Narrative and Agency

Choose a game which you feel attempts to incorporate strong narrative elements. 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?

I don’t believe they cannot co-exist.

I take Metal Gear Solid for example. This was a game that borrowed the typical structure that required free user movement within the boundaries of the game interface while delivering a narrative through conversations with game characters as well as video snippets in between segments, during which the player could take a “rest” and watch certain events unfold, often a result of the player’s movements to fulfill a certain task.

I remember we discussed how these segments may be tedious and take away user control. However, I think these segments brought things into perspective, giving meaning to the actions performed by the player. Also, there is a deeper level of immersion into the whole “point” of the game, so that it still feels like you are part of a different world.

If there are too few narrative elements, there may be too much freedom of movement such that playing becomes stressful. Too much responsibility lies on the user to determine the outcome of the game, which may actually be worse because the player has to detach himself more often to think clearly – “ok, now what?” Also, there is less meaning that is incorporated into the game, and less incentive to play. Just like how if there were few/no rules, there really is no game.

The narrative elements, in particular, with reference to Metal Gear Solid, give context and history to the game characters and environment. This works and makes it a good and enjoyable game perhaps because it feeds our innate desire for a social environment (which nicely explains why RPGs and social games like WarCraft are such hits). As you play, you find out more about the game characters, your game persona, the game environment, etc, and this further immerses the player into the magic circle, making the game much more enjoyable.

Certainly, games lacking in narrative can be enjoyable as well, but they don’t necessarily have more interactivity than games with strong narrative elements. I believe that the interactivity is still there, just that the narrative elements must not intrude too much into the gameplay.

For Metal Gear Solid, I found the narrative elements like conversations and video clips very entertaining, and made me enjoy the game more. Certainly there were bits I got annoyed at, especially when the girl keeps whining about our relationship and our feelings when I’m in the middle of a crisis. But apart from that, it certainly made for a good game experience.

Games and Play

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

Perhaps the easiest way to approach this is by examining the different elements that a game should have, using Greg Costikyan’s article "I Have No Words and I Must Design: Towards a Critical Vocabulary for Games" as a guide.

In project 1, my group attempted to translate the narrative of the movie, The Others into an interactive work, preserving the integrity of the narrative while playing around with non-linearity. As a short synopsis of the project, I quote our project’s report:

“In this project, we transpose the narrative onto a hypertext interface that integrates still frames, text, audio and video excerpts from the movie. Each frame contains hotspots that are linked to other frames. In some frames, text aids appear on placing the cursor over certain hotspots to guide the user forward. A mindmap is available for viewing to show the user how much of the story has been revealed. The resulting narrative is portrayed as a non-linear network that ultimately culminates in only one outcome, at which the climax of the narrative is exposed.”

Alright, so on to the question at hand: was this work actually a game?

I’m not sure. If you will bear with me, let’s take apart the key points that Costikyan’s article for discussion. According to him, a game is interactive, has goals, the achievement of which require the making of key decisions to meet certain objectives and the process of which requires some struggle and lastly, have endogenous meaning.

While in lecture on Tuesday, the discussion on Indigo Prophecy reminded me of a glorified “upped” version of our project, given that our project really was an interactive movie. However, key differences lie in user experience in the level of immersion the user has.

That aside, on hindsight, our project easily satisfies the qualities of interactivity and goals. Firstly because the user’s movement affects the system and is “remembered” and stored as a scene being visited. This agrees with Crawford’s definition of interactivity, albeit to a small extent. Certainly, the user is not able to change the narrative or have any serious effect on the outcome. The goal to the project however, is less explicit than that. Any said goal has to be determined by the user, and the means to this goal(s) has some degree of struggle as hotspots are not so easy to find, and blocks in the mind map have to be unlocked before the ending climax is revealed. While it can be said that the ultimate goal is to unlock the ending, this assumes that the user is motivated in the first place. Here, the line becomes a little fuzzy. Also, assuming the said objectives are to find hotspots, then does one assume that finding hotspots is a difficult thing? One that requires struggle? This is certainly debatable.

Lastly, do the elements in the project have endogenous meaning? Certainly. The elements in the movie, the characters, events etc, all have a meaning pertaining to the context of the story only, and not to real life. This could also just be due to the fact that it is after all, fiction and make-believe. (Although I agree that endogenous meaning is a quality of games in general, it shouldn’t be used as a qualifying characteristic. Doesn’t a novel also contain endogenous meaning?)

That said, I think our project 1 was not a game at all. Although if argued to death, it could be a sort of game that we discussed in Tuesday’s lecture, one that involves peripheral to very low interactivity.