A Multimodal Approach to Video Games and the Player Experience [1 ed.] 0815395019, 9780815395010

Citation preview

A Multimodal Approach to Video Games and the Player Experience

This volume puts forth an original theoretical framework, the ludonarrative model, for studying video games which foregrounds the empirical study of the player experience. The book provides a comprehensive introduction to and description of the model, which draws on theoretical frameworks from multimodal discourse analysis, game studies, and social semiotics, and its development out of participant observation and qualitative interviews from the empirical study of a group of players. The volume then applies this approach to shed light on how players’ experiences in a game influence how they understand and make use of game components in order to progress its narrative. The book concludes with a frame-byframe analysis of a popular game to demonstrate the model’s principles in action and its subsequent broader applicability to analysing video game interaction and design. Offering a new way forward for video game research, this volume is key reading for students and scholars in multimodality, discourse analysis, game studies, interactive storytelling, and new media. Weimin Toh teaches in the Department of English Language and Literature at the National University of Singapore. His main research areas are social semiotics, multimodal discourse analysis/multimodality, game studies, and narratology. He is also interested in other research topics such as child language development.

Routledge Studies in Multimodality Edited by Kay L. O’Halloran Curtin University

The Discourse of Physics Building Knowledge through Language, Mathematics and Image Y. J. Doran Advancing Multimodal and Critical Discourse Studies Interdisciplinary Research Inspirited by Theo van Leeuwen’s Social Semiotics Edited by Sumin Zhao, Emilia Djonov, Anders Björkvall and Morten Boeriis The Materiality of Writing A Trace Making Perspective Edited by Christian Mosbæk Johannessen and Theo van Leeuwen Designing and Implementing Multimodal Curricula and Programs Edited by J. C. Lee and Santosh Khadka The Hermeneutic Spiral and Interpretation in Literature and the Visual Arts Michael O’Toole Multimodality Across Classrooms Learning About and Through Different Modalities Edited by Helen de Silva Joyce and Susan Feez Multimodality and Aesthetics Edited by Elise Seip Tønnessen and Frida Forsgren Multimodal Stylistics of the Novel More Than Words Nina Nørgaard A Multimodal Approach to Video Games and the Player Experience Weimin Toh For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/ Routledge-Studies-in-Multimodality/book-series/RSMM

A Multimodal Approach to Video Games and the Player Experience

Weimin Toh

First published 2019 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Taylor & Francis The right of Weimin Toh to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Toh, Weimin, author. Title: A multimodal approach to video games and the player experience / by Weimin Toh. Description: New York : Routledge, 2017. | Series: Routledge studies in multimodality ; 26 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2018031796 | ISBN 9780815395010 (hardback) | ISBN 9781351184779 (ebk) Subjects: LCSH: Video games—Psychological aspects. Classification: LCC GV1469.34.P79 T65 2017 | DDC 794.8—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018031796 ISBN: 978-0-8153-9501-0 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-351-18477-9 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

List of Figures List of Tables Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations 1 Introduction

vii viii x xi 1

2 A Multimodal Approach to Ludonarratology

21

3 Theoretical Conceptualisation of the Ludonarrative Model

34

4 Ludonarrative Dissonance

49

5 Ludonarrative Resonance

75

6 Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance and the Player Experience

99

7 Methodological Considerations in the Ludonarrative Model

112

8 Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

131

9 Narration II—Video Game Narrative Analysis Framework

151

10 Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

174

vi

Contents

11 Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, and Stage(s)

204

12 Video Games as Ludonarrative: Application and Future Directions

224

Appendix A: Session 1’s Open-Ended Interview Questions Glossary Index

242 244 249

Figures

3.1 Diagram illustrating the relations between principles, modes, and media, as espoused by Kress and van Leeuwen (2001) (Reproduced from Dena (2010)) 3.2 The preliminary ludonarrative model 3.3 The ludonarrative model for video game analysis 7.1 Steps involved in building and developing the model 8.1 An obligatory object highlighted in the flashback of Beyond: Two Souls 8.2 Difficulty of evaluating spatial relations in Beyond: Two Souls 8.3 Excerpt from Passage (2007), line 951–956 in Game.cpp (Reproduced from Willumsen (2016)). 9.1 The “hub and spokes” model (Sylvester, 2013, p. 98) 9.2 The branching story structure (Sylvester, 2013, p. 99) 9.3 The “side quest and story convergence” model (Sylvester, 2013, p. 100) 9.4 The PC’s goal to get the oil from the garage 9.5 Conventional/symbolic indicators 9.6 Conventional/symbolic indicators 9.7 The box of memories as a narrative iconic object 9.8 The VIEWING frame where the player watches Jodie 9.9 The narrative side of the ludonarrative model 10.1 Montfort’s (2003) units of interaction with IF 10.2 Initial gameplay model (Heaton, 2006) 10.3 The model incorporating the player’s observation, action, and interface (Heaton, 2006) 10.4 Heaton’s (2006) gameplay model incorporating the player’s decision-making 10.5 The gameplay side of the ludonarrative model 11.1 The move for gameplay analysis 11.2 The relationship between the player and the mechanics 11.3 Gameplay phases as pulses of effectance 11.4 Proposed gameplay stages 11.5 Examples of multiple gameplay pathways in Mass Effect

37 39 40 113 135 138 141 152 153 154 162 163 163 164 165 170 176 177 177 178 198 205 207 215 217 220

Tables

4.1 Comparison with other models 5.1 New concepts introduced 7.1 Participants who have completed study (pseudonyms have been given) 7.2 Participants who have completed session 1 of study (pseudonyms have been given) 7.3 A sample from the coding scheme (Toh, 2015) 7.4 The final coding scheme 9.1 Fludernik’s (2003) model adapted for video game narrative analysis 9.2 The video game narrative analysis model 10.1 Montfort’s (2003) two level of diegesis 10.2 Mette and Nils’ (2013) Interactive Goal, Motivation, and Conflict (IGMC) framework 10.3 Yee’s (2007) taxonomy of player’s motivation in online games 10.4 Instrumental actions 10.5 Strategic actions 10.6 Modification of Fabricatore (2007)—Core gameplay mechanics 10.7 Modification of Fabricatore (2007)—Satellite gameplay mechanics 10.8 Some core mechanics and challenges in Bioshock and Mass Effect 10.9 Some core mechanics and challenges in The Walking Dead and Beyond: Two Souls 10.10 Some core mechanics and challenges in The Last of Us 11.1 Some functions of core mechanics (Adams, 2010, p. 289) 11.2 Oxland’s (2004) modified taxonomy of feedback types 11.3 Common story phase types and their functions (Martin & Rose, 2008, p. 82) 11.4 Common gameplay phase types and functions

51 84 115 116 121 121 161 168 176 180 181 189 189 190 190 191 192 192 206 209 211 212

Tables 12.1 The subcategories of ludonarrative dissonance (Toh, 2015) 12.2 The subcategories of ludonarrative resonance (Toh, 2015) 12.3 The subcategories of ludonarrative (ir)relevance (Toh, 2015)

ix 225 226 227

Acknowledgements

The study conducted in this book is partially supported by the National Youth Fund (NYF) grant. I would like to thank the game study’s participants for taking part in the study and my supervisor, Ismail Talib for his guidance throughout the PhD candidature. Permission has been obtained from Guillaume de Fondaumière, co-CEO and executive producer of Quantic Dream to include Figures 8.1, 8.2, and 9.4–9.8 which contain screenshots of Beyond: Two Souls. Permission has been obtained from Tom Heaton to reproduce Figures 10.2–10.4.

Abbreviations

AI

Artificial Intelligence

CAT

Communicative Action Theory

CIA

Central Intelligence Agency

DLC

Downloadable content

E.M.P.

Electromagnetic Pulse

FPS

First-Person Shooter

IF

Interactive Fiction

KOTOR

Knights of the Old Republic

MMORPG

Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game

NPC

Non Player Character

PC

Player Character

PS3

Playstation 3

QTE

Quick time event

RPG

Role-Playing Game

RTS

Real-time Strategy

UI

User Interface

1

Introduction

Apollo Square is not for the faint-hearted. But then again, the entire of Rapture isn’t. Stepping into the sepulchral confines of the once-lively public forum, Mary1 is met with the grotesque sight of bodies hanging from overhead beams. A banner marked with the words “Gene Traitors” hung on the wooden beam, shaming these people even in death. Mary approached the nearby vending machine to interact with it and started the mini game with pipes. “Apollo Square is very run down”, Mary exclaimed as she played the mini game. When Mary completed the mini game, she proceeded further into Apollo Square. All around, Mary only spotted grime and desolation. “Apollo Square resembled those slums where poor people lived in real life”, she commented. The barbed wires everywhere only added to the sense of oppression one felt, as if she was in a prison. “If Olympus Heights is where the rich and powerful live, then Apollo Square is probably where all the poor people live”. A nearby audio log on the ground caught her eye and she picked it up to listen to it. The audio log titled, “What’s Happening Here?” provides more contextual information about Apollo Square. The NPC Diane McClintock narrated in the audio log how a woman climbed over the fence to try to escape but was lit on fire by one of Andrew Ryan’s guards. As Mary continued exploring Apollo Square, she reflected on the audio log by focusing on Andrew Ryan’s characterisation. “Andrew Ryan is not very good at dominance because he is not very nice to the poor people”, she exclaimed, “the riots started because there were many people living in poverty who started to fight back. That’s how revolutions happen”. An ethereal yet sinister voice floated from somewhere close. It was the unmistakable sound of a Little Sister. As Mary rounded the corner, she was taken aback by the sight of a Big Daddy fending off the attacks of various zombie-like Splicers. The Big Daddy was a formidable presence, decked from top to bottom in heavy-duty metal and wielding a nasty-looking conical drill. It was going to be a challenge to take it down. She strategised, “I realised how useful electric gel is when fighting Big Daddy”. Mary produced her Tommy Gun and entered the fray. A burst of gunfire, the nauseating squish of metal meeting meat, and the Splicer was dead. Mary then turned her attention to

2

Introduction

the Big Daddy. She took aim at the Big Daddy using her incinerate power and enraged it. Boom! The Big Daddy swivelled around and retaliated with a bomb right smack in Mary’s face, drawing a pained shriek from Mary. It was time to end it all. Deftly switching to her chemical thrower, she released a torrent of electric gel at the Big Daddy. The Big Daddy was stunned and could only watch helplessly as Mary blasted the life out of itself. “Super useful, I would say!” Mary mused, “Look at how quickly it (the electric gel) runs through its health”. As I watched the video recordings of the participants of my study, I was able to obtain a deeper understanding of their player experience. This deeper understanding came from my observation of how they interacted with the game world in the game laboratory and the gameplay recordings. More importantly, I was able to access their thought processes from the think-aloud protocol (van Someren et al., 1994; Theodorou, 2010; Tan et al., 2014) that I have instructed them to engage in when recording the gameplay for my viewing and analysis. As we can see from the example above from Bioshock (Irrational Games, 2007), the participant focuses initially on the construction of mental or situation models in narrative comprehension (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983; Zwaan et al., 1995; Arthur et al., 2002; Cardona-Rivera & Young, 2012). She pieces together the narrative events from multiple sources such as the game’s environment or environmental storytelling and the embedded narrative (Jenkins, 2004) in the audio log. As she proceeded in the game world, her focus shifted towards her gameplay strategising as she encountered the boss fight with Big Daddy. For games which are dependent on whether the player has a good experience playing them, user research (e.g. Bernhaupt, 2010; Drachen et al., 2018) to obtain a deeper understanding of the player experience is essential and integral to the process of analysing and developing games. I offer an approach or a framework that scholars can draw from when designing their own studies of video gameplay and the player experience (e.g. Chen, 2010, 2012; Schott et al., 2013; Toh, 2014; Milik, 2015; Upton, 2017; Yu, 2017). To facilitate this aim, I examine video games as a ludonarrative form grounded in the player’s experience by pursuing answers to three questions: What are the relationships between the narrative and gameplay in video games? How does the player experience relate to the various ludonarrative relationships in video games? What insights about video game design can we obtain when the ludonarrative model is applied to analyse specific video games? In our case, ludonarrative is defined as the implied “whole” of every video game and it includes the gameplay (“ludo”), the story (“narrative”), and the player.

The Player Experience in Ludonarratology I use a qualitative exploratory and empirical-based approach (Roth & Koenitz, 2017) for the development of the ludonarrative model which

Introduction

3

I refine using the player experience. For the study of the player experience, I adopt a mixture of humanities (e.g. multimodal discourse analysis) and social sciences methods (e.g. player observation and interviews). My approach sees “games as object”/“artifact” (cf., Björk & Holopainen, 2005; Bogost, 2007) and “games as process”/“activity” (cf., Atkins, 2003; Malaby, 2007; Wardrip-Fruin, 2009). The former involves studying the game as text (using close reading, reflection, and multimodal discourse analysis; cf., Masso, 2009) to categorise formal aspects of games. The latter involves studying concrete gaming practices (e.g. gameplay observations and interviews) and arguing that gaming is context and situation dependent (Jørgensen, 2003) and cannot be studied in the abstract (Smith, 2006). From a textual perspective, we can only analyse the video game as a product without the presence of the player. In video game analysis and game studies where games are action (Galloway, 2006) and performanceoriented, it is important for us to incorporate the player as an obligatory element in the playing process (Pagulayan et al., 2003; Gee, 2008; Nacke & Drachen, 2011). Player experience research (Pagulayan et al., 2003; Pagulayan & Steury, 2004; Fernandez, 2008; Mandryk, 2008; Drachen et al., 2009) overlaps with user experience research (Jordan, 1999; Garrett, 2003; Kankainen, 2003; Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006; Sánchez et al., 2009). Player experience research combines the study of the players’ internal state (e.g. personality), the designed system’s characteristics (e.g. ludonarrative) and the context of interaction. From this perspective, the players’ mental models of the video game narrative are tied to their past and present gaming experiences. Their gaming experiences are in turn related to or combined with goal-oriented action in the gameplay which varies among different players to produce the unique narrative experience (Caracciolo, 2014) of each player. An important issue in the study of the player experience is that the researchers’ performances might not be the best source for study, especially when we are analysing our own playing (Aarseth, 2004a). For the researchers, playing the game is essential for understanding formal aspects of the game structures, but we should also combine our playing with other sources whenever possible (Aarseth, 2004b). To strengthen the analysis or guard against misinterpretations, we should match the results of our analysis or interpretations of our gameplay to the empirical basis (Aarseth, 2004b). We can also reflect on both our own playing experiences (Cameron & Carroll, 2004) and the other players’ experiences (Williams & Kirschner, 2013). Therefore, we should incorporate the subjective experiences of different players to obtain a more complete understanding of the players’ video gameplay when we perform game studies with our aim of constructing a theoretical model. One of the most useful contributions of the theoretical frame of ludonarratology is in the research method of data collection and analysis in which I constantly modify and refine the theoretical model as I collect more

4

Introduction

empirical data. Drawing upon the process of game development/design, I use an iterative (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Fullerton et al., 2004; Fullerton et al., 2006; Fullerton, 2008; Brathwaite & Schreiber, 2009; Coulton & Hook, 2017; Dormans & Holopainen, 2017) and emergent (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004) approach in the construction of the ludonarrative model and its subcategories. A theory or model is good only if we can use it to predict or describe a phenomenon in useful terms (Dewey, 2005a). Therefore, theories and models should strive to describe data accurately or provide good predictions about how things behave. In this sense, research is an iterative process where theoretical concepts are rejected or refined based on new findings (Lankoski & Bjӧrk, 2015) derived from our interactions with reality (Dewey, 2005b). These interactions refer to my discussions with the players during the interviews about their playing experience. My focus is the study of players’ gameplay to construct the model for the understanding of our interaction with video games. As I gather new data from the players, they are used to re-contextualise my understanding of the game-player relationship (Mäyra, 2008) and serve to constantly refine the ludonarrative model. Due to the undeniable complexity of the process of meaning construction from the players’ interviews and my subjective playing experience (cf. Taylor, 2009), any arbitrary conventions of data analysis would unnecessarily decrease the research potential of discourse studies in terms of reliability, validity, and credibility (Santiago-Delefosse et al., 2016). In the approach I have adopted, the emphasis is on understanding the agency of the human players which is situated in the complexity of their social reality. By using the players’ experience to refine the theoretical model, I introduce the element of subjectivity into the model because of the players’ and my subjective judgements. This is unavoidable because discourse analysis, social semiotics, and open-ended interviews are traditionally focused on understanding how humans perceive reality, which is unpredictable. Therefore, because of the subjective element of the research method and subjects used to refine the theoretical model, we need to regard all findings in this volume as but one possible way of interpretation. The value of this volume lies in seeing the meaning potential of a form as generally heterogeneous where the meanings ascribed in interpretation are open. I adopt the method of the triangulation (Cicourel, 1969; Kuper et al., 2008; Twining et al., 2017) of data to build the theoretical model and enrich the interpretations from multiple sources (Hanington & Martin, 2012) to include the lived reality of the players. The triangulation method (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011; Armstrong et al., 2011; Annabi & McGann, 2013; Bruneel et al., 2013, p. 132) involves theoretical triangulation (Denzin, 2006). Multiple theoretical frameworks from different disciplines (e.g. literary studies, social semiotics, and game studies) are used “in the analysis of a specific discursive occasion” (Weiss & Wodak, 2003, p. 22) to develop and refine the theoretical model. Data

Introduction

5

triangulation (Denzin, 2006) has been used to gather data from different players. Finally, method triangulation has been used for data gathering and analysis (Denzin, 2006; Torrance, 2012; Barr, 2017) which can increase the validity of interpretations (Birt et al., 2016). The different methods of data collection include the observation of the players’ gameplay in the laboratory, the interviews, and the gameplay recordings. Accordingly, in this book, the player experience is explored through the process of “the negotiation of interpretations” (Toh, 2015) which is a core interaction dynamic during the final session’s interview. There is combined data triangulation (Barr, 2017) where the multimodal discourse analysis of the gameplay recordings is “verified” with the players’ responses during the final interview. I will discuss this technique in Chapter 7.

The Ludonarratology Frame The ludology versus narratology debate is an important part of the history of game studies (Frasca, 2003a; Simons, 2007; Mäyrä, 2008; Crawford, 2012). Moving on from the debate, both perspectives are argued to be necessary and work together or combine (Stamenković & Jaćević, 2015; Chapman, 2016) in complementary ways in video games to convey the overall experience for the player (Kapell & Elliott, 2013; Joyce, 2015). The contribution of the theoretical model is in the conceptualisation of the formal aspects of games together with concrete (player) gaming practices (Bateman, 2016; Bateman & Zagal, 2017), such as the narrative, gameplay, and the players as a unified whole (Frasca, 2003b; Koenitz, 2010, 2015). Video games are not merely made up of fixed sequences of events as an actualised product, but they also incorporate behavioural rules based on the manipulations carried out by the players during the process of gameplay (Frasca, 2003b). Through the triangulation method used for the creation of the ludonarrative model, I show how the respective ludonarrative categories of “ludonarrative dissonance” and “ludonarrative resonance” are refined into further subcategories and based on the empirical data, I propose a new category of “ludonarrative (ir)relevance”. In particular, I incorporate Dena’s (2010) “transmodal elements” from her transmodological approach into the ludonarrative model. The incorporation facilitates the conceptualisation of the model to take into account elements that can be realised in both the gameplay and the narrative in different forms. These elements are connected together by a common semiotic principle, such as the ludonarrative relationships (see Chapters 3–6). For instance, quests, and missions involve action on behalf of the player, but plot involves narration. As a theoretical construct, we perceive action and narration in video gameplay as separated entities. However, when I include the player experience from the interviews to refine the model, the lines between “action” and “narration” become blurred. More specifically, the players use action to narrate the gameplay

6

Introduction

(Larsen & Schoenau-Fog, 2016; Sim & Mitchell, 2017) to produce a narrative effect (e.g. ludonarrative resonance semiotic metaphor) or to characterise the PC (e.g. ludonarrative resonance metaphor). This is one of the ways in which I incorporate the empirical data to refine the ludonarrative model to expand the possibilities for ludonarrative realisations by creating new ludonarrative subcategories for a better understanding of the game structure. I use the empirical data which includes the observation and analysis of the players’ video gameplay to support the argument that there are positive or neutral applications of Clint Hocking’s (2007) “ludonarrative dissonance” despite the negative sentiments it has induced. More specifically, we can use “ludonarrative dissonance” to track the players’ learning of the game structure (Manovich, 2001; Squire, 2006) as they replay the game. On the one hand, the players’ perception of “ludonarrative dissonance” during their first playthrough is associated with their perception of the rigidity in the game structure (e.g. the conflict between the narrative and the gameplay) which restricts their choice of action in the ludonarrative. On the other hand, the lack of the perception of “ludonarrative dissonance” during their second playthrough is associated with their learning and understanding (Manovich, 2001; Squire, 2006) of the game structure when they complete the other choices and pathways in the video game. As players figure out the game structure, they start to realise that the game is more flexible than they had first thought. This phenomenon will be discussed in detail in Chapter 4. The analysis of the gameplay recordings using the empirical data has also provided us with the knowledge to construct the ludonarrative (sub)categories along a continuum with respect to the different players’ experience. We conceptualise the main ludonarrative categories to exist along a continuum where “ludonarrative dissonance” and “ludonarrative resonance” exist at both ends of the continuum and “ludonarrative (ir) relevance” exists in-between the two main categories. The usefulness of a continuum based conceptualisation of the ludonarrative (sub)categories is in facilitating the further refinement of the subcategories as we gather more empirical data. A continuum-based approach emphasises the richness of the data gathered where we are not merely limited to the presence or absence of the respective ludonarrative subcategories, but are open to the multiple interpretations of the different players. By using the empirical data to refine the respective subcategories, the ludonarrative model is no longer a hypothetical construct (e.g. Aarseth, 2012; Eskelinen, 2012), but reflects the lived experience of each of the players (Pearce, 2004). In the players’ experience of the video game, there is no distinction made between game components when the players perceive them as a whole in their mental models to make sense of the narrative properties (Pearce, 2004) and ludonarrative of video games. Because I refine the ludonarrative model using the player experience, a continuum-based approach to

Introduction

7

the conceptualisation of the model can be used to understand how the players’ personality traits, motivations, and immersion2 in the game are related to their decision-making3 during the gameplay. For instance, the player, Jim who mentioned not wishing to immerse in the character’s role in The Walking Dead (Telltale Games, 2012) provided the reason that he did not want to become addicted to the game through attachment to the characters. Therefore, he treated the characters as game objects which perform a gameplay functional role as a tool to progress the game (see “ludonarrative resonance parallelism integration” in Chapter 5). When we can obtain a better understanding of players, we can design games to be personalised to player types or player experience in the sense that specific player types would prefer specific game mechanics compared to others (Busch et al., 2016). We can use the respective ludonarrative subcategories to understand the players’ gaming preferences as we constantly refine the ludonarrative model using the empirical data. In the discussion of “ludonarrative resonance motivation” in Chapter 5, we show that for players (e.g. Mary and Nasir) who are interested in the narrative, withholding narrative information about the characters motivates them to find out more about the story by engaging in the gameplay. However, players (e.g. Lenin) who would rather be involved in the gameplay, such as formulating strategies to overcome the gameplay challenges or solving puzzles, prefer the direct presentation of the narrative. For game design and analysis purposes, the ludonarrative subcategory, “resonance metaphor” enables us to understand whether the narrative representation in the game is working as intended to facilitate the players’ comprehension and learning of the object’s gameplay function. The representation is internalised in the players’ experience (Sigel, 1986). By interviewing the players, we make their experience explicit to understand the players better. During the interview, one of the participants, Mary mentioned that the huge size of some of the weapons in Bioshock such as the Chemical Thrower prevented her from using it because she assumed that the weapon blocked her vision. Therefore, based on players’ feedback, some of the game objects’ representations could be redesigned in future games. The open-ended interview method which I have adopted to collect the empirical data is useful as it provides a means for us to constantly refine the ludonarrative model. My discussion of a specific subcategory, such as ludonarrative resonance motivation, with the participant John has given rise to the conceptualisation of further subcategories when he disagreed with my analysis of the gameplay recordings. When I asked him whether he was motivated by the narrative to engage in the gameplay mission where he was required to collect the Big Daddy body parts to become one of them, he mentioned that it did not motivate him. The reason he provided was that the gameplay had become predictable and repetitive due to the lack of variety. In this way, I co-construct the subcategory

8

Introduction

of “ludonarrative dissonance demotivation” (see Chapter 4) with him. Another participant (Michael) who played Mass Effect (Bioware, 2007) mentioned that he felt angry when the NPC withheld information from him about how to progress the game when he talked to him. Instead, the NPC asked him to go to another NPC to obtain the information. Rather than feeling motivated, Michael felt that he had no choice but to follow the NPC’s instructions. From our discussion, the subcategory of “ludonarrative resonance guidance” (see Chapter 5) is co-created. When we come up with the different ludonarrative subcategories such as “ludonarrative resonance motivation” and “ludonarrative dissonance contrast—anagnorisis”, we can understand how players develop empathy during gameplay. By analysing the players’ interviews, we can understand the process in which players’ empathy can or cannot form for the game characters, depending on their mental model and the game design (Inchamnan & Wyeth, 2013). Some games withhold specific characters’ information from us at the start of the game, and then reveal that information later in the game through a plot twist. In this way, we are able to see different sides of the characters where we obtain a better understanding of them. The narrative can therefore motivate our gameplay decisions. More importantly, we are inclined to save a character with whom we felt a connection. In contrast, we cannot feel empathy when all we get from the game is a vague picture of the narrative.

Book Structure I introduce the theoretical discussion in Chapters 1 and 2. In Chapters 3–11, we will talk about the relation between the theoretical model and the player experience in finer detail. Concurrently, I embark on a quest to detail the analytical tools available for conducting video gameplay analysis, which will be useful to game scholars, academics, and students. Therefore, in each chapter I give consideration to the discussion of the research methods used to construct and refine the model. In Chapters 9, 11, and 12, I use the developed model on example analyses of gameplay segments to demonstrate how we can use the model for the analysis of other video games to provide insights about game design. Chapter 1: Introduction In this chapter, I have explained why ludonarratology is a useful frame for game studies and examined how video game and gamer discourse4 in the form of the players’ experience are interlinked and reinforcing each other in the process of video gameplay. I have provided a brief overview of the research methods I have adopted to analyse the players’ experience. I have also noted the constructive and interpretative nature of the players’ experience and underscored the role of the players’ experience in the

Introduction

9

development of the theoretical model. I end the chapter by explaining the logic behind the conceptualisation and structure of the book and outline individual chapters. Chapter 2: A Multimodal Approach to Ludonarratology I continue to map the field of video game discourse analysis in Chapter 2. I delineate its theoretical and methodological scope in relation to relevant areas of investigation, such as multimodality, multimodal discourse analysis, social semiotics, narratology, and game studies. Chapter 3: Theoretical Conceptualisation of the Ludonarrative Model While I provide the theoretical underpinnings, concepts, and constructs which I draw upon for the development of the theoretical model in Chapters 1 and 2, I provide a comprehensive discussion of the ludonarrative model in Chapter 3. I describe and explain the conceptualisation of the ludonarrative model. I provide attribution for where particular constructs were derived and state how the proposed model draws from earlier constructs such as Stöckl’s (2004) discussion of modes, and Dena’s (2010) common semiotic principle and transmodiological approach. Ludonarratology is conceptualised as a useful frame for game studies scholarship. In particular, I view the respective modes and modules of video game design such as the narrative and gameplay, as well as the way the players interact with the game components to contribute to the overall experience as a whole (cf., Dunne, 2014, 2016; Karhulahti, 2015; Stamenković et al., 2017). However, we should also view the different components of video game design on their own. From a multimodal perspective, the theoretical dissection of the holistic impression into its parts is done in order to sensitise us to the essential differences and systematic similarities of the modes involved (Stöckl, 2004) and detail the relationships between the various components (and the player). When we incorporate the players’ experience (Pearce, 2004) to refine the theoretical model, the distinction between different elements of the model disappears as the players perceive them as a whole in their mental models to enable them to make sense of the ludonarrative of the video games. Chapter 4: Ludonarrative Dissonance The ludonarrative relationships which are at the centre of the model interlink the narrative and gameplay. The three main categories of the ludonarrative model are “ludonarrative dissonance”, “ludonarrative resonance”, and “ludonarrative (ir)relevance” with their various subcategories. I define and discuss them with reference to the literature. The

10

Introduction

remainder of this chapter proceeds with a comprehensive discussion of the various subcategories of ludonarrative dissonance with reference to the player experience. Chapter 5: Ludonarrative Resonance In Chapter 5, I conceptualise the various subcategories of ludonarrative resonance with reference to the player experience. These subcategories show us the importance of designing games to integrate the narrative and gameplay modules seamlessly in order to enable players to enjoy the game by involving their participation in the game world in a believable and satisfying way. Chapter 6: Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance and the Player Experience I continue with the conceptualisation of the ludonarrative relationship in this chapter by focusing on the subcategories of ludonarrative (ir)relevance. The player experience forms an important part of the ludonarrative model as it influences our understanding of how the players use the various game components to progress the game. Therefore, to conclude the chapter, I discuss the player experience as a contextual factor based on empirical data from the game study’s participants. Their experience is discussed in the respective factors of “available time”, “personality factors”, “play style preferences”, “prior experience of gaming”, “the player’s skill level”, and “game guides and walkthroughs”. Chapter 7: Methodological Considerations in the Ludonarrative Model In Chapter 7, I describe the research method which I have used to construct and develop the ludonarrative model. I explain how I recruited the participants for the empirical study which includes the criteria in terms of their age and game experience and rationale for their selection. I describe the participant observation in the lab, the first session’s openended interview, and also how the participants carried out the subsequent sessions of the study in their homes. Subsequently, I indicate how I have created the open-ended interview questions for the final session of the study by using the analytical lenses which I have adopted for the multimodal discourse analysis of gameplay recordings. Finally, I explain how I have conducted and transcribed the final session’s open-ended interview, and coded and categorised the patterns in the interview data to develop the ludonarrative model. I conclude the chapter by introducing the narrative and gameplay of the five video games which I have chosen for the study and explain the criteria for their selection. In this

Introduction

11

chapter, I emphasise that the development of the ludonarrative model is iterative where I constantly refine the ludonarrative subcategories as I gather more data from more participants. The model is therefore dynamic, that is, open to change. Chapter 8: Narration I—Players’ Mental Models The chief aim of Chapters 8–11 is to go into more specific discussion about the two parts of the ludonarrative model, namely the narrative and the gameplay. I also show how they can be applied for the analysis of other video games by providing example analyses of selected gameplay segments from the participants in the study. In Chapter 8, I discuss the various components and elements conceptualised under the micro perspective of the video game narrative analysis framework. I explain how I have modified and applied the different elements in Ryan’s (2003) cognitive maps such as “inventory”, “spatial relations”, and “mapping style” to the analysis of video game narrative segments. Additionally, based on the empirical data, I explain how I have expanded Ryan’s (2003) model by adding two new elements to the framework, namely, “interactive character movement” and “interactive character movement with action” and demonstrated them using video game examples. I end this chapter with a short discussion of how the presence of multimodal elements, such as the linguistic and visual signs work together to complicate or facilitate the formation of the players’ mental models in the interpretation of the video game narrative, depending on the design of the game structure (relationships between modules, modes, and elements). Chapter 9: Narration II—Video Game Narrative Analysis Framework In Chapter 9, I discuss the various components and elements conceptualised under the macro perspective of the video game narrative analysis framework. I start the chapter by discussing the multi-linear feature of video game narrative. The video game narrative analysis framework is conceptualised in terms of four levels, namely, deep structure, mediation, genres and conventions, and surface overall structure. This framework provides the analytical lens for the multimodal discourse analysis of the gameplay recordings which modifies, develops, and integrates Ryan’s (2003) cognitive maps, and Fludernik’s (1996, 2003) natural narratology and cognitive parameters. I use the model as an analytical lens to review and analyse the gameplay recordings. I create open-ended interview questions during the analysis process to triangulate my analysis and interpretations with the players’ interpretations of the video game narrative during the retrospective protocol analysis in the interviews. This is an iterative process where my analysis and interpretations are combined with the

12

Introduction

players’ responses to co-construct the ludonarrative model and its respective subcategories with them. Chapter 10: Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics As has been stated, I present the second part of the ludonarrative model in Chapters 10 and 11 which consists of the video gameplay analysis framework. I first contextualise the proposal of the video gameplay analysis framework by outlining Montfort’s (2003) interactional framework in interactive fiction and Heaton’s (2006) circular model of gameplay. Following that, I outline the framework for the players’ motive(s) in video games to understand why the players select a specific gameplay action/ pathway when they interact with the game. Next, I explain how I modify Manninen’s (2003) framework of interaction forms and communicative actions to analyse the lower level micro gameplay actions of the players. I conclude the chapter with the discussion of how I modify Fabricatore’s (2007) model of gameplay mechanics to analyse the system’s response to the players’ actions to facilitate or challenge their gameplay progress. Chapter 11: Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, and Stage(s) On a higher-level, I use Martin and Rose’s (2007) exchange structure to integrate Fabricatore’s (2007) modified model of gameplay mechanics with the player’s gameplay actions to form the gameplay loop. A series of gameplay loops combine to form the gameplay phases. I create the gameplay phases by modifying Martin and Rose’s (2008) story phases and validating them using the players’ empirical data. The highest level of the gameplay analysis model is the gameplay stage which I define as single playthrough of the video game. I also devote a short section to explain multi-linear gameplay in the five video games used in the study. This chapter ends with an example application of the gameplay analysis model. In order to demonstrate the general applicability of the gameplay analysis model to readers, I present the analysis of two players’ (Michael and Matt) gameplay interaction in Beyond: Two Souls as a contrastive approach to highlight the multiple pathways in video gameplay. I introduce the gameplay framework in Chapters 10 and 11 to highlight how the analysis has been used to create the open-ended interview questions in the final session of the study. Chapter 12: Video Games as Ludonarrative: Application and Future Directions I demonstrate ludonarratology as a useful frame for game studies scholarship in Chapter 12 with a detailed application analysis on the prologue of The Last of Us (Naughty Dog, 2013) to show how the respective

Introduction

13

ludonarrative subcategories from the ludonarrative model can be used to analyse the players’ interaction with the video game. This approach enables us to understand the player experience of the video game which consists of the players’ narrative interpretation, performance of gameplay action, and understanding of the ludonarrative. Finally, I provide an overview of the contributions made by the ludonarratology frame. I discuss the research method which I have presented from the analyses conducted in the previous chapters. I then outline the limitations of the study. Finally, I provide the broader implications that we can draw about the ludonarrative model and directions for further research. As this structure implies, I present the theoretical background and the model in Chapters 1–6. I show how the model is developed in Chapter 7 in the methodological considerations. Then, I detail the two parts of the ludonarrative model, namely the narrative and the gameplay frameworks in Chapters 8–11 which is followed by the application of the ludonarrative model in Chapter 12. Even though I present the frameworks in Chapters 8–11 separately, they should be viewed as a whole. The players perceive the elements in the gameplay and narrative modules such as “action” and “interactive movement” respectively as a whole in the ludonarrative relationships (e.g. ludonarrative resonance metaphor) to become the players’ story when playing the game.

Notes 1 Mary is the pseudonym given to one of the game study’s participants. 2 The concept of immersion which I adopt follows Thon’s (2008) concept of player experience of psychological immersion due to the player’s shifting attention to and construction of situation models of different parts of the game. The player can shift attention to the gameplay (ludic immersion), the narrative (immersion), or ludonarrative (immersion) (Toh, 2019). 3 For discussions on moral decision-making systems in digital games, see for instance, Knoll (2018). 4 I define gamer discourse as the way the gamer creates meaning by interpreting the semiotic signs communicated to them from the video game during gameplay and in the retrospective protocol analysis during the interviews.

References Aarseth, E. (2004a). Genre Trouble: Narrativism and the Art of Simulation. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game (pp. 45–55). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Aarseth, E. (2004b). Playing Research: Methodological Approaches to Game Analysis. Game Approaches: Papers from Spilforskning.dk Conference. Aug 28–29, 2003. Spilforskning.dk, 2004. Available from www.cs.uu.nl/docs/vakken/ vw/literature/02.GameApproaches2.pdf (Accessed: 14 Nov 2017). Aarseth, E. (2012). A Narrative Theory of Games. FDG’12 Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 129–133). ACM, New York, NY.

14

Introduction

Annabi, H., & McGann, S. T. (2013). Social Media as the Missing Link: Connecting Communities of Practice to Business Strategy. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 23, 56–83. doi:10.1080/10919392.2013. 748608 Armstrong, S. L., Davis, H. S., & Paulson, E. J. (2011). The Subjectivity Problem: Improving Triangulation Approaches in Metaphor Analysis Studies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(2), 151–163. Arthur, C., Graesser, A. C., Olde, B., & Klettke, B. (2002). How Does the Mind Construct and Represent Stories? In M. C. Green, J. J. Strange, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Narrative Impact: Social and Cognitive Foundations (pp. 229–262). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Atkins, B. (2003). More Than a Game: The Computer Game as Fictional Form. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Barr, M. (2017). Press Start: The Value of an Online Student-Led, Peer-Reviewed Game Studies Journal. Research in Learning Technology, 25, 1982. http:// dx.doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1982 Bateman, C. (2016). The Lineages of Play. Journal of Playwork Practice, 3(2), 95–106(12). https://doi.org/10.1332/205316216X14812995850453 Bateman, C., & Zagal, J. (2017). Game Design Lineages: Minecraft’s Inventory. Proceedings of DiGRA UK Conference 2017. May 5, MediaCity, Salford. Bernhaupt, R. (Ed.). (2010). Evaluating User Experience in Games: Concepts and Methods (Human-Computer Interaction Series). Heidelberg: Springer. Bioware. (2007). Mass Effect. Multi-Platform: Microsoft Game Studios & Electronic Arts. Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, D. (2016). Member Checking: A Tool to Enhance Trustworthiness or Merely a Nod to Validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. Björk, S., & Holopainen, H. (2005). Patterns in Game Design. Boston, MA: Charles River Media. Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Brathwaite, B., & Schreiber, I. (2009). Challenges for Game Designers: NonDigital Exercises for Video Game Designers. Boston, MA: Charles River Media. Bruneel, S., Wit, K. D., Verhoeven, J. C., & Elen, J. (2013). Facebook: When Education Meets Privacy. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 9, 125–148. Busch, M., Mattheiss, E., Hochleitner, W., Hochleitner, C., Lankes, M., Fröhlich, P., Orji, R., & Tscheligi, M. (2016). Using Player Type Models for Personalized Game Design: An Empirical Investigation. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal: IxD&A, 28, 145–163. Cameron, D., & Carroll, J. (2004). ‘The Story So Far . . .’: The Researcher as a Player in Game Analysis. Media International Australia, 110(1), 62–72. Caracciolo, M. (2014). The Experientiality of Narrative: An Enactivist Approach. Berlin: de Gruyter. Cardona-Rivera, R. E., & Young, R. M. (2012). Characterizing Gameplay in a Player Model of Game Story Comprehension. FDG ’12 Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 204–211). May 29–June 1, Raleigh, NC.

