Give me a reason to fight!
Kylie Prymus is the first columnist for PS Fanboy. A Ph.D candidate in philosophy, Kylie specializes in the sociology of technology. Through this new weekly column, Kylie will explore the impact of PlayStation on thought and culture.
I remember that tale. I remember long nights debating the merits and flaws of the Soul Edge and Soul Blade and trying to understand the metaphysics behind good and evil swords transforming to fit their wielder. It was a mighty fine fighting game too, but it was the story that kept me coming back to complete the game with each and every character. Back then I could tell you the motivations of just about every character in every fighting game I played. Nowadays you're lucky if you even get endings.
Funny thing though - during those musings on the power of the Soul Blade I never once wondered what would happen should Darth Vader get his grubby prosthetic hands on it. Nor more recently have I thought about the even greater power Kratos could get (only to eventually lose I'm sure) by its acquisition. The very question is nonsensical.
When Namco first began putting guest characters into the Soulcalibur franchise they gave a nominal explanation for the appearance of people as diverse as Link and Spawn. While it was certainly the snake's hip to be able to fight as these characters, the attempt to fit them coherently into the Soulcaliber universe made about as much sense as the Elder Wand's path of ownership.
Before you head out to the hardware store for some pitchforks I'm not saying that fighting games need stories. We don't play them for the story any more than we do most first-person shooters (though apparently both genres have enough plot to launch movie after movie after movie). I, like you, am very excited about the idea of a Vader/Voldo duel, almost as much as the thought of Reptile taking on Martian Manhunter! But just so we're on the same page here, we're talking about fighting not for ones conviction or beliefs, not to save someone's life or to take down an evil corporation. We're not even talking about fighting to be the best (though I may have to rack up a few trophies). Most fighting games lack a story, certainly a coherent one, because we, the player, just want to fight. If anything these digital bouts are proxy battles, fought for the thrill of fighting and not for any kind of story-driven ideology. It's as if each of us individually is a Private Military Com--
Well, just for the moment, let's L1+Square+Left Stick Roll with it. Perhaps what is arguably the most narrative game in existence has something to tell us about the repercussions of gaming without narratives. When we pit Magneto against M. Bison in the Battle of the Crimson Abs, we're not interested in their personal motivations or what they had for breakfast that morning (though Capcom did make some interesting attempts). We're also not interested in who would "really" best whom (ahem, Superman vs. Sonya? You've got better odds on Gary Coleman taking out Big Boss Man) because every character must be reasonably balanced. We fight these crossover battles for the sheer joy of fighting them, and perhaps that makes us, the player, a bit like the soldiers who occupy Outer Heaven.But wait. Since when do competitive games need a narrative? Tic-tac-toe never had a narrative. Neither did chess, the most pervasive simulation of military strategy in the Western world. It's not until the modern era that board games begin to incorporate enough of a storyline to justify a feature film. So if we're not performing a story, and we're not semi-professional gamers using the game as an extension of our own life narrative, is this just mindless diversion devoid of context?
Philosopher and extremely influential virtue theorist Alasdair MacIntyre addresses the notion of narrative context inside the practice of game playing. By his account each life requires a narrative unity, that is, a story weaving through the disparate activities we engage in over the course of our existence that makes some sense of the whole. In playing games that are sufficiently complex we come to value certain "goods internal to the practice". There is something valuable to be learned by practicing that game and only that game, something which is only valuable for playing that game. To put it more simply, games influence us by instilling goals and values - they are practice for how to do create values in life - bringing meaning to what is essentially a meaningless existence.
Enough with the abstract theory. What does this mean for us as gamers? Well if the games we play are devoid of context and we can create no illusion of playing for any reason other than the joy of battle, how can we make any sense of our lives as a whole? If our gaming habits consist of disconnected battles fought willy-nilly between characters who have no connection to each other there may be a danger that we will stop drawing connections between the people and events in our own lives. How often have you thought about introducing two of your friends to each other, only to do so and discover that they have no context with which to interact, other than you? Your friends need a reason, a context, a narrative that brings them together, otherwise that interaction will be unfulfilling. If we limit ourselves to games that lack context, particularly conflict games, we may start to see our lives as lacking any essential context and our friends as a random collection of people lumped together for no other reason that because it sounded cool.
Now if only I could orchestrate a MacIntyre/Kojima crossover. . .
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Binaryfiend @ Jul 12th 2008 12:18PM
This is just silly.
I don't think every game needs a narrative. Some could actually play better without any especially with games that require lots of strategy because the strategy itself (gameplay) and not the narrative give us the goals and values.
