Although I have somewhat declared my position on differentiating after action reports by way of screenshot usage (inasmuch that I don't believe one should), after reading through our back catalogue's some more, I'm actually quite surprised to find out just how prevailing the view of a prose vs. screenshot dichotomy is to the theory of AARtistry. I'd thus like to trace the history of the view and speculate upon why I feel it has changed over time - rather that attempting to just debunk it.
In the very first issue of this publication, Junius (or Fergusmck as he was then known) presented the first published theory of how to differentiate between after action reports in his review of Vonkrysiak's Downfall of the Empire:
I like to separate AARs into two main categories; story driven AARs and those that simply report a faction's conquests.
- Junius, Downfall of the Empire review, Critic's Quill, Issue 1, page 1, post 1
To reconcile this quickly with my more modern views, we can see he's discussing narrative and traditional/faux-history style after actions reports respectively. Hard narrative of course had not developed at that time, whilst Junius does not distinguish between traditional and faux-history styles. This could be perhaps for three reasons. Firstly, he might not consider there to be a fundamental difference between the two. Secondly, he maybe viewed a faux-history style as a story. Thirdly, perhaps the faux-history style had not gained enough popularity at that time.
What is immediately interesting to me is that this very first categorisation of after action reports aligns near enough perfectly which my own, barring the two issues above. How then did a screenshot-based view gain prominence?
After delineating thus, Junius tells us that Downfall of the Empire subscribes "to the 'pictures are wroth (sic) 1,000 words' mentality of AAR writing." As such, we can see that in 2009 there was some measure of opinion regarding screenshots in after action reports; there were authors and/or after action reports that used a notable amount of images, with the implication that they did so to the detriment of prose or accompanying words. However, interestingly, the implication is that Junius considers this distinction subservient to his 'report/story' dichotomy, similarly to my own views five years on.
In the next issue, Junius quite radically criticised an after action report named Cold Winter's People for it's overuse of screenshots and lack of story. Setting aside what I might feel about Junius' progressiveness, this is also quite interesting, as this might show us a critical point in the history of after action reports. As Junius mentions in his review, after action reports on Total War Center had, by 2009, evolved past the original traditional style and soft narrative had begun to dominate the writing scene. If he use this review as a case study, might we also say similar traditional after action reports to Cold Winter's People were likewise unpopular? Perhaps it is here were the faux-history style began in earnest, as author's with an inclination towards the traditional style were forced to adapt. Something worth exploring at a later date maybe.
This is something reinforced by Juvenal's comments in his review of The Pontic Expedition in the same issue:
In the beginning it was enough for an author to simply chronicle his campaign and we hungry readers would snap it up, wondering at the pictures of a mod or faction we hadn't played yet, admiring descriptions of square-jawed warriors overcoming all opposition, and imagining ourselves in the driving seat sweeping all before us. But those innocent days are largely gone. Now an AAR needs something extra, some aspect of the campaign we haven't seen yet, maybe a comedy, or a story tangential to the humdrum events of the actual gameplay.
- Juvenal, The Pontic Expedition review, Critic's Quill, Issue 2, 1.1
This again highlights the decline of the traditional after action report and the rise of the soft narrative, laid out perfectly in Juvenal's closing statement.
What does this say about categorisation in regards to screenshots then? Perhaps not much at first glance. It does however enlighten us to the context of the times - what styles were prevalent and why. Narrative stories were increasingly in popularity at the expense of traditional styles. Could we perhaps hypothesize that those in favour of traditional styles also adapted to this environment in another way beside spawning the faux-history style? Perhaps instead, writers began to improve the quality of their screenshots within the traditional style, in order to mark their story out as superior.
What we should of course bear in mind however, is that already there was a strong correlation between a traditional, report-style after action report and an after action report with a large amount of images - which, as we have seen elsewhere, definitely did go on to inspire later theories in regards to after action report categorisation.
