Although games of progression, which often attempt to combine narrative structure with gameplay, seem to apply to computer-based games, however, it is not unique to computer-based games. In games of progression, the player has to perform a predefined set of actions in order to complete the game. This means that as long as the solutions of the challenges have to be followed exactly in order to complete the game, then it is a game of progression. In this case, non-computer-based games such as Fighting Fantasy book and the puppet master game can also be considered games of progression if players has to follow a predefined set of actions to complete the tasks laid out.
However, computer certainly restricts the players more as it only understands certain instructions and doesn't allow much improvisations. Whereas if the game is controlled by the game designers manually without the usage of computers, then the game designers can allow more flexibility to the game, thus, allowing the possibility of emergent properties.
It is not an easy tasks to develop interesting and fun games with equal amount of both progression and emergent properties. It seems that many narratives do not go hand-in hand with the play part of the game. Perhaps the creation of a space that provides much information of the game and the immersive effect, such as graphics, sound and suspense, as well as interesting and fun challenges with open-ended rules will be able to balance both narrative and game. However, it is very important to have an interesting story to engage the player as well as fun gameplay besides the balance.
Looking back over the module, it is really interesting to get a taste of how narrative and play are developed in an interactive way. Interactivity adds engagement and involvement in the part of the players. Players are no longer passive observers, but are decision-makers.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Immersive Effect in Game-Story.
It is interesting to see the many different approaches to Project 2.
In Prison Break, players in the prison need to escape from the Prison within the time limit. In order to do that, they are supposed to complete a set of puzzles. But is there much choices available for the player? Is this an example of power play? Here, players will be given instruction on how to play the game but there are given little to no choices on how to escape out of the game. In the eventual product, the player will feel the tension to escape out of the game given the time limit. This makes me wonder whether is there any other elements which are as big a contributor as interactivity in gameplay.
I mentioned in last week's blog that good visual graphic effects, sound effects, speed and time will increase the game elements in a game-story. These are not choices, yet why does these make a player attracted to the game? Can these serve as a distractors as well? I would yes and no. It can serve as a distractors if the effects are irrelevent to the atmosphere of the story. However, if the effects suit the game-story well, then it will serve as an immersive factors which will give enhance the play element of the game-story. These immersive factors keep the player focus on the game-story. Once the player's mind wonders off, he can easily focus back on the game-story with just a look on the screen.
The success of power play shows that immersive experience is an important part of the game-story. In power play, players can experience the real physical effect of the game he/she is playing compared to the imaginary effect provided by the computer. The players will feel tired. Rules and goals can be implemented. And there can be win/lose as well - If there are a number of players playing the game, the winner will the one to reach the destination or completing the tasks assigned in the fastest possible time. Choices which can allows more intereactivity can also be included in the power play - the choices can be the way the players complete the task, or the paths they choose to arrive at the destination. These will directly influence the physical, mental and emotional state of the player. If player chooses a long route instead of a short one, then, he might get tired and frustrated. But he has nobody to blame except himself as his choices determine the outcome of the game-story.
This brings me to think that Amazing Race is an example of power play and it has generated a large number of followers. Perhaps immersive effects and interactivity are equally important elements in gameplay.
In Prison Break, players in the prison need to escape from the Prison within the time limit. In order to do that, they are supposed to complete a set of puzzles. But is there much choices available for the player? Is this an example of power play? Here, players will be given instruction on how to play the game but there are given little to no choices on how to escape out of the game. In the eventual product, the player will feel the tension to escape out of the game given the time limit. This makes me wonder whether is there any other elements which are as big a contributor as interactivity in gameplay.
I mentioned in last week's blog that good visual graphic effects, sound effects, speed and time will increase the game elements in a game-story. These are not choices, yet why does these make a player attracted to the game? Can these serve as a distractors as well? I would yes and no. It can serve as a distractors if the effects are irrelevent to the atmosphere of the story. However, if the effects suit the game-story well, then it will serve as an immersive factors which will give enhance the play element of the game-story. These immersive factors keep the player focus on the game-story. Once the player's mind wonders off, he can easily focus back on the game-story with just a look on the screen.
