VR Storytelling: The Same, But Different?

“Storytelling” is a buzzword that gets tossed around a lot whenever a new technology appears on the horizon. This time around, we’re all wondering how to tell stories in Virtual Reality or Augmented Reality. These technologies certainly offer a new level of interactivity and realism, but do they offer new ways to tell stories?  I think that is yet to be decided. Right now, we have a lot of promise and experimentation as people try to understand the nuances of this new medium.

I’m going to focus mostly on Virtual Reality, or VR, where the audience is completely immersed in an environment that is created virtually. Augmented Reality has a lot of storytelling potential, but it is also a less clearly defined technology, since it can take on so many forms.

In VR, the director takes on the role of a world creator. The immersiveness of VR creates a unique situation in that you have your audience member’s complete attention – you have a direct pipeline to their eyes and ears with no distraction. This deep immersion is the big difference with VR.  You’re not watching a screen, you’re in a VR world. Even by the simple act of turning your head causes you to interact with that world.

Passive VR Stories

The first VR stories that appeared were not much more than 360 degree videos. These often acted as a bridge for both traditional filmmakers and audiences to get their feet wet.  An excellent example of this type of experience would be Pearl, a very charming Oscar-nominated VR film where the viewer rides along in a car that is being driven by a father and his daughter.  Other than having a 360 degree view of the scene, there is no interactivity, yet the film still works quite well. 

The passive experience is not to be pish-poshed, because it can take traditional film techniques to a different realm.  Traditional film developed a very specific language over the past century or so. The ability to cut from shot to shot and move the camera seamlessly allows the traditional director to control exactly what the audience sees and for how long.  With VR, much of this language goes out the window. The 360 degree view of headset itself hands control of the “camera” over to the viewer. This lack of control can be frustrating to experienced filmmakers, yet those who embrace it can create new and novel experiences.

Oscar-nominated "Pearl" is a great example of passive VR

Still, by losing control over the camera, the director gains a first-person perspective that is unique to the VR medium.  A filmmaker can place the viewer directly in the scene, which can have a much higher emotional impact than watching that same content on a 2D screen. You didn’t just watch it from the couch; you were really there (well, at least it seemed like you were.)  For locations and stories that need this level of immersion, VR can be invaluable.  

Can 360 degrees be too much?

For some stories, having a 360 degree immersive experience will be exactly what is needed. For others, it does nothing to propel the narrative forward.  So, when considering passive VR, you have to ask yourself if VR truly adds something to the story. Does this story have to be seen in 360 degrees?  Would a 2D screen serve the story better?  Would the ability to use traditional film techniques be more advantageous than having total immersion? 

To add fuel to the fire, in many respects, 360 degrees is just another aspect ratio.  Switching between aspect ratios is nothing new in filmmaking; it has been done for years. (Wes Anderson recently used aspect ratio changes in ‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’, for example.)  Perhaps there is a place in the lexicon for hybrid experiences that move seamlessly between full 360 degree immersion and more traditional filmmaking.  

The Interactive Element

Passive stories are great, but VR really begs for interactivity. The worlds it creates can be real enough that you want to reach out and touch them. Adding a degree of interactivity can deepen the connection between the viewer and the story, making it even more of a first person narrative. 

When interactivity comes into play, we start to see a gap in perception and the limits of technology. The worlds are virtual, and our yet our hands are real. We can’t really “touch” the VR world, so there is a cognitive and haptic distance that is built-in to the experience. Bridging this gap can be a challenge, though many companies are working on clever solutions.

Are these MY hands? Interactivity in VR is still a technical challenge.

Regardless of the technical challenges, the addition of interactivity fundamentally shifts the story equation. We move from telling stories to a passive viewer to increasingly engaging the viewer in a kind of a dance. The viewer interacts with our little VR story machine, and our machine spits out something interesting to move the narrative along.  Wash, rinse, repeat, and a story starts to develop.     

Point of View

When this dance of interactivity comes into play, we have to understand the importance of point of view in our storytelling.  Point of View is basically the viewpoint through which the story is told. Usually, a story is seen through the eyes of the main character, but sometimes a secondary character or some other device is used to witness the main character’s actions. In a passive story, the point of view is up to the director, but as we introduce interactivity, the POV increasingly shifts to the viewer. 

When that happens, our viewers start to become characters and part of the story itself. We move from “telling” a story to a person “creating” a story in partnership with a person.  The best storytellers will understand that interactivity creates a symbiotic relationship with the viewer that creates stories that are unique to the individual.  Often, this relationship can be tricky to navigate. We can manipulate our viewers to get them to look where we want and to press the correct buttons, but if the participant feels manipulated, the story and the partnership may suffer. Conversely, we can be so vague with our information that the viewer simply gives up. Finally, we can add so much interactivity, that we start “playing” the experience like a game. 

One person, one POV? As VR develops, perhaps each story will be unique.

And what are Stories, exactly?

In some ways, VR may force creators to re-examine what a story actually means.  When our ancestors were sitting around the campfire, a story was told by storyteller to the listeners. The story may have been a classic tale that taught a valuable lesson or perhaps a story from someone’s personal history. Typically, the story served a simple purpose – it was a way to get a person to see through someone else’s eyes.  By witnessing other people’s real or fictional experiences, we gain empathy for others, perhaps learn more about ourselves, learn a bit about the world, and gain a common story we can share socially with others.

Good stories can become like memes or viruses that infect the brains of the audience. If the story is good enough, it gets retold and the story spreads from brain to brain, taking on a life of its own. I’m always amazed at how urban legends and ghost stories travel so effortlessly. People all over the country and the world know these common stories, yet they mostly spread organically. Memes from movies and video can also spread similarly and create a common experience we can all share. 

And what about the experiences created in VR? Will they enter into the common lexicon? I think they can, though it may spread differently. VR allows us to impart direct experience, and that experience can be communicated. Instead of retelling the same story our ancestors told, we may speak more from our direct experience. 

As for the future, we certainly have a lot of experimentation to do with VR. Experimentation is key when figuring out what really works in VR. I hope the studios, creators, and audiences are up to the task.