Contextual Studies: Jasper Juul

As a task for Contextual Studies we were asked to read an article by Jasper Juul called  Games Telling Stories. The article covers the difference between narrative and games. The article specifically chooses to separate games as narrative, that is a story telling device, and narrative within games, a film like story told almost as a reward and incentive for playing the game.
My first point on the article is its over-ambition to seem academic. Although I believe that games can, and should, be studied in an academic way, there is no need to entirely conform to language which establishes an academic text. Academic writing, from my point of view, requires two things; overall objectivity and evidence to back up your points. Both of these things can be achieved with engaging language that makes the reader want to keep reading.
Juul starts his article with the argument that everything is essentially apart of a narrative due to the subjective nature of the mind and its way of forming anything into a part of a narrative in order to make sense of the world. He then make the counter argument that "Narratives may be fundamental to human thought, but this does not mean that everything should be described in narrative terms. And that something can be presented in narrative form does not mean that it is narrative." He then goes on to point out the difference between a story within the game and using the game to tell a story. i.e. A game like Half-Life that uses film theory to create a sci-fi story that works with the game is an example of a narrative within a game. Space invaders has no cut-scenes or writing just an overarching premise of an invasion which is told through the game itself. I agree that these are important distinctions to make when designing a game and every game designer should try to make a point of telling a story through gameplay as much as possible.
Juul then makes a point of showing how games translate narrative elements into the gameplay. His main point on this section is that games do not directly translate into narratives. He points out how key narrative elements translate in games, such as narrative events into a simulation with multiple outcomes, or characters into the players position in the game. An example he used for all this was that the recounting of gameplay would be extremely dull, like explaining every move in chess. Firstly I think that this example is kind of redundant on the principal that it still forms a mental narrative while in the act of play in order for your mind to get make sense of the events happening to you, dull or not. I also think that in-game events can be recounted in a certain way. Dungeons and Dragons is a good example of this. People who play this game are often teased on account of saying things like, "...so I used my +5 frost Axe on the troll, I rolled a critical and he exploded!" Although this is admittedly a mix of narrative devices, such as the troll and the axe, game elements, such as the +5 frost and critical roll, are also included and form a part of a narrative about gameplay.
His next argument is that most narratives use the presumption that the story takes place before its retelling, even if the story takes place in the future, it usually still uses past tense. Games are thought of as happening now, due to your control over the events in the game.This is fundamentally true and a very good point. The difference in tense is undoubtedly an important factor in the way the story is told. This does not necessarily prevent it from being a story however.
Juul goes on to talk about the player as a character in the game. He states that the player need be the only character in the game. No character need appear on screen. This makes the retelling of the game difficult. I, again, disagree. I find that, through the players eyes, they are the character. This is a much more powerful perspective and allows for greater immersion into the experience. Again this does not prevent the game from being a narrative in itself.
His final argument is that avant-garde storytellers often disobey the rules above about narrative in order to create a different experience for their audience. Games are no different. However, he then argues that the often interpretive nature many of these avant-garde filmmakers and writers use would take away from the gaming experience. My thought on this is that although certain storyteller chose to mix their avant-garde storytelling methods with interpretive events does not mean that games also have to do this.

Overall I agree that the commonly accepted forms of narratives such as films and books do use many different method that games and so, in that sense, they are different. However, both stories, in all their forms, commonly accepted as being life teaching tools. Games are no different. Lion cubs play to practice hunting and fighting. In fact, tickling is thought to be a human preparation for combat! This means that both games and stories have the same ultimate aims. In this sense, does it matter how different they are? I believe that there is still a narrative whilst playing games, it is simply more immediate. A boxing match described later on will simply cover the superficial details of who appears to be winning and the best guess as to why. A boxer will be experience a much more immediate inner narrative, like a gamer, they will be looking for opportunities to take advantage of and analyzing every relevant detail. Although the narrative is different, it is still a narrative. A much more effective one at that.