Narrative and Play
in Interactive Media

Visit the Module Blog

eliz
lina
gina
colin
achu
grace
lionel
weien
mikail
ronald
wei-en
xintian
nguyen
yaolong
aikheng
kokleong
yuanshuo
shamantha
zhouxiang
wangying
shangjia
huiyuan
spencer
suyuen
christie
manas
peifen
shane
aileen
jesse
lucas
liana
holly

The Puppet Master

Eskelinen vs Jenkins

Games of Progression

Chronon - and the role of time

Scarytales - a game?

Hypertext

Childhood Fantasies

The Lego Series

Selection

The Mouse

In her paper "The Puppet Master Problem: Design for Real-World, Mission Based Gaming", Jane McGonigal suggests that "the success of the puppet master challenges our assumptions about the kinds of action and interaction that qualify as gameplay, reveal dramatic interpretation to be a viable game mechanic, and demonstrate the value of a dramaturgical perspective for pervasive game design." Discuss how these ideas could be applied to designing elements of narrative and gameplay in interactive media systems.

This question started me thinking about what actually constitutes a game.. because I initially didn't exactly see power play functioning as a game, but rather as a kind of role-playing simulation. Perhaps it is my limited understanding of these real-world, live action, performance-based missions, but it seems like the "puppets" merely follow a set of instructions, and events will just roll out by themselves thereafter. There is not much of a challenge, and no real goal (because the instructions have already been given such that you will meet that goal). Rather, it is quite similar to a role-playing act: you play by script.

But whether or not power play constitutes a game, there are compelling ideas that we can incorporate into interactive media gameplay.

Firstly, is the idea of self-expression. McGonigal established that "puppets" are not entirely powerless as they influence how the script is subsequently written by demonstrating their expectations (through all the elaborate gadgets they were expecting to use). Through the players' interpretation of tasks they demonstrate self-expression - who/what they bring with them, how they pose in their photos, they way they document the completion of their mission etc. Hence, gameplay should not concern itself with whether or not the player is given choice, and the extent of it, but rather.. the avenue for self-expression, how much of it and what kind.

Secondly, is the idea of immersive play, as the novelty of powerplay is in its real-life setting, such that you take on a pretend-role and feel more empowered (than you normally are in your boring desk job). It may be true that the novelty of powerplay in that it reflects real-life to the extent that you are not given any choice, as McGonigal suggests, but I feel it ultimately boils down to my first point about self-expression - that even in the absence of direct choice, you are still accorded the freedom to push the boundaries and express yourself within the rules of the game. For example, as discussed in class, Halo feels more immersive than NWN as you can wield your sword in the fashion u one instead of just watching your avatar kill the monster in its own way and then miss. Good gameplay must be immersive.

Thirdly, is the element of interactivity. In this case, the puppets had some control over the script, and due to the nature of powerplay being in the real-world, the PMs accomodated to their puppets expectations instead of the players totally submitting to the system. Hence, good gameplay should be interactive, and we now see that interactive and play are not black and white.

Lastly, gameplay should ultimately be about satisfaction and fun. Isn't that why we all play in the first place?

Markku Eskelinen, an independent scholar and self-professed "ludologist", in his response to Jenkins' paper "Game Design as Narrative Architecture", says:

According to the well-known phrase of David Bordwell, narration is "the process whereby the film's sjuzet and style interact in the course of cueing and constraining the spectator's construction of the fabula." In games there are other kinds of dominant cues and constraints: rules, goals, the necessary manipulation of equipment, and the effect of possible other players for starters. This means that information is distributed differently (invested in formal rules, for example), it is to be obtained differently (by manipulating the equipment) and it is to be used differently (in moving towards the goal).

By systematically ignoring and downplaying the importance of these and other formal differences between games and narratives as well as the resulting cognitive differences, Jenkins runs the risk of reducing his comparative media studies into repetitive media studies: seeing, seeking, and finding stories, and nothing but stories, everywhere. Such pannarrativism could hardly serve any useful ludological or narratological purpose.

Do you agree with Eskelinen's dismissal of Jenkins' approach? Why/why not?

Eskelinen's response to Jenkins' paper appears to be quite an emotional attempt at defending his own turf… when there is in fact nothing to defend against. Instead of taking sides in the "blood feud" between ludologists and narratologists, Jenkins is in actually taking a step back from it and offering an alternative perspective where narrative and games co-exist. I hence disagree with Eskelinen's dismissal of Jenkin's approach and will show how his main arguments are invalid:

1. Jenkins ... reduce[es] all media to story-telling (and story-selling) channels.

Already in the introduction, Jenkins acknowledged the "profound differences between the two media", and that they are often overlooked. In addition, he established that not all games have narratives, hence limiting his discussion to those that have narratives, and that "the experience of playing games can never be simply reduced to the experience of a story". Futhermore, the focus of his discussion is simply to offer middle-ground: to urge ludologists to consider the narrative possibilities that games offer, while narratologists to adapt to the new media, to study the process of narrative comprehension and not to impose the rules and conventions of classical linear storytelling.


