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.
