exercise 10
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.
The puppet master game appears to void players of a sense of control and agency in the game and they merely take instructions and act upon them. However, despite their perceived notion, players are not exactly puppets in such a game as they do have some degree of control. The control that they have may not be one that is obvious to the player. The concept behind a puppet master game also involves the construction of scripts or stages that meet the expectations of the player. By modifying the game to suit the expectations of the player, the experience of the game play may be more fulfilling, satisfying and immersive. Therefore, if we apply this to designing elements of narrative and gameplay, this idea could come into place when the game is such that the game may be ‘customised’ for the player. In other words, the interactive media system could be programmed such that elements such as the level of difficulty, challenges, how boring or interesting the game is, the possible choices and actions may be altered or adapted accordingly to suit the player’s skills, needs and wants.
The puppet master takes cues from the player’s prior actions or activities and remembers what they have done, using them as a basis for the next ‘mission’. Interactive media systems also may incorporate this element (games such as this are already in existence) by remembering what players have done and therefore reacting and responding based on what they have done before. This contributes to a sense of variability and also to some form of agency.
Another element that is embedded within the puppet master game is that of its seemingly lack of defined rules, choices, resources etc. It is but just about collecting information and deciding what to do about it, completing tasks in order to get more information. They are merely told where to go and what to do, without a need to exercise strategy or explore space. Being able to interpret the commands in their own ways leaves them fully in charge of their own experience. They are able to be creative and experiment with different possibilities and as such they are able to generate a meaningful play. In a way, this may be likened to them being able to set up their own goals like that in SIMS.
Yet, unlike SIMS, players have no confirmation of who they are or what their motivation is until the game is finished. This evokes curiosity on the part of the player and is perhaps a source of motivation for them to play the game. Therefore, applying it to interactive media systems, it could also be likened to a game in which the narrative is unraveled in parts through the actions of the player. Hence, as players play the game, they are essentially enacting or creating a story.
The concepts behind the puppet master and that of traditional gameplay may be somewhat similar but presented in different ways. In the former, there is more of an interplay between the real world and the virtual world while the latter is more confined to just the virtual world.
Exercise 9
Exercise 9: Narrative Architecture
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?
I do not really agree with what Eskelinen says of Jenkins – that he is reducing games to narratives. I believe Jenkins is very much aware of the nature and structure of games and narratives and their differences although much discussion of the differences was not made in his paper. It is important to understand Jenkin’s intentions of the paper and that is, not to reduce games to narratives but to show how games and narrative can complement one another to create a different experience for the player.
It could be possible that Eskelinen, being a ludologist, might be too focused on the game-play aspect of games that he overlooks the importance of narratives in games which may set the context, purpose, motivation and create a different experience for players. (But this is really an unjustified claim or accusation) Anyway, in opposition to Eskelinen, Jenkins is, through the understanding of narratives, really exploring the different possibilities of merging or establishing a relationship between game play and narratives. Through this, he is thus exploring other possibilities of creating games and not just reducing them to those with a linear narrative structure. Jenkin’s point of making use of the spatial environment of the game to reveal a certain narrative (something which I believe has been a concern of game-makers or other theorists who claim that games and narratives can not see eye to eye) does highlight possible solutions to finding a point where both games and narratives can converge. Put differently, games and narratives do not have to be seen as separate entities, forcibly put together in different layers via means such as cut scenes. In explaining his point, Jenkins made several references to games that are already in existent and possess characteristics of either of the four categories he mentioned, thus providing some form of evidence of the possibility of games of such nature (with embedded, evocative, emergent or enacting narratives).
On the other hand, Eskelinen’s claims could be a result of Jenkins greater focus and emphasis on the narrative aspect than on the gameplay aspect. Perhaps, Eskelinen’s concern could be on Jenkin’s lack of focus on the extent to which evocative spaces, enacting stories, embedded and emergent narratives may affect the structure and rules of the game (essentially the game play aspect), as well as the user’s experience in terms of control, agency, the tools used to achieve the goal, and the degree to which they affect the outcome of the story.
In conclusion, it is perhaps not entirely right to dismiss Jenkins’s approach. It could however be said that there has been too much of an emphasis on the narrative aspect and is lacking in terms of the discussion of the gameplay aspect (which gave rise to Eskelinen’s stand)
exercise 8
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.While I cannot, at the moment, think of many instances in which a non-computer based game is a game of progression, the latter is definitely not one which is unique to computer based games. However, the tendency for this to be so assumed may be due to the greater prevalence or witnessing of games of this nature on computers.
