INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE: Gameplay Blog

WEEK SEVEN: Never Alone

One of Never Alones strongest assets is it characters and its narrative, Nuna and the fox spirit, and how the two unlock a new world of culture in video games. The story and gameplay follows Nuna, a young Inuit girl who is accompanied by a helpful fox spirit, as they try to find the source of the "eternal blizzard". I think what makes her so strong as a character, beyond her design, is the stories that are told through her. She opens up the player to receive more than just the in-game narrative, but it feels like it is a retelling of a traditional Inupiaq myth or legend, which leads to a door that can be opened about a new culture. Nuna's story and development is actually based off a Inuit narrative known as The Story of Kunuuksaayuka, about a young boy who's home was plagued by an everlasting blizzard and he went out to find it's source. This traditional narrative has been implemented into the game through Nuna, who we follow through her trial in her icy landscaped world.

The culture and its belief systems shine through in the cutscenes, which both take on a traditional Inupiat artform as well as a narrated voice over in the traditional Inupiaq language of the Alaskan people, which not only aids the immersion of the player, but the cultural context. Everything put into the game is not only fitting to the narrative, but also to the culture that is being explored. As stated in the reading by Egenfeldt-Nielsen, Smith and Tosca,  "characters in games are not just the people that the game is about, but also the people who are making action happen and thus

producing different stories.", which I think is an apt description of how Nuna, the fox, and other characters found in Never Alone play a significant role. Nuna and the fox spirit are more than just a vessel for game play, they are a tool in revealing a story to the player, through a series of mini puzzles that befit the narrative. In example, the mission that involves the Owl Man, and retrieving his stolen drum. The ones who stole it are The Little People, and Nuna and the Fox must work to get it back, in which they receive a bola for their success. All the elements within this small section of gameplay are not simply there to create a crisis, but hold a place in the Inupiaq society. The Owl Man is a shamanistic representation, relating to the beliefs within the culture, furthermore so are The Little People, which is relevant as well to the believe that a lot of spiritual forces were against human beings. The bola and drum are instruments to be found within the society, for hunting and shaman practices. This is how the characters are important and a main driving force in what makes the game unique, and turn what could be a simple game into a learning experience. As the narrative progresses, we not only learn more about Nuna's story, but about the people who helped make the game, and why the design of certain characters and objects are the way they are.

Reference: Egenfeldt-Neilsen, S., Smith, J., & Tosca, S. (Author) (2008) Understanding Video Games [Book] Retrieved from: http://animation.onlearn.co.nz/pluginfile.php/2710/mod_resource/content/0/Egenfeldt-Nielsen%2C%20Smith%20and%20Tosca%2C%202008%20-%20The%20fictional%20world%20settings%20and%20actors.pdf

INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE: Gameplay Blog

WEEK SIX: Grim Fandango

How is the narrative developed through character interactions?

I played the game Grim Fandango, where I played as Manny, a reaper of the afterlife. For this game, I really felt that character interactions were important, as I found that I actually didn't know what to do without conversing with the NPCs. Other times, interacting with the characters triggered events, so that the story progressed and I moved forward in the game. An example would be breaking the delivery system, where after acquiring the right parts (balloons etc), Manny can steal a client, and thus the narrative can be developed. However, to acquire the objects that is needed, the player has to talk to a clown. Therefore the clown - though a side character - plays an integral role in the narrative development. Without talking to the clown, the player is effectively suspended in game play, unable to move on with the story.As described in one of the readings, characters can be defined by their role in a game. Labelled as Cast Characters by the reading The fictional world setting and characters, it describes, "...they are characters with a particular function in the game related to the story.", which is very apparent in Grim Fandango. The characters that Manny interacts with reveals hints as to what needs to be done, as the reading describes, characters "...that will react to us and do things to us that we can respond to. Characters in games are not just the people that the game is about, but also the people who are making action happen and thus producing different stories."However, in Grim Fandango, the interaction wasn't straight forward; the player simply can't speak to anyone at any time, it has to be completed in a certain order. This further exemplifies how the characters in the game are important to moving the narrative forward, as you can't ignore them or simply talk to them in any order or skip other characters. As Mark J. P. Wolf states, "characters as the driving force of narrative development in video games.", so the completion of the interaction is vital, as you have to talk to one character to understand your next move in game. There are some things only one character can tell you or give you, so interaction to develop the narrative in Grim Fandango is imperative for the continuation of the plot.

