The Most Abused Term in Videogame Criticism (Ludonarrative Dissonance) - SolePorpoise

LightEntite said:

I think my point is that this phenomenon happens in almost every videogame you've ever played

I think i'm going to coin my own term to define something that people seem to ignore when discussing this.


Intuitive Floating Disbelief Suspension (IFDS!)
The phenomenon wherein your brain is naturally able to distinguish between:

- events that occur in cutscenes
- events that occur during gameplay
- events that occur during uncontrollable (or semi-controllable) in-game cutscenes

and piece together the whole picture in a way that somehow forms a consistent, non-contradicting reality.


Anyone who's ever played and enjoyed an old-school RPG/JRPG? You have demonstrated this ability very well.

You play a game full of random battles, bottomless inventories, reviving potions, save points, and damage numbers, you play characters that can summon meteors, cause explosions with their minds, and teleport...

...yet you're participating in a story where characters permanently die, regular swords and falls are dangerous, and you're barred by common obstacles like walls and locked doors.

Why can't I just throw Soft on Red's papa? Why can't i just phoenix down Aerith? Who cares, you just can't. You instantly make up a reason (or dont) and keep going with no issues.


Why can Nathan Drake survive multiple gunshot wounds from a .50 caliber mounted gun? Do his bones never break? What about that health bar, is he secretly Wolverine? Can he actually not die? Is he REALLY the survivor of all these gunfights i've been in during the game?....is it important...?


idk

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

All you're really stating is that lots of games have ludonarrative dissonance. And yep, lots of games do. That's not really a revelation.

Additionally, any game with actual magic in it can pretty much explain most problems away by just saying it's magic. Uncharted isn't one of those games though.

HBK said:

Show me a cutscene telling otherwise.

The problem with Nate is not that he's a mass murderer. It's that he's one in gameplay but not in cutscenes.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

But there's nothing in the cutscenes that contradict what Drake does in-game.

I think the title is misleading.

Also, people hear the term and know exactly what the person saying it means. Which is how language works when it works well.

Also, the word "iconic" needs to be taxed.


EDIT: I also just think the person doesnt understand BioShock and projected a lot of things onto it that the game wasnt necessarily trying to do. They also seem to strawman the Uncharted argument.

Uncharted's problem is not that Drake is nice but also kills people.
The problem is that the cutscenes act as if being shot, killing people, or putting one's life at risk by hanging from an edge is a big deal, when actually it's not a big deal because it's constantly happening in the game.
The villains often will have the main characters at gunpoint, and it's supposed to be tense, when hundreds of soldiers just did the same thing moments ago!

Basically, it causes an intelligent person to wonder "why does Drake become very vulnerable during cutscenes, when anybody who knows of him should know that he's a one man army"?

Games less fixed on being realistic or in a world like ours will have no problem looking at a protagonist as some great threat, but for Uncharted we're constantly supposed to believe that characters are threatened during cutscenes, or even died, when they just got shot a bunch and recovered seconds later.

So there's not an issue from gameplay having a theme and the cutscenes betraying. It's the other way around. The gameplay has no theme other than being fun. The cutscenes do all of the heavy lifting for story and themes, and that's where it gets weird.

I still like Uncharted, but it's wearing on me. Lost Legacy's ending scenes got ridiculously over the top compared to how the game's narrative conditioned me to see the rules of the fiction earlier on in the game.

The better the narratives get, the stranger it is that what occurs when the player controls them is almost completely ignored. Like, if I killed 100 people yesterday, I might take more than a minute to get over that crazy event. Hell, I'd even want to take a breather.



Next time on ResetEra: Why Uncanny Valley is the most overrated term

esserius said:

All you're really stating is that lots of games have ludonarrative dissonance. And yep, lots of games do. That's not really a revelation.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

so...what i'm asking is

why this extremely common and nigh-intrinsic feature of videogames worth serious discussion all of the sudden

you don't have to give an absolute answer, i'm just curious of people's individual reasoning

On the topic of dissonance in Mario, couldn't that be applied to countless games? Is killing really only an issue when it's versus other humans, even if they are evil and trying to kill you?

What about for example creatures, animals and beings in other games, for example Bokoblins and other enemies in Breath of the Wild? How many of these things do you end up brutally killing and/or harvesting for drops? They're still sentient. Many don't even bother you until you raid their camps. To the people affected by this sort of thing, does the morality aspect only come in to play with humans, or all creatures and animals even if fictional? And does a colourful art style really prevent a game from being guilty of such dissonance?

This video actually touches on the Bokoblin thing.

Naughty Dog solved this issue by adjusting the tone with TLOU.
They retained the mass murderer gameplay but the tone and narrative don't clash since Joel is a monster in both and it's post apocalyptic survival instead of fun treasure hunts.

