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?
For the final game blog, I've decided to write about the 2D platformer Never Alone (2014) which is based on Inuit mythology. I feel like the most prominent key narrative element in this game would be linear storytelling. The reason being that the linearity helps guide the player through out the game as well as the documentaries about the Inuit people. Both the game play and narrative are linear as the character Nuna can really only run right in order to get to the next objective and node. She can run left, but then you're simply going the wrong way and aren't getting anywhere.
The cutscenes in Never Alone help shape out the narrative. It develops by completing a task, for example finding the Owl Man's drum and returning it to him where you not only get rewarded with a cutscene, but you also unlock a documentary clip explaining the way of the Inuit people. The documentary clips can be seen as optional nodes. It isn't required of the player to view these clips, but they unlock once a gameplay section is complete or once you reach a goal within the game. The cutscenes give the player more information regarding the narrative and the follow up goal to reach. The documentary clips give educational insight regarding the goals and the way of the Inuit people. Having the option to watch the documentary clips benefits some players as they may not want to play for educational purposes. At first I didn't watch them as I wanted to see what would happen next in gameplay. Watching the clips later led me to appreciate the game a lot more.
The game has many cut scenes, some of these cut scenes blend in with the game play. The narrator would be talking and I wouldn't realize that I would have to move as a polar bear is about to chase after me. As I was listening to the narrator, I thought that once he stops talking I would carry on playing. This is a good method in terms of the creators wanting the player to be immersed in the game/story as it feels as if the story is happening right then and there, overlapping. Nodes give you time to relax after a big boss fight,when you are mashing the control buttons or when you're being chased by a polar bear. "Each story segment, is essentially a reward for completing the previous
section of gameplay. The number of nodes and fragments is
dictated by the depth of the story. (Salen and Zimmerman, Rules of Play, 389) The difference with Never Alone is that you can't entirely relax when a cut scene comes on to the screen as you have to be ready to run if a polar bear is about to chase you.
In conclusion the reason why I found linear story telling to be the most prominent narrative element in Never Alone is because of the cultural significance it holds. The game's narrative is sharing with the player the Inuit peoples legends, stories and way of life. I find this method really effective as it gets the player immersed as it isn't necessarily something from imagination, it is what the Inuit people believe to be a sacred story to their culture. I believe that linear narratives are the best method to get across stories which proves in Never Alone.
(When I watched the documentary clips , I thought how cool it'd be if there was a Maori game like this!!)
Reference (as I could not view the clips in the game)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4Iqq4_hoxk
Showing posts with label interactive narrative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label interactive narrative. Show all posts
Friday, 8 April 2016
Sunday, 3 April 2016
WEEK 6 Game Analysis
Could your game have developed its narrative and told the same or a similar story without any of the characters?
This week I played the puzzle platformer called Fez (2012). I argue that the game could have developed it's narrative and be told similarly if the characters were removed from the game. The term 'characters' tend to refer to a person or something that has humanoid tendencies. If a character in game were to be replaced by something that is lifeless like a pencil, it is still possible for the narrative to play out.
As long as the player has a sort of avatar to control then , I feel, that the game and narrative will still work. "The avatar is, in this most basic sense, the user’s representative in interactive digital space..." (Jessica Aldred, 2013). It wouldn't necessarily have to be 'who will the player control?' , it could be 'what will the player control?' If Gomez was replaced by a shape like a sphere, that sphere would still have the mission to save the world with the narrative being unchanged. Gomez is a bunch of squares joined together to form the shape of a person, so transforming him into a simple square could still do the job of saving the world. A character named Dot is a guide for Fez and tells him the means of the 3D world. Dot is represented as a floating 3-Dimensional shape and could be removed by acting as a narrator of some sort.
The playable character Gomez is important as he was chosen by Geezer (old man) before him who also wears a Fez hat. It's as if whoever wears the Fez hat, can see the world as 3D and save the world from being destroyed. If these important characters were removed and replaced by something more complex or even more simplistic like a shape then it is possible for the narrative to develop. This is why I argue that the characters could be removed or even replaced as the narrative should still be able to play out.
This week I played the puzzle platformer called Fez (2012). I argue that the game could have developed it's narrative and be told similarly if the characters were removed from the game. The term 'characters' tend to refer to a person or something that has humanoid tendencies. If a character in game were to be replaced by something that is lifeless like a pencil, it is still possible for the narrative to play out.