LucasArts. (Developer). (1998) Grim Fandango [videogame]. United States: LucasArts
Egenfeldt-Nielson, S., Smith, J., & Tosca, S. (Authors) (2008) Understanding Video Games [Book]. Retrieved from: http://animation.onlearn.co.nz/pluginfile.php/2710/mod_resource/content/0/Egenfeldt-Nielsen%2C%20Smith%20and%20Tosca%2C%202008%20-%20The%20fictional%20world%20settings%20and%20actors.pdf

INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE: Gameplay Blog

WEEK FIVE: The Wolf Among Us

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

This week I played The Wolf Among Us, and interactive narrative story based around fairytales and fables, such as Little Red Riding Hood, most notably as the playable character is Bigby Wolf, aka the 'Big Bad Wolf'. We follow his story as the town sheriff, doing his best to turn over a new leaf from his less than amiable past. The theme of morality plays a big part in The Wolf Among Us, where the character Bigby can take different routes to achieve his goals. Options such as, do choose to spare a character, or kill them, and what repercussion this might have.

A sample from the game involves a bar fight between Grendal and Bigby. It is established that most of Fabletown is wary of Bigby due to his infamous past, and his rough demeanor he presents, with it makes it easy for the player to make decisions that might be grittier than they would personally in real society. Bigby had the option to make Grendal's beating more severe if the player choose to, breaking his arm being an option, which brings morality into the players decision making. It isn't necessary to break his arm, and it would be taking the morally good path if the player chooses to ignore this choice. It still presents the break arm option, and if the player doesn't care for Grendal, or the moral compass they could very easily select the option to do so.

The player has quick-time cut-scenes for quick decision making, suitably matching the intensity of the events, and in these events, sometimes morality takes a back seat from the pressure. If you have the choice to kill or be killed, one is likely to kill the other, as the fastest solution, where if more time was given, one can reflect what their actions will heed.
When playing games, the player isn't actively going by their own moral code; it is very easily to disconnect yourself and act upon the character's moral code. Furthermore, in-game actions and consequences are just that - in-game - so the options can feel as rebellion without real life after effects.  Therefore, in some situations, the player can stop can think what will benefit them and their character more. Examples would be what can one gain from acting on one end of the moral compass to the other. If reactivity is prominent in a game, where NPCs will react to the playable character, will being "bad" reap more benefits through intimidation, or will being "good" result in compliance out of kindness?  As mentioned in the reading by Perdue, "There is plenty of reason to try to quantify a player's moral choices somehow in the game system. It allows rewards for certain kinds of activity. Non­player characters can react according to a player's reputation.".

I don't think the moral route you chose necessarily changes much of the end outcome of the game, though it does determine the responses from other characters in game that you approach. I personally tried to play as "good" of a moral route as possible; good for Bigby and I are a little different, but nonetheless suitable for his character.

Perdue, B. (2011) Ethical Dilemmas and Dominant Moral Strategies in Games [Book] Retrieved From: http://animation.onlearn.co.nz/pluginfile.php/2510/mod_resource/content/0/Perdue%2C%202011%20-%20Ethical%20dilemmas%20and%20dominant%20moral%20strategies%20in%20games.pdf

INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE: Gameplay Blog

WEEK FOUR: Fahrenheit 

Do the choices made in the game result in branching narrative paths? If so, how? If not, how are the choices meaningful?

This week I played the game Fahrenheit, and spent a good few hours on it. Two things really intrigued me; the murder-mystery aspect, and the multiple character approach. I was interested to know how the characters narratives would interact, and relate to one another, and how that would limit the options within gameplay.The games opening really pulled me in - partially because this is a genre I really like - but also because we are thrown into the thick of the plot, watching a man being murdered in a bathroom, to find that we are to play as this murderer. While I didn't originally feel apathetically towards the character, suddenly finding I was him made my opinion for his outcome shift. The revelation that it wasn't him, rather it was a murder achieved vicariously through some form of magic left me wanting to help him survive. My choices now felt more meaningful, and despite the crime he committed, I didn't want him to be caught. This happened anyway, as I failed to complete the mission, but it gave me clues as to the importance of different actions. I didn't play through all the options, but I deduced what I thought would most logically happen. Things such as do I go back and pay for the bill I forgot, or do I just run out the restaurant? I felt if I ran, the cop would chase me, and it would heed some negative result such as being arrested. I would fail.

