You control your destiny... or does your destiny control you.....?
late..... this week i'm late.. but as the saying goes.. better late than never... had a uber busy week.. so doing back-blogging now.. on a monday morning.. oh well.. today's topic.. story Vs. agency.. kinda like the header.. do players actually have control in games.. or are they just bounded by spaces in between the line of the narrative.. just like in life.. do we actually have control of our fates? or are we just playing what is already laid out for us? well.. guess that is an age-old question that no one can really answer.. anyway.. on with the main course...
Question #1:
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?
Different genres have different emphasis and needs for narrative, in this sense, RPGs are mostly the ones that require on narrative the most to drive the game forward, relative to the rest of the genre of games, and hence, most Japanese RPGs are fairly linear in terms of narrative and only give players agency in battles and in customizing their characters. Some people will complain about the linearity, about the lack of freedom as a player on deciding on where to go next or what to do.
So we have the other side of the coin, which is the case of many Western RPGs, like KOTOR or Morrowind, where players have absolute freedom as to where to go and what to do... but of cos, there will always be haters no matter where you go.. so the haters will say that this makes the narrative relatively weak, as the main narrative element oftern ends up rather diluted... either way... the tension between agency and narrative will always exist.. but its really up to the designer's vision that determines which one they wanna put the emphasis on... Personally... i prefer a stronger narrative and lesser agency...
But this is not to say that interaction and narrative cannot exist. In the pen and paper D&D games, the Dungeon Master (DM), serves to play the bridge between the gap the player experience and the narrative, as he/she sets the narrative for the players, allow the players to interact with it, and then react accordingly to player actions to weave a related narrative event.. hence, in this sense, it shows that it is possible to achieve a harmony between narrative and interaction through a third party..
For the game of video games, the human factor of a DM can actually be replaced with extensive coding... allowing players to a set of choices that can lead to alternate endings, or different character histories... different events... order of events.. etc... all these elements can allow narrative and interaction to "seem" to co-exist to the player... of cos.. in the end.. the number of choices are still bounded by code.. but the vast amount of choices is probably enough to create the illusion of almost total freedom for the player..
For example, in a game like GTA, narrative and interaction actually do co-exist, as in this game, players get to choose the narrative path they wanna take... who they wanna kill first.. who they wanna work for.. how to go about doing it.. all these are choices for the players to interact with... but at the same time.. the order you choose to accomplish the tasks do set a narrative path for you.. like for example... it might be cos you helped killed someone in the past.. and now.. his narrative path is closed of to you.. cos he is already dead and cannot offer you any more side quests or something.. making you unable to pursuit that aspect of the story... this kinda gameplay.. sandbox gameplay.. is really all the rage now.. and i guess it is so cos it weaves narrative of a coo background story of being a gangsta... but with the amount of interaction involved so that you will feel bonded with the character you are playing.. cos you really feel that you are in control...
hence, it shows that narrative and interaction can actually co-exist..but of cos... for ABSOLUTE FREEDOM and STRONG NARRATIVE to co-exist is another matter altogether.. IMO.. the two elements are really part of a zero-sum game... and its the designer's choice of how much to tilt in which direction to create the optimum experience for the player..
Question #2:
How is time represented in the game? Is there a separation of story and discourse time? How does the game’s use of time allow for interactivity?
I see that time in games is represented in two senses.. the then and the now.. or better defined as the non-gameplay time and the gameplay time... even if players are playing a flashback scene.. i still define it as a now.. cos when players actually play the game.. they are experiecing the given narrative events they have been steered too... and in that sense.. for the players.. the time that they play will always be ""now" in the story..
The seperation between discourse time and story time is mostly clearly defined.. the story time normally sets the mood and background for the discourse time... and it also gives reason for the existence of the discourse time... which gives players a better sense of motivation and logic to complete the given task.. and weave the total gameplay experience to be a coherent one.. especially in RPGs.. but today.. almost all games in all genres have some form of story time.. i guess this is to set the context for the discourse time and give a sense of consistency with the given context so that players can "believe" what they are playing...
In GTA, the story is mostly told out using cutscenes... and once the motivation for the mission has been made clear to you.. the letter box disappers and the gameplay starts.. in this sense.. the seperation is very clearly drawn... however.. the beauty of GTA is that it lets you accomplish missions in a large variety of ways.. you can think of it.. you most probably can do it in the game.. and in a larger sense... how you accomplish the mission during the discourse time.. is actually a setting for a story time.. your personal story time.. in your own context.. of how you went about getting a particular thing done.. so in this sense.. the line between story and discourse time is actually one experience... of cos .. there are also other ways to weave the two.. such as alternate events happening if you fail to accomplish the mission in a particular time perharps...
The time factor is a major element in the whole interactive experience of GTA.. cos in a free-form game as such.. it actually gives players the control of their own time.. whether they wanna just drive the cab for the whole damn day.. or they wanna continue with climbing to the top of the underworld.. whether they wanna kill so and so now.. and lose him as a potential mission branch later.. all these different choices are achieved by leaving the time factor in the hands of the player.. to allow him/her to choose his own story...
well.. so there we have it.. ANOTHER long entry.. oh well... guess when it comes to games.. i just really can;t stop talking.. ha ha.. THE GREAT BIG MOUTH.. signing off..
Question #1:
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?
