INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE :: Gameblogging 06

Of the key narrative elements discussed so far in the course (interactivity, level design/linearity, moral choice/non-linearity, character), which do you think is the most prominent, important or interesting in your chosen game?

This week my chosen game was Terraria, one that I have had previous experiences with and enjoy immensely.

Its narrative is created through the player's curiosity - you are placed in a world with only a guide to give you a basic tutorial - one that you do not even have to pay attention to.  Therefore, due to such an open nature, I believe that the most important element of the game is in its linearity/level design.

"Open-world video games offer the player the choice to engage in an immense range of optional activities that do not necessarily contribute to closure, but rather to expand the player’s experience."  I believe that this quote from Cardoso's Breaking the Game is particularly relevant to Terraria, as it is a game that does not limit the player to a linear sequence of events.  The whole point of the game is for the player to experience it - there is no Ultimate end goal beyond 'do everything that the game has to offer'.  Players are given the options to defeat bosses and explore every last inch of the world, but there is nothing saying that they have to.  The experience is driven by the player's curiosity.

There are limitations in place to make sure the player is constantly challenged; they start out with weak weapons and universal monsters (slimes and zombies) that spawn frequently during the day and night respectively.  The only way to get stronger is to collect various materials from the world's surface and underground in order to craft stronger weapons,armor and structures to better defend yourself.  This in turn creates a reward/goal system for the player from the get-go - through exploration, the player uncovers more of the world, and finds more equipment/materials to become stronger to explore further or enhance their experience.  The player also gains new villagers through a crafting element - making houses for these villagers to move into - and provides reward for the creation /building aspect of the game with the perks and unique items that the villagers offer once they are settled.

As stated in week 3's level design lecture, "Clever level design matched with enemy/obstacle placement will make for a compelling experience and it ought to contribute to the narrative experience as well".  Terraria presents a linear, 2D terrain with different biomes representing the different areas of the world.  Within these biomes are different kinds of enemies with varying strengths, and different types of materials for the player to customize their equipment and appearance, as well as build structures with.  Each world is unique due to its randomized creation, therefore the player will never know in advance the kind of terrain or dungeons that they will explore, where to expect new biomes, or know what kind of equipment and treasure they will find in the randomly generated treasure chests.

The idea of clever level design can also be applied to the player's created structures - Besides the edges of the map and the generated terrain of the world, there are no restrictions on how tall you can make a structure or how far down into the world it can go.  Players can build walls that monsters cannot pass over in order to defend their villages better, or may use trapdoors instead of regular doors to prevent monsters from opening them.  Traps can also be utilized to prevent monsters from entering inhabited areas.  Again, ideas are only limited by the player's creativity and by how far they want to push the game.

Overall, the terrain and design of the world and its denizens helps to shape the player's experience by providing a large and excellent landscape to explore and discover.  While it may be enticing for new players, it also provides a unique experience for veterans, as no two worlds will ever be alike and while each world contains a finite amount of elements, they are always presented in new ways and require different methods to overcome them.

INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE :: Gameblogging 05

Could your game have developed its narrative and told the same or a similar story without any of the characters? 

This week I chose to play Fez, a puzzle platformer and believe that its narrative could definitely be developed similarly if the characters were removed from the game.  It offers very little in terms of verbal exposition and worldbuilding, using only a 'guide' character named Dot to explain the game's mechanics as they come up.  The rest of the story is represented visually through use of different environments that the central character travels through, and gives insight to the worlds that must be saved and protected.

I believe that the central character, Gomez, is an avatar.  The definition of the avatar in this regard is "any game-unit that has action possibilities and that answers to the player" (Kromand, 2007).  He is a silent protagonist who the player uses to traverse the different worlds in Fez, gathering fragments of a cube in order to restore the equivalent of a cube-god in this world.  Because of the idea of the avatar, Gomez could be replaced with anything - a shape, a blob of color, and as long as he could still respond to the player's input and commands, the story could play out almost identically to the way I experienced it using the ideas of learning through experience and showing rather than telling.  

Cube fragments glow and flash in a way that suggests you need them.  Completing a whole cube makes Gomez do a little animation to signify that you've done something important.  The narrative is simplistic, giving the player a call to adventure and the means of obtaining the elixir as presented in the hero's journey - collect small cubes to restore the god-cube before the world, along with you, is torn apart.  And because of this, I believe that the story in Fez could be easily presented in a more abstract way, and even without the use of its characters.

INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE :: Game blogging 04

How does morality influence the choices you make in the game?

This week's chosen game was The Banner Saga, which has a play style that leaves the player in a leadership position.  Between playing as Ubin, Rook and Hakon, the player needs to make decisions that will affect an entire army of characters and needs to plan their moves strategically in order to keep army morale up and casualties down.

I found myself faced with a number of moral dilemmas when playing this game, though the storyline was rather difficult to get a hold on to begin with.  In the second chapter, Alette was about to be crushed by a Dredge, and from a moral standpoint, I felt I had to step in and attempt to rescue her, even though Rook was very far away from her at the time.  The outcome of the event was not one that I was expecting, and another character died protecting her instead.  While sorrowful, it was a better outcome than I could have hoped for, and though one life was exchanged for another, I felt that preserving Alette's had more bearing to the plot.

Much smaller moral choices have appeared throughout the game as well, such as Hakon's discussions with prince Ludin, who came off as a suspicious and warmongering character to me.  Diplomacy is important when playing a game involving large nunbers and strategy, so my knowledge of this tells me not to ruffle any feathers or displease allies, but at the same time I find Ludin unbearable and feel like he could stand to be insulted a few times.

I've noticed in my playthrough that I have chosen many cautious options as a means of preserving my armies and keeping as many people as safe as possible.  One part with Hakon shows a smoke signal in the distance and I chose to send warriors to it in case it was a trap.  When they did not return I searched for them myself only to find new allies and my varl telling me that I'd missed a good battle, which made me feel pleased with my decision.  In a different chapter, Rook and his village must enter a town that has been closed to all outsiders and the options are to break down the gate and risk your ownl varl getting shot, sneak in with a food supply cart which would deny the other refugees waiting outside the town provisions if you fail, or wait to see if the gates would open by waiting for the long haul.  This was probably the most difficult decision for me, as the first two options had very harsh consequences upon failure and could lead to character deaths, while waiting meant that the dredge would only get closer and make things even worse.

In the end, I left Rook and his party to wait things out, feeling as though the death of characters I had grown attached to or the potential wrath of starving refugees would be worse than the onset of dredge.  At this point, I haven't found out what the consequence of this action has been, so while I play through Hakon's campaign and try to keep my army's casualties to a minimum, I worry about whether or not I have made the right decision.

INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE :: Game blogging 03

Are the “choice situations” in the game obvious or subtle? Do you know the outcomes of your choice prior to making a decision?  

This week I have chosen to play The Wolf Among Us, and in true Telltale Games fashion, has the player answering choosing how to respond and answer to the characters and situations around them right off the bat.  

Domsch (2003) talks about the nature of a choice situation and states that "One important aspect of choice is therefore how informed it is – that is, whether we choose based on knowledge or arbitrarily. Choice situations differ in the amount of information that is given about the consequences of the different options." There are plenty of choice situations within the game, and the first conversation with Mr Toad proves this.  The model that the player follows is one of incomplete information - "the agent is provided with some knowledge about possible outcomes, but no certainty in relation to the probability of the outcomes, and/or the completeness of information about outcomes." Bigby and Toad explain enough in the introduction sequence for the player to understand what the Fables are and what a Glamour is before being put into a situation where Toad does not have a glamour on him and being presented with the consequences of such an action.  The world suggests that Fable without glamour can be punished, but depending on how the player feels, they can make Bigby be kinder to Toad and let him off, or give him a warning, both of which affect the player's relationship with the character.

The game cues you in whenever you make a decision that will affect another character, or make a choice that will have some impact later on in the game, informing you with notes in the corner such as 'Colin will remember this' or 'You chose not to lie to Beast'.  The choice situations tend to be mixed in with smaller, minor dialogue choices that Bigby makes, so I often didn't realize that I was making a potentially game-altering decision until after I had made it.  That said, I tried to keep Bigby's choices true to how I would have responded in the same situation, favoring peaceful dialogue options and trying to be as honest and friendly with the characters as possible.  This may play into the idea of gameplay guided choice over moral choice, as keeping peace between my PC and the NPCs of the game means that they will not have any ill will towards me, and hopefully won't find ways to condemn my character further down the line.

