that you cannot achieve in other mediums, which is to allow the audience to experience the story as a character within. I feel that I am not the only one who has sometimes watched a film or read a book and became so enamored with the story that I wish I was a part of it. People have made fanworks of fictional media where they create self-insert characters into a particular work. For many, it is fun to imagine themselves within a fictional world and interacting with the main cast of characters as if they are a part of it. Games allow a direct outlet into that escapist fantasy through the integration of narrative into its play. 

Sources: Bogost, Ian. “Video Games Are Better Without Stories.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 25 Apr. 2017, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/04/video-games-stories/524148/.

My experience with video games has been one of ranging narratives. While I have played games with little to no narrative, such as Tetris, I usually prefer those with some sort of story to them. Even before I could fully read what the game was literally telling me, I loved the Pokemon game franchise for the story plot, adventure, and diverse characters. While the main plot of traveling through various regions, completing the professor’s Pokedex, earning gym badges while battling your rival(s) in order to challenge the Pokemon League, and stopping the nefarious deeds of the various evil organizations along the way, is roughly the same in every main installment of the series, it is in each region’s differences that set each story apart. For example, in the first generation of games, Pokemon Red and Pokemon Blue, the player simply stops Team Rocket from stealing Pokemon and causing trouble throughout the region during their journey. However, the newest installment, Pokemon Sword and Pokemon Shield, the player unlocks the secrets behind the Galar region’s past while discovering the true motives of certain shady characters. While the region does have Team Yell, a group of fanboys and fangirls of the player’s rival Marnie, they are more of a minor inconvenience than an evil team that needs thwarting. These differences between stories in a single game series makes each game worth playing.

But, what is it about narratives that makes them enjoyable or worth playing? Why do they matter? In their article, “A Dream of Embodied Experience”, Bianca Batti and Alisha Karabinus explain, using Janet Murray’s novel, Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace, that the “magic of games” lies in the player’s “agency (control), immersion, and transformation”, meaning that it is how the player puts them self into the game’s narrative that makes it exciting and interesting. A personal example of this is that when I was playing Pokemon Shield, I actually felt like the hero that the story makes the player character out to be, and it was a wonderful feeling. Batti and Karabinus also note that narratives are about the player’s own experiences and how they are represented in the game: “intersectional issues of race, gender, sexuality, ability, etc. are bound up in the concept of narrative… It’s about bodies and experiences and whose stories get to be told”. Dr. Cody Mejeur also presents the notion of a narrative’s representation in his paper, “Too Narrative, Too Queer: The Border Wars of Game Studies”, saying that “narratives are always connected to identity, personality, and power, which means they are always tied to race, gender, sexuality, and other systems of power”.

Both articles argue that player representation also makes narratives important. No player wants to feel left out of certain stories because of their race, gender, sexuality, age, etc; some players even refuse to play certain games if they cannot find their own personal representation in games. One of my favorite things about the Danganronpa game series is that all of the characters are diverse enough to represent very different backgrounds, genders and gender identities, and sexuality. For example, in Danganronpa 2: Goodbye Despair, the player has the option to spend “Free Time” with almost every character present in the various chapters of the game. During these periods, the player can learn interesting and/or valuable information about certain characters that do not come up during the game’s regular set story. This idea of “Free Time” continues further into the game’s post game, where the player can choose to spend time with and even romance any character that the player chooses. This dynamic does not limit the game’s protagonist, Hajime Hinata, to a heterosexual sexuality or identity, allowing the player to choose who to date for themselves instead of the game forcing a set romance upon the player, which can further add to representation for players that don’t identify as straight. Ultimately, narratives in games serve the purpose of representing and immersing the player into the game’s world, making playing the game a more enjoyable and interactive experience.

Sources:

“A Dream of Embodied Experience” by Bianca Batti and Alisha Karabinus

“Too Narrative, Too Queer: The Border Wars of Game Studies” by Dr. Cody Mejeur

Trolling and harassment in online communities seem to have become more and more prevalent in society with the coming of the digital age. As we have developed so much technology in such a short span of time, we are now finding it difficult to regulate laws pertaining to internet and technology overall, and now we are just figuring out online etiquette. It was only 18 years ago in 2002 when 47-year-old David Fuller posed as a teenager online to kidnap and then murder the 13-year-old Kacie Woody (Perry, 2002). In that time, many more people, from young children to the elderly have been fooled by the anonymity and power that the internet gives you. In the span of two decades we, as a society, have had to endure the growing pains of figuring out the dangers put forth by the internet, and how to combat them.

