The Last of Us - Why Video Game Language Matters

@Singular8ty 1 year ago

Never played The Last of Us at all. That said, I think the key aspect of a game in terms of storytelling is agency. It's the one thing that games have that other media don't. (I'm going to separate out gameplay because we can debate if it's good or not separately, but ideally the gameplay enhances the storytelling through agency.) As an example of a very linear game with a not particularly intricate gameplay loop, but that absolutely would not function as well if it weren't a game, I'm going to use SOMA. From a gameplay perspective, it's pretty standard. It's not super groundbreaking, but I don't think you could just turn it into a movie. Because of agency. Having to choose what to do to Carl (shock him constantly or power him down) is a choice. No lasting impact (the game doesn't pretend there is impact, so illusion of choice doesn't apply), but it's a moral dilemma. This continues throughout the game. Sacrifice the little orb or the robot with the human mind in it? What about the robot stuck outside and trapped? Let her believe she's in the Ark? Power her down? What about the last human? The game never, never judges you. It never claims that these decisions affect the story (they don't), but they are critical in making the story stick with you. They are the reason the story is good. Because you have agency is moral decisions. Now, is there game language? Yes. Find a clue that one guy went crazy and gouged out his eyes? Guess what, that monster is indeed blind, and you can use that. But that's not what makes the game so good and so powerful. It's the agency in the story. Now all of this only applies to games with a very deep story focus. Gameplay focus is separate. Of course, agency is what makes good gameplay, just in a different way (otherwise you have a clicker or an idle game). Even with the illusion of choice, it still actively gets the player engaged with illusory agency. That is still so much better than no agency whatsoever. I also think that games that lack narrative agency can still be good even with good, but standard gameplay. They can be really good. It can be a great romp and a fun experience. But I think it is best if people can separate out why it's good: is it good because it is a game or just because of the story you are being told (and have no part in otherwise). It's not wrong to enjoy a game even if you enjoy it for what could have been a movie, because it's not wrong to enjoy a movie. And if they think that the standard, by-the-numbers gameplay enhances it just a little bit, then let them enjoy it. It's preference. But I do agree that calling it things like an unrivaled masterpiece or "game of the year" (unless it was a terrible year for games) is foolish. There are plenty of technically mediocre games I enjoy and plenty of great games I don't. Is The Last of Us overrated? Probably. Is it a bad game? I don't think so. I think it's probably pretty good. (Heard really bad things about The Last of Us Part 2, but that's separate, and I can't corroborate as I played neither.) Is it the best game ever or game of the year/decade or whatever? Doubtful.