The success of power play shows that immersive experience is an important part of the game-story. In power play, players can experience the real physical effect of the game he/she is playing compared to the imaginary effect provided by the computer. The players will feel tired. Rules and goals can be implemented. And there can be win/lose as well - If there are a number of players playing the game, the winner will the one to reach the destination or completing the tasks assigned in the fastest possible time. Choices which can allows more intereactivity can also be included in the power play - the choices can be the way the players complete the task, or the paths they choose to arrive at the destination. These will directly influence the physical, mental and emotional state of the player. If player chooses a long route instead of a short one, then, he might get tired and frustrated. But he has nobody to blame except himself as his choices determine the outcome of the game-story.
This brings me to think that Amazing Race is an example of power play and it has generated a large number of followers. Perhaps immersive effects and interactivity are equally important elements in gameplay.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Narrative vs Game
Can narrative and game ever co-exist?
Recalling the examples we have, Shade and Glass seems to incline towards the narrative side and contain little game element.
For Facade, both elements are present. However, it lacks interactivity and is rather restrictive. Perhaps that is due to the little amount of action and the constraints of the space.
However, Indigo Prophecy seems to be a very good example of narrative and game co-existence. It has an interesting and exciting narrative and is an exciting game too. The story is so engaging from the beginning that we want to know what happens next. This will makes us wanting to continue playing the game. Another interesting feature is that there is much more possible conclusions compared to Facade, Glass and Shade.
Perhaps we should rephrase the question, in which the answer has been eluding us. Maybe the question should be "How to make an exciting game story instead?" instead. We will never know whether it is possible for narrative and game to exist until we experiment and make it.
Comparing Indigo Prophecy with Facade, Glass or Shade might give some clue to what we are looking for. Firstly, we can see that the visual effect and graphics of the game-story is very important. Alternatively, this can also be referred to as space, as what Jenkin has stated. It creates the setting and the environment for the game-story. This will give the player a clear idea of the surrounding space and some information of the story with just a glance. In addition, the size of the space is essential too. It mustn't be too constrained and cannot be too large until the focus is missing.
Secondly, the sound effect also plays an important role in engaging the player. It adds excitement to the game-story, and makes it more real.
Thirdly, time makes a difference too. There are some who argues that narrative and game cannot co-exist well together because in a story, the time is the past, whereas in a game, it is the present. But aren't the action made by the player will come to a past when the player moves on in the game-story? So, what the player does now, will soon become a story later.
In a game, it is crucial to be able to move fast. The fast pace will increase the level of excitement in a game-story. Making a game-story with a heavier narrative element faster will make it more like a game. Players tend to skip lengthy narrative description. Perhaps the game designer should think of other quicker and clearer ways to convey the narrative information to the player.
To make a game-story with a good balance of narrative elements and game elements as well as be able to convey them in an interesting and effective way, the story and the game should compromise one another. This means that in transferring the narrative from a movie to a game-story, the story have to compromise with the additional game elements. The story cannot be a rigid one anymore. The kernels of the story can still be kept constant. However, we have to allow changes to the satelites of the story. These parts can be where the player's actions can make a difference.
Perhaps we shouldn't think that a balanced game-story cannot exist just because its narrative elements lacks the quality of a story or that its game elements lacks the quality of the game. Game-story is an entirely new construct. Maybe the classical definition of game and narrative is not applicable to the game-story anymore.
Recalling the examples we have, Shade and Glass seems to incline towards the narrative side and contain little game element.
For Facade, both elements are present. However, it lacks interactivity and is rather restrictive. Perhaps that is due to the little amount of action and the constraints of the space.
However, Indigo Prophecy seems to be a very good example of narrative and game co-existence. It has an interesting and exciting narrative and is an exciting game too. The story is so engaging from the beginning that we want to know what happens next. This will makes us wanting to continue playing the game. Another interesting feature is that there is much more possible conclusions compared to Facade, Glass and Shade.
Perhaps we should rephrase the question, in which the answer has been eluding us. Maybe the question should be "How to make an exciting game story instead?" instead. We will never know whether it is possible for narrative and game to exist until we experiment and make it.