Also, couldn't we just as easily play a game that does not add meaning and get that meaning from um I dunno lets say more meaningful things like life, family, literature, experience and such.
Noshino @ Jul 12th 2008 12:51PM
no, we DO need stories.
Look, the video gaming industry has evolved at a very rapid pace, and stories were brought to games a long time ago, examples of that are Zelda or Mario, hell, even before that with Zork, Ultima, etc...
The story might be really simple, but it STILL there.
Yes, there are certain games that completely lack a story, but then again, they are quickly disappearing. Even Pac Man now has some sort of story, and a freaking making a Tetris movie!
McBonk @ Jul 12th 2008 12:56PM
But games ARE part of life, and experience itself. Therefore, why shouldn't they have meaning?
Great thought provoking piece! Thanks for the read.
Binaryfiend @ Jul 12th 2008 1:21PM
Geez, reactionary much?
@ Noshino
If reread my post you may notice I said "every game" does not need it. I'm not saying and never said games don't need a story (hell those are my favorite) I'm just saying some games don't need it so much or it can been thin.
@ McBonk
Once again I didn't say games shouldn't have a meaning. I just said it isn't necessary for all games and some types of games may be even better without one.
@ Both
Here is a good and fresh example...Civilization Revolution. I wouldn't say it has a narrative and does it need one? I don't think so. I think the non-narrative openness is it's strong point.
Zombie Huggles @ Jul 13th 2008 9:42AM
I think I'm agreeing with you binaryfiend. I played soccer since the age of 9 till 18. I have faced a great variety of opponents. Never did our games have a context. We didn't battle for land, women, or school popularity. (Most my fellow classmates considered soccer a sissy sport.) But mid-game, rivalries between players or groups would arise. In tournaments, we'd remember that one striker that took a cheap shot at the back of our defender's knee.
Context is thus created between our opponents, not the game itself. Who cares why Vader's in SC? If he kicks your ass, then a context is created for the individual. And that's a million times more meaningful then any story that Namco could possibly cook up.
Likewise, with human challengers, context will be created with those that use that cheap kick-move over and over. Those that are about on-par with your skill, and so a mutual respect is developed as no one knows who shall win. And all those other contexts between players. That's where the fighting game shines compared to heavy narratives like Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid. It's a context between players, not something artificially created within the game.
Of course, I do like a good story too. It's just, how diverse can a fighting game's story be? It's always some kind of tournament or something. And if the story were any more complex, then the very gameplay itself limits our ability truly engage with that story. Like Dynasty Warriors. The context was originally 1 vs 1. But did it make sense that the story was about warring factions and we were engaged in 2 man fights?
I think the more complex narratives warrant more complex gameplay. So when you take something as "straight-forward" as fighting (I recognize much skill is involved) the story, if there is to be one, needs to be straightforward itself. That's how I feel.
Dehshizknight @ Jul 12th 2008 6:31PM
Yeah, but imagine the Metal Gear Solid saga without its narrative. Would there be anything left to the game to hold its interest among the fans?
I say a great story-line is VERY important.
Binaryfiend @ Jul 12th 2008 7:25PM
Your right, and I agree, for a certain type of game. Why does every one think I'm saying that story is not important? Did I write that anywhere?
John @ Jul 12th 2008 12:33PM
I disagree with Binaryfiend-- I only come back to the games with narrative, just like I only enjoy art that makes some kind of sense, that is not just pop-appeal. Much props for density and links, and ideas. Looking forward to more.
MakaiOokami @ Jul 12th 2008 1:08PM
There's a limit to how many stories I can handle. I play Tekken for absolutely no reason than just senseless violence for fun. Fighting games are the only games I really enjoy doing that on.
If I want a Story I'll play an RPG. FPS stories like that of Halo are drab and dull to me, the quicky story of Time Splitters keeps me coming back.
Long involved delusional stories get me bored about it because many games like Xenosaga will often find ways to dissapoint. I'd rather have some craziness then some enjoyable action. That's why I spend over 500 hours in Disgaea. I don't need MORE to focus on I have plenty.
Entertainment is a large part of my life from Manga, to Anime, to Games, to Books, etc... there's only so much story I can take so if I can get an enjoyable game with a meaningless story, then so be it. I'm already teeming with excitement from so many other games coming out and that I own and haven't gotten time to play. I need experiences of all kinds. Some with story some without, some with drama some without, if everything aspires to some concept we no longer have creativity we no longer have freedom. Let's let them do the story how they want we can either enjoy it or disreguard it. We don't need to overcomplicate gaming more than it often already is.
Binaryfiend @ Jul 12th 2008 1:21PM
Do you like Civilization?