However, whilst I might thus far feel comfortable with how my forebears here at the Quill had been categorising after action reports, things begin to complicate in Issue 3. In reviewing The Ishtar Gate to Alexandria, SonofAlexander introduces the first screenshot dichotomy, stating: "It certainly bends more towards the picture-oriented end of the spectrum." I do not know if he is placing this spectrum within a similar construct to Junius' categorization, or introducing his own categorization based on screenshots alone. In the same issue, Juvenal goes on to further discuss an image vs. prose dichotomy in his review of The Legacy of Megas Alexandros. However, it does not seem as if either are strictly championing such a view.
Things rapidly change in Issue 6, with the arrival of Nazgûl Killer to the Quill team. In his first review, he immediately throws a spanner in the works when he discusses Commander5xl's Rise of the Nile:
The main issue I have with this AAR is the fact that it cannot decide whether its a comedy, an AAR or a story, if it is a comedy, a line or two trying to throw some humor into the game just isn't enough, if it is a story, the narrations or personal stories in it are just too short and too sticked to the game, doesn't give you the feel as if the writer is trying to create a story behind the game, if it is truly an after action report (AAR), and only wants to report what's going on, it succeeded.
- Nazgûl Killer, The Rise of the Nile review, Critic's Quill, Issue 6, 1.1
Although he is not yet discussing screenshots, we do, for the first time since Issue 1, seem to find a new method of categorisation. It is however a strange one, split between the story, the comedy and the AAR. At present, I see no difference between the three, but 2009 was a different era of literary criticism. From reading other issues of the Quill, it's quite clear than comedy AARs were enjoying their heyday at this time (perhaps testament to the significant impetus for innovation mentioned above), so I can understand why Nazgûl might make such a distinction. Story might reflect the increased trends towards narrative AARs already mentioned, whilst his definition of AAR is what we might call today the traditional or original after action report style. However, what this does do is raise the question of whether or not soft narrative stories are still after action reports, which is an interesting one, given just how far this style has evolved over recent years.
However, on closer inspection, is Nazgûl's theory really all that different to Junius' or my own? There is still a distinction between what I call the traditional and the narrative. Although he singles out the popular comedy genre as something different, Nazgûl himself does not actually seem to be pioneering much new. His terminology is different to what we might use today and the only real unique aspect of his view is that he doesn't class narrative after action reports as after action reports - instead they are stories.
Another interesting point Nazgûl raises is how closely the story is tied to the game. In his opinion, if the story only relates the gameplay, without adding any real depth to the world, it's insufficient to be deemed a 'story'. This stands quite at odds with my own views, as I feel any attempt to construct a narrative with atleast a modicum of immersion is enough to separate an after action report between traditional and other styles.
However, we are not of course discussing screenshots. In Issue 8 Nazgûl does expand upon his theory to discuss screenshots. I felt it pertinent first to understand his earlier published views on after action reports.
In his article entitle The AAR Criteria, Nazgûl presents us with his views on after action reports. I was very tempted to copy across the entire piece. I have, however, resisted (for the most part...):
Most AARs today have a very strong illness, either too little text and too many pictures or too little pictures and too much text, both of these illnesses have unwanted results; The readers who much prefer 'action' in their AAR, more fighting and less talking, would skip the AARs without pictures and the others, who prefer plot over 'action', would much rather read the ones with more text. This forces most AAR readers and writers to find a very delicate balance between the two and with that offer little diversity at times.
For me, the basic guidelines of an AAR should be proper grammar, a proper plot and some action, meaning that I would much rather to read an interesting plot than blankly stare at pictures of the game, instead of simply right clicking on its icon and playing it myself.
The pros of an AAR with a plot is that it allows your imagination to flow and yourself to 'lie' a bit, as my good friend once said in response to one of my oldest AARs. What I mean by this is that you can, instead of sticking directly to gaming events, simply start inventing conversations between your characters, allow your imagination to take over battles as you inflate the deeds of your soldiers in combat just a tad bit, instead of simply sticking to the facts and... Basically, reporting after your action.