Some non-computer games which may be considered as games of progression include text narratives, team building events where ‘players’ go through a series of obstacles to get to the endpoint (and where there is usually a narrative that provides a certain level of coherence and connection to all the games that are being played), or even an amazing race. In these games, like that of computer based games, the possibility space tends to be quite limited, and possibilities may get drained once the game has been completed. The other similarities include the accomplishment of tasks, or overcoming of obstacles and challenges in a progressive manner such that the player is constantly advancing from one stage to another upon completion of the previous one.
Amazing races can be considered to be games of progression. It is, first and foremost, a game because players may interact with the system (in this case the environment and structure that has been put in place) to achieve their aim within the set of rules that have been set. Secondly, there is the spatial element involved where teams can explore the environment and it is their movement through this space that they gain knowledge of the narrative. The nature of such games tends to be the same save for the narratives that are put in place to create the setting and motivation for players. Narratives in games such as the amazing race may be described as being revealed to players in bits and pieces as they play the game. It helps to maintain the coherence of the race too. Of course, there may be instances where amazing races do not necessarily have a narrative to it and it usually boys down to the objectives and intentions for the race itself.
Thirdly, the game has elements of chance, skills and competition as the goal of the game is to complete the race in the shortest time possible against other teams. It comprises different stages or challenges which teams have to go through, and it is only with the completion of one task that the team may proceed to the next level. Usually, the completion of obstacles will unravel clues which will bring the team to the next stage of the game. The areas to which the teams have been through, the things that they see and do, can then reveal some kind of a narrative (usually as a result of them making the connection). In a way, the author has control over the narrative.
I have thus shown that games of progression are not unique to computer-based games by using and elaborating on the example of the amazing race. I reiterate that games of progression are just more common and visible in computer based games.
exercise 7 - tension between agency and narrative structure
1. Discuss the tension between agency and narrative structure within the game. Do you agree that narrative and interactivity can never co-exist? Why/why not?I shall attempt to relate the discussion to Neverwinter Nights since it remains the freshest in my memory. I also write from the view point of one who has not played many games with strong narrative elements. My discussion will now begin with the end of this sentence.
NeverWinter Nights attempts to help players transit from a state of ignorance to a state of knowledge by allowing player interaction with non-playing characters. While this is a better strategy than the “cut scene” approach where the line between the narrative and play is clearly demarcated, it also presents limitations as the player can only choose from a series of predetermined questions for the non-playing characters. The agency of the player then is confined to the choice of question and freedom of exploration in order to establish some form of a coherent narrative. On the other hand, it may be said that the player has agency in making use of details from the revealed narrative to decide on his subsequent course of action. In other words, we have a choice in prioritizing the tasks to do first. It might be said that this is really to try and achieve a balance between the author and the player in their control over the narrative.
However, from the experience of playing the game, the revealed narratives can be overwhelming such that it may become annoying. Perhaps it’s a result of information overload within a short span of time, and the many possible tasks to complete that there is a risk of forgetting what has to be done. The player may then experience a seemingly lack of control over the events. Yet the game can still be considered interactive, with players having internal and explorative interactivity. The player has localized agency but limited global agency. NeverWinter Nights has probably a comprehensive network of rules, predetermined narratives and outcomes and it is within these boundaries that exploration, interactivity and the illusion of control is felt. In fact, it can be said that the narrative element is sometimes obscured by play as the player moves around to accumulate gold pieces and experience points.
Narrative and interactivity can coexist to some extent. It is not possible for both to be integrated into a game and yet have both retain the full extent of their characteristics. Some form of compromise has to be reached. After all, the notion of narrative already entails some form of limitations as an author attempts to maintain some form of coherence to the structure. The player also cannot obtain total autonomy of the entire system. To allow for complete agency of the player on its environment and other players, will result in a network of extensive possibilities of narratives which may be a tall order for the author. There needs to be some form of co-authoring done such that the opportunities and experiences of interactivity may emerge from the story and vice versa.
question 2. Is project 1 a game? WHy or why not?
This may seem long but it really isnt... If you'd like, you can skip part 1 and go straight to part 2 and read just the first line and then skip to part three where the argument really lies.
1. A brief background of Project 1:Project 1, “The Others”, was transposed from a movie to interactive media whereby hyper-multimedia – text, images, videos and audios, was incorporated. Designed to allow for the non-linear unfolding of the narrative, users are able to interact with the system and explore the environment in which the story is set based on their personal choice. A mind map at the top right hand corner of the interface allow for users to navigate their way through the environment at any point in time where necessary.
2. ArgumentWhile the project may present features which may lead one to deem it a game, it can be argued that it is not really the case. Instead, it is really more of a narrative than it is a game. We shall now consider the reasons why this is so.
