January 28, 2011
There’s some fascinating discussion over on Henry Jenkins’ blog with Frank Rose, Wired journalist and author of the forthcoming The Art of Immersion. As Jenkins notes, Rose has spoken to “key players from Will Wright and Jeff Gomez to James Cameron and George Lucas” for the book, so it should be well worth preordering.
I’m going to skip the discussion about definitions, and “deep media” versus Transmedia, and focus on a couple of other elements mentioned in the piece. The first is the notion of the “disruptive” nature of games. Rose states that:
Movies like Inception, as you’ve observed, are constructed very much like a game, with level upon level upon level and a demanding, puzzle-box approach to narrative. If you’re a gamer, you know intuitively how to approach this. If you’re not, well, good luck.
This is an interesting suggestion that I haven’t heard before, and I think it has some validity. Inception certainly seems to have some qualities that we associate with video games; the different “levels” of the dream world are roughly equivalent to the traditional progression through stages in a game (there’s even the customary snow level). I’m sure an argument could also be made that the efforts that fans have made to “crack” the film’s final question are somewhat gamelike in nature. I would be very interested to see the Cinemascore ratings (which indicate how much audiences liked a movie) for Inception divided by, say, over and under age 45. It may well be that the movie was enjoyed a lot more by those familiar with gaming vernacular.
Rose goes on to suggest that games are rehearsals for life. In the traditional sense, of playing pretend as a child, he’s absolutely right – those kinds of role-plays foster imagination, problem solving and cooperation skills. I’m not entirely convinced however that video games – when taken as a whole – serve the same purpose. Indeed, it could be argued that video games are an escape from adult existence rather than a training ground to develop skills to navigate through it – especially since an increasing number of popular games rely on cynical “mechanics” designed only to keep players clicking. Moreover, I’m not certain how well we’ll all survive the apocalypse if disaster movies are indeed a rehearsal for it. Still, the premise as a whole is fascinating and one it’s one I’ll be thinking a lot more about over the coming months.
What is directly relevant is Rose’s assertion that:
So stories and games are intimately connected because they’re two sides of the same impulse. Stories give rise to play, and play gives rise to stories. Think of Star Wars, and all those action figures, and the fan fiction that came out of it–story transmuted to play and then to story again.
This absolutely hits the mark, although for me it’s not the notion of “play” in the video game sense I find interesting, but rather the provision of a space that encourages creativity. Action figures is a great example because the player has to give voice to those characters (especially less developed ones), decide whether to play within established canon, and create physical rules for the “game.” That fosters creativity, and perhaps there is some merit in the idea that video games have made it more permissible for adults to create in the same way. So to cite Halo, for example, the action of playing the game, of shooting friends, is not inherently creative. But the subsequent editing of replay videos into stories and perhaps the creation of levels to share with friends that anticipate a certain story certainly is.
Frank Rose is absolutely right when he says that these sort of skills led to a great deal of fan fiction in the Star Wars universe, particularly that which featured the fourth and fifth wave toy releases that are only minor characters in the movie. The interesting thing is the next step – when those ideas eventually morph into something subtly new and different. In fact, I had that very discussion with Scott Walker (check out his site Runes of Gallidon if you haven’t) – the point at which fan fiction or co-created content departs from a canon to become something entirely new (perhaps with the addition of new visual assets). That’s exciting, and will probably fuel a lot of creativity going forward – in the same way that “borrowing” always has.
You’ll see that Rose cites Lost and Heroes as examples of how games have changed storytelling by creating something more “convoluted.” I’m not certain that those are great examples, since neither series had any idea where it was going, but they’re probably the best we have right now. I do want to end by commenting on the penultimate question raised by Rose:
The big question now is, will games and stories actually merge? Will we ever have the experience of being at the center of a carefully constructed dramatic narrative? That’s certainly the way things seem to be headed, but I’m not convinced that anybody in the business today will achieve it
This idea, of the viewer/player becoming the “subject” of a narrative is one that is sometimes held up as the holy grail (and Frank, please correct me if I’ve misread this). However, I’m not certain that this is a desirable notion, even if it will one day be feasible. Pushing the audience through an experience that forces them to interact with (and thus alter) story components necessitates completely removing many of the elements of storytelling that make it so emotionally engaging. But that’s probably a discussion for another post.