Comparing Indigo Prophecy with Facade, Glass or Shade might give some clue to what we are looking for. Firstly, we can see that the visual effect and graphics of the game-story is very important. Alternatively, this can also be referred to as space, as what Jenkin has stated. It creates the setting and the environment for the game-story. This will give the player a clear idea of the surrounding space and some information of the story with just a glance. In addition, the size of the space is essential too. It mustn't be too constrained and cannot be too large until the focus is missing.
Secondly, the sound effect also plays an important role in engaging the player. It adds excitement to the game-story, and makes it more real.
Thirdly, time makes a difference too. There are some who argues that narrative and game cannot co-exist well together because in a story, the time is the past, whereas in a game, it is the present. But aren't the action made by the player will come to a past when the player moves on in the game-story? So, what the player does now, will soon become a story later.
In a game, it is crucial to be able to move fast. The fast pace will increase the level of excitement in a game-story. Making a game-story with a heavier narrative element faster will make it more like a game. Players tend to skip lengthy narrative description. Perhaps the game designer should think of other quicker and clearer ways to convey the narrative information to the player.
To make a game-story with a good balance of narrative elements and game elements as well as be able to convey them in an interesting and effective way, the story and the game should compromise one another. This means that in transferring the narrative from a movie to a game-story, the story have to compromise with the additional game elements. The story cannot be a rigid one anymore. The kernels of the story can still be kept constant. However, we have to allow changes to the satelites of the story. These parts can be where the player's actions can make a difference.
Perhaps we shouldn't think that a balanced game-story cannot exist just because its narrative elements lacks the quality of a story or that its game elements lacks the quality of the game. Game-story is an entirely new construct. Maybe the classical definition of game and narrative is not applicable to the game-story anymore.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Blog 7: Interactive Fiction
It's interesting to see the many examples of games in which the incorporation of strong narrative elements were attempted. For example, Glass by Emily Short presents an interesting, well-knitted and coherent storyline. And there is an element of interactivity in it as the action that the user inputs influences the outcome of the game, leading to multiple conclusions. Thus, the user would want to replay the game to achieve a conclusion of his/her choice. In my opinon, this type of narrative is game-like: in game, the goal is to win the game or achieve the highest point, whereas in narrative, the goal is to achieve one's desired conclusion. In the try-out during the class session, it is discernible that many dislike the first ending, and wanted to replay the interactive fiction to arrive at their desired endings.
In a game, it is very important for the user to want to play it again and again. I would consider a game to be not successful if users do not want to play the game again. In this context, I feel that Glass has rather successfully incorporated narrative element into the game or vice versa. The flaw which I observed is that it is not fully interactive, although there is a certain amount of interactivity in the game. The action that the user inputs does not necessarily corresponds to the progress of the story. Sometimes, it feels as though our action do not have direct control on the story. For example, if we keyed in some commands that the system could not recognise, the story still proceeds.
Besides that, there is also not enough play in the part of the user: Glass is a rather short game which does not allow much decision points on the part of the user. Weighing the balance between interactivity and narrative elements in Glass, the narrative elements seems to outweighs the game elements.
All in all, I would say that interactivity and narrative can co-exist. Glass is a rather successful interactive fiction and can still be improved upon to achieve a good balance between interactivity and narrative elements. It has good narrative elements already. It just needs to improve on its interactivity. Perhaps, more decision points should be made available for the users and the storyline should corresponds to the actions the users input.
It is interesting to make comparisons between Glass and Shade. In Shade, the level of interactivity outweighs the narrative elements. The story is not really interesting and I feel that there are too much restrictions. The user are confined in his small apartment. In many occasions, the reply we get from the command we input is "that's not a verb I recognise". Perhaps this game is for those who knows the type of acceptable commands well. However, if we get this reply a lot of times, we will get frustrated and might just quit. In this case, I said that the level of interactivity is higher because the users were given a lot of chances to decide on the next action and the progress of the narrative actually corresponds to the action the users input. However, the story is not interesting.
Comparing both Glass and Shade, we can see that both did not achieve a well balance between interactivity and narrative. But if the good narrative of Glass were to combine with the good interactivity of Shade, then, a game in which both interactivity and narrative structure can co-exist well can be formed.