Binaryfiend @ Jul 12th 2008 1:27PM
Or what about driving games like Gran Tursmo, or sports games like Madden or strategy games like the Eye of Judgment or even button mashers like Dynasty Warriors?
These rarely need an in depth narrative if one at all.
Noshino @ Jul 12th 2008 1:39PM
"there's only so much story I can take so if I can get an enjoyable game with a meaningless story, then so be it"
You just repeated the same point, for the most part, games do need a story, yes, it might be so simple that it is meaningless, but its still there.....
"Binaryfiend"
I don't know about Civilization, but StarCraft had a story, so did Warcraft, Comand & Conquer, Age of Empires, almost all the RTS's that I have played had a story. Like I have mentioned before, the fact that is simplistic does not mean that it isn't there!
And once again, games that don't have story, at least newly developed ones, are REALLY far in between. The only ones that I have played that don't have any sort of story are Lumines and Extreme Space Invaders, but then again, the latter one is a remake from a game that was developed more than 15 years ago
Binaryfiend @ Jul 12th 2008 2:28PM
@ Noshino
If I remember right all those games had a "story mode" but the meat of the game was the game itself and could be played without any story which I think anybody playing online would do.
Also here is yet ANOTHER good example, what about some MMO's which often have many tiny stories (if you could even call them that) or none at all. You just beat monsters and level up and go on another quest (which is hardly a narrative or maybe a narrative with no continuity). I love narrative, I love stories and history but not everything needs it.
@ John
You mentioned that "I only come back to the games with narrative, just like I only enjoy art that makes some kind of sense, that is not just pop-appeal.
Could you please tell me the narrative that a Mark Rothko, Jackson Pollock, or Olafur Eliasson or any number of other artists gives you? It's not always about what it says. Sometimes it's about the way it makes you feel.
specimen @ Jul 12th 2008 12:54PM
*yawn*
Gustav @ Jul 12th 2008 1:35PM
I remember "transcending history and the world", however, it seems most people missed the original Soul Edge/Blade, and just keeps yapping on about Soul Calibur!
GO PSONE!
Deadpool @ Jul 12th 2008 3:51PM
I miss it to. I like Mitsurugi's ending where you have to dodge the bullet and defeat the guy with the gun.
The Super KHAN soundtrack is awesome. I was hoping they would come back for an arrangement in one of the Soul Calibur games.
Zombie Huggles @ Jul 12th 2008 1:55PM
I think I'm agreeing with you binaryfiend. I played soccer since the age of 9 till 18. I have faced a great variety of opponents. Never did our games have a context. We didn't battle for land, women, or school popularity. (Most my fellow classmates considered soccer a sissy sport.) But mid-game, rivalries between players or groups would arise. In tournaments, we'd remember that one striker that took a cheap shot at the back of our defender's knee.
Context is thus created between our opponents, not the game itself. Who cares why Vader's in SC? If he kicks your ass, then a context is created for the individual. And that's a million times more meaningful then any story that Namco could possibly cook up.
Likewise, with human challengers, context will be created with those that use that cheap kick-move over and over. Those that are about on-par with your skill, and so a mutual respect is developed as no one knows who shall win. And all those other contexts between players. That's where the fighting game shines compared to heavy narratives like Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid. It's a context between players, not something artificially created within the game.
Of course, I do like a good story too. It's just, how diverse can a fighting game's story be? It's always some kind of tournament or something. And if the story were any more complex, then the very gameplay itself limits our ability truly engage with that story. Like Dynasty Warriors. The context was originally 1 vs 1. But did it make sense that the story was about warring factions and we were engaged in 2 man fights?
I think the more complex narratives warrant more complex gameplay. So when you take something as "straight-forward" as fighting (I recognize much skill is involved) the story, if there is to be one, needs to be straightforward itself. That's how I feel.
Zombie Huggles @ Jul 12th 2008 1:57PM
I think I'm agreeing with you binaryfiend. I played soccer since the age of 9 till 18. I have faced a great variety of opponents. Never did our games have a context. We didn't battle for land, women, or school popularity. (Most my fellow classmates considered soccer a sissy sport.) But mid-game, rivalries between players or groups would arise. In tournaments, we'd remember that one striker that took a cheap shot at the back of our defender's knee.
Context is thus created between our opponents, not the game itself. Who cares why Vader's in SC? If he kicks your ass, then a context is created for the individual. And that's a million times more meaningful then any story that Namco could possibly cook up.
Likewise, with human challengers, context will be created with those that use that cheap kick-move over and over. Those that are about on-par with your skill, and so a mutual respect is developed as no one knows who shall win. And all those other contexts between players. That's where the fighting game shines compared to heavy narratives like Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid. It's a context between players, not something artificially created within the game.
