Theodore's Every Picture Tells A Story

Theodore has a great article in Gamasutra giving an insight on the link between graphic artists' work and the narrative players make from a game scene. It seems that every single peripheral things that may deceivingly look insignificant, in reality are important because they provide a sense of before and after events.

Theodore uses the example of a plane wreckage to elucidate this point. The wreckage is the main graphic and every additional details, no matter how small they are, have their own narrative to tell and it is up to the players' imagination what collective narrative they want to take from the graphic which is situated in their playing experience. For example, bullet holes on the plane tells us that the plane was likely to be shot at. Or a charred plane tyre in a far distance background might possibly tell us that that the type could have burst into flame upon landing and forced the plane to swerve dangerously to its side before coming to a stand still. This is just one interpretation and the possibilities are only limited by players' imagination.

I thought that this is an important insight because the article bring to attention another key player whose works deserve recognition and not look upon as part of a collectively work normally credited to game designers only. So graphic artists too play a part in the kind of narrative players create from their game playing experience.

Choosing from four screens: Interactivity still does not impact narrative

Following up on Wesolowski's great article Beyond Pacing: Games Aren't Hollywood, Wesolowski argues that cinematic narrative is only possible because of the absence of any interactivity in films. He adds that any decision made about a film (even decision to stop watching), is made outside the process of film watching. "Within the process, there are no decision you can make with regard to the film you're watching." So no audience interactivity here like in games.

A respondent to Wesolowski's article brings to attention one possible exception, the experimental film "Timecode" by Mike Figgis. He says "The film consists of 4 scenes shown on the screen simultaneously (which take place in real time, without cuts), but the audio only comes from one of the scenes. In the theatrical release, Figgis controls the audio for what he wants the audience to pay attention to. However, in the DVD release, the watcher is allowed to switch the audio channel at will, so you do have direct control of how the movie plays out, at least as far as the sound goes."

While I agree there is somewhat limited audience interactivity in Timecode, I can't see how such interactivity have any bearing to the narrative of the film. The film narrative continue to be linear and audience are not shaping the outcome of its narrative. Choosing which screen to see may give the audience one perspectival view if the shots focus on looking at what is happening in the film from one character's lens. Choosing to look at different characters' lens may give the audience more complete picture from every characters' perspectives. Still, even when, as Wesolowski puts it, "when miscommunication happens, a film just goes on at its own pace".

Another interesting note from Wesolowski is his comment about films that encourage thinking and discussion. He says

" ...the process of building an interpretation. The message of a film is not delivered instantly. It takes time, so your perception of the film and its message changes over time. Your reaction to film is your own, individual process - you kind of "play the Reservoir Dogs game" in your head. But it doesn't affect the way you watch the film, only the way you interpret it. Again, it happens outside of the process of film watching. Naturally, you can discuss or even object to the film's message. But the message itself won't change. "

In games, interpretation and actions on what is perceived and interpreted are live, and they mediates the outcome of the narrative.

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.

Players' generated narratives = players reading of games?

Last month, City of Heroes (COH) introduced an authoring tool built-into its game called Mission Architect that allows players to create their own adventures, share them with other players in the game and have them rated. I would bet that the affordances would make the game more popular and extend its longevity. Tolino wouldn't classify these players' generated adventures as ludic artifacts because they remain within the confine of the game environment. But I would say that the opportunity to share one's own narratives in the form of game play and have it rated by others would stir up a lot of interest and encourage participation.

Well, I was right theoretically but in real practice, players abuse the opportunity to create short cut to level up the characters quickly. Micheal Abbot's posting, Rouge architect describes in greater detail of these abuses. I find this quote from him explains in a nutshell players' motivation to abuse the system (bold added):

While I'm sympathetic to the devs' desire to maintain a level playing field in their MMO, gaming the system and figuring out its loopholes is a game with a certain seductiveness all its own. Players are drawn to exploits like moths to flames.

I have been thinking about narrative and what players take from playing. I have a hypothesis that what players read from playing may have nothing to do with narrative their create. In the COH episode, I would to believe that players were likely to take away lesson on ingenuity in finding loopholes and capitalizing on the weakness of game design than reading into the lesson of good triumphing over evil (or vice versa) from the adventures they created. Well, I could be wrong? Hmm...I hope my research can shed light on this.

