The giant insult on traditional game development techniques and how it got away with it

This article contains spoilers about the game. Stop reading if you want to have a fresh experience with the game. Everything below is my speculation, don't take them as definitive facts.

Let me make a safe guess - you have played The Stanley Parable. It has confused you or may be even frustrated. Its nature evokes an inevitable reaction. No matter what you thought about TSP, there is something great about it. You can play it as a comedy game or look at it deeply, perhaps too deep. And that's what I decided to do.

The walking simulator

The Stanley Parable is everything and beyond video games. It's a giant commentary on todays game development philosophy. Throughout its unexpected span and twisty narrative, it has a clear message - there are problems with narrative in video games, which we have not addressed yet.

It is a big blow on the traditional view on narrative and how it is constructed. The Stanley Parable is an insult, directed to everyone who is happy with the status quo. It is so aware of itself and the current industry, that it is not afraid to mock even himself.

The Stanley Parable pokes it's finger directly at the weakest point in video games - their, still, underdeveloped narrative skills. By exposing how much is the real agency over narrative in players hands, it is a brilliant comedic piece of art and at the same time a big lesson to those who are willing to look at it more deeply.

The 8 game

As the real game mocks real and full content commercial video games, the demo challenges products of its nature.

The first thing that struck me is how many people were actually patient to wait for their number in the waiting room, even when it's completely pointless. I didn't expect anybody would do that.

One of the remarks made in the demo is choice variety and how limited it is most of the time. Or that your choice doesn't really matter and even when it seems to, you eventually get on the track, laid by the products creators.

Do you remember the Wall Technology? It outlines when a demo is supposed to show a working slice of the full product, it actually has leftover and unfinished material, which is in conflict with its purpose.

The choice which didn't matter

The commercial game starts with the launch trailer where we are introduced to Stanley, employee 427. He is working in a big company where his job is to push buttons on a keyboard. He receives commands through a monitor on his desk. Stanley is told which buttons to push, for how long and in which order.

For a long time I did not understand what that meant or even if there was anything obscure about that description. Yes, his employee number is 427, which contains the number 42 - an appropriate reference to Douglas Adams and his legacy. But perhaps the detailed description of Stanleys job portrays the very notion of playing video games. We push particular buttons in particular order, to achieve particular effects. We play games, by their explicit rules, the way we are told to do so.

In recent years we have seen a great amount of open world/sand box games. But there hasn't been shortage in linear games with strict control over players actions. Invisible walls or direct threatening by the game if you go off the map, even in scenarios where the level design suggests more freedom than the available and, but not limited to - bugging out the whole game or level by reaching unexpected locations are common practices in multiplayer and even in singleplayer games since decades.

We all have done what Stanley does - pushed buttons for a given amount of time in particular order to activate a combo or to finish a QTE sequence.

And then the narrator proceeds to tell us that Stanley was happy - he pushed buttons every day, of every month, of every year. Which is basically what we all would love to do - play games every day, forever.

Right after this, something peculiar happens - Stanely hasn't received any order for some time. And that is the point where we, the player, take the control over Stanleys destiny. We get out of the office and find out that everybody is gone. To me that is a commentary of what would happen if we didn't care about our family/surroundings and focus only on our job. We would loose any sense of presence among our close relatives.

Perhaps this theory is very naive and easily predictable and rather offensive to the games audience. And most of all - not justifiable, given the comedic nature of the game.

Set of simple two doors lead to a single rabbit hole

The layout of the office (which was briefly explained in the museum, behind the scenes room) has been designed and created with the mind that the dialogue and attention span of the player would balance and lead to the first sense of conflict - the two doors.

This first dilemma is presented geniously - with a confident and calm voice. At this point the narrator is still following the hardcoded written script. Which is what I describe as the main and simple story the whole Stanely Parable is based around - there is a problem, the protagonist decides to end the tyranny of the evil force and it concludes with a happy ending.

The simple story has cartoonish elements. Toward the end of it, it cultivates exaggerated tone and willingly becomes boring, it's purpose is to show the most basic and at the same time intriguing story. But only if the player obeys/follows the steps the given by the narrator.

If the player chooses to change the course of the action at any point, the narrator becomes more aggravated at later stages, rather than earlier ones. In one case he is very angry, because the players actions have ruined the whole experience by choosing to not follow the hardcoded story.

Not obeying the narrative, leads to all sorts of interesting results, which ultimately don't explain the whole picture of The Stanley Parable, which is left to players imagination. The game doesn't feel the need to address any of the questions which the audience asks frantically after playing it. The same happened in the demonstration, particularly in the 'Escape elevator' sequence.

Unachievable

Throughout the exploration/ending hunting there are many sections where the nature of narration and design in games is examined and often made fun out of.

Many actions, which are not part of the hardcoded script, of the player are directly commentated by the narrator.

Like the 'Broom closet' - this room has no place in the whole game. In traditional game narrative it would be a waste of time - there isn't a collectable or extra life and if the player decides to explore it, the game would punish him for doing so. But here, the comedic nature of TSP rewards the player for paying attention to it, even if it is only a piece of dialogue.

Or the window on desk 434. Which examines our first reaction of - "I broke the game! After all, you are not as perfect you are claiming, ha TSP?". Right after that the player is literally made fun out of by the devs. Where we can see how the game is using its artificially created weaknesses to enhance the experience.

Another section which mocks specifically the players is the cargo elevator. While it is short and supposed to be a transition part in the whole story, it's actually a powerful device which examines the rebellious and to some degree curiosity nature in human behaviour. It clearly states that jumping off the lift is prohibited, but if the player chooses to let go its primal desires, inquisitiveness prevails, which leads to death.

Achievements are another device with which the The Stanley Parable mocks the current video game industry. Take the 'Click on door 430 five times' for example - a great way to address the ridiculous amount of pointless achievements in some games. Or 'Unachievable' - an obvious phantom which doesn't have a solution. It is created solely that particular part of the player audience grinds through the game, desperately trying to get it.

Gameplay and Narrative

I would like to mention that while The Stanley Parable doesn't have any gameplay elements in the traditional sense, it resembles one puzzle game - Antichamber. Its mind bending levels and unpredictable nature focusses on players expectations and behaviour, just like TSP.

One game focuses on gameplay, without narrative and the other is doing the complete opposite. But both of them leave us with great amount of enjoyment and sense of discovery.

Babysitting for hours

So, how does The Stanley Parable get away with being so rude to every aspect in the modern video game industry, while being part of it?

Its complete and constant self awareness makes TSP simply perfect. It is written and executed exceptionally well. It deflects most of the criticism, directed at it, simply by being one.