Introduction

15

Chapman, A. (2016). Digital Games as History: How Videogames Represent the Past and Offer Access to Historical Practice. New York: Routledge. Chen, M. (2010). Leet Noobs: Expertise and Collaboration in a World of Warcraft Player Group as Distributed Sociomaterial Practice. Ph.D Dissertation. University of Washington. Chen, M. (2012). Leet Noobs: The Life and Death of an Expert Player Group in World of Warcraft. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Cicourel, A. V. (1969). Method and Measurement in Sociology. New York: The Free Press. Coulton, P., & Hook, A. (2017). Games Design Research through Game Design Practice. In P. Lankoski & J. Holopainen (Eds.), Game Design Research: An Introduction to Theory & Practice (pp. 169–202). Carnegie Mellon University and ETC Press. Crawford, G. (2012). Video Gamers. London: Routledge. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dena, C. (2010). Beyond Multimedia, Narrative, and Game: The Contributions of Multimodality and Polymorphic Fictions. In R. Page (Ed.), New Perspectives on Narrative and Multimodality (pp. 183–201). New York and London: Taylor & Francis. Denzin, N. (Ed.). (2006). Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction. Dewey, J. (2005a). The Quest for Certainty and Human Nature and Conduct. New York: Kessinger Publishing. Dewey, J. (2005b). The Quest for Certainty: A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action. New York: Kessinger Publishing. Dormans, J., & Holopainen, J. (2017). Investigating Game Design Methods and Models. In P. Lankoski & J. Holopainen (Eds.), Game Design Research: An Introduction to Theory & Practice (pp. 265–308). Carnegie Mellon University and ETC Press. Drachen, A., Canossa, A., & Yannakakis, G. N. (2009). Player Modeling Using Self-Organization in Tomb Raider: Underworld. Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games 2009, IEEE (September 2009) (pp. 1–8). Milan, Italy. Drachen, A., Mirza-Babaei, P., & Nacke, L. (Eds.). (2018). Games User Research. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Dunne, D. (2014). Multimodality or Ludo-Narrative Dissonance: Duality of Presentation in Fringe Media. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interactive Entertainment. Dec 2–3, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. Dunne, D. (2016). The Scholar’s Ludo-Narrative Game and Multimodal Graphic Novel: A Comparison of Fringe Scholarship. In A. M. Connor & S. Marks (Eds.), Creative Technologies for Multidisciplinary Applications (Advances in Media, Entertainment, and the Arts). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. Eskelinen, M. (2012). Cybertext Poetics: The Critical Landscape of New Media Literacy Theory. London and New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA. Fabricatore, C. (2007). Gameplay and Game Mechanics Design: A Key to Quality in Videogames. Proceedings of OECD-CERI Expert Meeting on Videogames and Education. Santiago de Chile, Chile. [online] Available from www.oecd. org/edu/ceri/39414829.pdf (Accessed: 20 Dec 2017).

16

Introduction

Fernandez, A. (2008). Fun Experience with Digital Games: A Model Proposition. In O. Leino, H. Wirman, & A. Fernandez (Eds.), Extending Experiences: Structure, Analysis and Design of Computer Game Player Experience (pp. 181–190). Rovaniemi, Finland: Lapland University Press. Fludernik, M. (1996). Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London and New York: Routledge. Fludernik, M. (2003). Natural Narratology and Cognitive Parameters. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 243–267). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Frasca, G. (2003a). Ludologists Love Stories, Too: Notes from a Debate That Never Took Place. In M. Copier & J. Raessens (Eds.), Level-Up (pp. 92–99). Utrecht: Utrecht University. Frasca, G. (2003b). Simulation versus Narrative: Introduction to Ludology. In M. J. P. Wolf & B. Perron (Eds.), The Video Game Theory Reader. New York: Routledge. Fullerton, T. (2008). Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games. Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Fullerton, T., Chen, J., Santiago, K., Nelson, E., Diamante, V., Meyers, A., Song, G., & DeWeese, J. (2006). That Cloud Game: Dreaming (and Doing) Innovative Game Design. Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Videogames: Sandbox ’06 (pp. 51–59). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA. doi:10.1145/1183316.1183324 Fullerton, T., Swain, C., & Hoffman, S. (2004). Game Design Workshop: Designing, Prototyping and Playtesting Games. Berkeley, CA: CMP Books. Galloway, A. R. (2006). Gaming: Essays on Algorithmic Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Garrett, J. J. (2003). The Elements of User Experience: User-Centered Design for the Web. Berkeley, CA: New Riders. Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and Games. In S. Katie (Ed.), The Ecology of Games Connecting Youth, Games and Learning (pp. 21–40). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers. Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User Experience: A Research Agenda. Behaviour and Information Technology, 25(2), 91–97. Heaton, T. (2006). A Circular Model of Gameplay. Gamasutra. Available from www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130978/a_circular_model_of_gameplay. php (Accessed: 20 Dec 2017). Hocking, C. (2007). Ludonarrative Dissonance in Bioshock: The Problem of What the Game Is About. Available from http://clicknothing.typepad.com/ click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html (Accessed: 7 Dec 2017). Inchamnan, W., & Wyeth, P. (2013). Motivation during Videogame Play: Analysing Player Experience in Terms of Cognitive Action. Proceedings of the 9th Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment: Matters of Life and Death. ACM, RMIT, Melbourne, VIC. Irrational Games. (2007). Bioshock. Multi-Platform: 2K Games & Feral Interactive. Jenkins, H. (2004). Game Design as Narrative Architecture. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), First-Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game (pp. 118–130). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Introduction

17

Jordan, P. W. (1999). Pleasure with Products: Human Factors for Body, Mind and Soul. In W. S. Green & P. W. Jordan (Eds.), Human Factors in Product Design: Current Practise and Future Trends (pp. 206–217). London: Taylor & Francis. Jørgensen, K. (2003). Problem Solving: The Essence of Player Action in Computer Games. Proceedings of DiGRA. November 4–6, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands. Joyce, L. (2015). Assessing Mass Effect 2 and Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Using Collaborative Criteria for Player Agency in Interactive Narratives. Presented at Extending Play: The Sequel. Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. Kankainen, A. (2003). UCPCD: User-Centered Product Concept Design. Proceedings of the Conference on Designing for User Experiences (pp. 1–13). San Francisco, USA. Kapell, M. W., & Elliott, A. B. R. (2013). Playing with the Past: Digital Games and the Simulation of History. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Karhulahti, V.-M. (2015). Hermeneutics and Ludocriticism. Journal of Games Criticism, 2(1), 1–23. Knoll, T. (2018). ‘Instant Karma’: Moral Decision Making Systems in Digital Games. Religions, 9(4), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel9040131 Koenitz, H. (2010). Towards a Theoretical Framework for Interactive Digital Narrative. Third Joint Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling (pp. 176– 185). Springer, Heidelberg. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16638-9_22 Koenitz, H. (2015). Towards a Specific Theory of Interactive Digital Narrative. In H. Koenitz, G. Ferri, M. Haahr, D. Sezen, & T. I. Sezen (Eds.), Interactive Digital Narrative (pp. 91–105). New York: Routledge. Kuper, A., Lingard, L., & Levinson, W. (2008). Critically Appraising Qualitative Research. BMJ, 337, a1035. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1035 Lankoski, P., & Björk, S. (Eds.). (2015). Game Research Methods: An Overview. Halifax, Canada: ETC Press. Larsen, B. A., & Schoenau-Fog, H. (2016). The Narrative Quality of Game Mechanics. In F. Nack & A. Gordon (Eds.), Interactive Storytelling, ICIDS 2016: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10045. Cham: Springer. Malaby, T. M. (2007). Beyond Play: A New Approach to Games. Games and Culture, 2(2), 95–113. Mandryk, R. L. (2008). Physiological Measures for Game Evaluation. In K. Isbister & N. Schaffer (Eds.), Game Usability: Advice from the Experts for Advancing the Player Experience (pp. 207–235). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Science. Manninen, T. (2003). Interaction Forms and Communicative Actions in Multiplayer Games. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research , 3 (1). Available from www.gamestudies.org/0301/manninen/ (Accessed: 20 Dec 2017). Manovich, L. (2001). The Language of New Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause (2nd ed.). London and New York: Continuum Impacts. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox. Masso, I. C. (2009). Developing a Methodology for Corpus-Based Computer Game Studies. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 1(2), 143–169.

18

Introduction

Mäyrä, F. (2008). An Introduction to Game Studies: Games in Culture. London, England: Sage Publications. Milik, O. (2015). Virtual Warlords: An Ethnomethodological View of Group Identity and Leadership in EVE Online. Games and Culture, 12(7–8), 764–785. Montfort, N. (2003). Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Nacke, L., & Drachen, A. (2011). Towards a Framework of Player Experience Research. Proceedings of the 2011 Foundations of Digital Games Conference, EPEX 11. Bordeaux, France. Naughty Dog. (2013). The Last of Us. Sony Computer Entertainment. Playstation 3 and 4. Pagulayan, R. J., Keeker, K., Wixon, D., Romero, R. L., & Fuller, T. (2003). UserCentered Design in Games. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The HumanComputer Interaction Handbook (pp. 883–906). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Pagulayan, R., & Steury, K. (2004). Beyond Usability in Games. Interactions, 11(5), 70–71. Pearce, C. (2004). Towards a Game Theory of Game. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), First Person: New Media as Story, Performance and Game (pp. 143–153). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Quantic Dream. (2013). Beyond: Two Souls. Playstation 3 and 4. Roth, C., & Koenitz, H. (2017). Towards Creating a Body of Evidence-Based Interactive Digital Narrative Design Knowledge: Approaches and Challenges. AltMM ’17 Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Multimedia Alternate Realities (pp. 19–24). Oct 27, Mountain View, CA, USA. Ryan, M.-L. (2003). Cognitive Maps and the Construction of Narrative Space. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 214–242). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Sánchez, J. L. G., Zea, N. P., & Gutiérrez, F. L. (2009). From Usability to Playability: Introduction to Player-Centred Video Game Development Process. Proceedings of HCD 2009 (pp. 65–74). Springer. Santiago-Delefosse, M., Gavin, A., Bruchez, C., Roux, P., & Stephen, S. L. (2016). Quality of Qualitative Research in the Health Sciences: Analysis of the Common Criteria Present in 58 Assessment Guidelines by Expert Users. Social Science & Medicine, 148, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.11.007 Schott, G., Marczak, R., Mäyrä, F., & Vught van, J. (2013). DeFragging Regulation: From Putative Effects to ‘Researched’ Accounts of Player Experience. Proceedings of DiGRA 2013: DeFragging Game Studies. Aug, Atlanta, Georgia. Sigel, I. E. (1986). Early Social Experience and the Development of Representational Competence. In W. Fowler (Ed.), Early Experience and the Development of Competence (New Directions for Child Development, 32) (pp. 49–65). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sim, Y. T., & Mitchell, A. (2017). Wordless Games: Gameplay as Narrative Technique. In N. Nunes, I. Oakley, & V. Nisi (Eds.), Interactive Storytelling, ICIDS 2017: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10690 (pp. 137–149). Cham: Springer.

Introduction

19

Simons, J. (2007). Narrative, Games, and Theory. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 7. Smith, J. H. (2006). Plans and Purposes: How Videogame Goals Shape Player Behaviour. Ph.D Dissertation. IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Squire, K. (2006). From Content to Context: Videogames as Designed Experience. Educational Researcher , 35 (8), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0013189X035008019 Stamenković, D., & Jaćević, M. (2015). Time, Space, and Motion in Braid: A Cognitive Semantic Approach to a Video Game. Games and Culture, 10(2), 178–203. Stamenković, D., Jaćević, M., & Wildfeuer, J. (2017). The Persuasive Aims of Metal Gear Solid: A Discourse Theoretical Approach to the Study of Argumentation in Video Games. Discourse, Context & Media, 15, 11–23. Stöckl, H. (2004). In between Modes: Language and Image in Printed Media. In E. Ventola, C. Cassily, & M. Kaltenbacher (Eds.), Perspectives on Multimodality (pp. 9–30). Philadelphia and The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Tan, C. T., Leong, T. W., & Shen, S. (2014). Combining Think-Aloud and Physiological Data to Understand Video Game Experiences. CHI’14 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Apr 26–May 1, ACM Press, Toronto, ON, Canada. Taylor, T. L. (2009). Play between Worlds: Exploring Online Game Culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Telltale Games. (2012). The Walking Dead. Multi-Platform: Telltale Games. Theodorou, E. (2010). Let the Gamers Do the Talking: A Comparative Study of Two Usability Testing Methods for Video Games. Master’s Thesis. University College London. Thon, J.-N. (2008). Immersion Revisited. On the Value of a Contested Concept, in O. Leino, H. Wirman and A. Fernandez (Eds.), Extending Experiences: Structure, Analysis and Design of Computer Game Player Experience (pp. 29–43). Rovaniemi: Lapland University Press. Toh, W. (2014). An Analysis of Open World PvP in LOTRO’s PvMP as a Case Study for PvP Games. Press Start, 1(1), 37–58. Toh, W. (2015). A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Video Games: A Ludonarrative Model. Ph.D Dissertation. National University of Singapore. Toh, W. (2019). The Player Experience of Bioshock: A Theory of Ludonarrative Relationships. In A. Ensslin and I. Balteiro (Eds.). Approaches to Videogame Discourse. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Torrance, H. (2012). Triangulation, Respondent Validation, and Democratic Participation in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 111–123. doi:10.1177/1558689812437185 Twining, P., Heller, R. S., Nusbaum, M., & Tsai, C.-C. (2017). Some Guidance on Conducting and Reporting Qualitative Studies. Computers & Education, 106, A1–A9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.002 Upton, B. (2017). Situational Game Design. New York: A. K. Peters, Ltd and CRC Press. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press. van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes. London: Academic Press.

20

Introduction

Wardrip-Fruin, N. (2009). Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2003). Introduction: Theory, Interdisciplinarity and Critical Discourse Analysis. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity (pp. 1–32). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Williams, P. J., & Kirschner, D. (2013). Experts and Novices or Expertise? Positioning Players through Gameplay Reviews. Proceedings of DiGRA 2013: Defragging Game Studies. Snowbird, UT. Yu, G. (2017). Understanding the Self through the Use of Digitally Constructed Realities. In J. Gackenbach & J. Brown (Eds.), Boundaries of Self and Reality Online: Implications of Digitally Constructed Realities (pp. 27–39). London: Academic Press. Zwaan, R. A., Langston, M. C., & Graesser, A. C. (1995). The Construction of Situation Models in Narrative Comprehension: An Event-Indexing Model. Psychological Science, 6(5) (Sep), 292–297.

2

A Multimodal Approach to Ludonarratology

Multimodality illuminates the potential of multimodal research to understand how people communicate (Jewitt et al., 2016). Kress (2010) sees multimodality as a phenomenon rather than a discipline—the phenomenon in which communication integrates a range of different means of expression simultaneously (van Leeuwen, 2015). However, van Leeuwen (2015) argues that other disciplines use other terms for the same phenomenon such as intermediality and multisensoriality so “multimodality” is also a disciplinary position, an approach to the study of the phenomenon that originates from linguistics and semiotics. More specifically, multimodality refers to modes of representation beyond verbal language, such as image, music, and gesture which have become omnipresent in the multisemiotic complexity of the representations in the digital age (Dash, 2016). Multimodal discourse analysis (e.g. Baldry, 2000; Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001; O’Halloran, 2004) is an approach to discourse [analysis] which focuses on how meaning is made through the use of multiple modes of communication as opposed to just language (Jones, 2012). The multimodal approach focuses on our meaning-making of the elements (and modes) within the text as a whole (Dunne, 2014, 2016a; Stamenković et al., 2017). Discourse comprehension (Graesser & Forsyth, 2013) involves understanding the relationships between different elements, the relationships between the elements and the text (part-whole relationship), their sequencing and organisation, and the division of different elements into hierarchical levels (Jacobs, 2013, 2014). I adopt the multimodal approach in the ludonarratology frame in which the gameplay, the narrative, and the player are conceived as a whole. In the ludonarrative model, the relationships between different elements include those that can be found under gameplay, such as the causal relationships between the mechanics and the players’ actions. It can also refer to the relationships between elements under gameplay and narrative, such as the relationship between quests/missions and plots. The gameplay and narrative are also divided into hierarchical levels where they are made up of multimodal semiotic resources (discussed in Chapters 3–6 and Chapters 8–11).

22

A Multimodal Approach to Ludonarratology

There are three focal approaches to multimodality which include systemic functional linguistics (SFL), social semiotics (SS), and conversation analysis (CA). These approaches are grounded in established disciplines concerning language in use and share a sociocultural perspective towards discourse, communication, and inter(action) (Guo, 2017). However, there are different terminological preferences and meanings ascribed to mode or semiotic resources in the different approaches so there is a need to conceptualise working definitions when engaging with multimodal research so as to maximise conceptual clarity and consistency (Guo, 2017). Following Kress (2010, p. 79), in this book, mode is a socially shaped and culturally given semiotic resource for meaning-making and includes image, moving image, 3D objects, writing, speech, and so on in video games. Mode is also essentially an immaterial semiotic resource, an abstract semiotic resource that is applicable across different means of expressions, or different media (van Leeuwen, 2015, pp. 101–102). Even though van Leeuwen (2015) suggests that narrative can be conceptualised as a mode, narrative is too broad a term and can comprise various types and combination of modes. Drawing upon Kress’ use of the term “module”1 (Kress, 2010) which he uses to refer to semiotic entities which are shaped by the interests of the text maker to fulfil the text purpose in a specific context, I adopt “module” to refer to a concept that is on a higher-level than “mode”. In this book, I define “module” as a combination of elements, actualised elements, modes, and sub-modes in the video game as a text. Therefore, narrative and gameplay are conceptualised as “modules” in the ludonarrative model which is discussed in Chapter 3. Based on Halliday (2004), the central feature of the SFL approach to multimodal discourse analysis (e.g. O’Halloran, 2007, 2008) focuses on the three metafunctions: ideational, interpersonal, and textual. van Leeuwen’s (2005) theory of social semiotics is grounded on the notion of “semiotic resource”. Social semiotics reflects Halliday’s (1978, 1985) model of language as a social semiotic resource whose meaning-making potential is dynamic and shaped by and shaping the social contexts in which it is situated in through social interactions. In other words, modalities do not come with preconceived meanings, uses, and significances, but are conditioned and constructed within the wider contexts of dynamic social practices and conventions (O’Halloran & Smith, 2011). The focus of this book is on the players’ multiple, open-ended, and subjective meaningmaking situated in their contexts of play and prior experience which is negotiated (Toh, 2015a) with my experience, interpretations, and analysis. The main purpose of multimodality and social semiotics is to develop analytical and theoretical frameworks (e.g. Owyong, 2007; Liu & O’Halloran, 2009; Feng & O’Halloran, 2012; Toh, 2014, 2015b; Lim, 2017) to describe and interpret the multiple representations and communication across different semiotic modes (Adami, 2016), and systems to explain meaning-making in a social context (Thibault, 1991). However,

A Multimodal Approach to Ludonarratology

23

meanings in video games are not only highly multimodal (Jones & Hafner, 2012). When applying (multimodal) discourse analysis and social semiotics approaches to game studies either for conceptualisation of theoretical models or for analysis, it is important to consider interactivity (cf., Bogost’s (2007) procedural rhetoric and Karhulahti’s (2015) hermeneutics approach) as a core feature of games. I consider the multiple modes of semiotic resources such as language, sound, image, and action together to constitute interactivity or the players’ physical and psychological engagement with media that is multimodal (Collins, 2013) in the ludonarrative model. Some of the game studies scholars who have adopted (multimodal) discourse analysis approaches include Ensslin (2012, 2014); Gee (2014, 2015); Stamenković and Jacević (2015); Stamenković et al. (2017); and Hawreliak (2018). Other game studies scholars who have adopted social semiotics approaches include Pérez-Latorre (2015) and Pérez-Latorre et al. (2017).

Narrative in Ludonarratology Narratological approaches in game studies can be broadly classified into four groups. They are the traditional narrative (drama), classical narrative (narratology and literary studies), new theories (new media and cognitive psychology), and psychoanalytical theories (player experience). I combine theories from classical narrative and new theories to conceptualise some of the ludonarrative subcategories, such as ludonarrative resonance causality, succession (see Chapter 5), and the video game narrative framework (see Chapters 8 and 9). Classical theories encompass the field usually referred to as narratology. The roots of this approach rest on Ferdinand de Saussure’s theories related to sign and language use where fictional worlds are accessed by semiotic means (Myers, 2003; Carr et al., 2006; Ferri, 2007) and consist of non-actual possible situations and individuals (Doležel, 1998). Concepts from the semiotic system such as Pierce’s icon, symbol, and index are integrated into some of the ludonarrative subcategories, such as ludonarrative resonance metaphor and prominence (see Chapter 5). Classical theories used in game studies also borrow heavily from the literary strand of narratological theory which foregrounds games as forms of storytelling, as opposed to discussing them as drama (Ryan, 2001). Concepts borrowed from literary studies and used in game studies include Gérard Genette’s (1980) focalisation (Allison, 2015), granularity, mode of narration, and meaning-effects (Arjoranta, 2017). Some of the concepts from literary studies such as perspective shift in focalisation are integrated into ludonarrative subcategories such as “player-(game designers’) character dissonance” (see Chapter 4). New theories take into account the characteristics of new media forms such as the absence of a narrator (Patron, 2018), player agency (Murray, 1998; Jørgensen, 2003; Mateas, 2004; Harrell & Zhu, 2009; Tanenbaum & Tanenbaum, 2009; Sylvester, 2013; Habel & Kooyman, 2013;

24

A Multimodal Approach to Ludonarratology

Tanenbaum, 2015; Johnson, 2015; Ferguson et al., 2016; Green, 2017; Kuznetsova, 2017; Muriel & Crawford, 2018), interactivity (Knoller & Ben-Arie, 2015), multi-linearity (Crawford, 1984; Ip, 2011; Ferri, 2015), and the contention that computer games belong within an older tradition of spatial stories (de Certeau, 1984; Ryan, 1991; Lammes, 2008). Spatiality (Muse, 2011) is one of the fundamental properties of digital environments (Murray, 1998) and space in games has narrative functions which has been conceptualised as environmental storytelling (Jenkins, 2004; Skolnick, 2014; Samuel, 2016), indexical storytelling (FernándezVara, 2011), spatial narrative (Nitsche, 2008), fictional space (FernándezVara, 2014), narrative spaces (Zarzycki, 2016), and cognitive maps (Ryan, 2003). I have combined the notions of spatiality and cognitive maps to create the video game narrative analysis framework (see Chapter 8). New theories also draw upon cognitive psychology, and cognitive science where story is defined as a mental model (Fludernik, 1996; Herman, 2002; Ryan, 1991, 2001, 2002, 2006; Lee et al., 2006; Iuppa and Borst, 2007; Dancygier, 2012). I conceptualise story as the players’ mental model where I modify and combine Ryan’s (1991, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006) theories and Fludernik’s (1996) natural narratology to form the video game narrative framework (see Chapters 8 and 9). I use the empirical data from the gameplay recordings and the interviews to demonstrate the players’ mental model (see Chapters 8 and 9) for us to understand the process of player-side ludonarrative emergence and expression (Yap et al., 2015) from the players’ interaction with gameplay. The multimodal discourse analysis conducted in Chapters 8 and 9 is used to create open-ended interview questions for the players to understand whether my interpretations align or conflict with the players’ interpretations to refine the model (see Chapter 7 for discussion of the interview method).

Gameplay in Ludonarratology I approach the study of gameplay in video games from a micro and macro perspective. In game design and game studies, the micro perspective examines game elements such as action (Galloway, 2006; Williams & Kirschner, 2013), gameplay objects (Consalvo & Dutton, 2006), game time (Juul, 2004; Lindley, 2005; Abd Rahman et al., 2017), patterns (Björk & Holopainen, 2005; Fabricatore & López, 2014), rules (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Ang, 2006), mechanics (Hunicke et al., 2004; Fabricatore, 2007; Sicart, 2008; Dubbelman, 2016; Ryan & Martens, 2017; Dubbelman, 2017; Siu et al., 2017), paratexts (Paul, 2011; Carter, 2015; Dunne, 2016b; Randall, 2017; Burwell & Miller, 2016; Consalvo, 2017) such as walkthroughs (Daniel & James, 2010), the game interface (Bizzocchi et al., 2011; Targett et al., 2012; Jørgensen, 2013, 2016; Ahmad et al., 2017), and so on. The macro perspective involves the study of the relationship between the game elements, such as their part-whole relationship

A Multimodal Approach to Ludonarratology

25

(Brown, 2007), gameplay segmentation (Zagal et al., 2005, 2008; Marczak & Schott, 2015; Marczak et al., 2015), relationship between the game elements and the players’ actions/motives (Eskelinen, 2001; Ralph & Monu, 2015), gameplay/feedback loop (Heaton, 2006; Arsenault & Perron, 2009; Guardiola, 2016), and so on. In addition to these two perspectives, there are also the contextual factors which influence the players’ actions such as their socialisation into the gameplay in terms of the gamer community (Paul & Philpott, 2009) and friends (Chen, 2009) whom they frequently play with. When applied to the study of video gameplay, these three perspectives form one unified whole. The gameplay analysis framework in Chapters 10 and 11 adopts a micro and macro perspective. The micro perspective involves the modification of Manninen’s (2003) interaction forms and communicative actions for the study of the players’ actions when playing the game. These micro actions are structured according to the game’s feedback to form a gameplay loop (Heaton, 2006). Rules in terms of mechanics are integrated into Fabricatore’s (2007) modified framework for the study of the relationship between the players’ actions and the mechanics. To analyse the game structure on a macro level, Martin and Rose’s (2008) common story phase types are modified into common gameplay phase types using empirical data. In the ludonarrative model, the contextual factors such as the “gamer community” and “friends” are incorporated under the regulative rules (Searle, 1975). These contextual factors influence the players’ interpretations of the ludonarrative relationships (see Chapter 5). Although I conceptualise gameplay as a distinct module from narrative in the ludonarrative model, some of the elements such as “action” and “movement” are integrated together during the players’ interaction with the game to produce their story (see Chapter 8), depending on the players’ experience, interpretation, and intention (Corredor & Benavides, 2016). Having discussed the theoretical foundations for a multimodal approach to ludonarratology, in the next chapter, I will describe how I conceptualise the ludonarrative model.

Summary In this chapter, I have discussed the theoretical foundations for a multimodal approach to ludonarratology. I start by discussing Kress (2010) and van Leeuwen’s (2015) definitions of multimodality. Then, I review multimodal discourse analysis as an approach where meaning is not only communicated through multiple modes, but also the relationships between these modes. I argue for the need to maximise conceptual clarity and consistency in multimodal research by providing the definitions of mode and module which I follow. More importantly, I explain how I have considered interactivity for video game research and have incorporated the player’s actions into the definition of multimodality for game studies. In

26

A Multimodal Approach to Ludonarratology

the review of narratological approaches in games studies, I have outlined the four main categories, namely, traditional, classical, new media, and psychoanalytical theories. I have explained how I incorporate some of the notions and constructs from classical and new media theories to construct the narrative framework for game studies in Chapters 8 and 9. I end this chapter with a brief outline of gameplay approaches in ludonarratology and explain how I have incorporated the three perspectives, namely, the micro, macro, and sociocultural context into the gameplay framework for game studies in Chapters 10 and 11.

Note 1 I am grateful for Jonathan Barbara’s suggestion of the term “module” to refer to collections of modes which Kress calls modules. I am also thankful for the discussion with other scholars such as Astrid Ensslin, Matthew Yu, and Stela Tasheva about the use of the term “mode” for narrative at www.researchgate. net/post/Can_narrative_be_defined_as_a_mode

References Abd Rahman, M. H., Nordin, A. I., & Denisova, A. (2017). The Effect of Time Manipulation on Immersion in Digital Games. In H. Badioze Zaman et al. (Eds.), Advances in Visual Informatics, IVIC 2017: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10645. Cham: Springer. Adami, E. (2016). Multimodality. In O. Garcia, N. Flores, & M. Spotti (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Language and Society (pp. 451–472). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Ahmad, I., Hamid, E., Abdullasim, N., & Jaafar, A. (2017). Game Interface Design: Measuring the Player’s Gameplay Experience. In H. Badioze Zaman et al. (Eds.), Advances in Visual Informatics, IVIC 2017: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10645. Cham: Springer. Allison, F. (2015). Whose Mind Is the Signal? Focalization in Video Game Narratives. Proceedings of the DiGRA 2015 International Conference: Diversity of Play: Games-Cultures-Identities. Lüneburg: Meson Press. Ang, C. S. (2006). Rules, Gameplay, and Narratives in Video Games. Simulation & Gaming, 37(3), 306–325. Arjoranta, J. (2017). Narrative Tools for Games: Focalization, Granularity, and the Mode of Narration in Games. Games and Culture, 12(7–8), 1–22. Arsenault, D., & Perron, B. (2009). In the Frame of the Magic Cycle: The Circle(s) of Gameplay. In P. Bernard & W. J. P. Mark (Eds.), The Video Game Theory Reader 2 (pp. 109–131). New York: Routledge. Baldry, A. P. (2000). Multimodality and Multimediality in the Distance Learning Age. Campobasso: Palladino Editore. Bizzocchi, J., Lin, B., & Tanenbaum, J. G. (2011). Games, Narrative, and the Design of Interface. International Journal of Arts and Technology, 4(4), 460–479. Björk, S., & Holopainen, H. (2005). Patterns in Game Design. Boston, MA: Charles River Media.

A Multimodal Approach to Ludonarratology

27

Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Brown, D. (2007). Gaming DNA: On Narrative and Gameplay Gestalts. Situated Play, Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference. Available from www.digra.org/ dl/db/07311.40380.pdf (Accessed: 8 Dec 2017). Burwell, C., & Miller, T. (2016). Let’s Play: Exploring Literacy Practices in an Emerging Videogame Paratext. E-Learning and Digital Media, 13(3–4), 109–125. Carr, D., Buckingham, D., Burn, A., & Schott, G. (2006). Computer Games: Text, Narrative and Play. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Carter, M. (2015). Emitexts and Paratexts: Propaganda in EVE Online. Games and Culture, 10(4), 311–342. Chen, M. (2009). Visualization of Expert Chat Development in a World of Warcraft Player Group. E-Learning, 6(1), 54–70. Collins, K. (2013). Playing with Sound: A Theory of Interacting with Sound and Music in Video Games. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Consalvo, M. (2017). When Paratexts become Texts: De-Centering the Game-asText. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 34(2), 177–183. Consalvo, M., & Dutton, N. (2006). Game Analysis: Developing a Methodological Toolkit for the Qualitative Study of Games. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 6(1). Available from http://gamestudies. org/0601/articles/consalvo_dutton (Accessed: 8 Dec 2017). Corredor, J. A., & Benavides, L. R. (2016). Narrative and Conceptual Expertise in Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 8(1), 44–67. Crawford, C. (1984). The Art of Computer Game Design. Berkeley, CA: Osborne and McGraw-Hill. Dancygier, B. (2012). The Language of Stories: A Cognitive Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press. Daniel, A., & James, N. (2010). Relations of Control: Walkthroughs and the Structuring of Player Agency. The Fibreculture Journal, 16(110). Dash, A. K. (2016). A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Glocalization and Cultural Identity in Three Indian TV Commercials. Discourse & Communication, 10(3), 1–26. de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley, CA and London: University of California Press. Doležel, L. (1998). Heterocosmica: Fiction and Possible Worlds. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Dubbelman, T. (2016). Narrative Game Mechanics. In F. Nack & A. Gordon (Eds.), Interactive Storytelling, ICIDS 2016: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10045. Cham: Springer. Dubbelman, T. (2017). Repetition, Reward and Mastery: The Value of Game Design Patterns for the Analysis of Narrative Game Mechanics. In N. Nunes, I. Oakley, & V. Nisi (Eds.), Interactive Storytelling, ICIDS 2017: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10690. Cham: Springer. Dunne, D. (2014). Multimodality or Ludo-Narrative Dissonance: Duality of Presentation in Fringe Media. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Interactive Entertainment. Dec 2–3, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. Dunne, D. (2016a). The Scholar’s Ludo-Narrative Game and Multimodal Graphic Novel: A Comparison of Fringe Scholarship. In A. M. Connor & S. Marks

28

A Multimodal Approach to Ludonarratology

(Eds.), Creative Technologies for Multidisciplinary Applications (Advances in Media, Entertainment, and the Arts). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. Dunne, D. (2016b). Paratext: The in-between of Structure and Play. In C. Duret & C.-M. Pons (Eds.), Contemporary Research on Intertextuality in Video Games (pp. 297–315). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global. Ensslin, A. (2012). The Language of Gaming. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ensslin, A. (2014). Literary Gaming. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Eskelinen, M. (2001). Towards Computer Game Studies. Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 2001, Art Gallery, Art and Culture Papers (pp. 83–87). New York, NY: ACM Press. Fabricatore, C. (2007). Gameplay and Game Mechanics Design: A Key to Quality in Videogames. Proceedings of OECD-CERI Expert Meeting on Videogames and Education. Santiago de Chile, Chile. [online] Available from www.oecd. org/edu/ceri/39414829.pdf (Accessed: 8 Dec 2017). Fabricatore, C., & López, X. (2014). Using Gameplay Patterns to Gamify Learning Experiences. Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Game Based Learning (pp. 110–117). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, Reading, UK. ISBN 978-1-910309-55-1. Feng, D., & O’Halloran, K. (2012). Representing Emotive Meaning in Visual Images: A Social Semiotic Approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 2067–2084. Ferguson, C. J., Colon-Motas, K., Esser, C., Lanie, C., Purvis, S., & Williams, M. (2016). The (Not So) Evil Within? Agency in Video Game Choice and the Impact of Violent Content. Simulation & Gaming, 48(3), 329–337. Fernández-Vara, C. (2011). Game Spaces Speak Volumes: Indexical Storytelling. Proceedings of DiGRA 2011: Think Design Play. Hilversum, Netherlands. Fernández-Vara, C. (2014). Introduction to Game Analysis . New York: Routledge. Ferri, G. (2007). Narrating Machines and Interactive Matrices: A Semiotic Common Ground for Game Studies. Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Situated Play Conference (pp. 466–473). September 24–28, Tokyo, Japan, Baba, A. (Ed.), The University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo. Ferri, G. (2015). Narrative Structures in IDN Authoring and Analysis. In H. Koenitz, G. Ferri, M. Haahr, D. Sezen, & T. Sezen (Eds.), Interactive Digital Narrative: History, Theory, and Practice (pp. 77–90). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Fludernik, M. (1996). Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London and New York: Routledge. Galloway, A. R. (2006). Gaming: Essays on Algorithmic Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gee, J. P. (2014). Unified Discourse Analysis: Language, Reality, Virtual Worlds and Video Games. London: Routledge. Gee, J. P. (2015). Discourse Analysis of Games. In R. H. Jones, A. Chik, & C. A. Hafner (Eds.), Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing Discourse Analysis in the Digital Age (pp. 18–27). New York: Routledge. Genette, G. (1980). Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (J. E. Lewin, Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Graesser, A. C., & Forsyth, C. (2013). Discourse Comprehension. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology (pp. 475–491). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

A Multimodal Approach to Ludonarratology

29

Green, A. M. (2017). Storytelling in Video Games: The Art of the Digital Narrative (Studies in Gaming). Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. Guardiola, E. (2016). The Gameplay Loop: A Player Activity Model for Game Design and Analysis. ACE2016. Nov 9–12, Osaka, Japan. Guo, E. (2017). Book Review: Introducing Multimodality. Social Semiotics, 27(5), 693–695. Habel, C., & Kooyman, B. (2013). Agency Mechanics: Gameplay Design in Survival Horror Video Games. Digital Creativity, 25(1), 1–14. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed., C. M. I. M. Matthiessen, Rev.). London: Edward Arnold. Harrell, D. F., & Zhu, J. (2009). Agency Play: Dimensions of Agency for Interactive Narrative Design. Proceedings of the 2nd AAAI Spring Symposium on Intelligent Narrative Technologies (pp. 156–162). Mar 23–25, Stanford, CA. Hawreliak, J. (2018). Multimodal Semiotics and Rhetoric in Videogames. New York: Routledge. Heaton, T. (2006). A Circular Model of Gameplay. Gamasutra. Available from www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130978/a_circular_model_of_gameplay. php (Accessed: 8 Dec 2017). Herman, D. (2002). Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). Mda: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. Proceedings of AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, 4, (pp. 1–5). San Jose, CA. Ip, B. (2011). Narrative Structures in Computer and Video Games, Part 1: Context, Definitions, and Initial Findings. Games and Culture, 6(2), 103–134. Iuppa, N., & Borst, T. (2007). Story and Simulations for Serious Games: Tales from the Trenches. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Jacobs, D. (2013). Graphic Encounters: Comics and the Sponsorship of Multimodal Literacy. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Jacobs, D. (2014). Webcomics, Multimodality, and Information Literacy. ImageTexT, 7(3). Available from www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v7_3/ jacobs/ (Accessed: 30 Nov 2017). Jenkins, H. (2004). Game Design as Narrative Architecture. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), First-Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game (pp. 118–130). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Jewitt, C., Bezemer, J., & O’Halloran, K. (2016). Introducing Multimodality. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Johnson, D. (2015). Animated Frustration or the Ambivalence of Player Agency. Games and Culture, 10(6), 593–612. Jones, R. H. (2012). Multimodal Discourse Analysis. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (online ed.). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/ 9781405198431.wbeal0813 Jones, R. H., & Hafner, C. A. (2012). Understanding Digital Literacies: A Practical Introduction. London [i.e. Abingdon, Oxon]: Routledge. Jørgensen, K. (2003). Problem Solving: The Essence of Player Action in Computer Games. Proceedings of DiGRA. Nov 4–6, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.

