Narrativist vs. Mappers

[mrsulu]

[I started writing this when I was responding to Sai's post about whether or not RPGs should continue on after the big boss was defeated. It sort of grew, so it got its own thread.]

[Also, hi. I almost never post, but I lurk a lot.]

Most popular narrative structures suggest that once your external and internal conflicts are resolved, you have to stop pretty soon after that because there is nothing driving the story. There are good reasons why most comedies end with weddings---it's a recognizeable The End for that collection of conflicts and you have to move on.

In many ways, it's the sense of all-conflicts-resolved that makes an ending feel like you've gotten somewhere. When people in a forum about a game are posting about whether you got a "real" ending or a "true" ending, they're often talking about whether or not the conflicts in the game are completely resolved.

For a counterexample, consider an action game like Half Life. There's this big boss at the end, no surprises, but imagine if in the anteroom before the big fight, you could just let him be, then hop onto an airplane and leave right and you never really find out how whether the big bosses' evil plan was be stopped or not. I can guarantee no one will think that was a "real" ending.

For a light romance plot that appear frequently in these games, a wedding (or a long-term relationship) is a perfectly reasonable final ending, making sure that all of your supporting cast get one last comment about how it worked out. An ending where you don't figure out what's making that girl in the snow sad is one where you'll go back to try to resolve it. Mikey has an intuitive grasp of that when he has his puzzle games with 5 unsatisfying endings and one conflicts-resolved/mysteries-explained super-ending.

Sandbox games don't scratch the same narrative itch, since the only conflicts there are ones you've created yourself. Some people are content to play with their dollhouses (the Sims is the best-selling PC game of all time), but clearly there's a desire for narrative structure.

I then think about two kinds of players. First, you could have a "narrativist", who is looking for the "true" ending, or the "true" ending for every character. Narrativsts sharply desire these true endings and are willing to unravel the puzzle of the story (sometimes literally puzzles in the case of the maze in Heikou) to collect these. A nearly-branchless kinetic novel will, at some level, satisfy the narrativist.

The second I'll call a "mapper", one who is trying to understand the system. These are trying to understand the story from a systems standpoint---if I make Maria angry at me, that will increase my standing with her arch-rival Sherri, and thus I want to maximize Maria's anger. Mappers want a game with a lot of possibilities but aren't as worried about narrative structure---they're the "munchkins" of the romance world. Raising sims seem to cater more to mappers, although even Princess Maker has better or worse endings. A mapper hates a branchless game.

So, are you a narrativist or a mapper? Are these distinctions arbitrary? Or are they engendered on the complexity of the gameplay---really complicated gameplay forces the game into sandbox mode a la Princess Maker because you can't fit narrative structure around something that branches that hard?

I think I like to think I'm a mapper in that a game with few branches doesn't sound like fun (I could read a book, darn it), but I tend to stop playing a renai game after I hit a narrativist ending.

[papillon]

I *like* reading books. And I like playing games. A branchless 'game' makes me slightly annoyed because it's an uncomfortable way to read. Especially since I read quickly, and some people do those ANNOYING

...

......

.........


things where you have to press ahead several times before you get any new text at all! Grr.

Honestly, if there are no choices to make, I don't want to have to painfully click until my arm falls off. Thankfully in some games there is an Auto-Play mode (and voice acting) to just let me sit back and watch the whole thing as a DRAMA, not a GAME.


Kishi Kawaii has what I call a True Ending. It answers the major questions that were posed to you at the beginning of the game. It's clearly a happy ending. And it's not easy to get to - you'll have to notice various story threads, see how they fit together, and take action based on your conclusion. It doesn't *quite* resolve all conflicts, for reasons I can't explain well without spoilering - it resolves it for the player, but not for the characters. You may know the answer; someone else who would like to know does not, and you don't have any way of telling that person.

Princess Maker (2, at least) doesn't have any equivalent true ending. Ruling Queen may be the BEST ending, but it doesn't make a big difference to the story.

