decrypter toolkit

The first chapter I will cover from Computer Games: Text, Narrative and Play, is Diane Carr’s chapter titled Games and Narrative. Carr takes the chapter to extensively cover the narrative functions of Baldur’s Gate, a PC game of the RPG genre first released in 1998. However, Carr’s purpose in analyzing the elements of narrative within Baldur’s Gate is not to reconcile narrative theory as a cohesive possibility to analyze videogames, but rather to show that traditional narrative theory is flawed for analyzing games and needs to be rectified with gamic concepts.

Carr begins by asserting that the “story”/”narrative” element in Baldur’s Gate matters, even if it, from a “ludic” perspective, “remains secondary to pleasures, activities and demands of gameplay.” Carr then makes a very important observation about avatar creation and the beginning of the game.  Once the player “creates” his/her avatar (according to a set of particular attributes and aesthetics), the game narration refers to the protagonist as “you”. This proverbial “you” is further certified by inducting the player to the specifics of game mechanics, gameplay, interface, and sequential cut sequences. Through these observations, Carr asserts that “you” at times refers not only to the player and game protagonist as separate entities, but also as a third, hybrid quality-a player-avatar creation-that “clarif[ies] how this storytelling coexists with the playable nature of the game.”

At this point, Carr spends a few pages defining narrative theory, and the approach to going about critical analysis through narrative theory, in order to lay ground work for a discussion on why “Computer games, even those that contain substantial amounts of storytelling, do not reside comfortably within existing models of narrative.”

Carr argues that “key elements” of narrative, those sequences within the story that are consistent despite player interaction, are only some of the storytelling elements of Baldur’s Gate. The remaining elements of storytelling rely heavily on player choices in gameplay. Carr notes that the elapsed time between story events is in control of the player (direct line between each event is possible but the choice is what separates computer games from conventional narrative theory). Carr even discusses the in-game commentary box which, although appearing as an area capable of narrative theoretical discourse, is a response/narration of the player’s actions via the avatar. However, Carr does note that these events do partially fit comfortably within traditional narrative theory (within concepts of simultaneous narrative as discussed by Genette).

Next, Carr delves into narrative theories concepts on implied author and reader, the narrator and narratee. Carr brings up Aarseth’s Cybertext to clarify notions of sending and receiving positions. Carr conflates the implied reader with an implied player and notes this position to be difficult to pin down because of the frequently changing roles of the player within gameplay. From a detailed examination of the gameplay of Baldur’s Gate as example for her thesis, Carr then turns toward the game system (or possible implied author) which she redefines as an implied Game Master.  This implied Game Master is a re-defined version of the tabletop role playing term GM/Game Master or DM/Dungeon Master, the person who controls the narrative and ludic portions of play for such tabletop RPGs as Dungeons and Dragons. Carr’s concept of the GM (based off traditional concepts of the position) serves as a much better descriptor for the position of implied author, in that “the implied GM can issue ludic as well as narrative transmissions”, an idea with which I wholly agree.

Carr concludes her chapter with a short recap of examples which, for her, prove that gameplay and narrative are so tightly interwoven within Baldur’s Gate. This interweaving shows that conventional theories of narrative do not suffice for analysis. She describes this lack of theoretical ability as a concept of “mobility”, which she claims she will explore further in the next chapter.

Carr’s concepts within this chapter remind me very much of my fellow peer Chris Alton’s academic paper Cinematic Gameplay: A Discussion of the Divide between Cinema Representation and Ludic Action in Video Games. In his paper, Alton attempts to find common ground in the narratological/ludological debate which has clogged video game study for the past decade by analyzing Metal Gear Solid via a hybrid lens concentrating on a narrative/gameplay blend. In this light, Carr also appears to have created a bridge from which to view a common ground between the two areas of videogame study. Carr’s arguments for the needed change in narrative theory, in order to correctly analyze videogames, is very strong, logically sound, and well represented through sources and her examination of Baldur’s Gate. I found myself highly enthralled with this chapter and am really only concerned with when the author claims that perhaps her idea of the implied GM will most likely not work with all games. I highly disagree with this statement and would rather give Carr credit for articulating something that could very well be used to help describe Galloway’s ideas of informatics structures within videogames. Utilizing the idea of an implied GM as an architect for the informatics in place within the game would yield an organic allegorical analysis of those systems. The implied Gm is therefore an extension of the development team resulting in a background negotiation between “author” and “player”.