30

A Multimodal Approach to Ludonarratology

Jørgensen, K. (2013). Game World Interfaces. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Jørgensen, K. (2016). Gameworld Interfaces as Make-Believe. In P. Turner & J. Harviainen (Eds.), Digital Make-Believe (Human-Computer Interaction Series) (pp. 89–99). Cham: Springer. Juul, J. (2004). Introduction to Game Time. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game (pp. 131–142). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Karhulahti, V.-M. (2015). Hermeneutics and Ludocriticism. Journal of Games Criticism, 2(1), 1–23. Knoller, N., & Ben-Arie, U. (2015). The Holodeck Is All around Us: Interface Dispositifs in Interactive Digital Storytelling. In H. Koenitz, G. Ferri, M. Haahr, D. Sezen, & T. Sezen (Eds.), Interactive Digital Narrative: History, Theory, and Practice (pp. 51–66). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Edward Arnold. Kuznetsova, E. (2017). Trauma in Games: Narrativizing Denied Agency, Ludonarrative Dissonance and Empathy Play. Master’s Thesis. University of Alberta. Lammes, S. (2008). Playing the World: Computer Games, Cartography and Spatial Stories. Aether: The Journal of Media Geography, 3, 84–96. Lee, K. M., Park, N., & Jin, S.-A. (2006). Narrative and Interactivity in Computer Games. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences (pp. 259–274). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Lim, V. F. (2017). Analysing the Teachers’ Use of Gestures in the Classroom: A Systemic Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis Approach. Social Semiotics, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2017.1412168 Lindley, C. (2005). The Semiotics of Time Structure in Ludic Space as a Foundation for Analysis and Design. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 5(1). Available from www.gamestudies.org/0501/lindley/ (Accessed: 8 Dec 2017). Liu, Y., & O’Halloran, K. L. (2009). Intersemiotic Texture: Analyzing Cohesive Devices between Language and Images. Social Semiotics, 19(4), 367–388. Manninen, T. (2003). Interaction Forms and Communicative Actions in Multiplayer Games. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research , 3 (1). Available from www.gamestudies.org/0301/manninen/ (Accessed: 8 Dec 2017). Marczak, R., & Schott, G. R. (2015). Audio Visual Analysis of Player Experience. In P. Lankoski & S. Björk (Eds.), Game Research Methods: An Overview (pp. 207–230). Halifax, Canada: ETC Press. Marczak, R., Schott, G. R., & Hanna, P. (2015). Postprocessing Gameplay Metrics for Gameplay Performance Segmentation Based on Audiovisual Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, 7(3), 279–291. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox. Mateas, M. (2004). A Preliminary Poetics for Interactive Drama and Games. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), First Person: New Media as Story, Performance and Game (pp. 19–33). London: The MIT Press.

A Multimodal Approach to Ludonarratology

31

Muriel, D., & Crawford, G. (2018). Video Games and Agency in Contemporary Society. Games and Culture, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555412017750448 Murray, J. H. (1998). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. New York: The Free Press. Muse, E. (2011). The Event of Space: Defining Place in a Virtual Landscape. In A. Ensslin & E. Muse (Eds.), Creating Second Lives: Community, Identity and Spatiality as Constructions of the Virtual (Routledge Studies in New Media and Cyberculture) (pp. 190–211). New York: Routledge. Myers, D. (2003). The Nature of Computer Games: Play as Semiosis (Digital Formations). Pieterlen and Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Nitsche, M. (2008). Video Game Spaces: Image, Play, and Structure in 3D Game Worlds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. O’Halloran, K. L. (2004). Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Systemic Functional Perspectives. London: Continuum Impacts. O’Halloran, K. L. (2007). Systemic Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis (SF-MDA) Approach to Mathematics, Grammar and Literacy. In A. McCabe, M. O’Donnell, & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in Language and Education (pp. 77–102). London: Continuum Impacts. O’Halloran, K. L. (2008). Systemic Functional-Multimodal Discourse Analysis (SF-MDA): Constructing Ideational Meaning Using Language and Visual Imagery. Visual Communication, 7(4), 443–475. O’Halloran, K. L., & Smith, B. A. (2011). Multimodal Studies: An Emerging Research Field. In K. L. O’Halloran & B. A. Smith (Eds.), Multimodal Studies: Exploring Issues and Domains (pp. 1–41). New York and London: Routledge. Owyong, Y. S. M. (2007). Clothing Semiotics and the Social Construction of Power Relations. Social Semiotics, 19(2), 191–211. Patron, S. (2018). Unspeakable Images: On the Interplay between Verbal and Iconic Narration in Benedetti’s ‘Cinco anõs de vida’. Narrative, 26(1), 39–62. Paul, C. A. (2011). Optimising Play: How Theorycraft Changes Gameplay and Design. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 11(2). Available from http://gamestudies.org/1102/articles/paul (Accessed: 10 Dec 2017). Paul, C. A., & Philpott, J. S. (2009). The Rise and Fall of CTS: Kenneth Burke Identifying with the World of Warcraft. Proceedings of DiGRA 2009: Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory (pp. 1–8). West London, UK. Pérez-Latorre, O. (2015). The Social Discourse of Video Games Analysis Model and Case Study: GTA IV. Games and Culture, 10(5), 415–437. Pérez-Latorre, O., Oliva, M., & Besalú, R. (2017). Videogame Analysis: A SocialSemiotic Approach. Social Semiotics, 27(5), 586–603. Ralph, P., & Monu, K. (2015). Toward a Unified Theory of Digital Games. The Computer Games Journal, 4(1–2), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40869015-0007-7 Randall, N. (2017). Source as Paratext: Videogame Adaptations and the Question of Fidelity. In C. R. Miller & A. R. Kelly (Eds.), Emerging Genres in New Media Environments (pp. 171–185). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Ryan, A., & Martens, C. (2017). Deriving Quests from Open World Mechanics. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. Aug 14–17, Hyannis, MA.

32

A Multimodal Approach to Ludonarratology

Ryan, M.-L. (1991). Possible Worlds, Artificial Intelligence and Narrative Theory. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Ryan, M.-L. (2001). Narrative as Virtual Reality: Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and Electronic Media. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Ryan, M.-L. (2002). Beyond Myth and Metaphor: Narrative in Digital Media. Poetics Today, 23, 581–609. doi:10.1215/03335372-23-4-581 Ryan, M.-L. (2003). Cognitive Maps and the Construction of Narrative Space. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 214–242). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Ryan, M.-L. (2006). Avatars of Story. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of Play. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Samuel, Z. (2016). Environmental Storytelling, Ideologies and Quantum Physics: Narrative Space and the BioShock Games. Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference of DiGRA and FDG, 13(1), 1–16. Dundee, Scotland. Searle, J. (1975). Indirect Speech Acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A Reader (pp. 265–277). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (1991). Sicart, M. (2008). Defining Game Mechanics. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 8. Available from http://gamestudies. org/0802/articles/sicart (Accessed: 9 Dec 2017). Siu, K., Zook, A., & Riedl, M. O. (2017). A Framework for Exploring and Evaluating Mechanics in Human Computation Games. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. Hyannis, Massachusetts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.03311. Skolnick, E. (2014). Video Game Storytelling: What Every Developer Needs to Know about Narrative Techniques . New York, USA: Watson-Guptill Publications. Stamenković, D., & Jaćević, M. (2015). Time, Space, and Motion in Braid: A Cognitive Semantic Approach to a Video Game. Games and Culture, 10(2), 178–203. Stamenković, D., Jaćević, M., & Wildfeuer, J. (2017). The Persuasive Aims of Metal Gear Solid: A Discourse Theoretical Approach to the Study of Argumentation in Video Games. Discourse, Context & Media, 15, 11–23. Sylvester, T. (2013). Designing Games: A Guide to Engineering Experiences. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. Tanenbaum, J. (2015). Identity Transformation and Agency in Digital Narratives and Story Based Games. Doctoral dissertation. Simon Fraser University. Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. Tanenbaum, K., & Tanenbaum, J. (2009). Commitment to Meaning: A Reframing of Agency in Games. Paper Presented at the Digital Arts and Culture Conference (DAC’09). Irvine, USA. Targett, S., Verlsdonk, V., Hamilton, H. J., & Hepting, D. (2012). A Study of User Interface Modifications in World of Warcraft. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 12(2). Available from http://gamestudies. org/1202/articles/ui_mod_in_wow (Accessed: 8 Dec 2017).

A Multimodal Approach to Ludonarratology

33

Thibault, P. J. (1991). Social Semiotics as Praxis: Text, Social Meaning Making, and Nabokov’s Ada. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Toh, W. (2014). A Multimodal Framework for Tracking Sesshomaru’s Character Development in an Anime Movie: Inuyasha: Swords of an Honourable Ruler: An Appraisal and Gestural Perspective. Social Semiotics, 24(1), 124–151. Toh, W. (2015a). A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Video Games: A Ludonarrative Model. Ph.D Dissertation. National University of Singapore. Singapore. Toh, W. (2015b). The limits of the evolution of female characters in the Bioshock franchise. Proceedings of the DiGRA 2015 International Conference: Diversity of Play: Games-Cultures-Identities, 12. Lüneburg: Meson Press. van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing Social Semiotics. London and New York: Routledge. van Leeuwen, T. (2015). Theo van Leeuwen. In T. H. Andersen, M. Boeriis, E. Maagerø, & E. S. Tønnessen (Eds.), Social Semiotics: Key Figures, New Directions (pp. 93–113). New York: Routledge. Williams, P., & Kirschner, D. (2013). Elements of Social Action: A Micro-Analytic Approach to the Study of Collaborative Behaviour in Digital Games. Proceedings of the DiGRA 2013 International Conference: Defragging Game Studies. Singapore. Yap, C. M., Kadobayashi, Y., & Yamaguchi, S. (2015). Conceptualizing PlayerSide Emergence in Interactive Games: Between Hardcoded Software and the Human Mind in Papers, Please and Gone Home. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 7(3), 1–21. Zagal, J. P., Fernández-Vara, C., & Mateas, M. (2008). Rounds, Levels, and Waves: The Early Evolution of Gameplay Segmentation. Games and Culture, 3(2), 175–198. Zagal, J. P., Mateas, M., & Fernández-Vara, C. (2005). Gameplay Segmentation in Vintage Arcade Games. In M. Bittanti & I. Bogost (Eds.), Ludologica Retro, Volume 1: Vintage Arcade (1971–1984). Genova, Italy: Costa & Nolan. Zarzycki, A. (2016). Epic Video Games: Narrative Spaces and Engaged Lives. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 14(3), 1–11.

3

Theoretical Conceptualisation of the Ludonarrative Model

The main argument made in this book is that the study of the player experience requires combining different modes of analysis. One of them involves seeing “games as an object” (Smith, 2006), text, or actualised product where I have formalised the respective game components and the components’ relationship with each other in the theoretical ludonarrative model. Another is preoccupied with the micro level of “games as a process” (Smith, 2006) which focuses on the study of the player experience in order to refine the theoretical model. These multiple modes of analysis are combined together in the research method of this book to emphasise the dynamics in the relationship between the game structure and the process in which players engage with the game system (Jørgensen, 2008; Waern, 2012). The view in which different approaches to video gameplay design, analysis, or review have to be combined is also echoed by Leino (2012) who argues that gameplay is to be construed as a hybrid phenomenon including the activity of play as a process (Gadamer, 2004), the gaming experience or attitude of the player (subjectivity), and the materiality enforcing the structural features of the game artefact (e.g. ludonarrative). The theoretical background was attended to in the previous chapter in the delineation of the various approaches to game studies. In this chapter, I will discuss the ludonarrative model by defining its various constructs and components, grounded in the player experience from the interviews, observation of their gameplay, and analysis of their actualised gameplay in the recordings. My approach is grounded in what Ryan calls a “functional ludonarrativism” (2006, p. 203) and is designed to account for both the narrative representation of the video games and the aspects of action and player agency that are unique to the game form, and more importantly, the interplays between these components. Ryan (2006) proposes “functional ludonarrativism” to study how the fictional world or the realm of make-believe relates to the playfield or the space of agency. Her combined approach investigates how the elements of game design, gameplay, narrative, and textuality work together to elicit specific receptive and interactive experiences to maximise the potential of the ludonarrative

Theoretical Luddonarrative Model

35

and ludotextuality of video games (Ryan, 2006). However, Ryan (2006) does not provide specific details about the components of her ludonarratological framework. Neither has her framework been developed by taking into consideration the empirical data from the player experience. Ryan argues that a more complete theory of functional ludonarrativism should emerge from a bottom-up process (Ensslin, 2014) by building new studies or synthesising and developing prior research on ludonarrative games by focusing on the relationships between specific elements of the framework. I have created the theoretical ludonarrative model from both a top-down and bottom-up process. The top-down process involves the integration of various approaches from narratology and game studies as well as the findings of previous research on ludonarrative to create the ludonarrative model (cf., Aryadoust, 2017). I utilise research methods such as interviews and observations of players’ gameplay to gather empirical data to develop and validate the theoretical model (cf., Van Rooij et al., 2017). The bottom-up process involves the refinement of the ludonarrative model to create new ludonarrative subcategories from the players’ interviews.

Modes, Common Semiotic Principles, and Transmodiological Approach In general, modes refer to the various sign systems (Halliday, 1978) or semiotic resources which are combined in communicative artefacts and processes to create meaning. Stöckl (2004) demonstrates that modes can be distinguished from one another on three different levels: semiotic properties, cognitive orientation, and semantic potential. Semiotic properties refer to the mode’s internal structure and to the general ways in which meaning can be made with a mode’s signs. For instance, images represent an analogue code while language is deeply symbolic and digital. Writing uses two-dimensional arbitrary graphic forms to represent speech sounds while pictures evoke the three-dimensional perception of objects. Cognitive orientation depends on the mode’s semiotic properties. Images enable immediate sensory input because they are based on simultaneous and holistic gestalt-perception compared to language which is a linear mode that requires successive integration of signs into phrases. In ludonarrative video games, the gameplay enables immediate sensory input when they are based on action and simulations while the player is (simultaneously) required to piece together the narrative in their mental model from the language and visuals. Semantic potential refers to the meaning-making process of the users of a mode which is determined by its semiotic and cognitive characteristics. Language can represent events and states-ofaffairs in time while images represent objects in space and their physical characteristics (Stöckl, 2004). In video games, narrative can represent events and states-of-affairs in time and space because it is made up of

36

Theoretical Luddonarrative Model

language and images while gameplay transforms the narrative representations into dynamic interactive events and objects that simulate a fictional world (Stamenković & Jaćević, 2015). Stöckl (2004) makes three generalisations about modes. Firstly, modes cut across different sensory channels and its nature cannot be sufficiently characterised by focusing on its perception path. Secondly, one mode can be present in different media which creates medial variants of one mode. Because one variant has unique materiality, there exists individual sets of accompanying sub-modes in which the mode depends to some extent as the building blocks of a mode’s grammar (Stöckl, 2004). The system of “modes” being constituted by “sub-modes” is similar to Halliday’s (1978) rank scale for language which operates within the principle of constituency where it is a part-whole system of elements of each rank making up larger units in a hierarchy. The hierarchical rank scale system facilitates a more systematic analysis of the meaning made in the different units in relation to the other units as a whole (Lim, 2004). Thirdly, the continuum of existing modes represents a hierarchically structured and networked system and one mode consists of sub-modes which in turn consist of their distinctive features. In video games, one mode or module can be made salient while another mode or module recede into the background. Which mode or module is made salient depends on the game system’s control and the players’ perceptual focus and actions. For instance, when a cutscene is shown there is a shift towards the narrative. However, when the narrative is being conveyed to the player during gameplay such as the audio logs being played during a gameplay fight in Bioshock, players who are more gameplay inclined will tend to background the narrative. The production and reception of modes necessitates common semiotic principles (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001; Dena, 2010) to semantically and formally interrelate all sign repertoires present (Stöckl, 2004). In multimodality, “common semiotic principles operate in and across different modes” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001, p. 2). Stöckl (2004) proposes six common semiotic principles, but this book will only adopt and incorporate three of the principles (segmentation, semantic relations/ties, and signs) so the remaining three principles will not be discussed. Segmentation refers to the “decomposability of larger sign structures or gestalts of perception into their constituent elements” (Stöckl, 2004). This means that modules are made up of modes, and (actualised) elements while all modes consist of internal structure of sub-modes with distinctive features discussed earlier. The modules, modes, and the other elements of the internal structure are organised or connected together by structurally salient signs and their semantic ties are specified. The semantic relations or ties between different modes and modules include meaning repetition, parallelism, complement, negation, contradiction, and reinterpretation. The semantic relations principle is incorporated in the ludonarrative

Theoretical Luddonarrative Model

37

relationships/subcategories which will be discussed in Chapters 4–6. Signs are conceptualised as iconic, indexical, and symbolic and are incorporated into the ludonarrative relationships/subcategories discussed in Chapters 4–6 and Chapters 8–11. In addition to Ryan’s (2006) “functional ludonarrativism” and Stöckl’s (2004) theoretical discussion of “mode”, Dena’s (2010) proposal of a preliminary model to describe the meaning-making processes of polymorphic fiction is also important for the theoretical construction of the preliminary ludonarrative model. Polymorphic fiction refers to stories that have different forms of expressions. An example is The Matrix franchise by the Wachowski Brothers which has a continuing storyline across comics, computer game, feature film, online games, and anime (Dena, 2010). She argues that polymorphic fictions provide a unique methodological opportunity to extend current notions of the role of delivery media and environments in the meaning-making process and facilitate our understanding of narrative and game modes (Dena, 2010). However, current theories that directly describe these practices have not conceptualised a system to detail the meaning-making process of the co-presence of narrative and gameplay and their respective constituents in video games. Based on Kress and van Leeuwen’s (2001) framework, Dena (2010) developed a skeletal model for the analysis of polymorphic fictions. Kress and van Leeuwen’s (2001) theory of multimodal communication consists of three different levels, namely, “common semiotic principle”, “mode”, and “media” (Figure 3.1). The top level in Figure 3.1 is the “common semiotic principle”, such as “action”, “emotion”, and “framing” (Dena, 2010). It is a transmodal element that is on a level of general abstraction. Different elements can therefore be present in different abstractions in different modes and

Figure 3.1 Diagram illustrating the relations between principles, modes, and media, as espoused by Kress and van Leeuwen (2001) (Reproduced from Dena (2010))

38

Theoretical Luddonarrative Model

media. For instance, framing principles are present in different forms in different media. In comics and manga, framing principles can be observed as panels (Cohn et al., 2012); in books as covers; and in poems as beginnings and endings (Stoyanoff, 2015). A common semiotic principle is “a multimodal principle, that can be differently realised in different semiotic modes” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001, p. 3). However, Dena (2010) problematises Kress and van Leeuwen’s (2001) definition which conflates the definition of “common semiotic principle” with “multimodal”. Instead of using “common semiotic principle”, she terms it as a “transmodal element”. Therefore, in Dena’s (2010, p. 195) conceptualisation, “transmodal” refers to “elements that can be realised in different modes” and “multimodal” refers to the “combination of modes”. “Modes” are in turn defined as the methods employed that affect the way of communicating meaning (Dena, 2010). In this sense, Dena’s (2010) definition of “modes” sees them as the “expression” of meaning in a semiotic resource while Stöckl’s (2004) definition of “modes” focuses on the semiotic resource’s internal structure or “content” (Lim, 2004). Dena’s (2010) definition of “transmedial” is similar to Stöckl’s (2004) definition which refers to modes that can be realised in different media and “media” which refers to the materiality used in the production of semiotic products and events. Examples of media include books, cameras, computers, and (human) vocal apparatus. Dena (2010) further argues that moving the inquiry to take into account modal diversity facilitates our understanding of the relationship between narrative, game, and media. More importantly, through the shift in the framework to understand modes as a holistic entity in its connection to other modes and elements such as media, the conceptualisation helps the study of the interlinking of elements consisting of modules, modes, and transmodality. The implication of this model is twofold. Firstly, Dena’s (2010) framework provides the theoretical basis for the creation of the preliminary ludonarrative model where I can further refine its respective ludonarrative (sub)categories from the study of the player experience. Secondly, by defining a transmodal element as an element that can be realised in different modes (and modules), it makes the definition of certain concepts relevant to both narrative and gameplay in video games. For example, Dena (2010) argues that by interpreting the notion of “cause” or “causal relations” as a possible transmodal principle, “cause” can then be extrapolated to both narrative and gameplay modules equally in the form of plot and quests/missions respectively. The crucial difference being that quests involve “action” on behalf of the player and plot involves “narration”. Therefore, the concept of “cause” is no longer restricted to the narrative module, but can occur in both the narrative and gameplay modules. In the ludonarrative model, I incorporate “cause” into the ludonarrative subcategory of “ludonarrative resonance causality” which I will discuss in Chapter 5.

Theoretical Luddonarrative Model

39

Towards the Preliminary Ludonarrative Model Following the theoretical grounding provided in the previous section, I will now modify Dena’s (2010) model, integrate Stöckl’s (2004) discussion of “modes”, and adopt Kress’ (2010) module into the preliminary ludonarrative model. The preliminary ludonarrative model does not map completely to Dena’s model (2010). For instance, the third row of Dena’s model (2010) consists of different “media”, but the third row of the preliminary ludonarrative model consists of “modes” and “elements” (cf. Chapman’s (2016) “lexia”). There is only gaming media in my model which includes the computer and the PS3. Finally, there are the additions of “modules”, “ludonarrative relationships”, and “elements” which include “transmodal elements” and “actualised elements” in my model. The preliminary model is shown in Figure 3.2. “Ludonarrative” as a whole consists of “gameplay interaction” or “ludo” facilitated and constrained by the rules and cognitive interpretation of the “narrative” which is not always present unless elicited from the players in the gameplay recordings and interviews (optional elements are indicated by dotted lines in Figure 3.3). The centre column of each module consists of the “multimodal” concept which combines the different modes (Dena, 2010), namely, the linguistic and visual modes. The gameplay and the narrative modules are also in themselves “multimodal”, being made up of a combination of modes. Therefore, “multimodal” also appears in-between “modules” to interlink them. Transmodal elements can be realised in both the narrative and gameplay modules. An example of a transmodal element which has been discussed earlier include “cause”. For instance, the causal relations exist between the elements of “choices”, “actions”, and “consequences” under the gameplay module whereas the causal relations exist between the elements of “choices”, “dialogue”, and “consequences” under the narrative module. Depending on the player experience, the causal relations can also exist between the narrative and gameplay modules in the ludonarrative subcategory of “resonance causality”.

Figure 3.2 The preliminary ludonarrative model

40

Theoretical Luddonarrative Model

Figure 3.3 The ludonarrative model for video game analysis

As shown in Figure 3.2, the first row consists of the “common semiotic principles” or “transmodal elements”. To reiterate, “common semiotic principles” include segmentation, semantic relations/ties, and signs. In ludonarrative video games such as interactive graphic adventures and some role-playing games, transmodal elements such as “choices”, “controls”, and “consequences” are applicable to both narrative and gameplay when they share some essential design features (perception phenomena or analytical categories) such as “rewind” (Kleinman et al., 2016), “time bar”, or “ludonarrative relationships/(sub)categories”. The second row consists of “modules” which include the gameplay and narrative as specific systems which communicate meaning and enable interactions in different but also overlapping ways. The third row consists of “modes” which refer to the semiotic resources of language, visuals, and so on, and “elements” such as “rules” and “mechanics”. The fourth row consists of “actualised elements” which can include specific types of “actions” in gameplay, “cutscenes” in narrative, and the respective “elements” in the players’ mental model.

Towards the Ludonarrative Model I further develop the preliminary model into the ludonarrative model in Figure 3.3. Under gameplay in the ludonarrative model, I define rules more specifically as “mechanics” which are subdivided into

Theoretical Luddonarrative Model

41

“constitutive” and “regulative” (Searle, 1975). “Constitutive rules” enable players’ actions and include “mechanics”, “cheat codes”, and “walkthroughs” (Paul, 2011) that allow player interaction. I divide “mechanics” (see Figure 3.3) into “core”, “satellite”, and “peripheral”. The “mechanics” are made up of the language and/or visual semiotic resources which communicate to the players the types of “actions” that they can utilise in the gameplay. “Cheat codes” and “walkthroughs” are optional elements depending on the players’ gaming preferences. “Regulative rules” control or facilitate the players’ actions and include “the gamer community” and “friends”. “Regulative rules” are optional and apply more to multiplayer games although players in my study such as Loke and Mary consult each other on gameplay strategies. Rules contribute to the players’ motives in the game which encourage the players to interact with the controls to select choices. The selection of specific choices can cause “actions”, the actualised elements of gameplay which can be divided into “strategic” and “instrumental” (see Figure 3.3). Actions can include “killing”, “escorting”, or “gathering resources”, depending on the video game genre. “Actions” can be communicated via the language or visual semiotic resource or both. Selecting different “actions” contribute to different “consequences”. Different “consequences” are provided as “feedback” to the player. “Feedback” is the system’s response to the players’ actions and can be communicated via the language or visual semiotic resource or both. “Feedback” may contribute to follow-up actions. The combination of the gameplay’s actualised elements constitute the quest or mission. The players’ motives are included at the left gameplay column to correlate with the ludonarrative categories. For instance, “achievement” (Yee, 2007) players such as John and Peter are correlated with the ludonarrative subcategory of “ludonarrative irrelevance gameplay focus” in Bioshock. “Immersion” (Yee, 2007) players such as Nasir are correlated with the ludonarrative subcategory of “ludonarrative irrelevance narrative focus” in Mass Effect. “Achievement” (Yee, 2007) and “immersion” (Yee, 2007) players such as Mary and Henry are correlated with both “ludonarrative dissonance” and “ludonarrative resonance”. “Ludonarrative dissonance” occurs when players such as Mary experience a conflict to focus on the narrative or gameplay in Bioshock and “ludonarrative resonance” occurs when players such as Henry feel a heightened sense of immersion when there is a seamless integration between narrative and gameplay in The Walking Dead. In the narrative module, the elements which are used to communicate meaning to the player include “graphics”, “cutscenes”, and “dialogue”. “Graphics” are made up of the visual semiotic resource while “dialogue” is made up of the language semiotic resource. “Cutscenes” are made up of a combination of language and visual modes. As previously discussed, “controls”, “choices”, and “consequences” can be considered

42

Theoretical Luddonarrative Model

as transmodal elements that can occur in both narrative and gameplay when they share some common design features such as “rewind” and “time bar” or when the narrative and gameplay are interlinked together by ludonarrative relationships. The actualised narrative elements include the players’ cognitive interpretation of the multimodal information communicated to them via the semiotic resources to form a mental model. The players’ mental model consists of the following optional actualised elements, namely, “inventory”, “spatial relations”, “mapping style”, “interactive character movement”, and “interactive character movement with action”. These optional actualised elements constitute the “deep structure” of the players’ mental model. The “deep structure” is in turn mediated by seven cognitive frames, namely, “action”, “telling”, “experiencing/performative”, “viewing”, “reflecting”, “manipulation”, and “augmentary”. The players’ cognitive frames are delimited by “genres and conventions” of the video game type to form the “surface overall structure” of the game. The actualisation of different elements in the different levels of the players’ mental model will contribute to their different interpretations of the video game’s “plot”, “characterisation of PCs and NPCs”, and “theme”. The “plot” in narrative is realised as a “quest” or “mission” in gameplay when the player is able to relate the narrative events to the gameplay actions through causality. The bidirectional arrows in Figure 3.3 mean that the respective elements are interlinked through ludonarrative relationships. For instance, “quest” and “plot” are interlinked by “ludonarrative resonance causality”, depending on the players’ interpretation. “Character development” and “characterisation” are interlinked to actions through “ludonarrative resonance metaphor”. “Character development” and “characterisation” are related to the “narrative theme”. Chapters 8 and 9 will provide an in-depth discussion of the video game narrative framework and Chapters 10 and 11 discuss the video gameplay framework in the ludonarrative model. Narrative provides the context, and gives the players a motivation when they are asked to do something, such as a quest in a role-playing game. Under narrative, clicking on an NPC or interacting with a game object might convey narrative information to the player. The narrative might be presented to the player in the visual mode which constitutes the graphics and cutscenes via mimesis in Beyond: Two Souls and Bioshock’s flashbacks. The narrative can also be presented in the linguistic (verbal) mode which is characterised by the presence of a narrator in the form of an NPC (e.g. Bioshock’s audio logs) telling the story to the player. The narrative sequence can either be interactive in gameplay or non-interactive in cutscenes. Taken as a whole, a narrative sequence can be considered as a ludonarrative. The degree of narrative present depends on the players’ focus, that is, whether they choose to focus more on the gameplay or the narrative interpretation during gameplay. For instance, Jim mentioned

Theoretical Luddonarrative Model

43

that when the player interacts with objects in The Walking Dead and the PC reveals NPCs’ backstory, it constitutes extra narrative which can be conceptualised as an optional element in the inventory of the players’ mental model (see Chapter 8): Extract 3.1 jim: Anyways, another thing is er if say you have a room, most of the of you clicked on is just look at look at and then comment on it right? That’s extra narrative. Not much gameplay. Er unless when you say you click on something, you look at something, then you find eh you can advance the story through this way, then it’s slightly more gameplay. However, the players’ action of choosing to interact with the game objects can also be considered under gameplay when the action does not change or involve the narrative but serves as a means to advance the story. The choices which are actualised as dialogue and change the narrative within each chapter of the game, Beyond: Two Souls are considered as belonging under narrative (in the mental model of the players’ story) but also affect gameplay: Extract 3.2 alice: I think that it can it’s firstly a narrative choice because you are making the decision to let’s say if you are talking about Beyond: Two Souls right? You kill somebody, you don’t kill somebody. Firstly, it’s a narrative choice because er you are deciding whether to take the so and so called “good path” or the so and so called “bad path”. And then after you make that choice, there is some sort of gameplay that would be affected based on that. If you choose not to kill a person, maybe the level is easier. Because you don’t have to deal with it. But if you kill somebody, it’s like maybe you have to fight your way through the following level so it does affect both. But I think that it may have a larger effect on the narrative than it has on the gameplay. Although it is argued that the narrative provides the context, gameplay rules also provide the context to the player by restricting or guiding the players’ actions. Based on the participant’s definition, Jim interprets gameplay as those portions of The Walking Dead game where the player does nothing to understand the narrative, but to play for advancing the narrative. The dialogue that the game provides to him when he selects one of the choices contextualises and restricts his choice of actions by telling him that the remote control does not work. Therefore, The Walking Dead’s gameplay is guiding the player along a specific pathway in the story:

44

Theoretical Luddonarrative Model Extract 3.3 jim: Anyways, er another thing is in the middle of clickity things, advancing the story, they the guy talks you to you more about how you saw the things like oh remote control does not work whatever right? That is more of gameplay than narrative. Because doesn’t handle the narrative issues at hand that’s what I feel.

In the ludonarrative model, the division between narrative and gameplay is made for theoretical formulation purposes and there is no absolute division between the two. In addition to more traditional means of narration, gameplay can also work as narration (e.g. Sim & Mitchell, 2017) when the gameplay events provide information via the players’ actions and multimodal semiotic resources for story construction and comprehension in our mental models. From the players’ interviews, Walter mentioned that he perceived the narrative and gameplay choices are one and the same in The Walking Dead as he felt that the whole game is built round making choices: Extract 3.4 walter: Because the entire gameplay of Walking Dead is literally the choices. There is no nothing beyond making er binary will it be binary choices? I don’t know. If there is nothing, the entire gameplay is literally about making choices. . . . Well no both are I mean whether the choice is narrative or whether the choice is an action, it’s still a choice, the way I look at it. I don’t think they are necessarily different . . . er when I looked at The Walking Dead, I see them as one and the same. As in the entire conceit of Walking Dead is that the gameplay is choice. That is the way the entire game is structured around. It’s by choice. So ah. . . . I don’t think you can separate them because literally the choices that you make changes the narrative. But the whole game is built around making choices. Similarly, Matt mentions that the gameplay is the story, that is, ludonarrative in Beyond: Two Souls as his gameplay actions change the micronarratives in each chapter: Extract 3.5 matt: Ya that’s a gameplay event. It’s like because you did that. Right. You decided that you wanted to burn that house down. So that is a gameplay event. interviewer: But for your case you just leave the house ah.

Theoretical Luddonarrative Model

45

matt: Ya just left the house. That is a choice also. And that is a gameplay choice as much as any other. interviewer: So you mean leaving the house is a gameplay choice? matt: It’s a. . . . interviewer: For you? matt: Choice and in a sense it’s it’s er you can choose to leave the house or you can choose to burn it down. Er er and then leave the house. Er so there’s a so in a sense, that is ludonarrative ah that is ludonarrative. You are playing, you made the choice during the game. That’s gameplay. So it’s a good mix of so they have they have both. Depending on the players’ interpretation and negotiation (Toh, 2015) with the analyst for the creation of the ludonarrative model and subcategories, it is the degree of how much narrative and gameplay is present in the different video games. For instance, the players, Jim, Henry, and Matt mentioned that in The Walking Dead, some choices given in dialogues such as selecting whether to spare/support, kill/isolate, or to convince an NPC to join the PC are both narrative and gameplay. It is narrative because there is a consequence reflected later in the game where choosing a specific choice in the dialogue will result in different narrative outcomes such as changing the NPCs’ relationship with the PC. There is gameplay because of the occurrence of the players’ action implementation after making the choice in the dialogue. The dialogue options and the conversational interactions between the characters are interpreted by the player, Henry as the narrative. Additionally, there is the underlying mechanics of the relationship points between the NPCs and the PC based on the choices that the player makes in the dialogue: Extract 3.6 interviewer: In at the end of pisode Episode 4, you want to save Clementine, he [Kenny] will say something to you. He will say that you were not always be there for him. henry: Oh okay. Hehe hmm er that one ah er whether I consider is narrative choice or gameplay choice. Erm I think it still falls under gameplay choice because because I before before the Episode 4 er as in when I side with Lily, then I already choose er I think the the act of me choosing one dialogue or the other is a gameplay choice but when they give me the option of like the option is probably narrative ya and before and the information before that or the entire situation like when they were getting angry then it’s like oh all the information that says them that’s narrative lor. Then other that is gameplay choice. I think.

46

Theoretical Luddonarrative Model

How much narrative or gameplay is present depends on two major factors, namely the players’ interpretation of the degree of narrative and gameplay in the game based on interaction (discussed earlier), and the design of the game by the game developers. From the game design’s perspective, the quick time event can either be more narrative or gameplay, depending on the context it is situated. On the one hand, in The Last of Us’ prologue, quick time events are more narrative because gameplay choices are limited to basic movement and object interaction in order to both set up the story and serve as a tutorial. On the other hand, quick time events occurring after the prologue are more gameplay when they provide the choice to shiv/kill or strangle an enemy. In the ludonarrative model, the dotted lines refer to more optional elements that may not always be present. One of the assumptions of the model is that narrative interpretation is only present when it is elicited either in the gameplay recordings in the form of think-aloud protocol or during the first and final interviews. The presence of narrative interpretation depends on two factors, namely, the type of games used in the study and the players’ personality. For the former, more narrative focused games such as The Walking Dead will tend to facilitate narrative interpretation whereas more gameplay focused games such as Bioshock will tend to encourage gameplay interaction. For the latter, players who are more of the “immersion” personality type (Yee, 2007) will tend to focus more on narrative interpretation whereas players who are more “achievement” personality type (Yee, 2007) will tend to focus more on gameplay interaction. This observation is supported by the interview data where John and Peter who are more of the “achievement” (Yee, 2007) player type mentioned that they do not focus on the side stories in Bioshock’s audio logs. Peter perceived the audio log’s information to be noise whereas John mentioned that he was unable to interpret the audio logs’ narrative due to his inability to understand the language. In contrast, Mary is an “immersion” player type who listened to all Bioshock’s audio logs to piece together the narrative. Having discussed how I have conceptualised the ludonarrative model, in the next chapter, I will define the ludonarrative relationships with reference to the literature and explain how I conceptualise and refine ludonarrative dissonance.

Summary This chapter provides a comprehensive discussion of the theoretical conceptualisation of the ludonarrative model. First, I propose the model by grounding it on Ryan’s (2006) “functional ludonarrativism” in order to account for the narrative representations of the video games, the aspects of action and player agency crucial for the gameplay, and the interplays between the narrative and gameplay modules. Then, I demonstrate how the preliminary ludonarrative model is constructed by modifying Dena’s

Theoretical Luddonarrative Model

47

(2010) model, integrating Stöckl’s (2004) discussion of “modes”, and adopting Kress’ (2010) module. Finally, I develop the preliminary model into the ludonarrative model and define the various constructs and elements in the model by grounding them in the player experience from the interviews. I highlight that there is no strict division between the elements under the narrative and gameplay modules and depending on the players and the game’s design, it is the degree of how much narrative and gameplay is present in the different video games. I have incorporated Dena’s (2010) transmodiological approach into the model to indicate the fluidity of elements under the narrative and gameplay modules. In particular, the “plot” in narrative is realised as a “quest” or “mission” in gameplay when the player is able to relate the narrative events in their mental model to their gameplay actions through causality.

References Aryadoust, V. (2017). An Integrated Cognitive Theory of Comprehension. International Journal of Listening, 1–30. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. 1080/10904018.2017.1397519 Chapman, A. (2016). Digital Games as History: How Videogames Represent the Past and Offer Access to Historical Practice. New York: Routledge. Cohn, N., Taylor-Weiner, A., & Grossman, S. (2012). Framing Attention in Japanese and American Comics: Cross-Cultural Differences in Attentional Structure. Frontiers in Psychology: Cultural Psychology, 3, 1–12. doi:10.3389/ fpsyg.2012.00349 Dena, C. (2010). Beyond Multimedia, Narrative, and Game: The Contributions of Multimodality and Polymorphic Fictions. In R. Page (Ed.), New Perspectives on Narrative and Multimodality (pp. 183–201). New York and London: Taylor & Francis. Ensslin, A. (2014). Playing with Rather Than by the Rules. In A. Bell, A. Ensslin, & H. K. Rustad (Eds.), Analyzing Digital Fiction (Routledge Studies in Rhetoric and Stylistics) (pp. 75–93). New York and London: Routledge. Gadamer, H.-G. (2004). Truth and Method (2nd ed.). London and New York: Continuum Impacts. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold. Jørgensen, K. (2008). Audio and Gameplay: An Analysis of PvP Battlegrounds in World of Warcraft. Game Studies, 8(2). Available from http://gamestudies. org/0802/articles/jorgensen (Accessed: 26 Nov 2017). Kleinman, E., Fox, V., & Zhu, J. (2016). Rough Draft: Towards a Framework for Metagaming Mechanics of Rewinding in Interactive Storytelling. In F. Nack & A. Gordon (Eds.), Interactive Storytelling, ICIDS 2016: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 0045. Cham: Springer. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Edward Arnold. Leino, O. T. (2012). Untangling Gameplay: An Account of Experience, Activity and Materiality within Computer Game Play. In J. Sageng, H. Fossheim, & T.

