the final hurdle

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.

in games like "i love bees", the inquisitive and exploratory nature of the players are used for "dramatic submission" and creating a sense of immersion in reality. these power plays have created a new realm to games and play, as they bestow much control to the puppet master as opposed to the optionality endowed upon and valued by players in conventional interactive media. this control that the puppet master possess is almost absolute, with the exception occuring when players do not interpret the commands as intended by the puppet master. this idea of control is however not new to interactive media systems. mystery solving and mission based adventure games are examples. these adventure games often require the player to solve puzzles and uncover mysteries, and consequently unveil that one unique path towards the ending of the game. in the process of playing the game, clue after clue motivates the player and he pieces up these bits of narrative to help him complete the adventure. in these games, the ultimate control lies in the programmer as the game can only be completed if the player follows that unique path stipulated by the programmer. the difference between these games and power plays are that the commands issued by the game master (programmer) is much more subtle than that for power plays. another difference is that the possibility of real-time feedback is possible in power plays but not so often in adventure games. additionally, adventure games, whether computer-based or as choose-your-own-adventure books, construct narratives in virtual realities. power plays attempt to remove this virtuality by placing its players into the real everyday-life environment. this need for dramaturgical realism masks the need for interactivity among the players.

such ideas can probably be utilized in constructing immersive narratives in games. the difference between power plays like "i love bees" and conventional rpg games is the environment of the gameplay. having an environment that the player can identify with constructs that realism crave for, and this makes creates the drama in realistic context more immersive. thus is the idea of a "gaming cubicle". the gaming cubicle endeavours to simulate environments around the player, and the player with his 3-D glasses can "physically" walk through different places in the game. another way to incorporate dramatic interpretation is to exploit the player's existing environment of the home or office or the internet. these games may include elements that need the user to surf the net for information or to observe a common phenonmenon in his home to advance in the game. these attempts to realize the gaming environment may enhance the immersiveness of gameplay. another idea used by power plays is the overt submission from the gamers. this may be achieved through daring the player, like to enter a haunted house and perform certain tasks in there. to the player, such submission to the commands of the game master is required for the completion of the game and he will perform the mission or risk being removed from the game. thus, game design can probably include elements that provoke and challenge people to go the extreme or do things they normally wouldn't do. and the need for people to be part of a dramaturgical experience will motivate them. finally, psychology has shown that humans respond to rewards (e.g. satisfying one's curiosity or intellect) more effectively than to the fear of punishment (e.g. being disqualified in a game). thus, there must be substantial rewards to encourage players to complete the game. this will result in a better immersive gameplay and game masters will also have better control of the game when players are more focused on the rewards.

jenkins' 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 feel that Eskelinen casts too huge a generalization about Jenkins’ article. In the article, Jenkins attempts to show the concurrence of game and narratives in response to the typical perception that the two are antitheses. He does so by emphasizing the similarities between the two, but simultaneously acknowledges their differences. In fact, he states that it is common knowledge that “not all games tell stories”, “playing games can never be simply reduced to the experience of a story” and games that tell stories are “unlikely to tell them in the same ways that other media tell stories”. He even gave examples like Pong or Pac-Man, which are games that are devoid of narrative elements. Evidently, Jenkins is not “ignoring and downplaying the importance” of the differences between games and narratives as Eskelinen claims.

Jenkins approached the argument that narratives and games are not immiscible from the narrative perspective. He gave the model of narratives a larger scope, from one that extends beyond the conventions of classical linear narratives to one that allows spatial exploration and transmedia storytelling. He then classifies games according to their narrative architectures: spatial stories and environmental storytelling, evocative spaces, enacting stories, embedded narratives and emergent narratives. Eskelinen’s concern an overemphasis in merging games and narratives may have arose from this. However, Jenkins did not simply reduce games into narratives but to show the emergence of narrative ambitions in many games. For instance, Super Mario Bros. is a game with spatial storytelling and terming it as a “scroll game” aptly reveals its similarity to linear storytelling in Japanese scroll paintings. The narrative hook in the game (to rescue the princess) being found as the game’s goal or motivation shows that narratives complement and give meaning to gameplay.

