Player Interpretation

[+ Takeo212 1,079]

Hey guys.

After watching a few popular games being Let's Played, I kinda started to question something.

Actually, I've been questioning this for a year now and decided to ask around for others opinions.

 

How do you guys feel about games that are left to the players interpretation and theories?

 

 

I personally don't like it, especially when used as an ending. For instance, Little Nightmares and Inside are so vague, that it feels like they don't contain a story themselves, but the player has to create a sort of story for it.

I used the two mentioned as examples, and not evidence by the way.

 

Since it's the latest game so far, I'll use Little Nightmares as an example;

I watched 2 full gameplays for this game. The first gameplay I was blind (not knowing anything about the game) and throughout the game, I saw no... real, story. Only speculation.

And then the ending. Nothing was explained.

The second gameplay I watched, I read some comments. I only learned the characters name through a youtube comment.

I read the Wikia/Games website and got the details from there. Even then, it was vague, but I literally learned more from the game summary than I did the entire game. 

And then there was all the game theory videos.

 

The same was for games such as Inside.

The player runs around with little to no story, and after the endings, your left to piece together what you think happens.

Again, no concrete story, just "what did you think happen?"

 

There are more games, but I don't want to make a list. 

 

 

My point is;

What do you guys think of games that are vague and leave you to interpret the story?

Admittedly, yes, you can get some games that do it well, but overall, I personally feel it's a lazy cheat. "Hey, I'll make a game with a vague ending so I don't have to actually make a story myself." Is my opinion, but yea,,, 

 

 

Note: I like vagueness when it comes to certain areas or mysteries, but not the actual ending/main story of a game. I feel, you should start the game knowing nothing about the world, and end the game knowing everything (more or less). Not, start game knowing nothing, end game knowing nothing.

 

I also have a dislike for reaction/theory videos, but that's another story all together.

[lonequeso 1,921]

Aside from pure puzzle games, I haven't played any games like that. Even the simplest games I've played have some story even if it is an incredibly simple one. Take Super Mario Bros. Bowser kidnapped the princess. Go rescue her. The player knows exactly what the goal is. Even if you didn't read the box or the instructions, by the end of the first level, you know what the story is. 'Sorry, Mario. The princess is in another castle."

 

That being said, it' be hard to make a game with zero story. The story is there to create a conflict and give the player an objective so they're not just mindlessly wandering around. That's one reason I don't like Minecraft. The end o the game/story is supposed to have some sort of conflict resolution to give a sense of accomplishment and closure so it'd be nice if you knew what that conflict was. Ever watch a movie that just abruptly ends and you're sitting there like "Umm.. That's it? Laaaamme." I'd imagine it'd be the same in a game. 

 

It does sound pretty lazy by the designer. It could potentially work, but only if the gameplay is really reaalllly fun. Enough to where the player forgets about the story or lack thereof  and is completely engrossed in the gameplay. It worked for Minecraft. Personally I probably would;t like this sort of game. 

[+ Takeo212 1,079]

I agree. I see Minecraft as more a sandbox creative game. Sames like the Sims, City Skylines, and insert any simulation game basically are more just, you end when you feel you've done enough.

 

I think the "no story" concept is mainly promenant in "silent protaganist" games. Little Nightmares was an "escape the Maw" (btw, the boats name (the Maw) was found on wikia/ Not actually in game...) so yea, okay. But the ending just literally leaves you like "wait, what?" and explains nothing. Again, this is my example due to it being the most recent, not because I dislike it.

 

I feel that an ending of any game should basically summarise it. You can leave some stuff to the players imagination, but overall you should have a basic understanding of "oh, okay. That makes sense". 

I just feel these type of endings are becoming more common, especially in Indie games. It's cool at first, but yea, I just feel let down by them nowadays. 

 

I've seen a few movies with similar endings too, and yea... I just feel disappointed at the end. Like, "wait, what? Well this movie explained nothing so I just waited x amount of time watching it".

 

But Takeo, the experience is enough isn't it?

Sort of, however the experience is pointless if you have no clue whats happening xD

[Cookie Ninja 374]

I for one think leaving open questions can really powerful. Inception (Is he awake or not?), Shutter Island (Did he choose lobotomy or not?) to name some. But I agree that oftentimes. The unanswered questions just come off as lazy. In my experience, might be wrong, but it only seems to work when we are faced with a dichotomy that lends it self to a binary choice. Now we have to scour the storyline for evidence to support our individual interpretations, as well as it promotes discussion since we know that one or the other thesis is true. It's not all just speculation.

 

At least that is my very biased opinion

[lonequeso 1,921]

I think it works better for movies than for games. With games there's more of a need to give the player closure and a sense of accomplishment. 

You don't need a congratulatory message at the end of a movie. You sat still for two hours and watched this! you're a rock star! With a game- especially nowadays- when games can potentially take many many hours to complete. If you plan on making a game that takes 50+ hours to get through you damn well better make the player feel fulfilled at the end. Shorter games can get away with being vague simply because they don't require much of an investment. I kinda feel like a short, vague game is going to be a niche at best. It's hard to picture a game like that having any staying power. 

 

Fun sidenote: If you want to see an abrupt ending that's absolutely perfect, watch Nocturnal Animals. 

[Guyver 65]

I like, but not as a crutch for storytelling or as a way to cheat people out of an ending. I'm not much into spoonfeeding people via exposition constantly, in games or movies, there's far too much of it in both. It's hard to find a balance though, but I can appreciate moments where you or your audience are left to interpret things.