The thing that I am most interested in is at what point is internet activity considered a crime? What lines do you have to cross to commit a genuine felony online? For example, in the real world it is illegal to call 911 for anything less than an emergency. So, if you call the police to SWAT a house under false pretenses, a practice that has only recently become commonly known, does that count as an actual felony? Are there laws being placed against swatting, or are there laws being introduced specifically for swatting? If, in the process of a swatting incident taking place, a person is killed by the SWAT team, is the death of the innocent person placed on the officer who actually shot the victim, or the person who made the false call? Since trolling in online communities has become more and more prevalent, at what point does that trolling become legitimate hate speech? If you engage in hate speech or sending death or rape threats online, are you breaking the law by doing so?

I did find an article online from 2018 abound federal charges being placed against three men for swatting a stranger, an incident that resulted in the death of 28-year-old Andrew Finch. According to the article, the three men were being charged for “making false or hoax report to emergency services, cyberstalking, making interstate threats, and wire fraud” (Chokshi, 2018). So far I have found nothing pertaining specifically to swatting, only that it has been grouped into making a false report to emergency services. What I find particularly interesting about that statement is that you can be charged for the crime of cyberstalking. So for example, Florida has a law called HB 479 introduced in 2003 to ban cyberstalking (Florida Computer Crime Center).

Personally, I feel that thin veneer of anonymity given by the internet allows people to feel security in harming other people. Maybe people feel like since it is the internet, the words and actions they put into it aren’t really serious. When you talk to someone online, you’re probably going to take that at face value and assume that they are telling the truth, especially when you aren’t knowledgeable about online culture. In that lane, false information is so easily spread online, and harassment can rise to obscene levels, like what we have seen with gamergate, and the only way we can really counteract this is with knowledge, educating yourself, and making sure to be at least somewhat skeptical of what you see online so you can fact check it.

Works Cited

Chokshi, Niraj. “3 Men Face Federal Charges in Fatal ‘Swatting’ Prank.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 24 May 2018, http://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/us/gamers-swatting-charges.html.

“Florida Computer Crime Center.” Florida Computer Crime Center – Cyberstalking, web.archive.org/web/20070205233057/www.fdle.state.fl.us/Fc3/cyberstalking.html.

Perry, Tony. “Kidnap Suspect Kills Girl, 13, Self.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 7 Dec. 2002, http://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-dec-07-na-slay7-story.html.

It’s not news that we often find ourselves bored of the lives we live. As creatures of intellect and curiosity, we simply can not allow ourselves to maintain a monotonous existence. It is the very reason why inventions were built and sports were contrived; a whole world of games were created for our entertainment.

Video games, in particular, seem to be the most popular among the masses. Whether it be a first person shooter or role-playing game, all types and genres give us the freedom of creative pursuit and individual expressionism. And yet, despite the idea that any one can play these video games, there persists a remarkable amount of stereotypes within the gaming community and industry.

Public speaker Anita Sarkeesian addresses these issues and her experience as a victim of online harassment in her TED x Women talk. She begins by introducing her work in producing a series of YouTube videos called ‘Tropes vs Women in Video Games’. Her objective was simple: to examine the depictions of women across gaming platforms. “It is no secret that the video gaming industry boasts some of the most sexually objectified, stereotyped and downright oppressive portrayals of women in any medium. So with that in mind I decided to launch a fundraising campaign on the crowd funding website Kickstarter…what could possibly go wrong (1:20 – 1:35)”

It didn’t take long for her to find out as her social media accounts became bombarded with “threats of rape, violence, sexual assault, and death. (2:40 – 2:50)” All which had a common theme to target her gender. Which, brings us to more prominent questions we might have asked ourselves. Would the same event unfold if Anita Sarkeesian had happened to be male? And if so, to what extent and why is there so much backlash? Sarkeesian responds that there are two fathomable reasons (1) a gaming society of close minded patriarchal men (2) those who think their abusive behavior is a game.

It’s almost embarrassing to believe that grown men in their 30’s would be so hatefully targeting a sole woman expressing her opinions, much less neglecting reality with the rules of gaming constructs. It is virtually “a culture of sexism—where men who harass are supported by their peers and rewarded…women are silenced…and excluded from full participation.(7:35 – 8:00)” It is why we continue to witness unrelenting misogyny in our culture and the abuse that comes with it.