Some consequences in game are immediate, leading to some rather expected outcomes - if you're a dick to the Fables, their opinion of you is generally bad as well, but the truly game changing decisions that the player makes are presented at the end of each chapter, shown in pie graph form.  These graphs tell you things like whether or not you chose to give Faith your money, who you think killed Faith at the end of chapter 1, and whether or not you saved Prince Lawrence.  There is no right or wrong in any of these choices - the graphs at the end merely show you how you stacked up against other players, and how the story changes because of your decisions. 

INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE :: Game blogging 02

Do the story nodes in your chosen game work well to support gameplay and gameplay objectives? Why or why not?

Sonic's story nodes are presented in the form of 'zones' that Sonic must move through in order to complete the level.  They show the progression of time in the game and act as markers of the 'distance' sonic has traveled in the world.  For example, sonic starts off in rolling green hills, and after freeing his friends, he moves on to another area which is much more mechanical.  The environment reflects the kind of robots he will encounter (semi-organic insect and fish robots in Green Hill zone compared to more obviously metallic bullet shooting creatures in Chemical Plant zone).  Since the first Zone had Sonic defeating a boss in the second Act, the player can immediately assume that it will be the same in the second Zone, albeit with the antagonist driving a different machine that will ultimately require different tactics - most likely something learned in the first half of the zone (such as utilizing travelling pipes or springs) - to get past.

One could say that it fits the string of pearls model, but only barely - the gameplay is extremely linear 'travel from point A to point B', and the only instances of 'pearls' that I can think of from the segments that I played being the short introduction to the boss of each Zone.  It would seem to focus on a 'show, not tell' dialogue, but this may be largely due to the limited space that old Sega cartridges have compared to the video games of today.

The game thrusts the player straight into gameplay with no explanation, tutorial or end goal in sight, the only instances of variety being the changing levels that Sonic must navigate through.  I feel like the first level and the gameplay helps the player to understand what to expect in future levels, but while the changing backgrounds present fresh scenery and keep the player interested with their different mechanics, the overall lack of any dialogue or story makes it fail in terms of a dynamic and informative game.  Your objective to get to the end of the level in each area is clear, but without the storyline found in the game's manual, the player would never understand that their goal is to collect chaos emeralds to stop Robotnik from taking over the world.

INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE :: Gameblogging 01

Does your chosen game make user input feel meaningful in terms of story direction and progression? Why or why not?

The conflict and central story of Facade is staged very clearly – The PC's friends,Trip and Grace are in an unhappy marriage as they fight before the PC arrives, they make passive aggressive remarks to one another while they're trying to be hospitable, and eventually break out into a full scale confrontation that the PC must mediate in an attempt to meet a peaceful outcome... or so I would assume.

My playthrough ended with Grace leaving before Trip could confess that he was having an affair, and though I answered as personably and as honestly as the real me would have in the situation, I didn't feel like my input had any strong or lasting effect on either character and that this ending was inevitable. They seemed so argumentative over seemingly insignificant things and gave off the impression that they hated each other so much that it honestly left me feeling helpless to even try to solve anything between the two of them. Half the time what I typed went completely ignored or Trip and Grace just side-eyed each other awkwardly like they weren't sure what I meant. Other times I would try to help one or the other, only to accidentally interrupt them or answer a question that I hadn't heard and didn't mean to answer. Grace asked for a lot of yes/no answers, and simply interpreted my words as yes or no depending on if I had a negative or positvely associated word in it – I kept typing 'you shouldn't be fighting' and the AI interpreted it as me telling her she shouldn't feel like she was important or she shouldn't want to be an artist. It felt like my answers only mattered when I insinuated 'yes' or 'no' and everything else I said was inconsequential.

From what I gathered of the story, Grace was mad that Trip wanted to go on vacation all the time? Trip was mad that Grace was always angry and frigid? It felt like the pettiest conflict but over the course of my playthrough, I couldn't figure out whether there was any deeper meaning to it, though I felt like there had to be. I feel like this game is a case of too much player freedom and not enough actual player interaction. Realistic as standing around in a modern setting and talking is, its neither immersive nor stimulating to feel like the player's words don't mean anything and that the AI is only acting on key phrases.