Alright. It's been months since I've even visited here, but I'd have everyone know that reformats excepted, the Forge has yet to leave my favorites list. What does it matter? Absolutelly nothing. Anyway-

It's been talked about before dozens of time in my experience, but I've never seen a thread just about GNS in video games. I've heard statements like: Narrativism is impossible in video games, or that all games are neccicarilly gamist. I would like to say that I wholeheartedly dissagree. To the limits of my knowledge of what GNS is, I have to say that each part of GNS is possible and has been shown in video games.

Gamism is about competition between the participants. It is then, easy to say that gamisnm can be found in almost all computer games. This is because the computer can be concidered a participant. Why not? It was programed by a human. It exhibits a type of intelligance, even if artificial. Since the victory conditions are fundamental to the game, and they do exist, overcoming them proves the existance of gamism.

Games where gamism can be found as a fundamental part of the game are: Pokemon (Red, Blue, Yellow, Green, gold, silver, whatever the hell else thye have now), Final Fantasy II, Wizardry I-VIII

Simulationism is, to me, the aspect of discovery and exploration within a game construct. That should mean that video games form a perfect medium for this. Because you have such a visual, and audio element it allows for a type of immersion that P&P RPGs are incapable of. One argument againt this is that video games are not heuristic (I can't spell. Deal with it.). They form walls that however hard you try, you cannot cross. I answer this with: Meh. Despite this, games can have wide expansive worlds. Some could take years to explore. Elite II: Frontier had our entire galaxy fully explorable, even though it wasn't an RPG. Despite the program's limiting barriors, sim experiences should be possible. They're really mindsets anyway, right?

Examples of heavy sim. games: Betrayal at Krondor, The Elder Scroll series, Final Fantasy 5

Now we come to Narrativism, probably the rarest mode in video games, if it exists. Narrativism is built upon the framework of "Story Now!". This means that the participants have to make decisions that affect the story based upon thematic elements or such. In any case, why not? There are games that let you affect the ending, how your characters react, and how the story develops. It may be arguable that, because the different actions you take already exist within the programing of the game, that you are just going through a list of options, like a choose your own adventure story. In the end though, even though you were limited in your options, you are soley responsible for whatever consequences come of it.

Examples of heavy nar. games: Ultima IV-Quest for the Avatar; Planescape: Torment; Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic

So there you have it folks, one lunatic's opinion. Video games are great things with great potential. Let's just hope that they don't put the p&p industry out of business.

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron

Hi Eric, welcome back.

Eric J. wrote: It's been talked about before dozens of time in my experience, but I've never seen a thread just about GNS in video games. I've heard statements like: Narrativism is impossible in video games, or that all games are neccicarilly gamist. I would like to say that I wholeheartedly dissagree. To the limits of my knowledge of what GNS is, I have to say that each part of GNS is possible and has been shown in video games.

A video game will not "step on up", but this I believe rather points to a weakness in the competition-oriented definition of Gamism as it presently exists in GNS. The game does not need to step on up for the player to invest real personal stakes in their own performance against the game. This cannot meaningfully be said to be a social activity or the investment of social esteem; rather it is personal esteem and self-knowledge that is being explored/tested/developed.

I agree, however, that Narratavism is probably flat-out unlikely in computer games and will remain so until proper online multiplayer develops more; at which point whatever form it takes will probably be rather RPG-like. I'm not aware of any real precedent for real-time story creation by multiple participants in the extant arts, so RPG narratavism may be quite unique.

The bottom line is GNS/Creative Agenda theory specifically addresses the group creation of a fantasy by multiple human members in real time. For GNS theory to apply to an activity, that activity must:

1) Involve more than one person
2) Involve two-way real-time communication
3) Allow every member to create significant parts of the fantasy material

GNS/CA theory was not formulated to address video or computer games. If you use it to do so, it will give wonky answers because it is built on different assumptions. (An exception may be multiplayer online games).

I think we've all seen how GNS/CA theory resonates outside the field it was designed for. For example, I see connections between GNS/CA theory and the various theories of fiction - but I would never claim that GNS/CA theory would make a useful tool for analyzing Harry Potter. (Hm, I want to increase player engagement with Harry's problem - ah, a narrativist approach suggests letting the reader create some of his problems. I'll just call my reader up and we'll type this part together.)

However, GNS/CA theory may point to how you might create a parallel theory for video games. I would suggest that you'll need to start from first principles - the assumptions:

1) Video games are coded in advance
2) Player input is strictly controlled
3) Player contributions to the fantasy world are specifically limited

And build on that. In particular you might borrow the idea of Creative Agenda as a key element. What does the player get out of it? What does the designers intent have to do with that?

I would applaud an attempt to construct this video-game oriented theory. You might even be able to create a Grand Unified Game Theory, which covers both.

Have at it.

Hi Eric,

Just for historical reference: Computers, Gamist design, and the future of TRPGing, Question about GNS in computer games, Computer RPGs and the difference perceived, From CRPGs: is that all there is?, Computer RP software, Video games aren't fun enough ..., A history of CRPGs (long), To experience is to know CRPGs, and Holographics: a possible future evolution of gaming?.

There's lots more to talk about, I'm sure, but these threads provide a way for us to avoid covering old ground.

Best,
Ron

talysman wrote:

Eric J. wrote: It's been talked about before dozens of time in my experience, but I've never seen a thread just about GNS in video games. I've heard statements like: Narrativism is impossible in video games, or that all games are neccicarilly gamist. I would like to say that I wholeheartedly dissagree. To the limits of my knowledge of what GNS is, I have to say that each part of GNS is possible and has been shown in video games.

I'm sure Ron or someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think all of the GNS modes are impossible in a video game, although all the modes of the Threefold may be possible. I don't know enough about the Threefold to say for certain.

Holy crap. I didn't know that there were 9 threads already. Sorry about that. But if I can further my point, I'm just saying that GNS could at least form the basis of a model that would apply to computer games.

Let me examine this:

1) Involve more than one person
2) Involve two-way real-time communication
3) Allow every member to create significant parts of the fantasy material

I kind of dropped out of video games when I couldn't get new controllers for my Intellivision and the drives on the C64 kept going wonky. I see my kids play them all the time, but I dont' give it much attention.

Still, I think that the thing that distinguishes a role playing game is not really the two-way communication suggested by Alan, but quite specifically the creation of a shared imaginary space. I am about to publish a Game Ideas Unlimited article (Credibility) this Friday that addresses that, over on Gaming Outpost.

Because you need a shared imaginary space for it to be a role playing game, a computer can't really be a participant. That raises the question of whether an imaginary space shared by a single individual to which others have contributed (solo play, choose your own adventures, CRPGs) are really role playing. However, it does validate PbP, PbEM, PbM, Chatroom, and other forms of electronic play between persons not interacting with any immediacy.

I think that each identified creative agendum has a counterpart in literature; they're not the same, but they are analogous. I wouldn't be too surprised to find an analogous counterpart to each in video games. However, since the CA is about what we hope to derive from and incorporate into the shared imaginary space, if you eliminate that you probably hobble the CA's application to other media. Still, I can see an individual reading a book for gamist, narrativist, or simulationist reasons (which would impact the sort of book that would be best for this), and I could see someone playing a video game similarly.

--M. J. Young

I hope these models are applied to computer/video games in the future. Maybe then there will be something new to draw me back into playing them. Computer games have been stuck in a rut for years now using the same recycled game play with bigger and badder graphics thrown on top.

The models may not be but many of the ideas are. Try checking out some of the games I've mentioned. They're all good (especially the Bioware games).

May the wind be always at your back,
-Pyron