2. Jenkins also misrepresents a dispute (on the usefulness of narratology), important parts of which he seems to be unaware of.

It is true that Jenkins does not expound on the elementary differences between stories and games, which is not the focus of his text in the first place. His main argument is in fact to offer an alternative third-perspective, using environmental storytelling as a basis for which games could be build upon (using rules, goals, the necessary manipulation of equipment - which he just didn't elaborate upon). Jenkins obviously doesn't see stories and games as black and white, especially with the current state of the improved media, and is exploring the grey area in between. He is thus not misrepresenting the dispute, but applying its arguments to a more modern context, that of "popular traditions".

3. Jenkins's "spatial story" is a bit of a naive thematic construct; from the ludological perspective it is simply useless

I can see where Eskelinen is coming from, as Jenkins does not refer to much gaming jargon. However, his paper is far from useless. He explores extensively different variations of narratives: Evoked, enacted, embedded, and emergent, and warns game designers that "choices about the design and organization of game spaces have narratological consequences", and ultimately there is an overlap of stories and games.

Jesper Juul distinguishes between games of emergence, where a game is specified as a small number of rules that combine and yield a large number of game variations, and games of progression, where a game presents the player with a series of puzzles or challenges which must be accomplished in a certain order. Discuss whether games of progression, which often attempt to combine a narrative structure with gameplay, are unique to computer-based games.

Games of progression are a defining characteristic of most modern epic videogames, having emerged through the adventure genre. The prevalence of this progressive structure on computer platforms can be attributed to the development of the medium. The quality of graphics and sounds have reached an unprecedented level, providing the perfect tools for environmental storytelling (Jenkins), and a chance to incorporate the narrative element. Furthermore, the sophistication of technology has allowed for complex programming and the implementation of memory, in terms of attributes, scores, and behavior, thereby adding depth and reality to the game.

Hence, the nature of progression offers a more immersive experience than games of emergence. Progression itself implies the element of time (both narrative time and real playing time) - a player would have to go through a pre-arranged number of nodes to advance in the right direction, as decided by the game designer. The presence of a walk-through also suggests that the game can be completed, making the replayability factor low. This serves as an excellent opportunity for game companies to cash in, considering how absorbing yet ephemeral their product can be $$ :) Nowonder the advent of this genre!

However, games of progression are not unique to computer-based games. An example of this is the simple children's game of treasure hunt, where instead of nodes, players solve a progressive series of clues to reach their ultimate goal of finding the treasure. The whole underlying concept is very similar: Puzzles are presented to players step-by-step, and players are afforded the freedom to roam about in their environment, except that the only interesting experience is to be had in one direction (an illusion of freeplay). Treasure hunts also take a substantial amount of time to complete, with there being only one solution of getting to the treasure. Having completed it once, it is pointless and boring playing it again.

In fact, games of progression often emerge in many childrens' games, when one child acts as the 'game designer' and imposes his rules on the others. We often hear him shouting across to his friends (who often are not following his rules) that they have to build up their ammo (collecting 10 erasers), then fortify their base (using whatever they get their hands on), before finally killing off the monster (more often than not the teacher).

That's my take, from 6 years of working with children every holiday, and being that evil monster :)

How is time represented in the game? Is there a separation of story and discourse time? How does the game's use of time allow for interactivity?

Although not exactly rich in narrative, Chronon is an excellent model for the study of the time element in game design. Chronon refers to a quantum of time, proposed by the theory that time is discontinuous. Hence, the title of the game already suggests the modularity of time, which then forms the basis of interactivity in the game.

In Chronon, the player is thrown into a spatial puzzle beginning with a very short prelude revealing that your little yellow protagonist has been trapped by a big grey monster. Obviously, with a generic plot like this, the player has only one goal, which is to escape. The question is how.

Time is represented in Chronon by units and not via the usual continuous linear order. Yet, time still flows in a chronological way. Players are expected to shuttle back and forth between 8 different units of time, to engineer an escape by clicking and arranging items (at the right time), which would then develop in accordance to the passing of time. Although point-and-click games like these are usually considered very low on the interactivity scale (because there is only one solution to get to the only successful ending), the whole temporal twist elevates it to a higher level: a seemingly insignificant action taken now might produce a vastly different ending – the butterfly effect.

With the ability to 'go back in time' there is no 'past or prior' and we see a convergence of story time and discourse time - they cannot be separated. The entire story takes place from 6:00 to 19:00, and the narrative is told at the exact time the events are taking place, albeit not in a linear fashion. Also, the ability to randomly travel through time continuously changes what had happened, or is going to happen, which makes for a continuously changing narrative that can be very confusing.