Different genres have different emphasis and needs for narrative, in this sense, RPGs are mostly the ones that require on narrative the most to drive the game forward, relative to the rest of the genre of games, and hence, most Japanese RPGs are fairly linear in terms of narrative and only give players agency in battles and in customizing their characters. Some people will complain about the linearity, about the lack of freedom as a player on deciding on where to go next or what to do.
So we have the other side of the coin, which is the case of many Western RPGs, like KOTOR or Morrowind, where players have absolute freedom as to where to go and what to do... but of cos, there will always be haters no matter where you go.. so the haters will say that this makes the narrative relatively weak, as the main narrative element oftern ends up rather diluted... either way... the tension between agency and narrative will always exist.. but its really up to the designer's vision that determines which one they wanna put the emphasis on... Personally... i prefer a stronger narrative and lesser agency...
But this is not to say that interaction and narrative cannot exist. In the pen and paper D&D games, the Dungeon Master (DM), serves to play the bridge between the gap the player experience and the narrative, as he/she sets the narrative for the players, allow the players to interact with it, and then react accordingly to player actions to weave a related narrative event.. hence, in this sense, it shows that it is possible to achieve a harmony between narrative and interaction through a third party..
For the game of video games, the human factor of a DM can actually be replaced with extensive coding... allowing players to a set of choices that can lead to alternate endings, or different character histories... different events... order of events.. etc... all these elements can allow narrative and interaction to "seem" to co-exist to the player... of cos.. in the end.. the number of choices are still bounded by code.. but the vast amount of choices is probably enough to create the illusion of almost total freedom for the player..
For example, in a game like GTA, narrative and interaction actually do co-exist, as in this game, players get to choose the narrative path they wanna take... who they wanna kill first.. who they wanna work for.. how to go about doing it.. all these are choices for the players to interact with... but at the same time.. the order you choose to accomplish the tasks do set a narrative path for you.. like for example... it might be cos you helped killed someone in the past.. and now.. his narrative path is closed of to you.. cos he is already dead and cannot offer you any more side quests or something.. making you unable to pursuit that aspect of the story... this kinda gameplay.. sandbox gameplay.. is really all the rage now.. and i guess it is so cos it weaves narrative of a coo background story of being a gangsta... but with the amount of interaction involved so that you will feel bonded with the character you are playing.. cos you really feel that you are in control...
hence, it shows that narrative and interaction can actually co-exist..but of cos... for ABSOLUTE FREEDOM and STRONG NARRATIVE to co-exist is another matter altogether.. IMO.. the two elements are really part of a zero-sum game... and its the designer's choice of how much to tilt in which direction to create the optimum experience for the player..
Question #2:
How is time represented in the game? Is there a separation of story and discourse time? How does the game’s use of time allow for interactivity?
I see that time in games is represented in two senses.. the then and the now.. or better defined as the non-gameplay time and the gameplay time... even if players are playing a flashback scene.. i still define it as a now.. cos when players actually play the game.. they are experiecing the given narrative events they have been steered too... and in that sense.. for the players.. the time that they play will always be ""now" in the story..
The seperation between discourse time and story time is mostly clearly defined.. the story time normally sets the mood and background for the discourse time... and it also gives reason for the existence of the discourse time... which gives players a better sense of motivation and logic to complete the given task.. and weave the total gameplay experience to be a coherent one.. especially in RPGs.. but today.. almost all games in all genres have some form of story time.. i guess this is to set the context for the discourse time and give a sense of consistency with the given context so that players can "believe" what they are playing...
In GTA, the story is mostly told out using cutscenes... and once the motivation for the mission has been made clear to you.. the letter box disappers and the gameplay starts.. in this sense.. the seperation is very clearly drawn... however.. the beauty of GTA is that it lets you accomplish missions in a large variety of ways.. you can think of it.. you most probably can do it in the game.. and in a larger sense... how you accomplish the mission during the discourse time.. is actually a setting for a story time.. your personal story time.. in your own context.. of how you went about getting a particular thing done.. so in this sense.. the line between story and discourse time is actually one experience... of cos .. there are also other ways to weave the two.. such as alternate events happening if you fail to accomplish the mission in a particular time perharps...
The time factor is a major element in the whole interactive experience of GTA.. cos in a free-form game as such.. it actually gives players the control of their own time.. whether they wanna just drive the cab for the whole damn day.. or they wanna continue with climbing to the top of the underworld.. whether they wanna kill so and so now.. and lose him as a potential mission branch later.. all these different choices are achieved by leaving the time factor in the hands of the player.. to allow him/her to choose his own story...
well.. so there we have it.. ANOTHER long entry.. oh well... guess when it comes to games.. i just really can;t stop talking.. ha ha.. THE GREAT BIG MOUTH.. signing off..
posted by Jeremy Kang at 7:34 AM
.JPG)
1 Comments:
Looking at agency vs. narrative as a zero-sum game is very compelling - it does seem that the 2 can co-exist, but that the more you lean in one direction (sandbox/interactivity) or the other (linear/strong narrative), you lose the other. What I think some critics, such as Janet Murray and the designers of Facade, feel is that you can actually create a game that contains both. For me, D&D seems to closest - so perhaps its just a technical problem of creating powerful enough AI? Or is there an underlying difference that makes a strongly narrative sandbox impossible? Not sure...
Post a Comment
<< Home