In most video games today, the traditional narrative story arc
has been replaced by a story that continues indefinitely. In this post, I will
attempt something that few people probably have tried: a sophisticated analysis
of the video game series Halo in the
context of Douglas Rushkoff’s Present
Shock. Halo is a perfect example
of a story arc that has diverged from the traditional story arc. There are two
reasons for this divergence. First, while the story, or 'campaign,' of Halo does have a clear beginning, its middle and end are not as
clear due to the fact the story has been extended into so many sequels that an
end does not appear anywhere in sight. Second, the video games have a
multiplayer part of the game. This multiplayer game has no story arc that is
traditional in any sense. It is an accumulation of users who play the game together
for several minutes until there is a winner of each game, and then each player
goes on their separate ways, so there is never truly no victory for an individual player, or a team because the teams constantly change. The story of the multiplayer game of Halo is one without a beginning, middle,
or end. It is truly a collapsed narrative.
The story of Halo begins normally enough. It starts
with an inciting incident, continues with a rising action, reaches a climax in
which the suspense reaches its peak, and then declines with a rising action.
However, the traditional arc of the story only applies to the first of the Halo games. As more sequels were
created, the games began to abandon its traditional story arc in favor of a
story that allowed for the creation of more Halo
games. In other words, the makers began to make games with no means to an end.
The deconstruction of the story arc
may create headaches for those who want one continuous story with a definite
end, it is ideal for the makers of Halo
because they make more money. Rushkoff explains the role dissatisfaction, the
yearning for an end, plays in consumerism, “The consumer must never feel
completely at home in his present, or he will stop striving toward a more fully
satisfied future” (Rushkoff 167). In other words, the consumer, or a player of
the Halo games, must never reach an
end to the story arc, or else the makers of the game will stop selling games
and stop making millions of dollars. Perhaps the first Halo game was not anticipated to be the success it was, so when the
creators realized they could be making even more money if they could keep
making sequels, they started to create stories that could continue without end.
Today, there are 4 sequels to the original Halo
game. The story has become so convoluted, so lacking of a definite end, that
the creators had the main character somehow survive on a damaged spaceship for
two years from one game to the next in order to keep the story from ending.
Maybe it is time for the creators to start making stories that can end with
dignity.
At least the story arc of the
‘campaign’ is not so deconstructed that characters do not literally come back
to life in order to keep the player entertained. However, in Halo’s multiplayer game, respawning as
it is called is necessary for players in present shock. The game is similar to
an infinite game described by Rushkoff: “They do not have a knowable beginning
or ending, and players attempt to keep the game going for the sake of game
play” (Rushkoff 59). No one can win the multiplayer part of the Halo games. A player simply goes from each
collection of players until the player is bored of the playing the game, and Halo keeps the game going by respawning
the player when he is shot by another player. The respawning sacrifices a
continuous story line, but it allows the player to keep playing the game to
keep being entertained.
In both examples of Halo abandoning the traditional story arc, the game has increased
the enjoy ability of the game, for the player can keep buying the convoluted stories
contained in each sequel, and keep playing the discontinuous multiplayer game.
However, we sacrifice the ability to immerse ourselves in a traditional
narrative.
Work
Cited
Rushkoff, Douglas. Present Shock: When Everything Happens
Now. New York: Penguin, 2013. Print.
I enjoyed your serious analysis of the narrative structure of this video game!
ReplyDeleteI think the whole "respawning" element is very interesting--there are stakes, but they are not life and death in the same way as in traditional storytelling. Putting a time limit or penalty in place creates an illusion of stakes at least. Even Candy Crush, a game with no real narrative aspect, has this quality built in with the number of "lives" a player has. The lives are restored with the passing of time, but running out does halt game play at least temporarily. I suppose that without the feeling of some sort of ending or running clock we would lose interest in any game. Maybe we still crave the narrative arc of our traditional stories on some level.