In a game, it is very important for the user to want to play it again and again. I would consider a game to be not successful if users do not want to play the game again. In this context, I feel that Glass has rather successfully incorporated narrative element into the game or vice versa. The flaw which I observed is that it is not fully interactive, although there is a certain amount of interactivity in the game. The action that the user inputs does not necessarily corresponds to the progress of the story. Sometimes, it feels as though our action do not have direct control on the story. For example, if we keyed in some commands that the system could not recognise, the story still proceeds.
Besides that, there is also not enough play in the part of the user: Glass is a rather short game which does not allow much decision points on the part of the user. Weighing the balance between interactivity and narrative elements in Glass, the narrative elements seems to outweighs the game elements.
All in all, I would say that interactivity and narrative can co-exist. Glass is a rather successful interactive fiction and can still be improved upon to achieve a good balance between interactivity and narrative elements. It has good narrative elements already. It just needs to improve on its interactivity. Perhaps, more decision points should be made available for the users and the storyline should corresponds to the actions the users input.
It is interesting to make comparisons between Glass and Shade. In Shade, the level of interactivity outweighs the narrative elements. The story is not really interesting and I feel that there are too much restrictions. The user are confined in his small apartment. In many occasions, the reply we get from the command we input is "that's not a verb I recognise". Perhaps this game is for those who knows the type of acceptable commands well. However, if we get this reply a lot of times, we will get frustrated and might just quit. In this case, I said that the level of interactivity is higher because the users were given a lot of chances to decide on the next action and the progress of the narrative actually corresponds to the action the users input. However, the story is not interesting.
Comparing both Glass and Shade, we can see that both did not achieve a well balance between interactivity and narrative. But if the good narrative of Glass were to combine with the good interactivity of Shade, then, a game in which both interactivity and narrative structure can co-exist well can be formed.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Blog 6: Reflection on Project 1
It was interesting to see the many different approaches and attempts to insert interactivity and non-linearity into narrative. Some of them are very creative and one can see the amount of effort and thinking that the groups had put in. Seeing and experiencing the different works raises some issues on my mind.
In every group projects, breaking texts into different fragments in which the reader can navigate in various orders, creating multiple choices for the readers, and allowing the reader to "fill in" the missing portions of the text to create their own version of the stories are discernible. However, in some of the presentations, I did not find the conclusion (or perhaps the conclusion that I made based on the limited information) satisfactory. In most cases, it left me in a confused and puzzled state before the group finally explains everything. It seems that our confusion were only cleared when the final linear version of the video is presented. This makes me think that is a linear version better and clearer than a non-linear version. Are the majority of the audiences feel more satisfied when they experience the linear version of the story, compared to the non-linear version?
It seems to me that in some of the projects, the multiple conclusions are actually illusions due to different amount of information one player obtained. This is because there is just one story. If one obtained 30% of the information and the other player obtained 60% of the information, then their conclusions of the story will be different. In this case, one may think that the objective is achieved, that is, to create multiple conclusions from the navigation of different lexias. It is no denying that these are creative attempts. However, perhaps one should ask whether the players are satisfied with the conclusions they make or the amount of information that they obtained. It seems that all of us were in a confusing state at the end of the game and were only satisfied when the whole story were presented to us in linear form at the end of the game. Imagine, if we were not given the whole story at the end of the game, will the player be satisfied with the outcome of the conclusion that he/she make? The decision that the reader make didn't really influence the outcome because it is only illusionary conclusions due to lack of information.
Jean Baudrillard wondered "What could be more seductive than the secret?" and J. Murray remarked that the "pleasure is in solving them, in learning the secret." I find these true. But, in these cases, we were not being given the chance to unveil the whole secret before the game ended and we were being asked to make our conclusions.
In some of the groups, I find it very interesting to see that the choices that we make can actually influence the outcome. I find these conclusions more real. In these cases, it's because there are actually multiple conclusions and paths of the story. In the Hotel California presentation, I actually found the beginning of the game very frustrating because we were killed everytime and need to restart the game. However, when we played the game a bit longer, I actually find the storyline very interesting.