The definition of the AAR is actually an "After Action Report", meaning you simply tell the story of what you have done, meaning that the AARs with more pictures and less text usually live up to this standard, yet, those with less pictures and more text would much better be counted as stories and tales instead of AARs, and there is nothing wrong with either of those.
However, instead of picking one of these, most players would much rather find the delicate balance between the two, and often (Sadly), fail, causing in lack of interest from both sides of the readers, both those who much rather a plot and those who much rather action, thus creating dead AARs by the dozens.
I urge all AAR readers out there to not judge an AAR just by briefly looking at it, read it, look at the pictures, at least read two updates before deciding your opinion, as I myself were surprised by an or two before which had very little text and an immense amount of pictures, however, was one of the funniest AARs I have ever read, or, no pictures and all text, which turned out to be one of the best stories I have ever read. This is why I urge you, do not judge a book by its cover.
- Nazgûl Killer, 'The AAR Criteria', Critic's Quill, Issue 8, 1.1
We immediately return to this text vs. image dichotomy. Nazgûl quite neatly places his theory from Issue 6 into this new context, with his 'stories' vs 'after action reports', but introduces screenshots and imagery initially as a modifier to these - all well and good, if we contrast it to the theories of Junius and myself. However, for the first time, screenshots are given paramount importance. Although they are introduced in the context of text-based categories, they quickly come to dictate said categories - in particularly the traditional after action report. A traditional after action report thus needed a vast amount of images to be successful.
In the following issue, when interviewed, Giovi provides us with an interesting insight into the perception of screenshots: "A lot of people think that pictures in an AAR are secondary but I don't agree with them: I believe that 1 picture counts like 1000 words." Although hearkening back to an earlier comment by Junius, Giovi's comment nonetheless provides us with some more context as to the times. If what he said is true, then popular opinion was still against a view that championed screenshots as the primary way of defining an after action report.
It is however, in Issue 10 where we first encounter mention of a 'screenshot AAR', in Nazgûl's review of Big Pacha's Hurons on the Warpath. Although this AAR fits Nazgûl's earlier criteria for an 'after action report', he chooses instead to categorize it as a screenshot AAR. This is the first instance of a true categorization based upon usage of imagery as opposed to narrative style. It's also an interesting one, as it flies in the face of Nazgûl's own earlier theories. However, as was noted, screenshots had been assigned greater importance in his theory as opposed to other critic's such as Junius or Juvenal. As such, it makes sense that imagery came to supersede style in his theory of categorization.
Although Junius discusses screenshots in depth in Issue 10, he doesn't assign them any similar importance in terms of categorization. Kallum also makes some peculiar statements in Issue 11 regarding categorization, asserting that "we can all safely agree on the fact that the main AAR branches are: the interactive AAR, the role-play AAR, the comedy AAR and then last but not least the diary styled AAR." Not wanting to dwell on this rather unorthodox view (I don't believe this was too widely accepted, as no other critic has defined after action reports along these lines), I will briefly remind you that comedy after action reports were incredibly popular at that time, whilst interactive after action reports have always existed on the fringe of AARtistry as their own...thing. By role-play I assume he means narrative or story-driven after action reports (I could be wrong), whilst he defines 'diary' after action reports as stories where "we closely follow the campaign as it is played without the addition of plots and deep characters." I do of course accept comedy and diary as styles or genres within other categories (such as soft-narrative), but I'm not sure if our definitions are shared in this instance. He then goes on to outline what he calls a 'Timurid AAR', which has much in common with challenge-based after action reports such as StealthEvo's Challenge Accepted! This 'genre', which was once thought to redefine Medieval 2 AARtisry forever, has obviously not stood the test of time. Just an interesting piece of history really.