As for why other games with similar kill counts don't suffer from the same criticism: a lot of them are soldiers or at least in the middle of war.
If not, it might be fantasy or cartoon-y which helps. Skyrim and Witcher has you fighting creatures more than normal humans, you also get in trouble with society if you fight normal civilians.

Also, just because they're emulating a movie doesn't absolve it of issues. There's a reason the last well received Indiana Jones movie was released in the 80s.

LightEntite said:

...You really think Mario killing things is "acceptable behavior?" Even within his own universe? Or how about him brain-raping people and animals in Odyssey? He literally throws a hat on an unsuspecting entity and takes full control of their body. That can't feel great for anyone who isn't Mario.

I would think the easiest go-to explanation is that Mario never actually "kills" anything

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I don't really think this is a fair characterization of what goes on in Mario games. It's always seemed obvious to me that even if we use the term "killing" when stomping on a goomba or "dying" when Mario falls off an edge, those are simply terms of convenience which roughly describe what's happening from a gameplay perspective. I would tend to agree with the suggestion you present in the second paragraph. I don't think the weighty concepts of death and mind control are (generally speaking, I'm sure there are exceptions in, say, a Mario RPG) meant to apply to the Mario universe. Now, I don't know if Nintendo has an alternative concept in mind when you stomp a goomba (though "banishment" comes to mind as a potential term). I think maybe the more likely answer is that if you think about it at all, you're missing the point, but that certainly death is not what's happening in the typical sense of the word.

Notwithstanding the fact that I'm not sure killing a bunch of goombas would even be inconsistent with Mario's character.

LightEntite said:

see, this is where the ludonarrative dissonance discussion becomes stupid to me and i just completely lose interest in even talking about it because of the way its approached.

(this isn't really aimed at the people who i quoted btw)

why is it okay to draw the line at Nathan Drake, but not Mario? The same logic applies; in order to progress, you extinguish life en masse, you are not penalized for it (typically rewarded), the game makes almost no mention of it, it's usually encouraged anyway, and the end result is the same no matter how many you do or don't kill.

And no, i'm not playing dumb, the reason is probably Suspension of Disbelief.

Nathan Drake and Uncharted aren't getting it in this case...probably because they are great looking games that strive for detail and realism. Despite how silly their premise is, and how ridiculous the events that unfold actually are. But they are both videogames, and they both include killing for the exact same reason.


So when people bring up ludonarrative dissonance, i can't help but wonder what exactly it is that's bothering them?

Is it an issue that's specific to games like uncharted exclusively, or is it an issue when it happens in any game?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Except in the Uncharted games there's a mutual understanding between producer and consumer that, when you see Nathan Drake kill real people, in real-world locales, using real weapons, then it's real death. The same can't really be said of Mario.

Also, there are more obvious inconsistencies between gameplay and narrative in Uncharted than in Mario (part of this is because Mario games have so little narrative to begin with).

Folks, ludonarrative dissonance isn't a disconnect or a discord between what you see on screen and the story, it's a disconnect between the core themes of the story and the actions the game asks you to undertake.

That's the thing. Virtually every game has gameplay/story segregation. That's what you're thinking about when you say ludonarrative dissonance - the distinction between the gameplay and the story. Sometimes they mesh well, sometimes they don't.

But ludonarrative dissonance is a discord between theme and action specifically. Like the guy in the video says, if Uncharted were a game designed around making you feel bad about killing enemies, yet the core gameplay was designed around making that killing as fun as possible, that is ludonarrative dissonance. "Nathan Drake shoots a lot of guys but he's supposed to be an everyman!" isn't, because the core themes of the story aren't about that. Uncharted isn't deep enough for that kind of introspection.

PlanetSmasher said:

Folks, ludonarrative dissonance isn't a disconnect or a discord between what you see on screen and the story, it's a disconnect between the core themes of the story and the actions the game asks you to undertake.

That's the thing. Virtually every game has gameplay/story segregation. That's what you're thinking about when you say ludonarrative dissonance - the distinction between the gameplay and the story. Sometimes they mesh well, sometimes they don't.

But ludonarrative dissonance is a discord between theme and action specifically. Like the guy in the video says, if Uncharted were a game designed around making you feel bad about killing enemies, yet the core gameplay was designed around making that killing as fun as possible, that is ludonarrative dissonance. "Nathan Drake shoots a lot of guys but he's supposed to be an everyman!" isn't, because the core themes of the story aren't about that. Uncharted isn't deep enough for that kind of introspection.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Ok interesting, so by this definition presumably the GTA games don't involve ludonarrative dissonance either, since even though Nico isn't a mass murderer per the story, there's nothing, thematically speaking, which discourages killing?

LightEntite said:

so...what i'm asking is

why this extremely common and nigh-intrinsic feature of videogames worth serious discussion all of the sudden

you don't have to give an absolute answer, i'm just curious of people's individual reasoning

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Well, it's not intrinsic, and it's been a matter of serious discussion since video games began; it's just that there's a term that describes it fairly accurately now.

