Emi Moore – Interactive Digital Narratives

Lots of Games, Not So Many Themes

I was intrigued by how many of my classmates wrote on similar topics, even though we played different games. I noticed a multitude of themes, but I’m going to focus on three: player choice, the difference between casual and hardcore games, and broader significance. I’m defining player choice as the ability of a player to…

I’m defining player choice as the ability of a player to do/be whatever they want within a game. I looked at this when addressing Dragon Age: Origins and how it failed to be an open-world by limiting where a player could explore. Luke found a very similar experience in Pokemon X, where certain pathways are blocked to a player until they complete other quests. Paul addressed it in regards to Bioshock, and how the player think they’re making independent decisions, but it comes to be revealed they’ve just been following commands the whole time. Bioshock thus draws attention to to the fact the player lack choice. This is similar to Alec’s point about Dragon Quest V, where player’s must occupy a male character, and the only choice they get is the character’s name. I feel like this came up because games are so often marketed as stories that you get to experience in whatever way you want, but most actually require players to follow a specific path to completion.

So often we believe that there’s a strict line between casual and hardcore games, but I think we discovered that those distinctions aren’t as clear cut as we believed. I wrote about how Mystic Messenger was still casual even if parts of it seemed hardcore, using “A Casual Revolution” by Jesper Juul. Ryan did a similar analysis with the article, looking Super Smash Bro’s. He pointed out that game didn’t fit cleanly into casual or hardcore. The article came up again in Luke’s analysis of Pokemon X, which also doesn’t fit neatly into either category as it makes use of elements from both.

The last category was how a lot of people drew in external sources, by relating games to their broader significance in the word. Luke talked about how psychological studies around conservation use Pokemon to make their argument. He pointed out though that those studies missed certain elements because they likely hadn’t played the game, showing the misconceptions about gaming in the world. Paul did something similar in his analysis of Bioshock talking about the cultural significance of its science-based narratives. This game was just a recent example of the cultural trend to present fantasy elements grounded in science.

Even though we played a wide variety of games, we still got hung up or interested in similar issues, which I think may show the limits of videogames as they exist now, and places for them to explore in the future.

Gender Complications in Bioshock

In his article “Ruin, Gender, and Digital Games,” Evan Watts examines how post-apocalyptic games, like Bioshock, treat gender. Watts questions whether the destruction of social structures in Rapture “compliment freedom from the gendered power institutions of the culture in which both the game and the player are situated” (254). I would argue that Bioshock offers…

In his article “Ruin, Gender, and Digital Games,” Evan Watts examines how post-apocalyptic games, like Bioshock, treat gender. Watts questions whether the destruction of social structures in Rapture “compliment freedom from the gendered power institutions of the culture in which both the game and the player are situated” (254). I would argue that Bioshock offers a complicated presentation of gender.

As Watts points out, the “Little Sisters,” the main female presence in the game, exert freedom by roaming the city. They have the power in the collapsed society of Rapture. Additionally, they travel with “Big Daddies,” which Watts describes as “brandishing large phallic drills, [and] seem[ing] almost a parody of traditional masculinity” (255). Whereas female character usually get made into objects or tools in videogames, here the male characters get treated that way. The men stand as objects that must be destroyed by the player to get to the “Little Sisters.” Bioshock then argues that traditional power structures are societally caused, not natural, as the destruction of society leads to a shift in who holds power.

An image of a “Big Daddy,” with his phallic looking drill

Yet, the player must ultimately confront these female sources of power, and take it from them, either by harvesting or rescuing them. The player, who operates a male player-character, gets encouraged to violently murder them for their own personal gain, as killing them gets the player access to more abilities. Even the word “harvest” tries to downplay the act of violence. The player doesn’t have to murder them though, but the other option present equally questionable ideas, for if the player chooses to “rescue” the girls, it implies the need of a male entity to save them. Though Dr. Tenenbaum presents a female who could also save them, removing the issues, she leaves it up to a man, giving him the power to save them rather than using it herself.

The player can choose to harvest or rescue the “Little Sisters,” but either option reinforces negative gender stereotypes

As Watts posits, the “player can occupy the traditional male role of savior and protector of the female or reject this role, murder the child, and reap a greater quantitative benefit” (256). Either option is problematic, as they either end with a powerless female figure grateful to a male one for taking that power from her, or a dead female figure, killed by a powerful male one. Despite offering seemingly positive notions about gender, Bioshock ultimately reinforces negative stereotypes.

Source:
Watts, Evan. “Ruin, Gender, and Digital Games.” Women’s Studies Quarterly 39, no. 3/4 (2011): 247–65.

