On games as games as games and nothing else

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?

In a way, Eskelinen’s reply to Jenkins is rather myopic in itself. In his response to Jenkins, a short summation of his own view regarding games as a medium of narrative discourse can be seen here:

“To the detriment of [Jenkins’] approach, there are no specific narrative contents, only contents. Consequently, only some combinations and arrangements of events and existents become game elements; others become stories or performance art.”

In my opinion, Eskelinen is guilty of a similar reductionist philosophy of games being games, and other art being other art. He admits that some elements from art, performance, narrative and play can make a game, but it does not make it either form.

Jenkins, in his paper “Game design as narrative architecture”, admits that:

1. yes, not all games tell stories, though many do,
2. games don’t have to tell stories to be good games,
3. playing a game doesn’t make it all about experiencing a story,
4. and games as a narrative medium are unique from other media.

Why I find Eskelinen’s critique of Jenkins unfairly harsh is partly because he seems to ignore Jenkins’ acceptance of the limitations of a game to tell a story.

In his paper, Jenkins also discusses how games can tell stories, but in markedly different ways – for example, touching on the concepts of games designed to use space, environment and embedded narratives to tell a story. Eskelinen dismisses all this as being useless, and says that these elements are game by-products. He also makes it sound like Jenkins is fully advocating games as the best way to tell a story, but this certainly isn’t the case – at least not what I gathered when reading Jenkins.

Jenkins, in my opinion, was trying to find a middle ground between the ludologists and narratologists, since the two fields have commonly been philosophically mutually exclusive (in that, they are always discussed in the same voice, but distinctly drawn as different).

While I do not agree with Eskelinen’s blunt dismissal of Jenkins’ attempt to draw a balance which ludologists and narratologists can share, I do agree with Eskelinen that in some sense, Jenkins’ approach is somewhat superficial.

Spatial and environmental elements are, more often than not, functional by-product of games - they certainly help in storytelling in the game, but are not necessarily the original purpose of their existence. In other words, they weren’t there for the sake of the narrative anyway.

It would have been helpful though, for Eskelinen, in his reponse, to have addressed these issues with some ideas of his own, instead of plain dismissing Jenkins.

On 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.

Certainly, games of progression are not exclusive to computer-based games, but such games are definitely more common in the computer-based media. Games of progression on non-computerbased media require large scale organization. Much capital needed to design such games (people-intensive games like RPGs). Thus, such games are not only not viable to develop but also tough to be distributed. (Besides, most RPGs may be games of progression, but outcomes can be very varied, depending on the participants and the gamemaster.)

But anyway, here's why I think games of progression are more common in the computer-based media.

Games of emergence are somewhat "self-regulatory" and always have different outcomes, so does not require any specific governing medium to help ensure proper "playing". Games of progression however, require precise and explicit governance in the form of programming, this is probably the reason why such games became more mainstream with the development of technology.

With such control over the playing by the author, such forms of games are easily distributed, thus the computer-based nature. While I can think of some non-computer-based games of progression, they are definitely fewer than those computer-based ones (Say, D&D, treasure hunts like the Amazing Race).

Besides, with advanced graphics in technology, game designers often want to exploit it so that the medium can do more than just provide games of strategy, for example Chess as a game of emergence. With such complex and gorgeous graphic interfaces, game designers often choose to incorporate play with a lot of narrative elements, which often require the game to be one of progression, so as to maintain some fixed narrative arc.

Certainly, many games of progression have infused elements of games of emergence - the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive (eg Warcraft and similar MMORPGs).

Commercial, novelty and utilitarian reasons:

While games of progression are few in non-computer media, they definitely became more common and numerous in the computer media - not only to harness advanced graphic technology, but also for ease of distribution. Furthermore, it's a nice breather from the centuries of games of emergence before the advent of the computer, and that of good graphics. Games of progression in the computer media are still novel, thus still becoming very popular. These are incentives and also reasons why I think games of progression are still mostly computer-based, though not necessarily unique to the media.

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.

On the hypertext revoution

"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."