Another valuable and interesting idea which Jenkins addresses is transmedia storytelling, by which the spectator’s fabula (story) is constructed via multiple media such as books, film, comics and games. This suggests that narratives need not be whole or complete in any particular medium as the spectator, reader or player can seek other channels to complete the narrative in the way he desires. Thus, the common worry of the inability of some games to depict whole narratives is dispelled.

I realize that today’s games are increasingly becoming inseparable from narratives but not narratives from games. Numerous games have spun from epic movies like Lord of the Rings, and these games need the narrative element to make the game experience more enriching. Conversely, narratives can exist in their individual forms like in any classic novel or script. Thus, it is essentially the narratives that motivate some games. The immense importance of narratives may hence be the reason for Jenkins’ great interest in narratives.

The value of Jenkins’ work lies in redesigning the model of narratives and exploring games with narrative elements through narrative architectures. His focus also drew much attention to narrative qualities in games. Such effort should not be easily belittled. Jenkins could, however, also address the issues of the gaming experience rather than discussing only the narrative aspect. He could have discussed on how the gaming experience is enhanced with the different narrative architectures, in addition to his focus on how games can convey different degrees of narrative satisfaction.

emergence and progression

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

Games of progression are not unique to computer-based games. The characteristics of games of progression are that they have narrative ambitions, have challenges that are set up directly and consecutively and may require the player to perform a specific sequence of events. These characteristics are not bound to computer-based games, although a majority of games of progression are more conveniently played on the computer.

There are many examples of non computer-based games of progression. One such example is Dungeons and Dragons (D&D). It is a role-playing fantasy game that is “part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, and part dice rolling”. The player gets involved in the adventure of exploration, uncovering narratives and face challenges from monsters. It is a game of progression because challenges are brought up to the players one after another and another feature is that the adventure of the hero/character forms the narrative. Progression of the game also occurs in many forms, like progression in uncovering realm, progression in experience and skills or progression of the narrative after unveiling secrets and mysteries. However, the game does exhibit some elements of emergence. Teamwork between players may result if their characters are not skilled and experienced enough to deal with the monsters while players with more powerful characters may decide to kill the characters of other players. Such behaviour is not dictated by the game-maker, but a spontaneous result of the logic and rules behind the game. Thus, D&D may be considered a non computer-based game of progression with some emergent behaviour.

Some may contend that D&D is actually a game that puts the burden of processing and running the game onto the game master, and the trouble of the job can be easily transferred to the computer. However, I personally feel that the essence of non computer-based games lies in the interaction between the players. With the gamemaster being a human rather than the computer, the conflict between the good and bad guys is enhanced by the interaction between gamemaster and players. Such interaction may take the form of conversation and remarks exchanged between them.

Other examples of non computer-based games of progression acting games that children play (much like non-computerized RPGs), some amusement park rides, yes/no answer games. Yes/no answer games are those that the narrator reveals a part of the story (usually about a mystery death of a character), and the players can ask questions that the narrator can only give an answer that is either yes or no. The story then unfolds as the players ask relevant questions and the game ends when the mystery is solved. In this example, the progression lies in the increase in knowledge about the story. Challenges are posed onto the players through events or objects that may help solve the mystery. I would think this is one of the most interesting examples of non computer-based games that show elements of progression.

P/S: Drop me a comment if you didn't understand what I mean by yes/no games. I can probably give an example :)

someone stop me from playing nwn!

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?

A wonderful example of a game that attempts to imcorporate narratives is Neverwinter Nights (NWN) – Shadows of the Undertide. The tension between agency and narrative structure that exists in the game arises from the player’s inability to modify the global agency. The game begins with a narrative that describes the setting and events that has happened. This part of the narrative cannot be modified by the player. As the game proceeds and hits a kernel, which might be an attack from enemies, the player will be faced with a quest that he can choose to/not to embark on. However, this choice is superficial; choosing not to take on the quest simply means that the character will stay put at the starting point and the narrative will cease. Thus, the player does not really have control at the kernels. Removing the player’s control is justified by the need to create meaningful narratives that will make the game interesting. Furthermore, it must be noted that the control the player is endowed with is that of a narrative character and not that of a playwright.