The Importance of Sound in Bioshock

Sound serves as a key element in Bioshock. With that in mind, I’m going to look at how Karen Collins’s article “Game Sound” applies to Bioshock, specifically in terms of diegetic sound, or sound that occurs within the character’s space. Interactive diegetic sounds are those that “occur in the character’s space, and the player’s character can directly…

Sound serves as a key element in Bioshock. With that in mind, I’m going to look at how Karen Collins’s article “Game Sound” applies to Bioshock, specifically in terms of diegetic sound, or sound that occurs within the character’s space.

Interactive diegetic sounds are those that “occur in the character’s space, and the player’s character can directly interact with them” (126). In the game, these relate specifically to the use of the radio and the audio diaries the player collects as they progress. The radio conversations with Atlas, and the occasional other character, trigger at key moments and get used to give the player goals and instructions. For example, Atlas instructs the player of what to do when they encounter one of the “Little Girls,” getting ADAM to unlock additional powers which help the player progress. The audio diaries develop the world by giving backstory on characters and events. Hence, the player can pick up multiple diaries on or by Dr. Steinman explaining his obsession with beauty and dissension into madness. A key point is the player can choose to listen to these diaries, or even whether to pick them up, so how much plot information they receive gets determined by how they play and whether they pay attention to the interactive diegetic sounds.

The player encounters audio diaries throughout the game, and can choose whether to pick them up and listen to them

Nondynamic diegetic audio “occurs in the character’s space, but the character has no direct participation in it” (126). Bioshock uses this type of sound to drive the player in the correct direction or alert them of danger. Collins describes a specific type of nondynamic diegetic audio, acousmatic sound, or “sound with no clear origin visually” which “may inspire us to look to the direction of a sound” (130). Most of the wandering Splicers operate under this type of sound. The Splicers aren’t reacting to the player, hence the nondynamic, but their noise warns the player of nearby danger, as the Splicers will attack as soon as they are within sight. This sound then gives the player time to prepare before moving forward and attacking.

Before they see and attack you, Splicers make noise, indicating their presence to the player

As the audio plays such a key role in the game, it makes it very difficult to play at times if you can’t hear clearly. For example, often while listening to diaries or the radio, the player will get attacked. The fighting sounds then block out the other sound, which can result in missing key information.

Horror, Mystery, and First-Person Perspective

I started up a new file for Bioshock, which I’ve never played before, and the first thing I noticed was how “janky” the camera movement was. I normally play third-person games, because I like being able to see the character I’m playing and what’s around them. Bioshock doesn’t give players that freedom. They’re locked into…

I started up a new file for Bioshock, which I’ve never played before, and the first thing I noticed was how “janky” the camera movement was. I normally play third-person games, because I like being able to see the character I’m playing and what’s around them. Bioshock doesn’t give players that freedom. They’re locked into a first-person perspective, which limits what they can see at any given time. This adds a new layer of challenge and intensity to the game. Intensity because as a player, you cannot see what’s lurking around every corner; you expect enemies at every turn. It adds a challenge because enemies can sneak up on you, attacking you from behind and gaining an advantage because you don’t see them coming. In a third-person game, a player generally has free movement of the camera and exists in a sort of “God-space” above the player-characters head, which makes it difficult to surprise a player if they see an attack coming. Essentially, Bioshock uses a limited perspective to heighten the horror-esque elements of the game.

In Bioshock, the player can only see directly in front of them, which makes for a more intense experience

The first-person perspective in Bioshock harkens back to horror-films. Often, these types of films will feature a shot of the villain approaching a victim, carrying a weapon that can be seen on the camera, like most standard first-person shooters. Silence of the Lambs famously uses this method as “Buffalo Bill” stalks Clarice Starling around a dark basement using night-vision goggles.

Silence of the Lambs uses a first-person (shooter) perspective to heighten the scene’s suspense

The difference is that in horror films, the first-person perspective usually comes from a “bad guy,” not the “good guy” protagonist of videogames. However, in both cases first-person perspective forces an element of mystery. For film, the mystery often comes from not knowing who the attacker is. The film then goes on to explore that mystery, with the villain reveal as the big surprise. In videogames though, the first-person perspective creates a mystery around the environment. The players must move around and explore in order to uncover the mystery. While the first-person perspective elicits horror and mystery in both media, it does so in different ways.

