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.
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.
posted by päwz2zprίηt at 7:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home