Free Step Dodge

@Lulu LoL... I sounds like you're just agreeing with him because he's saying stuff you like.

Obviously someone is going to disagree with someone if what they're saying runs contrary to someone's knowledge, experience and preferences. But the burden of proof falls on the one who proposes the new concept, which in this case is Bogost saying that video games can't tell a better story than other mediums.

And frankly, he does an insanely shitty job at arguing that point by failing to acknowledge the fundamental appeals of storytelling in the medium as opposed to other mediums.

For example, one of the greatest appeals is that people become more emotionally attached and invested in things they choose (or believe to have chosen).

This means that in a game where you can choose your character, you often become more invested in that character than you would in another story that forced a protagonist on you. Same goes for plotlines, locales you choose to explore, etc.

You could argue that's a deceptive trick, but you COULD argue that all of storytelling is a deceptive trick.

When telling a story, you're trying to speak to people by attaching their emotions to allegories and metaphors depicting the human experience. The human experience often involves interaction and perspective, and video games have a unique way of addressing those elements relative to other mediums.

But does he mention how other mediums trump this dynamic universally, let alone successfully? No.

"I guarantee you he knows what he's talking about. He's got intimate knowledge in Game Theory and games in various forms...."
-So do I. He's a poor rhetorician at best, and pretentiously myopic at worst.

@Brute
LoL... I'm pretty sure I said I agree with him but not for the same reasons.

But I'l nag you about that some other time.

Anyway what he's saying is Using games to tell stories is not taking full advantage of this medium. What he's saying is the only reason we use games to tell stories is because thats we want.... not because thats an inherent aspect of games... I mean think about it...

the only reason we use books to tell stories is because we want..... not because thats an inherent aspect of the books... I mean think about it...

the only reason we use movies to tell stories is because we want..... not because thats an inherent aspect of the movies... I mean think about it...

the only reason we use plays to tell stories is because we want..... not because thats an inherent aspect of the plays... I mean think about it...

Pretentious deconstruction is fun.

By nature the process of Storytelling is at its best when the audience does not participate.... all thats required from them is just to listen or watch or whatever. Now thats not to say people don't want to influence the story but in all likelihood the quality of the story may suffer or simply veer off direction... plus it wouldn't be Story "Telling" any more... it would be story "Something".

Games by nature are inherently Interactive and trying to use the aspect of the medium do something that doesn't require Interaction is just going to lead to problems.

But thats exactly what we've been doing.... Hollywood Envy seems to be factor into why games keep pushing story telling.

Lastly... the idea that making something interactive automatically more personal or more invested in the narrative just seems inaccurate.

Ian uses Gone Home and What Remains of Edith Finch as examples... he claims these experiences are negatively affected by the need to interact with them.

Naturally gamers are going to flip out if someone says that those experience what have been better paced if they delivered in the form of a movie or a book or a campfire story, but would it ?

The bottom line is that person was invited to hear a story and making them press buttons on a controller doesn't make that process any less passive... essentially the story gets held Hostage until you do this and that and find some doodad and solve a puzzle.

I mean... that makes sense right ?

Next time one of those narrative games comes might aswell hop on youtube....

That's utterly ridiculous. There is no established maxim that declares "storytelling is at its best when the audience does not participate." Better take out the pause button on your DVD remote if you don't like interaction. Make sure to prevent anyone from seeing a work of art in any way except the exact way in which the creator wants it to be seen. The proposed logic here defies the core concept of art.

Gone Home is a shit game in addition to telling a shit story. If you cherry-pick your anecdotes so recklessly you could come to any number of bizarre conclusions.

"Lastly... the idea that making something interactive automatically more personal or more invested in the narrative just seems inaccurate. "
Things only exist when there also exists an alternative, and an individual only exists when it makes its own choices based on its own decisions and preferences.

If you value being an individual, it is because you value your attachment to the independant way(s) you choose to engage what you come across. When you choose something, it reinforces your preferences, which in turn help fortify your investment.

If it seems inaccurate that choices make things more personal, you're more likely a Borg hivemind than a human being.

Look, I don't even like most narrative games. And often there are stories that are better told in other mediums but end up as games instead for a multitude of reasons (some more valid than others). But the notion that games don't have the potential to tell stories in ways that other mediums cannot as effectively is just stupid.

LoL... I'm going to skip over the bit with remote because I can't tell what you're going for there.

As for The Nature of Story Telling. Theres no room to interact... we want there to be but really there isn't. Its passive and for telling a story to be effective it works better if people just absorb it passively.

This is why its more suitable for Books & Film... and not for Ceiling Tiles & Cereal Bowls.

Is this some kind of meta-commentary whereby you try to justify your position via monologue rather than an interactive dialogue that addresses the opposition's argument to reinforce the dismissal of interaction?