Wesolowski's Games Aren't Hollywood

Another word for "pacing" is "storytelling". We never tell stories to players; we just put them in games. Then players tell our stories to themselves.

- J. Wesolowski

There is a great article in Gamasutra by Jacek Wesolowski entitled Beyond Pacing: Games Aren't Hollywood. Reading the article makes me wonder how Steven Spielberg inaugural videogames will look like. Will it has the same cinematic effect like his many epic films. God knows.

In his article Wesolowski argues that "games aren't Hollywood". According to him, in many blockbuster films, you find a prescribed formula to achieve "cinematic effect of mounting tension" that glues the audience to their feet, roller-coastering their emotions over alternate climatic peaks and downslide reliefs, and at the end of the movie they are "left shaken and wanting for more". This effect can be achieved when the intensity is paced as "an increasing wave of peaks and relief".

Wesolowski argues that in games you cannot pace intensity as you see in film for the fundamental reasons that unlike film:

• games are not linear
• games are interactive
• the audience are not passive but participate in the shaping the outcome of game narratives
• games rely on repetitions
• games are "three to twenty times as long as film" (so intensity is much slower and hardly noticeable when compares to film)
• games has "more individual action sequences than in film" and so more difficult to connect gameplay and narrative
• games needs redundancy because "you never know which part the player is paying the most attention to"

Further, he argues that intensity in games works differently than in film when he says that in games:

... we can either escalate sensory stimuli or build up abstract meaning. The former happens when guns, explosions or enemies get bigger, putting the Hero in a greater danger than before. The latter happens when each part of a narrative means something -- but together they mean something else. "I am your father, Luke" is more than just a paternity acknowledgment.

These two kinds of intensity tickle different parts of our brains. Escalation is visceral and relies on our perception, while meaning buildup is cognitive and relies on our understanding. Escalation is temporary, because it's easy to replace a big gun with a small one.

Meaning lasts. Once we learn to like a character, it takes a lot to convince us to hate them.

To make things even more difficult, he adds, what players take away from escalation and meaning build-up are mediated by players' subjectivity. He says:

You can give them a bigger gun, but they may still like the previous one better, because it made a nicer sound, or because it fit their style. You can give them a useless but funny sidekick, and they may not appreciate it if they are challenge-oriented.

[...]

Audience tastes differ, too, but most filmgoers will agree they watch films for one or more aspects of the narrative.A player may or may not care about other players, the story, the challenge, the opportunity to express themselves, and so on. The game's message needs to be much more robust, because you never know which part the player is paying the most attention to.

But all is not lost. Moving away from pacing Hollywood style and looking at four exemplary games, Wesolowski suggests that pacing can be done by 1) players' skills, 2) balancing sections of play between giving players the liberty to do whatever they want and forcing them to play through short introductory sections, 3) setting, and 4) allowing events to emerge that guide players' decision.

Wesolowski concludes that pacing is "a complex function of player actions, parametrized by game's dynamics and aesthetics." He adds:

It's a dynamic, rather than preset feature, hence it's difficult, and sometimes impossible to specify it upfront and then design a game to it. We can't just take the increasing wave, and slap it onto the gameplay.

We often see ourselves as all-powerful creators of worlds. Our job is to present, and our players' job is to admire. But in reality, our job is to create an interesting, consistent, and interactive system.

All of its components, including decorations, and the narrative, are interdependent. If the underlying process is interesting, rewarding and entertaining, then it will create a compelling intensity pattern dynamically. We don't have to predefine the pace.

Another word for "pacing" is "storytelling". We never really tell stories to players; we just put them in games. Then players tell our stories to themselves.

Wesolowski's article provides game designers' perspective on players' gameplay and is congruent with game researchers' findings that players may not necessarily play according to how a game is designed but exercise some degree of agency in shaping the kind of game playing experience they wish to engage in.

Brenda Laurel's Utopian Entrepreneur

I came to know of Brenda Laurel's work, Utopian Entrepreneur, through a reader who replied to Micheal Abbot's posting: OMG, girls in trouble! in his blog (The Brainer Gamer). I did a commentary on that post here.

We are all too familiar with the fact that decisions in the real world are often tied to the bottom-line - dollars and cents, and in the business world, there is no exception to this rule. We find there is a lot of money to be made at the cost of sacrificing what is morally good and the risk of inviting social ill to the society. Discussion generated from Abbot's posting also provides a sense that investors are not willing to put their money to developers who do not subscribe to the idea that games will only make money if they're made for young teenage boys.

In her book, Laurel provides a step-by-step guide how to be that Utopian Entrepreneur from insights drawn from her experience leading a company and its pet project Purple Moon. The company was enormously successful right before the first .com bubble burst. The company, in her own words, consisted of:

" Earnest researchers, nerdy rich guys, lesbian separatist designers, businesswomen with barracuda smiles, strident feminist reporters, Barbie, Rockett, and several million little girls. "

Purple Moon is a game that attempted to create a nuanced virtual world structured around the life of girls during primary education and Rockett (a character in Purple Moon) was very popular with young girls. Laurel explains:

" Purple Moon might have chosen, as fashion and cosmetic companies often do, to take advantage of girls' insecurities in our product designs and marketing approach, and that approach might have turned out to be more lucrative. A product that preys on personal weakness or perpetuates negative values may succeed, just as a product that expresses socially positive values may fail. Purple Moon might just as well have failed following the Barbie model, but ignobly and without honor. "

A reader whom I learn about Laurel's work describes it well what happen to Purple Moon and adds his reflection about developing socially responsible games when he says:

In the end, the company was remarkably successful. Too successful for it's own good: investors pushed Laurel to move into merchandising, because they didn't understand that some brands should best be left to a virtual existence and wouldn't work in a synergistic model that more mainstream and less ethically ambitious products thrive in. She lost her funding, the site had to close down, and Laurel still receives letters from the now-young-women who remember it as one of their formative gaming experiences.