Of course, I do like a good story too. It's just, how diverse can a fighting game's story be? It's always some kind of tournament or something. And if the story were any more complex, then the very gameplay itself limits our ability truly engage with that story. Like Dynasty Warriors. The context was originally 1 vs 1. But did it make sense that the story was about warring factions and we were engaged in 2 man fights?
I think the more complex narratives warrant more complex gameplay. So when you take something as "straight-forward" as fighting (I recognize much skill is involved) the story, if there is to be one, needs to be straightforward itself. That's how I feel.
zombiehuggles @ Jul 12th 2008 1:58PM
I think I'm agreeing with you binaryfiend. I played soccer since the age of 9 till 18. I have faced a great variety of opponents. Never did our games have a context. We didn't battle for land, women, or school popularity. (Most my fellow classmates considered soccer a sissy sport.) But mid-game, rivalries between players or groups would arise. In tournaments, we'd remember that one striker that took a cheap shot at the back of our defender's knee.
Context is thus created between our opponents, not the game itself. Who cares why Vader's in SC? If he kicks your ass, then a context is created for the individual. And that's a million times more meaningful then any story that Namco could possibly cook up.
Likewise, with human challengers, context will be created with those that use that cheap kick-move over and over. Those that are about on-par with your skill, and so a mutual respect is developed as no one knows who shall win. And all those other contexts between players. That's where the fighting game shines compared to heavy narratives like Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid. It's a context between players, not something artificially created within the game.
Of course, I do like a good story too. It's just, how diverse can a fighting game's story be? It's always some kind of tournament or something. And if the story were any more complex, then the very gameplay itself limits our ability truly engage with that story. Like Dynasty Warriors. The context was originally 1 vs 1. But did it make sense that the story was about warring factions and we were engaged in 2 man fights?
I think the more complex narratives warrant more complex gameplay. So when you take something as "straight-forward" as fighting (I recognize much skill is involved) the story, if there is to be one, needs to be straightforward itself. That's how I feel.
zombiehuggles @ Jul 12th 2008 2:00PM
I think I'm agreeing with you binaryfiend. I played soccer since the age of 9 till 18. I have faced a great variety of opponents. Never did our games have a context. We didn't battle for land, women, or school popularity. (Most my fellow classmates considered soccer a sissy sport.) But mid-game, rivalries between players or groups would arise. In tournaments, we'd remember that one striker that took a cheap shot at the back of our defender's knee.
Context is thus created between our opponents, not the game itself. Who cares why Vader's in SC? If he kicks your ass, then a context is created for the individual. And that's a million times more meaningful then any story that Namco could possibly cook up.
Likewise, with human challengers, context will be created with those that use that cheap kick-move over and over. Those that are about on-par with your skill, and so a mutual respect is developed as no one knows who shall win. And all those other contexts between players. That's where the fighting game shines compared to heavy narratives like Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid. It's a context between players, not something artificially created within the game.
Of course, I do like a good story too. It's just, how diverse can a fighting game's story be? It's always some kind of tournament or something. And if the story were any more complex, then the very gameplay itself limits our ability truly engage with that story. Like Dynasty Warriors. The context was originally 1 vs 1. But did it make sense that the story was about warring factions and we were engaged in 2 man fights?
I think the more complex narratives warrant more complex gameplay. So when you take something as "straight-forward" as fighting (I recognize much skill is involved) the story, if there is to be one, needs to be straightforward itself. That's how I feel.
zombiexhuggles @ Jul 12th 2008 2:01PM
I think I'm agreeing with you binaryfiend. I played soccer since the age of 9 till 18. I have faced a great variety of opponents. Never did our games have a context. We didn't battle for land, women, or school popularity. (Most my fellow classmates considered soccer a sissy sport.) But mid-game, rivalries between players or groups would arise. In tournaments, we'd remember that one striker that took a cheap shot at the back of our defender's knee.
Context is thus created between our opponents, not the game itself. Who cares why Vader's in SC? If he kicks your ass, then a context is created for the individual. And that's a million times more meaningful then any story that Namco could possibly cook up.
Likewise, with human challengers, context will be created with those that use that cheap kick-move over and over. Those that are about on-par with your skill, and so a mutual respect is developed as no one knows who shall win. And all those other contexts between players. That's where the fighting game shines compared to heavy narratives like Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid. It's a context between players, not something artificially created within the game.