2.1 GoalThere must be something that the user strives to achieve in the course of the game. In relation to “The Others”, the only objective or mission for the user in ‘playing’ or exploring the system is that of unraveling the story or to help Grace (Nicole Kidman) recall the events that have happened. However, having a goal is arguably insufficient to make a work a game. Even if a goal remains explicit throughout the work, it may become limited after awhile as users find their choices constrained. To contrast “The Others” with another work to better illustrate my point, I refer to the example of sim city as was referred to in the article by Costikyan. On top of having an ultimate goal of creating a functioning city, players are able to affect and influence their city based on their preferences and interest. They are thus able to set different targets for themselves. On the other hand, users in “The Others” are unable to create their own goals and have lesser sense of control or ownership over the system.
3.2 Control/Agency
The illusion of control is vital in gameplay. In “The Others”, while the user seems to have the illusion of control in the sense of being able to unfold the story in any way they want, there are many limitations. They seem to have local agency and no global agency where their decisions at any point in time have no effect on the outcome of the story. While it may be argued that this is the same with games like Indigo Prophecy, “The Others” differs in the sense that users can only move literally between pre-determined time and space, based on chance and with much uncertainty; and with the click of a mouse on hotspots. The inability to know where the hotspot which you’ve decided to click on will bring you to also minimizes whatever agency that you possess.
3.3 InteractivityAlthough the system is able to provide an output based on the user’s input and therefore provide some form of interactivity, the system is incapable of recalling the previous actions of the user. There is thus a possibility of the user going through the same place over and over again. The user is also sometimes forced to sit back and listen to the narrative. Therefore where narrative is focused upon, the element of play is significantly reduced. And since the work has a greater focus on the narrative, the element of play is minimal.
The user is also unable to interact much with the environment, affect any characters or change anything in the system especially since the story is in the past. The element of play is also minimal when narrative is at the core of the system. The user then experiences only external interactivity at the level where the discourse and the presentation of the story is affected. While there is the illusion that the user takes on Grace’s perspective of the story, it is often the case that the user sees the sequence of events from the third person perspective too.
3.4. Space, Time, Rules, Quantifiable outcomeThe situation of Grace having lost her memory is put into perspective right from the beginning and this sets the context for the user, therefore providing some form of motivation to enter this exclusive dimension. The system thus provides a dimension with limits of time and space, something which is characteristic of a game. The user is also free to exit the work as and when he pleases. In this light, it may be arguable that “The Others” is similar to that of a game.
Yet, there are not many rules that exist and the player cannot really push the boundaries of the work except by cracking a code for them to have access to all the nodes on the mindmap. In fact, there is also no quantifiable outcome to measure the level of success of the user. The only sense of satisfaction the user will get is the knowledge of the ending of the story. There is also no save mode for the system to recall the point in which the user quits the game.
3.5. Structure and othersThe sequence of events have already been predetermined in project one and they all converge towards the end to form a linear narrative. From this point forward, the focus of the work becomes strictly narrative as the user need not manipulate the system in any way. This aside, other comments to be added includes the fact that there is no element of conflict, struggle; not much of role playing, no resources to manage, no competitors, not much of a puzzle to solve, no character interaction, minimal decision making and no chance for character improvement.
These points, though not exhaustive, provides evidence that “The Others” is not really a game (though it has some features which resemble one) but more of a narrative.
cybertext...
Finally understood a bit of the what cybertext is about... so cybertext is a category under which hypertext, interactive fiction etc is a subset of? Anyway, my attempt to answer question 2...somehow it seems as though something is missing... i think i am missing some points..but i can't think of anything now.. :(
2. Espen Aarseth defines cybertext as a perspective on textuality, which considers a work as a textual machine, and sees the reader as having to make a non-trivial effort to traverse the text. Discuss whether Scott McCloud’s “Carl” comic strip can be considered a cybertext.Scott McCloud’s comic strip, I believe, is not really a cybertext. While the presentation of the text is different, therefore, presented in frames which change the experience for the reader, the reader is not really a player. The reader does not really have a stake in the flow of the narrative. He or she has not much narrative control and is therefore not put in any risk within the story. There is not much room for variability. The reader is essentially powerless and cannot alter the narrative. He can only perceive it in various ways but cannot really experiment with it. In addition, he reads it from a third person perspective.
Montfort with interactive and hypetext fiction
Tackling one question at a time.... one more reading to go and another question!
1. Montfort argues that interactive fiction is distinctively different from hypertext fiction, stating: “There is… nothing in the nature of the lexia or the link, those fundamental elements of hypertext, that allows the reader to type and contribute text or provides the computer with the means to parse or understand natural language. […] Hypertext fiction also does not maintain an intermediate, programmatic representation of the narrative world, as interactive fiction does.”In terms of understanding how these two forms relate to/differ from narrative, is this distinction significant? Or are they more closely related that Montfort would like to admit? Discuss.In what I gather about interactive fiction as so defined by Montfort, and also via his examples (although he did qualify that the examples he gave are not the only types of interactive fiction), the distinction between hypertext fiction and interactive fiction is contentious.