Cartridge Games said:

It's describing a real problem these story focused games have where the story presented in dialogue and cutscenes doesn't match up with the gameplay.

I believe ludonarrative dissonance would directly translate into lack of harmony between play and narrative, not exactly needing to be "direct opposition of game and story".

The term is fine, I feel. Games have likely learned from it since there are few notable examples now a Days

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

First off, the fact we're dealing with a combination of two different terms into the single word "ludonarrative" to me implies that the game is at least attempting to reinforce its narrative themes through gameplay (which is what the video is describing). It's primarily used for games where that obviously isn't the case though, and that's a problem to me from an etymological standpoint. You can't use it under the pre-tense of academic games critique when you're in fact just throwing it out randomly completely divorced from its original context.

Second, if this is how you define the term then it's so broad that it applies to almost every game out there, to the point where it becomes completely useless? There've already been so many examples of people in this thread contorting the term to ridiculous extremes just to show how far you can take it. If I have to accept people using it for Uncharted, are they gonna have to accept me using it for Mario? Isn't that kind of absurd? You gotta set boundaries somewhere, especially when sufficient language to describe YOUR problem already exists and is trivial to understand like I already said.

The problem described in the video however is so specific and difficult to explain that it warrants having its own unique terminology.

Chadtwo said:

Ok interesting, so by this definition presumably the GTA games don't involve ludonarrative dissonance either, since even though Nico isn't a mass murderer per the story, there's nothing, thematically speaking, which discourages killing?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Niko is a hypocrite and the story makes that abundantly clear at every opportunity. "I WANT TO BE OUT OF THIS LIFE!" "I'll pay you five dollars to shoot that woman in the kneecap so I can steal her purse." "Okay!" *five minutes later* "I JUST WANT TO BE OUT!" He is painted implicitly and explicitly as a horrible person and he pays the price for that in the narrative, especially considering there really isn't a "good ending" to that game. Both endings involve him suffering somehow.

Also, Grand Theft Auto as a series utilizes the wanted meters and police as a gameplay-driven means of establishing part of its theme - you can certainly GO on rampages, killing tons of people, but the game will do its best to punish you for doing so.

Chadtwo said:

I think maybe the more likely answer is that if you think about it at all, you're missing the point, but that certainly death is not what's happening in the typical sense of the word.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

pretty much, i can't see any other way of thinking of it

Chadtwo said:

Except in the Uncharted games there's a mutual understanding between producer and consumer that, when you see Nathan Drake kill real people, in real-world locales, using real weapons, then it's real death. The same can't really be said of Mario.

Also, there are more obvious inconsistencies between gameplay and narrative in Uncharted than in Mario (part of this is because Mario games have so little narrative to begin with).

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

But again...the issue i have with singling out this inconsistency is that it also brings into question a truckload of other inconsistencies that arise DIRECTLY from the concept that Nathan Drake's in-game killings are actual canon, real deaths.

Because during these fights, Nathan is clearly a demigod X-men who can see past walls, has infinite stamina, and take thousands of bullets throughout his adventures without dying, while also "ACTUALLY" killing the people that i'm fighting during gameplay. It sort of makes me take the exact same approach to Nathan Drake as i do to Mario -- if i'm thinking about it too much, then i'm clearly just doing it wrong.

The point where i'm supposed to distinguish between "real drake" and "game drake" is an ever-floating point. It just feels like it isn't even worth figuring out.


This happens in every game, but there are games where this specific instance of disbelief doesn't occur...or at least, the game is deliberately designed where it's harder for it to happen, where injuries are designed to be more permanent and impactful, in an attempt to further immerse the player in the position of the character they're controlling as they're taking part in fatal combat. Uncharted isn't that game though.

PlanetSmasher said:

Folks, ludonarrative dissonance isn't a disconnect or a discord between what you see on screen and the story, it's a disconnect between the core themes of the story and the actions the game asks you to undertake.

That's the thing. Virtually every game has gameplay/story segregation. That's what you're thinking about when you say ludonarrative dissonance - the distinction between the gameplay and the story. Sometimes they mesh well, sometimes they don't.

But ludonarrative dissonance is a discord between theme and action specifically. Like the guy in the video says, if Uncharted were a game designed around making you feel bad about killing enemies, yet the core gameplay was designed around making that killing as fun as possible, that is ludonarrative dissonance. "Nathan Drake shoots a lot of guys but he's supposed to be an everyman!" isn't, because the core themes of the story aren't about that. Uncharted isn't deep enough for that kind of introspection.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Agreed, several have mentioned this aspect of things, but I think some perhaps didn't watch the video, whilst a few implied they didn't care or felt the authors definition of ludonarrative dissonance was too specific, even though it's actually far more accurate and sourced, with others using the term too broadly or in the incorrect context.