Well. I can only vaguely remember when it was 1991, and I was probably in the middle of some elaborate colouring job when my brother might call me over to this monstrous computer to watch him play that ancient magenta-cyan alley cat game. And lots of navigating by DOS. So that's as much as I can remember of the days when W3 was not mainstream.

Growing up, the internet was probably an integral part of my life, so it's hard to imagine what an uproar there was when this whole hypertext revolution began.

I suppose like how TV and radio began as a mass media revolution, the transmission of information to the masses, propaganda, education, knowledge sharing and such. So it is with the internet and its interconnected cyberhighways.

However, unlike static media like TV and radio, the user of the W3 is given more control over what he views. Also, with the ease of creating new logs and the accessibility to all these logs, there is not only more information at your fingertips, but almost anyone can have a presence and share information. The user gains more control in these two aspects.

Certainly, as with the media revolution of the 60s, commercialism played a large role not only in its development, but also in determining what is distributed to the masses. While commercialisation of the internet is true, as what we discussed in class on Tuesday, there are less boundaries and rules to stick by on the internet.

The audience is more diverse and there is no official governing body to police cyberspace. Thus, commercial potential of the internet is definitely more lucrative than on other broadcasting media like TV.

Perhaps most noteworthy is that the internet is speeding things up a lot. Developments in technology and academia in particular, would have proceeded at much slower paces if not for the bridging of geographical boundaries among like-minded people and information. However, these very properties of the internet can bring about problems of its own, like eradicating the sense of ownership, not only in copyright, but also in the lax in taking responsibility for one's behavior in cyberspace.

It is thus not the most original thing to say, but our value system has yet to catch up with this whole web thing (like many other things.). While Landow seems to have somewhat exaggerated a little bit about the revolution (IMO), we do realise that like with previous revolutions, people are seldom ready to behave, or rather, respond with reason. I think it is really important to mentally and socially prepare people, but I'm not quite sure how we're going to go about it.

Image(s)

Choose a set of 5-10 images that you feel form a narrative. If they are not digital images, scan them into the computer (there’s a scanner available in the USP multimedia lab). Arrange them in a linear sequence on your blog. You may or may not want to include text captions with each image.

Bring a physical copy of your images to class on Thursday. We’ll be using them as part of an in-class exercise.

Ok, so I got annoyed while trying to find images to fit a certain narrative I wanted, so I drew mine instead. Then I arranged them in a comic strip. XD Click to enlarge.

On comics and non-linearity

1. In his paper “Modular Structure and Image/Text Sequences: Comics and Interactive Media”, George Legrady states: “Meaning in the interactive work is a result of the sequential selection of components that the viewer assembles in the viewing process. The viewer can then be considered as someone who actively constructs the narrative through the assembling of fragmented or modular information elements. The sequential sum of viewed selections becomes the narrative.” This approach to interactivity is reflected in his work Slippery Traces.
   
   Discuss how this approach to constructing a narrative changes the roles of the reader and the author in the process of narrative transmission.

This task given to the user not only gives the user more control, but also more responsibility in the revelation of the narrative. In such approaches, the user has a larger part to play in discourse than in other types of media.

As discussed in class on Tuesday, the challenges faced in such approaches are many. Firstly, there must be enough coherence between components for the user to make connections within the narrative. The user also has to have enough motivation to proceed with the narrative even if there is no apparent coherence. Also, as much as there is freedom to do whatever you want, certain boundaries must be set to ensure that a fulfilling experience results.

2. Write about the narrative that your group has chosen for project 1. Why have you chosen this work? How might you approach the task of re-configuring it as an interactive piece? Be prepared to discuss your group’s choice of work in class on Thursday.

For our project, we chose the 2001 thriller The Others by Alejandro Amenabar starring Nicole Kidman. The Others is a chilling movie with a shocking (wicked!) twist at the end. We chose this movie because the narrative moves in the way a game usually does, in that pieces of information are revealed as the story progresses but aside from subtle hints, the plot is never revealed until a critical bit near the end.