People have used example of Purple Rain's financial meltdown to support the notion that the market won't support games for girls that push the envelope and refuse to feed the hegemonical structuring of young females as people who "like to play dress-up games and shop." This is market manipulation and missed opportunity at it's worst.

Most of the people funding games will only support marketers who subscribe to the idea that games will only make money if they're made for "14-year old boys" (from an interview by my professor Celia Pearce). Games don't have to serve every audience, but they should be transparent about this fact. We can't sit around and wait for other people to decide that it's a good financial move to embrace the pre-teen female market. It's the Utopian entrepreneur's duty to step forward and make socially responsible games for under explored markets.

"Nobody cares about your stupid story"

Ken Levine's 08 GDC talk (no prize for guessing who he looks like ;D) Nobody cares about your stupid story helps explain why many players in Granado Espada (GE) knows little of the background story behind the game. Levine, who is also fond to be known as one who not design games but design experience of play, say that storytellers have to keep in mind three kinds of gamers, and to strike a balance in providing details of their narratives and in ensuring no disruption to the enjoyment of play of all different kinds of gamers. According to him, there are casual gamers who have no interest in the narrative found in games. Then, there are also those who additional details of the narrative are necessary as part their enjoyment of play, and finally the hardcore who just adore everything about the game title and make it their habit to know more about it beyond game play. While technology advances afford complex and sophisticated narrative to be implemented in games, Levine advises to keep the narrative simple.

So far from my readings of blog posts related to game design, I conclude that behind every games you will find a storyteller spinning his story. While some storytellers may be Hollywood scriptwriters, it seems storytellers who themselves are avid gamers and are conversant with gamers' taste can cook up an interesting story and are flexible enough to accept changes to their story in allowing the need for interactivity. In 10 Game Design Process Pitfalls, Ian Fisch includes allowing the story to control game design as one of the 10 pitfall in game design process. I also sense that maintaining what Csíkszentmihályi calls flow in game play is important in keeping players, who are interested in the story behind game, hook onto the narrative. Adam Saltsman shares four Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment (DDA) systems he found in games that help keep players' frustration below affective filter (Gee, 2008).

Back to GE The background story behind GE (click here to hear the narrative in GE trailer) is set in a mysterious and dangerous continent, and is inspired by Europe’s exploration and conquest of America. I am sure there are the three kinds of gamers in GE, and many players I have chatted with have the least idea of what the background story in GE, except for one hardcore gamer I have met. He seems to be online all the time, has so many alts and does a lot of fanart of the game. His version why so many martial characters (and I feel the same can be said of other collectible characters too) require mystery powders (MPs) because they are all substance abusers. He likens MPs as drug and these characters fight better if the get enough of MPs to get high. :D

Then, there is my son too. Yesterday I asked him why he was not playing GE anymore, and he told me that most of his factions mates are too busy to squad up with him. He hates playing alone. It has happened to me before. There was a time I feel so pointless playing when you are playing alone. No fun. The again, my son is not a vet yet and I guess this could be why his faction mates refuse to squad up with him (assuming that they have high level characters). I guess when talking about players' state of flow, designers have to look beyond DDA systems and design games that requires a fair bit of collaboration, even between noobs and imba. Else, many players may retire early and not play long enough to reach the end of the game narrative.

Stories as instruments

In my literature review search on the keyword "fiction", I get an immediate sense that "game design" is another keyword I need to include. There seems to be transactive processes whereby neither gamers nor designers have full agency over the game experience, and I believe that much of what players draw from playing also have their roots in how the game is designed. And hence you cannot disregard game designers and developers' role here.

There is a lot of interest in experimenting with different approaches in integrating narrative with game design. I came across an interesting post in Gameology that touch on Erik Loyer's talk entitled Stories as Instruments. The post brings to light how Loyer views game design when it mentions (bold added):

" Loyer explained his design philosophy that games should break free of the restrictions of plot-centric progression and character focused instrumentality (his recent innovative iPhone game Ruben and Lullaby is a particularly illustrative example of this trajectory). Loyer points to the genre of the musical as an important influence and model for new forms of storytelling in games. Musical arias feature characters that step just outside the world in moments of intense expression. Loyer analogized this as a blend of first and third person perspective. The singing character in the musical is locked into the narrative space contextually yet elaborating that context. The best games, according to Loyer, allow the player to assume this role: doing things as they should be done logically in the world but also knowing what one is doing.

In this way, the best moments in games happen when a player does what the developer wants them to do, without explicit narrative prompting, and does it in a way that fits within the context and expressive aims of the game. He cited an example of his own experience with the N64 classic Goldeneye where, after having just learned to use the sniper rifle, he was presented with a situation where he got to surreptitiously eliminate a few targets from afar in a building. The revelation was that he had done exactly what James Bond would have done and that’s what made it so exhilarating. He was simultaneously doing something and knowing what he was doing. He was character, fan, and player all in one.

Loyer’s central critique is of the obsessive push in game design toward large branching plot-driven stories centered on the freedom and autonomy of a character (think: Mass Effect) which often denigrate the Goldeneye experience. He argues that the focus should be on the potential for dynamic experiences of subjectivity, affect, and emotion rather than thousands of potential choices. Characters and stories should be considered the facilitators of these experiences not the ultimate focus or endgame as in plot-centric design. "

A demo of Loyer's iPhone game is below and its review is here.