Notions of Love in Dating Sims

While most of Joel Gn’s article, “Cute Technics in the Love Machine,” gets spent talking about the “cute” elements of dating sims (ones designed for male players), he argues that despite controversy, dating sims reinforce standard beliefs about relationships and love. Mystic Messenger, like other dating sims, also reinforce these ideas, but not in the…

While most of Joel Gn’s article, “Cute Technics in the Love Machine,” gets spent talking about the “cute” elements of dating sims (ones designed for male players), he argues that despite controversy, dating sims reinforce standard beliefs about relationships and love. Mystic Messenger, like other dating sims, also reinforce these ideas, but not in the same way Gn believes.

Gn claims that “the dating sim does not alter, but repeats and even formalizes the interactivity of love with a software construct.” Essentially, because the player’s only have certain options they can respond with, they must progress on one of the game’s paths. These paths follow general set patterns about love. For example, in MM, when romancing Zen, the player starts by talking with him frequently for several days, then they meet up with him and go on a date of sorts. Afterwards they continue to talk and plan to visit each other again. This follows the course of a regular relationships, where people talk, go on dates, and get closer over time. If the player wants a romance with Zen, they must pursue it in this way, reinforcing standard beliefs about relationships.

On the player’s “date” with Zen they look at the stars together and then the player goes home. That is the only option, thus reinforcing standard notions of romance

Gn also argues that this is a positive aspect of the games, for they play out love like real life by following the “correct” pattern to get the result you desire. Since they’re meant to simulate dating though, the problem with entering the correct algorithm is that it doesn’t necessarily follow the player’s own thoughts. In MM, a player usually has two or three option choices for dialogue. One will generally lead to a negative reaction or no reaction, while the other will lead to a positive one. As a result, the player chooses the answer which will earn a positive reaction with the character they aim to romance, not necessarily the answer they would actually say. The game then becomes more of a role-playing scenario than an actual “simulation,” because often the responses don’t align with the player’s thoughts. While the game does repeat the generally accepted values and patterns of love, it’s not making the player go through them, but instead has the player “play” a person going through them. So while the games do reinforce societal values about love and relationships, those get transferred via roleplaying rather than actual feelings.

Even if a person would normally respond with a simple good-bye, if they want approval they must respond with the top option, making the dating sim more of a role-playing game than a simulation

Sources:
Gn, Joel. “Cute Technics in the Love Machine.” InVisible Culture no. 21 (Fall, 2014). http://ezproxy.lib.davidson.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1771515685?accountid=10427.

Is Mystic Messenger Casual?

From my last post, we know that Mystic Messenger involves an almost constant attention for at least 11 days (the time it takes for a single playthrough), because of its real-time mechanics, which would make it appear as more of a hardcore game than a casual one. However, following the criteria Jesper Jull describes in…

From my last post, we know that Mystic Messenger involves an almost constant attention for at least 11 days (the time it takes for a single playthrough), because of its real-time mechanics, which would make it appear as more of a hardcore game than a casual one. However, following the criteria Jesper Jull describes in his article, “A Casual Revolution,” MM still counts as a casual game.

Casual games have positive valence, or have associations with happy or fun vibes. Dating sims involve romance, which have associations with love, happiness, and comfort. Although certain choices can lead to negative outcomes (or bad ends), overall MM has a positive frame work.

The romance options allow the player to choose which personality works best for them, and makes them happiest.

Casual games are easy to use, either building off conventions from outside the game or using simple mechanics that can be easily taught. MM falls into the first category, as the mechanics involve: text-messaging, email, phone calls, and a chatroom. This applies for the first 5 days, which is when the “visual novelization” mode gets added, complicating things as this doesn’t have a real-life counterpart, but even then, the other, more familiar forms still dominate.

Casual games are easily interrupted, allowing players to play for short bursts. Despite the real-time attention needed for MM, it can still be interrupted. The chatrooms and phone calls feature a pause button, allowing players to take a break. They also only take a few minutes to play, and then have hour breaks in between.

Casual games are difficult to master, but feature little punishment for failure. This is the hardest category to measure in a dating sim. Mastery would involve a complete understanding of every romance route, and both the multiple good and bad endings. In that sense, yes the game is difficult to master, but that comes from how long it takes to go through entirely, not that the game gets more difficult as you play; the types of responses you can give vary little as you progress. Also, failure can be a reward as it unlocks the “bad” ending, which many players purposely seek out.

Casual games are juicy. This works for MM because anytime the player responds with the “correct” response, a heart with pop up on the screen, and the player will receive it as a reward at the end of the chat. The game lets the players know when they’re doing the “right” thing.

The heart appears when a character approves of your comment, which is the game’s juiciness.

So, despite its real-time mechanics that make players constantly check it, Mystic Messenger still fits snugly into Jesper’s definition of a casual game.

