Yeah, so that last email was sent out before I read your Narratology article. And yeah, I’m not surprised you disagree with it either. This will be more of a critical response.
First, you present an article, and then immediately move on to an attack on a generalized community of Narratologists. You set up several straw men, when you’re not insulting them outright, and knock them down spectacularly. This is bad, in terms of structure. I know you view this as a conversation, but jumping around like this is not good in any format. And before you ask, yeah I really talk like this offline.
However, you bring up a good point. Narratology, as with demographics and business markets and similar terms, always have contradictory definitions in the community. The poor defining of terms is something that seems particularly endemic to the video game community in general.
“Prior to the Wii, the narratologists were orgasmic with their academia clucking about grand narratives and all. But the Wii has truly ruined them. It is clear people are not buying the Wii for any narration at all. So-called “casual gaming” seems completely opposite with ‘narrative’ games.”
Grand narratives were never the point. They are a side effect of people trying to make games be more like movies, instead of games. For all those slippery definitions, I’m guessing yours is Narratologists = Cinematics/Film Imitators, which isn’t the point at all.
Overall, I’d say the article is half good points, half bullshit. When he talks about Narratology, I tend to agree with his definition. When the article talks about Wii Sports Resort, I crack up laughing. That game doesn’t have an overall theme, and saying “escapism” is a theme is fucking HILARIOUS.
“One good thing about this generation is that we are flushing the narratologists and their bloated academic text down the toilet.”
I’d say that this generation’s good things are showing how massively stupid analysts are, and how focusing on making games instead of movies is the way to go. “Intellectual” bullshit will always exist, but business speak should. And that’s something everyone should be happy about.
First bold, I am highlighting that I connected ‘Narratologists talking about grand cinema games’ as BEFORE the Wii meaning the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation. They were totally all pumped up for cinema like stuff. It seemed like the future of gaming at that time. After all, that is why the PS3 and Xbox 360 went the directions they did.
The second bold is the emailer, in predictable fashion, telling me I have no idea what narratology is even though I did quote the article writer correctly and even linked to a narratology article where a narratologist defines narratology.
The reason why I am hostile with narratologists is their academic direction. I am hostile with most academics. The reason why is that I see them as ‘cheese eaters’. A ‘cheese eater’ to me is someone who lives in a sanctuary and doesn’t face the humiliation of ideas failing in the real world. For example, a beauracrat would be someone on the cheese. A post-modern academic is often on the cheese. Middle managers in many businesses can be on the cheese. I generally don’t like people on the cheese.
My problem with the academic style of narratology is that it wraps itself in the cocoon of ‘theory’. Everything is right in ‘theory’. If these were game developers of very successful games saying this, then I would listen.
The game market is extremely competitive and insanely difficult. Most games fail. It is extroadinarily hard to be successful in the games business. I have great respect for those who can do it. I do not like ‘academics’ trying to define how customers or this intense game market is when they are sitting nice and safe in some ivory tower. I extend this hostility to most academics when they begin preaching at the movers and shakers. (There are exceptions such as Clayton Christensen. This is because Christensen, like Schumpeter, succeeded in business before he joined a university. And his theories are presented in a way they can rise or fail).
I’ve been getting much hostile email lately which I believe has to be connected to the narratology piece. I thought the article was a pleasant read and much better than most of what I read in the ‘game media’. I just disagree, very much so, that Wii Sports Resort is a narratology game.
Keep in mind I am attacking narratology, not the author, IGN, or any of that. I believe narratology is a true harm to gaming. If people disagree, that is fine and good too. But this is my website, and I put what I want on it.
Also, I only go to a few game sites daily. I go to a few forums to see if any reactionary waves have lately hit gamers, I go to GoNintendo to make sure I didn’t miss any Nintendo news, I go to the game business websites.
Everything else, such as that IGN article, is what people email to me. They are asking me to check it out. So I do. This is why I tend to be days, if not weeks, behind on some of these other articles.
Malstrom's Articles News 