Hmmm, I hope you didn't take my disagreements more strongly than I intended...

Allow me to summarize your OP and my reply:
You: Videogames are mainly interactive and therefore don't need a narrative. Narrative in videogames may be detrimental or additive to the ludic value. Cinematics in videogames are mostly detrimental.
Me: You are right about the relation between narrative and gameplay, but overstate the negative of cinematics on gaming.

Basically I see your focus on cinematics as looking at some trees instead of the forest. Instead of going into details of those trees being better or worse trees, I chose to argue that if you look at the forest...


Thanks for explaining the commercialization angle, I now see the connection but feel it's not relevant to my points. If we disagree that something (cinematics) is good or bad to gaming, what causes it (commercial pressures? misguided artistic visions?) is actually not important. At least if you have no dogma about social systems of production :)


Moving to the core argument.

You basically want to know why I separate ludic systems from narrative systems in looking at games.
You basically want to know why I separate moving pictures from soundtracks in evaluating motion pictures.

The answer is that I don't separate them, unless I have to, and the way you framed the questions by focusing on some bombastic soundtracks (cinematics) is why I did.

As you see the comparison matches both our opinions.
1) We both believe that mechanics are necessary for games, like moving images for movies.
2) We both believe that games with a "good" mix of narrative and gameplay are better than the isolated parts - that soundtracks and pictures can add to a whole bigger than the parts.

Now, I didn't say mechanics carry no meaning. That would be like saying that silent movies carry no emotion. I actually gave examples of game mechanics conveying meanings: Chess, Monopoly and Braid.

What I think you will agree is that the narrative, whether written or shown, is a much easier carrier for meaning - precisely because it leaves the player less choice space for interpretation.
So silent movies will find it much harder to affect a viewer emotionally, just like games without narrative will find it much harder to convey meaning through their mechanics alone.

(this is another reason why focusing exclusively on videogames obscures the topic - the screen forces a visual aspect that is extremely strong - even sound in movies does not have the same constant presence - you may have momentary silence, or no music, but the images continue. Can you have interactive videogames on a dark screen?)

Now with this power to add emotion (to add meaning) comes a risk, because the sound may distract the viewer from the images, like the narrative may distract the player from the play. But this is distract, not detract. The play and the images are still there, objectively undiminished, and it may be interesting, or appropriate to look at those aspects in isolation - precisely because the relation between them is not unidirectional and does not have the same result universally.

So ironically I reach a conclusion: I kind of agree with you that cinematics distract from gameplay.

(while actually adding to better games. What videogames did to popularize and mature games is huge social change - akin only to popularity of sports, which also come from games ;) the power of play mechanics)

But these not cutscene cinematics, these are the graphics of every single VIDEOgame - even if that is just images of text changing. And for me it is very interesting, that even when players realize that meaning/narrative can distract from play/mechanics they never generalize that that is also happening with the videogames they like, especially RPGs and adventure games.


Ok, that was longer than I thought... now to round up on the tangents:

I don't se any ethical value of nobility in gameplay. I can see an ethical value in their pedagogical aspects.
Of course there is ethical value in game's narratives (subjective obviously). Just like in any narrative outside of games.

Choice in dialogues is a gameplay mechanic. The textual content of each choice is what usually provides the meaning.
The choice mechanic itself may add to the narrative ressonance in that it permits the narrative to be better atuned to your strings. But this can go the other way, it permits the player to dismiss the narrative and meaning all together.

As for FPS action mechanics... I could go on for ages. A few provocations :)
Save reload mechanics detract hugely from effectiveness of what you describe.
Playing paintball or a team sport is mechanically much more faithful to the reality of acting under danger.
I'll agree with you on the frenzy though... but creating frenzy I don't consider very impressive, we had that in arcades in the 70s and 80s, and in many ways are less hardcore now.

Lastly, ideas can be expressed trough actions, and actions are defined by mechanics, and this does not mean all actions express some idea, and it does not mean that actions designed with intent to express an idea actually do.
Overall interactivity and meaning are mostly perpendicular to each other. Neither helping nor hindering each other - we often tolerate bad play for good narratives, and bad narratives for good play.

What would you say is the meaning of frenzy and a sense of danger?
Do these things have a meaning divorced from the narrative context?
What is the meaning of Robotron? Arkanoid?
Don't these have frenzy and a sense of danger expressed mechanically?