The game can however incorporate local agency without affecting much of the main narrative. For instance, the player has control over which henchman to bring along for the quest or whether to go solo, and thus this changes some existents in the later part of the story. Along the way of the character’s quest, events and existents that play as satellites provide opportunities for the player to control and change these local narratives. The main narrative is, however, very much still intact. On the other hand, such control is sometimes limited. The player is usually given few choices and this is especially evident in dialogues. A larger variety of choices or even the possibility of user input in human language will consequently require larger computing power and artificial intelligence.

In my opinion, narrative and interactivity can co-exist in games. This is nevertheless subject to the degree of interactivity (see Crawford’s analysis). The question also boils down to how players define interactivity, but we will assume it to be the potential to change the course of the narrative for this argument. A game that only allows modification to satellites may have lower interactivity than one that allows changes to the narrative and its ending. In NWN, actions of the player may result in different outcomes – the character defeats the enemies or the character dies. However, the option of allowing the character to ‘respawn’ at a small price makes the analysis tricky; the player may respawn until he ultimately wins the game. And thus, the game may be directed to only one outcome with the chance of suffering a bad outcome reduced. Creating different narratives and a variety of outcomes that result from the player’s actions is an option, but current player expectations and demands may not require this. Lesser player control does not necessarily make the game less engaging. In fact, some may find such interaction and control burdensome. The player’s expectations of interactivity may possibly be already satisfied with the control he has over satellites. Furthermore, LeBlanc’s taxonomy of game pleasures describes other criteria apart from narrative and interaction that are important for a good game.

games are fun... until you have to write about them.

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

In our project, we created an interactive movie, “The Charming Prince”. I would contend that this work is more of a movie than a game, but it still possesses numerous game-like qualities. I will use the guidelines for defining a game from Costikyan in “I Have No Words & I Must Design”.

Firstly, our interactive movie provides decision points (kernels) that give the user choice and control. Different combinations of these decisions result in 4 different outcomes, three of which are bad while only one path leads to a happy ending. This is analogous to many computer games, where the player either succeeds of fails. However, we added variety to this by having 4 unique endings, such that even as the user fails the mission, he can experience different outcomes from doing so. The user also has to think to make sense of how each outcome is achieved. This brings us to the next characteristic of our interactive movie, that it involves solving a puzzle. For instance, the user has to find out that the apple Little Red Riding Hood offers Prince Charming can be used to swap the poisonous apple the witch intends to use to kill the princess. Different pieces of narrative extracted from various fairytales are linked together to give the user these ideas on how to handle situations. The user will then be able to make wise decisions and unravel the correct path. Another game-like property is the presence of a goal or mission. It is stated early in the movie that the mission is to save the princess, and it even requires the user to agree to embark on the mission before the movie can proceed. And to accomplish the mission, there is also considerable “struggle” against the witch. Finally, our interactive movie has existents (apple, money, etc) that have endogenous meanings to only the movie.

Our interactive movie is however not quite a game in various ways. There is no direct competition in any sense, be it from other users or from a running time. The user can also choose not to participate in any of the decision making points and simply sit back and enjoy the movie. There is also no intensive control given to the user, for instance, the user cannot control where Prince Charming walks to or how he fights the witch.

On a final note, our interactive movie is an antithesis to Costikyan’s argument that “the search for non-game interactive entertainment is wrong-headed, … Any form of 'interactive entertainment' that isn't a game must be non-interactive; or not entertainment; or pointless”. Our movie allows the user to interact with the system, make decisions that affect outcomes and certainly is entertaining.

i am brain dead

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 my opinioin, interactive fiction (in the form of text-based adventure narratives) and hypertext fiction are more closely related than what montfort suggests. it is true that interactive fiction lacks certain components like the lexia or link, but there are close replacements for these. the blocks of narrative in interactive fiction are similar to the lexia and the "links" of interactive fiction come in a different form of jumping from one scene to another via the user's input. moreover, the structures of interactive and hypertext fiction are the same. both constitute blocks of narrative that will be eventually uncovered and linked up by the user. both structures are interestingly volatile, allowing the user to "choose" which parts of the narrative to read first. i put the word "choose" in commas because in both cases you don't really get to choose what you want to see first. there is an element of luck or skill involved to get the more interesting links or type the correct commands.

there is however, more flexibility to the user in hypertext fiction. there is generally no right or wrong answer, and the user doesn't experience a "game over" while in interactive fiction certain commands or procedures of commands must be input from the user else he will face death... i mean virtual death like in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. in other types of interactive fiction like photopia, the user simply gets stuck at a particular scene if he doesn't type the correct commands.