As long as the player has a sort of avatar to control then , I feel, that the game and narrative will still work. "The avatar is, in this most basic sense, the user’s representative in interactive digital space..." (Jessica Aldred, 2013). It wouldn't necessarily have to be 'who will the player control?' , it could be 'what will the player control?' If Gomez was replaced by a shape like a sphere, that sphere would still have the mission to save the world with the narrative being unchanged. Gomez is a bunch of squares joined together to form the shape of a person, so transforming him into a simple square could still do the job of saving the world. A character named Dot is a guide for Fez and tells him the means of the 3D world. Dot is represented as a floating 3-Dimensional shape and could be removed by acting as a narrator of some sort.
The playable character Gomez is important as he was chosen by Geezer (old man) before him who also wears a Fez hat. It's as if whoever wears the Fez hat, can see the world as 3D and save the world from being destroyed. If these important characters were removed and replaced by something more complex or even more simplistic like a shape then it is possible for the narrative to develop. This is why I argue that the characters could be removed or even replaced as the narrative should still be able to play out.
Thursday, 24 March 2016
WEEK 5 Game Analysis
How does morality influence the choices you make in the game?
When I played the telltale adventure game The Wolf Among Us (2013), I would make choices that would go against my morals, but then I'd jump back to doing the right thing again. I planned on making some jerk choices like throwing the fable out of the window in the first sequence and staying silent at the wrong times, but then I feel bad, not just for Bigby, but because I'd be going against my morals - I wouldn't really throw someone out the window if they got on my bad side.
This did influence the choices I made at times as the character Bigby isn't liked by many characters and is 'the big bad wolf' and I felt sorry for him, I wanted to make good decisions and choices that would benefit him and others around him. Especially playing as a once villain, I wanted to make choices that would perhaps go with his true morals. Colin the pig said to Bigby that he likes to be seen as a lone wolf, which might not be the case.
The game does allow me to get into the character of someone else as it gives me multiple options on what to say to another character. This makes me feel like I really am the character, so I feel like I need to stick with my morals to help Bigby out.
One thing that did take me off guard was when a note in the top corner of the screen would say 'Colin will remember that'. This also influenced me to make moral based decisions and made me guilty for making a bad decision.
In 'Ethical Dilemmas and Dominant Moral Strategies In Games' , Brandon Perdue said "The model that rewards certain choices over others, or different choices in different ways, tends to functionally make the choices for the players; the player will be more successful at the game if he picks the optimal choice for his strategy." In Bigby's case, making the optimal choice definitely benefited his reputation. This is proven when I would choose the right dialogue or action to help others and it was greatly appreciated by the other characters.
In the gaming world morality does at times slip away, but eventually comes back. I can't say this for everyone's case, but this does apply to me when I played this game.
When I played the telltale adventure game The Wolf Among Us (2013), I would make choices that would go against my morals, but then I'd jump back to doing the right thing again. I planned on making some jerk choices like throwing the fable out of the window in the first sequence and staying silent at the wrong times, but then I feel bad, not just for Bigby, but because I'd be going against my morals - I wouldn't really throw someone out the window if they got on my bad side.
This did influence the choices I made at times as the character Bigby isn't liked by many characters and is 'the big bad wolf' and I felt sorry for him, I wanted to make good decisions and choices that would benefit him and others around him. Especially playing as a once villain, I wanted to make choices that would perhaps go with his true morals. Colin the pig said to Bigby that he likes to be seen as a lone wolf, which might not be the case.
The game does allow me to get into the character of someone else as it gives me multiple options on what to say to another character. This makes me feel like I really am the character, so I feel like I need to stick with my morals to help Bigby out.
One thing that did take me off guard was when a note in the top corner of the screen would say 'Colin will remember that'. This also influenced me to make moral based decisions and made me guilty for making a bad decision.
In 'Ethical Dilemmas and Dominant Moral Strategies In Games' , Brandon Perdue said "The model that rewards certain choices over others, or different choices in different ways, tends to functionally make the choices for the players; the player will be more successful at the game if he picks the optimal choice for his strategy." In Bigby's case, making the optimal choice definitely benefited his reputation. This is proven when I would choose the right dialogue or action to help others and it was greatly appreciated by the other characters.