As the author states, the harshest criticism that can be levelled against Uncharted in this regard, is that its ludic themes don't fully complement its narrative themes due to a lack of thematic emphasis, but that ultimately they don't actually actively contradict each other, hence there isn't ludonarrative dissonance. The thematic emphasis and acknowledging the ugliness of the violence in the way some are asking, is ironically what would make the game ludonarratively dissonant, since it would then specifically create contradictions between the themes of the narrative and the gameplay itself.

Chadtwo said:

Ok interesting, so by this definition presumably the GTA games don't involve ludonarrative dissonance either, since even though Nico isn't a mass murderer per the story, there's nothing, thematically speaking, which discourages killing?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Every game where you play as an established character or has cutscenes is going to involve some dissonance of sort. I could spend all my playable time in Uncharted walking into a wall non-stop making no progress, that's probably something Drake wouldn't do. I think it's important for the specific term 'ludonarrative dissonance' to be a little more specific so that it is better used in critical discussions. I think theme, characterisation, and plot all have to come together to contradict gameplay, or one of those aspects needs to be in such stark contrast that the player feels the dissonance vividly resulting in lost immersion.

I feel Uncharted definitely suffers from some level of dissonance, same with GTA games, but their themes, characterisation and plot through cutscenes don't directly contradict the core gameplay loop to the extent enough to justify that they cause a ludonarrative dissonance to the player. This is important, and I think a worthy distinction for the term.

Since when does narrative only refer to "themes"?

And, yes, there are many games that have this issue. It depends on the gravity of the example and how much of a focus there is on the story.
Mario doesn't focus on story so the cartoon violence doesn't really result in much.
I hope I don't have to explain the difference between defeating a cartoon mushroom and defeating a human

nib95 said:

Agreed, several have mentioned this aspect of things, but I think some perhaps didn't watch the video, whilst a few implied they didn't care or felt the authors definition of ludonarrative dissonance was too specific, even though it's actually far more accurate and sourced, with others using the term too broadly or in the incorrect context.

As the author states, the harshest criticism that can be levelled against Uncharted in this regard, is that its ludic themes don't fully complement its narrative themes due to a lack of thematic emphasis, but that ultimately they don't actually actively contradict each other, hence there is no ludonarrative dissonance. The thematic emphasis and acknowledging the violence in the way some are asking, is ironically what would make the game ludonarratively dissonant, since it would then specifically create contradictions between the themes of the narrative and the gameplay itself.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Right. Tomb Raider 2013 is more a victim of this kind of ludonarrative dissonance than Uncharted because the game constantly goes out of its way to paint Lara as not wanting to fight, as being extremely psychologically affected by the killing, and complaining about it constantly...but only during cutscenes. During gameplay, she's presented as a human Terminator, jamming pickaxes into people's spinal columns with practiced ease.

Tomb Raider tries to have it both ways, but in doing so essentially exposes the weirdness of its core gameplay. Especially considering the TR games try to be way more brutal than the Uncharted ones. Reboot Lara strikes me as someone who would never want to go on an adventure again after what happened to her in Yamatai.

PlanetSmasher said:

Folks, ludonarrative dissonance isn't a disconnect or a discord between what you see on screen and the story, it's a disconnect between the core themes of the story and the actions the game asks you to undertake.

That's the thing. Virtually every game has gameplay/story segregation. That's what you're thinking about when you say ludonarrative dissonance - the distinction between the gameplay and the story. Sometimes they mesh well, sometimes they don't.

But ludonarrative dissonance is a discord between theme and action specifically. Like the guy in the video says, if Uncharted were a game designed around making you feel bad about killing enemies, yet the core gameplay was designed around making that killing as fun as possible, that is ludonarrative dissonance. "Nathan Drake shoots a lot of guys but he's supposed to be an everyman!" isn't, because the core themes of the story aren't about that. Uncharted isn't deep enough for that kind of introspection.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I massively misunderstood this.

Anyway, thanks for that.

Still, I agree with those who defend the term given that I also follow the argument that it can be a useful tool to pull people out of the experience, just as breaking the fourth wall does in theater. Many present it as inherently negative, but I still largely see it as a tool some will use and others will ignore. The problem occurs when it happens unintentionally.

Cartridge Games said:

Since when does narrative only refer to "themes"?

And, yes, there are many games that have this issue. It depends on the gravity of the example and how much of a focus there is on the story.
Mario doesn't focus on story so the cartoon violence doesn't really result in much.
I hope I don't have to explain the difference between defeating a cartoon mushroom and defeating a human

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The term "ludonarrative dissonance", as described by the person who came up with the term, refers to themes.

If you haven't read Hocking's journal piece, it's a good way of explaining it: http://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html

It's a disconnect between what a game is about and what the game asks you to do in it.

