Wesolowski's Games Aren't Hollywood

Another word for "pacing" is "storytelling". We never tell stories to players; we just put them in games. Then players tell our stories to themselves.

- J. Wesolowski

There is a great article in Gamasutra by Jacek Wesolowski entitled Beyond Pacing: Games Aren't Hollywood. Reading the article makes me wonder how Steven Spielberg inaugural videogames will look like. Will it has the same cinematic effect like his many epic films. God knows.

In his article Wesolowski argues that "games aren't Hollywood". According to him, in many blockbuster films, you find a prescribed formula to achieve "cinematic effect of mounting tension" that glues the audience to their feet, roller-coastering their emotions over alternate climatic peaks and downslide reliefs, and at the end of the movie they are "left shaken and wanting for more". This effect can be achieved when the intensity is paced as "an increasing wave of peaks and relief".

Wesolowski argues that in games you cannot pace intensity as you see in film for the fundamental reasons that unlike film:

• games are not linear
• games are interactive
• the audience are not passive but participate in the shaping the outcome of game narratives
• games rely on repetitions
• games are "three to twenty times as long as film" (so intensity is much slower and hardly noticeable when compares to film)
• games has "more individual action sequences than in film" and so more difficult to connect gameplay and narrative
• games needs redundancy because "you never know which part the player is paying the most attention to"

Further, he argues that intensity in games works differently than in film when he says that in games:

... we can either escalate sensory stimuli or build up abstract meaning. The former happens when guns, explosions or enemies get bigger, putting the Hero in a greater danger than before. The latter happens when each part of a narrative means something -- but together they mean something else. "I am your father, Luke" is more than just a paternity acknowledgment.

These two kinds of intensity tickle different parts of our brains. Escalation is visceral and relies on our perception, while meaning buildup is cognitive and relies on our understanding. Escalation is temporary, because it's easy to replace a big gun with a small one.

Meaning lasts. Once we learn to like a character, it takes a lot to convince us to hate them.

To make things even more difficult, he adds, what players take away from escalation and meaning build-up are mediated by players' subjectivity. He says:

You can give them a bigger gun, but they may still like the previous one better, because it made a nicer sound, or because it fit their style. You can give them a useless but funny sidekick, and they may not appreciate it if they are challenge-oriented.

[...]

Audience tastes differ, too, but most filmgoers will agree they watch films for one or more aspects of the narrative.A player may or may not care about other players, the story, the challenge, the opportunity to express themselves, and so on. The game's message needs to be much more robust, because you never know which part the player is paying the most attention to.

But all is not lost. Moving away from pacing Hollywood style and looking at four exemplary games, Wesolowski suggests that pacing can be done by 1) players' skills, 2) balancing sections of play between giving players the liberty to do whatever they want and forcing them to play through short introductory sections, 3) setting, and 4) allowing events to emerge that guide players' decision.

Wesolowski concludes that pacing is "a complex function of player actions, parametrized by game's dynamics and aesthetics." He adds:

It's a dynamic, rather than preset feature, hence it's difficult, and sometimes impossible to specify it upfront and then design a game to it. We can't just take the increasing wave, and slap it onto the gameplay.

We often see ourselves as all-powerful creators of worlds. Our job is to present, and our players' job is to admire. But in reality, our job is to create an interesting, consistent, and interactive system.

All of its components, including decorations, and the narrative, are interdependent. If the underlying process is interesting, rewarding and entertaining, then it will create a compelling intensity pattern dynamically. We don't have to predefine the pace.

Another word for "pacing" is "storytelling". We never really tell stories to players; we just put them in games. Then players tell our stories to themselves.

Wesolowski's article provides game designers' perspective on players' gameplay and is congruent with game researchers' findings that players may not necessarily play according to how a game is designed but exercise some degree of agency in shaping the kind of game playing experience they wish to engage in.