In interactive fiction, there is a perceived sense of greater control as the user/interactor
becomes both a reader and a writer of the narrative. There is greater input of words to provide directives for the operating of the program. Interactors get to decide their choice of words or phrasing. Interactive fiction seems more like something where the full picture and linkages are not shown but are instead revealed one by one. This probably creates a different experience for the user as there is a greater sense of suspense, mystery and adventure. It is in this sense, more exploratory.
In contrast, hypertext fiction strikes me as one which is more structured in the sense that the main body tend to be written and shown to the reader. Then, in order to find out about something in greater detail, the hypertext linkages will lead the reader to another page to further his or her understanding on the situation. (disclaimer: this is putting it in a simplistic manner). Therefore, several linkages are probably shown at the same time. The experience of using hypertext fiction is probably different from the interactive one. Hypertext fiction seems to give the user less control as the linkages have all already been explicitly predefined. The freedom to choose comes from picking which hyperlink to click.
However, if we consider beyond the experience of the reader to that of the structure of both, they consist of networks and many different nodes linking different possibilities to one another. Both also involve the connecting of words to one another. The key difference is then the way it is presented to the user (interface).
Paul Fournel and Crawford.. where they converge
I have to say i am really sorry for posting this really late. I have not had enough time to complete my readings till now... Well...i shall try to minimise whatever negative effects or impact by finishing it by today, thursday... at least i tried...
3. Does a potential narrative such as Paul Fournel’s “The Tree Theatre: A Combinatory Play” satisfy Crawford’s definition of interactivity? Could it be considered an example of interactive media? Why/why not?Recalling Crawford’s definition of interactivity, interaction can be considered to have taken place when there is an input, a processural stage and an output. I believe that Paul Fournel’s “The Tree Theatre: A Combinatory Play” does satisfy Crawford’s definition of interactivity. The actors and the audience interact to help unfold the narrative. The audience’s immediate response is a kind of input that purposefully affects the outcome of the narrative. The output is then the way the actors act in response to the decisions made by the audience. The processural stage is then the interval during which the audience decides as well as the period in which the actors internalize the decision made by them.
Process 1 -> Audience decides which path to take
Input -> Response of audience
Process 2 -> Actor internalize the response
Output -> Actors act in accordance to the audiences’ preference
This then forms a kind of cycle, in line with Crawford’s idea of interactivity. The actors may be taken as one entity and the individuals that make up the audience make up another. The actors respond to the input of the audience and also, they are able to remember the choice of the audience. This allows a certain degree of customization as the audience has the freedom of choice and is able to control the flow of the narrative.
Can it be considered interactive media then? With all that has been said, I believe it is possible. The play itself is a medium through which a narrative is told. The need for several commands/directives from the audience makes it interactive as the actors respond to it. However, the degree of interactivity may be arguably limited by the little number of times at which the audience can influence the narrative.
In fact, there are some similarities between this somewhat physical interaction and interactive computer media in the form of hypertext or interactive fiction. In both cases, possibilities are laid out for the user to choose except that the possibilities in a medium like that of the play are more finite than the other option.
Hypertext and its impact on our world today
1. 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.
Hypertext has introduced a whole new wave of possibilities and allows us to explore varying options. Extensively incorporated into our World Wide Web, the search engine illustrates how individual texts of body are linked together through words. The search for a subject churns out a whole string of possible links from which we can choose to explore. This eases the way in which we advance our knowledge as we are virtually connected and have access to the voluminous amount of information stored on the web. This includes movies, music, games etc
Hypertext allows us to explore the internet in a non-sequential manner, suited to the interest of the individual. In this sense, hypertext has helped us to personalize the way in which we use the internet, to read information, etc. In other words, it allows for greater variability. This notion or practice is in direct contrast to the concept and practice of standardization for mass consumption. It perhaps reflects a changing trend in our society today as well as represents the increasingly interconnectedness of our globalised world today.
It also changes the authorial ownership of a piece of work such that we can all be readers and writers of the content which we view on the internet. One such example is that of wikepedia where people collaborate and then elaborate as well as add on to the points to explain a subject.
Not only has it an impact on us as we surf through the World Wide Web, it has also had an impact on certain aspects of our culture too. One example of transcoding in this light takes the form of the way we conduct presentations in the form of a powerpoint. Some times we may present our points such that a word or slide is hyperlinked to another within the same work. At other points, a link may be included to bring the audience from the powerpoint slide to a webpage which provides further illustration or explanation of a certain point in text. However, this does not exclude pictures, videos, sounds and other visual or audio directories. While allowing for greater flexibility and fluidity, Hypertext also helps us to coordinate our points and to provide a certain structure to our thoughts.