Besides that, it is also intertsing to note how the audience reacted. I remembered that during the navigation of the Fighting Fantasy story, someone said that he doesn't really care whether the character dies or not and will always expose him to danger or risks so that the game will be more fun, but will actually care about the character if one have played long enough. We can see this in today's Hotel California's presentation. In the beginning, everone just chooses the most dangerous option and ended up being killed. After being killed a few times, then they realised that they are getting no where and that they have to make careful choices of not letting their character die. And this actually help and encourage the player to play on without making silliy decisions. Thus, it seems that understanding the behaviour of the audience is essential in creating an interactive narrative that will receive favourable responses.
In every group projects, breaking texts into different fragments in which the reader can navigate in various orders, creating multiple choices for the readers, and allowing the reader to "fill in" the missing portions of the text to create their own version of the stories are discernible. However, in some of the presentations, I did not find the conclusion (or perhaps the conclusion that I made based on the limited information) satisfactory. In most cases, it left me in a confused and puzzled state before the group finally explains everything. It seems that our confusion were only cleared when the final linear version of the video is presented. This makes me think that is a linear version better and clearer than a non-linear version. Are the majority of the audiences feel more satisfied when they experience the linear version of the story, compared to the non-linear version?
It seems to me that in some of the projects, the multiple conclusions are actually illusions due to different amount of information one player obtained. This is because there is just one story. If one obtained 30% of the information and the other player obtained 60% of the information, then their conclusions of the story will be different. In this case, one may think that the objective is achieved, that is, to create multiple conclusions from the navigation of different lexias. It is no denying that these are creative attempts. However, perhaps one should ask whether the players are satisfied with the conclusions they make or the amount of information that they obtained. It seems that all of us were in a confusing state at the end of the game and were only satisfied when the whole story were presented to us in linear form at the end of the game. Imagine, if we were not given the whole story at the end of the game, will the player be satisfied with the outcome of the conclusion that he/she make? The decision that the reader make didn't really influence the outcome because it is only illusionary conclusions due to lack of information.
Jean Baudrillard wondered "What could be more seductive than the secret?" and J. Murray remarked that the "pleasure is in solving them, in learning the secret." I find these true. But, in these cases, we were not being given the chance to unveil the whole secret before the game ended and we were being asked to make our conclusions.
In some of the groups, I find it very interesting to see that the choices that we make can actually influence the outcome. I find these conclusions more real. In these cases, it's because there are actually multiple conclusions and paths of the story. In the Hotel California presentation, I actually found the beginning of the game very frustrating because we were killed everytime and need to restart the game. However, when we played the game a bit longer, I actually find the storyline very interesting.
Besides that, it is also intertsing to note how the audience reacted. I remembered that during the navigation of the Fighting Fantasy story, someone said that he doesn't really care whether the character dies or not and will always expose him to danger or risks so that the game will be more fun, but will actually care about the character if one have played long enough. We can see this in today's Hotel California's presentation. In the beginning, everone just chooses the most dangerous option and ended up being killed. After being killed a few times, then they realised that they are getting no where and that they have to make careful choices of not letting their character die. And this actually help and encourage the player to play on without making silliy decisions. Thus, it seems that understanding the behaviour of the audience is essential in creating an interactive narrative that will receive favourable responses.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Blog 5: Hypertext
I think that hypertext fiction can be considered "interactive" as it allows the readers to make choices which will lead to many different possible conclusions. The selection of different certain choices will lead to an entirely different stories, and thus, different experiences. The stories perceived by the readers are not predictable beforehand.
I find that hypertext fiction opens up a new and wider dimension which can't be done or would be too cumbersome if it were to be done, in a printed book. It manages to hold the multitudes of complex networks of lexias together in an organised way, which could not be accomplished in a printed book. Millions of lexias or more can be linked to one another at different points in the network. Thus, it is also possible to allow more choices with more lexias, hence, providing more varied experiences compared to printed books. In this way, readers can read through the hypertext fiction many times until he is exhausted or grow bored of it.