Jangowuzhere said:

Ehhh no, the kills in Indiana Jones are pretty damn brutal, way more crazy then anything Drake does in the Uncharted games. I never felt this disconnect between the gameplay and cutscenes, because it was simply was just emulating the adventure and murder in Indie films (with a more exaggerated body count to be fair.)

The only real tonally odd thing to me in Uncharted is Drake sneaking up on dudes and snapping their necks. That always felt tasteless in a game series where you get into exaggerated shootouts and punchout sessions. Breaking a guys neck is gross in comparison.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Not really. Indie shoots a few with rather comedic undertones (the swordfighter, or that time in Last Crusade where he kills like six Nazis with one bullets and is as surprised as the audience) and he only does when it's absolutely necessary. Most of the more brutal ones (at least in the original trilogy) are the bad guys accidentally getting themselves killed. The dude who gets caught in the rock crusher doesn't get pushed in, for example, his cape gets caught when he's trying to bludgeon Indy with a rock and Indy even attempts to pull him out.

The Uncharted games have much, much more sadism in them.

PlanetSmasher said:

The term "ludonarrative dissonance", as described by the person who came up with the term, refers to themes.

If you haven't read Hocking's journal piece, it's a good way of explaining it: http://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html

It's a disconnect between what a game is about and what the game asks you to do in it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

We've gone over this in this very thread. Words can change, and just because it's used in one context by the creator doesn't mean that's the only way it can be used.

LightEntite said:

pretty much, i can't see any other way of thinking of it



But again...the issue i have with singling out this inconsistency is that it also brings into question a truckload of other inconsistencies that arise DIRECTLY from the concept that Nathan Drake's in-game killings are actual canon, real deaths.

Because during these fights, Nathan is clearly a demigod X-men who can see past walls, has infinite stamina, and take thousands of bullets throughout his adventures without dying, while also "ACTUALLY" killing the people that i'm fighting during gameplay. It sort of makes me take the exact same approach to Nathan Drake as i do to Mario -- if i'm thinking about it too much, then i'm clearly just doing it wrong.

The point where i'm supposed to distinguish between "real drake" and "game drake" is an ever-floating point. It just feels like it isn't even worth figuring out.


This happens in every game, but there are games where this specific instance of disbelief doesn't occur...or at least, the game is deliberately designed where it's harder for it to happen, where injuries are designed to be more permanent and impactful, in an attempt to further immerse the player in the position of the character they're controlling as they're taking part in fatal combat. Uncharted isn't that game though.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's a fair point. I guess what I would say is that those other inconsistencies are more easily explained as necessary for the game to "work" on more fundamental gameplay levels -- i.e. disembodied camera angles and superhuman health are necessary for the game to retain its action-oriented focus without becoming unplayably frustrating. On the other hand, it would've been entirely possible to build the Uncharted games around minimal killing, for example by focusing on chase or parkour sequences in which the primary task is to evade the enemy (or incapacitate them). Granted, it would arguably change the genre of the game, but then I suppose the response would be that if the devs wanted a third-person shooter, they should've built it around a different character.

I also like the explanation that PlanetSmasher gives a few posts above (plus, by that explanation, you're right, Uncharted doesn't qualify as ludonarrative dissonance).

Cartridge Games said:

We've gone over this in this very thread. Words can change, and just because it's used in one context by the creator doesn't mean that's the only way it can be used.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

We already have a term for gameplay/story segregation. We don't need to rewrite another term that has a very specific meaning so that it also means gameplay/story segregation.

PlanetSmasher said:

We already have a term for gameplay/story segregation. We don't need to rewrite another term that has a very specific meaning so that it also means gameplay/story segregation.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

What's the term then?

Punished Shammy said:

Every game where you play as an established character or has cutscenes is going to involve some dissonance of sort. I could spend all my playable time in Uncharted walking into a wall non-stop making no progress, that's probably something Drake wouldn't do. I think it's important for the specific term 'ludonarrative dissonance' to be a little more specific so that it is better used in critical discussions. I think theme, characterisation, and plot all have to come together to contradict gameplay, or one of those aspects needs to be in such stark contrast that the player feels the dissonance vividly resulting in lost immersion.

I feel Uncharted definitely suffers from some level of dissonance, same with GTA games, but their themes, characterisation and plot through cutscenes don't directly contradict the core gameplay loop to the extent enough to justify that they cause a ludonarrative dissonance to the player. This is important, and I think a worthy distinction for the term.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yea, I think I like this distinction. I feel like many games where the term would theoretically apply actually don't involve it at all, since the tone of the game doesn't justify or intend that level of inquiry in the first place.

nib95 said:

Agreed, several have mentioned this aspect of things, but I think some perhaps didn't watch the video, whilst a few implied they didn't care or felt the authors definition of ludonarrative dissonance was too specific, even though it's actually far more accurate and sourced, with others using the term too broadly or in the incorrect context.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Is that what you got from my points? My argument was that the original author, Hocking, did not give the exact definition of Ludonarrative Dissonance that SolePorpoise seems to think he did. There is no "incorrect context" or "too broad" in that case because the video's entire argument is based on pure conjecture that itself is based on the singular context that is Hocking's critique of Bioshock.