48

Theoretical Luddonarrative Model

Mandt Larsen (Eds.), The Philosophy of Computer Games: Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 7 (pp. 57–75). Dordrecht: Springer. Lim, V. F. (2004). Problematising ‘Semiotic Resource’. In E. Ventola, C. Charles, & M. Kaltenbacher (Eds.), Perspectives on Multimodality (pp. 51–63). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Paul, C. A. (2011). Optimising Play: How Theorycraft Changes Gameplay and Design. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 11(2). Available from http://gamestudies.org/1102/articles/paul (Accessed: 10 Dec 2017). Ryan, M.-L. (2006). Avatars of Story. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. Searle, J. (1975). Indirect Speech Acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A Reader (pp. 265–277). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (1991). Sim, Y. T., & Mitchell, A. (2017). Wordless Games: Gameplay as Narrative Technique. In N. Nunes, I. Oakley, & V. Nisi (Eds.), Interactive Storytelling, ICIDS 2017: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10690 (pp. 137–149). Cham: Springer. Smith, J. H. (2006). Plans and Purposes: How Videogame Goals Shape Player Behaviour. Ph.D Dissertation. IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Stamenković, D., & Jaćević, M. (2015). Time, Space, and Motion in Braid: A Cognitive Semantic Approach to a Video Game. Games and Culture, 10(2), 178–203. Stöckl, H. (2004). In between Modes: Language and Image in Printed Media. In E. Ventola, C. Cassily, & M. Kaltenbacher (Eds.), Perspectives on Multimodality (pp. 9–30). Philadelphia and The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Stoyanoff, J. G. (2015). Beginnings and Endings: Narrative Framing in ‘Confessio Amantis’. South Atlantic Review, 79(3–4), 52–64. Toh, W. (2015). A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Video Games: A Ludonarrative Model. Ph.D Dissertation. National University of Singapore. Singapore. Van Rooij, A. J., Daneels, R., Liu, S., Anrijs, S., & Van Looy, J. (2017). Children’s Motives to Start, Continue, and Stop Playing Video Games: Confronting Popular Theories with Real-World Observations. Current Addiction Reports, 4(3), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-017-0163-x Waern, A. (2012). Framing Games. Proceedings of Nordic DiGRA 2012. Tampere, Finland. Yee, N. (2007). Motivations of Play in Online Games. Journal of CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9, 772–775.

4

Ludonarrative Dissonance

Ludonarrative Relationships Fiction and mechanics need not fight (though they easily can), and neither one need be given primacy (though one often is). Used together, they can enhance and extend each other in ways that each cannot do alone. Consummately great game design cannot be done by dropping a great fiction on top of excellent mechanics. It is done by threading them together into a single system of emotion. That’s why so much of game design isn’t just about crafting a well-balanced challenge or a beautiful world. It’s about doing each in such a way that it integrates seamlessly with the other. (Sylvester, 2013, p. 34)

The above quote summarises the different types of relationships between the narrative and gameplay in video games. Firstly, gameplay and narrative can produce conflicting meanings with each other when they interact. This is known as “ludonarrative dissonance”. Secondly, when game developers create narrative and gameplay to seamlessly integrate with each other that they cannot be separated, they will have a symbiotic relationship with each other. This is known as “ludonarrative resonance”. Finally, when game design is created by “dropping a great fiction on top of excellent mechanics” (Sylvester, 2013), the narrative and gameplay will have a weak relationship with each other. The reason could be that the narrative and gameplay are not developed together at the same time by specialised groups of game narrative writers and game designers working collaboratively. This is termed as “ludonarrative (ir)relevance” (Toh, 2015). “Ludonarrative dissonance” originates from Hocking (2007), a former creative director at LucasArts who wrote about it in his blog. Citing the example from the game Bioshock, Hocking argues that Bioshock’s gameplay encourages the player to adopt an Objectivist approach, but the player is also offered the freedom to reject the approach (Hocking, 2009). In the Objectivist approach, the player is encouraged to take care of his self-interests by becoming more powerful to progress the game. For example, the player is enticed by Atlas to make the gameplay choice to extract more ADAM from NPCs called the Little Sisters in the game world which results in their death,

50

Ludonarrative Dissonance

instead of saving them, to gain direct power. However, in the narrative, the player is encouraged to be selfless and he is not given an alternative, such as the Objectivist approach in gameplay. The player is tasked to save the NPCs such as Atlas’ family (by Atlas) and the Little Sisters (by Brigid Tenenbaum) and oppose Ryan, the antagonist in the narrative. The player has to obey the NPCs’ orders in the narrative or the game cannot progress. With this disjunction between the gameplay and narrative focus, the players become aware about the inconsistency of the reality portrayed in the game world and they would make judgements as to whether or not the information given to them by the gameplay and narrative is congruent based on the game world’s standards. They would then be pulled out of the game world. A related term is “narrative dissonance” (Bycer, 2013) in game storytelling which refers to “the game mechanics directly clash with the narrative and pacing of the title”. The term “ludonarrative resonance” originates from Watssman (2012) and Brice (2011, 2012). On the one hand, Watssman (2012) defines “ludonarrative resonance” as the extreme fit between gameplay and narrative where they cannot be separated. The players are not only enabled to interact with a story that they want to believe in, in a satisfying way, but also allowed to do something, and given sufficient reason why they should perform the action. On the other hand, Brice (2011) defines it as the emergent narrative where the narrative is formed as a result of the players’ interactions or actions in the gameplay and “the successful use of game mechanics to communicate a narrative experience” (Brice, 2012) where the narrative is a game mechanic and vice versa. Augmenting Brice’s (2011) definition of “ludonarrative resonance”, Pynenburg (2012) renames it as “ludonarrative harmony” which he defines as the positive interdependent relationship between the narrative and gameplay of an interactive narrative. The distinction between “resonance” and “harmony” is that the former emphasises on “the suitability of gameplay for a particular plot” while the latter focuses on “the need for gameplay to enhance plot, and vice versa” (Pynenburg, 2012). “Ludonarrative resonance” has overlaps with other scholars’ concepts. Michael Mateas (2001) developed Laurel’s (1986, 1991) theoretical work to propose a framework to integrate the notion of agency into Aristotle’s poetics of drama. The key concepts proposed are material and formal constraints (Mateas, 2001) which restrict the players’ decision-making on what can and cannot be done. The formal constraints are conceptualised as motivations for action from the plot which is comparable to “ludonarrative resonance motivation” in the ludonarrative model. Mateas (2001) defined material constraints as conventions for actions made available through the language and patterns in the medium which is comparable to “ludonarrative resonance metaphor” in my model. “Ludonarrative resonance causality and consequence” are comparable to Wardrip-Fruin’s (2009) “SimCity Effect” which has been defined as a relatively complex set of internal processes that is transparently presented on the surface, such as a fictional world to the user. In “ludonarrative resonance causality and consequence”, when the effects of the players’ actions on the narrative and vice versa are clearly feedback

Ludonarrative Dissonance

51

to the players, they would be able to form a rough mental model of the underlying computational system (not the algorithms) and how the internal structure relates to the surface experience of the game as a story. “Ludonarrative resonance prominence” in which the semiotic resources of the narrative has an indexical relationship to the semiotic resources of the gameplay and vice versa is comparable to Pinchbeck’s (2009) conceptualisation of story as a function of gameplay and Fernández-Vara’s (2011) “indexical storytelling”. “Ludonarrative resonance” also has overlaps with concepts from FernándezVara’s (2009) story action integration, Aarseth’s (2012) preliminary proposal of his ludonarrative model, and Eskelinen’s (2012) “Cybertext Poetics”. The third category, “ludonarrative (ir)relevance” is my modification of Watssman’s (2012) ludonarrative category, “ludonarrative alienation” which he has defined as the gameplay and narrative neither conflicting with each other as in dissonance nor harmonising with each other as in resonance. In other words, neither the gameplay nor narrative gains anything from each other when they co-exist in a video game and the effect on the player may be boredom (Watssman, 2012). Compared to Watssman (2012) who sees the division of narrative and gameplay in more absolute terms, my conceptualisation of “ludonarrative (ir)relevance” situates the relationship between gameplay and narrative along a continuum. The term “ludonarrative (ir)relevance” has some overlaps with Linderoth’s (2013) proposal of a “ludo-narratological construct” which argues that some types of gameplay mechanics, such as improved character abilities as the game progresses are appropriate for some narrative themes and elements in Superheroes, Greek gods, and sport stars video games. The comparison of the ludonarrative model with other frameworks is summarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Comparison with other models Frameworks

Concepts

Toh’s Ludonarrative Model

Ludonarrative Resonance Prominence

Pinchbeck’s (2009) Ludodiegesis Model Hocking’s (2007) Ludonarrative Dissonance Mateas’ (2001) Agency

Story as a function of gameplay in FPS games

Ludonarrative Dissonance (1) Contrast (2) Negotiation

Ludonarrative Resonance Motivation and Metaphor

Ludonarrative Resonance Causality and Consequence

Ludonarrative Dissonance

Formal and Material Constraints (Continued)

Table 4.1 (Continued) Frameworks Wardrip-Fruin’s (2009) SimCity Effect FernándezVara’s (2011) Indexical Storytelling Juul’s (2005) Half-real Calleja’s (2011) Alterbiography Toh’s (2015) Ludonarrative Model

Concepts SimCity Effect Environmental storytelling— signage and tutorials “Rules versus fiction” Ludic belief

Ludonarrative Multimodal Resonance Semiotic Parallelism Resources Integration FernándezStory Vara’s (2009) integration Story Action into simulation Integration through performance of players’ actions Aarseth’s (2012) World, Ontological objects, Ludonarrative agents, and Model events Linderoth’s (2013) Ludonarratological Construct

Eskelinen’s (2012) Cybertext Poetics

Jenkins (2004) Enacting Environmental Stories Storytelling and Game Spaces Ensslin’s (2014) Literary Games

Ludonarrative Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance Resonance

Gameplay mechanics’ relevance to narrative themes/ elements Aarseth’s (1997) Cybertext and Genette’s (1980) Narratology

Process of decoding linguistic and other semiotic signs

Literary stylistics and ludology

Ludonarrative Dissonance Frameworks

Concepts

Koenitz et al.’s (2013) unified theory for IDN Ryan’s (2008, 2009) Playable Stories and Narrative Games Chapman’s (2016) digitalludic reenactment

53

System, process, product, and protostory Gameplay producing a story and story serving the game Re-enactment of historical exploratory challenges

Ludonarrative Dissonance I have conceptualised the ludonarrative model in Chapter 3 in terms of the narrative module and the gameplay module with each module having their specific ways of communicating information to the players. The gameplay module generally refers to the means (Eskelinen, 2001) or the rules, more specifically, mechanics, that facilitate or restrict the players’ manipulative action. The available actions that the players can utilise in the gameplay is communicated to the players via the language or visual semiotic resources. In contrast, I have conceptualised the narrative in the ludonarrative model as the players’ mental model (of the narrative interpretation). Ludonarrative dissonance occurs when what the player is allowed to do in the gameplay conflicts or contradicts with their mental model of the narrative representations. Ludonarrative dissonance can occur in three ways, namely, narrative dissonance (Bycer, 2013), information dissonance, and logical inconsistencies between the two modules. Narrative dissonance (Bycer, 2013) refers to the conflict between the narrative pacing and gameplay mechanics as experienced by the player. An instance of narrative dissonance comes from the Mass Effect’s participant. During the gameplay commentary, Michael mentioned that the gameplay still proceeds by giving him the side quest from the NPC (admiral) as if he was unaware that Shepard had become a fugitive towards the end of the narrative: Extract 4.1 michael: So you see ah it’s kind of killed this kind of programming that I am actually a fugitive now and the story is going on as if I haven’t done anything wrong. So now I can choose to continue with the side quest which is quite absurd. Or I can go to the major arc and finish the story.

54

Ludonarrative Dissonance

Information dissonance occurs when the information communicated to the players regarding their choice of action in the gameplay conflicts with the narrative message (interpretation) in their mental models which changes their behaviour in the game (Jakobsen et al., 2017). Based on the data gathered from the players in their gameplay recordings and interviews, information dissonance can occur in two ways. The first way where information dissonance occurs is when the gameplay’s promotion of specific actions (through rewards) conflicts with the narrative portrayal (players’ interpretation) of the PC. The second way where information dissonance occurs is when the gameplay (outcome) prohibited the player from carrying out a specific action but the narrative (interpretation) in the players’ mental models provided the reason that they should carry out the action. An example of the former way for information dissonance to occur comes from the Mass Effect’s player, Nasir who chose to play a consistently good Shepard in Mass Effect. Due to his choice in creating a good Shepard in his mental model/narrative interpretation, he did not feel compelled to take the side quests which involved dubious activities even though completion of the side quests provided him with gameplay rewards. He mentioned about the conflicts he faced between the gameplay and narrative in the gameplay recordings containing his post gameplay reflection. In the first example, he reflected that a side quest on the Citadel required him to help another character cheat by calibrating a programme for the gambling games. However, as Nasir is creating a good Shepard in his narrative interpretation, he did not choose to accept the gameplay in the side quest, as it conflicted with his character’s portrayal (narrative interpretation): Extract 4.2 nasir: I guess another conflict was that there was one side mission in the citadel while I was doing the side mission I think there was one near the bar. I forgot what it’s called. The not the Chora’s Den, it’s the other bar in Citadel. There’s some quests where I think he was asking me to what you called that? Hack er use some program and help me calibrate some program about gambling. So ya at that point in time, I was like hmm I’m trying to make a good Shepard I don’t think a good Shepard would actually be supporting this kind of even though you know you are not doing anyone harm inside, it’s like you are helping some you are helping him make a program that help people cheat on this gambling games where people aren’t supposed to cheat. So that’s so like the option to take the quest was there and ya obviously taking the . . . if you complete the quest, you will get experience points and all that but it just didn’t feel comfortable for me taking that mission [. . .]

Ludonarrative Dissonance

55

In the second example for the former way where information dissonance occurs, Nasir reflected about the Keeper’s side mission on the Citadel. Initially, he accepted the mission, but as he progressed in it, he found that the character who gave him the mission was trying to get another character killed. The reason is that the other character was attempting to inform the authorities on the Citadel about their illegal scanning of the Keepers. As the player was creating a good Shepard in the narrative, he felt a dissonance between his character in the narrative interpretation of his mental model and the gameplay actions which involved the illegal activities of scanning the Keepers for experience points. Even though he was curious to find out more about the Keepers by helping to scan them for the NPC who gave him the mission, he felt uncomfortable to continue doing the mission. Therefore, he stopped his gameplay action of scanning them illegally, halfway through the mission. The third example for the former way where information dissonance occurs involved a side mission which was given to Nasir on the planet Noveria. The side mission required him to spy for the other characters to get information for them so that they can obtain a profit. He reflected that he did not want to abuse his authority as a Spectre as he felt that although the mission gave him some character benefit in the gameplay such as experience points, it was not in line with the good Shepard he was building in the narrative. However, in the final interview, Nasir mentioned that on his second playthrough, he realised that Mass Effect’s choices were more flexible than what he assumed them to be when he played it the first time. He had developed awareness about the interdependence of the game elements (Lorentz, 2015) to form the game structure (Lapensee, 2017). For instance, he can obtain a good narrative outcome when he turns the illegal stuff to the authorities and gets the other character arrested. In this way, the dissonance between gameplay and narrative was lessened. It also became easier for him to play the game, because he realised that he was not restricted from choosing the side missions in the gameplay which involved illegal activities as he could turn in the missions to obtain a good outcome. In doing so, the gameplay actions which he chose aligned with the narrative portrayal of the PC in his mental model. The second way in which information dissonance occurs is when the players’ narrative (interpretation) provided them with reason that they should select a specific choice to carry out a specific action in the game but the gameplay (outcome) prohibited the player from selecting that choice. In Mass Effect, Nasir mentioned that he interpreted the narrative in the white coloured dialogue option on the dialogue wheel “calm down” as the choice to save a side character, Wrex. However, the gameplay (and narrative outcome) of selecting that choice was that Wrex was killed and he did not want that, as he wanted to persuade Wrex to get back on his side. Therefore, he felt a conflict between the narrative given in the white

56

Ludonarrative Dissonance

coloured dialogue option and the gameplay outcome where the character was eliminated in the game, preventing his appearance in the future gameplay: Extract 4.3 nasir: Okay so like based on the option there it says that these aren’t your people the quoted text on the paragon option telling Wrex these aren’t your people which makes me feel weird. Because they are Krogan and just seems wrong to like differentiate between the Krogans and his like okay these are not like your people. But you are Krogan but you shouldn’t. . . . It just didn’t seem as though it would convince him to stop been angry or at least save him so it seemed to me as though like there was one white text er white option which says calm down which I thought would actually get him to calm down but in the end it didn’t. So ya as in at that point there was a bit of a conflict because I thought ya it doesn’t seem as though the blue option at least that part of the text, it doesn’t seem as though it would get Wrex to calm down and not get killed. So in that sense, there was a conflict [. . .] Logical inconsistencies is the third way in which ludonarrative dissonance can occur. There is a logical inconsistency between the (players’ interpretation of the) narrative representation in the cutscenes or narrative themes of the video game and the gameplay. During the interview, Nima mentioned that he found the Geth powerful in Mass Effect’s cutscene, but when he played the game they felt weak to him: Extract 4.4 nima: Ya there’s a bit of disconnect. Because it’s obvious from the story that these Geth things are quite powerful but when you play the game, they seem rather weak. You can just kill them by your own. Your team mates does not even have to do anything. However, Michael did not experience the logical inconsistency because of his different narrative interpretation of the representations. He mentioned that they look like robots that can be easily killed by him: Extract 4.5 interviewer: Do you find any characterisation of the Geth in the cutscene ah? Like do they show that do they show any characteristics of the Geth? michael: er they look like robots ah. That’s all.

Ludonarrative Dissonance

57

interviewer: Do you think that they are they can be easily killed when you see them? michael: er yes. For obvious thing when you look at the placement of their eyes. It’s like attached to the head with one hinge. interviewer: So they are not very challenging? michael: I don’t think they are challenging. interviewer: In the gameplay? michael: Ya I think killing the Husk is tougher. Nasir also did not experience the logical inconsistency. He rationalised that he is playing the role of a very skilled soldier who can kill the Geth easily in the gameplay: Extract 4.6 nasir: mm I guess like then again to be fair, you are supposed to be I don’t know, some special, very skilled soldier compared to the very normal soldiers. So maybe that’s why you can kill them easily. Maybe it’s just a relative thing. During the last interview, Walter mentioned that he experienced a logical inconsistency between the setting of The Last of Us and the random ammunition drops from the enemies in the gameplay: Extract 4.7 walter: I was thinking like oh this guy has a shotgun, he should be dropping shotgun ammo. He’s no, he’s dropping pistol ammo. And sometimes, he drops arrow. It’s like it’s kind of very weird and doesn’t quite gel with everything else. But I see what they are trying to do. They are trying to control resources but it’s just kind of annoying. He also observed another logical inconsistency between the constant ammunition drops from the enemies in The Last of Us’ gameplay which conflicted with the narrative setting where there is a scarcity of resources in the post-apocalyptic environment: Extract 4.8 walter: So it was it’s definitely a game that wants to that is trying to show that yes you have limited resources but at the same time, it is also saying that yes that’s why you should play stealth and that’s why you should do melee attacks you should conserve ammunition. But at the same time, erm they give you so much resources anyway that if you were to waste them all the way you

58

Ludonarrative Dissonance are going to be full of everything. So I supposed maybe they are trying to force you that oh you have all these ammo, why not use it and shoot people? So I guess it sort of like trying to give you more variety but er in terms of showing the limited scarcity of the thing, at the start yes, it felt very little but later on it was kind of like no lah, they give you quite a lot of everything.

Finally, Walter mentioned that he did not link the restricted amount of gameplay resources that he can carry to the narrative, as it merely contributes to the overarching atmosphere of the game world. The link between the narrative theme of limited resources in the post-apocalyptic game world and the gameplay resources is not strong in The Last of Us because the players’ gameplay actions do not change its linear narrative (see “Ludonarrative irrelevance consequence” in Chapter 6). Even though ludonarrative dissonance has negative connotations attached to it, we can frame it as a positive or neutral mechanic to enhance the gaming experience and to understand the players. The conflict between the gameplay action and narrative representations (players’ interpretations) can be used to highlight the overall ideological message(s) communicated by the video game which reflects the concerns of society (e.g. Pérez-Latorre & Oliva, 2017; Pérez-Latorre et al., 2017). Ludonarrative dissonance can be used by game developers to create complex video game narrative to facilitate players’ critical reflection on the PC’s gameplay actions (Lehner, 2017), the historical representations in digital games (Chapman, 2016), and during empathy play (Kuznetsova, 2017). The concept of Brechtian alienation has been applied to show how ludonarrative dissonance mechanics can be used to draw the players’ attention away from the conventions of the medium, and towards a different message or theme (Dunne, 2014). Additionally, dissonance mechanics can also force the player to rethink their overall approach and game interaction by drawing them in or out of the game experience (Dunne, 2014). In The Last of Us’ example discussed above, we can see that the gameplay mechanics does not completely align with the narrative. Even though this may lead to the players’ perception of logical inconsistencies, players will possess more freedom of choice in formulating gameplay strategies to overcome the challenges to progress the game because their choices are not restricted by the narrative (see “Ludonarrative irrelevance consequence” in Chapter 6). From Nasir’s reflection of Mass Effect above, we are able to track his learning of the gameplay. His perception of information dissonance during the first playthrough of the game is contrasted with the perception of a lack of information dissonance in the second playthrough as he discovers the flexibility of the game’s structure. The proposed ludonarrative dissonance processes take place through the interaction between specific elements in the narrative and gameplay modules. The interaction between the elements or mechanisms have the

Ludonarrative Dissonance

59

potential to re-contextualise or resemiotise (i.e. diverge) the meanings of semiotic modes (O’Halloran, 2007) and modules. There is a need to further examine the mechanisms at work which bring about a divergence of meanings in the selections and combinations of elements from different modules. The mechanisms which facilitate the interaction between the elements from the narrative and gameplay modules to give rise to the various subcategories of ludonarrative dissonance are discussed below.

Ludonarrative Dissonance Contrast In this subcategory of “ludonarrative dissonance”, constituents from one module function as a contrast to constituents from another module. When the player receives information from the constituents of both modules simultaneously, the incongruity which arises from the distinction between selections of constituents from both modules is functional in producing a re-contextualising relationship between their meanings (Liu & O’Halloran, 2009). An example comes from Bioshock where the gameplay interrupts the player’s listening to the narrative in the audio logs: Extract 4.9 mary: Ya like should I continue first or should I like listen to this first this sort of thing? Ya? If I continue, will it spoil whatever I was about to listen. If I listen would it spoil what I was about to do later, this sort of thing. I don’t know. Something like that lah. Ya that part was so annoying. I was like I was squatting peacefully in a corner listening to my tape then some guy came up whoa. This subcategory is actualised in three categories, namely, “incomplete information problems”, “anagnorisis”, and “player-(game designers’) character dissonance”. I will discuss them below.

Incomplete Information Problems Pynenburg (2013) defines incomplete information problems as the situation in which to strengthen the empathetic connection between the player and character, game designers may pressurise players to make rapid and crucial decisions with restricted knowledge of how their choice may influence future narrative events or outcomes. Usually, these moments force the player to engage in decision-making under a time restriction. By not explicitly telling the players how their gameplay actions/choices will affect the larger narrative, the players may find that they have to think more like the PC so they have to immerse themselves into the character. The reason is that they are forced to make difficult decisions on the same information available to the character when the time restriction simulates how

60

Ludonarrative Dissonance

real-life conversations occur. Depending on the context, in games such as The Walking Dead, choosing a different gameplay choice/action may or may not affect the players’ relationships with the other characters in the narrative: Extract 4.10 jim: Does the gameplay affect my narrative choice? Ya that time bar affects it. interviewer: So you think that the time bar is a gameplay mechanism? jim: Yes, it is to simulate our actual conversation. If they, sometimes, in real life, when you are talking, sometimes they will expect people to answer fast. Sometimes, you have this pressure like if you don’t, if you do not act natural, they will see something in you. It’s sometimes, it’s trying to simulate what happens in real life. That’s what I am thinking. Especially for those especially for those pressing issues they will expect you to think fast, having street smart, that’s what we call and. . . . interviewer: So does it make it easier for you to make the decision or does it make it harder? jim: Harder. To be honest. First, your morality, you only have limited choice, limited amount of time to decide who to save, what to do, and it happened that you have to decide quickly.

Anagnorisis Anagnorisis is another ludonarrative mechanic which is available to game developers to strengthen the players’ empathetic experiences. The term originates from Aristotle’s Poetics, and is defined as a moment in plot structure which features the discovery or recognition which contributes to the peripety [or “reversal of fortune for the protagonist”] (Pynenburg, 2013). Anagnorisis usually occurs during a “recognition scene” or plots during the principle reversal or peripety that occurs from someone’s acquisition of knowledge previously withheld but when known, contributes to a decisive change (in the gameplay). Anagnorisis can be related to incomplete information problems where certain information is withheld from the player regarding the game world which contributes to the players’ possession of less or incomplete information about the game world. This withholding of information from the player could lead to the player’s perception of the disjunction between the gameplay actions of the PC and PC’s role due to specific factors such as gender in the narrative events when the character’s gender is uncovered. For instance, Pynenburg (2013) cited the example of the Metroid game (Nintendo R&D1 & Intelligent Systems, 1986) which only reveals to the player the female gender of the PC, Samus at the game’s conclusion. The effect of withholding the

Ludonarrative Dissonance

61

information regarding the PC’s gender will challenge the player’s preconceptions regarding gender norms, especially those who assumed that Samus would be male based on name and occupation. The effect of not revealing anything about the PC’s gender (in the narrative) but showing her (gameplay) abilities before the conclusion, enables the player to empathise with the female-identified character before the player had the chance to reject said empathy (Pynenburg, 2013). From my interview with Peter who is one of Bioshock’s players, it may not be easy for anagnorisis to occur for players who are more gameplay than narrative focused. These players are more interested in immersing themselves in the flow of the game, rather than engaging in narrative interpretation during gameplay. When I probed Peter regarding his narrative understanding of the side character, Jasmine Jolene, he could not provide a complete retelling of her story in the game world. In order to obtain a more complete understanding, the player has to piece together her narrative in the audio logs, her ghost’s flashback, and the PC’s flashback of his “family” when the player enters the bedroom behind the strip club at Fort Frolic. Jasmine’s narrative information tells the player that Andrew Ryan killed her after she secretly sold his son’s (the PC’s) foetus to another side character, Brigid Tenenbaum who was working for Frank Fontaine (the other antagonist). The narrative information that Peter could not decipher was that Jasmine was his PC’s biological mother. He could not infer this narrative information because it was subtly hinted in the PC’s visual flashback of his “family”. There was no language used in the flashback to explicitly tell the player this narrative information so the player has to deduce his character’s relationship to Jasmine by making the connections himself. Therefore, anagnorisis could not occur for Peter when he played the game. It was only during the post gameplay interview that I mentioned this narrative information to him. Peter mentioned that if he knew the narrative information that Jasmine was his character’s biological mother, he would be more motivated to find the antagonist Andrew Ryan to get to the bottom of the issue. This highlights that participants who could not understand the subtle narrative information might become more motivated in the gameplay if they had uncovered this information themselves. The players’ ability to understand this narrative information might contribute to a decisive change in their gameplay by motivating their gameplay actions. Another Bioshock player, John, mentioned that he could not fully understand Jasmine’s backstory. Therefore, his PC’s relationship to her was unclear to him when the narrative information was revealed to him when he was playing. Similar to Peter, he was more focused on the gameplay, and the narrative link of Jasmine to his PC’s gameplay role cannot be formed. He explained that to him the side character’s narrative in Bioshock was optional. Based on his experience of playing other online games such as Maplestory, he

62

Ludonarrative Dissonance

explained that the norm was that the narrative is optional and can be skipped but the gameplay was obligatory.

Player-(Game Designers’) Character Dissonance Pynenburg (2013) defines player character dissonance as the situation where the characters possess more information than the player does about the game world. This is opposed to dramatic irony in literary and dramatic terms in which the actors on the stage or some characters in a story are not aware of facts known to the spectator or reader. In video games, players are usually expected to infer about their character as they play the game. This is the reason why in video games, players usually control a character afflicted with amnesia, such as in The Witcher 2. Based on the interviews, I modify the definition of player character dissonance to include the situation where the players’ knowledge of the game world is less than what they think the game designers know about the PC. Examples of games which feature PCs with amnesia include Planescape: Torment (Black Isle Studios, 1999), The Witcher (CD Projekt RED, 2007), and The Witcher 2 (CD Projekt RED, 2011). In Mass Effect, Michael mentioned that at the game’s beginning Saren was introduced as the main antagonist. However, the narrative did not explain Saren’s motivation at the start. This lack of narrative information caused him to become curious about the character. He mentioned that he wanted to kill him at the earliest possible moment. However, as Michael continued to play the game, the narrative showed him another side of Saren where he was revealed as a pawn of another major antagonist, the Reaper Sovereign. This caused him to choose the option to attempt to bring Saren back to the good side later when he was given a choice to fight him or persuade him to turn without fighting him during the climax. The player-(game designers’) character dissonance enables games to make commentary on our assumptions of the characters we embody and more importantly, it facilitates revelations that form empathetic bonds with characters that can appear shockingly villainous. Pynenburg (2013) argues that if games can make players feel empathy for others who commit atrocities, it is possible that games could foster empathy with nearly any type of character. Video games can then be used to broaden our view of the world by helping us to feel what it is like to be someone other than ourselves. During Mass Effect’s interview, Michael also mentioned that he had an out of character experience when the other character, Ashley was shown to know more narrative information than his PC in the dialogue interaction. He understood that the game designers were using this method to convey the narrative information to the player instead of using the PC. He mentioned that the PC who was Commander Shepard is expected to know information about other races, such as the Geth (a synthetic race)

Ludonarrative Dissonance

63

as he has a lot of battlefield experience. Michael also mentioned that his experience of the sniper commando in real-life and how the style of character’s narrative information is presented in anime helped to pull him out of character when he played this part of the game: Extract 4.11 michael: Do you know that the snipers are the most smartest and most knowledgeable of all? The units? The soldiers? So if you want to catch a . . . if you want to get information, you actually captures commando snipers. Because they have the most intel, they have the finest brains. So for people like Shepard, you are talking about a Commando who like what save the whole earth and. . . . She should know everything. michael: It’s like you know you watch anime this kind of thing always comes out ah. Mm. interviewer: You mean the anime they will speak directly to the viewer? michael: No. There will be this character who grow up with you. So when there is something going on at the . . . person who grow up with you will start saying, “Last time I was with him, then he will do what. So last time he will cry, now he doesn’t cry. Wah”. Something like that. Nasir attempted to justify why the PC who is Commander Shepard does not possess knowledge about the synthetic race, the Geth: Extract 4.12 nasir: Ya. As I’m not sure. I could. There is a way to justify it because at least for the what ah? At least for this one, he was a colonist on Mindoir right? So maybe he didn’t know about it. He didn’t attend the class. I’m not sure. Ya because Ashley’s from you know she’s a colonist also. interviewer: But the Geth is so well known is it? Is it well known in Mass Effect ah? nasir: At this point? I don’t think so. As in they know who the Geth are but as in no one has seen as in if you are talking about Mass Effect 1, I think at this point, no one has seen the Geth until before this attack. Only the Quarians have seen the Geth. Because the Geth never travel outside the Perseus Veil. So people heard about as in people study and heard about them but they don’t know much about them. Like they just know that they are synthetic race who overthrew their Quarian masters.

64

Ludonarrative Dissonance interviewer: But the thing I’m wondering is why Shepard doesn’t know. nasir: Ya so as in I guess that’s a bit of a disjunction now that you mentioned it. I’m guessing ya.

We ended up agreeing that it is the way in which the game designers choose to portray the other character’s backstory information to the player. Nasir felt some disjunction between the PC and himself as a player during the last interview. However, when he played the game, he did not think about the disjunction because he was immersed in playing the game. Michael mentioned in the final interview that he was unable to relate to the PC, Jodie, in Beyond: Two Souls. For instance, in the eighth (chronologically the first) chapter titled “My Imaginary Friend”, he was asked to help the PC’s foster mother take the oil from the garage (see Chapter 9 for narrative analysis). However, he mentioned that because he was unfamiliar with the layout of Western houses as he stayed in Singapore’s Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats, he was unclear where the garage was. In Singapore, the garage is situated outside the house at the carpark on the ground level. Hence, when he played the game he attempted to go out of the house to look for the garage but ended up been called back into the house by the foster mother. The different experience caused him to be detached from the PC when playing the game. During the post gameplay interview for The Last of Us, Walter mentioned that in the prologue, he knew that the PC’s daughter, Sarah was looking for Joel, the PC during the apocalypse in the narrative. However, given the urgency of the situation, he felt weird when the gameplay allowed him to control Sarah to read the newspaper to obtain backstory about the game world instead of finding Joel immediately: Extract 4.13 interviewer: Like when you played as her, did you find that you can relate more to Joel’s character? walter: erm not really. Erm the way I the way I am sort of looking at it is as though she is a child. And you are trying to just throw I think they just wanted to frame the perspective that you know you were sort of like er try and experiencing this apocalypse that was starting from her eyes first and then I think they then did the transition shift when there was a car accident which then shifted you over to Joel. So er I thought that it was I guess it was straightforward but at the same but playing as her didn’t really feel like anything. I thought it was a bit that when you started, you know you walk, you wake up, you answer the phone. And then as you walk, if you enter the bathroom, you can read the newspaper. And which give you some background information. I

Ludonarrative Dissonance

65

thought that was rather weird. Because you are a child and then you are looking for your dad, you wouldn’t be paying attention to weird things like that. Based on the interview data, I also define this subcategory as the players knowing more about a given situation than the PC. The use of this ludonarrative mechanism may cause suspense (Langer et al., 2014) or facilitate empathetic bonds between the player and the PCs. Suspense can happen when the cutscene shows the player a different narrative event than the gameplay event that the PC is engaged in through the technique of perspective shift (Weihl, 2016) from gameplay to narrative. For instance, in Mass Effect, the PC was on route to find Saren in the gameplay, but a cutscene interrupted the gameplay to show Saren killing Nihlus. Nima mentioned that he found it weird that the player knows more narrative information than the PC: Extract 4.14 nima: Ya. The main antagonist and well the cutscenes show a lot of things that your character is not supposed to know. So it’s a bit weird because you as a player knows what’s going on. But you have to pretend your character doesn’t know anything. Ya. Nasir mentioned that the PC is not restricted to his own perspective in the gameplay and is able to see narrative events from multiple characters’ perspectives. He mentioned the cutscene that occurs after the gameplay shows the narrative event from the smuggler NPC’s perspective where Saren was interacting with Nihlus: Extract 4.15 nasir: mm ya. As in initially, I was like er how come how come I see him as in how come I see this part because Shepard wasn’t there right? And all the stuff. So I was like initially I was wondering er was he a bit in front or what? Then I was like but oki lah as in then later you found out that this guy was sleeping behind the crate. Then he found out so I supposed that was his perspective ah. In The Last of Us, the players shift perspectives between playing Ellie and Joel in the Winter Chapter. The shift enables them to know more information than Joel when they played him to look for Ellie because they have been allowed to control Ellie first before Joel. Therefore, when the players controlled Joel to search for Ellie, they can form an empathetic bond with Ellie by understanding her precarious position from her perspective as a captive of David. This technique is similar to zero

66

Ludonarrative Dissonance

focalisation (Genette, 1980) where the player is presented narrative information beyond what the PC could have known in the gameplay: Extract 4.16 interviewer: When you played as Ellie, did you find that it was quite er vulnerable? nasir: Slightly lah because at that point in time, you were stripped off your weapons right? You only had your knife. Ya. So ya it did feel a bit vulnerable. But you know that you know that you . . . because I tried meleeing people, and that that just failed. So it was very important to use stealth ah. Because like Joel you can just melee what. Melee your way through if you can’t handle them but in this case, because they had guns and you had no guns so ya. It emphasise the stealth, at least hit and run tactics ah at least. interviewer: So later on when you shift to Joel to control him to save Ellie ah. Did you feel an even more urgent need to save her? Because you discovered Ellie’s backpack. nasir: Ya. As in as in because you played what Ellie’s going through right? So you know that she needs help lah. . . . So in that sense, ya you feel you are in more you can empathise more with what Joel is feeling ah. . . . As in Joel doesn’t know what is happening to Ellie but you know the emergency ah. So . . . So he knows that she’s not in a good place ah.

Ludonarrative Dissonance Negotiation Constituents from different modules result in a macro-shift in meanings and this involves re-contextualisation or re-semiotisation in order to bring about a reconciliation between the meanings explicated through different modules. Calleja (2011) coined the term “ludic belief” to refer to the players’ schematic knowledge of the game’s ludic structures to edit out narrative incongruities or illogical narrative elements. In Mass Effect, players will sometimes obtain rewards such as weapons after mission completion without any narrative explanation. Based on prior experience of gaming, Nasir and Michael mentioned that they expected to receive the gameplay rewards, such as the weapons after they have rescued a party member on a planet: Extract 4.17 interviewer: So when you played the game, you eh wait. So when you played the game, you didn’t wonder why? nasir: Ya. Not really. I didn’t. It was more like I guess it was an opportunity for them to teach me how the equipment thing works. interviewer: So do you think they should give some . . . they should link the dialogue to the gameplay?