What's interesting at this juncture is the perceptions of screenshots and the prevalent styles of the time. A key theme running through the early Quill issues is one of balance between text and image; not wanting to have too much of either. This is quite strange when we learn about the decline of the traditional after action report and the rise of narrative styles. Not because it's unsound advice, but because the type of after action report usually associated with large amounts of imagery was dying out. There is also an incredible amount of bias towards soft narrative stories and traditional after action reports are continually attacked and derided by the team, who make no secret that they prefer story-driven pieces. As such, as we can see when Nazgûl called Hurons on the Warpath a 'screenshot AAR', it's almost used in a derogatory fashion. This is something important we must consider when assessing the evolution of categorisation; could the categorization of after action reports by way of screenshot have initially been constructed with these inherent negative connotations? That screenshot after action reports are flawed and forever worse than their story-driven counterparts?
The departure of both Nazgûl and Junius by Issue 16 left the Quill without the two major theorists in regards to categorization, although the text vs image 'problem' was one that continued to crop up. Also, it's worth noting as well that by early 2010, soft-narrative after action reports had finally risen to prime prominence, as referenced in articles such as Issue 15's 'Writing the Game' by Ariovistus Maximus. Comedy after action reports still existed as a popular medium, but - from my observations - traditional after action reports were already having the nails hammered into their caskets (although it took until 2012 for them to finally fade into history, with the departure of, in my opinion, Total War Center's last great traditional AARtist Decimus Milo).
To return to our discussion, screenshot after action reports continued, perhaps unsurprisingly, to come under much criticism from the Quill. Terms like 'picture book' came to mean insults, such as in Saint Nicholas' review of Danish Domination in Issue 16 (something that continued way into 2010). Even in reviews of non-screenshot based after action reports, critics would still often go to lengths to criticise them, showing just how important an issue this was to them.
Ariovistus Maximus' review of The Maharatha Confederacy that issue is also interesting, for it first uses the term 'history-book' style as a category (although history-book style AARs had been featured in the Quill before). However, what this suggests is that this style had also begun to gain popularity, most probably at the expense of the traditional AAR, given what we know.
Nanny de Bodemloze was the next person to properly tackle screenshots and imagery in depth. In Issue 19, he penned his article 'Still Pictures In AAR Writing: A Current State Of Affairs', which began thusly:
Any avid reader of AARs here at TWC has long ago noticed the increasing popularity of using still pictures and other media to augment their AARs. Purists may shudder at the notion of non-written input being used extensively, seeing (perhaps in cases justifiably) these techniques as a crutch to compensate for a lack of literary abilities.
- Nanny de Bodemloze, 'Still Pictures In AAR Writing: A Current State Of Affairs', Critic's Quill, Issue 19, 1.1
Contesting this prevalent view, Nanny attempts to paint a more positive picture of pictures. However, even as he relies on people like Skantarios and LuckyLewis for supporting in this, both later go on to admit that they feel they overuse screenshots and that "less is more." This shows that there was still a prevalent view that consigned screenshot-heavy after action reports as inferior - perhaps brought upon by earlier critics, perhaps just popular opinion. I doubt the Quill could ever have been the sole catalyst for the development of soft-narrative after action reports, however I think it's clear that it had a big part in fanning the flames of the traditional style's funeral pyre.
As we can see, after Nazgûl originally propositioned categorisation by screenshots, subsequent critics began to espouse similar views, as 'picture book' after action reports came to be continually derided. This categorisation does hold negative connotations, which is interesting in this history of literary theory.
Issue 22 saw the next real development in terms of theorizing categorization, as Skantarios attempted to negotiate Conquered, We Conquer, an after action report that teeters between the soft narrative and the traditional. After coming up with various names such as a 'conquer the world',' game-centric' or 'playthrough' style, he would later settle on 'player's after action report' in later issues. This is interesting for two reasons; firstly because Conquered, We Conquer still attempts a very sparse story and isn't the direct writing of the author's persona; and secondly because the 'picture book' or 'screenshot after action report' moniker was not used.
