Interactive Narrative

I’d like to write about Steven Poole’s article regarding interactive narrative (from: Trigger Happy, the inner life of videogames, 2002). A text that thoroughly changed my perspective on game narratives.
Even though the book is nearly a decade old, the message is still very actual. In the chapter Never-ending-stories Poole elaborates on interactive storytelling, why he thinks its impossible, and why he thinks that games shouldn’t have an interactive story. Interactive narrative means the story is able to respond to the players actions in real time, customizing it to the needs and interests of the audience.

Poole splits the story of a game (or any other form of narrative) in two; the synchronic story (what happens now) and the diachronic story (the events that led up to the synchronic story). He reasons that, since the diachronic story is set in stone (you can’t change what happened in the past.) it must be the synchronic story that can be made to respond interactively to the player. Then he continues to state that the gameplay of most games consists of a string of actions that by itself tell little or no story.

The latter can be argued about, since especially in the years since his writing a lot of games are actually story-driven, rewarding the player with a rich synchronic story. Interactive storytelling mostly used synonymously for non-linear narrative. Although this format does seem to offer a lot of freedom to the player, in it’s purest form (every choice leads to its own plotline) it would take a century to develop a meaningful range of different choices. The realistic alternative is a multi-linear storyline, where choices converge so they can ‘share’ chapters. This however results in an amnesiac storyline, that can never refer to it’s past in a specific way, since each chapter must be written to fit a series of different prequels. In that case the player learns to recognize the patterns, and avoid ‘bad’ choices. And as Poole states; “If you know the consequences of your choice in advance, it is no longer a choice.”

This directly links to one of the biggest problems with interactive narrative in games; the contradiction between replayability, and irreversibility. One of the most basic qualities of a game is the fact that you can restart, rewind (game over, try again). We can learn from mistakes and feel the satisfaction of getting it right. One of the most basic qualities of storytelling however, is emotions we feel because of the irreversibility. If the main characters in stories would be able to rewind and play again, there would be no tragedies. The most touching moments in games happen when the script kicks in with Animated cut scenes, showing us an emotional event. The conclusion Steeven Poole draws from this is, “the drama is provided by pre-scripted story, the virtual exploration is interactive, and never the twain shall meet.”

But we can ask ourselves, is this really a bad thing? I myself could not have better formulated it than Poole, who writes: “… But this should not be surprising, or even disappointing. Because stories will always be things that people want to be told. If everyone wanted to make up their own story, why would they buy so many novels and cinema tickets? We like stories in general because they’re not interactive.”

This means that a completely interactive narrative should not be aimed for in games. It doesn’t mean however that there is no innovation to be made. Interactivity and multi-linear / non-linear storylines can be a great inspiration and tool to achieve immersive narrative. In my opinion games are a perfect medium to bring the audience an experience, to tell them a story. And as a Game Designer, I want to tell stories.

Rik out.