[+ Chaosian 617]

Personally, I love cryptic or subtle endings, and think it's incredibly rare that a storyteller will spend 1, 2, 5 years on writing a story, and not have answers for their own story. It does happen, but in terms of occurrence, it's probably in the 10 percentile.

 

Outlast 2 got a lot of flak for it's really ambiguous ending but I love it to bits for that. It really makes players wonder not just if all the incredibly impossible things in the game really DID happen, but also it makes them search for other possibilities, other answers, and other allegorical or metaphorical interpretations.

 

Nobody has the answers, but the developers. And that's the way it should be.

 

If Outlast 2 just came out and said, "Oh yeah you were in a dream, ...with morphogenic... nanomachines" (like I hope it won't in the DLC) the story would be ruined. The game builds a gestalt upon an altar of rot, anxiety, confusion, sexual frustration, guilt, regret, fear - and definitive answers would only cheapen the monument. Of course, not to mention the events of the plot.

Edited May 27, 2017 by Chaosian

[Cookie Ninja 374]

I think it works better for movies than for games.

 

You may be right, but I just want to point it out that it can be done in games, I mean done well since poor execution can kill any good idea.

 

Bioshock infinite.

 

Warning spoilers!

 

It left a lot of open ends with only a detailed explanation of how their multiverse works. Notably the possibility for many people to be one and same. Aswell as one person to take on many roles.

 

[lonequeso 1,921]

Oh, It definitely can be done. It's just a matter of if it's just a cop out, poorly executed, or well executed. The latter will be memorable. The others won't unless it's so terrible it's burned into your memory. Can you get PTSD from playing a really bad game? 

 

Anyway it's up to the person/people making the game to decide how to end it. The ones who take shortcuts will be outed quickly. 

[Kayzee 4,033]

I think it really depends on what the game is trying to do, and also how much information is really even that relevant. For lots of games interpretation is entirely besides the point. For example you see games like Chess and Go being interpreted all the time as battles or war, even though there is kinda no reason to. Oh sure they are both competitive, but how much inherent violence is really in the rules I wonder? An even better example might be vs puzzle games like Puyo Puyo. Why not have it be a singing contest or something? In Super Mario Bros. even you are mostly just running forward and jumping to get to the end of the stage, only bothering to have an excuse plot to have an excuse plot. And can anyone tell me exactly what Tetris is supposed to mean? Does anyone actually care beyond simple curiosity?

 

Some other games are really only focused on the experience of playing. To go back to Minecraft for example, it was never trying to tell a story in the first place. Where does the player come from? Why is the world infested with zombies? Not the point! Aside from the 'End Poem' (which is frigging brilliant BTW, no joke) there is not even a hint of explanation or meaning behind anything, and the poem is less about explaining things and about poetic metaphoric commentary on that exact lack of explanation or meaning (which is why I think it's frigging brilliant). Minecraft is, and has always been, more about the experience of playing. Does that mean Minecraft would be ruined if there was some kind of built in story, even if it was mostly an excuse plot? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's often used as a backdrop for the player to tell their own stories in. That's why you can find a bazillion youtube videos that just make up their own plots about whatever is going on, or adventure maps, or whatever. Not everyone may like that sort of thing, but without that lack of explanation and meaning I doubt it would have made nearly as big of an impact. And heck, even if people feel it's aimless, even they might be able to find a neat adventure map or mod that adds the thing they are missing.

 

But even the most basic framework can make a huge difference. So here is another example I am fond of using in discussions like these: Yume Nikki. Yume Nikki, unlike Minecraft, has that sort of framework to it. Just enough of a hint of a story behind the scenes that you might think that there is some sort of explanation or meaning, even if it never really gives you one. Many of the areas and events within are strange and random but seem to follow basic themes and ideas. You get the shape of what is really going on, but are never explicitly told anything except maybe that this is a little girl who has strange dreams. This fires the imagination, and allows the game to fall back into atmosphere and map/character design. In the end, the real explanation is almost irrelevant. Ideally the player ether fills in the blanks by themselves, or just is content with the experience.

 

Some games, even if they look or feel interpretive, still do have a 'real' explanation that you can figure out. Look at, for example, The Binding of Isaac. It seems like a weird trippy interpretive mindscrew, but it's really sort of not. It's more like a puzzle. It eventually (though this is more true if you include the remake and expansions, but to my mind it's basically all one game) unfolds it's self with lots of little clues that you can piece together. I would say that most 'interpretive' games/stories end up doing something like this. A story that is told as a puzzle is fundamentally different then refusing to answer about what the story is. There may be some interpretive elements (In The Binding of Isaac I don't think we are ever quite told the whole backstory on what happened to Isaac's dad for example), but there is generally a 'solved' state for the story where everything fits that the authors had in mind.

 

Then you have your normal story, where you are expected to explain almost everything. Once and a while you might come across am otherwise normal stories where a major plot element being up to interpretation is kinda the whole point, like maybe the old 'was it really supernatural or just in the person's mind' thing, but those can feel sorta cheep and unsatisfying. In a normal story there is little room for interpretation, at least as fair as the main plot is concerned. You are told 'this is the way the world is', and if you are ever not sure how to interpret what you are saying, the story will tell you before the end. Any failure to understand becomes the author's fault, at least in the eyes of most readers. Little details that don't really matter to the overall plot are more forgivable, but enough of them and people will notice and usually not approve.

 

So yeah, it really depends. What is important is to decide what kind of game and/or story you really want to make.

Edited May 29, 2017 by KilloZapit