MMOG as 21st Century Fiction

Lisbeth Klastrup has a great article in Game Studies entitled The Worldness of Everquest: Exploring 21st Century Fiction. She study MMOG from the perspective that MMOG is a entertaining fictional "text" like novels and films. I quote below interesting excerpts below.

On whether MMOG can be considered as fiction, she says (brackets [] added):

" ...one could argue that our understanding of the ontology of the [MMOG] world is that we know it is a fiction and by entering the world we as players become part of the fictional discourse ourselves, while we are at the same time well aware that what goes on inside it is indeed a social reality and that this reality, as T.L Taylor has aptly pointed out in Play Between Worlds (Taylor 2006), often is, or will be, closely interwoven with our social world outside the fiction. An analysis of an online world should therefore also include an exploration of the interplay between the fictionality and sociality and how these two aspects of experience inform each other. "

I am thinking how about players who see MMOG as another window where bring into their real life engagements and decisions that they make in the game world are intertwined with real life agenda. Would the ontology of the MMOG world is still a fiction? I am just curious.

Kalstrup does not see MMOG as a narrative which is understood as the presentation of a series of events. She says:

" ...in the case of gameworlds, though stories about the world exist, told in companion manuals and official and fan-based websites, the online world is more than a mental construct (a world projected by a story), it is unique in that it presents an actualised version of an imaginary universe. Contrary to earlier forms of fiction, the way we make sense of gameworlds in general follows not from what we are told (what is being presented to us), but from how we experience gameplay and the architecture of the world itself, the way we are forced to act in certain ways as players, the way we simulate that we live in this world. In other words, it is neither a case of of showing or telling but of acting out. This is not to say that players do not have the experience of taking part in an unfolding story. In fact, online worlds are unique because they enable the unfolding of many stories at the same time, not the least through the design of completable quests with a story-like structure "

I agree that "we are forced to act in certain ways as players" and very often such incident happens because of how the game is designed and other times, because of the gameplay of other players like grief play. However, Brett Staebell in The Espapist (A Griefer's Life for Me) proves how grief play has potential to enhance game play experience of other players. So while gameworlds affords many stories unfolding at the same, these stories also cut into each other.

Klastrup also sees gameworld in MMOG as reflective lab where actions in the gameworld reflect players' "a mediated understanding of what a world is or should look like". She explains (bold added):

" ...the simulated online world, the description of it (the back stories and the stories introducing new expansions) as well as the myriad player-generated stories about the world, functions much in the same way as the presentation of fictional universes in "analogue" storytelling: they are frameworks of interpretation which allows us to judge whether events in the world are, for instance, "moral" or "immoral", "good" or "bad" according to the "world rules", the designated morals of that particular world. This ties well in with Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Smith & Tosca’s observation that, in general, the function of the fictional world in relation to games is to "prompt players to imagine that their actions take place within a meaningful frame" (Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Smith & Tosca 2008: 171) "

Klastrup notices there is what she calls "seamless oscillation between taking part in the fictional discourse and stepping outside it" of players' behaviour in MMOG gameworld. This is part of their wholeness or immersion experience in the gameworld, and it does not "dilute" their experience.

Another interesting excerpt is when Klastrup hypothesizes (bold added):

" A hypothesis would be that what players come to think of as memorable experiences could be especially those experiences which marked the transition from one stage of knowledge to another. The continuous presence of players helps keep the fiction of the world alive; when their experiences are communicated to other players either in-world or on out-of-world websites, they themselves create and become part of the many "texts" which enable the collective and ongoing (re)creation of the world. "

Klastrup identifies three stages of experience and knowledge players go through in MMOG. The first stage is "getting to know the world", the second stage is "interacting with the world", and the third stage is "to perform in the world". About the final stage, she again hypothesizes (bold added):

" Thus, an interesting hypothesis is that this final stage of one’s life in a gameworld is also characterised by the emergence of player-told stories which emphasise and commiserate the important social events in a player’s or a guild’s ongoing history. "

With regard to Klastrup hypothesis, I would like to add commentary and share interesting insights from my interviews with players with regard to fan-fiction and guild's ongoing history. To prevent from making this post too long, I will do that in a separate post.