In a fantastic coincidence, Juvenal also reviewed a traditional style after action report that issue: n00bicus' Achtung - Peasant! Contrary to Quill trends over that past year, this after action report received an incredibly gracious review; not attacked for its style or 'copious' use of screenshots. However, Juvenal doesn't categorize it as anything other than 'not a role-playing AAR', although contextualizes it in comparison to the 'High Art' of more serious pieces.
Issue 22 is thus very historically significant, since it marks the end of a stigma long attached to traditional after action reports. Skatarios attempts to redefine what this style means, whilst Juvenal defends it where once it would have been ridiculed. Most importantly however, the use of screenshots is no longer something used to categorize these after action reports.
January 2011 differed somewhat slightly, as the aforementioned Challenge Accepted! came to be reviewed by Calisthenis of Dyrrachium. Here, Calisthenis does use the category 'caption-then-picture style AAR' in contrast to a 'story AAR', but is nonetheless very positive towards the story regardless - something that would have been unheard of before Issue 22.
From this point onwards, we have two parallel categories for what we might call today traditional after action reports. On one hand, Skantarios' new 'player's after action report' and the resurgent 'screenshot after action report', albeit minus the negative stigma.
In Issue 24, la coupe est pleine first popularized the category of 'textual after action report' in contrast to a 'screenshot after action report'. Although it's a term that suffers from a categorizational perspective, it does demonstrate the rise in usage of 'screenshot after action report' as a term, otherwise there would be no use for a diametrically opposed term. Calisthenis returned again with the ageing 'story after action report'/'report after action report' dichotomy, alongside the cumbersome 'story-like report style' in an attempt to blend the two. This demonstrates the two conflicting schools of thought, although Calisthenis seems to have switched camps in the interim.
That's not of course to say that critics applied these terms in a mutually exclusive fashion. Skantarios applied the categories story-driven and text-driven simultaneously, which calls into question which is subservient to the other. As 2011 wore on, la coupe est pleine continued to go against the curve, inventing sub-categories such as the 'soap opera after action report', whilst Radzeer began to champion the category 'plot-heavy after action report' to replace the previously popular story/story-driven category, which has now evolved into soft/hard narrative by my definition.
Skantarios and Beer Money both complicated matters in Issue 25, during an interview of the former:
Beer Money: In my opinion, what was considered strong work just 18 months ago, is just "good" at this point. A well cropped pic used to bring praise but if you aren’t bringing the effects now it’s almost passé. The days of an "and then I did this" AAR seem to be long gone. Do you agree? Are there other changes in AARs have you noticed along the way?
Skantarios: I would certainly agree. I think there is still a place for the straight-forward, blow-by-blow type AAR but the genre has moved on some. I think this is a good thing as we are building on the work that came before us and that pushes us to break new ground. That was certainly on my mind when I was trying to figure out how to do the Civil War in Legacy. Also, there are a lot more guides on how to do things in AARs (e.g. cropping pictures, use of spoilers, etc) than there have ever been before. So, those who are interested have more resources to draw from than those 18 months ago. I hope that I have in my own way pushed the genre forward a notch or two so that others can move even farther still.
- 'Interview with Skantarios', Critic's Quill, Issue 25, 1.2
This again provides some interesting context to our discussion. The traditional or 'and then I did this AAR' had effectively died by Spring in 2011 (although was still championed by some, as has been mentioned). What's interesting again is the focus on the prose, as opposed to the imagery, which shows a general shift away from the 'screenshot after action report' category, owed to both the decline of the style and the rise of more narrative pieces.
By mid 2011, although Skantarios had been attempting (at times) to categorize along prosaic lines, terms such as 'graphics-based after action report' were still in use, whilst in contrast to this, Radzeer's category of 'plot-driven after action report' continued to go from strength to strength, reinforcing the story/screenshot dichotomy (although 'story-driven/story-heavy after action report' remained perhaps most popular).