The game's use of time provides a platform for free-play, and hence the interactivity. Chronon brings out the essence of the 'save' mode in games, by allowing the user to 'go back', which encourages the user to experiment and not be hindered by the possibility of losing. Along the way, the score indicates what was done right/wrong, ultimately leading to the ideal solution (view the walkthrough).

Consider the work you created for project 1. Is this work actually a game? Why/why not?

We initially established that Scarytales wasn't a game, but simply an interactive fiction (IF) where users explore the world through various events and existents. Costikyan's definition of games supports this, but further provides that Scarytales has game elements, and can be potentially a game with a more sophisticated platform, and more time :)

Scarytales achieves endogenous meaning through both its narrative and structure. It provides unique context - the fairytale world, corrupted by Sadako. Puzzle-solving underscores the entire experience, from finding out the rules to revealing the narrative in story-time, concurrently churning out a new-narrative in real-time (discourse time). This is achieved through some interactivity, where users must decide where to go and who to talk to, thereby determining the order and detail with which the story unfolds, ultimately leading to three different endings. The rigid point-and-click structure of the game is invisible to the user, which affects the experience but enhances the exploration function. The objective of the game becomes slowly clear - to find the villian. Hence, there is purposeful interaction and is goal-directed. (Users may want to play the game a second time and purposefully die, just to see a different outcome).

However, there is little struggle in the overall experience. There is no count-down timer in which users are stressed to complete the fiction; no meaningful combat with the villian (just a hit or miss by point clicking); and no competition, human or otherwise. In short, there is no opposition.

Interestingly enough, Scarytales does provide for all the game pleasures described in LeBanc's taxonomy. There is sensory pleasure in users' immersion; masochism by submitting to the structure; an element of fairytale fantasy; snippets of narratives which draw on already-present knowledge; slight challenge of figuring out the rules; discovery - of new elements; and finally expression, as users can choose paths of success or failure (a reflection on mood and character). Fellowship was also achieved as we held a midnight beta-testing session in the PGP basement, under ambient lighting. This created a very tiny fellowship among our friends who tried the IF, which became a subject of conversation the next day!

Is a game one if it achieves gaming pleasures yet doesn't fulfill every element of the game as defined by Costikyan? I guess our project meets these pleasures only on a very superficial level, and hence is not a good game, but a mere IF.

In "Hypertext, Hypermedia and Literary Studies: The State of the Art", Landow and Delany suggest that “hypertext can be expected to have important institutional as well as intellectual effects, for it is at the same time a form of electronic text, a radically new information technology, a mode of publication, and a resource for collaborative work… Hypertext historicizes many of our most commonplace assumptions, forcing them to descend from the ethereality of abstraction and appear as corollary to a particular technology and historical era. We can be sure that a new era of computerized textuality has begun; but what it will be like we are just beginning to imagine."

This passage was written in 1991, at a time when hypertext systems were available in somewhat limited forms such as Hypercard and Intermedia, use of the Internet was largely confined to academic institutions, and the term “World Wide Web” had only just been coined. Now, 15 years later, comment and reflect upon the impact hypertext has had on the world.

As I was thinking about large complex hypertext systems, Google and Wiki immediately came to mind. Google (mode of publication) is not only a directory made up of hypertext, it is in fact intelligent enough to determine an entire link structure of a webpage and sort according to relevance of your search. Wiki (resource for collaborative work), on the other hand, is not just one hypertexted encyclopedia. It allows anybody to edit its entries, and becomes "both an author's tool and a reader's medium". Moreover, not only is hypertext limited to the academics, it has now spread its reach to the masses.

What this means is that there is now an information abundance. Almost every word, thing, idea exists as part of a much larger system, which is boundless and indefinite. Proponents of hypertext would argue how this whole wealth of knowledge has served to shrink the world as this phenomenon has bridged the gap between people, location, and time. Hypertext also widens our knowledge, as we can now see the explicit interconnections between ideas, almost without a dead end, especially useful in Research.

However, information being so abundant and accessible, loses it's value. Society assumes a higher level of knowledge in each and every one of us, since it's so accessible anyway, and thus places less appreciation on original thought and the actual knowledge in a person. Also, collaborative hypertext loses it's credibility and can spark off conflicts. There is also the issue of ownership, as now all text are part of a whole, and collaborative work entails revisions and changes so there is never a final text.

I do feel that hypertext has effected some revolutionary changes in the way knowledge is held and used in society. However, it is crucial to identify the problems and limitations of this de-centralisation of text, so that we can better the system.

For Project1, we chose an array of fairytales and nursery rhymes because of their popularity. We thought it would be fun linking these stories in a quest-like RPG spoofing these familiar stories to show the exciting different possibilities that could arise if users chose the more unfamiliar paths.