It would also be easier for the readers to navigate the different lexias with just the click of the mouse. Readers do not have to turn and search of the pages in a printed book. With a site map, readers can just go to the site that he chooses. Furthermore, it saves the readers time to search for the pages, thus, keeping the focus of the narrative intact.
Hypertext fiction also creates a sense of mystery within the reader because the reader will not know the percentages of the lexias he has gone through and what surprises might await him in those lexias that he did not go through or lexias that were denied access due to some choices made. In the case of a printed book, it will not be possible to create the sense of mystery as the reader can see the structure of the fiction. In my opinion, this might be advantageous or disadvantages depending on the nature of the readers. If the reader is patient enough to accept the challenge of concurring the hypertext fiction, he will continue to navigate it. However, if the reader is one that wanted to know only the conclusion and does not have the time to navigate through the whole experience, he will most probably be unsatisfied with the outcome.
In addition, if it is an internet-based hypertext fiction, the author can easily alters the storyline, based on the feedback of the readers. Or the author can also make it possible to allow the readers to become authors by asking the readers to construct their own different lexias and send them to the author, who will incorporate them together to form different lines of new narratives. This would not be possible in the case of a printed books which will need a rather long time to be published.
Hence, hypertext fictions expands the dimensions and improves the interactivity of the already existing structure of the narrative in the printed book form.
I find that hypertext fiction opens up a new and wider dimension which can't be done or would be too cumbersome if it were to be done, in a printed book. It manages to hold the multitudes of complex networks of lexias together in an organised way, which could not be accomplished in a printed book. Millions of lexias or more can be linked to one another at different points in the network. Thus, it is also possible to allow more choices with more lexias, hence, providing more varied experiences compared to printed books. In this way, readers can read through the hypertext fiction many times until he is exhausted or grow bored of it.
It would also be easier for the readers to navigate the different lexias with just the click of the mouse. Readers do not have to turn and search of the pages in a printed book. With a site map, readers can just go to the site that he chooses. Furthermore, it saves the readers time to search for the pages, thus, keeping the focus of the narrative intact.
Hypertext fiction also creates a sense of mystery within the reader because the reader will not know the percentages of the lexias he has gone through and what surprises might await him in those lexias that he did not go through or lexias that were denied access due to some choices made. In the case of a printed book, it will not be possible to create the sense of mystery as the reader can see the structure of the fiction. In my opinion, this might be advantageous or disadvantages depending on the nature of the readers. If the reader is patient enough to accept the challenge of concurring the hypertext fiction, he will continue to navigate it. However, if the reader is one that wanted to know only the conclusion and does not have the time to navigate through the whole experience, he will most probably be unsatisfied with the outcome.
In addition, if it is an internet-based hypertext fiction, the author can easily alters the storyline, based on the feedback of the readers. Or the author can also make it possible to allow the readers to become authors by asking the readers to construct their own different lexias and send them to the author, who will incorporate them together to form different lines of new narratives. This would not be possible in the case of a printed books which will need a rather long time to be published.
Hence, hypertext fictions expands the dimensions and improves the interactivity of the already existing structure of the narrative in the printed book form.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Blog Exercise 4: Fighting Fantasy book!
It was fun and enjoyable to play the Fighting Fantasy book in class. That was the first time I read the Fighting Fantasy book. We chose the "Master of Chaos." It is interesting to note that the narrative can still be exciting and coherent while engaging readers in a game story in which the readers are free to choose the story paths, which ultimately lead to different stories with various denouements.
I find the narrative "well-formed" no matter which choices the readers opt for. There is still continuity and the story is still engaging. But sometimes, although one is given two choices, I noticed that whichever choices will inevitably lead the reader back to the same path to reach the kernels of the story, thus, those are just temporary diversions to create the illusions of choices. We didn't played long enough. Maybe if we play long enough and experience the paths the different choices lead to, perhaps we might notice that the choices are just illusions to make it look interactive. Perhaps the storyline is the same after all with maybe only one or two conclusions. Or maybe the illusions of choices function to let the readers assemble their own paths, and thus lead to different experiences.