As an interesting aside, it is in this period where we first began to see the tentative rise of hard narrative-esque stories, such as SeniorBatavianHorse's The Nowhere Legion. Interestingly enough, they were not afforded any new or unque category. Also, it should be noted that comedy after action reports had long since ceased to be popular by 2011, although the sub-category continued to exist and be applied wherever necessary.
Thing's remained somewhat static as 2011 drew to a close, although Issue 28 saw Skantarios once again attempt to champion the 'player's after action report' vs. 'writer's after action report' dichotomy, in contrast to the story v.s screenshot school. An interactive vs standard dichotomy arose in Issue 31, but, as has been mentioned, interactive after action reports are unique unto themselves and are not the topic of discussion here, lest we complicate things too much.
It was not until January 2012 that Radzeer would elaborate some more upon his own theory of categorization, stating in a review of Robin de Bodemloze's Takeda: "AARs tend to be either campaign-focused with little plot besides some roleplay or plot-focused with sparse references to the campaign." This moves Radzeer away from the story vs screenshot school of thought and into stranger waters. Such a categorization is odd, seeing as the hard narrative style we know today had yet to fully take off. Knowing this, it's difficult to immediately understand what Radzeer means by plot-focused to the detriment of the campaign. Presumably he's discussing soft narrative, 'story-driven' pieces, in contrast to the traditional 'gameplay-driven' style. Either way, it's perhaps one of the most strangest categorizations to come across, since the terminology is far more reminiscent of how we'd discuss modern hard narrative pieces, since soft narrative authors have not usually found reconciling their stories with their gameplay famously difficult. However, we must also appreciate, as I have mentioned elsewhere, that Takeda itself was very much a game-changer in regards to changing narrative styles on Total War Center. Nothing essentially new, but the first after action report to truly popularize and galvanize in terms of what could be done with hard narrative.
The beginnings of 2012 were uneventful in terms of categorizations and the two schools of thought (screenshot vs story/player vs writer) continued to exist simultaneously. However, the actual term 'screenshot after action report' (or any variation thereof) had fallen far out of use by this point. Instead, 'textual' or 'text-based after action report' had become far more prevalent, reinforcing the same dichotomy, but without the actual screenshot after action reports to exist as a point of reference.
Although there were some variations on existing categories (such as narrative-based), no significant new developments occurred before the departure of Juvenal and the contemporary period, which is where I will draw a line under this study.
What actually happened in terms of categorization then? Well, from 2009 and early 2010, the way of categorizing after action reports was done via a report/story dichotomy. Screenshots were not included as a way of categorization. However, owing to negative attitudes of the time towards after action reports that featured little to no prose or story, a new category was born to differentiate them from other pieces. This new way of categorization persevered as the dominant form until late 2010, where after action reports featuring an abundance of screenshots lost their associated stigma. Finally in 2011, the report/story dichotomy was revived and both schools of thought existed simultaneously until the contemporary period.
Why did these things transpire as they did? What we must consider is the early policy of the Quill, which took a much more militant and critical approach to reviewing. Critics were allowed and encouraged to be negative - if not scathing at times -, which allowed a new way of categorizing after action reports to be born. This was remedied under the tenure of Juvenal, who promoted a much more positive atmosphere. We must also remember the decline in the original report/traditional style, which prompted the need to categorize along prosaic lines. However, with the story/screenshot dichotomy already so entrenched even after this decline, the distinction persevered.
This is significant for a number of reasons, as it not only shows us how our predecessors viewed AARtistry, it also shows us how trends in both criticism and AARtistry interweave and affect eachother. There are many lessons to be learned and much we can take from this as we move forward 
The Critic's Quill: Issue 45
The Scribbling Scotsman
Originally Posted by Shankbot de Bodemloze
Holiday Readings and What does the future hold articles read, both of them were enjoyable.
non flectis non mutant
Primicerius
It's not that we purposefully ignore CW - or any other aspect of the Study -, it's just sometimes we'll have issues with different compositions of reviews/articles/interviews depending on who is available and what they want to write about.
His Dudeness of TWC
Posting Permissions