Ludonarrative Dissonance

67

nasir: They did it in Mass Effect 3 in the sense that I think Tali gave Shepard a new weapon that the Quarians developed. So it’s like she she we developed this then she. . . . Ya so as in it makes it’s more smooth than oki she gave me this weapon because she developed it from the previous game then I oki you picked up that weapon. This one was quite sudden ah. interviewer: So this one they never show Ashley give Shepard the weapon ah? nasir: Ya. So ya. As in they could have they could have they could have like hey I found this somewhere or somehow here you can have it. Or something like that. Ya they could have put dialogue there I guess. To make it a bit more smooth. Therefore, they used their schematic gameplay knowledge to edit out the narrative incongruities (lack of narrative explanation of the weapons which were suddenly given to them) when they played the game and focused more on the gameplay. In The Walking Dead’s interview, I discussed with Henry about the PC’s inner speech or thought processes made overt in the narrative whenever the player controlled his PC to interact with the game objects in the surroundings. Henry was able to use “ludic belief” to justify the presence of inner speech phenomenology (Perrone-Bertolotti et al., 2014) in the PC’s dialogue. He said that the PC’s verbalisation of thought processes was meant to help the player in the gameplay goals such as problem-solving (cf. Chapman’s (2016, p. 147) framing narrative) and guide his actions or cognitive performance (see “Ludonarrative resonance guidance” in Chapter 5): Extract 4.18 interviewer: And then when Lee talks to himself, do you find that it is hard to immerse? Do you find that it is hard for you to immerse in his role ah? henry: No lah as in er I know the game creator is they when he talked to himself means he’s providing information for you lah . . . . It’s providing hints what. But it doesn’t make it hard for me to immerse in his character leh. I know I won’t talk out loud lah I won’t say oh maybe I can do this maybe I can do that. In addition to Calleja’s (2011) term “ludic belief”, I propose the term “narrative belief” which refers to the players’ schematic knowledge of the game’s narrative structure to edit out gameplay incongruities or illogical gameplay elements. In Mass Effect, Michael mentioned that he did not find a conflict between the gameplay and the narrative when his squad member, Jenkins died in a scripted cutscene and cannot be revived. Usually, in Mass Effect, squad members who are killed in the gameplay fights can be revived, but for Jenkins, he is dead permanently. During the

68

Ludonarrative Dissonance

interview, he mentioned that the game designers intentionally created the cutscene to highlight the character’s permanent death. Therefore, Michael used his narrative knowledge to edit out the gameplay incongruity. In contrast, during the interview, Nasir mentioned that he found a conflict (ludonarrative dissonance) between the gameplay depiction where squad members can be revived, and cutscene portrayal of the character where Jenkins cannot be revived. However, he did not feel deeply about the taking of gameplay control away from him in relation to Jenkins’ loss, because deep down, he knew that the game was making room for another character. Furthermore, he had only three dialogue exchanges with Jenkins in the game. Therefore, he did not form a deeper connection with the NPC. This experience is supported by the argument that players would feel more emotional connection to characters that they had interacted more frequently and closely with in order to obtain a deeper understanding of them (Rodkin & Vanaman, 2013). During the interview, Nima mentioned experiencing conflict (ludonarrative dissonance) between Jenkins’ death in the cutscene and the gameplay where other squad mates could be revived when killed in the gameplay. He mentioned that there is a lack of narrative explanation in many games when characters die permanently in the gameplay to make room for another character: Extract 4.19 interviewer: So there’s no other parts where you think that there is conflict between story and gameplay? nima: mm let me think. Well there’s a part well this one affects a lot of games. Ya it’s like the first part where you’re the Jenkins fellow he died. Okay so he died permanently. And then later when you are playing the game, your character can die but sort of revived at the end, so there’s no explanation. Why is it different between this guy dying in the game, and this guy who died in the cutscene. So it’s a disconnect here. Why must this guy die? Why mustn’t that guy die? Ya. It’s just poof he’s dead and then why can’t we revive him? I mean later my characters can die too. But they don’t die permanently. So that’s it’s more you can tell there’s a gameplay reason and there’s a narrative reason. Therefore, there exists a different continuum of ludonarrative dissonance negotiation in different players depending on their interpretation of the ludonarrative relationships influenced by prior experience.

Ludonarrative Dissonance Demotivation Based on the empirical data, I define this subcategory as the narrative demotivating the player from achieving the gameplay goals, choosing

Ludonarrative Dissonance

69

specific gameplay choices, or performing specific gameplay actions. It can also refer to the gameplay demotivating the player from progressing the narrative partly due to the lack of gameplay variety. During Mass Effect’s interview, Michael mentioned that when the NPCs do not reveal to him information about the (narrative) state of the game world and redirects him to speak to another NPC, he felt angry. He explained that they are forcing him to do something without giving him the information (narrative and gameplay instructions): Extract 4.20 interviewer: When these people don’t want to tell you. When they asked you to go and speak with another person, er how is your experience ah? When they don’t want to tell you everything. About the place. Erm does it motivate you to go to that person? michael: It doesn’t motivate me to. It forces me to. interviewer: So it’s er restricting your gameplay action ah? michael: Ya. interviewer: But do you feel curious? michael: No. I feel pissed off. I don’t feel curious. Another example of demotivation occurs in the Bioshock’s study where the narrative requires the player to become Big Daddy. In order to become Big Daddy, the player has to embark on the multi-part goal of gathering the various Big Daddy parts towards the end of the game. When the narrative provided the player with the goal to become Big Daddy, the player would theoretically become excited with the prospect of becoming the powerful boss, Big Daddy, whom he had fought against many times in the earlier parts of a game. However, during the interview, John told me that the gameplay action had become repetitive. He has become familiarised with the multi-part goals given earlier in the game such as gathering the components to create the Lazarus Vector at Arcadia (a location in Bioshock), and gathering the various components to assemble the E.M.P. bomb at Hephaestus (another location in Bioshock). John mentioned that the multi-part goal is used to prolong the play time without offering any new variety to the game. The reward for becoming Big Daddy is also not very significant as he did not feel more powerful than he expected: Extract 4.21 john: I don’t know. I think it’s just like dragging the game. interviewer: That’s why it’s like. Because you have already gone through the first two parts, tell you to find the bomb and the other part is the what? The Julie Langford that part ah. It’s like dragging the game ah?

70

Ludonarrative Dissonance john: Still have to find the Big Daddy as in become the Big Daddy to get the Little Sisters to open the door. interviewer: So it’s not interesting? john: No. Why can’t you just have a potion that transforms me into a Little Sister? Then I just crawl through. Ya. It’s no. . . . Becoming the Big Daddy was hard. . . . But after becoming after you became the Big Daddy then it doesn’t make much difference. Ya really . . . I mean it’s normal lor. I wouldn’t say it’s challenging. . . . Because you use, I think the Big Daddy used the same weapons also. Used the launcher, grenade launcher. Then you also have the grenade launcher. . . . Ya it’s the same lah.

Ludonarrative Dissonance Imbalance Imbalance between the gameplay and narrative is created when one of them is more dominant over the other such that it occupies the players’ attention more than the other. This subcategory is related to the game’s pacing such that the narrative and gameplay modules are proceeding at different speeds from each other (cf., narrative dissonance (Bycer, 2013) discussed earlier). For instance, in Mass Effect, when the player performs the gathering tasks on the planets, the narrative is put on hold and does not proceed. Nasir mentioned that there is no narrative support for the gameplay in the gathering tasks on the various side planets: Extract 4.22 nasir: I guess ya gathering the materials was really irritating. The as in finding like the Matriarch writings ah and all the Matriarch writings, the Salarian something, that Taurian something, the items you are supposed to collect from the planets like I just got tired. As in as much I try on my second playthrough to gather everything, I still couldn’t gather it in. I believe I was quite thorough so and plus there was not like even when you complete it they don’t give, maybe there’s something in the Codex, but I don’t really read the Codex. I’m more interested in story wise rather than just information. So . . . Ya. As in my first playthrough I never really care lah, for the second playthrough, it’s like er ya as in I tried my best to gather as much stuff as I could while let’s say they ask me to go certain planets to do some side quests, then I try to as in if I come across anything in between the objective, then I would go there, but after a while, it just felt meaningless. So I just didn’t bother after a while. Ludonarrative dissonance imbalance also occurs in Bioshock’s multipart gameplay goals discussed in “ludonarrative dissonance demotivation”

Ludonarrative Dissonance

71

above. When the player gathers the respective components to become Big Daddy, the gameplay is proceeding but the narrative progress is halted. With the discussion of “ludonarrative dissonance demotivation”, I have explained how I have conceptualised the various subcategories of ludonarrative dissonance using the empirical data. In the next chapter, I will describe how I conceptualise ludonarrative resonance and refine its various subcategories.

Summary This chapter conceptualises and validates the ludonarrative relationship of “ludonarrative dissonance” using the player experience. I start the chapter by defining the three main categories, namely, “ludonarrative dissonance”, “ludonarrative resonance”, and “ludonarrative (ir)relevance” with reference to prior literature. Then, I demonstrate the three ways, namely, narrative dissonance, information dissonance, and logical inconsistencies in which ludonarrative dissonance can occur using the empirical data from the interviews. Following this, I refine “ludonarrative dissonance” into seven subcategories using the interview data. These seven subcategories are “contrast”, “incomplete information problems”, “anagnorisis”, “player-(game designers’) character dissonance”, “negotiation”, “demotivation”, and “imbalance”. Most importantly, I highlight that ludonarrative dissonance is not to be perceived solely in a negative light based on the negative connotations attached to it. Ludonarrative dissonance can be presented as a positive or neutral mechanic to enhance the player experience or to facilitate critical reflection on sociocultural values embedded in the game design. In games where the gameplay mechanics do not completely align with the narrative, the players will possess more freedom of choice in formulating strategies to overcome the challenges because their choices are not delimited by the narrative. The perception of information dissonance during the first playthrough of the game can be contrasted with the lack of information dissonance in the second playthrough to demonstrate the players’ learning of the game design and mechanics as they discover the flexibility of the game’s structure.

References Aarseth, E. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Aarseth, E. (2012). A Narrative Theory of Games. FDG’12 Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 129–133). ACM, New York, NY. Black Isle Studios. (1999). Planescape Torment. Interplay Entertainment. Brice, M. (2011). Ludonarrative Resonance. Mattie Brice. Available from www. mattiebrice.com/ludonarrative-resonance/ (Accessed: 26 Nov 2017).

72

Ludonarrative Dissonance

Brice, M. (2012). Narrative Is a Game Mechanic. Pop Matters. Available from www.popmatters.com/153895-narrative-is-a-game-mechanic-2495891347. html (Accessed: 26 Nov 2017). Bycer, J. (2013). Narrative Dissonance in Game Storytelling. Gamasutra. Available from www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JoshBycer/20130628/195316/Narrative_ Dissonance_in_Game_Storytelling.php (Accessed: 26 Nov 2017). Calleja, G. (2011). Narrative Generation in Lord of the Rings Online: Ring Bearers: The Lord of the Rings Online as Intertextual Narrative. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. CD Projekt RED. (2007). The Witcher. Atari, Inc. CD Projekt RED. (2011). The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings. Multi-Platform: CD Projekt. Chapman, A. (2016). Digital Games as History: How Videogames Represent the Past and Offer Access to Historical Practice. New York: Routledge. Dunne, D. (2014). Brechtian Alienation in Video Games. Press Start, 1(1), 79–99. Ensslin, A. (2014). Literary Gaming. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Eskelinen, M. (2001). The Gaming Situation. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1(1). Eskelinen, M. (2012). Cybertext Poetics: The Critical Landscape of New Media Literacy Theory. London and New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA. Fernández-Vara, C. (2009). The Tribulations of Adventure Games: Integrating Story into Simulation through Performance. PhD Thesis. Georgia Institute of Technology. Fernández-Vara, C. (2011). Game Spaces Speak Volumes: Indexical Storytelling. Proceedings of DiGRA 2011: Think Design Play. Hilversum, Netherlands. Genette, G. (1980). Narrative Discourse (J. E. Lewin, Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hocking, C. (2007). Ludonarrative Dissonance in Bioshock: The Problem of What the Game Is About. Available from http://clicknothing.typepad.com/ click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html (Accessed: 26 Nov 2017). Hocking, C. (2009). Ludonarrative Dissonance in Bioshock: The Problem of What the Game Is About. In D. Davidson (Ed.), Well Played 1.0: Video Games, Value and Meaning (pp. 255–263). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press. Jakobsen, M., Christensen, D. S., & Bruni, L. E. (2017). How Knowledge of the Player Character’s Alignment Affect Decision Making in an Interactive Narrative. In N. Nunes, I. Oakley, & V. Nisi (Eds.), Interactive Storytelling, ICIDS 2017: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10690. Cham: Springer. Jenkins, H. (2004). Game Design as Narrative Architecture. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), First-Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game (pp. 118–130). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Juul, J. (2005). Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Koenitz, H., Haahr, M., Ferri, G., & Sezen, T. (2013). First steps towards a unified theory for interactive digital narrative. In Z. Pan, A. D. Cheok, W. Mueller, I. Iurgel, P. Petta, & B. Urban (Eds.), Transactions on Edutainment X. Heidelberg: Springer. Kuznetsova, E. (2017). Trauma in Games: Narrativizing Denied Agency, Ludonarrative Dissonance and Empathy Play. Master’s Thesis. University of Alberta.

Ludonarrative Dissonance

73

Langer, R., Hancock, M., & Scott, S. D. (2014). Suspenseful Design: Engaging Emotionally with Complex Applications through Compelling Narratives. Games Media Entertainment (GEM), 2014 IEEE. Oct 22–24, Toronto, ON, Canada. Lapensee, E. (2017). Transformations and Remembrances in the Digital Game We Sing for Healing. Transmotion, 3(1), 89–108. Laurel, B. (1986). Towards the Design of a Computer-Based Interactive Fantasy System. Ph.D Dissertation. The Ohio State University. Laurel, B. (1991). Computers as Theatre . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Professional. Lehner, A. (2017). Videogames as Cultural Ecology: Flower and Shadow of the Colossus. Ecozon, 8(2), 56–71. Linderoth, J. (2013). Superheroes, Greek Gods and Sport Stars: Ecological Empowerment as a Ludo-Narratological Construct. In K. Mitgutsch, S. Huber, J. Wimmer, H. G. Wagner, & H. Rosenstingl (Eds.), Context Matters! Proceedings of the Vienna Games Conference 2013: Exploring and Reframing Games and Play in Context (pp. 17–30). Vienna: New Academic Press. Liu, Y., & O’Halloran, K. (2009). Intersemiotic Texture: Analyzing Cohesive Devices between Language and Images. Social Semiotics, 19(4), 367–388. Lorentz, P. (2015). The Socialising Voyage of the Video Game Player: GrowingUp with Playing the SIMS. Brno, Czech Republic: Muni Press. Mateas, M. (2001). A Preliminary Poetics for Interactive Drama and Games. Digital Creativity, 12(3), 140–152. http://doi.org/10.1076/digc.12.3.140.3224 Nintendo R&D1 & Intelligent Systems. (1986). Metroid. Nintendo, MultiPlatform. O’Halloran, K. L. (2007). Systemic Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis (SF-MDA) Approach to Mathematics, Grammar and Literacy. In A. McCabe, M. O’Donnell, & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in Language and Education (pp. 77–102). London: Continuum Impacts. Pérez-Latorre, O., & Oliva, M. (2017). Video Games, Dystopia, and Neoliberalism: The Case of BioShock Infinite. Games and Culture, 1–21.https://doi. org/10.1177/1555412017727226 Pérez-Latorre, O., Oliva, M., & Besalú, R. (2017). Videogame Analysis: A SocialSemiotic Approach. Social Semiotics, 27(5), 586–603. Perrone-Bertolotti, M., Rapin, L., Lachaux, J.-P., Baciu, M., & Loevenbruck, H. (2014). What Is That Little Voice Inside My Head? Inner Speech Phenomenology, Its Role in Cognitive Performance, and Its Relation to Self-Monitoring. Behavioural Brain Research, 261, 220–239. Pinchbeck, D. (2009). Story as a Function of Gameplay in First Person Shooters. PhD Thesis. University of Portsmouth. Pynenburg, T. (2012). Games Worth a Thousand Words: Critical Approaches and Ludonarrative Harmony in Interactive Narratives. Honors Theses and Capstones and University of New Hampshire. Available from http://scholars.unh. edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=honors (Accessed: 26 Nov 2017). Pynenburg, T. (2013). Projecting the Self: Forming Empathy through Ludonarrative Mechanics. Project Cognizance. Available from https://web.archive.org/ web/20131117203457/http:/www.projectcognizance.org:80/projecting-the-selfforming-empathy-through-ludonarrative-mechanics/ (Accessed: 22 Jul 2018).

74

Ludonarrative Dissonance

Rodkin, J., & Vanaman, S. (2013). Saving Doug: Empathy, Character, and Choice in The Walking Dead: GDC 2013. Mar 25–Mar 29, CA, USA. Available from www.gdcvault.com/play/1017807/Saving-Doug-Empathy-Character-and (Accessed: 3 Dec 2017). Ryan, M.-L. (2008). Interactive Narrative, Plot Types, and Interpersonal Relations. In U. Spierling & N. Szilas (Eds.), Proceedings of Interactive Storytelling, First Joint International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, ICIDS 2008. LNCS, 5334, 6–13. Heidelberg: Springer. Ryan, M.-L. (2009). From narrative games to playable stories: Towards a poetics of interactive narrative. Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies, 1(1), 43–59. Sylvester, T. (2013). Designing Games: A Guide to Engineering Experiences. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. Toh, W. (2015). A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Video Games: A Ludonarrative Model. Ph.D Dissertation. National University of Singapore. Singapore. Wardrip-Fruin, N. (2009). Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Watssman, J. (2012). Essay: Ludonarrative Dissonance Explained and Expanded. Escapist Magazine. Available from www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/ read/9.389092-Essay-Ludonarrative-Dissonance-Explained-and-Expanded (Accessed: 26 Nov 2017). Weihl, H. (2016). The Game Space of Dear Esther and Beyond: Perspective Shift and the Subversion of Player Agency. In K. D. Valentine & L. J. Jensen (Eds.), Examining the Evolution of Gaming and Its Impact on Social, Cultural, and Political Perspectives (pp. 73–94). Hershey, PA, USA: IGI Global.

5

Ludonarrative Resonance

Integrating the definitions from prior research (Watssman, 2012; Brice, 2011, 2012; Pynenburg, 2012), I define ludonarrative resonance as the extreme fit between gameplay and narrative where gameplay is necessary to enhance plot, and vice versa. The narrative emerges from the players’ interaction with the game mechanics, and the game mechanics communicate a narrative experience for the player. A video game with ludonarrative resonance, where the narrative and gameplay modules are combined successfully, immerses the players in the game world by allowing them to interact with a story they want to believe, in a satisfying way: Extract 5.1 tadi: But generally, ya it gives you a sense of involvement like you have a say in what thing is there and you I think a sense of accomplishment ya a sense of accomplishment. Like oh you just kill someone. Or you just destroy something. You have a sense of accomplishment. Like for movies, it’s just like it has a tension but it’s also like sometimes you just have the feeling that oh it’s only scripted. No. Captain America is supposed to win this kind of thing. But for now, you had you face a very real threat of you know being killed. There is no game which allows complete player freedom, as this game would be infinitely large and the code infinitely complex. Modern hardware would be unable to support such freedom. This is why the gameplay provides specific choices for the player to select in a more or less agentic way, actions to perform. The player might be given a choice to select one of the two different gameplay options—either to kill or save an NPC, or to move or see in the left or right direction. Ludonarrative resonance occurs when the player is provided with the right amount of freedom such that they feel their actions are their own. Simultaneously, the narrative is interesting enough that the player wants to engage with it. More importantly,

76

Ludonarrative Resonance

ludonarrative resonance means that the narrative gives good reason for the player to do what they are allowed to do in the gameplay. Ludonarrative resonance requires the presence of a narrative which the player wants to believe in and the presence of a gameplay which gives the player enough freedom to feel involved, but does not undermine the narrative. Therefore, to create ludonarrative resonance, there needs to be a delicate balancing between narrative and gameplay (see “ludonarrative resonance balance” discussed later). The seamless integration of narrative and gameplay occurs in The Walking Dead. Henry discussed his emotion of extreme sadness when he used the gameplay action to put to rest the reanimated body of Lee’s brother in the narrative to obtain the pharmacy’s key: Extract 5.2 henry: Oh ya ya ya. That part also cannot. Cannot be separated because the cutscene is eh the story the story is that the brother is working at the drugstore there what. . . . Then the keys with him. Then confirm coincident that he’s down there then. . . . You will feel more because you are more immersed into the Lee’s dialogue. There is like it’s like you imagine if that is you then you kill your own brother to get the keys very. . . . It’s very sad lah. Based on the interview, I have uncovered three features of ludonarrative resonance. These features are namely, the integration of (1) game objects, (2) character feature(s), and (3) actions and movement with the narrative setting in the game world. In The Last of Us, the narrative setting is a post-apocalyptic environment where there is a lack of resources. The narrative setting in terms of the scarcity of resources incorporates into the gameplay where the player has to utilise gameplay actions, such as scavenging for items to craft various game objects from the pieces of items he found in the game world: Extract 5.3 nasir: I guess one of the things I noticed was that the narrative part about this been a post-apocalyptic environment. . . . So basically like all your stuff you have no stuff. You have to scavenge for your stuff. So that incorporates into the gameplay about having to find all these items and crafting and especially when you find you don’t find stuff like one complete blade or one full binding and so on. But you actually find like pieces like half a blade, one quarter of a blade and so on explosives, sugar all these. So this this kind of plays into the narrative about there’s a lack of proper equipment so people need to like craft things out of using what they can scavenge.

Ludonarrative Resonance

77

In terms of character feature, there is the limited character storage where the PC’s carrying capacity is limited, so the player is encouraged to use the stuff and engage in exploration to find items to replenish supplies. The gameplay actions, which include scavenging and constant crafting as a result of the limited gameplay carrying capacity, are aligning with the game world’s setting in a post-apocalyptic environment: Extract 5.4 nasir: Oh ya, and one realistic thing is you can’t like bring I don’t know like you can’t find and store ninety nine blades. You can only have three full blades and then if you find anymore anything else you can’t carry them. So you need to like craft and use your stuff. So it encourages you to actually use the stuff and explore around so you have an easier time so like if you really don’t want to spend all that time slowly clearing a group, you can just molotov them or something and so on. Another character feature is the limited ammunition. The PC has only a limited amount of ammunition per weapon. Therefore the player needs to be careful with his shots, and not keep missing when shooting. This gameplay feature also aligns with the post-apocalyptic setting where there are limited resources in the game world. The two types of enemies in the game world, namely, the humans and the zombies utilise different gameplay actions and movement against the player. The human enemies’ AI is programmed to appear to be smarter than the zombies’. On the one hand, human enemies will take cover or flank the player. On the other hand, zombies will come straight at the player when they become aware of him. The player therefore perceives the gameplay actions and movement of the different types of enemies as a whole in their mental model of the narrative portrayal of the characters in the game world. Other than the three features discussed above, the amount of control given to the players during gameplay will also influence their mental models of the video game narrative. During the last interview for The Last of Us, I discussed with Nasir about how the gameplay in the prologue build up the narrative. He mentioned that the gameplay action where he has to carry the PC’s daughter to move and escape during the apocalypse enabled him to empathise with the PC. The interactive narrative sequence facilitates his understanding of Joel’s backstory and motivations as he is allowed to participate in it: Extract 5.5 nasir: Ya. I guess that part of the gameplay it’s integrated well with the narrative because you are carrying her so that. . . . Ya it really

78

Ludonarrative Resonance builds up the narrative. Because especially you just played her a moment ago. . . . Then suddenly she’s gone. It’s like okay. Ya it really sets the tone for the game lah. I think it was a very bold and effective start to the game . . . most apocalyptic games don’t show you how it was like when things first started to go bad. So because of that, at least for this one, we know what Joel went through. So we can somehow relate to why he doesn’t want to form an attachment with Ellie because he doesn’t want to risk that happening again ah. So in that sense, it gives a bit more depth as to the character’s motivations about why he’s cold or why he prioritises survival and so on.

The proposed ludonarrative resonance processes take place through various narrative and gameplay mechanisms which have the potential to co-contextualise (i.e. converge) the meanings of each of the modes (O’Halloran, 2007) or modules. There is a need to further examine the mechanisms at work which bring about the convergence of meanings in the selections of different constituents from the different modules. These mechanisms will be discussed in the following sections.

Ludonarrative Resonance Motivation I draw insights from related theoretical concepts (Mateas, 2001; Ensslin, 2014; Locke, 2016; Lane & Prestopnik, 2017) and combine them to create the definition for this category. Configurative elements which make up the gameplay and interpretative elements which make up the narrative interrelate with each other to facilitate processes of ludonarrative synergy. Interpretative elements from the narrative module serve a contextualising function (cf., Chapman’s (2016, p. 146) framing narrative) to the gameplay which brings a broader context and meaning to the gameplay. The narrative motivates the player to achieve the gameplay goals, to choose specific gameplay choices or perform specific gameplay actions. The gameplay reward (e.g. Paragon points) may also motivate the player to select a specific narrative pathway in Mass Effect. Interpretative elements making up the narrative explain to the players the means, the specific procedural rules or gameplay mechanisms which they can utilise to achieve the gameplay goals. In Beyond: Two Souls, the cutscene at the beginning of the ninth (chronologically the tenth) chapter provides the gameplay objective. The cutscene also gives hints that there are enemies such as the entities that the player has to overcome. A new narrative event motivates the players’ gameplay. In The Last of Us, the death of an NPC, Tess, in a cutscene motivates Nasir to progress the gameplay to discover the narrative development. In Bioshock, the antagonist Frank Fontaine initiated a narrative event by telling the players in a scripted dialogue that their health will be reduced in intervals until they

Ludonarrative Resonance

79

died. Peter mentioned that he was afraid that his character would die before he can complete the game, so he was motivated by the narrative to find the antidote to remove the negative effects in the gameplay. However, John did not feel motivated to find the antidote because the visual feedback did not convey the urgency. He could also reload the game if he died. Dickey (2006, p. 251) suggests that in (adventure) games, there are two primary literary techniques integrated into narrative, which provide motivation for the gameplay. These techniques are plot hooks (see also Skolnick’s (2014) narrative hook) and emotional proximity. Plot hooks are present in both backstory and cutscenes. A plot hook is defined as an unanswered question that keeps the reader guessing and is an uncertainty which focuses the players’ attention by planting questions which the player feels compelled to answer (Dickey, 2006, p. 251). Plot hooks create intrigue, arouse curiosity, and frame puzzles. In the ludonarrative subcategory, player-(game designers’) character dissonance (see Chapter 4), the withholding of the other character’s motivation in Mass Effect may arouse curiosity in the player. The withholding of narrative information about the characters motivates players who are interested in the story to explore the game (Caracciolo, 2015). Jim mentioned that he was motivated to progress The Walking Dead to uncover the narrative explanations for the character’s actions when his interaction with the PC, Lee’s brother’s corpse provided vague information about their relationship. However, the player, Lenin was not motivated by plot hooks to progress the gameplay to uncover unanswered narrative questions. He preferred the narrative to be clearly presented to him instead of given to him in a vague manner. If the main conflict is presented early in the game without providing the full context, the player may not care about the characters or understand what is at stake (Skolnick, 2014). Instead, the player becomes motivated by the challenge in the gameplay rather than trying to understand the narrative (Mette & Nils, 2013). Emotional proximity motivates the players by engaging them in the role they are playing. Dickey (2006, p. 251) defines emotional proximity as empathy and identification the player feels towards her character in the game. To establish emotional proximity, the character not only has to be similar to the player, but more importantly, possessing characteristics which the players can identify with. In addition to Dickey’s (2006) definition, I argue that emotional proximity can also be established between the player and the NPCs. In The Walking Dead, the players in the study formed a close bond with Clementine because they could interact with her throughout the entire Season 1 of the game (Rodkin & Vanaman, 2013). The main characters such as Lee and Clementine form part of the narrative and provide the context for the gameplay (Rodkin & Vanaman, 2013). Players (e.g. Mary, Henry, and Jim) mentioned Clementine playing an important influence or motivation on their decision-making (Tawfik et al., 2018) during the gameplay as a moral compass (Stang, 2017). At

80

Ludonarrative Resonance

the end of The Walking Dead Season 1 Episode 2, the players were given a choice to steal food and supplies from an abandoned car. The players chose not to steal and they explained that part of the reason was that Clementine was around. The players’ choices made during interactions with Clementine also shape her character (Rodkin & Vanaman, 2013) which motivate the players in the study to select their choices during gameplay to build a preferred relationship with her in the narrative. Dickey (2006, p. 251) suggests that emotional proximity can be established by creating multidimensional characters with strengths and weaknesses, and also creating characters who develop through the players’ progression in the gameplay. Multidimensional characters exist in The Last of Us enabling the players, Nasir and Alice, to experience emotional proximity to them. The existence of multidimensional characters motivate Nasir and Alice to progress the gameplay to find out more about the narrative. In contrast, Walter mentioned that he did not feel that some of the characters, such as David, the cannibals, and the hunters were multidimensional or morally ambiguous. The reason is that they ultimately turned out to be bad with no redeeming characteristics and they mostly look out for their immediate group. However, he could empathise with them because they have motivations, characterisations, and emotions which make them believable (Roth et al., 2011; Harth, 2017) in the game world. The multiple readings (Ryan, 2001) of the characters in The Last of Us such as the cannibals show that the players’ narrative interpretations of these characters are to a great extent contextual (Butt & Dunne, 2017) and emergent, “encapsulating the game experience of a particular player” (Warpefelt & Verhagen, 2017, p. 41). Dickey (2006, p. 256) suggests that emotional proximity can also be established by factors other than characters such as the familiarity of the narrative structure (Talib, 2014) via the reassurance of cultural codes and values such as “family togetherness”. “Family togetherness” is highly valued especially in some cultures such as Asian American families (Mordkowitz & Ginsburg, 1987) and “togetherness” is a value of modern families (Elkind, 1994, p. 63). Furthermore, “family togetherness” is also naturalised in the narrative structure and gameplay mechanics of Season 2 of The Walking Dead game where the choice of saving Kenny leads to the group of Kenny, AJ (the baby), and Clementine to remain as a family unit (Butt & Dunne, 2017). In Season 1 of The Walking Dead game, the PC, Lee was separated from his family due to his accident of killing someone after he finds out that his wife was cheating on him. Players such as Jim, Mary, and Henry knew from their PC’s interaction in the game that he missed his family and felt guilty from not being with them during the post-apocalyptic outbreak. Therefore, cultural codes and values which are embedded in the game’s narrative structure can be used to establish emotional proximity with the players.

Ludonarrative Resonance

81

Ludonarrative Resonance Guidance Grounded in the empirical data, I define this subcategory as the narrative instructing the player what to do in the gameplay, such as giving the overall objective or helping the player to formulate the general and specific gameplay strategies/actions, depending on their play style. However, the narrative does not necessarily motivate the player’s actions. Extract 5.6 loke: In a way lah. Because like from the storyline, you know roughly how the Big Daddy will react. So like erm before you actually engage in the gameplay, before you actually engage the Big Daddy then you will for me, all I did was I hid behind the bar counter. Then I jump up across then I hid under that before I attacked him, he’s going to be neutral what. Only when I attack him then he will react. Ludonarrative resonance guidance can also refer to the sequential organisation of the game where the players have to first obtain the narrative information from the NPCs in Mass Effect before they engage in the gameplay: Extract 5.7 michael: Progression should be se- it’s more sequential it should be ah. It’s for casual gamer. . . . It is more guided yes it was supposed to be ah.

Ludonarrative Resonance Metaphor Sylvester (2013) defines metaphor in games as a concept which gives something new the appearance of something familiar to facilitate comprehension and learning. He explains that metaphor is one of the most important concepts that enables the player to learn how to use the gameplay mechanics by wrapping them in fiction and narrative elements to communicate information faster to the player (Sylvester, 2013). Graham et al. (2006) developed a cognitive mental model technique to investigate the players’ shifting knowledge of the game system as they interact with it. They hypothesised that novices would start with an improvised mental model based on the visible physical characteristics of the game system. As they gained experience and insight through the gameplay sessions, their mental models would shift and accommodate the functional characteristics of the AI agents and objects. Their findings indicate that five of the novice participants started with the predicted physical-based mental model. However, while their models qualitatively

82

Ludonarrative Resonance

shifted with experience, they did not necessarily change to the predicted functional-based model. In Bioshock, Mary mentioned that based on the visual appearance of the weapons, she chose to use some weapons such as the wrench and shotgun while avoiding the use of others such as the crossbow, chemical thrower, and grenade launcher when she first found them. Based on her self-generated interpretations of embodied experience (Taylor, 2002; Menary, 2008; Collins, 2011; Nørgård, 2011; Klevjer, 2012; Schröter & Fahlenbrach, 2016; Howe, 2017) during gameplay, she mentioned that the huge physical size of the weapons blocked her view so she did not use them initially because of her perception. As we can see, the weapons’ affordance or metaphorical physical appearance prevented her from forming a mental model (Norman, 1988, p. 39) of the working mechanics and intended use of the objects which contributes to her avoidance in their use. It was only through her discussion with Loke that she realised the potential functional usefulness of the weapons. After her discussion with Loke, she started to use the bigger weapons. Her physical-based mental model thus shifted to a functional-based model based on other gamers’ experience which is used to accommodate her shift instead of the video games’ fictional representations. Mary also mentioned that Loke reads wikis to know more about the weapons so it was not necessarily the game’s visual representation that facilitates the players’ shift from a physical-based mental model to a functional-based model. Only after shifting to a functional-based model did she mention that the learning of the weapons’ functions was intuitive. Another example for this subcategory is where the narrative was helping to set up the gameplay mechanics of the Clicker (a type of zombie-like enemy who detects the player using sound) for the player in The Last of Us. The information regarding the Clicker’s gameplay mechanics controlling its action was conveyed to the player through the narrative event when the player, Alice selects the option to interact with the Clicker who was trapped at the door. Graham et al.’s (2006) study indicates that the ludonarrative relationship of metaphor is present to enable the players to form a cognitive mental model to understand what the game objects mean through their physical resemblance to real-world objects. The players could then further develop their understanding of the functional operations of the game objects as they continue to play the game. Video games which do not assist the player to shift to an understanding of the functional capabilities of game objects will contribute to the inability of players to shift to a functional-based mental model. This could result in players’ frustration, players quitting the game, or not choosing to use a specific weapon or gameplay mechanic if they are optional (in Mary’s case). Players who cannot shift to a functional understanding of the game objects may also

Ludonarrative Resonance

83

change their gameplay interaction to become more passive in the gameplay or use trial and error (Iacovides et al., 2014) to figure out the function. This happened in Beyond: Two Souls where Michael was unable to map the different coloured dots’ affordance to their gameplay function in the interaction. He mentioned that the game did not provide clear affordances to tell him what to do. Graham et al.’s (2006) findings indicate that the players do not necessarily shift to a functional-based cognitive model from a physical one. However, I argue that a video game can facilitate the player’s shift to an understanding of the functional capabilities of the game object in the following ways. Firstly, by providing a tutorial-based interaction integrated with the narrative at the beginning of the game such as in The Last of Us. Secondly, a visual design (physical form) which is intuitive to understand and learn such as pressing the forward arrow to move forward, right arrow to turn right, and “r” button to reload a weapon. Thirdly, a narrative context that mimics function as a form of scaffolding (Vygotsky, 1934/1986; Wood et al., 1976). Although the gameplay mechanics may remain the same, different players may incorporate different degrees of narrative (Anthropy & Clark, 2014) to facilitate their functional learning of the mechanics. In The Last of Us, Alice interprets the event where Tess passed her PC a health kit as solely a gameplay event. Although Tess passed her PC the health kit after he was injured in an explosion earlier, she focused on the UI information to learn how to use the health kit. On the other hand, Nasir mentioned that the narrative provided the context for the gameplay tutorial to facilitate his learning on how to use the health kit. Initially, Walter interpreted Tess passing the heath kit to the PC as a narrative event, but shifts his understanding of it to a gameplay event when it teaches him how to use it. Further to Sylvester (2013) and integrating the theoretical approaches of cognitive mapping (Ryan, 2001), cognitive semantic approach (Stamenković & Jaćević, 2015), and social semiotics (Pérez-Latorre, 2015), I suggest that fiction and narrative elements can also be wrapped in gameplay mechanics as a mental construct. This usually occurs after the player has mastered the gameplay mechanics. In this case, the gameplay mechanics have become a familiar device to the players and the player’s schema contains the knowledge of how gameplay mechanics function. The gameplay mechanics serve many utilitarian purposes in games, but now its simplest and most basic purpose can be used to help the players experience the narrative (development) through metaphor (Stamenković & Jaćević, 2015), which is the now familiar gameplay mechanics. The narrative (development) includes the character relationships, characterisation of (N)PCs, plot development, the character development, the control of the different characters, etc. Alice discussed during the last interview that the different amounts of gameplay options in The Last of Us, such as the different weapons

84

Ludonarrative Resonance

available to different PCs influenced her narrative interpretation of the characters. Joel possessed a greater amount of weapons and crafting options compared to Ellie who was restricted to only a dagger and first aid kit at a specific point in the game. Ellie was also unable to craft items and her attacks were weaker compared to Joel who can use brute force as a strategy to overcome the gameplay enemies because he is more robust. In this sense, the gameplay mechanics of the PCs influenced how she interpreted their characterisations (Dubbelman, 2016). Specifically, Joel is a stronger character in the narrative while Ellie is a young girl. Alternatively, it could also be seen that the characters’ narrative representations influenced how the players performed the gameplay actions when playing one character over another (Yee & Bailenson, 2007; Yee et al., 2009). Alice felt more confident playing as Joel because he was physically stronger but with Ellie, she felt weaker because she possessed fewer weapons as she did not carry as much. Therefore, she can choose more gameplay styles with Joel compared to Ellie where she can only adopt stealth options. However, Walter mentioned that Ellie is portrayed to be an independent character in The Last of Us (Toh, 2017). She killed David, the antagonist by herself after the player controls her to overcome him in the winter chapter. Joel only arrived after Ellie killed David to provide her with emotional support. Table 5.1 summarises the ludonarrative resonance subcategories of “motivation”, “guidance”, and “metaphor” which we have discussed so far.