In the gaming world morality does at times slip away, but eventually comes back. I can't say this for everyone's case, but this does apply to me when I played this game.
Friday, 18 March 2016
WEEK 4 Game Analysis
I feel like the choices I made in the turn based strategy game Banner Saga (2014) did contribute a sense of meaningful interactive moments. When I was younger and had no clue how to beat an enemy, I would mash the buttons and attack without thinking. I kind of had the same approach in this game where I straight off the bat would attack the enemy. This isn't a good strategy for the game.Banner Saga though.
The choices made between attacking the opponent or damaging their armor, sometimes, made a big difference in the outcome of the battle. When I first started playing, I would attack straight away to quickly exterminate the opponent, but as tougher enemies arose, I realized that I would need to deal with the armor first to finish them off more efficiently. Due to the choice of blindly attacking, I died quite a few times which was frustrating. Once I realized that damaging the armor would benefit my playable characters to defeating the enemies, I found the duels easier.
Although a lot of the time I made the choice to blindly attack, there were consequences for the characters I was playing, as in dying - or so I thought. One battle I played, a character did die in the battle and in the story. In another battle a character died, but was still alive in the story. This inconsistency caused me to realize that the choices I made weren't entirely bad, that is if the character was actually alive in the end of it. With this, it does feel like there's less stress on the choices I make as the deaths in battle and outcome don't affect the story too much.
In Fraser's spectacular lecture, there is a quote by Sid Meier saying "A game is a series of interesting choices." This applies in many games and definitely Banner Saga as what ever choice /move I make in a battle can lead to failure or success.
Also choosing what the playable character gets to say to another character. This doesn't change the flow of the story too much In the first story playing as Ubin, I chose to say to Gunnulf that he looks like a frog, thinking I'd offended him (I picked this because it was funny) when he replied 'better than an eggplant'. I did not imagine this response, but it helped show that not every choice you make in the game is as intense as in battling. The story didn't change as the conversation had simply ended.
In terms of battling, the choices I made were important as it could possibly result in a character dying. I feel like the writers of the game would've wanted these characters to die so the enemy could've been coded to target them. I would definitely have to play the games a few times to be sure though!
The choices made between attacking the opponent or damaging their armor, sometimes, made a big difference in the outcome of the battle. When I first started playing, I would attack straight away to quickly exterminate the opponent, but as tougher enemies arose, I realized that I would need to deal with the armor first to finish them off more efficiently. Due to the choice of blindly attacking, I died quite a few times which was frustrating. Once I realized that damaging the armor would benefit my playable characters to defeating the enemies, I found the duels easier.
Although a lot of the time I made the choice to blindly attack, there were consequences for the characters I was playing, as in dying - or so I thought. One battle I played, a character did die in the battle and in the story. In another battle a character died, but was still alive in the story. This inconsistency caused me to realize that the choices I made weren't entirely bad, that is if the character was actually alive in the end of it. With this, it does feel like there's less stress on the choices I make as the deaths in battle and outcome don't affect the story too much.
In Fraser's spectacular lecture, there is a quote by Sid Meier saying "A game is a series of interesting choices." This applies in many games and definitely Banner Saga as what ever choice /move I make in a battle can lead to failure or success.
Also choosing what the playable character gets to say to another character. This doesn't change the flow of the story too much In the first story playing as Ubin, I chose to say to Gunnulf that he looks like a frog, thinking I'd offended him (I picked this because it was funny) when he replied 'better than an eggplant'. I did not imagine this response, but it helped show that not every choice you make in the game is as intense as in battling. The story didn't change as the conversation had simply ended.
In terms of battling, the choices I made were important as it could possibly result in a character dying. I feel like the writers of the game would've wanted these characters to die so the enemy could've been coded to target them. I would definitely have to play the games a few times to be sure though!
Thursday, 10 March 2016
WEEK 3 Game Analysis
The adventure-action game Prince of Persia The Sand of Time in a way did engage me through the linear storytelling. It was rather interesting as I, the player, started playing in a battle field which was rather exciting. With this I felt like I couldn't slowly move around and have a look at the area - otherwise I'd get blown up, so I decided to move on to the next node. Although this would be the general idea of what the creators would want me to think - to quickly go through node to node and see how the events unfold. We as players have the control over time in the world of the game, even when parts of the palace were being blown up, nothing can really happen until I get to the next node.