Zoe Quinn, author of Crash Override, is another unfortunate victim of misogynistic mob mentality. Her game Depression Quest garnered attention in a way she never thought it would; she was accused of having sexual relations to promote her game and it spread nationwide. She wasn’t anyone special, just a common developer, so why the scrutiny? Much was due to a social platform like GamerGate, who allowed such acts to continue under the justification of “preserving gaming journalism and ethics”. A more genuine answer as we know it, is to keep the gaming community as an exclusive and privileged badge of honor to the male population.

However, all is not lost. There is time to change and improve the way things are seen and done. We just have to remember why everything started: for a fair share of innovation and happiness from the constricting workload in our lives.

The game world can be more than just a game. World building is a never ending task. Every last detail can be scrutinized and in the end, it supports the overarching plot line that has a complex narrative structure. In a game like Bioshock Infinite, there is a diverse and beautiful world with museums, dialogue, and views that expand the world for the player, even if they don’t care for it. However, every small thing they take in has some effect on a player, which can be see in hidden morals or critiques on society. The background of Bioshock Infinite incorporates the corruptness of history within a government. The player might not notice it but it might embed itself so that when a person gets out of the game, they’ll hopefully make a connection between the game and reality. Now, for Bioshock, the corrupt government isn’t the main goal of the story. The goal is to find Elizabeth. 

However, games like Assassin’s Creed have a much heavier focus on corruption, which is seen more within the goals. In Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood, there are two story lines, one for Desmond and one for his descendent, Ezio Auditore. Both are fighting a corrupt legion, known as the templars, which the templars can represent not only the rich, but societal norms. Assassins are the robin hoods, fighting for the greater good. This is similar to the later games, where the assassins are pirates,which have a code of respect and equality. They are outlaws, but their reasonings are not corrupt like the law. World building and plot is more intertwined with social critique of wealth and the corruption that comes with it. Even though the utilization of world building presents the player with morals and concepts, a nonbeliever of games might not see it, due to their view of games as childish or violent in some way shape or form. However, it can be noted that games are as valuable and eye openings as literature.

From world building, a narrative is supported and broadened, which can have two different types. In Shira Chess’s article, they explain that one of these types, the queer narrative, which is story telling focused on the journey and not the climax, is beneficial and better for games. At times it appears as if most games could be classified as a heterosexual narrative, but its confusing. Most modern games like Assassin’s Creed have a climax, yet there are moments where you find many side quests and enjoyment in just sailing the seas or exploring vast cities in worlds you could only dream of visiting. I’d say many narratives are mixed and try to keep a balance between both because the only pleasure of a climax might be too boring for some players.

In general, world building gives a story more depth. A player can more thoroughly enjoy that plot and in turn, critiques of different topics can be brought to their attention. The narrative can determine how world building is advanced with more side quests or gameplay, while the climax could also be heavily focused, which leaves the player with less pleasure during the journey. However, both types can still be expressive and enjoyable with expanse worlds.

Works Cited

Payne, Matthew Thomas, and Nina Huntemann. How to Play Video Games. New York University Press, 2019.

Shira Chess (2016) The queer case of video games: orgasms, Heteronormativity, and video game narrative, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 33:1, 84-94, DOI: 10.1080/15295036.2015.1129066

When I look back at narrative at games I think about two games that I got with my PS4. This would be the Uncharted series and Until Dawn. In both of these games there is an underlying narrative to the game along with some gameplay mechanics. I’ll start with Until Dawn as the first example. The premise of Until Dawn is that you jump between six main characters throughout the whole story as you stay at a cabin for the night. As you find out, there is a larger threat that awaits the characters at the cabin once they have all settled in. You must work to stop this threat and stay alive until dawn. From the very beginning the main gameplay mechanic is walking and interacting with your environment. You piece together what had happened a year ago with the murder of Josh’s two sisters. There are various totems, photos, etc. that help paint a larger picture of what happened before the events of when you arrived. These items are hidden throughout the map and are there for you to collect.

In addition to collecting items, the player can also have an impact on the story. Until Dawn introduces an element known as the butterfly effect, based on an action that the player takes at one point in the story. While the game relies heavily on scripted scenes, the player has impact on what happens during those scenes, usually they are presented with two options. Many choices have no effect, however some a lasting effect, causing the butterfly effect to start. Because of this butterfly effect it causes a branching effect, and will create multiple endings for the player. While the underlying story of what happens is the same, how events turn out are in control of the player based on the decisions that they make.