We wanted to approach the task of converting the movie to an interactive form by using poignant still frames from the movie, installing hotspots within the frame where the user can click and be navigated to another still frame. Within each frame there are multiple hotspots. In some frames, hotspots will produce short video segments about the scene in question. In as many frames as possible, we want to have sound effects playing in the background, some sounds will also be integrated into certain hotspots, for example, bits of dialogue. Thus, the user follows a non-linear narrative throughout the first 70% of the film, where the frames are interconnected via a web of frames. Once the user has seen at least 70% of the frames, subsequent frames will proceed in a linear fashion until the climax is reached. Here, the critical scene that reveals the ending will be played.

The main idea was to play with thie nature of non-linearity, giving the user more control over the task at hand, but also preserve some of the narrative not only be restricting the number of hotspots and link-ups in the frames, but also to ensure that the critical kernels towards the end are displayed in a linear fashion so as to do the original narrative justice.

On Narrative: story and discourse

1. In the Introduction to Story and Discourse, Chatman quotes Claude Bremond, who says: “Any sort of narrative message… may be transposed from one to another medium without losing its essential properties: the subject of a story may serve as argument for a ballet, that of a novel, can be transposed to stage or screen, one can recount in words a film to someone who has not seen it.” Chatman goes on to suggest that “transposability of the story is the strongest reason for arguing that narratives are indeed structures independent of any medium”.
   
   Choose a narrative that has been expressed in both an interactive and a non-interactive medium, for example the game Tomb Raider and the movie Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. Discuss how the transposition to/from interactive media has changed the narrative. Has the structure of the narrative remained intact?

In most movie-turned games, most narrative is conserved insofar as certain kernel events, settings and existents are maintained. However, the user is inserted in particular points of the narrative structure that allows for some freedom of play. This “freedom” is also restricted by the rules of the game. In this, there is some element of self-regulation. The user is not allowed to make decisions that will drastically change the course of the narrative.

When I was thinking of an example to cite, many of the typical movie-turned-games came to mind. But as we were in lecture on Tuesday I was reminded of Indiana Jones when we were talking about “different stories, same plot”.

Then the “primitive” Atari/LucasArt era came to mind and I remembered the really prehistoric arcade games made during the 80s of the Indian Jones movies. The one I most recall has to be Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Most of you would probably remember that one because of that scene with the live throbbing heart.

Anyway, in that game, developed by Atari in 1985, the general plot is the same as the movie. The mission for Indy remains the same. But while the game tries to preserve the settings and some characters, the theme of the game, being one of those old scrolling adventures, fails to capture much of the movie’s original narrative. Indy does still carry that whip, fears bats and snakes, and his ultimate goal is still to stop Mola Ram (harharhar!).

Like most arcade games of the time, they were not so interested in preserving the narrative as they were in providing some short-lived entertainment. Thus narrative structure was not very much preserved, save for the characters and some settings.

2. Chatman observes that “whether… the author elects to order the reporting of events according to their causal sequence or to reverse them in a flashback effect – only certain possibilities can occur… Of course certain events or existents that are not immediately relevant maybe brought in. But at some point their relevance must emerge, otherwise we object that the narrative is ‘ill-formed.’” This is the notion of self-regulation.
   
   Interactive media allows for choice and control on the part of the reader/user. What problem does this raise for self-regulation? What, if anything, does this suggest about designing interactive narrative?

Let’s think about the piece of “interactive narrative” as a game, to make this easier. A large part of game design in my opinion is really in predicting what the user would do when playing the game. In order to maintain some integrity of the narrative I think, would require a complex of rules and boundaries in which the user can move freely within and play, yet control the ultimate outcome. (or, produce a number of outcomes)

For example, in the example cited in class – text-based H2G2 by infocom – largely follows the narrative of the book closely, yet allows the user to freely attempt to play around at commands. Yet, while the user can make all kinds of demands of the system, the structure of the narrative is preserved in that settings, kernels and existents are all maintained. Choices made by Arthur Dent thus help propel the story forward but does not change the main bits of it. This is probably my rudimentary example of how a piece of interactive media is somewhat self-regulatory. The game designers left a certain amount of leeway for the user to play with, but set down many rules that help restrict the amount of choice the user has.

