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.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)