Looking now at 2013 and what seems likely to be the three big contenders for Game of the Year I saw a theme as to the state of gaming.  These games are The Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite and Grand Theft Auto 5.  I will speak in general terms to try my very best to avoid any spoilers.

These games take place in dramatically different settings with distinct characters and stories.  So what are the core elements I experienced that made them similar?

1. Violence

2. Reflection of violence

Now, it is nothing new that games use conflict, particular violence as a driving factor to push a narrative forward. We've seen this countless times. What makes these three games interesting to me is that at certain points the games take a step back to contextualize the violence being enacted by the protagonist and, by proxy, the player. In all three a secondary character calls you out in shock of what you're doing.  

So, this brings me to two conclusions, one optimistic, and one cynical.

1. Games are developing richer more complex narratives and beginning to question their own tropes.

Games have stedily evolved into an artform with its own characteristics, and we've reached the point where 90% of game makers grew up experiencing what games offered.  We have people questioning a game where the protagonist murders hundreds of people over the course of their journey.  This allows for new wrinkles on stories we all know.  The interactive nature is explored and our expectations betrayed when we think what it means to be a mass murder while achieving ones goals.  This deconstruction is healthy to evaluate the clash between game and story.

2. Game makers like to have it both ways, the visiceral thrill of killing with the philosophical deconstruction.

Game makers really want to games to more like classical works of story telling such as books or film, yet are constricted by game conventions. This leads to pretentious sotries that serve little more than to stroke the creators ego. So, since action games dominate the field the only way to achieve this is to hold up a mirror and go "see how immature and/or barbaric this medium is!"

I am not sure if either answer is correct, or if various other conclusions could be submitted. I did think interesting that all three are critical darlings showing what the industry is championing as desirable forms of narrative.

So, post your thoughts as to the nature of narrative and meta narrative in games and what the future holds for a medium that in the past decade has become increasingly aware of itself.

I think it's more Number 2 then one. Games are becoming to much like Hollywood. Which is a mixed blessing. (Basically you get better graphics and perhaps story but you sacrifice some things or add things that should most likely not be in games. Like over the top violence, cussing, or poor game play.. etc.) Gamemakers know that a person who questions your actions or motives is good for a story hence they add them in there, or put a scene in there that has a person do so.

I think the major difference is when I was little games just were and we did not question things like why are we fighting robot ninjas and ill tempered hawks.  With the focus towards realism there tends to be this struggle to reconcile things, such as how heros in games often steal like crazy from everyone's house and no one says a thing.  Game logic versus reality can be bit jarring when a character gets shot five times and heals up in thrity seconds by crouching behind cover.  Many times it is just ignored, we chuckle a bit in these realistic games at "breaking" how reality functions.  No one cares that a cartoon plumber can jump twenty feet in the air, but do that with realistic model and people call bull.

One could see Elizabeth or Ellie going "what are you doing?" as a get out of jail free card to excuse your actions. It's okay to be violent because we are self aware of my violence.  I think it can and can not work, if a game has themes such as how violence affects us. For example Joel's characterization is one shaped by violence.  Before he was not a violent man, but the world changed and he became violent, to the point that he has no reservations killing people for any reason, even helpless ones that could be spared.

We could witness many game makers use this technique in attempts to elevate their game, but I tend to think their will be a segregation between those that use it as a central theme that resonates with characters and those that tack it on. I actually think each of the three titles handled it pretty well, the one thing I wonder is if this sets a precedent where we may go from here? Is this a blip or setting up that games will now be expected to have greater realism and reconciling cognitive dissonance in their worlds?

Thank you for replying to my thread by the way.