“Transmedia” is a “marketing” methodology..it’s best to break content up by it’s core experience/capabilities as expressed in the specific media type being used. Story’s are not transmedia. And I do not believe that many of the examples given as “transmedia” are in fact anything but a “traditional” product of a specific medium, that finds traction, and only THEN after is merchandised by licensed partners.
Of all examples given in the basic “transmedia” pr. The “matrix’s ” story I believe was the only property “created” to be “sold and told” via mutliple mediums. “Dead Space” apears to be another and their does finally seem to be a few others in the last few years.
That’s an interesting perspective. I can only tell you that there are a great number of stories being written at the current time – both small and enormously big – that are being conceived from the ground up as Transmedia.
BTW- we all remember that “action figures” DID NOT ship with Star Wars for that Christmas season…. in fact -all you got was a box and an IOU. Lucas kept “toy licensing” away from 20th century as a “hope” and a financial “need” to get the film done- not as a strategy or methodology of “story” or “play”. Just Keepin it real.;)
I don’t think either Frank or myself was claiming that Lucas fully intended or foresaw the potential of licensing. Rather, we were discussing the actual effect of the toys on play after the fact.
It’s a good question, but Simon is entirely right. Lucas very much stumbled across this form of storytelling. At the beginning, the licensing deals were just that, and in many cases (Marvel Comics, for example) Lucasfilm had little or no control over what the licensee did with the property. In the book, Howard Roffman—who joined Lucasfilm in licensing in 1980 and who subsequently instituted the idea of canonicity, laying the groundwork for the Expanded Universe—says, “The difference between then and now is that we didn’t know what we had.”
Simon,
as always, great comments. A couple of 2-cents I found in my pocket while reading your post:
- I’m not entirely sure that we’re talking about the right frame when we, as you write, could consider games to be an escape from adult existence. Looking at 220 million minutes of Angry Birds being played every day, not to mention the gazillion of other games – social or not – that are out there, I believe that for better or for worse gaming is becoming an integral part OF adulthood. What this will entail is for someone better versed in sociology and psychology than me to ponder and explain.
- With transmedia storytelling becoming more and more developed as more and more creators are involved, more projects are launched and more funding is available, I think (or hope, perhaps) that we will see less of the “pushing people through an experience”-type of projects and more of the build-a-world/tell-a-story-or-two/leave-sandboxes/open-up-for-fan-fiction kind of projects. It does put the creators to the task, but I would love those kind of experiences
- I read the interview Henry Jenkins did with Frank Rose, which was interesting. I agree fully that the terms are overlapping (and in that sense not all-important by any means). I also believe that we will see an eradication of terms, as transmedia storytelling (and “deep media”) becomes more and more a natural part of the media landscape. Just as a comparison: 20 years ago, a “newspaper editor” did just that (as I did back then) – do the interview, write the story, get it published in tomorrows newspaper. Nowadays a newspaper editor will write, blog, tweet, take photos, Flickr or Twitpic them, do live coverage via iPhone on Bambuser or suchlike, and probably a dozen more things I don’t know now. The title remains the same, the times evolve. So will transmedia/deep media.
You’re absolutely right when you say that playing games is increasingly part of the adult experience for much of the population. But doesn’t that sort of make the point? Playing Angry Birds isn’t really preparing you for any social, professional or survival experience is it? I’m not being facetious, I just can’t think of any.
Regarding your last paragraph: “Pushing the audience through an experience that forces them to interact with (and thus alter) story components necessitates completely removing many of the elements of storytelling that make it so emotionally engaging.”
I’d argue that traditional ARGs are set up precisely to accomplish this – or at the very least capable of accomplishing this. Many would argue that a well-designed ARG is flexible enough to incorporate player actions into the story itself, altering it, even personalizing it. Many players will testify that emotionally they’ve been attached to certain ARGs very deeply because of this; because of the personal connection with characters and events. One of the best examples often cited is Weephun’s betrayal of a key character in ilovebees which was completely unexpected, and yet shaped the narrative itself.