3. Discussing the concept of interpretation, or "filling in the gaps", in narrative, Chatman states that “there is… a class of indeterminacies… that arise from the peculiar nature of the medium. The medium may specialize in certain narrative effects and not others. For instance, the cinema may easily – and does routinely – present characters without expressing the contents of their minds… verbal narrative, on the other hand, finds such restrictions difficult… Conversely, verbal narrative may elect not to present some visual aspect… The cinema, however, cannot avoid a rather precise representation of visual detail.”
   
   Think of an example of the use of narrative in interactive media. With reference to your example, suggest what the “peculiar nature” of interactive media may be, and which narrative effects it may specialize in.

I’m not really sure since everyone seems to think of this proverbial “peculiar nature” differently. Anyway.

So I was saying I used to play a lot of Resident Evil (the original main series) growing up and sure, it freaked the hell out of a wee girl of a tender young age of 10 thereabouts (blame the brother), but the point I’m making is that, there is a fixed narrative and the plot unfolds as you play the game. But if you can’t get past a particular corridor with that particularly tough zombie dog, you really can’t get anywhere and the story is suspended there until you manage to kill it or run past it really quickly. This I think is one example of a peculiar nature of interactive media.

On New Media and Interactivity

1. In “What is New Media?” Lev Manovich proposes 5 principles of new media: numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability, and transcoding. Choose an example that you consider to be “new media”, and describe it in terms of these principles. What implications do these principles have for narrative and play within interactive media?
   
2. Manovich questions the usefulness of the term interactivity, suggesting that “once an object is represented in a computer, it automatically becomes interactive. Therefore, to call computer media ‘interactive’ is meaningless – it simply means stating the most basic fact about computers.” In contrast, in “What exactly is Interactivity?” Chris Crawford proposes a much stricter definition of interactivity. Compare these differing views, with reference to your own experience of interactive media systems.
   
3. Narrative, interactivity and play – how does Run Lola Run reflect these concerns? How does this relate to Manovich’s concept of transcoding?

Whoot. Long questions. :D My brief responses:

On question 1,

According in Manovich, all media that is computerised is new media. The properties of new media include numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability and transcoding.

A quick read of this chapter on "what is new media" brings upon the obvious example of a digital video (like Run Lola Run). Very easily, it fulfils the 5 principles of new media in that the data is digital (numerical representation), consists of different "layers" i.e. audio, subtitles (modularity), programmed to assemble into a complete piece of media (automated), is scalable/customisable (variability) and can be converted from one readable format to another (transcoding).

In his definition of interactivity, a piece of new media like a digital video is considered "interactive" as a user is able to view the video at time marks specified by the user himself. However, Manovich is quick to qualify that in examples such as digital video, "interactivity" with the user is bound by the aforementioned ideas only, i.e. "menu-based interactivity" that is restricted.

In terms of playing within new media therefore, the very open-minded would say that "play" is thus possible insofar as manipulation of the piece of media is allowed. However, "play" in the orthodox sense, which involves a certain degree of enjoyment as many of us would agree, would not be easily acheived with just Manovich's definition of "interactivity".

However, DVDs for example, usually include special features that the user can choose to view. Sometimes, for example, a user can choose to switch on recorded commentary to the video, changing the experience from just admiring the artistic narrative, to the discourse provided from the perspective of the producer or director, depending on the nature of the commentary. Some cartoon DVDs may also allow viewing of storyboards and raw animations instead of the finished piece, giving some insight into the production of the film, instead of merely appreciating the finished narrative.

In this sense, narrative in new media according to Manovich can be manipulated and "played" with as well.

At the end of it all, how new media affects the user experience really depends on the confines of the media that the user can move around in.

On question 2,

On reading Manovich after reading Crawford's critique of popular commercial loose usage of the word "interactivity", the differences in philosophies become very stark.

In short, it is almost as if Manovich endorses the usage of the word in the light of the refrigerator that swtiches on upon opening the door, the popular anti-thesis example used by Crawford to illustrate what is not interactivity. In his short comments on new media as interactive, Manovich refers to the existence of a user interface that provides the possibility of interactivity. Thus, since in all computerised media there exists a user interface, therefore all computerised media is interactive. He is careful to note though, that psychological interaction is an important element in interactive media.