I find the Fighting Fantasy book requires non-trivial effort and mechanical effort on the part of the readers to make the narrative progress. The readers need to throw the dice, make choices, calculate the scores, frequently turn the pages, etc.... It is indeed a very interesting concept of interactivity but the playing part of it is another matter. The interactivity of the book depends very much on the readers. If the reader finds the throwing of dice and calculating the scores in playing a game in which the end scores determine whether the reader will win the fight with an enemy cumbersome, most probably they will just assume that they won the game and proceed to the next scene. Thus, maybe more interesting games should be introduced to make the book more exciting instead of just throwing dices and calculating scores.
Some commented that they will not care whether the character in the story survives during the start of the game and will often exposes them to danger. However, they will want to keep the character alive after playing it for a long time. Whereas, some commented that they do not want their character to die by choosing the safer routes, but was still exposes to danger. It is interesting to note how the author tries to involve the readers in the game story. There is always some elements of risks involved in games. For me, I will carefully take some risks to explore the different paths but still wanted to keep the character alive in order to know how the story unfolds itself. Maybe I am more interested in the narrative part of the book compared to the game.
We discussed whether how different would it be if this form of game story was played using computer instead. I think that computer has the capability to picture the scenes, and create the sound effects and special effects, thus, engaging the audience more. The audience do not have to picture the scenes of the story themselves. Besides that, it will also save the hassle of recording and calculating the scores as computer has the capability to do that. Without all these activities, the audience will be able to focus on the experiences of the story itself. However, would this mean that the process has become more trivial, suggesting that the old media form of the book involves more non-trivial effort, thus, more cybertext than the new media, in this case, the computer?
Or perhaps, other interactive elements, such as the control of the fighting using the keyboards, can be used to substitute the interactive elements in the book to maintain the level of non-trivial effort. Maybe old media and new media can both be interactive, but in a different way.
I find the narrative "well-formed" no matter which choices the readers opt for. There is still continuity and the story is still engaging. But sometimes, although one is given two choices, I noticed that whichever choices will inevitably lead the reader back to the same path to reach the kernels of the story, thus, those are just temporary diversions to create the illusions of choices. We didn't played long enough. Maybe if we play long enough and experience the paths the different choices lead to, perhaps we might notice that the choices are just illusions to make it look interactive. Perhaps the storyline is the same after all with maybe only one or two conclusions. Or maybe the illusions of choices function to let the readers assemble their own paths, and thus lead to different experiences.
I find the Fighting Fantasy book requires non-trivial effort and mechanical effort on the part of the readers to make the narrative progress. The readers need to throw the dice, make choices, calculate the scores, frequently turn the pages, etc.... It is indeed a very interesting concept of interactivity but the playing part of it is another matter. The interactivity of the book depends very much on the readers. If the reader finds the throwing of dice and calculating the scores in playing a game in which the end scores determine whether the reader will win the fight with an enemy cumbersome, most probably they will just assume that they won the game and proceed to the next scene. Thus, maybe more interesting games should be introduced to make the book more exciting instead of just throwing dices and calculating scores.
Some commented that they will not care whether the character in the story survives during the start of the game and will often exposes them to danger. However, they will want to keep the character alive after playing it for a long time. Whereas, some commented that they do not want their character to die by choosing the safer routes, but was still exposes to danger. It is interesting to note how the author tries to involve the readers in the game story. There is always some elements of risks involved in games. For me, I will carefully take some risks to explore the different paths but still wanted to keep the character alive in order to know how the story unfolds itself. Maybe I am more interested in the narrative part of the book compared to the game.
We discussed whether how different would it be if this form of game story was played using computer instead. I think that computer has the capability to picture the scenes, and create the sound effects and special effects, thus, engaging the audience more. The audience do not have to picture the scenes of the story themselves. Besides that, it will also save the hassle of recording and calculating the scores as computer has the capability to do that. Without all these activities, the audience will be able to focus on the experiences of the story itself. However, would this mean that the process has become more trivial, suggesting that the old media form of the book involves more non-trivial effort, thus, more cybertext than the new media, in this case, the computer?
Or perhaps, other interactive elements, such as the control of the fighting using the keyboards, can be used to substitute the interactive elements in the book to maintain the level of non-trivial effort. Maybe old media and new media can both be interactive, but in a different way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)