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.

a property of cybertext is that it gives room for user control. in the case of "carl", though one may initially think that the different paths provides choices for the reader, the eventual case may be so that the user actually explores all the possible endings. thus, it gives an illusion that the user has control over them. however, whether intended or not, the different endings of "carl" somewhat correlates. this further emphasizes that there is no "one ending" and and the user cannot really just choose one path. practically he could, but that story told will be pretty boring. thus, i wouldn't totally consider "carl" to a cybertext.


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?

paul fournel's "the tree theatre" can be nicely considered to be interactive. crawford's definition of interactivity involves 3 processes: listening, thinking and speaking. these 3 components are satisfied in fournel's play.

listening: both the actors and audience listen to each other. the actors take heed of the audience response to what choices are made and the audience listens to the narrative acted out by the actors.
thinking: this is an internal process. the audience goes through the choices made available to them and decides upon a course of action while the actors takes the input from the audience and decides the corresponding narrative.
speaking: the audience have the power of choice. they communicate their choices to the actors. the actors in turn delivers the narrative to the audience.

but evidently, the interactivity part is more on the audience than for the actors. the actors can be simply viewed as machines that will respond to the audience input, thus carrying out the commands of the audience. this argument may appear superficial as some may argue that the actors may emotionally and intellectually interact with the audience. for instance the actors may perform the scenes with slight disgust if the audience keep making immoral or sadistic choices, like "the king will kill his wife" and "the ending will be unhappy". such interaction is not trivial, but should be observed on the micro-level. the macro-level interaction, which i personally feel is more important, would be that in the progress of the narrative. how both parties are involved and whether the audience is participative will also determine the interactivity of the play.

hypertext and non-linearity

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.

there are huge differences between the hypertext and the use of the internet 15 years ago and now. in the past, the internet is used for the purpose of sharing exclusive information within the academic institutions, and accessing information only relevant to the individual or department. however, in today's internet, vast sources of information are available. one, at many times, may get access to information not relavant to him, like product information via advertisements, emails and pop-up windows.

another difference is that the internet today may be viewed as something of an 'ordered mess'. in the past hypertext systems are used for categorization purposes, providing '"virtual" rearrangement and retrieval', thus resulting in a more orderly and systematic classification of the institution's database. such hypertext systems may still exist in library catalogues, but more often than not, the websites for these catalogues are overwhelmed with other purposes and functions like links to other libraries and bookstores and may even act as a portal for communication between its users. the idea of an 'ordered mess' is depicted here. the internet on the whole is a messy establishment of links between websites, and the relationship connected by the link may be mild or strong. thus, when searching for information on the web, one may not always get what he wants instantly. however, orderliness of the internet is seen in the smaller modules of the internet. websites of schools, government institutions or subsidaries of large companies have an internal order within them. for instance, take the local research organization a*star. the organization has its main website, and its various institutes like ime, simtech and i2r have their individual links from this main site. and within each institute there is a further breakdown into various institutional departments. this order makes logical sense due to the hierarchical nature of the organization. finally, this order is interlinked to external websites, like websites of research institutes in other parts of the world or websites of universities, creating a massive network in the internet.

other implications of the hypertext today will be privacy issues, copyright issues, freedom of speech and internet crimes. the interconnectivity of the network enables the spread of both good and bad very quickly. viruses, bugs and malwares are easily disseminated across the internet, obtaining private information of individuals or damaging servers and computers. copyright issues also arise when information becomes extremely accessible. these, in addition to incidents of defamatory comments on the internet also propelled the establishment of internet laws. an interesting point to note is that new laws are often introduced because of the volatile and changing nature of the internet. due to the rapid advancement of technology, people can quickly come up with new ways to get round the existing laws.