Table 5.1 New concepts introduced Ludonarrative Category

Concepts Introduced

Ludonarrative Resonance Motivation

Contextualisation Achieve gameplay goals Gameplay choices Gameplay actions Gameplay rewards Narrative progression Plot hooks Emotional proximity

Ludonarrative Resonance Guidance

Giving overall gameplay objective General/specific gameplay actions Sequential organisation

Ludonarrative Resonance Metaphor

Mental model—Physical-based Mental model—Functional-based Setting up gameplay mechanics Convey narrative development

Ludonarrative Resonance

85

Ludonarrative Resonance Semiotic Metaphor O’Halloran (2008) defines a semiotic metaphor as metaphorical shifts that occur where the functional status of elements is changed and new elements are introduced (e.g. a complex scene which changes to a metaphorical entity). When applied to video games, metaphorical shifts can occur when the functional status of gameplay elements is not preserved as new narrative elements and gameplay mechanics are introduced. In Bioshock, a narrative event occurs when the PC took the first dose of Lot 192 in Olympus Heights which successfully freed the PC from the antagonist, Frank Fontaine’s remaining influences. However, it has a side effect, which makes the PC lose control of his active plasmid powers when they become randomised. The PC can no longer customise the plasmid powers after this narrative event. Thus, the functional status of the plasmid powers is not persevered and the new gameplay mechanic of the randomised plasmid powers is introduced. This shift in the functional status of the plasmid powers create gameplay challenge as Mary mentioned during the gameplay that she was nearly killed when her plasmid powers shifted randomly in the middle of the fight with Big Daddy. The randomisation of the plasmid powers during gameplay also creates a narrative effect that reminds the player that the PC was the antagonist’s puppet when the player loses control of his powers (Larsen & Schoenau-Fog, 2016; Sim & Mitchell, 2017). From the other direction, metaphorical shifts can also occur where the narrative function of specific elements is not preserved as new narrative functions or gameplay mechanics are introduced. Where the element previously served a narrative function, it now serves either a new narrative function or becomes a gameplay object. This metaphorical shift usually occurs during the change from system events, where the gameplay withholds control from the player to communicate narrative information, to user events where the control is returned to the player after the narrative information has been successfully conveyed. In The Last of Us, the narrative objective of finding Robert (given in an earlier cutscene) has shifted to become a time based gameplay event. The player, Alice has to chase after Robert and subdue him within a time frame or the gameplay event will fail. She has to discover the time restriction by failing it as the UI does not display the timer countdown to communicate the remaining time before the gameplay event fails.

Ludonarrative Resonance Balance This is an important relationship between narrative and gameplay which contributes to their successful integration. The game developers of Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty (Blizzard Entertainment, 2010) highlight the formula needed to immerse the player in the game through the right

86

Ludonarrative Resonance

balance of gameplay and narrative during the game development process (ElderPredator, 2010). The gameplay action needs to be balanced with the narrative elements such as important plot points and character developments such that mood, story, and gameplay come together in Starcraft II. The balance between the gameplay and narrative is created by setting the difficulty level or challenge of the gameplay such that it does not dominate the player’s focus or interfere with the players’ narrative interpretation. As the player progresses the gameplay, relevant plot points and meaningful character developments in the game narrative are highlighted to complement it. The specific manner in which gameplay is balanced with narrative in video games varies according to the stage of the video game. In an early stage of the game, the narrative concept establishes the setting, introduces the characters and character relationships to orientate the player. Simultaneously, the gameplay also orientates the player by introducing the player the basic gameplay mechanics one at a time through scaffolding. The players are given time to practise using the gameplay mechanic in a real-time gameplay event to familiarise themselves with it. The participants mentioned that they found the narrative and gameplay balanced in The Last of Us. Alice mentioned that the narrative proceeded quickly and the gameplay also helped in moving the narrative forward. Walter mentioned that during the first playthrough, the cutscenes were not too long and were balanced with the gameplay. Finally, Nasir mentioned that when playing games, he would prefer to have a sense of progression through a story and some challenges that fit his skill level.

Ludonarrative Resonance Consequence/Contingency Liu and O’Halloran (2009, p. 380) suggest that visual and linguistic modes of multisemiotic texts can be linked through Consequential Relations when one semiotic message is perceived as enabling or determining the other instead of simply preceding it. Based on the sub-classification of its linguistic counterpart, they also distinguish between Consequence and Contingency. Intersemiotic Consequence refers to unmodalised causal relations between visual and verbal modes where the effect has been actualised (Liu & O’Halloran, 2009, p. 380). Conversely, in multisemiotic texts where there is no ensured effect, the logic of Intersemiotic Contingency is made across language and images. I suggest that their notion of Intersemiotic Consequence and Contingency can be applied to analyse the relationship between gameplay and narrative. Ludonarrative Resonance Consequence is seen to occur when the gameplay action chosen by the player is seen as enabling or creating an outcome (Lorentz, 2015) in the narrative rather than simply preceding it and vice versa. The consequence created in this subcategory is not apparent immediately but can only be observed by the player after the narrative

Ludonarrative Resonance

87

and/or gameplay choice has been made after some time. For instance, players who do not put any gameplay points into “Charm” and “Intimidate” during character customisation in Mass Effect will experience the consequence of their action in the narrative after some time when less dialogue options are available to them to influence the other NPCs and vice versa. In video games where the player can make a narrative or gameplay choice, “Ludonarrative Resonance Contingency” occurs during the player’s decision-making before the choice is made where there is not yet an ensured effect on either the narrative or gameplay. In The Walking Dead, Henry did not know the consequence of his ludonarrative choice (Chapman, 2016) where he chose the action not to kill Larry (Lily’s father) in the meat locker. The consequence of his choice where Lily helps him later in the gameplay fight with Danny Saint John was only apparent after it was shown to him. In Bioshock, Loke did not know if there is a consequence (such as changing the narrative ending) if he allowed any of the Little Sisters to die in the penultimate escort mission. Therefore, whenever one of the Little Sisters he was escorting died, he reloaded the game from an earlier save where they remained alive so that the escort mission was completed successfully without any Little Sisters dying. However, the death of any Little Sisters during the escort mission did not have any consequence in changing the narrative ending. The analysis of Loke’s gameplay recordings and the retrospective protocol analysis from the last interview creates a new subcategory “ludonarrative (ir)relevance consequence” discussed in Chapter 6.

Ludonarrative Resonance Causality Causality is defined as events linked to each other in a cause and effect relationship where effects in turn causing other effects, until the final effect. Even if two events seem not to be obviously interrelated, we infer that they may be based on some larger principle that we will discover later (Chatman, 1978, p. 46). As argued by Chatman, even with no explicit causal link made between narrative events, the readers or players will tend to read causality into a sequence of events recounted as a narrative. Ludonarrative resonance causality occurs when the gameplay action creates an immediate narrative outcome that is apparent to the player and vice versa. Ludonarrative resonance causality may contribute to a less instinctive choice made by the players when they can predict the outcome of a given choice. This subcategory is contrasted to ludonarrative resonance consequence when the outcome can only be seen after some time has passed after the choice has been made. If the outcome cannot be predicted, the players may resort to the use of instinct, their real-life experience, narrative and/or gameplay information to make the choice. They may also play the game normally if they are unaware that there is a narrative outcome based on their gameplay action. Thus, in this category,

88

Ludonarrative Resonance

there are two different types of causality. The first is explicit causality where the player is able to see the outcome based on the feedback from the game and the second is implicit causality where the player cannot see the outcome because there is no feedback. During the first interview, Michael explained the explicit causal connection between the narrative and gameplay in Mass Effect. He mentioned that the more he interacted with the other characters via the dialogue wheel, the more advantage he will have over the game such as obtaining more gameplay rewards. In the last interview, Michael explained the dialogue wheel in Mass Effect. Based on his experience of playing Mass Effect 2 and finishing Mass Effect, he knew which narrative dialogue choices would cause him to obtain gameplay rewards, such as paragon and renegade points or open up more dialogue choices. He mentioned that the choices located on the left-hand side of the dialogue wheel usually provides more backstory. The right hand side is usually more gameplay because after choosing the right hand side, some options will disappear. The top and bottom choices of the dialogue wheel on the left and right side which are colour coded blue and red are linked to the paragon and renegade reward points respectively. The second type is implicit causality where the player is unable to see the outcome because the game does not give player feedback or the player has no basis for comparison because s/he has not explored the different pathways in the game. In the example discussed in Chapter 4 about “information dissonance” in “ludonarrative dissonance”, Nasir did not know that he could obtain a good outcome by turning in the side missions which involved dubious activities to the authorities during the first playthrough. He was able to form the causal link between his player’s action and narrative outcome (in his mental model) only during the second playthrough when he tried out the different options given to him in the game.

Ludonarrative Resonance Succession Event has been defined by Bal (1985) as a transition of one state to another. It requires a succession of two states and an observation that change has occurred. This subcategory involves a gameplay event’s transition to a narrative event and vice versa. However, the link between the gameplay and narrative events is not as strong as the link formed between the gameplay and narrative events in “ludonarrative resonance causality” and “ludonarrative resonance consequence”. In The Walking Dead, Henry mentioned that a gameplay event occurs when the PC fought with an NPC, Molly in Season 1 Episode 4. A narrative event occurs in succession after the gameplay event when Clementine appeared suddenly and stopped Molly from killing the PC. The succession of events may lead to narrative effects on the player such as surprise when different events suddenly occur without narrative explanation:

Ludonarrative Resonance

89

Extract 5.8 interviewer: It’s not causing? henry: Ya it’s not causing. Because I also didn’t know Clementine was there what. interviewer: mm. So it’s a kind of surprise. henry: Ya it’s a surprise. Cos Clementine was supposed to be at the house what. interviewer: mm. So leading is like a succession of events ah? henry: Ya. A succession of events. It’s like one lead to the other lead to the other. interviewer: Not very strong link? henry: Ya. Ya. Ya. Not not very strong. But then I remember I saw when I saw er Clementine then I was like Ben didn’t do his job. Another instance of this subcategory occurs in Bioshock when the player is given gameplay control after he was first shown a long cutscene as he travels down into Rapture via the Bathysphere.

Ludonarrative Resonance Parallelism Integration Liu and O’Halloran (2009, p. 373) suggest that language and images represent the world of experience through Transitivity structures. If the two concepts share a similar Transitivity configuration, Intersemiotic Parallel Structures will be present in the multisemiotic text. In addition to Liu and O’Halloran (2009), I integrate insights from prior research on game studies (e.g. Fernández-Vara, 2009) and ludonarrative (e.g. Chapman, 2016, p. 183; Locke, 2016; Sim & Mitchell, 2017) to create the definition for this subcategory. I define ludonarrative resonance parallelism integration as configurative elements (Aarseth, 1997; Eskelinen, 2001) from the gameplay module function to correspond with the interpretative elements from the narrative module and vice versa. Congruent meanings constructed by the elements in each of the modules are operative in producing ludonarrative cohesion. In this subcategory, gameplay, and narrative are integrated with each other and work together to convey a specific kind of player experience. The Walking Dead example which I have mentioned earlier refers to the player, Henry carrying out the action of chopping his brother’s head to obtain the pharmacy’s key. The action creates a narrative event. Specifically, the narrative tells the story of Lee and his relationship with his brother. Henry experiences the emotion of extreme sadness from the PC’s dialogue together with his performance of the action which is conveyed through the change of camera perspective. When the player controls his PC to chop his brother’s head the first time, there is a shift of the camera’s perspective to a close-up shot of Lee’s emotional expression of sadness and

90

Ludonarrative Resonance

disgust. The camera then shifts back to a close-up shot of Lee’s brother to show that he is dead but then returns back to reanimation. The shift of the camera’s perspective to a medium shot of Lee’s startled body language is intended to produce the narrative effect of surprise on the player. The player is required to control his PC to perform the chopping action four more times before Lee’s brother is put to rest. By designing the input controls to be repetitive, the player experiences helplessness, ennui, or despair. When the player feels the same emotions as the PC as he carries out the action, there is ludonarrative resonance parallelism integration. However, not all players feel the integration. Jim felt annoyed rather than sad for Lee. He felt that the narrative and gameplay were not as close in the part when he performed the action of “killing” Lee’s brother using the axe. He mentioned that that the narrative does not provide sufficient information regarding Lee’s relationship with his family other than that they did not talk much. For Jim, the repetitive action of chopping the NPC’s head facilitates his reflection of the relationship between the PC and his brother/family during the last interview. Defamiliarisation (Shklovsky, 1965) can be used as a game design technique to force the players to stop and reflect upon their game experience or issues beyond the immediate game experience (Flanagan, 2009; Mitchell, 2014; Schrank, 2014; Ensslin, 2015; Mitchell, 2016; Mitchell et al., 2017) when specific game mechanics are made unfamiliar compared to the mechanics in the other parts of the game. In The Walking Dead’s gameplay recordings, I observed Mary facing difficulty completing the QTE when Lee fought with Andy Saint John at the electrical fence. She mentioned that the gameplay control was counter-intuitive during the interview and it was a refreshing change in the game. Her experience, as elicited during the interview, was that the game was trying to integrate the gameplay into the narrative. The reason is that only by letting go of the controls would Lily came to save Lee. Therefore, there was ludonarrative resonance parallelism integration for her. Similar to Mary, Henry was observed to struggle with the counter-intuitive controls in this part of the game where he took more than one minute to discover that he has to let go of the controls for the game to progress. He mentioned that his hand felt tired and reflected that he should try not pressing “Q” to see if the game can be progressed in this way after some time. As we can see, the analysis of the players’ experience has shown that the same game design such as the repetitive input can be used to convey different players’ experiences when used in different contexts. In The Walking Dead, feelings of helplessness (when Lee chops his brother’s head), struggle (when Lee fights Andy Saint John), and interdependent character relationships (when Lily helps Lee to fight Andy Saint John) could be conveyed through the embodied experience of the player to convey a (haptic) narrative (Markle, 2017) by using the (haptic) feedback such as counterintuitive controls to explore themes or narrative threads of the game in a

Ludonarrative Resonance

91

meaningful way. However, it is important to note that the players in the study were also figuring out about the problems with interaction in relation to understanding “what to do” or “what was happening” (Mitchell et al., 2017) in order to progress the game. Therefore, it is possible that their engagement with the game mechanics limited their attempts to experience the game in a meaningful way (Mitchell et al., 2017) because their gameplay could not be mapped to their narrative experience. In contrast to Mary, Jim felt that there was a dissociation of narrative and gameplay when he controlled Lee to fight Andy. He interpreted Lily coming out to save the PC, Lee as more gameplay compared to narrative as he mentioned that she was a means to an end, that is, a gameplay tool. The reason he gave was that he was a person who rarely developed attachments (Lewis et al., 2008; Banks & Bowman, 2013) or emotions with fictional characters as it would be a sign of severe gaming addiction to him. Harth (2017) suggests that it is not determined in which way human players are willing to engage in a real virtual relationship. From the empirical data, it has been shown that different human players show different types of relationships with virtual characters (Harth, 2017). Due to various reasons discussed, we can see that there is a continuum of different players’ experience where Jim perceived the characters as “game objects”, Henry “attributing characters with some kind of personhood” and Mary situated somewhere in-between Jim and Henry where there is a “hybridisation of players” (Harth, 2017). Their different experiences contribute to the continuum-based conceptualisation of the ludonarrative subcategory.

Ludonarrative Resonance Prominence For this subcategory, elements from one module are incorporated to draw attention to particular elements from another module and this gives rise to a semantic expansion. Narrative information which is conveyed via the NPC’s dialogue can draw the player’s attention to the gameplay which may influence the player’s decision-making when making a narrative and/ or gameplay choice. In Bioshock, after the player has performed a specific action such as saving a Little Sister, Tenenbaum informs the player that s/he will be rewarded in a later gameplay phase after saving three Little Sisters. In this way, the NPC’s dialogue is related to gameplay. Mary mentioned that because of Tenenbaum’s promise and her personality, the narrative was influencing her action to save the Little Sisters. In The Last of Us, the gameplay mechanics which will be present later in the game are introduced to the players in the narrative event. Alice mentioned a narrative event where Ellie was informing Joel and Tess about her narrative characteristic where she was unable to swim as they were approaching the Capitol Building to rendezvous with the Fireflies. This narrative information contextualises or points towards the later gameplay events where the player has to interact with the planks to ferry Ellie across

92

Ludonarrative Resonance

water bodies in order to solve puzzles. The narrative information draws attention to the gameplay mechanic in the later parts of the game. Based on the interview data, I also define this subcategory as the players’ placing of emphasis on one module (e.g. narrative) which influenced the other module (e.g. gameplay) instead of the modes (language and/or visuals) in one of the modules (narrative or gameplay) drawing their attention to the other module. Towards the end of The Walking Dead Season 1 Episode 5, Henry was controlling Lee to move through the walkers (zombies) with Clementine (analytical frame—character movement). During the last interview, he mentioned that he was afraid that it would rain and they would be discovered by the walkers when the walkers’ blood smeared on their body was washed off. His narrative interpretation influenced his action so that he was motivated (see also “ludonarrative resonance motivation”) to control his PC to quickly progress this part of the game.

Ludonarrative Player-(Game Designers’) Character Resonance I define this subcategory as the player’s knowledge of the game world aligning with what they think the game designers know about the PC. This definition is contrasted with the definition of “ludonarrative player-(game designers’) character dissonance” discussed in Chapter 4. Player’s information alignment with the game designers’ character could happen when a plot twist occurs and crucial information about the PC is revealed to the character which (re)contextualises the player’s gameplay actions. In Bioshock, the player, Mary meets Andrew Ryan and is informed about her PC’s role as a puppet in the narrative (Extract 5.9). Another instance of player’s information alignment with the game designers’ character occurs in The Last of Us’ prologue where the narrative explains the PC’s backstory to contextualise his gameplay actions for the later parts of the game (See Extract 5.5). Extract 5.9 mary: So ya when I was playing this part, I was so mind blown because I was thinking like the whole “Would you kindly”, even though I was controlling Jack, they are also controlling me in a sense in my actions. So this part again they are trying to like emphasise that I have no control because the whole “Would you kindly” is controlling what I’m doing you know what I mean? So I thought it was quite cool actually.

Ludonarrative Resonance Information Solutions In contrast to “ludonarrative dissonance incomplete information problems” (see Chapter 4), I define information solutions as game designers

Ludonarrative Resonance

93

providing players with explicit knowledge of how to overcome the gameplay challenge(s) and/or make a narrative choice. The game designers may encourage players to perform gameplay actions or make important decisions to solidify the empathetic connection between player and character. The consequences of their gameplay actions are also explicitly shown to them as feedback in the narrative setting or game world. The explicit knowledge is provided in the multimodal semiotic resources such as the linguistic or visual modes. Alice mentioned that sometimes The Last of Us would give a visual and linguistic prompt for the player to interact with Ellie to ask how she is feeling. The players may choose to talk to her and how she responds creates emotional attachment (Extract 5.10). In many parts of the game, Ellie is also an important companion who helps the player to cross water bodies to solve environmental puzzles: Extract 5.10 interviewer: Ya so maybe there is you need to have some control when they are showing the emotional parts. alice: Ya I mean in terms of I mean in terms of gameplay you know there is certain points in time where you can go up to Ellie and say like you know are you okay or whatever which is a narrative event inside gameplay. Because you can choose to ask her that question. You can choose not to ask her that question. Erm and whether and how she responds creates that I guess emotional attachment because you are trying to you know gauge how she is feeling but on the other hand, it’s also I feel like it’s also very forced. Because it’s like you see the thing pop up and then you have like to go over to her and ask her that question. With the discussion of “ludonarrative resonance information solutions”, I have explained how I have conceptualised the various subcategories of ludonarrative resonance using the empirical data. In the next chapter, I will describe how I conceptualise ludonarrative (ir)relevance and refine its various subcategories.

Summary In this chapter, I have conceptualised and validated the ludonarrative relationship of “ludonarrative resonance” using the player experience. I first define “ludonarrative resonance” and based on the empirical data, describe the three features of ludonarrative resonance, namely, game objects, character feature(s), and actions and movement which are integrated with the narrative setting in the game world. Following this, I refine “ludonarrative resonance” into 12 subcategories using the interview data. These 12 subcategories are “motivation”, “guidance”,

94

Ludonarrative Resonance

“metaphor”, “semiotic metaphor”, “balance”, “consequence/contingency”, “causality”, “succession”, “parallelism integration”, “prominence”, “player-(game designers’) character resonance”, and “information solutions”. These ludonarrative resonance subcategories can serve as a template for game designers to consider when prototyping or conceptualising the game’s structure in order to provide a seamless experience for the players to enjoy the game. Because these subcategories are created from the lived experience of the players, they can also be used to understand the psychology of different players from their narration and explanation of their actions in the game world to better understand the types of game structure (e.g. ludonarrative) that motivates different player types to engage with the game. Leveraging on the ludonarrative resonance category of “metaphor”, we show the importance of designing the game’s affordances and representations in an intuitive, clear, simple, and consistent manner in order to communicate their intended functions for the players to interact with them. We can also understand how different techniques employed by different ludonarrative resonance categories create specific effects for specific player types. In particular, we can design plot hooks and emotional proximity into the game structure to motivate players who are interested in the game narrative to engage with the gameplay. Furthermore, we can combine various narrative techniques such as perspective shift and multiple dimensional characters with motivations and emotions flashed out in the backstory to help players to develop empathy during gameplay. Finally, we can design (ludonarrative) mechanics to create specific narrative experiences such as helplessness, conflict, surprise, and suspense.

References Aarseth, E. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Anthropy, A., & Clark, N. (2014). A Game Design Vocabulary: Exploring the Foundational Principles behind Good Game Design (1st ed.). Upper Saddle River: Addison-Wesley Professional. Bal, M. (1985). Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press. Banks, J., & Bowman, N. D. (2013). Close Intimate Playthings? Understanding Player-Avatar Relationships as a Function of Attachment, Agency, and Intimacy. Selected Papers of Internet Research 14.0. Denver, USA. Blizzard Entertainment. (2010). Starcraft II: Wings of Liberty . Blizzard Entertainment. Brice, M. (2011). Ludonarrative Resonance. Mattie Brice. Available from www. mattiebrice.com/ludonarrative-resonance/ (Accessed: 26 Nov 2017). Brice, M. (2012). Narrative Is a Game Mechanic. Pop Matters. Available from www.popmatters.com/153895-narrative-is-a-game-mechanic-2495891347. html (Accessed: 26 Nov 2017).

Ludonarrative Resonance

95

Butt, M.-A., & Dunne, D. (2017). Rebel Girls and Consequence in Life Is Strange and The Walking Dead. Games and Culture, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1555412017744695 Caracciolo, M. (2015). Playing Home: Video Game Experiences between Narrative and Ludic Interests. Narrative, 23(3), 231–251. Chapman, A. (2016). Digital Games as History: How Videogames Represent the Past and Offer Access to Historical Practice. New York: Routledge. Chatman, S. (1978). Story and Discourse. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Collins, K. (2011). Making Gamers Cry: Mirror Neurons and Embodied Interaction with Game Sound. Proceedings of the 6th Audio Mostly Conference: A Conference on Interaction with Sound. Sep 9–11, ACM, Coimbra, Portugal and New York, NY. Dickey, M. D. (2006). Game Design Narrative for Learning: Appropriating Adventure Game Design Narrative Devices and Techniques for the Design of Interactive Learning Environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(3), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-8806-y Dubbelman, T. (2016). Narrative Game Mechanics. In F. Nack & A. Gordon (Eds.), Interactive Storytelling, ICIDS 2016: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10045. Cham: Springer. ElderPredator. (2010). Singleplayer Storytelling. Available from www.moddb. com/groups/starcraft-fan-group/features/singleplayer-storytelling (Accessed: 1 Dec 2017). Elkind, D. (1994). Ties That Stress: The New Family Imbalance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ensslin, A. (2014). Playing with Rather Than by the Rules. In A. Bell, A. Ensslin, & H. K. Rustad (Eds.), Analyzing Digital Fiction (Routledge Studies in Rhetoric and Stylistics) (pp. 75–93). New York and London: Routledge. Ensslin, A. (2015). Video Games as Unnatural Narratives. Proceedings of the DiGRA 2015 International Conference: Diversity of Play: Games-CulturesIdentities. Meson Press, Lüneburg. Eskelinen, M. (2001). The Gaming Situation. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1(1). Fernández-Vara, C. (2009). The Tribulations of Adventure Games: Integrating Story into Simulation through Performance. PhD Thesis. Georgia Institute of Technology. Flanagan, M. (2009). Critical Play: Radical Game Design. The MIT Press. Graham, J., Zheng, L., & Gonzalez, C. (2006). A Cognitive Approach to Game Usability and Design: Mental Model Development in Novice Real-Time Strategy Gamers. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 9(3), 361–366. Harth, J. (2017). Empathy with Non-Player Characters? An Empirical Approach to the Foundations of Human/Non-Human Relationships. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 10(2), 1–25. Howe, L. A. (2017). Ludonarrative Dissonance and Dominant Narratives. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 44(1), 44–54. Iacovides, I., Cox, A. L., Avakian, A., & Knoll, T. (2014). Player Strategies: Achieving Breakthroughs and Progressing in Single-Player and Cooperative Games. In L. E. Nacke & T. C. N. Graham (Eds.), CHI Play 2014 Proceedings of the First ACM SIGCHI Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 131–140). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).

96

Ludonarrative Resonance

Klevjer, R. (2012). Enter the Avatar: The Phenomenology of Prosthetic Telepresence in Computer Games. In H. Fossheim, T. Mandt Larsen, & J. R. Sageng (Eds.), The Philosophy of Computer Games (pp. 17–38). London and New York: Springer. Lane, N., & Prestopnik, N. R. (2017). Diegetic Connectivity: Blending Work and Play with Storytelling in Serious Games. CHI Play 2017. Oct 15–18, 2017, Amsterdam, NL. Larsen, B. A., & Schoenau-Fog, H. (2016). The Narrative Quality of Game Mechanics. In F. Nack & A. Gordon (Eds.), Interactive Storytelling, ICIDS 2016: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10045. Cham: Springer. Lewis, M. L., Weber, R., & Bowman, N. D. (2008). They May Be Pixels, But They’re MY Pixels: Developing a Metric of Character Attachment in RolePlaying Video Games. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11(4), 515–518. Liu, Y., & O’Halloran, K. (2009). Intersemiotic Texture: Analyzing Cohesive Devices between Language and Images. Social Semiotics, 19(4), 367–388. Locke, V. (2016). The Power of Ludonarrativity: Halo as Participatory Myth. In M. W. Kapell (Ed.), The Play Versus Story Divide in Game Studies (pp. 86–96). Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers. Lorentz, P. (2015). The Socialising Voyage of the Video Game Player: GrowingUp with Playing the SIMS. Brno, Czech Republic: Muni Press. Markle, B. (2017). Embodying the Story: Haptic Narrative in Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons. First Person Scholar. Available from www.firstpersonscholar.com/ embodying-the-story/ (Accessed: 14 Dec 2017). Mateas, M. (2001). A Preliminary Poetics for Interactive Drama and Games. Digital Creativity, 12(3), 140–152. http://doi.org/10.1076/digc.12.3.140.3224 Menary, R. (2008). Embodied Narratives. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 15(6), 63–84. Mette, P., & Nils, S. (2013). Narratification: Unifying Narrative and Gameplay. Paper Submitted and Accepted for the 9th Student Interaction Design Research Conference (SIDeR’13). Available from http://sider2013.au.dk/fileadmin/ sider2013/0125-paper.pdf (Accessed: 29 Nov 2017). Mitchell, A. (2014). Defamiliarization and Poetic Interaction in Kentucky Route Zero. Well Played Journal, 3(2), 161–178. Mitchell, A. (2016). Making the Familiar Unfamiliar: Techniques for Creating Poetic Gameplay. Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference of DiGRA and FDG, 13(1), 1–16. Dundee, Scotland. Mitchell, A., Sim, Y. T., & Kway, L. (2017). Making It Unfamiliar in the ‘Right’ Way: An Empirical Study of Poetic Gameplay. Proceedings of the 2017 DiGRA International Conference. Jul 2017, Melbourne, Australia. Mordkowitz, E. R., & Ginsburg, H. P. (1987). Early Academic Socialization of Successful Asian-American College Students. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 9(2), 85–91. Nørgård, R. T. (2011). The Joy of Doing: The Corporeal Connection in PlayerAvatar Identity. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Computer Games Conference. Apr 6–9, 2011, Athens, Greece. Norman, D. A. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books. O’Halloran, K. L. (2007). Systemic Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis (SF-MDA) Approach to Mathematics, Grammar and Literacy. In A. McCabe,

Ludonarrative Resonance

97

M. O’Donnell, & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in Language and Education (pp. 77–102). London: Continuum Impacts. O’Halloran, K. L. (2008). Systemic Functional-Multimodal Discourse Analysis (SF-MDA): Constructing Ideational Meaning Using Language and Visual Imagery. Visual Communication, 7(4), 443–475. Pérez-Latorre, O. (2015). The Social Discourse of Video Games Analysis Model and Case Study: GTA IV. Games and Culture, 10(5), 415–437. Pynenburg, T. (2012). Games Worth a Thousand Words: Critical Approaches and Ludonarrative Harmony in Interactive Narratives. Honors Theses and Capstones and University of New Hampshire. Available from http://scholars.unh. edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=honors (Accessed: 26 Nov 2017). Rodkin, J., & Vanaman, S. (2013). Saving Doug: Empathy, Character, and Choice in The Walking Dead. GDC 2013. Mar 25–29, CA, USA. Available from www. gdcvault.com/play/1017807/Saving-Doug-Empathy-Character-and (Accessed: 3 Dec 2017). Roth, C., Klimmt, C., Vermeulen, I. E., & Vorderer, P. (2011). The Experience of Interactive Storytelling: Comparing ‘Fahrenheit’ with ‘Façade’. In J. C. Anacleto, S. Fels, N. Graham, B. Kapra-los, M. S. El-Nasr, & K. Stanley (Eds.), ICEC 2011: LNCS, vol 6972 (pp. 13–21). Heidelberg: Springer. Ryan, M.-L. (2001). Narrative as Virtual Reality: Immersion and Interactivity in Literature and Electronic Media. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Schrank, B. (2014). Avant-Garde Videogames: Playing with Technoculture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Schröter, F., & Fahlenbrach, K. (2016). Embodied Avatars in Video Games: Metaphors in the Design of Player Characters. In K. Fahlenbrach (Ed.), Embodied Metaphors in Film, Television, and Video Games: Cognitive Approaches (pp. 251–268). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Shklovsky, V. (1965). Art as Technique. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (Trans.), Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays (pp. 11–16). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press. Sim, Y. T., & Mitchell, A. (2017). Wordless Games: Gameplay as Narrative Technique. In N. Nunes, I. Oakley, & V. Nisi (Eds.), Interactive Storytelling, ICIDS 2017: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10690 (pp. 137–149). Cham: Springer. Skolnick, E. (2014). Video Game Storytelling: What Every Developer Needs to Know about Narrative Techniques. Berkeley, CA: Watson-Guptill Publications. Stang, S. (2017). Big Daddies and Broken Men: Father-Daughter Relationships in Video Games. Loading . . . The Journal of the Canadian Game Studies Association, 10(16), 162–174. Stamenković, D., & Jaćević, M. (2015). Time, Space, and Motion in Braid: A Cognitive Semantic Approach to a Video Game. Games and Culture, 10(2), 178–203. Sylvester, T. (2013). Designing Games: A Guide to Engineering Experiences. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. Talib, I. S. (2014). Narrative Theory: A Brief Introduction, Chapter 6: Plot. Available from https://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/ellibst/NarrativeTheory/chapt6. htm (Accessed: 29 Nov 2017).

98

Ludonarrative Resonance

Tawfik, A. A., Schmidt, M. M., & Msilu, F. (2018). Stories as Decision Scaffolds: Understanding Nonlinear Storytelling Using Case-Based Reasoning and Educational Design Research. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton and K. Kaminski (Eds.), Educational Technology and Narrative: Story and Instructional Design (pp. 21–38). Cham: Springer. Taylor, T. L. (2002). Living Digitally: Embodiment in Virtual Worlds. In R. Schroeder (Ed.), The Social Life of Avatars: Presence and Interaction in Shared Virtual Environments (pp. 40–62). London: Springer-Verlag. Toh, W. (2017). Ellie. In J. Banks, R. Mejia, & A. Adams (Eds.), 100 Greatest Video Game Characters (pp. 60–62). Lanham, MD, USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Warpefelt, H., & Verhagen, H. (2017). A Model of Non-Player Character Believability. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 9(1), 39–53. Watssman, J. (2012). Essay: Ludonarrative Dissonance Explained and Expanded. Escapist Magazine. Available from www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/ read/9.389092-Essay-Ludonarrative-Dissonance-Explained-and-Expanded (Accessed: 26 Nov 2017). Wood, D. J., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 17(2), 89–100. Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. N. (2007). The Proteus Effect: The Effect of Transformed Self-Representation on Behavior. Human Communication Research, 33(3), 271–290. Yee, N., Bailenson, J. N., & Ducheneaut, N. (2009). The Proteus Effect: Implications of Transformed Digital Self-Representation on Online and Offline Behavior. Communication Research, 36(2), 285–312.

6

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance and the Player Experience

Ludonarrative (ir)relevance is a modification of Watssman’s (2012) “ludonarrative alienation” which he defines as the narrative and gameplay gaining nothing from the presence of the other and they may also not restrict each other. The video game might only have an engaging gameplay or an interesting narrative and the player might enjoy only one of them. Ludonarrative alienation occurs when the players are allowed to do something in the gameplay but they are not given strong or sufficient narrative reason why they should do it and vice versa (Watssman, 2012). This happens most often when the player is not engaged by either the narrative or the gameplay. The effect on the player is boredom. Compared to Watssman’s (2012) definition of “ludonarrative alienation” which assumes that the gameplay and narrative are completely isolated from each other, I define ludonarrative (ir)relevance to be occurring when narrative and gameplay have a weak relationship with each other, neither conflicting, as in dissonance, nor harmonising, as in resonance. This could happen in cases where the narrative is undeveloped or rushed by the game developers. This could also happen in cases where the players belong to a specific category of gamers, such as those who focus more on the gameplay or narrative. The difference between my terminology and Watssman’s (2012) terminology is a matter of degree. The narrative and gameplay modules in “ludonarrative (ir)relevance” are more or less relevant to each other on a continuum and bridges “ludonarrative dissonance” and “ludonarrative resonance”. The term “irrelevance” does not mean that the game is designed to offer irrelevant information, but rather that “irrelevance” refers to those moments when players fail to perceive relevance, meaning that the message conveyed by the mode (language or visual) in the module (narrative or gameplay) has no impact (or does not add) on their gameplay.

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance Gameplay Focus Based on the empirical data, I define this subcategory as the player’s greater focus on the gameplay such that the narrative is backgrounded when they play the game. The subcategory proposed here draws parallels with Bell

100

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance

et al.’s (2018) argument which highlights how different types of immersion might overrule each other. For instance, ludic immersion can override narrative/audio immersion, temporarily. In the Bioshock’s study, Peter chose to focus more on the gameplay rather than listen to the audio logs’ narrative. In Peter’s experience, there was ludonarrative irrelevance gameplay focus when he chose to background the narrative message to him, even though the narrative message was highly crucial to solve the gameplay puzzle. In doing so, he missed the door code that was given in the “Paparazzi” audio log to unlock the antagonist’s (Frank Fontaine’s) penthouse in Bioshock’s Apollo Square level. He ended up searching for the door code online to unlock the door: Extract 6.1 interviewer: This one is the door code that you were trying to find. peter: Oh. interviewer: So when you play the game, you didn’t know. peter: No, I didn’t take notice. I didn’t take notice. That’s why because you see ah I was focused on the gameplay what so I didn’t take note that the code was actually playing in the background. “Ludonarrative irrelevance—gameplay focus” can also occur when the gameplay affordance is unclear to the players. When the players face difficulty in figuring out the gameplay actions to proceed the narrative, they will feel frustrated, and as a result, lose interest in the narrative. For example, if the game requires the players to press a correct sequence of buttons in the gameplay but the affordances are not clear, the players would not feel like they were engaging in an immersive manner with the gameplay. They would be more focused on the gameplay and the narrative may thus become less relevant. In the Beyond: Two Souls’ study, Michael mentioned that the affordance was unclear to him, so he did not manage to save Jodie using Aiden. He was more motivated on understanding the gameplay mechanics rather than immersing in the storyline (Yee, 2007): Extract 6.2 michael: It’s not so clear also you know? You need to stare at the thing. For the two orbs to come up. Because usually the two orbs will come up automatically mah. interviewer: mm. So can I say that the narrative is clear er clearly linked to the gameplay but. . . . michael: The narrative is clearly linked to the part that I need to take action. interviewer: But. . . . michael: It doesn’t tell me take what action. interviewer: So the specific actions for you is not so clear ah? michael: Yes.

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance

101

In Bioshock, some of the players such as Loke, John, and Peter mentioned during the interview that they were more motivated to engage in the fun and challenging gameplay rather than listen to the storyline in the audio logs and memorise the door code. Loke was unable to link the subtle gameplay hints from the audio logs’ narrative to find the incinerate plasmid to melt the doors frozen by the ice. He focused on the gameplay and found the way to overcome the gameplay obstacle by trial and error: Extract 6.3 interviewer: Okay so the narrative is quite separated from the gameplay? loke: As in I did make the effort to remember but I think at that point in time, I was deciding is it worth trying to remember? interviewer: I think you have to write down. loke: I wrote down somewhere and then after that, it was like never mind, I should just hack it lah. It’s more fun to hack then to remember this. Extract 6.4 loke: er ya because mm I played the first chapter then I realised there are a lot of rooms that er I missed. Like for example, er they reveal on the map but as I play through the game, then they didn’t really like prompt me like oh you can actually go to this room this room this room. Then only for example, when I had the Incinerate er plasmid right? Then I went to get the Telekinesis one right away because when I played the game, only when I reached the part where I need Telekinesis right? Then I realised I didn’t, I need to go and find it and realised to find it I also need Incinerate. And then by the time I got Telekinesis, then I realised I cannot use Incinerate for some of the rooms. Cos some of the rooms is blocked by the freezing pipes then I need to melt the ice what. Then I cannot melt the ice. So er. . . . interviewer: So you have to find the Incinerate first. loke: Ya. So that’s why I wanted to like try and replay cos the game never really say like oh er. . . . interviewer: But the audio log never give you any hint? The audio log. loke: mm ya sometimes like when I play I will just like focusing attention on the visual part. interviewer: mm. loke: Then I just listen to the audio as in just for backstory lah like what’s going on. Ya but there’s one there’s one audio log specifically about the pipes one. So that’s the one that help you get the Telekinesis right?

102

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance: Narrative Focus Compared to gameplay focus, I define this subcategory as the players’ greater focus on narrative interpretation such that the gameplay is of secondary importance. This subcategory applies more to players who are motivated to play the game to immerse (Yee, 2007) in the narrative. For instance, Nasir mentioned in the first interview that he prefers to play games more for the narrative which was why he chose Mass Effect for the study. During the last interview he mentioned that during his first playthrough of Mass Effect, he did not really do all the side quests in the gameplay such as collecting the Insignias, Matriarch writings, and minerals. The reason is that there was no narrative support but only some gameplay rewards such as money where he could get from doing the main quests. Other factors such as whether the game is being played the first or second time will influence the players’ focus. For instance, when Walter was playing The Last of Us the first time, he focused more on learning the gameplay controls and mechanics during the prologue. During his second playthrough, I observed that he was focusing more on the narrative interpretation when he controlled Sarah to explore Joel’s house.