When the Prince drinks water to recover his health and sheathes his sword at the end of a battle, the camera shot as well as the music gets really dramatic. It's unnecessary and over the top like the creators are leaning too much towards making it a cinematic. It could almost be considered as cut scenes, but it happens nearly every time the Prince drinks the water, so it's too repetitive. It can fit in with the character, being a Prince, seeing as he majestically drinks water and sheathes his sword as if he'd won a war. Although I argue that it's too much and simply not needed.
In Luban & Meziane's 'Turning a Linear Story into a Game' (2001) they talk about the choice of shots and what shots are important to utilize in gameplay. "Some shots are not always suitable for gameplay. The challenge lies in reconciling the player's comfort with moviestyle cameras". The camera shot used for the Prince drinking the water, being a close up of his face, isn't the best choice as it would've been fine if they actually left the camera as is. We can't control the Prince as he's drinking the water, so the camera changes to a shot that isn't suitable for gameplay, but with it happening for a mere 3 seconds in the middle of gameplay I feel like it is definitely too much.
When the Prince drinks water to recover his health and sheathes his sword at the end of a battle, the camera shot as well as the music gets really dramatic. It's unnecessary and over the top like the creators are leaning too much towards making it a cinematic. It could almost be considered as cut scenes, but it happens nearly every time the Prince drinks the water, so it's too repetitive. It can fit in with the character, being a Prince, seeing as he majestically drinks water and sheathes his sword as if he'd won a war. Although I argue that it's too much and simply not needed.
In Luban & Meziane's 'Turning a Linear Story into a Game' (2001) they talk about the choice of shots and what shots are important to utilize in gameplay. "Some shots are not always suitable for gameplay. The challenge lies in reconciling the player's comfort with moviestyle cameras". The camera shot used for the Prince drinking the water, being a close up of his face, isn't the best choice as it would've been fine if they actually left the camera as is. We can't control the Prince as he's drinking the water, so the camera changes to a shot that isn't suitable for gameplay, but with it happening for a mere 3 seconds in the middle of gameplay I feel like it is definitely too much.
Tuesday, 1 March 2016
WEEK 2 Game Analysis
The game Facade does make user input feel meaningful in terms of story direction and progression as the story direction is decided on what the player says.
I played the games a few times and each time I played, I would either come off as happy to see the characters Grace and Trip or grumpy - like I didn't want to be there. Although these different methods still progressed to a similar outcome. Grace and Trip would always fight and the player would be stuck in the middle whether they're trying to help or stay out of it.
The beginning and end of the narrative in Facade are set depending which path the player decides to take. If I made ill-mannered comments, Grace or Trip would snap at me while fighting or kick me out. When I tried to be kind and patient with them, they still fought, but Grace ended up leaving. In the beginning I am invited to Grace and Trip's apartment and at the end, a character leaves and everyone is unhappy. The fight between the married couple is inevitable and rather depressing. The user input is definitely meaningful in this game as it helps progress the narrative.
Although some things I say aren't always processed properly. I told Grace and Trip that I'm not taking sides then Trip tells me to quit taking sides (shown in the image below, I chose the name Amy). With this, I don't have the expected response from what I say sometimes which can be annoying.
I played the games a few times and each time I played, I would either come off as happy to see the characters Grace and Trip or grumpy - like I didn't want to be there. Although these different methods still progressed to a similar outcome. Grace and Trip would always fight and the player would be stuck in the middle whether they're trying to help or stay out of it.
The beginning and end of the narrative in Facade are set depending which path the player decides to take. If I made ill-mannered comments, Grace or Trip would snap at me while fighting or kick me out. When I tried to be kind and patient with them, they still fought, but Grace ended up leaving. In the beginning I am invited to Grace and Trip's apartment and at the end, a character leaves and everyone is unhappy. The fight between the married couple is inevitable and rather depressing. The user input is definitely meaningful in this game as it helps progress the narrative.
Although some things I say aren't always processed properly. I told Grace and Trip that I'm not taking sides then Trip tells me to quit taking sides (shown in the image below, I chose the name Amy). With this, I don't have the expected response from what I say sometimes which can be annoying.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)