Cartridge Games said:

What's the term then?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The term is gameplay/story segregation - it's more accurate to the topic at hand, it doesn't misappropriate a concept that was coined by someone else to mean something very different, and it doesn't drip with faux-intellectualism. It means exactly what it says on the tin.

TheRedSnifit said:

Not really. Indie shoots a few with rather comedic undertones (the swordfighter, or that time in Last Crusade where he kills like six Nazis with one bullets and is as surprised as the audience) and he only does when it's absolutely necessary. Most of the more brutal ones (at least in the original trilogy) are the bad guys accidentally getting themselves killed. The dude who gets caught in the rock crusher doesn't get pushed in, for example, his cape gets caught when he's trying to bludgeon Indy with a rock and Indy even attempts to pull him out.

The Uncharted games have much, much more sadism in them.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Come on dude. Indy straight up strangles people to death with his whip, throws flaming skewers in to people's ribs, drops an entire bridge full of people to their deaths or to crocodiles, guns people down in cold blood, runs them over in vehicles etc. If anything some of Indys kills are more brutal, the main difference is the volume of them is far greater in Uncharted, due to the gameplay requirement aspect.

Plum said:

I did watch the video and the video's point was based on conjecture rather than actual evidence and, as such, is inherently flawed. Yes, the first context ludonarrative dissonance was used in was what you said but that doesn't mean that it is the only context it can be used in. It's incredibly faulty critical reasoning to believe that 1) the originator of a term has dictotorial authority on what it means and 2) that Hocking 100% only ever wanted ludonarrative dissonance to be used in such an insanely specific context.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

But the implication here is that Uncharteds gameplay and narrative are dissonant with each other is a completely flimsy argument. Nate is forced into the situations he is in. Nate is almost never in a "shoot first just because" situation. He is almost exclusively put in defensive positions or attempting to sneak by. Not only this, but it is incredibly clear that the story doesn't even take its violence seriously. If it did take it seriously and treated it with weight, but then had you murdering by the hundreds, then I'd buy your argument on ludonarrative dissonance. But that's simply not the case. Uncharted has little to nothing to say on the subject.

PlanetSmasher said:

The term "ludonarrative dissonance", as described by the person who came up with the term, refers to themes.

If you haven't read Hocking's journal piece, it's a good way of explaining it: http://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html

It's a disconnect between what a game is about and what the game asks you to do in it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I think you're being a bit picky here. He later sums it up as:

'well, it's a game, and the mechanics are great, so I will overlook the fact that the story is kind of forcing me to do something out of character…'.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I think that's the main meaning of the term: That the story imposes a narrative onto the player character that doesn't line up with how they're portrayed in-game. In Bioshock's case it's that the game allows the PC to have a playstyle (self-interested sociopath) that doesn't line up with how he's presented in the story (a guy who does everything for other people).

NeoZeedeater said:

"Ludonarrative dissonance" describes a very legitimate issue in many games but the term itself sounds so comically pretentious. I don't have a better term to replace it, though.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

100%

Thinking on it, I'd say there's just more conflict between the themes of Uncharted and its core character are just written clumsily more than anything else. Basically a B-movie that's frequently unaware of what it is.

TheModestGun said:

But the implication here is that Uncharteds gameplay and narrative aren't dissonant with each other is a completely flimsy argument. Nate is forced into the situations he is in. Nate is almost never in a "shoot first just because" situation. He is almost exclusively put in defensive positions or attempting to sneak by. Not only this, but it is incredibly clear that the story doesn't even take its violence seriously. If it did take it seriously and treated it with weight, but then had you murdering by the hundreds, then I'd buy your argument on ludonarrative dissonance. But that's simply not the case. Uncharted has little to nothing to say on the subject.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

First, no, Drake isn't forced into any of his adventures outside of the 1st and 4th (though I'm not personally going to count the 4th since, you know). Second, just because the game doesn't have anything to say about violence does not mean that there can't be a dissonance between Nathan Drake's Characters, the game's themes, and the violence that occurs during gameplay.

I'm repeating myself here but Hocking never said that, for there to be ludonarrative dissonance, the game's story has to explicitly say something about a theme that is dissonant in gameplay; that is only the specific context in which the phrase formed. The argument, then, that Uncharted can not have ludonarrative dissonace because it does discuss violence is inherently flawed and based on terrible evidence and critical thinking.

I was coming in wondering what they meant by the term being abused, but after going through this thread I think I get it

PlanetSmasher said:

The term is gameplay/story segregation - it's more accurate to the topic at hand, it doesn't misappropriate a concept that was coined by someone else to mean something very different, and it doesn't drip with faux-intellectualism. It means exactly what it says on the tin.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Gameplay-ludo story-narrative segregation-dissonance.
It's the same thing

PlanetSmasher said:

The term "ludonarrative dissonance", as described by the person who came up with the term, refers to themes.