I say ‘at the very least’ because an argument could be made that ARGs still typically contain a pre-conceived grand narrative, a final destination for the story; and the flexibility and dynamic player-created content is what forges the path to that end, guided and nudged in that direction by the PMs. So, having an experience that is completely player=subject would imply that there couldn’t be a single unified story destination for all players (or a limited set of options, depending on how flexible it was intended to be, like a choose your own adventure). In that case, I might even argue that to have the player the primary “subject” of the narrative means ultimately giving up any control over the story’s destination. The creator might start the narrative at one place, and as it plays out for an audience, the narrative would in essence need to split into personalized stories for every individual player, each with their own destination. If the creator implies a narrative by influencing the player’s actions towards it, wouldn’t that imply that the grander narrative is now more essential than the player as the subject?
Perhaps this degree of player/subject narrative is more feasible for stories intended only for a single audience member? It’s sort of cliche now, but perhaps the movie The Game is already an example of that? As the ‘altered world’ for the player/subject Van Orton progressed, surely those orchestrating it had to adapt. I believe in the film they couldn’t predict how the ‘story’ would ultimately end up and had to adapt to his actions, only guiding him in his personal journey towards a goal, not any actual pre-conceived narrative or practical plans.
Heck, one could even argue that the act of Inception itself is a sort of player=subject experience. The creators only add an environment and proceed with a goal for the subject, but the narrative – the route and destination is completely personalized for that individual. In that situation, even the ‘puppetmasters’ became players themselves, with a portion of creative control given over to the subject. Hm.
Geoff: great reply – I’ll be touching on many of these points in another piece in the next week or so. Kudos for mentioning The Game – you actually anticipated something I was planning on referencing!
Thanks, and to followup – could this actually be the sort of thing being referenced?
“Reality adventures” – If Your Life Were a Movie / NYTimes: http://nyti.ms/h1IbpP
An experience designed for a single player as the subject. Brilliant
Hi, I believe you might find some insighful discussion on the following articles – “Fearing Fictions”, by Kendall Walton (The Journal of Philosophy, vol LXXV, january 1978) and Gregory Currie’s “Visual Fictions” (The Philosophical Quarterly, april 1991).
hugs.
João
i see “player/viewer/subject” being used alot here. the term i and very few used in the early 90′s was “viewser” it still holds:) a “viewer /user”. Player is too gamer memed for my tastes… since “building and designing” your avatar and or spaceship. or virtual steed, is not an act of play of game.. but of “design” and “use.”
also transmedia properties are not story driven, but environment/style/theme/genre driven. they may have an underlying theme/ethos, but stories are successes guided by plots and characters..and those are the elements that that do not transfer from the value of one medium to another, past the intial “sell” of marketing.
I will offer this question though for the new meta transmediates to ponder… Transmedia as “products” is already – sadly- proven as last centuries model. Its clear that Transmedia will soon be ALL “service” oriented as its main interface to the “viewser”. This is the key “business of virtualization” and why 3d movies in theaters is here today- but soon- inevitably- gone tomorrow. And we all know the “videogame” section at TOYRUS grew..as the Action Figures shrunk again–now only 3.5 inches for 8.99.
Success for “transmedia” IP will not be about Stories… but about “service”…
more den mothers, less programmers should lead
and BTW- my perspective on transmedia is my first hand experience developing and selling/trying to sell it as process and business plan for 20 years.:)
Hey Simon! A couple points:
Regarding games preparing for adult life, I think there’s definitely an argument to be made that video games can do that for teens and adults as well. See Jane McGonigal (new book out recently, REALITY IS BROKEN, and her TEDTalk at http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jane_mcgonigal_gaming_can_make_a_better_world.html).
Regarding merging of game and story — are not a lot of games already hugely centred on story? Dragon Age and Mass Effect come to mind. “Will we ever have the experience of being at the center of a carefully constructed dramatic narrative?” We seem to have that — sure, there are structures that guide us through some framework of narrative usually, but nonetheless. Or am I missing the point? (Frankly, any story enhances our understanding and interaction with the world around us; that’s what stories do. Shameless plug: an essay I wrote on that power of story: http://lucasjwjohnson.com/2009/12/28/the-power-of-story/)
I know this is an post but have something relevant to add. I saw this video today on games and how they can help develop skills that help achievement in the real world.
This is the original post:
http://cynthiajabar.blogspot.com/2011/01/intention-2-2011-play-manifesto.html
This is the video that spoke to me:
Food for thought! Cheers!
I’m reading McGonigal’s book at the moment. Post on it at the weekend hopefully!