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance: Incomplete Information Problems The perception of “ludonarrative (ir)relevance: incomplete information problems” may occur when the game does not provide sufficient information to the players via either of the modules, such as narrative or gameplay to unlock more gameplay or narrative information respectively. The difference between “ludonarrative dissonance: contrast—incomplete information problems” and the subcategory here is in the degree of players’ awareness whether they can perform specific gameplay actions based on narrative hints and vice versa. In “dissonance”, the players may be aware that they can perform a specific gameplay action or select a narrative choice but they are unsure of the outcome due to incomplete information. In contrast, for “(ir)relevance”, the players may be less aware that they can perform a gameplay action or select a narrative choice due to incomplete information. An instance is where the game does not provide explicit gameplay cues to the player to unlock more backstory for the PC, Jodie, in Beyond: Two Souls. When this happens, the player would miss the narrative information altogether. Although the player, Matt was motivated to both explore the game world and find out more about the storyline (Yee, 2007), some backstory could not be unlocked. Matt did not know that he could switch the gameplay perspective to control Aiden to unlock backstory in the box of memories by triggering the flashback as the game did not provide explicit affordance:

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance

103

Extract 6.5 interviewer: You said there’s a box on top of the cupboard there. When Jodie was very young that time. matt: mm. interviewer: But then you press the X thing and then. . . . matt: Like eh never mind. interviewer: You cannot open the box. matt: Huh? interviewer: But actually, you can use Aiden to. . . . matt: Knock open the box ah? interviewer: Interact with the box and then use Aiden to have a flashback. matt: Oh you can? interviewer: For Jodie. And then you can get more backstory. matt: Oh I didn’t know that. In Mass Effect, Nasir mentioned that when playing the game, the narrative did not provide explicit information on how to obtain Tali’s side mission in the gameplay. When he talked to Tali, she only told him that she needed a specific item for her pilgrimage and the Geth Incursion mission did not explicitly tell the player that it is related to Tali’s side quest. Therefore, he faced difficulty unlocking her mission and he only managed to find the mission by looking up the information online: Extract 6.6 nasir: Ya as in it’s not like it’s not that she give one ah. It’s the alliance give then then . . . interviewer: The Geth incursion? nasir: Ya. Then because erm er wait ah. Ya because she did repeat, she did say like in her conversations what kind of erm what kind of item she needed for her pilgrimage. So ya as in but ya so as in you somewhat infer that she will want that item or so. interviewer: But the Geth Incursion mission didn’t explicitly tell you. nasir: Ya. Yes. interviewer: That it’s related to Tali’s side quest? nasir: Ya it didn’t. interviewer: So you have difficulty finding how to unlock her quest? nasir: Ya. That’s right. interviewer: Oki.

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance Metaphor Compared to ludonarrative resonance metaphor, I define this subcategory as the player not able to decode what the game is trying to communicate

104

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance

through either one of the modes, such as the visuals or language. The player may therefore treat the information as being irrelevant. For instance, in Mass Effect, Nasir mentioned that he did not know what the green colour on the PC’s health bar means. During the retrospective protocol analysis, he assumed that green colour means his character was healing. Only when we looked up online did we determine that the green colour symbolised some negative effect (such as suppressing health regeneration) applied on the PC by the Geth stalker where they injected a poison, radiation, or electric shock from a distance. If the player does not know the meaning conveyed via the abstract visual representation of the objects in the game world, their gameplay function would be unknown. The player would therefore treat the information as irrelevant if the negative effect does not influence the gameplay on the difficulty level he is playing: Extract 6.7 interviewer: But you still don’t know what is this ah? The green colour coding. nasir: Ya. I’m assuming it’s healing. Because in in Mass Effect 2 they didn’t they don’t really play around with er as in it’s not so obvious about poison and stuff lah. I don’t think there’s any poison in Mass Effect 2. It’s only because Mass Effect 1 got poison so . . . it’s a bit vague. . . . As in since her health was still high, it didn’t really concern me. In The Last of Us, Walter mentioned that the visual representation of the crafting objects in the crafting window makes it hard for him to track the resources that he has gathered. He mentioned that it was difficult to decode the system in terms of how the visual representation communicated the amount of crafting resources that the players possessed before they can craft a certain gameplay object. The game designers could have modelled the gameplay system based on a real-world referent. However, if players do not understand how the system works, they would treat the metaphorical visual representation as being irrelevant to their learning of the gameplay function of the system.

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance Consequence Compared to “ludonarrative resonance consequence”, I define this subcategory as the player being less aware of the consequence of the gameplay action on the narrative and vice versa. The player’s lesser awareness may be due to the lack of feedback which contributes to its irrelevance. In the Mass Effect’s study, Nasir mentioned that he was unable to know the long-term gameplay consequences of his narrative choice in saving the Exogeni NPC, Ethan Jeong. Specifically, he did not know that in the

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance

105

later gameplay he could save less colonists once he saved the NPC. The reason is that he has only played once and has no basis for comparison for the alternative pathway if he chose to let Ethan Jeong die. Therefore, he just played the game normally and saved all the colonists. He treated the consequence(s) of his narrative choice on the gameplay as being irrelevant: Extract 6.8 interviewer: Do you find that when he dies, the gameplay was harder? Or? nasir: Not really. Ya not really. As in if it did get harder, I didn’t notice. Ya. interviewer: Because you didn’t play the other pathway? nasir: er ya I wasn’t aware there were multiple pathways so for whether he lives or dies so ya. In the Bioshock’s study, Loke mentioned that he reloaded the game for the Little Sisters’ escort mission to prevent any of their deaths. The reason was that he was afraid that there would be a consequence in changing the narrative ending if he allowed any of them to die during the escort. In fact, there was no consequence in letting any of the NPCs die. The connection that Loke formed to link the gameplay action to the narrative consequence is irrelevant, but it also enabled him to set his own gameplay goal to keep the NPCs alive. The subcategory also refers to the linearity of the game (e.g. The Walking Dead) where regardless of what gameplay actions the players choose, the narrative will converge in the same outcome. During the last interview, Henry mentioned that regardless of choosing whether to go or not to go to the Saint John’s dairy farm, it would result in the same narrative consequence of going. To Henry, the irrelevant consequences in the choices are still meaningful for him as he felt that his choices make him feel that he is participating in the narrative. By being part of the story and engaging in the think-aloud protocol when making the choices during the gameplay, he is able to reflect on his own values and understand himself better (Stang, 2017; Witsel, 2017): Extract 6.9 henry: Ya then either way, it has to go. Just that I whether I stated whether to go to the Dairy Farm or I remain at the motel. interviewer: mm. henry: And that one will affect my not say reputation lah but more like the my erm relationship in that sense? Ya. Probably lah they will see like oh he don’t want to. . . . interviewer: Then they will go against you. henry: Ah something like that.

106

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance

Compared to Henry, Nasir mentioned that the gameplay choice of saving characters in The Walking Dead is less meaningful for him. The reason is that they will end up dying sooner or later in the narrative when it ultimately converge to a single ending. In story focused games such as The Last of Us, there is ludonarrative (ir)relevance consequence as the gameplay actions do not change the narrative and vice versa (Extract 6.10). In The Last of Us, the player, Nasir was not given a choice to save the NPC, Tess when the military came to capture Joel, Tess, and Ellie. Tess will die in the narrative regardless of what he did in the gameplay. Therefore, he was not motivated to change his gameplay to fight harder to save Tess. However, ludonarrative (ir) relevance consequence also implies that since the narrative and gameplay are not as close to each other as in “resonance”, the players will have more freedom in choosing the type of gameplay actions as they are not restricted by the narrative. Extract 6.10 nasir: As in if there was if the last part where the military came, if they give you an option to somehow fight it out with Tess right? Then try to hold the ground as long as you can, then maybe I would be tempted lah but because the game as in once she asked you to go and she stands there to hold her ground, the next time you see her is that she’s been shot dead. So it’s not like it’s not like anything you do would save her. If it did, then I would have taken a choice lah. But because it didn’t, then too bad lor. interviewer: So the influence on the gameplay is not so much ah? nasir: Ya. Because there was no consequence as in you can save her, then it would change my gameplay lah. interviewer: mm. nasir: But because it doesn’t then it doesn’t lor. Yah. interviewer: So it’s more story? nasir: Yes. We just know that she died orh.

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance Guidance Compared to “ludonarrative resonance guidance” where the narrative is instructing the player what to do in the gameplay, I define “ludonarrative (ir)relevance guidance” as the narrative instruction for the gameplay and vice versa being irrelevant either because it is obvious or it is implicit. The guidance provided by the narrative for the gameplay can be irrelevant to the player when it is embedded in a semiotic code/mode that may foreground narrative, yet be neglected or ignored by ludically immersed players (Toh, 2015). The term “irrelevance” refers to the players’ construction of meaning, rather than the game design. In the Beyond:

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance

107

Two Souls’ study, there was a gameplay segment where the player was instructed by the PC’s utterance to find a stick. However, Michael treated the instructions as being irrelevant because there is a clear visual prompt provided in front of him. In The Last of Us, when the NPC, Robert is giving a speech in a scripted narrative sequence, the speech is providing subtle information to the players that they have to catch Robert within a time limit when he runs away after giving the speech. The narrative is not only providing characterisation for Robert, but also implicitly informing the player that Robert has to be caught within a time limit based on his character’s action of running away. Alice mentioned that she did not know that there was a time limit until she failed the gameplay sequence of chasing Robert when she exceeded the time limit. She ended up having to restart the sequence to finish it.

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance Prominence Compared to “ludonarrative resonance prominence”, I define this subcategory as elements from one module such as the narrative or gameplay being incorporated by the player or the game to draw (ir)relevant attention (Tawfik et al., 2018) to particular elements from another module and this gives rise to a semantic expansion. In the Bioshock’s study, Mary listened to the “enrage trial” audio log and assumed that the narrative was pointing to or having an indexical relationship to a future gameplay fight with a specific enemy later in the game. However, the audio log’s narrative was introducing the “Enrage” plasmid power to the player rather than introducing the new enemy. Another example comes from the Bioshock’s study where a Houdini splicer (an enemy type) was attempting to draw the player’s attention to the new type of splicer through the narrative by asking for the player’s help. However, Mary was exploring the secret puzzle area to unlock a door and therefore, she treated the narrative information from the splicer as being irrelevant for her gameplay at that moment. Having explained how I have conceptualised the various subcategories of ludonarrative (ir) relevance by using the empirical data, in the final section of this chapter, I will discuss some contextual factors related to the player experience.

The Player’s Experience as a Contextual Factor The contextual factors external to the game (Rojek, 1995; Mäyrä, 2007; Jahn-Sudmann & Stockmann, 2008; Ang et al., 2010; Shaw, 2014; Yee, 2014; Bateman & Zagal, 2017; Muriel & Crawford, 2018) provide a significant contribution to the overall game experience. This section will discuss some relevant contextual factors from the findings of the empirical study which influenced the players’ gameplay. These contextual factors

108

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance

include the players’ available time, personalities, play style preferences, prior game experiences, skill levels, and consultation with game walkthroughs (which include watching Let’s Play YouTube videos). They play a large part in influencing the players’ decision-making processes in selecting specific narrative choices and/or gameplay actions and contributing to their many different ways of thinking and articulating about their game experiences. The players’ available time (Nacke & Drachen, 2011; Lorentz, 2015) is a relevant factor from their real-life experiences which they use to guide their gameplay actions. In The Walking Dead, Jim ranked the available time (Extract 6.11) he had for the game as the first factor which influenced his gameplay actions and choices. The time factor is related to the situated attractor proposed by Taylor et al. (2015) which is influenced by the mental or bodily responses in the physical context of play. Extract 6.11 jim: Okay, my number one criteria would be time, my actual real time and how much time I have for this game. And it also depends on that game itself. If that game doesn’t offer me much. Typically only see myself continue the story. Personality factors include selecting gameplay actions based on the players’ real-life instincts in saving one of the characters. Based on instincts, Jim mentioned that he would choose to save children first, followed by friends in The Walking Dead. Henry mentioned that he will save children first in The Walking Dead and he also used real-life experience such as how good or evil people appear on television or other video games for decision-making in the game. The perceived usefulness of the NPCs is another important contextual factor which is based on what the players will do in real-life. Jim and Henry mentioned that they chose to help or utilise characters whom they feel are more useful to them in both the narrative and gameplay. This experience is related to Taylor et al.’s (2015) lived attractor based on players’ everyday experiences. Other personality factors that influence the players’ narrative choices and gameplay actions include openness to experience (Atkinson et al., 2000). Jim and Nasir prefer to make choices that they felt are faithful to the canonical storyline of The Walking Dead and Mass Effect respectively. Jim’s reason is that it would help in his immersion. For Nasir, it is more meaningful for him to have a canon ending so that people can discuss about that ending and find out more about it. Participants (Michael, Nasir, Henry, Jim, Mary, John, Peter, and Loke) mentioned that they choose to role play a good character (Lange, 2014) when playing the selected games in the study because this is their conception of their ideal selves in real-life (Bessière et al., 2007; Przybylski et al., 2012). For instance, Mary mentioned that her character is non-confrontational so she is influenced by her personality when selecting

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance

109

the dialogue options in The Walking Dead. When confronted with dialogue choices that were all negative in tone, she experienced a difficulty in her decision-making because regardless of what option she chose, her PC’s relationship to the other NPCs would become strained. In relation to the play style preference, some participants reported their preference in playing games that focus on the story (e.g. Nasir and Henry), gameplay (e.g. John and Matt) or both (e.g. Alice, Mary, and Michael). The players (e.g. Henry and Jim) chose to immerse in the character’s role when making a narrative and/or gameplay choice. The prior experience of the game, other games or gaming in general will influence the players’ narrative and gameplay actions. This factor is related to Taylor et al.’s (2015) conventional attractor which comes from past experiences with representational type. Michael mentioned that playing Mass Effect 2 before Mass Effect 1 provides him with the knowledge that letting another character in his group die in the gameplay will decrease the relationship point with that character in the narrative. This influences his narrative choice in Mass Effect where he chooses the conversational dialogue that he feels will minimise contributing to the negative relationship with the other character. He also chose not to bring side characters such as Garrus who he perceived to be weak in combat to prevent their deaths from occurring during gameplay which would in turn strain their relationship with the PC in the narrative. Nima mentioned that playing Dragon Age enables him to know that in Mass Effect, putting gameplay points in the character’s “Charm” and “Intimidate” attributes open up new dialogue or story options to offer new quests or give extra rewards. The players’ skill level is a relevant factor that influences their player experience. Higher skilled players (e.g. Jim) have a tendency to switch off game hints to facilitate their immersion in the gameplay, but lower skilled players (e.g. Henry) have a greater tendency to switch on game hints especially on their first few playthroughs. For instance, during the first session of The Walking Dead’s study held in the lab, Henry was unable to find the pillow to progress the game when he switched off the UI hints. Therefore, on his subsequent playthrough at home, he switched on the UI helper. The players’ skill level is also related to looking at walkthroughs to guide the players’ narrative choices and gameplay actions. During the interviews, some players (e.g. Mary and Michael) mentioned that they will explore the game on their own during the first playthrough and will not consult walkthroughs unless they cannot progress the gameplay. The reason they gave is that consulting game guides or walkthroughs will contribute to the negative experience in their gameplay as they are no longer finding things out by themselves. Less skilled players may exhibit a greater tendency to resort to consulting game guides when the gameplay cannot be progressed. However, skill level is not the only factor that influences whether the players consult game guides. The ludonarrative relationship is also an important factor. For instance, from the empirical study, Bioshock players (e.g. Peter) who did not focus

110

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance

on the narrative information from the optional audio logs were unable to progress the gameplay because the audio log’s narrative provides the door code to a restricted area. Some participants indicated that they consulted walkthroughs to understand the plot of the narrative (e.g. Matt), to find out gameplay strategies (e.g. Jim and Loke), and to find hidden areas. Some participants (e.g. Nasir) also enjoyed watching Let’s Plays on YouTube before or after the study and it made their game experience better when they played the games in the study. The reason is that they were able to understand the game’s mechanics in terms of the different story pathways based on their choices or gameplay actions. Some participants (e.g. Mary and Loke) also discuss gameplay strategies with each other. With the discussion of the player experience, I have described how some of the factors relevant to the player experience contribute to the gamer discourse. In the next chapter, I will discuss the methodological considerations in order to show how I develop the ludonarrative model.

Summary In this chapter, I have conceptualised and validated the ludonarrative relationship of “ludonarrative (ir)relevance” using the interview data. I first discuss Watssman’s (2012) definition for “ludonarrative alienation” which provides insights for my conceptualisation of “ludonarrative (ir)relevance”. Then, I define “ludonarrative (ir)relevance” and explain how my definition is different from Watssman’s (2012) conceptualisation. Following this, I refine “ludonarrative (ir)relevance” into seven subcategories using the empirical data. These seven subcategories are “gameplay focus”, “narrative focus”, “incomplete information problems”, “metaphor”, “consequence”, “guidance”, and “prominence”. The ludonarrative (ir)relevance subcategories exist on a continuum and serve as a bridge to interlink ludonarrative dissonance, ludonarrative resonance, and their subcategories. The player experience plays an important role in affecting the players’ decision-making processes and contributes to their many different ways of thinking and articulating about their game experiences. To conclude the chapter, I discuss the player experience as a contextual factor which includes their “available time”, “personality factors”, “play style preferences”, “prior experience of gaming”, “skill levels”, and “consultation of game guides and walkthroughs”.

References Ang, C. S., Zaphiris, P., & Wilson, S. (2010). Computer Games and Sociocultural Play: An Activity Theoretical Perspective. Games and Culture, 5(4), 354–380. Atkinson, R. L., Atkinson, R. C., Smith, E. E., Bem, D. J., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). Hilgard’s Introduction to Psychology (13th ed.). Orlando, FL: Hancourt College Publishers. Bateman, C., & Zagal, J. (2017). Game Design Lineages: Minecraft’s Inventory. Proceedings of DiGRA UK Conference 2017. May 5, MediaCity, Salford. Bell, A., Ensslin, A., van der Bom, I., & Smith, J. (2018). Immersion in Digital Fiction: A Cognitive, Empirical Approach. International Journal of Literary Linguistics, 7(1).

Ludonarrative (Ir)relevance

111

Bessière, K., Seay, A. F., & Kiesler, S. (2007). The Ideal Elf: Identity Exploration in World of Warcraft. Cyberpsychology & Behaviour, 10(4), 530–535. Jahn-Sudmann, A., & Stockmann, R. (Eds.). (2008). Computer Games as a Sociocultural Phenomenon: Games without Frontiers: War without Tears. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Lange, A. (2014). ‘You’re Just Gonna Be Nice’: How Players Engage with Moral Choice Systems. Journal of Games Criticism, 1(1). Lorentz, P. (2015). Playing Massively Multiplayer Online Games: A Dangerous Time-Consuming Leisure? In P. Lorentz, D. Smahel, M. Metykova, & M. F. Wright (Eds.), Living in the Digital Age: Self-Presentation, Networking, Playing, and Participating in Politics (pp. 148–162). Brno: Masaryk University Press. Mäyrä, F. (2007). The Contextual Game Experience: On the Socio-Cultural Contexts for Meaning in Digital Play. Situated Play, DiGRA Proceedings (pp. 810–814). Tokyo. Muriel, D., & Crawford, G. (2018). Video Games as Culture: Considering the Role and Importance of Video Games in Contemporary Society (Routledge Advances in Sociology). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Nacke, L., & Drachen, A. (2011). Towards a Framework of Player Experience Research. Proceedings of the 2011 Foundations of Digital Games Conference, EPEX 11. Bordeaux, France. Przybylski, A. K., Weinstein, N., Murayama, K., Lynch, M. F., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). The Ideal Self at Play: The Appeal of Video Games That Let You Be All You Can Be. Psychological Science, 23(1), 69–76. Rojek, C. (1995). Decentring Leisure: Rethinking Leisure Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Shaw, A. (2014). Gaming at the Edge: Sexuality and Gender at the Margins of Gamer Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Stang, S. (2017). Big Daddies and Broken Men: Father-Daughter Relationships in Video Games. Loading . . . The Journal of the Canadian Game Studies Association, 10(16), 162–174. Tawfik, A. A., Schmidt, M. M., & Msilu, F. (2018). Stories as Decision Scaffolds: Understanding Nonlinear Storytelling Using Case-Based Reasoning and Educational Design Research. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & K. Kaminski (Eds.), Educational Technology and Narrative: Story and Instructional Design (pp. 21–38). Cham: Springer. Taylor, N., Kampe, C., & Bell, K. (2015). Me and Lee: Identification and the Play of Attraction in The Walking Dead. Game Studies, 15(1). Toh, W. (2015). A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Video Games: A Ludonarrative Model. Ph.D Dissertation. National University of Singapore. Watssman, J. (2012). Essay: Ludonarrative Dissonance Explained and Expanded. Escapist Magazine. Available from www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/ read/9.389092-Essay-Ludonarrative-Dissonance-Explained-and-Expanded (Accessed: 26 Nov 2017). Witsel, N. (2017). What I Talk about When I Talk about Narrative Design. Gamasutra. Available from www.gamasutra.com/blogs/NickWitsel/20171130/310511/ What_I_talk_about_when_I_talk_about_Narrative_Design.php (Accessed: 3 Dec 2017). Yee, N. (2007). Motivations of Play in Online Games. Journal of CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9, 772–775. Yee, N. (2014). The Proteus Paradox: How Online Games and Virtual Worlds Change Us: And How They Don’t. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

7

Methodological Considerations in the Ludonarrative Model

There are diverse valid ways in which games and their study could be presented not only due to the breath and diversity of games themselves but also because the discipline is a newcomer (Mäyrä, 2008; Lankoski & Bjӧrk, 2015). Game studies have generally approached the study of video games from the perspectives of the game, players (Lankoski & Bjӧrk, 2015), or a tripartite division focusing on relations between the game, the player, and the world/context (Juul, 2005; Mäyrä, 2008). The research method adopted in this book can be described as interdisciplinary (Repko, 2011) and dialectical (Gadamer, 1999; Berniker & McNabb, 2006; Agostinone-Wilson, 2013) which modifies, synthesises, and integrates theoretical concepts (e.g. Hellmann, 2003; Sibeon, 2004; Pound & Campbell, 2015) from multiple disciplines such as narratology, social semiotics, multimodality, and game studies to come up with a new approach and model to understand the phenomenon of video gameplay in terms of the lived experience of the players. In the first step of the research study, I formulate the research questions which I have asked at the beginning of Chapter 1 such as, “What are the relationships between the narrative and gameplay in video games?” and “How does the players’ experience relate to the various ludonarrative relationships in video games?” The second step involves the reading and critical evaluation of the prior research related to or conducted on ludonarrative relationships (see Chapters 4–6) in video games and close reading of the researcher’s gameplay to construct the model. From the critical review of literature (e.g. Hocking, 2007; O’Halloran, 2007, 2008; Calleja, 2011; Watssman, 2012; Bycer, 2013; Pynenburg, 2013; Liu & O’Halloran, 2009), I propose a rough taxonomy of the ludonarrative relationships for building the ludonarrative model. As I have discussed in Chapter 3, I have modified Dena’s (2010) model for polymorphic fiction to provide an overall frame to combine the narrative analysis model (Chapters 8 and 9), gameplay analysis model (Chapters 10 and 11), and ludonarrative (sub)categories (see Chapters 4–6) to form the ludonarrative model. The third step involves the testing and evaluation of the constructed model using empirical data. The empirical part of the study

Methodological Considerations

113

Figure 7.1 Steps involved in building and developing the model

includes participant recruitment, gameplay observation in the lab, the multimodal discourse analysis of the participants’ gameplay recordings, and the interviews with the participants to refine the ludonarrative categories. An iterative process is involved in the testing, evaluation, and refinement/revision of the ludonarrative model as more and more data is gathered from the study’s participants. These steps involved in building and developing the model are represented in Figure 7.1. The following sections will discuss the steps involved in the collection of the empirical data for the testing, iteration, and refinement of the theoretical model.

Rationale for Method As I have stated at the beginning of Chapters 1 and 3, I have conceptualised the video game as both a game object, as it is given in the players’ experience (Vella, 2015) as well as the game as it is played, which refers to the process of gameplay from the players’ perspective (Leino, 2010, p. 6). Bizzocchi and Tanenbaum (2011) argue that in reading a digital text, the researcher must be able to account for the indeterminate nature of the experience because game systems can instantiate a great number of stories (and gameplay) based on the concept of possible stories or

114

Methodological Considerations

protostories (Koenitz, 2015). The indeterminate feature of video games is further emphasised in games where players are often forced to choose between multiple exclusive paths without the option of backtracking to see the other potential outcome. Bizzocchi and Tanenbaum (2011) further state that the indeterminacy is a different phenomenon from the notion of shifting interpretations and readings of the same content conducted in a close reading. Instead, the instability of digital texts is grounded in an explicit and literal restructuring of the content and presentation of the experience along with a shifting set of reader interpretations (Bizzocchi & Tanenbaum, 2011), depending on the choices and preferences of specific individuals. In this book, the feature of multiple paths in video games is considered by the collection and analysis of multiple players’ gameplay of the same portions of the video game in their recordings. The multimodal discourse analysis of the recordings and the open-ended interview questions enable us to understand how and why different players understand the game structure (narrative, gameplay, and ludonarrative) of video games differently to give rise to their different gameplay actions, narrative, and ludonarrative interpretations when playing the game. Even though we can choose to play through the game multiple times to see the other pathways, there is the problem of the researcher’s bias (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2007) when we analyse our own gameplay. We can also record and analyse other players’ gameplay in the media such as YouTube channels to see the other pathways that different players choose in their gameplay videos. However, we will not be able to access the other players and interview them to understand how they interpret the game structure which contribute to their actualised pathways in the video games. Therefore, an empirical approach will enable us to take into account the indeterminate feature of video games by leveraging multiple players’ experiences to refine the ludonarrative model.

Participants We recruited participants from advertisements posted to the university’s website, Facebook gamer communities, and through snowball sampling where the participants introduced their friends. The participants’ required age ranges from 17 to 35 and the actual age range of the recruited participants is from 19 to 33. The reason for using this age range is that gamers aged 18 or older represent 72 percent of the video gameplaying population, and the average gamer’s age is 35 years old (Entertainment Software Association, 2017). All participants were required to possess some experience (more than 5 years) in the selected or related games so that they would not need to spend time to learn how to play the games in the lab. Additionally, the study would benefit from having experienced gamers as they would have some general knowledge of how the narrative

Methodological Considerations

115

and gameplay are related to each other in the games. This will facilitate the interviews as I do not need to provide in-depth explanation to the participants to enable them to understand the interview questions. In total, 37 participants signed up but only 11 participants completed the entire study. I include the data from the 26 participants who have completed the first interview to build the ludonarrative model, in particular, refining the ludonarrative subcategories and creating new subcategories. The inclusion of their data serves to highlight the subjective experiences of the gamers to contribute to the creation of different continuum of ludonarrative interpretations within and between each ludonarrative subcategories in Chapters 4–6. Although I have included the data from all the participants who have completed the first interview to build the model, the data from the participants who have completed the entire study constitute the primary data. I conducted the interviews from February 2014 to June 2015. The profiles for the 11 participants who have completed the entire study are shown in Table 7.1. The profiles for the three participants who have completed the first interview and

Table 7.1 Participants who have completed study (pseudonyms have been given) Name

Age

Gender

Game Experience

Game (s) Played

Gaming Platform

Matt

25

M

>15 years

PS3

Michael

33

M

>15 years

Walter Alice Nasir

31 26 24

M F M

>15 years >15 years 11–15 years

Henry

22

M

11–15 years

Jim

22

M

11–15 years

Mary

19

F

6–10 years

John Peter Loke

23 21 23

M M M

11–15 years 11–15 years 11–15 years

Beyond: Two Souls Beyond: Two Souls & Mass Effect The Last of Us The Last of Us The Last of Us & Mass Effect The Walking Dead Season 1 Eps 1–5 The Walking Dead Season 1 Eps 1–5 The Walking Dead Season 1 Eps 1–3 & Bioshock Bioshock Bioshock Bioshock

PS3 & Computer PS3 PS3 PS3 & Computer Computer

Computer

Computer

Computer Computer Computer

116

Methodological Considerations

Table 7.2 Participants who have completed session 1 of study (pseudonyms have been given) Name

Age

Gender

Game Experience

Game (s) Played

Gaming Platform

Nima Lenin Tadi

24 22 21

M M M

11–15 years 11–15 years 11–15 years

Mass Effect Mass Effect Mass Effect

Computer Computer Computer

whose interview extracts have been included in this book are shown in Table 7.2. I allowed all of the participants to choose the game(s) they preferred to play. This will ensure that they enjoyed the game(s) rather than having the perception that they were playing them for a study which will enable me to collect natural data. To minimise the disruption of their gameplay, I usually try not to ask them questions during the gameplay observations. When I occasionally asked them, it was done only to elicit their narrative interpretations, gameplay strategies, and for them to reflect on the ludonarrative relationships. Sometimes, I also allow the participants to play by themselves in the laboratory and I observe their gameplay recordings later. I allow the computer and PS3 gamers to choose to play the games at their homes after the first session at the laboratory to facilitate the collection of natural data. All the computer gamers except for Peter played at home after the first session while all the PS3 gamers except for Alice continued to play at the laboratory after the first session. Participants who did not like to talk during gameplay were not forced to do so.

Participant Observation and First Session’s Interview During the first session, I observed the participants playing the games in the laboratory at a nearby computer. I requested the participants to play their selected game(s) for one to three hours. I made the video recordings of their gameplay using Fraps (computer) and the PS3 recorder, which enabled me to refer to them when asking them interview questions immediately after their gameplay. I administered the first set of open-ended interview questions to ask the participants about their gameplay experience. I formulated the interview questions (Appendix A) to start with more general questions asking about the narrative and gameplay of the video games they have played and their gaming preferences. I ended the interview with more specific questions asking for their interpretation of the ludonarrative relationships such as the congruence and separation between the narrative and gameplay. I collected preliminary data during the first session. Most of the participants except for Jim and Alice were playing the game(s) for the first time, and they were learning about the story and gameplay. Some participants

Methodological Considerations

117

such as Mary (The Walking Dead) and Nasir (The Last of Us) have watched Let’s Play videos on YouTube while Matt has read about the plot of Beyond: Two Souls before the study. The participants were also getting a feel about the ludonarrative relationships and understanding the research aim of the study through the first set of open-ended interview questions.

Subsequent Sessions I taught the computer participants who played at home to record their gameplay using Fraps. Alice possessed both the PS3 and PS3 recorder at home and she learnt how to use it to record her gameplay herself. I adapted the think-aloud protocol (van Someren et al., 1994; Theodorou, 2010) to ask participants to verbalise their gameplay experience. Specifically, I asked them to explain how and why (Lankoski & Bjӧrk, 2015) they made a narrative and gameplay choice during and/or after gameplay where the game was paused. I also asked them to verbalise their interpretation of the video game narrative in both the cutscene and gameplay. When they verbalised their experience during gameplay, the method used is concurrent thinkaloud protocol where a person has to think-aloud when performing an activity during usability studies (Anders & Simon, 1993; Barnum, 2002; Woelke & Pelzer, 2017). On the other hand, when they reflected on their experience after gameplay, the method used is retrospective think-aloud (Guan et al., 2006; Hanington & Martin, 2012). Studies have found that think-aloud protocol is a more effective technique to detect problems in the game than using postgame interviews, because of the prompt response of the participants when a problem is experienced (Gjøsæter & Jørgensen, 2012; Kirschner & Williams, 2014; Theodorou, 2010). Extrapolating this to the participants’ understanding of the ludonarrative relationships to make in-game decisions and perform gameplay actions, it is thus expected that participants will be more accurately able to describe their reasons for making a specific gameplay action or narrative decision. The reason is that they were required to discuss their reasons simultaneously when making the decision to perform a gameplay action. Alice and Loke were uncomfortable with talking during gameplay so I used the first and final interviews to elicit their interpretations and game experience. All the interviews are considered as retrospective protocol analysis when I verbally discussed with the participants about their playing experience. I used stimulated recall when I reviewed the gameplay recordings with the participants after the gameplay sessions during the interviews. I asked the players to complete the game(s) from a minimum of 14 hours (Bioshock, The Walking Dead Season One Episodes One to Five, and Beyond: Two Souls) to a maximum of 30 hours (Mass Effect and The Last of Us). I allowed them to finish the game on their own pace within two to three months. After the players had completed the game(s), they informed me via email and I arranged a final interview session in the lab.

118

Methodological Considerations

Because I reviewed the whole game with the players, I divided the final interview session into a few sessions for some players. Prior to the final interview, I reviewed the gameplay recordings and analysed them using the multimodal discourse analysis frameworks in Chapters 8–11 to create open-ended interview questions.

Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Gameplay Recordings I will specify the multimodal discourse analysis approach in the video game narrative analysis model in Chapters 8 and 9 and gameplay analysis model in Chapters 10 and 11 which form the ludonarrative model. I modified, expanded, and combined the analytical lenses from the categories within Ryan’s (2003) cognitive maps and Fludernik’s (1996, 2003) cognitive frames for video game narrative analysis. For gameplay analysis, I modified, expanded, and combined Manninen’s (2003) instrumental and strategic actions, and Fabricatore’s (2007) model of gameplay mechanics. I used the analytical lenses from the multimodal discourse analysis frameworks in Chapters 8–11 to create open-ended interview questions for the players to understand whether my analysis and interpretations of their gameplay align or conflict with theirs. Here, I demonstrate the use of the analytical lenses to show how I have used them in the multimodal discourse analysis. In the winter chapter of The Last of Us, the player, Alice was first shown a cutscene when Ellie was escaping from David at the slaughterhouse. She did not have control and could not interact with anything. Therefore, she used a VIEWING frame (Fludernik, 1996, 2003) to interpret the narrative in the cutscene. When she regained control, she perceived Ellie’s narrative representation where she only had a dagger and health pack. The narrative representations became game objects when she switched to a MANIPULATION frame (See Chapter 9) to interact with them during gameplay. These game objects are obligatory objects in Ryan’s (2003) cognitive map of inventory when they contributed to Alice’s characterisation of Ellie in the video game narrative. When Alice gained control, she used a PERFORMATIVE frame (Fludernik, 1996, 2003) to control the PC. As I observed her gameplay recordings, I noticed that her gameplay actions and movements were more deliberate when she thought of the strategic actions (Manninen, 2003) to overcome the enemies using stealth. However, I was unsure whether her strategic actions contributed to Ellie’s characterisation in her mental model. Based on the multimodal analysis of her gameplay recordings using the analytical lenses from both the narrative and gameplay analysis frameworks, I formulated the open-ended question to ask her whether control of the PC is causing her to feel a certain way towards the PC. The answer to this question corresponds to the subcategory of “ludonarrative resonance metaphor” in the ludonarrative model. During the final interview, Alice mentioned that because Ellie did not have a lot of weapons, she was forced

Methodological Considerations

119

to play more stealthily and more conservatively. In this way, she felt less secure playing Ellie compared to Joel and her gameplay action therefore creates a certain kind of narrative interpretation of the PC as a young girl. During the interview, I have “negotiated” my analysis of the subcategory of “ludonarrative resonance metaphor” with Alice. The analytical lenses were not used during the interviews as they were meant for the conceptualisation of the model, and simple interview questions were asked. In this way, I refined the ludonarrative model and its subcategories. The empirical study focuses on the players to understand how they interpret the relationship between narrative and gameplay based on their interaction and narrative interpretations of the multimodal semiotic resources (language and visuals).

Final Session’s Open-Ended Interview During the final session, I conducted the retrospective protocol analysis by talking with the participants about their play experience (narrative, gameplay, and ludonarrative interpretations) and I used stimulated recall to review the gameplay recordings with them. “The negotiation of interpretations” is a core interaction dynamic during the final session’s interviews. This method is similar to the technique known as “member checks” (Harding & Whitehead, 2012) in qualitative research and phenomenology (e.g. Diekelmann et al., 1989; Shih & Honey, 2011) where the researcher obtains informant feedback to help improve the accuracy, credibility, validity, and transferability of a study (Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2006). In this book, I have defined “the negotiation of interpretations” as my discussion of the participants’ play experience with them. In particular, my analysis and interpretations of their gameplay recordings is combined with their interpretations to come up with the overall interpretations to refine the ludonarrative model. This combination can be seen in terms of three ways. Firstly, when there are no disagreements, my analysis and interpretations are validated. Secondly, when there are disagreements, the participants’ interpretations will be used instead of my analysis and interpretations as long as the participants are able to provide justifications (reasons) for their interpretations. The reason is that we are studying the players’ experience and not the researcher’s. More importantly, the players are also regarded as expert player coresearchers (Jørgensen, 2011) as their gaming experience is more than 5 years and I co-construct (c.f., Taylor, 2009) the model with them. Thirdly, when there are disagreements, I will discuss with the participants to negotiate with them in order to co-create (Riessman, 1993) a new ludonarrative subcategory such as “ludonarrative dissonance demotivation”. The final way is the most important because it provides the means to refine the model by co-creating (Riessman, 1993) new subcategories with the participants. The method used for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of the gameplay recordings is similar to Kirschner and Williams’ (2014)

120

Methodological Considerations

four-step analysis process of processual video data which has been used for gameplay reviews with their study’s participants. The first step of their method involves recording the gameplay video and is followed by the second step where the researcher observes the video recordings with the participants to contextualise the recordings and interpret the how and why of the participants’ actions. The third step involves conducting the gameplay review where the researcher discusses the players’ interpretation of gameplay with them. The final step involves the analysis of the gameplay review and integrates data from multiple players. Because the researcher is able to involve the participants to obtain feedback on his/ her interpretation of the claims made, the validity (dependability) of the researcher’s claims made is increased when s/he is able to obtain multiple players’ interpretations to understand why the players perform a specific gameplay action. For the study conducted in this book, in addition to the collection of multiple players’ data, there are multiple methods of data collection to triangulate (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002) the participants’ interpretations. These multiple methods of data collection include the gameplay recordings, gameplay observation, participants’ think-aloud protocol and reflections, and retrospective protocol analysis.