The Uncharted series on the other hand has a different approach to narrative. It tells an overarching story through the four games. While each game has its own separate story, they all tie together into the who universe that is the Uncharted universe. Similar to Until Dawn it uses cut-scenes to tell most of the narrative.  However Uncharted differs from its gameplay mechanics as it involves the typical shooting that one would see in a mainstream triple-A game. While it incorporates shooting as a feature of the game, it is not the main focus. Mostly with Uncharted it is about the exploration of the location that you are in and doing platforming or solving a puzzle. From there it will unlock a greater unknown room which will advance to another cut-scene and thus the narrative.

Many of the actions take don’t have a lasting impact on the story as stated by Huntemann “Adventure games center on narrative, or a sequence of events that may be experienced in a combination of orders but generally proceed through a dominant story arc. Because of this focus on narrative, adventure games limit player agency, which can be defined as the ability for the player to act in ways that change the game world or the direction of the narrative.” While the user can interact and test with the world of Uncharted, the story itself is set. Unlike Until Dawn where the player’s actions have direct impact on the story, Uncharted’s narrative is a linear one in which the user plays through a “movie” in a sense. While there is more gameplay added to make up for this lack of choice within the narrative. Uncharted does tell a story, however it is more limiting in what choice the player has in the story and how the effect it.

With both of these games is that they could have been a film or TV series. However, both were created as video games. As stated by Batti and Karabinus ““The problem is that it doesn’t matter: games have no choice but to tell stories,” but abruptly veered away from the most obvious follow-up to that statement: games have no choice but to tell stories because they are made by humans, and humans think in stories.” To me I don’t like horror films and would not have watch the Until Dawn version of that, but since it was a game I was able to experience the horror genre. By including narrative, it can expose the player to genres that they have never experienced before as narrative brings them into the games world.

This week in DMS448 Games Gender and Culture, we analyzed the debate regarding whether or not video games are better without stories. Bianca Batti and Alisha Karabinus’ article, “A Dream of Embodied Experience: On Ian Bogost, Epistemological Gatekeeping, and the Holodeck,” critiques Bogost’s proposed ideas that “the idea of games seeking to tell stories is an ‘unambitious goal,’ one that he says games should abandon in order to ‘pursue the one they’re already so good at: taking the tidy, ordinary world apart and putting it back together again in surprisingly, ghastly new ways.’ Essentially, they argue that his claims are politically driven and as a male, his arguments negate intersectionality and its presence in gaming narratives.

In Cody Mejeur’s essay, “Too Narrative, Too Queer: The Border Wars of Game Studies,” he argues his personal viewpoint backed by evidence that narratives do matter and serve as a tool for exciting and marketable games. He states, “The narratives we have about games and the peoples who play them affect our realities of what games are and who gets to play and be represented in them.” Using the example of the game, “Gone Home,” a narrative can contribute to both the actions and mechanics of a game. “Gone Home” displays queer representation and weaves a narrative that circulates around the relationship between queer males. Thus, it received criticism of being too queer and too narrative in reviews.

Personally, I find that video games should almost always feature a narrative or a story. Video games serve a different purpose for everyone who plays them, as some enjoy them as a tactical form of entertainment while others value an escape from the outside world; an opportunity to be/play as whoever they desire in a virtual reality that differs from the world they live in. The opportunity to utilize a character’s skills while also understanding their background, the events that have shaped them, and their values/desires prove to give virtuality a humanistic appeal. I believe that any opportunity for humans to exercise empathy or emotion, in general, in regards to another human being (whether that character is ‘real’ or not) can benefit the human race greatly.

In today’s culture, turning a blind eye to others and their problems and conflicts is ever-present. Beyond the boundaries of everyday life, video games serve as a way in which human connection and interaction can be promoted and highlighted. On the other hand, a narrative can push a storyline that can ‘trigger’ or hinder an individual’s identity in their real-life outside of the game. With the presence of trolls, as well as narratives that promote stereotypes and violence, certain narratives can negatively affect the progress of queer and transgender communities, as well as other communities. Narratives can also fail to acknowledge an individual who feels underrepresented or unrecognized. For example, many narratives feature a woman who is depicted as an ‘object’ or simply placed in the game for visual sexual appeal. She is not given a rich backstory nor as much focus as the male characters. She also lacks the ability to be able to do as much as the male characters. I do believe, however, that the positives outweigh the benefits in regards to narratives’ purposes. Narratives have the ability to bring individuals together through commonality and humanistic appeals.

Sources used: “A Dream of Embodied Experience: On Ian Bogost, Epistemological Gatekeeping, and the Holodeck article and Cody Mejeur’s essay, “Too Narrative, Too Queer: The Border Wars of Game Studies”