The quote from the reading about motivation in relation to choice felt very relevant, where the person playing is "...invested with some form of motivation , that is: the player will be interested in the outcome of the choice and will expect one outcome to be better than another..." [Domsch, 2013], as I was invested in this characters outcome, and I wanted it to be good for him. The knowledge of his innocence, being that it was manslaughter over homicide, motivated me to want him to escape, so he can find answers.

What interested me more was when I learned who the other playable character were. I was now playing as the detectives who were trying to solve the very murder I helped Lucas escape from. This created conflict, as I didn't want him to be caught, as it wasn't quite his fault, but the detectives might help reveal this, and I had nothing against them. I wanted both parties to do well, so I try to make the best options. Through playing as the detectives, I realised there were more options for my escape as Lucas; the back door. In the panic of the scene, and how tense I was, I didn't even register it was a choice. Seeing it investigated in the detective gameplay, I realised that perhaps even though it was another choice, it may have not had a huge different result. Lucas wouldn't have gone undetected, as there was a homeless man in the alleyway, and he may have revealed details about Lucas anyway. From this I gathered that the narratives paths don't really branch as much as they give you a different path to the same node. I still was conscious of my choices, as the characters had a wellbeing I had to take care of, although I wasn't obligated. I didn't want to hinder my story though. However, at the same time, I was sometimes presented with choices, such as to cut ties with Marcus, Lucas's brother, and that may have a great effect on the narrative in future, though as I didn't play as far, and I chose to keep them intact (as I felt that was more beneficial), I don't know for sure the result. On the contrary, the different branches may be in more relevance to gameplay, and the ease in which you advance, such as gaining extra lives.

INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE: Gameplay Blog

WEEK THREE: Prince of Persia

Did linear storytelling in your chosen game(s) engage and excite you as a player? Explain why or why not.

The narrative for Prince of Persia felt very linear, beginning with a cut-scene, where you as the main character, are being regaled by the Prince's story, and it is revealed that the gameplay is you "reliving" his life. The cutscenes that appeared in game gave me the narrative points that gave me motive and understanding to what I was doing and why. Furthermore the cut-scenes gave clues as to where I had to go, and the path I had to take. What I liked is that it didn't tell me how, I had ot figure that out through trial and error, which is something I found satisfying, so when I made it to the next cut-scene I found it worth while.
The story however I felt was almost too linear, which for a narrative  game is really good, and Prince of Persia. But when I got stuck in game, in a room where I couldn't solve how to get out, the linearity was very annoying, and reminded of the ludus quote, that it was "strictly controlled by pre-existing rules" and there was no way for me to progress, as I had accepted it was linear. So the game was successful, to a fault. I did give up.

INTERACTIVE NARRATIVE: Gameplay Blog

WEEK TWO: Never Alone

How does your chosen game(s) tell it's story? Is it successful?

Never Alone is a game that you seem to complete in "chapters". After a while of playing, I realised that each chapter begins with a narration paired with a traditional Inuit art animation. The purpose is to advance the story and explain what is happening, such as Nuna - the main character - discovering her tribe has been destroyed by a mysterious villain.

These scenes were nice, and provided a break between gameplay, which I preferred to the mid-game cut scenes, which I found was a little disruptive. 

I did however enjoy the "insight" videos that were presented at different intervals. As it is a game that is deeply rooted in Alaskan indigenous culture and folklore, the insights aided my understanding of the game, and what the significance was of certain objects and context within the game. An example is the bola, which I only thought was a Incan tool, though after watching the insight, I then saw why the weapon was used by Nuna.

I think it is successful to an extent in its story-telling, though there are some areas that I think were lacking. I personally found the main goal unclear for the game, and not strong. I knew I had to find the source of the "eternal blizzard", but not so much why. I think perhaps it was lost in the mini puzzles that are presented in the game, which I spent more time trying to solve then think about why.