As for map/narrative - I definitely will not stop after just one ending, even if it is the best ending. How far I will go to pursue ALL game content depends on the game. If there are two major story forks, I will definitely play them both. But will I obsessively try to get every single ending in PM2? No thanks. I've gotten plenty of them. I've pursued several girls in Brave Soul, but *not* all of them, and I put the game away. I'll go back and pick them up later, maybe. I have plans to go back through KOTOR 2 as a Dark Side character and/or a male... but it's not high up on my list, where finishing the FIRST time was a driving need. (Kotor 1 has a more obvious split-point and I was playing a neutral character who could EASILY go either way at that point, so I played both endings in rapid succession.)

[PyTom]

I think I'm more of a narrativist. I like endings that complete the story of the game, and I largely play these visual novels for the storytelling aspect of them, rather than any sort of gameplay challenge.

I don't really see much of what we make as games, but rather as a form of interactive storytelling. I prefer it if decision points are used to give the user more buy-in to the game, rather than to implement puzzles that need to be solved.

Anyway, just some thoughts on my opinions, although it is interesting to consider how my preferences affect Ren'Py.

[musical74]

*waves to mrsulu*

I would say I am a mapper...I don't care for brachless games either. With games like Final Fantasy 6 it has a lot of side quests and I always enjoy going for the side quests in any game...if a game doesn't have side quests or hidden things I'm not interested in it. When a look at a new game one of the things I look for is how linear it is - the less linear it is, the better I like it. While I don't like a game that is extremely non-linear, if a game allows me to take a roundabout way to get to point A, I like that a lot =)

[mikey]

Well, you opened an almost unsolvable question there, but it's more or less obvious that it's ultimately down to the individual - some like narrative, some like mapping. The more story and one-time experiences, the stronger that experience, but the less replay value. It's almost like an equation.

I myself will stand on the narrative side, although I have to say I play a lot of racing games to balance that reading, so I'm not really looking for an all-in-one compromise game anyway.

The most important thing that I can say about this is that the game should clearly state its intentions and define its audience. It will usually go wrong when it has to be appealing for both sides unless it's so simplified that it can be mainstream.

And so on that question of stopping after getting an ending - Yes, I am that kind of person. I do stop, because my story is complete, so I don't go around hunting for CGs or missing paths, even if they are completely different. I understand this as my freedom - the mere fact that there are different outcomes is good enough for me to feel that the given path is MINE. So I like not to destroy that illusion by uncovering the game map and what-iffing until the very end. On the other hand, if a game has an epilogue, it IS part of my way through it, so that's welcome.

[F.I.A]

It is a shame, but I have to say I am a hybrid.

For most games, I play the game for their narrations. Then, if the games entertain me a lot, I will end up spending more time on involved mechanics.(Like, I am mad enough to count out the life for bosses in a game, which originally does not show a life bar at all.)

Maybe 70% narrativist and 30% mapper. Well, guess I am indecisive.

[musical74]

I think, honestly, that most everyone is a hybrid to some degree. I'm primarily a mapper, but there are games where I am also a narrativist...it really depends on the game, for me.

[bookie]

I am most definitely a narrative gamer. The ending I get /is/ the ending of the game. And when I play again I often get the same ending, simply because I think it's silly to pick a choice I wouldn't usually pick, just because it might unlock something I haven't seen. I also rarely play games over.

If there is any mapper in me, it's small and timid.

[gekiganwing]

When I was updating my LJ (http://www.livejournal.com/users/taiyakifan) yesterday, I admitted that most of what I've discussed has been somewhere between a visual novel and an ADV game. I've seen good examples... enough for me to not give up on all the mediocre ones.

If one has only one ending, I figure it has to be good, and has to justify everything that happened. I shouldn't say "What? But why did that happen...?"

Very few simulations, even though True Love wasn't bad, and Casual had some good ideas, and May Club had lots of potential. I think the ideal simulation exists only in my mind (and possibly in Japanese)... but until 2006, I won't have time to create my own simulation.

[Megaman Z]

I think I'm straight down the middle: I first try to finish the game using whatever logic I see fit (which, in a couple of PS2 games, had involved the use of "questionable methods" ARMAX*cough*) afterwards, I just start using pen and paper until it bores me or I get everything [in most cases, the first happens. this is why I still have yet to get all the endings of GSK. I just lose interest after fifteen runs.]