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.