Of course, I do like a good story too. It's just, how diverse can a fighting game's story be? It's always some kind of tournament or something. And if the story were any more complex, then the very gameplay itself limits our ability truly engage with that story. Like Dynasty Warriors. The context was originally 1 vs 1. But did it make sense that the story was about warring factions and we were engaged in 2 man fights?
I think the more complex narratives warrant more complex gameplay. So when you take something as "straight-forward" as fighting (I recognize much skill is involved) the story, if there is to be one, needs to be straightforward itself. That's how I feel.
Zombie Huggles @ Jul 12th 2008 2:03PM
I think I'm agreeing with you binaryfiend. I played soccer since the age of 9 till 18. I have faced a great variety of opponents. Never did our games have a context. We didn't battle for land, women, or school popularity. (Most my fellow classmates considered soccer a sissy sport.) But mid-game, rivalries between players or groups would arise. In tournaments, we'd remember that one striker that took a cheap shot at the back of our defender's knee.
Context is thus created between our opponents, not the game itself. Who cares why Vader's in SC? If he kicks your ass, then a context is created for the individual. And that's a million times more meaningful then any story that Namco could possibly cook up.
Likewise, with human challengers, context will be created with those that use that cheap kick-move over and over. Those that are about on-par with your skill, and so a mutual respect is developed as no one knows who shall win. And all those other contexts between players. That's where the fighting game shines compared to heavy narratives like Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid. It's a context between players, not something artificially created within the game.
Of course, I do like a good story too. It's just, how diverse can a fighting game's story be? It's always some kind of tournament or something. And if the story were any more complex, then the very gameplay itself limits our ability truly engage with that story. Like Dynasty Warriors. The context was originally 1 vs 1. But did it make sense that the story was about warring factions and we were engaged in 2 man fights?
I think the more complex narratives warrant more complex gameplay. So when you take something as "straight-forward" as fighting (I recognize much skill is involved) the story, if there is to be one, needs to be straightforward itself. That's how I feel.
Zombie Huggles @ Jul 12th 2008 2:04PM
I think I'm agreeing with you binaryfiend. I played soccer since the age of 9 till 18. I have faced a great variety of opponents. Never did our games have a context. We didn't battle for land, women, or school popularity. (Most my fellow classmates considered soccer a sissy sport.) But mid-game, rivalries between players or groups would arise. In tournaments, we'd remember that one striker that took a cheap shot at the back of our defender's knee.
Context is thus created between our opponents, not the game itself. Who cares why Vader's in SC? If he kicks your ass, then a context is created for the individual. And that's a million times more meaningful then any story that Namco could possibly cook up.
Likewise, with human challengers, context will be created with those that use that cheap kick-move over and over. Those that are about on-par with your skill, and so a mutual respect is developed as no one knows who shall win. And all those other contexts between players. That's where the fighting game shines compared to heavy narratives like Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid. It's a context between players, not something artificially created within the game.
Of course, I do like a good story too. It's just, how diverse can a fighting game's story be? It's always some kind of tournament or something. And if the story were any more complex, then the very gameplay itself limits our ability truly engage with that story. Like Dynasty Warriors. The context was originally 1 vs 1. But did it make sense that the story was about warring factions and we were engaged in 2 man fights?
I think the more complex narratives warrant more complex gameplay. So when you take something as "straight-forward" as fighting (I recognize much skill is involved) the story, if there is to be one, needs to be straightforward itself. That's how I feel.
zombiexhuggles @ Jul 12th 2008 2:06PM
I think I'm agreeing with you binaryfiend. I played soccer since the age of 9 till 18. I have faced a great variety of opponents. Never did our games have a context. We didn't battle for land, women, or school popularity. (Most my fellow classmates considered soccer a sissy sport.) But mid-game, rivalries between players or groups would arise. In tournaments, we'd remember that one striker that took a cheap shot at the back of our defender's knee.
Context is thus created between our opponents, not the game itself. Who cares why Vader's in SC? If he kicks your ass, then a context is created for the individual. And that's a million times more meaningful then any story that Namco could possibly cook up.
Likewise, with human challengers, context will be created with those that use that cheap kick-move over and over. Those that are about on-par with your skill, and so a mutual respect is developed as no one knows who shall win. And all those other contexts between players. That's where the fighting game shines compared to heavy narratives like Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid. It's a context between players, not something artificially created within the game.
Of course, I do like a good story too. It's just, how diverse can a fighting game's story be? It's always some kind of tournament or something. And if the story were any more complex, then the very gameplay itself limits our ability truly engage with that story. Like Dynasty Warriors. The context was originally 1 vs 1. But did it make sense that the story was about warring factions and we were engaged in 2 man fights?
