Mediums and consumers

 

With the success of Fallout signalling another vector through which the mediums of gaming and television have harmoniously conjoined, of course this has become an inexplicable weapon wielded to denigrate the integrity of video games as a medium because the more walls we put up between people the better, I guess. I am referring in part to a particularly frustrating Metro Contributor who recent opined on how Fallout as a TV show is the way that the story should have always been told, and actually the world of Fallout has been underserved being a purely video game franchise all these years. Why? Because video games are inherently poor mediums through which to tell stories thanks to their defining traits of size and length and game-ability. Another clouded perspective born from the 'I have trouble understanding/interacting with this thing therefore this thing is bad' prep school for the deterioration of modern essaying. 

It is annoying that these are still the ideas that float around from those so staunchly married to traditional media that any slightly different method for storytelling, whether it be another culture's take on storytelling, or through another medium altogether, is immediately rejected as a threat. Video games that embrace open worlds effectively, such as Bethesda in their Fallout games, use that size to foster something that traditional TV struggles to- a rich and complete world to interact with. That is Bethesda's key defining trait which they bring to all their franchises- breathing worlds propped up with cultures and factions and vastly distinct ideologies conflicting across a grand tapestry through which the main story is presented. Fallout has become so very iconic because of Bethesda's hand in realising this world so utterly and fully- in a way that didn't quite exist as starkly until Fallout 3's big open Wasteland. A show can only ever present one curated journey, relying on allusions which depend entirely on the skills of the writers to be coherent. It's what makes a world like Fallout's seem vast, whilst a similar post-apocalypse like 'Into the Badlands' rang increasingly hollow as the show went on.

As for length- it's often brought up how the lengths of stories can influence their impact and potency, which meandering narratives sometimes drag out. It's almost a cliché of a modern entertainment critique to lackadaisically throw out a 'this could have been cut down' during a review, which I personally think has contributed to a culture of ever-rushing modern media that never permits it's stories and characters a chance to breath. But that's neither here nor there, video games are long by their design and as demonstrated by The Last of Us, you don't always need all that time in order to tell a story like this. So does that mean every video game hopelessly stretched out basic narratives in a manner that makes them worse? Of course not, novels exist- dum dum! This is a fallacy of ignorance defying the fact that the nature of the medium fundamentally changes the stories that are being told as well as the way that we tell them.

To keep this on Fallout, the story of these games are the stories of their respective regions and how they came to ruin. The main character's journey is more of an incidental familiar hook in there, what makes Fallout is the environmental landscape upon which the story of a society rising from the ashes is written. The lights of New Vegas glittering beyond the scrap wall perimeter surrounded by disparate crime ridden slums- a richly painted steel-trap lure around which the very themes of every story New Vegas portrays is personified. Esoteric storytelling makes up the bulk of open world video games, and even the more linear narrative based stories know how to take advantage of their time to open up the scope of their stories to present side narratives and conflicting story threads. Bad and prolonged video game stories stick out like a sore thumb- and they are exemplified by Ubisoft! (I should start charging a cameo fee for those guys for how often they guest star in these blogs!)

A big point of contention is on the fact that games cannot focus on telling their stories when they're busy trying to be games. Which is a bit of a closed door way of looking at literally any medium in the world. That's like someone saying that a movie cannot possibly focus on telling stories because they're always so focused with shooting pretty videos. No- obviously that isn't the case. Those shots are, ideally, designed to aid the story telling method- that's kind of why we refer to these vectors as 'mediums'. They are tools through which a story is shown- if you are so adverse to none traditional storytelling then you'll probably be forced to stick with campfire tales, because that is as pure as it gets with storytelling! But if we're going to really look at the storytelling of video games with a thoughtful eye, then you need to acknowledge the bare basics of what interactive audience participations achieves. 

Immersion is merely the end goal, the glittering emerald at the end of the special stage, the transformative aspect of interaction is participation. I'll never forget the famous 'Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons' (spoilers for that game incoming) wherein you control two brothers puzzle solving across a dangerous and fantastical world. One analog stick controls the younger brother, one controls the older. Most puzzles involve cleverly positioning both brothers to push heavy objects or balance appropriate weights- we're talking those kinds of puzzles.  In the late stages of the game the brothers find themselves in a spot of bother with a deceptive spider girl and, long story short, the older brother dies. The younger still has to make his way back home, but he's not strong enough to push his way through the challenges that remain. Until, with enough force, the player makes the choice to use both sticks to push for him. Symbolising the young boy summoning the strengths his older brother left him with to push past his own shortcomings and represent how some part of the boy lives on now, even if just a shadow of his will distilled into strength. Tell me that ain't storytelling.

Now I will admit, there is a tendency for many video games to default to the same realms of storytelling. The vast majority of video games are inherently violent, and whilst I hold no personal moral qualms regarding that, that does limit the range of stories that can be told through the gaming medium. The indie space typically permits more experimental games where you can get other experiences, Stardew Valley is one of my favourites that revolves around the rigors of quiet village living and farm management- but then is that really all that different from the movie industry? Certainly, action is more prevalent in the higher tiers of gaming than in movie making, but does that really make it less valid of an artform?

It seems that no matter how mainstream video games become, how recognised their potential for storytelling is, still we have to fight for validation at that most basic of levels- against the brick wall of tradition behind which the world cowers. Always we'll be seen with a different lens compared to the rest of the world thanks to a gulch of comprehension that absolutely no one is willing to try and cross because the status quo is comfortable. I hate the inherently laziness of the average consumer, but I would hate it a lot less if they didn't use their ignorance as a soapbox atop which to espouse their superior tastes and discerning eye. Makes it real difficult to just sit back and enjoy things like this, doesn't it?