The Stanley Parable: A Game’s Criticism of Games

The Stanley Parable takes the idea of metagames to another level. Not only does it criticize itself as a game but even manages to critique the gaming industry as a whole. Whilst The Stanley Parable can certainly be taken as a humorous game, it also possesses great depth in the thoughts and ideas it evokes. Throughout the various storylines and endings, a message emerges: there are underlying issues with the current state of narrative in video games.

Perhaps what makes this message so glaring is the fact that The Stanley Parable uproots the ‘normal’ way narrative in a game is constructed. Usually, narrative in a game doesn’t only serve to guide the player but also locks the player in on a certain path. Think about games like Call of Duty where there’s usually one cliche level that repeats in almost every iteration of the game. The character the player controls usually has a chance to kill the main antagonist, but this opportunity is in fact a mere illusion. No matter how accurate you are with your aim, or how quick you are with your movements, there simply is no way you can kill the antagonist in that level. This would have to wait for the grand finale, the final mission. The Stanley Parable turns this on its head. You can choose the path you want and disregard the narrator completely. In this way, the game emphasizes how much autonomy a player can have over the narrative of a game, and in some ways, comedically mocks games with a fixed narrative.

This idea of the player’s autonomy and agency is further explored when the player is presented with the introduction of Stanley. Stanley’s job, after all, is to push buttons on his keyboard in the same order as what appears on his screen. This is no different from how we play most games. We are presented with a visual stimulus that tells us to push a corresponding button. If we see a block, we jump. If we see a projectile, we dodge. The monotonous context of the actions Stanley executes highlights how games, absence of impactful decision making (on the player’s part), could be boring and mindless. Although I think this is a harsh reading, I can see how this can apply to many games.

Finally, perhaps the most visible criticism of all: the achievements. The achievements available for players to complete in The Stanley Parable quite clearly mock the state of some video games that are filled with meaningless achievements. For instance, take the ‘Click on door 430 five times’ achievement. This does absolutely nothing for the player or the game but is a way of making fun of the plethora of pointless achievements in gaming. But the most obvious one of all is ‘Unachievable’. As the name suggests, there is no way to complete this achievement and highlights the absurdity of some achievements in gaming that are near impossible to complete. Perhaps here, the developers of The Stanley Parable are being critical of games that design extremely difficult achievements just because they know there will be people on YouTube or Twitch grinding to get 100% completion of their game and that this will undoubtedly generate some attention.

Of course, I am only speculating here but I do feel that there is a sense of criticism, and perhaps a little arrogance, imbued in the design of The Stanley Parable. Whether that criticism is well placed though is another question. I do think games have come a long way since the original release of The Stanley Parable and with larger more interactive open world maps in modern games, it seems that players have more autonomy than ever before. We’re no longer issuing the same response to the same stimuli but are given freedom to do actions that are unique and meaningful. Or at least that’s what we are led to believe.