Thanks for the opportunity, as mentioned this is a topic I enjoy discussing.
This should give you a better view on any further disagreements. If you don't fal asleep meanwhile ;)

Yeah, that's pretty much what I think on most of this too.

Thanks for the read!
Don't worry, I have no further disagreements: as long as they are motivated, opinions are not right or wrong, and you voiced yours more than well. :)
True. An abuse of saves (especially quicksaves) is detrimental: if there is nothing to lose, someone may approach the game in "the lazy way", imo losing the best it has to offer.
I agree on that, too. My precedent comment was precisely directed to let you admit this! ;)
I might have misunderstood what you were saying... I though you were denying this, but now it's obvious you were not. Consider also that my English is still improving! If I were to debate on this in my mother language, I could be a lot more precise and profund. As it is now, though, my ability does not allow me to adequately voce my thoughts, unfortunately!

For me, the majority of games that are based on a cinematic experience fail by default. Games are not movies, and trying to divide one's attention between the interactive and passive aspects of a cinematic game is annoying.

Funnily, visual novels work so well because they have a slower pace and allow the player to take in their atmosphere and writing - so it actually improves upon what a book could do, since you have music and visuals to set the tone.

Cool. The relation between languages and action is a deep topic and though dissection can be an appropriate analytical tool, it's also the case I often don't feel confortable how far to take it.

One question on linearity and interactivity.

Why do you think that branching narratives, where the viewer influences the path taken, sometimes the conclusion even, have been explored in videogames instead of in films themselves?

Afterall, for the games you brought up initially (AAA cutscene heavy, cinemastic bombast), it's definitively the case that they are almost an hybrid, with the custscenes amost making up a short movie by themselves, and the gameplay usually being a disconnected half.

And it's not that such hybrids are unique to gaming, I can think of performance theater where improv can be seen as an example of coop roleplaying/narrating. Dancing even, in a stretch you could say fits that hybrid...

PS: Use italian words if you feel the precision of expression requires it - when the arguments are deeper, the words in english are often very close to latin roots - plus I am fluent in portuguese and spanish, so chances are good I'll understand. A game of translation heh? ;)

Since this is an international forum, I think it would be proper to use English only. Even if I cannot express myself in an optimal way, at least I would not cut out the vast majority of users from the discussion! :)

Back to your question: my answer to this one is very, very banal.
I think branching narratives have been explored more in videogames than in any other media because of their versatile structure. You can always have multiple assets ready, and their flow is easily managed by the program; basically, the developers can account for multiple arrays of different situations in a relative easy way, with the fastest reaction time possible.
You chose improvisation as example, and while it is a sensible comparision, I think videogames are vastly different:
in improvisation, changes happen on the fly and unexpectedly, while in vgs you have a finite amount of possibilities, each composed by a certain numer of reshuffleable parts. Basically, I could say that in a game with branching narrative every outcome is already formed before the player reaches it, and choosing what (pre-made, though varied and not forced) path to follow is up to him/her. That is why, imo, braching narrative is easily manageable (hence more widespread) in videogames: all the possibilities have already been forecast, and nothing is left to chance.

Very well, and I agree with you on production costs. How about the element of ego in what motivates most artists? Games are typically developed in team efforts, like building cathedrals, and that can't help but dilute artistic vision or message (no wonder art games are usually indievidually produced - no wonder branching choices in games often feel like there is a special "better" path or coalesce into conclusions mostly unaffected by the choices).

Which leads me to consider how most of gamers that wish games to mature into more artistic media, are usually unawares that will in a very deep way reduce their ownership of said games. You experience a game and control your play in a very different way than you experience and control a movie or another such media. In a way this goes to your point on copyright.

I'm here thinking about a number of aspects, but already finding it difficult to put these in questions or structure into an adequate argument... Thanks again anyway.

1-What elements do define a videogame?
A: Player interactivity / choice.

2-Stories and Vgs: how and when do they actually add meaning to a game?
A: To provide context / setting. In other words, to answer the question "what's the goal / point / objective of the game?" Beyond that, they don't. Most context can and should be established in game without interrupting player freedom.

3-What is the effect of the continuosly increasing use of cinematics in vgs? Given your conception of videogame, do you find it helpful or damaging?
A: Damaging. Cutscenes remove the player from the game.

4-Could (and/or should) videogames be compared to the classic media, such as literature or cinema, or do they deserve their own dignity (both in artistical and legal terms)?
A: Literature, cinema, videogames, and music are all independent forms of media. However, cinema can incorporate text and music and games are capable of incorporating them all.