Excerise 10(AT LAST)

In her paper "The Puppet Master Problem: Design for Real-World, Mission Based Gaming", Jane McGonigal suggests that "the success of the puppet master challenges our assumptions about the kinds of action and interaction that qualify as gameplay, reveal dramatic interpretation to be a viable game mechanic, and demonstrate the value of a dramaturgical perspective for pervasive game design." Discuss how these ideas could be applied to designing elements of narrative and gameplay in interactive media systems.

Let's take a look at the game I Love Bees, the game changes what traditionally makes a game a game. In games like "I Love Bees", the idea of the Puppet Master is one that "moves" the players under his control like a game piece, to where he wants and to do what he wants. However, is there any control by the players? If there isn't, how can they be playing a game, rather than being just part of the game?

I feel that powerplay is very similar to games that are highly narrative in nature, the puppet master gives a predefined path for the player to follow, but the player can interpret the narrative in any form he wants to. It's very similar to adventure games where puzzles/challenges are given to the players to overcome. In powerplay, the commands given by the puppet masters are similar to this, the players have to interpret it accurately to finish a mission.

This allows the players to immerse themselves totally into the game as now they not just controlling a character but IN the game itself. The puppet master have to design the commands such that the players interpret it the way it is supposed to be, and thus experience what the puppet master wants them to. However, if the players interpret it in another way, there is real-time feedback for the puppet master to either lead them back to the original path, or to follow along the path they walked if possible.

Does the player has free will in this powerplay? I would say yes. The player has to follow the instructions of the Puppet Master, otherwise he would not be able to follow up with the game, however he can follow it in any way he think it is right. Like the example of the "Go Game" in which players interpreted the instruction of "It's time to drop your pants and dance!" literally and dropped their pants and started dancing in the middle of a park. This gave the puppet masters a sense of loss of control as the players chose to interpret the commands in this way. Thus different interpretation can lead to vastly different experience in a same powerplay game.

Thus powerplay games shows us that games that allow the players to have as much free play as possible while being kept in a rigid structure allows for vastly different and interesting experiences. Also, a game should respond to the inputs by the players and changes it's predefined path. Powerplay games allow players to be in control of their own experiences yet still following the instructions of others thus becoming a part of the game instead of just playing the game.

I believe players want to feel part of the game, and not just play a game. A game in which their responses affect the responses of others and the game itself.

(Side Note: In fact, I believe this is one of the reason why MMORPGs are so popular nowadays as players can interact with each other, and in same, the game designers often add in new story lines that changes the landscapes of the game as the balance of evil gets better or weaker. It's like allowing the players to experience a life in another world.)

Exercise 9: Narrative Architecture

This is probably one of our hardest readings so far, so I'm pretty confused about what both of them is saying. :P

I have to first say that I disagree with the way Markku Eskelinen simply dismisses Henry Jenkins approach towards games being "spaces ripe with narrative possibility". Eskelinen says that Jenkins did not "define the contested concepts(narratives, stories, and games) so central to his argumentation", however I do feel that Jenkins did have his platform to start off when he started off talking about the points that he feel everyone can argee on, like "Not all games tell stories" , "Many games do have narrative aspirations."

I have to say I agree with Jenkins that games are filled with rich possibilities for narratives.
In my previous entry, I said, "I believe that it is because with computer-based games, one can let the player experience things that he cannot by just reading a book. This is with the clever use of graphics and sound to let the player be immersed in the story of the game."

All this affect the experience of the spectator in "constructing his fabula". Also as Jenkins said, "the experience of playing games can never be simply reduced to the experience of a story." This is due to the main factor of what makes a game a game, the gameplay itself. Thus I do not feel that Jenkins is " ignoring and downplaying the importance of these and other formal differences between games and narratives" as Eskelinen said.

The same goes for "reducing his comparative media studies into repetitive media studies: seeing, seeking, and finding stories, and nothing but stories, everywhere." What I feel Jenkins is doing is saying that games nowadays have evolved into adding in a big part of narrative element to attract more spectators who might feel more immersed into the game. This is shown when he group games with narrative elements into groups such as spatial stories and environmental storytelling, evocative spaces, enacting stories, embedded narratives and emergent narratives. This shows the great possibilities of games having narrative elements.

Exercise 8

Jesper Juul distinguishes between games of emergence, where a game is specified as a small number of rules that combine and yield a large number of game variations, and games of progression, where a game presents the player with a series of puzzles or challenges which must be accomplished in a certain order. Discuss whether games of progression, which often attempt to combine a narrative structure with gameplay, are unique to computer-based games.

I think it's definately not true to say that progressive gameplay is unique to computer-based games. Even Jesper Juul himself says that "Progression is the historically newer structure that entered the computer game through the adventure genre." So what are the examples of the adventure genre in a non computer-based game?

An example would be those choose your adventure series that was first started by Edward Packard. In this adventure book we have what is now very common in many interactive gamebooks, some choices for us to make after reading a passage.
For example,

If you decide to go home, turn to page 21.

If you decide to wait for Jerry, turn to page 17.

This choices that we made, will slowly lead us along a storyline that we choose, and finally end up at an ending which may or may not be the desired ending.
While this kind of adventure books might have a lot of endings, there is generally one ending that is a lot better than all the others, and most of the endings are undesirable as they probably end up in the main character, you, dying or going mad.

However why were games of progression not so popular before the advent of the computer? I believe that it is because with computer-based games, one can let the player experience things that he cannot by just reading a book. This is with the clever use of graphics and sound to let the player be immersed in the story of the game.

For example the game that is arguably the most popular RPG "Final Fantasy 7". At it's time, the graphics and sound of the game blew away all other games. It's groundbreaking graphics and music together with it's compelling story charmed the hearts of the public so much so that even today, people are still clamoring for Squaresoft to remake it for the PS3.

This is probably the main reason why games of progressions are more popular as a computer-based game, as it appeals to those who just want to immerse themselves into a story more than what a book can give them.