@startrekmike 1 year ago

So I am going to carefully preface this by saying that my arguments here are not so much in defense of 'The Last of Us' in particular but instead pretty much any game that adopts a similar cinematic focus. This could apply to anything from the aforementioned 'The Last of Us' or something like 'Max Payne 3' or 'Uncharted'. I did enjoy all those games a great deal but I also recognize that they all have adopted a very specific gameplay/narrative balance that makes them feel like you are "playing a movie". For some, this is a bad thing. There are no shortage of gaming Youtubers who have strong opinions about what a game "should be" and it is usually based on a mixture of their own deep seated biases/preferences and some often hyperbole laden social media discourse that they have long since internalized. For others. the cinematic style really works and they genuinely, honestly like it. That last bit is important. They GENUINELY enjoy those kinds of games. They are not being tricked. They are not bad at recognizing good game design. They genuinely like those games and as such, calling those games "overrated" essentially is like telling anyone who likes them that they have no agency and that their own opinions are simply not valid in comparison to your own individual opinion. To kind give you a basic example of what I mean. I generally dislike Taylor Swift's music. I don't care for her songs, the writing, the singing, or even the overall production. That said. If I were to go to a stadium show, I wouldn't judge the folks who are enjoying themselves by scoffing and saying "She is overrated. She isn't innovative, fresh, or new enough to be a valid musician. Additionally. Her music doesn't stay pure to a specific genre or form and even integrates too much dance and music video production to be considered proper music." I would just acknowledge that they are really enjoying it and they are getting something out of it that I simply am not. let's really tackle the big issue here. You start the video by saying "I didn't play this game". That is fine. I get that maybe it just didn't hook you or whatever but you then spend something like twelve minutes telling us why this game that you haven't played isn't a good game by design. That is a bit much. You have every right to hold such an opinion but it doesn't really offer anything to the audience because there is no experience to back it up. Now. You will probably answer with "But I watched the whole story on Youtube! They could even cut it like a movie so it barely is a game!" There are two layers to this. The first is that just about any modern single player game can be cut that way in some form or another. It isn't something that is unique to 'The Last of Us' in the slightest. Second. Watching a game will never, ever illicit the same response as actually playing it. Even in the most linear, most cinematically focused game, just watching it on Youtube (or even watching someone else play it via a stream or some such) won't really connect you to the experience. You spend twelve minutes explaining to us that 'The Last of Us' is a bad game because it feels like a movie and you justify it by saying "well, I saw the movie edit of it on Youtube". Do you see the flaw there? Obviously it is going to feel like it has no gameplay value when you barely experience that gameplay in the first place. We have long established that games are (in some form or another) art, there really isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to make it. There isn't any rule that dictates that pretty much every other form of art/entertainment media can blend and learn from one another but games MUST be ONLY games. They MUST focus absolutely on GAMEPLAY above all else. Like anything else, games encompass a wide spectrum of experiences that range from the most mechanically focused Mega Man title to the most cinematically focused Red Dead Redemption title. Those that try to pigeon-hole games into one very specific set of design priorities are the very ones that are most likely to stifle the very creativity they crave from the industry. Don't worry. We are nearing the end of my rather long post. You mention Half-Life as an example of a proper game. Now. that is certainly a rather safe, rather popular stance to have in PC gaming circles but it is pretty heavily rooted in nostalgia and mainstream opinion but not much else. It is a good game and at the time, it was a big innovator that really blew our minds but that kind of game has its storytelling strengths and weaknesses. It is very good at setting and atmosphere but there is very little actual characterization and as such, it isn't really going to have a strong emotional core. This is fine. It doesn't "need" it but it does highlight that some kinds of game narratives can't work in Half-Life's format. It would be like a Dark Souls fan complaining about how The Witcher 3 isn't a real game because it focuses on a linear, pre-written story/script too much. That environmental and mechanical storytelling is the only valid way to go and anything outside of that "isn't a real game". I don't want to live in a world where games can't learn anything from other forms of art. No other art has to operate under those rules and for good, logical reasons. Do I think you should like 'The Last of Us'? No. I think you should like what you like. That being said. I think you may want to really think about where your feelings on this are coming from and if it is really a case where a wildly popular game is actually "overrated" and everyone who loves it somehow doesn't know better or if it is just that you don't really like that particular kind of game and want to construct a narrative that dismisses it as invalid. I hate to be harsh but I think it is the latter. It is fine that it is the latter but it didn't require a twelve minute video. I mean. I think a lot of your complaints could also be easily leveled at the first Max Payne (a game I suspect you enjoy). You could certainly cut that to be a sort of "full motion comic" and when you really break it down, the gameplay wasn't exactly complex or even super groundbreaking. Sure. the whole "bullet time" mechanic got a lot of praise but is that really enough on its own to make 'Max Payne' a less "overrated", more valid game? They are both linear, third person, story heavy titles with basic combat mechanics. You might come back with something about "innovation" as if it is a requirement but demanding "innovation" is a bad way to go since not every game needs a bunch of arbitrarily "new" ideas in order to be a good, solid, likable experience. Sorry this is so long. I just have put a lot of thought into this whole debate over the years and it is one that I genuinely enjoy discussing.