I think the more complex narratives warrant more complex gameplay. So when you take something as "straight-forward" as fighting (I recognize much skill is involved) the story, if there is to be one, needs to be straightforward itself. That's how I feel.
Zombie Huggles @ Jul 12th 2008 2:07PM
I think I'm agreeing with you binaryfiend. I played soccer since the age of 9 till 18. I have faced a great variety of opponents. Never did our games have a context. We didn't battle for land, women, or school popularity. (Most my fellow classmates considered soccer a sissy sport.) But mid-game, rivalries between players or groups would arise. In tournaments, we'd remember that one striker that took a cheap shot at the back of our defender's knee.
Context is thus created between our opponents, not the game itself. Who cares why Vader's in SC? If he kicks your ass, then a context is created for the individual. And that's a million times more meaningful then any story that Namco could possibly cook up.
Likewise, with human challengers, context will be created with those that use that cheap kick-move over and over. Those that are about on-par with your skill, and so a mutual respect is developed as no one knows who shall win. And all those other contexts between players. That's where the fighting game shines compared to heavy narratives like Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid. It's a context between players, not something artificially created within the game.
Of course, I do like a good story too. It's just, how diverse can a fighting game's story be? It's always some kind of tournament or something. And if the story were any more complex, then the very gameplay itself limits our ability truly engage with that story. Like Dynasty Warriors. The context was originally 1 vs 1. But did it make sense that the story was about warring factions and we were engaged in 2 man fights?
I think the more complex narratives warrant more complex gameplay. So when you take something as "straight-forward" as fighting (I recognize much skill is involved) the story, if there is to be one, needs to be straightforward itself. That's how I feel.
themizarkshow @ Jul 12th 2008 2:08PM
I'm glad to see someone else thinking along these lines. I recently just got my BA in Philosophy (and a minor in religion) so these kind of thoughts come up all the time when following games, playing through them, and talking about them with my other nerdy friends.
I look forward to seeing where you go with this new column and definitely give you props for starting something like this which actually questions how games effect us, how we perceive the world, and what that could mean.
Zombie Huggles @ Jul 12th 2008 2:08PM
I think I'm agreeing with you binaryfiend. I played soccer since the age of 9 till 18. I have faced a great variety of opponents. Never did our games have a context. We didn't battle for land, women, or school popularity. (Most my fellow classmates considered soccer a sissy sport.) But mid-game, rivalries between players or groups would arise. In tournaments, we'd remember that one striker that took a cheap shot at the back of our defender's knee.
Context is thus created between our opponents, not the game itself. Who cares why Vader's in SC? If he kicks your ass, then a context is created for the individual. And that's a million times more meaningful then any story that Namco could possibly cook up.
Likewise, with human challengers, context will be created with those that use that cheap kick-move over and over. Those that are about on-par with your skill, and so a mutual respect is developed as no one knows who shall win. And all those other contexts between players. That's where the fighting game shines compared to heavy narratives like Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid. It's a context between players, not something artificially created within the game.
Of course, I do like a good story too. It's just, how diverse can a fighting game's story be? It's always some kind of tournament or something. And if the story were any more complex, then the very gameplay itself limits our ability truly engage with that story. Like Dynasty Warriors. The context was originally 1 vs 1. But did it make sense that the story was about warring factions and we were engaged in 2 man fights?
I think the more complex narratives warrant more complex gameplay. So when you take something as "straight-forward" as fighting (I recognize much skill is involved) the story, if there is to be one, needs to be straightforward itself. That's how I feel.
Zombie Huggles @ Jul 12th 2008 2:19PM
I think I'm agreeing with you binaryfiend. I played soccer since the age of 9 till 18. I have faced a great variety of opponents. Never did our games have a context. We didn't battle for land, women, or school popularity. (Most my fellow classmates considered soccer a sissy sport.) But mid-game, rivalries between players or groups would arise. In tournaments, we'd remember that one striker that took a cheap shot at the back of our defender's knee.
Context is thus created between our opponents, not the game itself. Who cares why Vader's in SC? If he kicks your ass, then a context is created for the individual. And that's a million times more meaningful then any story that Namco could possibly cook up.
Likewise, with human challengers, context will be created with those that use that cheap kick-move over and over. Those that are about on-par with your skill, and so a mutual respect is developed as no one knows who shall win. And all those other contexts between players. That's where the fighting game shines compared to heavy narratives like Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid. It's a context between players, not something artificially created within the game.
Of course, I do like a good story too. It's just, how diverse can a fighting game's story be? It's always some kind of tournament or something. And if the story were any more complex, then the very gameplay itself limits our ability truly engage with that story. Like Dynasty Warriors. The context was originally 1 vs 1. But did it make sense that the story was about warring factions and we were engaged in 2 man fights?
