Exploring Todorov's Theory of Narrative Equilibrium: A Narrative Design Analysis
- Alice Kent | amknarratives
- Jan 6
- 6 min read
Updated: Feb 8
Tzvetan Todorov was a structuralist key thinker who presented his theory of narrative equilibrium in his essay 'The Two Principles of Narrative' (1971). Tzvetan Todorov believed that good stories contained five key elements:
Equilibrium
Disruption
Recognition
Resolution
A New Equilibrium
Analysing Game Narrative Through Todorov's Theory
Below is an analysis of Ghost of Tsushima (2020); I'd love to know your thoughts on using this theory to analyse this game. I'll be exploring whether the narrative design of the game fits Todorov's theory and if it effectively aligns with the proposed five stages of equilibrium.
Equilibrium
The first thing the player learns is that Tsushima, an island in Japan, is under attack. This firmly establishes that conflict is the equilibrium of this narrative. War will be the norm throughout Jin's story, cementing this theme for the player. But this caused me to consider the meaning of equilibrium. Equilibrium is a balance.
As the first cutscene continues, we learn that there is no balance. Jin narrates, "We are eighty samurai against an army." The odds are against Jin and his fellow warriors; their stand is merely to "slow the invasion." This made me think, does the equilibrium instead happen off-screen? Has the game missed Todorov's initial element? To me, I think it does.
As the game continues, we learn that there was peace in Tsushima before the invasion, albeit shaky. A game with conflict as its central theme and the driving force of the narrative does not need to show so early in its narrative. Peace slows the pace of stories and allows time for reflection, both for the player and the characters. Do games need this reflection time so early on in the game? Arguably, no. The first-time user experience (FTUE) sequence is integral in capturing a player's attention, and I think Ghost of Tsushima does a great job of throwing the player into the action purposefully. I don't believe a pastoral image of Jin would be as effective to begin the game; introducing Jin's character on the very brink of a battle is perfect for capturing player attention and then setting up the core gameplay mechanics.
Disruption
The status quo set at the beginning of the game is disruptive enough to propel the narrative further, but it is one particular event that happens during the battle on Komoda Beach that forces Jin into action: the capture of Lord Shimura, Jin's uncle. Jin has a very personal quest, and players are given a clear objective to work towards.
But I argue, is Jin's survival not the disruptive force in the narrative? Jin states, "Today is the day that I die for my people." Samurai honour aside, he knew survival would be futile. None of the eighty warriors should have survived the battle, and Jin knew it. I think it is Jin's survival and less the Mongols' victory that is the disruptive force in the game's narrative, which strengthens the player's relationship with Jin from the outset.
Recognition
Jin's recognition of the plight of his uncle and the whole of Tsushima is instantaneous and obvious to the player. Jin's loyalty to his country has already been shown on Komoda Beach. When he meets Yuna he asks after Lord Shimura before they are safe, showing that his uncle's fate is a main priority to Jin.
Yuna is an integral character who assists Jin and helps him recognise exactly what he needs to do to attempt to save his uncle and Tsushima. She is a reluctant hero and someone with whom the player can easily bond due to her devotion to her brother and her caring nature towards Jin. Her ruthlessness and passion are admirable and make her a fearsome ally.
With Yuna's help, Jin recognises his quest and does all he can to rescue his home and uncle, even if it means degrading his and his family's precious honour.
Resolution
Jin goes through many forms of resolution during the game. Moments in the critical path quest give the player forms of resolution, and each tale (side quest) has its own resolution too. To me, games are unique in offering multiple resolutions throughout the narrative in relatively short spaces of time compared to other mediums of narrative. The player needs to have an ongoing objective to meet and be suitably rewarded when goals are met to want to continue with their journey. Ghost of Tsushima is brilliantly designed in that the player is guided enough by the critical path to always have an objective, but enough freedom and encouragement is given to explore all the secrets Tsushima has hidden atop mountains and tucked away in forests.
Ultimately, when Jin slays Khotun Khan at the Battle of Port Izumi, the final resolution of the game takes place. Jin has defeated the leader of the Mongol army, and there is hope for Tsushima once more.
A New Equilibrium
The new equilibrium that the player finds after their victory is not a fulfilling one. Due to Jin's defiance and "Ghost" status, the Shogun has stripped Jin of his samurai title. Now shamed and a traitor, Jin must say goodbye to his home and uncle, although he "sacrificed everything for [his] people." This new equilibrium is absolutely bittersweet. They understand the lengths that Jin has gone to provide a semblance of safety for Tsushima. They understand the people he has empowered. They know the internal battle that Jin has been waging thanks to the tranquil moments in Tsushima's hot springs. This new equilibrium doesn't seem fair, but conflict is rarely fair. The central theme of the game never wavers, and the player is often reminded of the bindings of 13th-century Japanese honour.
Jin's new equilibrium is ambiguous. Will he become a ghost, picking off the surviving Mongols one at a time? Or will he become The Ghost and lead those who follow his name into battle until the Mongol army is defeated? Or will he and his tarnished name be whispered with fear in the dead of night, never to be seen in Tsushima again? This is left for the player to decide with a heart left heavy for Jin, and for Yuna.
But again I'm considering whether the narrative has a new equilibrium. We know that equilibrium is a balance - Jin and the player are left with very little balance, only sorrow and resentment.
A Useful Theory for Narrative Design?
When I started using this theory to analyse game narratives I found that I was asking more questions - woohoo! Todorov used his theory to analyse folklore and I believe that this theory does work well when analysing shorter, more simple texts. Regarding longer, more intricate texts like games, I'm unsure that this theory holds much weight. It is claustrophobic and limiting. I think this structure could be helpful in designing shorter side paths or time-limited events, zbut when considering the core narrative path, it is too finite.
Instead, a good way to use Todorov's theory is by considering how games subvert his theory. Due to their nature, games don't need an opening equilibrium, their narrative must jump into the action in order to teach players gameplay mechanics. Lengthy scene setting isn't required, that is the job of a carefully crafted environment during the FTUE/tutorial sequence. The environment will continue to tell the story encouraging players to pause and explore, sinking their teeth further into the lore of the game.
Do games ever reach a new equilibrium? I argue that many games don't and this is a wasted element to consider. Skyrim's radiant quests always give the player a goal, Ni No Kuni I and II both return the player to just before the climactic quest once it has been completed. Open world RPG games, like Ghost of Tsushima, tend to leave players in a state of purgatory with the game never really reaching a new equilibrium to encourage postgame gameplay.
Cover image credit: Sucker Punch Productions https://www.suckerpunch.com/category/games/ghostoftsushima/
Comentarios