Mystic Messenger: Gaming In Real-Time

While Cheritz’s most recent game, Mystic Messenger, looks like pretty much dating sim you’d download on Android, it quickly turns the tables with a relatively simple game mechanic. Most dating sims operate on a “turn” system; you get so many turns, each of which progresses the story, and when you run out, you have to…

While Cheritz’s most recent game, Mystic Messenger, looks like pretty much dating sim you’d download on Android, it quickly turns the tables with a relatively simple game mechanic. Most dating sims operate on a “turn” system; you get so many turns, each of which progresses the story, and when you run out, you have to wait until the next day to get more turns (unless you pay for them, which is how the games make money). Unlike other dating sims, MM occurs in real-time. After you start the game, chats open up as time progresses, to the extent that if you don’t start the game at midnight, there’s no way to complete everything to 100%. Here’s the kicker though, if you don’t respond to a chat by the time another chat starts (the time of which varies), you miss out on participating. (Unless you buy it separately, which is how this game makes its money).

The real time method of the game, which takes place over 11 days

So why would MM deviate from tradition ways of framing dating sims? Simply put, it keeps players playing their game. In a tradition dating sim, you play for a day and when you’re out of turns, you quit. Maybe you come back the next day, but there’s no guarantee that you do. The story cannot progress without you, so it’s not a problem. In MM though, the story will go on. The characters will chat with each other, even if you aren’t present. There isn’t any taking a break for a few days, because a few days could cost you the entire game. Even missing a conversation could ruin your attempts to romance whichever character you choose. As a result, the game encourages a sort of “drop-everything” type of play. This keeps players engaged with the game. It’s aided by the fact that each new message received sends a notification to your phone, which leads to a constant checking of the device or the game to ensure that you aren’t missing anything.

Given that the game takes place over the course of 11 days, if the player wants to play through every romance (just good endings) that guarantees at least 55 days of consistent playing, which is probably more than many AAA games out there. Essentially, real-time serves as function to both keep players playing, or alternatively for less avid players, to get them to pay money in order to complete the game.

The hour glasses next to the chat mean you missed them, but can purchase them for money

Are Player-Characters Blank Slates in DA:O?

In her article, “Game Characters as Narrative Devices. A Comparative Analysis of Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect,” Kristine Jørgensen examines the way that Dragon Age: Origins uses supporting characters to drive its plot. Namely, she claims the game leaves the player-character “relatively open for the player’s interpretation, only leaving certain clues that point in…

In her article, “Game Characters as Narrative Devices. A Comparative Analysis of Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect,” Kristine Jørgensen examines the way that Dragon Age: Origins uses supporting characters to drive its plot. Namely, she claims the game leaves the player-character “relatively open for the player’s interpretation, only leaving certain clues that point in the direction of a fictional individual.” In other words, the player-character gets influenced by the situations affecting supporting characters, but how characters react to these scenarios though gets left entirely up to who the player thinks the player-character ought to be.

I agree with Jørgensen that within the game “depth is hinted at in dialogue options, as each option reflects a different attitude and emotion, but it is up to the player to fill in motivations behind the choices that the PC is making.” The dialogue options give the players the ability to react to in-game events. They can threaten people they disagree with and get into fights, handle a situation rationally and peacefully, or try and bargain and make a profit. These choices then reflect back on the player’s perception of the player-character’s personality.

The dialogue options include being polite or threatening. The player’s choice of dialogue then “forms” the player-character’s personality.

I disagree though that the player-character “is more of a blank canvas that the players can add a greater variety of personalities onto.” For example, depending on the race (human, elf, dwarf) and class (warrior, mage, rogue) the player chooses, they may have limited options of origin story. If the player wishes to play a mage they get locked into the single mage route, a human non-mage also gets locked into a route. Only non-mage elves and dwarves have choices, and then they only get to pick between two options. These origins can shape the narrative and personality of a character. For example, in the human route, the player-character loses their entire family, while in one of the elf origins, a journey through the forest goes terribly wrong. Additionally, at times in the game, certain characters with the player-character as if they know them, even if the player has had no previous exposure to them. In the human origin, when first meeting the king he speaks with you as if he knows your family and you know him, despite the player having little information on the character. While it makes sense for the player-character’s backstory, as a member of the noble family, to know of the king, the player won’t have the information, making the scene strange. The player themselves doesn’t know the character, but is expected to based on the player-character’s origin. This makes the character less of a blank slate, and more of a structure already built but waiting to be finished. It gives the player freedom to flesh out the player-character, but only via a world that has already been constructed.

Character origins gets determined by these choices, which then impacts what happens to the player-character, and therefore shapes their personality.