I think the more complex narratives warrant more complex gameplay. So when you take something as "straight-forward" as fighting (I recognize much skill is involved) the story, if there is to be one, needs to be straightforward itself. That's how I feel.
maskedrose @ Jul 12th 2008 2:33PM
in reference to an above post....
uhh.. last I checked.. tekken characters did have stories/motivations for joining the iron fist tournament... Sure, not exactly a Max Payne narration going on.. but its not like they just created characters, but gave them no personalities, feelings, or reasons.
Binaryfiend @ Jul 12th 2008 2:45PM
And how did that thin narrative "instill goals and values"?
maskedrose @ Jul 12th 2008 2:52PM
Isn't that then our job? Each character has a reason for entering the tournament. Shouldn't that be enough to decide what they (the characters) value?
It's a fighting game nontheless, so of course there isn't some deep story or lesson to be learned, but the characters aren't completely empty of any dimension where the players can say "Ima play with Lei, he's going to be a super tough assassin who likes to bake cookies."
Noshino @ Jul 12th 2008 5:52PM
Easy, whenever I play with Nina, I have this sense that she is one awesome female assassin, with Jin I know that the guy can be straight up kick ass half demon half human...
As soon as you are aware of the characters backstory and feel familiar with the way the move/behave (most often related to fighting genre, but for example, who doesn't love the fact that Dante is cocky?) you feel more related to your character(s), you just want to feel as either your character, or a supported of his/her cause
CLupula @ Jul 12th 2008 5:59PM
Yeah, I have only actually beaten Tekken Dark Resurrection Online with the three new characters, because those are the only ones with endings on there (I know you can view the endings from the beginning, but I refused to watch them until I beat the game with that character). The rest, I figure...why bother beating the game with them? There's no reason for it without a storyline.
Binaryfiend @ Jul 13th 2008 11:18AM
What I meant was was how did that narrative "instill goals and values" in you? That is what the author of the article is trying to say.
Joe Skar @ Jul 12th 2008 2:44PM
Primus Rocks!!!
(and Tekken is better)
steve @ Jul 12th 2008 3:12PM
This was a very good read. It made me have flash backs of the days when I was playing a lot of RPG's. Such as well simple examples would be FFVII and Legend of Dragoon being immersed in the game and not being able to fully stop until the game was beaten and then finding myself to want to even play it again! (God if only my friend would return my FF7 8 and 9 heh)
But dosen't it also make you all a little bit sad with some of your past games? Knowing that the likely hood of another game to the series coming out is little to no possibility? Like MGS4 after I beat that game sure i'm going to play it again on extreme mode but it makes me sad to think that this is the last MGS game and that its over, well ok mabey not I mean I bet you that kojima nearly shit his pants when he saw that a new 500gb blue ray disk has come out and we all know we saw a glint in his eye saying "well damn I can now definatly make a directors cut of MGS4 muhahahaha!"
Ok anyways getting to the point in hand which I belive is partly of SC4, i'm very excited about this game coming out because not only will it give me an awsome game to just beat the crap out of my friends online, it will also have me playing the story line over and over with each character and more very likely because its going to have a great story line for each character and will make me have more fun when trying to unlock as much as I can so that I may be able to make my create a character have what I want and just simply kick ass heh. Anyways if I said anything wrong with the SC4 parts feel free to tell me so as I only played SC1 and SC2, never got to SC3 as I sold my PS2 back then before it came out and have only recently played it a bit with friends whom happened to own the game lol.
kacex @ Aug 20th 2008 11:58PM
hahaha I laughed with the Kojima conspiracy theory, I certainly hope there is not a MGS4 DC just because I'm gonna feel the urge to buy it!! hehe Nicely done steve
ClarkyCat @ Jul 12th 2008 3:37PM
Everyone is a philosopher. Or ARE they? See, I just did it. PhD plz.
Binaryfiend @ Jul 12th 2008 3:47PM
That was great..haha Here you go... an imaginary PhD. Or is it? Maybe it is just virtual.
Weirdo93 @ Jul 12th 2008 7:05PM
@ Binaryfiend
or maybe it's not even virtual
for all we know it is a spiritual degree, hell, even a psychological degree
idk about that but nice point man - i think well all deserve PhDs in philosophy lol
Dehshizknight @ Jul 12th 2008 6:32PM
Is anything TRULY virtual???
WHERE'S MY PhD!!!
