So I was reading this article on Gamespot regarding the effectiveness of video games as a storytelling medium. So, immediately upon reading the title I knew the article was going to be stupid, subjective and irritating because that's what has become of Gamespot lately...but I gave it a chance.

I was correct at least in that it was irritating.

There was this one character named Dutton, apparently a professor at some university in New Zealand, whose opinions were quoted in the article. It was him whom I found to be particularly useless.

*aside*

Where has the assumption of imagination gone? Perhaps it was just me growing up, but if I was presented with a situation (in my recreational activities) where not everything added up, I would use my imagination to fill in the gaps and everything would be fine. Was that not the way it worked? We're having fun anyway...or we're at least doing something that was not in any way grounded in reality. What harm was there in caulking up a scenario with a good ol' bit of mental duct-tape? We did it all the time. It was assumed it would be done. At least I thought it was.

While watching Star Trek: The Next Generation growing up...Did I notice that all the species in the galaxy appeared to speak English for some reason? Yes. Yes I did. I was 8 years old, and I noticed. I'll tell you what else I realized at that ripe young age...I realized that whether or not they were speaking English made no difference. I knew at that age that the point of the show was not to portray an accurate representation of life on other worlds, but to comment on our own. That's what Star Trek is about, after all. It's social commentary.

If I can suspend disbelief at such a young age, why can't Denis Dutton of the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand tie two game elements together Grand Theft Auto IV?

Dutton argues that the story in GTAIV serves as a "Window dressing." He says that the real point is the gameplay. I can't argue with him. But what I can argue with is the fact that he gives the impression that the narrative cannot be tied in with the gameplay. He says that they're separate identities, and that game developers have not successfully married the two elements. I say that this is not a failure at the hands of the developers, but a failure of imagination in the heads of the players.

What more can a game developer do at this point in time to immerse one in the actions of a playable character? There's not much, indeed. Especially in an open ended game such as GTAIV. But while this may seem to be detrimental to narrative to some, I believe it opens up more of an opportunity for the player to bring much more out of the story, if they're willing to tie together the loose ends left by technical limitations, if you want to call them that (which I don't but will). The game is stuffed full of moral and emotional subtext...it lays the groundwork perfectly for what Niko (the protagonist) would or would not do in a certain situation. It's up to the player to make it play out that way, and it's up to the player to apply these morals to the gameplay.

There's ample opportunity for the gameplay to be "married" to the narrative, particularly in a game as hefty as GTAIV. We just have to be sensitive to it. That's not a problem for me, but so long as there are people like Denis Dutton who are void of imagination writing papers about the limitations of video game narrative, I fear the medium will be stuck in a rut...

...Unvalidated, unappreciated, untapped of its true potential. All because limitations MUST lie at the feet of the creator, not the user.