Sources:
JøRGENSEN, K.. Game Characters as Narrative Devices. A Comparative Analysis of Dragon Age: Origins and Mass Effect 2. Eludamos. Journal for Computer Game Culture, North America, 4, nov. 2010. Available at: http://www.eludamos.org/index.php/eludamos/article/view/vol4no2-13/192. Date accessed: 03 Oct. 2016.

Relationship Games: Aarseth Now Obsolete

In his article, “Genre Trouble,” Espen Aarseth argues that games “focus on self-mastery and exploration of the external world, not exploration of interpersonal relationships.” He makes exceptions for multi-player games and those where the player is god-like. However, Dragon Age: Origins falls into neither of these, but defies the second part of Aarseth’s claim, for…

In his article, “Genre Trouble,” Espen Aarseth argues that games “focus on self-mastery and exploration of the external world, not exploration of interpersonal relationships.” He makes exceptions for multi-player games and those where the player is god-like. However, Dragon Age: Origins falls into neither of these, but defies the second part of Aarseth’s claim, for interpersonal relationships play a key role in the progress of the game.

Players can converse with their companions (and anyone they meet) at will, and those conversations change and develop as the game progresses. Companions gain approval when the player make decisions they agree with, and disapproval when they disagree with the player’s actions. As a result, they either open up to the player, or shut them out. If a player gains high enough approval, they can unlock the companion’s personal quests, providing them with more gameplay material. If their approval falls too low however, the companion may opt to leave the party and the player loses them forever. While the player can monitor approval (and thus avoid these options) certain decisions automatically cause a companion to leave. In other words, companions act as independent people, with their own opinions and actions.

Depending on the answer the player chooses, the character will react differently.

Additionally, one of the companion’s key roles is how their presence alters the options of gameplay. For example, when in the village of Lothering, if the player tries to free an imprisoned man without high enough persuasion, the woman in charge will refuse, and thus he cannot be unlocked as a companion. However, if you happen to bring along Leliana (another companion), the player automatically gets permission to free the man.

The imprisoned man can only be released from the cage (and join the party) if certain decisions are made.

Aarseth would likely argue that these moments fall more under film, rather than his notion of “simulation” which makes games different from other media. Yet, during these “cut-scenes,” the player still gets to choose dialogue options, which the companions then react to accordingly. The player simulates speaking. Granted, Aarseth wrote his article several years before Dragon Age: Origins, and other games like it had hit the shelves. Back then the capacity of choice in games was usually limited to “yes” and “no” answers for accepting quests, or featured dialogue answers that had no real effect on the characters spoken to. However, nowadays, his argument no longer stands as games like Dragon Age, Skyrim, and others have shown.

How Open-World is Dragon Age: Origins?

The 2009 Bioware game Dragon Age: Origins tries to present a free, open game space that players can navigate at will, but at certain moments in the game, that illusion breaks. Once past the initial cut scenes, a player can move around the freely and talk to anyone they encounter. Depending on who the person…

The 2009 Bioware game Dragon Age: Origins tries to present a free, open game space that players can navigate at will, but at certain moments in the game, that illusion breaks. Once past the initial cut scenes, a player can move around the freely and talk to anyone they encounter. Depending on who the person is, the player may be able to have a full conversation with them or they may just get a simple response. The longer dialogues usually reveal important information or at least deepen knowledge about the game world. Some of these dialogue exchanges trigger automatically, when the player enters a certain area or approaches a character, while other must be actively sought out. The automatic triggers do not violate the freedom of the game because they normally make sense in context (your mother stops you to speak with you about a pressing issue, a guard calls you over to deliver a message, etc.) and the others allow the player to express their freedom by choosing who to talk to.

Your mother introducing the player to her friends.

However, the simple response conversations jar the player from the game. When speaking to the guards at the Cousland Castle, almost every one responds to a female player character with “Good day, my lady” in the exact same voice. The guards essentially exist as mindless clones, repeating the same phrase over and over again, regardless of how many times they’re spoken to. Some of these characters say different things each time, but even then a player can cycle through the responses with repeated clicks. It makes the player aware that the game world is not actually real. Similarly, while the player can move from place to place within a given area, they cannot always leave that area. In the Cousland Castle, the player can move about its rooms, but cannot go out into the rest of the world. The player is given the illusion of freedom, but only to a certain extent.

A map of the area you can explore when first starting a Cousland playthrough.

Dragon Age: Origins seems to suggest the coming of the open-world genre. It seems then that these jarring moments come from a lack of computing power, as well as to force narrative. In 2009, the game and the computers it was played on didn’t have the memory to handle a full open world with every character being different. The player also cannot always go where they wish because then the story could not progress in the chronological order the writers laid out.