Simply put, Crawford defines something as interactive if active communication occurs back and forth. In other words, there must be a response, listening, thinking, reacting and thus invoking another response as so on.

However, at the end of Manovich's chapter on "What is new media?", he describes interactive media as having been in existence in paintings, theatre and sculpture in olden days. In this sense, interactivity was used to describe how the work invoked emotions and reactions on the part of the viewer.

Ultimately, my take on this is that what is "interactive" cannot simply be qualified by a number of principles and definitions alone. Just like how our discussions on "what is a narrative" got a mite fuzzy before we distinguished that "discourse" and the "story" were two different elements of narrative.

What is interactive, therefore, should not be limited to definitions set in stone, but should be flexible in its reference.

For example, going by Crawford's definition of interactivity, the article in question must be able to listen, think and respond to elicit a response and so on. Doesn't this then make websites, clickable flash animations and digital videos non-interactive? As well as the "choose your own adventure" books?

Depending on the confines of the definition, the aforementioned media may be difficult to classify.

However, if like in "playing", defining the word "interactivity" is a movement within the boundaries of a number of principles, then as long as one is open-minded enough, many media can in fact be interactive, right?

Say, when you click on a hyperlink, the mechanisms connecting the browser to the new page is considered as "thinking", and the subsequent navigation to other pages constitute "communication".

I think this could go on and on.

On question 3,

Run Lola Run was really entertaining. I like how the opening credits mimicked a game, showing Lola running along some obscure hallway, making deliberate turns at sharp corners.

Even though it was not explicit in its presentation, Run Lola Run was really a big game. Wherein the player (=Lola) makes different decisions to accomplish a certain task.

A fixed narrative ran throughout the movie, in that there was a mission at hand, and it must be accomplished by a certain time.

The decisions made by Lola were confined to the fixed resources that were available to her, and each decision had different consequences. The "game" thus had different reactions to different decisions. Sometimes however, circumstances where variables appeared to be variable always showed a fixed consequence. Say for example, no matter what happened, in the 3 attempts, Mr. Meyer always ended up hitting the white BMW. In other instances, without any change in treatment, variables always changed. For example, the fate of the woman pushing the baby carriage was different each time Lola ran past her.

So here's something incredibly inane to think about

Alright alright, I suppose I will give in and write something proper after all. Nyeh.

Hokay. So I don't think I'll get away with just posting up a random comic of mine for the first post since all it really says is that

1. Liana has too much time on her hands so she spends it doodling on the computer and fooling around with Photoshop,
2. Liana has a savage sense of humour (and not in the hot British way),
3. Liana likes bunnies (even if the one Eddy (that's the dog) just met got its head lopped off),
4. Liana likes to make people (herself) laugh.

So there. But aside from that inane stuff, I'm really a sensible, grounded, insanely logical Biology major entering my honours year. I've barely begun to comprehend this crazy adventure that is the Honours Project I've yet to embark on, but I am somewhat looking forward to the coming year in the Spider Lab and am hoping for the best ("best" being my spiders don't die before I get any results, and "best" also being I survive certain doom that is the thesis.).

Some would say that this pioneer module, Narrative and Play in Interactive Media, ala UAR2205, ala somebody-heard-the-instructor-purchased-several-copies-of-netherwinter-nights-"OMG! I MUST TAKE THIS MODULE!!!", would be wasted on a person like me since I'm not a hard core gamer.

Aside from being forced into appreciating a lot of cartoons like X-men and Transformers, movies like Star Trek (yes, I am a geek so sue me.) and crazy comics like Chaos! Lady Death and the like due to the influence of My Older Brother, as well as playing some Heroes of Might and Magic, Phantasmagoria, Command & Conquer, Resident Evil (damned those zombie dogs) and Metal Gear Solid... I'm pretty much a non-gamer. XD

So yay! That's a succinct introduction of myself (read: that's all you're gonna know *bleah.).

Here's to a great semester ahead in this module :D

Test Post