Last week talk involved a text from Janet Murray. In it, she discussed the different ways of storytelling; books, theater and film have a very similar form of presenting the story, people are just mere spectators who passively witness the occurrence of various events and how the story changes due to them. In the case of video games, the concept is completely opposite. In this digital entertainment, stories are not static any more; the passive witness / observer becomes an active actor whose role turns to be the most important of the story. This distinct and immersive way of storytelling is labeled by Janet Murray as Cyberdrama, and the fact that the user can interact with the story itself and can even mold it is referred as 'agency'.
It is completely true and I agree that many games nowadays are using this resources to forge a great product, and even some years ago, when the concept had not been studied yet, some games used it. The first example that comes to my mind is Fable (and many other games designed by Peter Molyneux), a game where player actions head to different story results. However, Janet Murray also affirms something I disagree with, she states that there are two kind of digital entertainment as far as video games are concerned: game-stories and story-games; each one refers to a way that a game with a story is structured. The first one implies that the game itself is more important than the story, and the second one viceversa. According to her, the second one is the only real way of making games, because "storytelling is a core human activity", so story comes before game.
That last point is the one I disagree with, stories are a core human activity, of course, but gaming is as well. I do agree with the fact that a game having a story would make the player feel that the actions he does or decisions he makes are more meaningful, but I truly think that it the depends on the game. In last lecture one example was Tetris; in that game one can totally imagine a story about why blocks fall and disappear or stack if it encourages him/her to play better; but, is it really necessary? Another example I can think of are usual fight games like Street Fighter; there the player may see a bunch of people betting or encouraging at the background, so he may think he is fighting for money or for a bet; but also the background can be a factory on fire. The player can wonder "Why would I start fighting inside a burning factory?". But it's a fighting game, so that is secondary, the background is just decoration and the player will fight regardless the reason of the fight, regardless the relationship between the fighters.
In conclusion, from my point of view Cyberdrama is a concept that all video games have (the player has an immersion in the game) and have always had; however, the storytelling within a game is not a must at all. It will all depend on what type of game is going to be done.