If you haven't read Hocking's journal piece, it's a good way of explaining it: http://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html

It's a disconnect between what a game is about and what the game asks you to do in it.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The context of Hocking's original usage of the phrase is not the definition of that phrase. Nowhere in the entire article does it say that he believes ludonarrative dissonance can only occur explicitly when a game's thematic content in gameplay has a direct contradiction to the game's thematic content in story. If you, SolePorpoise or anyone else spouting this definition as if it is fact are unable/unwilling to ask the man himself then all you're basing your definition on is pure conjecture.

nib95 said:

Come on dude. Indy straight up strangles people to death with his whip, throws flaming skewers in to people's ribs, drops an entire bridge full of people to their deaths or to crocodiles, guns people down in cold blood, runs them over in vehicles etc. If anything some of Indys kills are more brutal, the main difference is the volume of them is far greater in Uncharted, due to the gameplay requirement aspect.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Yup, definitely Indy's fault there lol. Video is on-point.

The only thing in there that even approaches "Nathan Drake sneaks up behind 2,534 unaware people and snaps their neck in ''''self defense''''' like John Wick" is the skewer, and even then it's presented in a pretty goofball light (and in a scenario where he has literally no other recourse).

I am, however, willing to accept that there is no dissonance and Drake is simply a glib, sadistic, spree killing sociopath.

Plum said:

First, no, Drake isn't forced into any of his adventures outside of the 1st and 4th (though I'm not personally going to count the 4th since, you know). Second, just because the game doesn't have anything to say about violence does not mean that there can't be a dissonance between Nathan Drake's Characters, the game's themes, and the violence that occurs during gameplay.

I'm repeating myself here but Hocking never said that, for there to be ludonarrative dissonance, the game's story has to explicitly say something about a theme that is dissonant in gameplay; that is only the specific context in which the phrase formed. The argument, then, that Uncharted can not have ludonarrative dissonace because it does discuss violence is inherently flawed and based on terrible evidence and critical thinking.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I'd say it definitely has some, but the thematic problems are not so much related to the violence as they are to Drake and other characters.

TheRedSnifit said:

Yup, definitely Indy's fault there lol. Video is on-point.

The only thing in there that even approaches "Nathan Drake sneaks up behind 2,534 unaware people and snaps their neck in ''''self defense'''''" is the skewer, and even then it's presented in a pretty goofball light.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I mean, the neck snaps are gross, but at the same time, those enemies would kill him on sight without a second thought. The combat scenarios in that game are always presented as a kill or be killed duality - you cannot reason with these enemies, and most of them are there with an express purpose of killing you.

Getting all smug about "self defense" just because they aren't actively firing a gun at you right that second, even though they absolutely would be if you fucked up the stealth mechanics, is kind of silly, no?

It's like everybody read that goddamn Penny Arcade comic and decided all the evil mercenaries were just really nice people who Nate wasn't giving a chance.

esserius said:

I'd say it definitely has some, but the thematic problems are not so much related to the violence as they are to Drake and other characters.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure what you mean here. The ludonarrative dissonance argument when it comes to Uncharted has always been about the dissonance between Nate's characterisation and contextual place in the story (and Sully, Elena, Sam, etc to a lesser extent) and the violence they partake in during gameplay.

PlanetSmasher said:

I mean, the neck snaps are gross, but at the same time, those enemies would kill him on sight without a second thought. The combat scenarios in that game are always presented as a kill or be killed duality - you cannot reason with these enemies, and most of them are there with an express purpose of killing you.

Getting all smug about "self defense" just because they aren't actively firing a gun at you right that second, even though they absolutely would be if you fucked up the stealth mechanics, is kind of silly, no?

It's like everybody read that goddamn Penny Arcade comic and decided all the evil mercenaries were just really nice people who Nate wasn't giving a chance.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Except they aren't. You can stealth practically the entire series. Some of those are self-defense because they're enforced by the story, but the vast majority are in fact murder that the player (and by extension Drake) willingly partakes in.

Bullshit, what other game does this term get thrown at other than Uncharted?

TheRedSnifit said:

Except they aren't. You can stealth practically the entire game. Some of those are self-defense because they're enforced by the story, but the vast majority are in fact murder.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

And yet if you fuck up the stealth mechanics, what happens? You get in a shootout and you probably die, because those people are there to kill you.

PlanetSmasher said:

And yet if you fuck up the stealth mechanics, what happens? You get in a shootout and you probably die, because those people are there to kill you.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Probably trying to defend themselves from the weirdo breaking everyone's necks in the name of $$$ lol. I'm pretty sure when you are sneaking up behind someone they aren't a danger to your life, so much as you are posing a legit danger to their's.