Binaryfiend @ Jul 12th 2008 7:28PM
@ Dehshizknight :
Yeah Virtual boy! That was "Real" virtual! haha
Phantom @ Jul 12th 2008 4:05PM
I love games that have a story , that's why I play games most of the time . I LOVE RPG'S , That's why I bought the PS3 , FF13 and other assorted RPGs ,
David @ Jul 12th 2008 5:30PM
I for one need a good narrative to complete a game nowadays. The first with a good narrative that I played was Lunar: Eternal Blue. After that I started playing other rpgs (FFVII, Wild Arms etc) and really enjoyed their narratives. I grew accustomed to only expect good stories in rpgs. But then MGS1 came along and after that any game that doesn't have a very good story won't really make an impact on me. I'll have fun with them but not as much as a good game with a good story.
Soulblade quickly became my favorite fighting game when it released on the ps1. I know the gameplay was great but what really kept me hooked was the story and music. I played through all of edge master mode (was that the name?) just to see how the story of each character unfolded. As much as everyone says that Soulcalibur was the best fighting game ever I've always liked Soulblade more and I'm pretty sure it was because of the story. I think that since Soulblade that series' story stopped making much sense and I didn't get as hooked with the following games as with the ps1 classic (I also loved how each stage would change from day to night and how the weapons would break...why did they stopped doing that?)
So yeah...I've always thought that games need good narratives...I'm not saying I haven't enjoyed games with bad narratives (I loved DMC1) but a good narrative makes it that much easier for you to get more involved with the game and also makes them that much hard to forget (Snake getting double-crossed in the first MGS...I'll never forget that).
CLupula @ Jul 12th 2008 5:48PM
The only game I have ever used a cheat save on was Marvel vs. Capcom 2, because, at a certain point, with no storyline, I felt that going through all that work to just unlock another character with no storyline was pointless. I absolutely despise fighting games without endings or storyline. That's why I love the Soul Calibur series so much.
I recently passed on the latest Guilty Gear upon learning that it didn't further the storyline any. It's also why I don't give about Virtua Fighter. I need to know WHY everybody's involved in this battle. I need to know WHY I am fighting a given boss. Otherwise, it seems totally pointless.
Autopsy15 @ Jul 12th 2008 6:25PM
You didn't even read the post, did you?
NO ONE CARES THAT YOU POSTED FIRST!
mushmouth @ Jul 12th 2008 7:31PM
I bought a subscription. I thought it was fairly well done and it was an excuse to get calling all cars. So far I am happy with my decision. I like the attitude that everything Sony does should be free. Sony gives its customers substantially more for free than MS does for the 360 customers.
Binaryfiend @ Jul 12th 2008 7:41PM
Since some of my best points were not posted I'll post something else.
I believe people can be "instilled goals and values" both with and without narrative. Experience by itself is enough to also "instill goals and values". The only difference is that when your told a story someone is teaching you but when you learn through experience (strategy, etc) you teach yourself.
Secondly this argument used by the blogger of "Philosopher and extremely influential virtue theorist Alasdair MacIntyre" is contradictory. In one part he quotes:
"In playing games that are sufficiently complex we come to value certain "goods internal to the practice". There is something valuable to be learned by practicing that game and only that game, something which is only valuable for playing that game."
then he goes on imediatly to say:
To put it more simply, games influence us by instilling goals and values - they are practice for how to do create values in life - bringing meaning to what is essentially a meaningless existence.
Didn't Alasdair MacIntyre just say that what we learn is "only valuable for playing that game."? Where does he say we can take what we learned from Metal Gear and use it in life?
I personally think you can take from games and use knowledge in real life. In fact, I believe any knowledge gained is useful but I just wanted to point out that the crux of the argument runs right into itself.
Jel-op @ Jul 12th 2008 8:45PM
Yeah fighting games' stories do tend to be pretty weak. I'm not sure this will affect me in real life but having more of a reason to fight wouldn't be a bad thing.
Deuce @ Jul 13th 2008 12:18AM
It's very simple. A game need not have a narrative to be good. But it does need personality. Echochrome is a fine example of a game with absolutely no plot, but personality in spite of that.
That said, I only like the fighting games where there are characters that I find interesting on a level beyond strictly gameplay. For this reason, I have always shied away from Tekken and Virtua Fighter. The characters are paper-thin and completely forgettable once the given match is over. I want a character to show off personality in everything he/she does. Most 3D fighters fail to provide this, being made up of a host of motion-captured moves.
Give me my SNK fighters. Gameplay and personality in the same package... yes, it can be done. Capcom used to know how (ie. the Vampire series), but it seems bound and determined to forget that ever happened. More Street Fighter! Never mind creativity, let's beat that dead horse some more.