Murdering them is optional regardless of their intent. The only intent that matters is yours (Drake's).

Plum said:

I'm not sure what you mean here. The ludonarrative dissonance argument when it comes to Uncharted has always been about the dissonance between Nate's characterisation and contextual place in the story (and Sully, Elena, Sam, etc to a lesser extent) and the violence they partake in during gameplay.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Simply that their characterization and thematic presentation between gameplay and cutscenes can be dissonant, irrespective of violence (i.e., what they stand for in cutscenes vs. what they stand for in gameplay).

TheRedSnifit said:

Probably trying to defend themselves from the weirdo breaking everyone's necks lol

Murdering them is optional regardless of their intent.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

See, that's the thing, though. You're trying to assume that everyone in these games is a good person who Nate is murdering because he's a psychopath, but the fact is that the villains in these games are always evil organizations.

It's not like the scene in Castlevania Lords of Shadow 2 where you're forced to butcher a defenseless family while they scream and beg for help, these are armed, dangerous villains who WANT YOU DEAD. Most of them are there specifically to kill Nathan Drake.

TheRedSnifit said:

The only thing in there that even approaches "Nathan Drake sneaks up behind 2,534 unaware people and snaps their neck in ''''self defense''''' like John Wick" is the skewer, and even then it's presented in a pretty goofball light (and in a scenario where he has literally no other recourse).

I am, however, willing to accept that there is no dissonance and Drake is simply a glib, sadistic, spree killing sociopath.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

If we accept that Nathan killing those people is part of the narrative, shouldn't this also include that every single enemy will shoot Nathan on sight? I feel like this kind always gets ignored when people bring up this mass murder narrative.
Basically, in the narrative of the game it truly is self defense as every enemy is out to kill nathan. There's no reasoning with them.

Edit: just saw that someone else has also brought this up

Only times it bothers me is when the meaning is mangled or worse - the writer makes a case that infers only two states - full convincing immersion or a broken experiential or narrative experience- as if I can't enjoy it in totality from an external viewpoint- like enjoying the wackiness of Katamari and mgs while giving light attention to being in the experience myself. Effectively having two separate experiences simultaneously and being fine with the conflict.

shaneo632 said:

So often people use it and it just sounds like they're using an overly-verbose, needlessly "academic" term for "the tone is inconsistent".

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That would be plain old "dissonance" (or "tone dissonance" at best). "Inconsistent tone" has no implication that the inconsistency is between gameplay and story. It could refer (and in fact, most often does) to inconsistency between elements of the same type, typically plot elements being inconsistent with other plot elements.

Further, ludonarrative dissonance encompasses much more than tone. If you have a game that tells you that a resource is precious and nearly impossible to find and wars are fought over minute amounts, but you regularly find it as you play and use for trivial purposes, there's no "tone" discrepancy there, but it's still ludonarrative dissonance.

Finally, fuck this "overly academic" anti-intellectual shit. Fuck it to hell and back.

LightEntite said:

The point of cutting down the amount of words you use is that you're able to get your point across easier and more clearly.

"Ludonarrative Dissonance" is something that literally everyone has to either google or have explained to them

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

False. I understood what it is immediately, because I know that ludos is the prefix for play (and so do you, unless you've never come across the terms "ludic", "ludopathy", or any other that uses it), and hopefully the other two are even more self-explanatory. It is really not that hard to deduct word meanings if you put half a second to think about it.

And even if you don't get it and have to google it? It took five seconds of your time and now you have a term that you can use to describe a very specific phenomenon. You are literally more knowledgeable now, and can engage in conversations about it by using it as a shorthand.

I repeat my question, do you people object to "microscope"? Do you think it's pretentious? Do you believe it should replaced by "instrument to see small things", so that people that have never come across this term aren't confused? If not, why? What makes it different?

Plum said:

First, no, Drake isn't forced into any of his adventures outside of the 1st and 4th (though I'm not personally going to count the 4th since, you know). Second, just because the game doesn't have anything to say about violence does not mean that there can't be a dissonance between Nathan Drake's Characters, the game's themes, and the violence that occurs during gameplay.

I'm repeating myself here but Hocking never said that, for there to be ludonarrative dissonance, the game's story has to explicitly say something about a theme that is dissonant in gameplay; that is only the specific context in which the phrase formed. The argument, then, that Uncharted can not have ludonarrative dissonace because it does discuss violence is inherently flawed and based on terrible evidence and critical thinking.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

How is it in any way dissonant with his character? He is "the lovable scoundrel" archetype. It's repeatedly established that he wants to do the right thing when faced with larger existential threats to the world but is willing to get his hands dirty if it means getting the upper hand. This is a dude willing to go to a jail and willingly brawl and start shit just for fun all to make distractions. You are telling me that this kind of guy isn't willing to kill someone if faced with the situation of kill or be killed?