Coding and Categorisation After the interviews have been completed, I transcribe them by listening to the audio recordings. It is important for me to transcribe the data myself because the most detailed data analysis occurs during the process (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Cote & Raz, 2015). After all the interviews have been transcribed, I analyse the data by identifying (Patton, 1990) and breaking down patterns (Singer & Hunter, 1999; Rasinger, 2010; Smith et al., 1999; Smith & Osborn, 2003) in the data to form codes, categories, and subcategories (Harding & Whitehead, 2012). I then incorporate these categories and subcategories into the ludonarrative model to build and refine the framework (Cote & Raz, 2015, p. 110). The patterns in the data consist of the ludonarrative subcategories which become a coding scheme systematically applied to the interviews in the study (Cote & Raz, 2015, p. 110). Table 7.3 shows a sample from the coding scheme which presents the relevant transcripts in support of a ludonarrative subcategory. Coding is also an iterative process in which available subcategories are broken down into further or new subcategories as more data is gathered. The coding scheme originally comes from the review of prior literature conducted on ludonarrative and related studies discussed in Chapters 3–6. As more data is gathered, new categories such as “ludonarrative irrelevance” and new subcategories such as “ludonarrative dissonance demotivation” are co-created with the participants. The final coding scheme is shown in Table 7.4.

Table 7.3 A sample from the coding scheme (Toh, 2015) Transcript Number

Interview Transcription

Ludonarrative Subcategory

3.1

Nasir: So ya as in the that was one that was another situation where I felt a gameplay, a conflict between narrative and gameplay even though there are benefits for me like doing that quest but I don’t think that the good Shepard that I was trying to play er would have actually done such a er what do you call that? Erm er action. Er quest. Oki. Oh playing the game I definitely thought about it a lot. I was thinking like oh this guy has a shotgun, he should be dropping shotgun ammo. He’s no, he’s dropping pistol ammo. And sometimes, he drops arrow. It’s like it’s kind of very weird and doesn’t quite gel with everything else. But I see what they are trying to do. They are trying to control resources but it’s just kind of annoying. It’s more about it affects the atmosphere, not necessarily the narrative. It didn’t really affect the narrative at all.

Dissonance— Information

3.6

3.8

Dissonance— logical inconsistencies

Irrelevance consequence

Table 7.4 The final coding scheme Ludonarrative Dissonance

Ludonarrative Resonance

Demotivation Logical inconsistencies Contrast Contrast: incomplete information problems Contrast: Anagnorisis Imbalance

Motivation Guidance Metaphor Information solutions

Contrast: player(game designers’) character dissonance Negotiation Information dissonance Narrative dissonance

Semiotic metaphor Balance

Ludonarrative Irrelevance Guidance Metaphor Incomplete information problems Gameplay focus Narrative focus

Player-(game designers’) character resonance Consequence/contingency Causality Succession Parallelism integration Prominence

Consequence

Prominence

122

Methodological Considerations

Further Reading and Resources Even though manual coding is conducted for this study, researchers can consider using software packages such as NVivo and Atlas.ti to facilitate the coding process. I will also recommend Saldaña’s (2016) Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers where he not only discusses in detail a total of 29 different approaches to coding qualitative data, but also introduces several Computer-Assisted Qualitative Data Analysis Software (CAQDAS) programmes for us to explore. For advanced researchers who are familiar with programming languages such as R, I will recommend Huang’s (2016) R-based Qualitative Data Analysis (RQDA) package to assist with qualitative data analysis. Finally, for understanding the various steps (e.g. building conceptual framework, research design, data collection, ethics, and so on) involved in conducting qualitative research, Marshall and Rossman’s (2016) Designing Qualitative Research is a comprehensive resource. For linguistic researchers, the final four chapters, namely, “Linguistic Ethnography (Creese, 2010)”, “Contemplating Interviews and Focus Groups (Edley & Litosseliti, 2010)”, “Multimodal Analysis: Key Issues (Bezemer & Jewitt, 2010)”, and “Narrative Analysis in Linguistic Research (Gimenez, 2010)” are relevant. In the final sections of this chapter, I will introduce the narrative and gameplay of the selected games which I have used for the study, provide the rationale for the choice of these games, and finally summarise this chapter.

Narrative and Gameplay of Selected Games The first game in the Mass Effect trilogy, Mass Effect incorporates classic tropes from the Space Opera genre of Science Fiction. The narrative is set in a distant future where humanity is the youngest spacefaring civilisation. The main antagonists are Saren Arterius and the Reaper Sovereign. The player controls Commander Shepard, a human hero who has to save the galaxy by defeating both of them. Mass Effect is an action third person shooter role-playing game. Choice is a central mechanic of the RPG genre (Erickson, 2009). There exists choice in character creation and customisation, choice in dialogue options, and story choice (in terms of background story information from NPCs). The player encounters two types of narrative spaces, scripted narrative sequences and the narrative that is created from the players’ interaction in the game world. Scripted narrative sequences advance both the narrative and gameplay and appear after the PC has completed the gameplay goals. The scripted narrative sequence is integrated with the choice mechanics in gameplay. For instance, the Paragon and Renegade customisation options correspond to the “good” and “bad” narrative pathways respectively. Mass Effect’s narrative structure follows a “limited branching” and “side quest and story convergence” model (Sylvester, 2013). The gameplay includes character customisation

Methodological Considerations

123

in terms of abilities, extended conversational sequences and linear combat missions where the player controls Shepard and commands the actions of two additional squad members. Based on Robert Kirkman’s comic book series, The Walking Dead is an ongoing episodic point-and-click adventure graphic game series which is played from a third person perspective. The game has a different narrative from the comic book and television series. Although television characters such as Hershel Greene and Glenn also appear in the game, their character portrayal and stories are different. Season 1 consists of five episodes released between April and November 2012. The Walking Dead’s narrative is connected to the events from the original comic book series as a zombie apocalypse has overwhelmed much of society and serves as a prequel to the television series. The type of narrative space which the player encounters is “free movement within limited space” (Salen & Zimmerman, 2003). The “limited space” refers to the fixed path of main story events and the “free movement” refers to the variation in the fine details or “flexible branch” (Froschauer, 2014) within the story events. Similar to Mass Effect, choice is a central mechanic of character interaction in the game and selection of different dialogue options will change the other characters’ disposition towards the PC. However, because it is a point-and-click game, the gameplay is more restricted and there are no character customisation and combat missions. The gameplay primarily revolves around managing interpersonal relationships, solving environmental puzzles, making difficult decisions around survival and saving (or neglecting/killing) the other characters. As a narrative based first-person shooter, Bioshock combines scripted narrative sequences with multi-linear gameplay actions to create a cohesive experience to the player. The narrative is set in 1960 in the underwater city of Rapture. The player controls a character afflicted with memory loss and has to explore the city to learn about its past, his identity and his relationship to the city’s inhabitants. Similar to Mass Effect, the game incorporates elements of role-playing games where the player is provided with different options to customise his character, formulate different strategies to overcome the gameplay challenges, and decide whether to save or harvest the NPCs known as the Little Sisters. The narrative spaces which the player encounters include scripted narrative sequences, environmental storytelling, and the narrative created from the players’ interaction in the game world. Environmental storytelling includes the audio recordings scattered throughout the game which not only provide the backstory for Rapture, but also complement the gameplay by providing hints to the player. Bioshock’s narrative structure follows a “limited branching” model (Sylvester, 2013) where the choice of different gameplay actions such as saving or harvesting the Little Sisters will lead to one of the three narrative endings.

124

Methodological Considerations

Set in a post-apocalyptic environment, The Last of Us is an actionadventure survival horror video game which is played from a third person perspective. At the beginning of the story, the PC, Joel is working as a smuggler with his partner Tess to survive in the game world. As the story progresses, the PC is given a task to smuggle a girl, Ellie to the Fireflies, a group of resistance fighters. The remainder of the story focuses on the developing relationship between Joel and Ellie as he eventually comes to accept the loss of his daughter, Sarah during the prologue of the game when the apocalypse started. The narrative space which the player encounters are the scripted narrative sequences, environmental storytelling, and the narrative which arises from the players’ enacted actions (Farca & Ladevèze, 2016; Jenkins, 2004) in the game world. The narrative structure of the game is similar to the “string of pearls” model (Sylvester, 2013) where there is a linear main storyline merged with multi-linear gameplay which contributes to the minor variation within the story events. Similar to Bioshock, diaries and audio recordings which are left behind by the previous inhabitants of the game world provide both the backstory, and sometimes, they complement the gameplay by providing gameplay hints/mechanics to the player. Finally, Beyond: Two Souls is an interactive drama action-adventure video game played from a third person perspective. The game is set in a modern science fiction and paranormal setting where the player controls two PCs, Jodie Holmes and an incorporeal entity named Aiden who is linked to Jodie. As the story progresses, the player learns more about Jodie’s identity and role in the story, and eventually finds out about the relationship between Jodie and Aiden. One unique feature of the game’s narrative structure is its discoursal presentation in non-chronological episodic order which may increase the amount of effort demanded of players to reorganise the story events back into chronological order to make sense of it (Lang, 1989). It is not easy for the players to connect the different story chapters and gameplay together in terms of causality until they have finished playing the whole game or read the game’s plot online. The discoursal presentation of the game’s story is intended to incorporate (Calleja, 2011) the player into the PC’s role by simulating the PC’s memory disorganisation when a massive memory lapse occurred after one of the story events when Aiden was separated from Jodie. In terms of gameplay, the player has a limited choice of action to choose to progress the narrative. The gameplay includes choices in dialogue conversations, point-and-click interaction, and QTEs where the player has to successfully press a sequence of buttons to progress the narrative. Successful completion of QTEs will contribute to a different narrative outcome on a micro level within the chapters, compared to the instance when the player fails the button prompts in a QTE. However, the main storyline remains unchanged.

Methodological Considerations

125

Rationale for the Choice of Video Games The main criterion for the choice of the video games is that the selection of the games has to provide both meaningful narrative and gameplay choices for the players so that their choices will contribute to their different narrative and/or gameplay experiences. In this book, I define the term “meaningful” as the players’ perception of their choices/actions playing a significant role in the co-construction (Gee, 2003) of the narrative in the game world even if the scripted narrative does not change. Even though The Last of Us does not have a branching narrative, it is included in the study to broaden the range of video games for the co-creation and refinement of the model with the participants. I argue that narrative choices in The Last of Us also include the players’ option whether to choose to interact with the characters and objects such as notes when prompted to unlock more backstory which will change the players’ experience. The second criterion is that both the narrative and gameplay must have some relationship to each other such that the players will not focus solely on either the narrative or gameplay. The second criterion excludes games such as Diablo III (Blizzard Entertainment, 2012) where the narrative and gameplay are independent and the players do not need the narrative to progress the gameplay. The third criterion is that the games chosen must be sufficiently different from one another in terms of ludonarrative relationships so that a broader selection of games can be used to build and refine the model. Commercial games are chosen because they are more mainstream due to their mass appeal so players will not only be more familiar with these games, but will also be more interested to play them compared to more indie games. Having described the narrative and gameplay of selected games in the study and provided the rationale for the choice of games, in the next chapter, I will discuss the micro components of the video game narrative analysis model.

Summary This chapter discussed the research study where I have detailed the various steps involved in refining the ludonarrative model. I have explained that the empirical study of multiple players’ gameplay is important to account for the indeterminate nature of video games where the game system has a potential to produce a great number of different readings of the narrative as well as the gameplay. I have recruited experienced players to facilitate an in-depth discussion during the open-ended interviews for the coconstruction (Jørgensen, 2011) of the ludonarrative model and refinement of the subcategories. While only 11 players completed the entire study, I have included the data from the 26 participants who have completed the first interview to facilitate the refinement of the model. An important aspect of the research method is in the use of both data triangulation

126

Methodological Considerations

(Barr, 2017) and method triangulation (Torrance, 2012; Barr, 2017) to elicit and analyse the players’ experience of the games. In data triangulation, I have gathered multiple sources of data from the different players in the study for analysis. In method triangulation, different methods such as gameplay observation in the lab, think-aloud protocol, reflection, and open-ended interviews are being used. In order to increase the validity of qualitative research, I have performed the multimodal discourse analysis on the gameplay recordings to create open-ended interview questions for the participants to understand whether my analysis and interpretations of the participants’ data align or conflict with theirs. During the open-ended interviews, I have used the method of “the negotiation of interpretations” to co-construct new ludonarrative subcategories with the participants. After the interviews have been completed, I transcribe the data and analyse the patterns in the transcripts to come up with a coding scheme in order to construct the respective components of the ludonarrative model.

References Agostinone-Wilson, F. (2013). Dialectical Research Methods in the Classical Marxist Tradition (Critical Qualitative Research) (1st ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. and International Academic Publishers. Anders, E., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (Revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Barnum, C. (2002). Usability Testing and Research. New York: Longman. Barr, M. (2017). Press Start: The Value of an Online Student-Led, Peer-Reviewed Game Studies Journal. Research in Learning Technology, 25, 1982. http:// dx.doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1982 Berniker, E., & McNabb, D. E. (2006). Dialectical Inquiry: A Structured Qualitative Research Method. The Qualitative Report, 11(4), 643–664. Bezemer, J., & Jewitt, C. (2010). Chapter 9: Multimodal Analysis: Key Issues. In L. Litosseliti (Ed.), Research Methods in Linguistics (pp. 180–197). London: Continuum Impacts. Bizzocchi, J., & Tanenbaum, J. (2011). Well Read: Applying Close Reading Techniques to Gameplay Experiences. In D. Davidson (Ed.), Well-Played 3.0 (pp. 218–315). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press. Lead Author. Blizzard Entertainment. (2012). Diablo III. Blizzard Entertainment. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Bycer, J. (2013). Narrative Dissonance in Game Storytelling. Gamasutra. Available from www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JoshBycer/20130628/195316/Narrative_Dissonance_in_Game_Storytelling.php (Accessed: 26 Nov 2017). Calleja, G. (2011). In-Game: From Immersion to Incorporation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Cote, A., & Raz, J. G. (2015). In-Depth Interviews for Game Research. In P. Lankoski & J. Holopainen (Eds.), Game Design Research: An Introduction to Theory & Practice (pp. 93–116). Pittsburg, PA: Carnegie Mellon University and ETC Press.

Methodological Considerations

127

Creese, A. (2010). Chapter 7: Linguistic Ethnography. In L. Litosseliti (Ed.), Research Methods in Linguistics (pp. 138–154). London: Continuum Impacts. Dena, C. (2010). Beyond Multimedia, Narrative, and Game: The Contributions of Multimodality and Polymorphic Fictions. In R. Page (Eds.), New Perspectives on Narrative and Multimodality (pp. 183–201). New York and London: Taylor & Francis. Diekelmann, N., Allen, D., & Tanner, C. (1989). The NLN Criteria for Appraisal of Baccalaureate Programs: A Critical Hermeneutic Analysis. New York: National League for Nursing Press. Edley, N., & Litosseliti, L. (2010). Chapter 8: Contemplating Interviews and Focus Groups. In L. Litosseliti (Ed.), Research Methods in Linguistics (pp. 155–179). London: Continuum Impacts. Entertainment Software Association. (2017). Essential Facts about the Computer and Video Game Industry. Available from www.theesa.com/wp-content/ uploads/2017/09/EF2017_Design_FinalDigital.pdf (Accessed: 5 Dec 2017). Erickson, D. (2009). Writing for Role-Playing Games. In D. Wendy (Ed.), Writing for Video Game Genres: From FPS to RPG (pp. 11–17). Wellesley, MA: A. K. Peters, Ltd. Fabricatore, C. (2007). Gameplay and Game Mechanics Design: A Key to Quality in Videogames. Proceedings of OECD-CERI Expert Meeting on Videogames and Education. Santiago de Chile, Chile. [online] Available from www.oecd. org/edu/ceri/39414829.pdf (Accessed: 8 Dec 2017). Farca, G., & Ladevèze, C. (2016). The Journey to Nature: The Last of Us as Critical Dystopia. DiGRA and FDG 2016: Proceedings of the First Joint International Conference of DiGRA and FDG. Dundee, Scotland. Fludernik, M. (1996). Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London and New York: Routledge. Fludernik, M. (2003). Natural Narratology and Cognitive Parameters. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 243–267). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Froschauer, A. (2014). Clementine Will Remember All of That: The Illusion of Choice in Telltale Games. The Walking Dead. Available from http://ontologicalgeek.com/clementine-will-remember-all-of-that/ (Accessed: 10 Dec 2017). Gadamer, H. G. (1999). Truth and Method (2nd ed., J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.). New York: Continuum Impacts. (Original work published 1960). Gee, J. P. (2003). What Video Games Have to Teach Us about Learning and Literacy? New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Gimenez, J. C. (2010). Chapter 10: Narrative Analysis in Linguistic Research. In L. Litosseliti (Ed.), Research Methods in Linguistics (pp. 198–215). London: Continuum Impacts. Gjøsæter, T., & Jørgensen, K. (2012). Combining Think Aloud and Comic Strip Illustration in the Study of Augmented Reality Games. In NOKOBIT 2012. Trondheim, Norway: Tapir Forlag. Guan, Z., Lee, S., Cuddihy, E., & Ramey, J. (2006). The Validity of Stimulated Retrospective Think-Aloud Method as Measured by Eye Tracking. CHI 2006, Proceedings of 2006 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1253–1262). New York: ACM Press. Montreal, Canada.

128

Methodological Considerations

Hanington, B., & Martin, B. (2012). Universal Methods of Design: 100 Ways to Research Complex Problems, Develop Innovative Ideas, and Design Effective Solutions. Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers. Harding, T., & Whitehead, D. (2012). Chapter 8: Analysing Data in Qualitative Research. In Z. Schneider, D. Whitehead, G. LoBiondo-Wood, & J. Haber (Eds.), Nursing and Midwifery Research 4th Edition Methods and Appraisal for Evidence Based Practice (pp. 141–160). Sydney, Australia: Mosby/ Elsevier. Hellmann, G. (2003). In Conclusion: Dialogue and Synthesis in Individual Scholarship and Collective Inquiry. International Studies Review, 5(1), 147–150. Hocking, C. (2007). Ludonarrative Dissonance in Bioshock: The Problem of What the Game Is About. Available from http://clicknothing.typepad.com/ click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html (Accessed: 7 Dec 2017). Huang, R. (2016). RQDA: R-Based Qualitative Data Analysis: R Package Version 0.2–8. Available from http://rqda.r-forge.r-project.org/ Jenkins, H. (2004). Game Design as Narrative Architecture. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), First-Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game (pp. 118–130). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Jørgensen, K. (2011). Players as Coresearchers: Expert Player Perspective as an Aid to Understanding Games. Simulation & Gaming, 43(3), 374–390. Juul, J. (2005). Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kirschner, D., & Williams, P. J. (2014). Measuring Video Game Engagement through the Gameplay Review Method. Simulation and Gaming, 45(4–5), 593–610. Koenitz, H. (2015). Towards a Specific Theory of Interactive Digital Narrative. In H. Koenitz, G. Ferri, M. Haahr, D. Sezen, & T. I. Sezen (Eds.), Interactive Digital Narrative: History, Theory and Practice (pp. 91–105). New York and London: Routledge. Lang, A. (1989). Effects of Chronological Presentation of Information on Processing and Memory for Broadcast News. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 33, 441–452. Lankoski, P., & Björk, S. (Eds.). (2015). Game Research Methods: An Overview. Halifax, Canada: ETC Press. Leino, O. T. (2010). Emotions in Play: On the Constitution of Emotion in Solitary Computer Game Play. Doctoral dissertation. IT University of Copenhagen. Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Liu, Y., & O’Halloran, K. (2009). Intersemiotic Texture: Analyzing Cohesive Devices between Language and Images. Social Semiotics, 19(4), 367–388. Manninen, T. (2003). Interaction Forms and Communicative Actions in Multiplayer Games. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research , 3 (1). Available from www.gamestudies.org/0301/manninen/ (Accessed: 8 Dec 2017). Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2016). Designing Qualitative Research (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mäyrä, F. (2008). An Introduction to Game Studies: Games in Culture. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. O’Halloran, K. L. (2007). Systemic Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis (SF-MDA) Approach to Mathematics, Grammar and Literacy. In A. McCabe,

Methodological Considerations

129

M. O’Donnell, & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in Language and Education (pp. 77–102). London: Continuum Impacts. O’Halloran, K. L. (2008). Systemic Functional-Multimodal Discourse Analysis (SF-MDA): Constructing Ideational Meaning Using Language and Visual Imagery. Visual Communication, 7(4), 443–475. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Validity and Qualitative Research: An Oxymoron? Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 41, 233–249. doi:10.1007/s11135-006-9000-3 Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pound, P., & Campbell, R. (2015). Exploring the Feasibility of Theory Synthesis: A Worked Example in the Field of Health Related Risk-Taking. Social Science & Medicine, 124, 57–65. Pynenburg, T. (2013). Projecting the Self: Forming Empathy through Ludonarrative Mechanics. Project Cognizance. Available from https://travispynenburg. wordpress.com/2013/03/02/projecting-the-self-forming-empathy-throughludonarrative-mechanics/ (Accessed: 22 Jul 2018). Rasinger, S. M. (2010). Chapter 3: Quantitative Methods: Concepts, Frameworks and Issues. In L. Litosseliti (Ed.), Research Methods in Linguistics (pp. 49–67). London: Continuum Impacts. Repko, A. F. (2011). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative Analysis. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Ryan, M.-L. (2003). Cognitive Maps and the Construction of Narrative Space. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 214–242). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Saldaña, J. (2016). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications. Salen, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2003). Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Shih, L.-C., & Honey, M. (2011). The Impact of Dialysis on Rurally Based Māori and Their Whānau/Families. Nursing Praxis in New Zealand, 27(2), 4–15. Sibeon, R. (2004). Rethinking Social Theory. London: Sage Publications. Singer, D., & Hunter, M. (1999). The Experience of Premature Menopause: A Thematic Discourse Analysis. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 17(1), 63–81. Smith, J. A., Jarman, M., & Osborn, M. (1999). Doing Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. In M. Murray & M. M. K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Qualitative Health Psychology: Theories and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sylvester, T. (2013). Designing Games: A Guide to Engineering Experiences. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. Taylor, T. L. (2009). Play between Worlds: Exploring Online Game Culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Theodorou, E. (2010). Let the Gamers Do the Talking: A Comparative Study of Two Usability Testing Methods for Video Games. Master’s Thesis. University College London.

130

Methodological Considerations

Toh, W. (2015). A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Video Games: A Ludonarrative Model. Ph.D Dissertation. National University of Singapore. Singapore. Torrance, H. (2012). Triangulation, Respondent Validation, and Democratic Participation in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 111–123. doi:10.1177/1558689812437185 van Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. C. (1994). The Think Aloud Method: A Practical Guide to Modelling Cognitive Processes. London: Academic Press. Vella, D. (2015). No Mastery without Mystery: Dark Souls and the Ludic Sublime. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 15(1). Available from http://gamestudies.org/1501/articles/vella (Accessed: 9 Dec 2017). Watssman, J. (2012). Essay: Ludonarrative Dissonance Explained and Expanded. Escapist Magazine. Available from www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/ read/9.389092-Essay-Ludonarrative-Dissonance-Explained-and-Expanded (Accessed: 26 Nov 2017). Woelke, J., & Pelzer, E. (2017). Cognitive Assessment: Think-Aloud and ThoughtListing Technique. In J. Matthes, C. Davis, & R. Potter (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods (pp. 1–9). New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118901731 Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2006). Interpretation and Method: Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretative Turn. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

8

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

As I watched the gameplay recordings of the players, I reflect on why the different participants in the study had different gameplay experiences which I have conceptualised in the ludonarrative categories. For instance, in “ludonarrative resonance metaphor”, Mary is more focused on the abstract narrative representations of the game objects such as the Chemical Thrower in Bioshock whereas Loke was more focused on the gameplay strategies where he looked up walkthroughs online to complement his gameplay. Could it also be due to the different amounts of narrative that the players uncovered during their gameplay that contribute to a particular ludonarrative experience in the players’ mental model? John mentioned that he was not a narrative player type who would listen to all the audio logs in Bioshock which was why he experienced “ludonarrative dissonance demotivation” in the latter part of the game. In his experience then, the audio logs are optional game objects in his mental model of the video game narrative compared to Mary who perceives the audio logs to be obligatory game objects. Mary mentioned that she was a player who will collect all the audio logs to listen to them to piece together the story of Bioshock. In Chapters 2 and 3, I have conceptualised the multimodal discourse analysis as an approach that focuses on the understanding of how meaning is made through the use of multiple modes of communication for us to form the overall meaning in a text. In the video game narrative model, there are the different elements in Ryan’s (2003) cognitive maps such as “inventory”, “spatial relations”, and “mapping style”. Based on the empirical data, I add “interactive character movement”, and “interactive character movement with action” to the video game narrative model. These elements are made up of multimodal semiotic resources such as the language and visuals used to communicate meaning to the player. We will discuss the meanings of these elements with examples from the empirical data in the interviews. As the multimodal discourse analysis approach also emphasises on the study of the division of different elements into hierarchical levels to form the overall meaning (Jacobs, 2013, 2014) for discourse comprehension (Graesser & Forsyth, 2013), Chapter 9 will

132

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

propose the cognitive frames (Fludernik, 1996, 2003) which are used by the players to mediate and combine the lower level game elements to form the video game narrative in their mental model. The study of video game narrative cannot be isolated from its cultural context (Squire, 2002, 2006; Taylor, 2009). For this reason, I have incorporated the notions of genres and conventions into the video game narrative framework to provide explanations as to how the players’ subjective experiences of video games are influenced by the contexts in which they are situated. Finally, the top most level of the video game narrative framework is the surface level where we combine the knowledge of the lower levels to form the coherent video game narrative. As I have stated in the previous chapters, the conceptualisation of narrative and gameplay as separate modules are merely hypothetical constructs. When the players interact with the video game during gameplay, they process the respective elements in the narrative and gameplay modules as a whole in the common semiotic principles to form the players’ mental model of the video game structure. In the ludonarrative model, narrative is not inherent in the text but requires narrative reception to demonstrate narrativity (Keen, 2015). Narrative reception is understood based on the empirical data obtained from the participants in the study.

Ryan’s (2003) Cognitive Maps A cognitive map (Tolman, 1948; Palermo et al., 2012) or mental model of narrative space (Ryan, 2003) is the spatial information gathered by readers or spectators regarding spatial relations as they progress through the game world. Through the feedback loop effect (Newman, 2002; Arsenault & Perron, 2009; Abrams & Gerber, 2013), these mental models are built to a large extent on the basis of the characters’ movements, which enable the readers or players in a video game to visualise these movements within a containing space. Mental maps are both dynamically constructed in the course of reading and consulted by the reader or player to orient himself/herself in the narrative world. Ryan’s (2003) cognitive maps are drawings and I modify cognitive maps to refer to the mental models of the players formed from the (N)PC(s)’ interactive motion (and action) in the game world. Spatiality is described in terms of interactive motion, which is specific to video games, rather than spatiality, which exists in non-interactive art forms. Mental models are also created via observations of the semiotic resources of the game world as the PC moves through the game world and interacts with the various objects. Depending on how the game is designed, these semiotic resources can be interpreted in the players’ mind to either form a cognitive graph (Chrastil & Warren, 2014; Warren et al., 2017) or disorganised picture of the narrative events in the narrative space.

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

133

During video gameplay, the players need to know the spatial location of the character in relation to the character’s goal such as the location of objects to understand the narrative events in the game world. The mental model of narrative space and objects’ location inside the narrative space are constructed by the players and held in the episodic and object location memory (Postma & van der Ham, 2016) respectively for the assessment of past, current, and future scenarios in the gameplay (Goodier & Soetanto, 2013). This mental model may be used for gameplay strategising. However, it is built from images of individual spatial frames that are constantly updated due to the dynamic movements of the character which occurs in real-time in the game world. Players are thus not always able to situate individual frames in the game world as these frames are changed constantly. Therefore, the players’ mental maps do not necessarily have to be the same throughout in the representation of spatial relations. Some locations, such as the locations of the enemy’s base, need to be precisely situated in relation to the PC, but other NPCs, such as the enemy units, may occupy free-flowing positions in the players’ mind. Depending on the players, their cognitive maps do not necessarily represent the game world transparently, and therefore can be regarded as being subjective and unique to each player. The study of the subjective nature of the players’ cognitive maps will contribute to our understanding of players’ actions and behaviours in the game world (Goodier & Soetanto, 2013). As the gameplay progresses, players thus form complex cognitive maps of several strategic locations of the opponents, resources, and choke points, etc. The narrative space in the video game not only serves as a background for the character and their actions, but also serves to present a coherent story world (Zakowski, 2016) to the player. Because video games are a spatial medium, which emphasises the PC’s transversal of the game space during the narrative progression, cognitive maps are an ideal framework to structure the narrative events of the video game. A narrative space that is not designed well enough, such as not providing enough affordance for the players will contribute to difficulties in the players’ understanding of the direction to move in the game world. This may contribute to the players’ focus on the gameplay and result in the loss of narrative immersion in the game world. This focus on the gameplay will be reflected in the shift from elements in the video game narrative model to elements in the gameplay analysis model as the players’ mental model of the narrative cannot be formed or backgrounded. An instance where the affordance was unclear to the player will be discussed later in this chapter under Ryan’s (2003) category of spatial relations using Beyond: Two Souls. Ryan (2003, p. 224) suggests that cognitive maps can be evaluated in terms of three criteria, namely, inventory, spatial relations, and mapping style. These three criteria combine together to form the narrative event(s) in the players’ interpretation of the video game narrative. These

134

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

cognitive maps are used to understand the players’ mental comprehension of the video game narrative. Although there is a separation made between the categories, there is no clear-cut division between them. For instance, the discussion of obligatory objects in inventory also pertains to spatial relations as the object helps to point the player in the direction to move towards the goal.

Inventory The cognitive maps pertaining to inventory emphasises the priority which the players place on specific objects in their mental representation. These objects can come from the video game, or other inter(textual) sources, such as the players’ knowledge of other video games which they have played. Objects can be classified as obligatory or optional. The cognitive map of inventory in terms of the objects informs us about the players’ conceptualisation of the plot. Obligatory objects can include landmarks such as the enemy’s base, or a crucial location that the player has to defend against enemy attacks. The importance of the object in the cognitive map of the players’ mental model indicates that the particular landmark is the character’s goal in the plot, where the character has to reach that specific landmark to fulfil the narrative goal, or to resolve the conflict in a particular mission of a game session. In one of the chapters of Beyond: Two Souls titled, “The Mission”, the player is instructed by the game to reach the tower to fulfil the narrative goal. From the interview, Michael mentioned that it was the second image (instead of the first image in the flashback) that emphasised to him the importance of reaching the tower. In addition to the use of image repetition (redundancy), the character’s dialogue and the proper use of lighting are techniques that facilitate the player’s construction of the cognitive map of an obligatory object in the narrative. Based on the empirical data, it is thus shown that the multimodal semiotic resources in the game work together to communicate to the player the importance of the obligatory object. The players’ personal experience of the video game narrative in relation to their PC’s body schema and self-representation (Lallee & Dominey, 2013) is stored in their episodic memory as multimodal mental models (Johnson-Laird, 1983). Less important objects in the inventory will appear at the bottom of the list of priority of the players’ cognitive map. Optional objects include side missions such as the acquisition of additional squad members for the PC in Mass Effect. These squad members are not necessary for the completion of the game, but serve to provide additional narrative (and bonus gameplay skills) for the side characters. The side characters’ narrative in Mass Effect does not change the main plot. Based on the empirical data from the Mass Effect interview, Michael mentioned that he chose to focus on the PC’s narrative and not the

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

135

Figure 8.1 An obligatory object highlighted in the flashback of Beyond: Two Souls

supporting character, Liara’s narrative so he only went to find her towards the end of the game. This indicates his placing of lower priority on her character’s narrative. He also indicated that he was more interested to have lesbian sex with her rather than obtaining her narrative: Extract 8.1 interviewer: I think you find the character, the Asari character after you killed her mother. michael: mm. interviewer: er is it because you don’t think that she is important character for the story ah? michael: I think I didn’t focus on her. interviewer: You focus more on Shepard ah? michael: Ya. interviewer: mm. michael: Because you only choose this character after you know that you can have lesbian sex with her. Nasir did not focus on finding Liara when he played the game the first time as he mentioned that the quest log did not provide him with sufficient information on her location in the game world: Extract 8.2 interviewer: At first, you thought is er is you thought the game didn’t give you enough information which planet she’s on is it? nasir: Ya because the game just said that find her in that er in that cluster. Ya then initially, I thought it was a very big place ah but now I’m more familiar with Mass Effect, I realised it wasn’t that hard to find her. Bioshock’s participants such as Peter and John treated the audio logs that they picked up as optional objects as they mentioned that the narrative in the audio logs is noise to them.

136

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

Spatial Relations Ryan (2003, p. 226) argues that the evaluation of spatial relations is more challenging than the analysis of the inventory because the analysis involves scalar rather than binary categories. An item can not only be present or absent from the map, it can also be located at variable distances from another item. In video games, a similar problem is created for the players’ cognitive maps for spatial relations. Compared to the cognitive maps of objects, which are static, the cognitive maps constituting the information of spatial relations are dynamic, as the player has to compare the difference of the distance between two objects or characters in the game world. The difficulty is further increased when the player has to track the spatial relations of moving objects in the game world, in relation to enemies or friendly units. In Ico (Team Ico, 2001), the story is built through the interaction between the game rules, signs, and the player. The player controls a protagonist who is accompanied by a companion NPC, Yorda. The player has to constantly press a dedicated button to keep Yorda close to him and hold hands with her to actively lead her around the castle. If the spatial relations between Yorda and the PC increase when the player does not press the button for some time, ghosts will appear and attempt to capture her for the Queen and the PC has to defeat them to save Yorda. Therefore, the close spatial relations between the PC and Yorda index the gameplay role of the player as the protector of Yorda (Cole, 2015) in the narrative. Additionally, their close emotional bond is highlighted by the lack of a spatial separation between the two characters as Yorda is the only key for the PC to escape the castle. Later in the game, the player experiences a tremendous sense of loss and failure (Herold, 2009) when Yorda is taken away from the PC. In Bioshock, the spatial relations between the Little Sister and Big Daddy work in parallel ways to the spatial relations between the protagonist and Yorda in Ico to index the gameplay role of Big Daddy as the protector of the Little Sister in the narrative. In an escort mission, the player has to estimate the spatial distance between the object which needs protection, in relation to the location that the object has to reach to indicate that s/he has reached safety. Furthermore, the player has to estimate the spatial relation of enemy units who are arriving to intercept the escorted object, as well as estimate the spatial distance between the nearest friendly object from the escort. The complicated intersection of spatial relations due to the tracking of multiple dynamic objects in the game space, may create a cognitive map of intensifying plot action in the narrative event. However, based on the empirical data from the participants of the Bioshock’s study, the players (Mary, Loke, John, and Peter) focus more on the gameplay instead of the narrative interpretation. Mary mentioned that she did not question the narrative representation of the

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

137

Little Sisters when she was escorting them, as she was more concerned about keeping them alive: Extract 8.3 mary: I don’t know leh I guess this is just like the whole like mood at that point like you just do it like you know you don’t really ah like okay lah I am not a critical like I don’t play and question all the time. Like I just play. So it’s like I guess you call this type of casual gamer type of person right? So it’s like I will just play lor at that moment they tell me to okay the game tells me okay, you have to protect the Little Sisters okay I have to protect the Little Sisters. . . . Ya then it’s like I guess at that point like people are just like listening and just like filtering out whatever they hear. . . . I mean at that point, I was already like okay, I thought it’s going to be the end, I am like anticipating the end already. As a result of this perception, the escort mission was more of a gameplay event to the players because their narrative interpretation was being backgrounded. Therefore, the category of spatial relations in the players’ formulation of a narrative is dependent on the game design and the players’ focus at a specific point of the game. However, an interesting finding was that the players (Mary and Loke) were concerned that failing the gameplay goal of escorting the Little Sisters would change the narrative ending even though their gameplay actions were inconsequential in changing the narrative. In this sense, the cognitive map of spatial relations pertains more towards the story structure and gradual revelation of the (in)significance of the NPCs in determining the game’s narrative ending than spatiality in the narrative. As I have discussed in Chapter 6, I have used the analysis conducted here to co-construct the ludonarrative subcategories of “ludonarrative (ir)relevance—gameplay focus” and “ludonarrative (ir)relevance—consequence” with the players. In Chapter 7 of Beyond: Two Souls titled “Hunted” in play order (Chapter 17 in chronological order), the player controls the PC to escape from the authorities. Language is present as feedback to the player to facilitate his control of the PC. However, the lack of clear affordances for Michael and the dark lighting used in the setting (Figure 8.2) contributed to his difficulty in evaluating the spatial relations between his PC who is running to escape and the narrative goal that he has to reach. There is a navigation impairment, or topographical disorientation (van der Ham & Claesen, 2017) which contributed to his greater focus on the gameplay and distraction from the narrative as he has to focus on figuring out the direction to move in the game world. The ludonarrative subcategory of “ludonarrative (ir)relevance—gameplay focus” is co-constructed with him during the final interview:

138

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

Figure 8.2 Difficulty of evaluating spatial relations in Beyond: Two Souls

Extract 8.4 michael: Yes. So because this is a movie, after a while there’s no white dot. Then suddenly, there’s one white dot there. You’ll be like eh, I need to do something hor? Ya. This breaks the continuity of the game you know? Then this sequence is also thankfully I remember. I can go down the go up the log. . . . There’s no prompt. interviewer: You remember to move the joystick? michael: Ya. This one? This one I didn’t see the log. . . . There, this one I don’t know whether it’s up or down? interviewer: Ah so, the darkness also affect you? michael: Ah of course.

Mapping Style Ryan (2003, p. 227) argues that the mapping style can be conventional/ symbolic or iconic. In addition to Ryan (2003), I suggest the addition of an indexical mapping style. Objects represented by a symbolic mapping style bears an arbitrary relationship with the referent (Dirven & Verspoor, 2004) in which it refers to in the players’ cognitive map. The mapping of non-geographical information is conceptualised as spatialisation (Skupin & Fabrikant, 2003), which refers to the diagrammatic representation of constructs and their relationships with each other in the game world. The players’ attempts to establish cause and effect relationships between constructs is conceptualised as causal mapping (Laukkanen, 1990) which

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

139

is considered as a subset of cognitive mapping. In Mass Effect, the colour coding of the dialogue choice enables the player to understand the narrative pathway and gameplay outcome of selecting those options. Specifically, the blue colour coded narrative choice corresponds to the “good” narrative ending and the red colour coded narrative choice corresponds to the “badass/evil” narrative ending. Players in the study (Michael and Nasir) who have played a significant part of Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, or related games such as Dragon Age: Origins were able to understand the conventional narrative meaning of the colour coded dialogue options. In Beyond: Two Souls, the coloured dots indicate to the players the affordance in which they can interact with the other characters or the environment. For instance, a blue dot on a character with an orange outline indicates to the players that they can control the PC, Aiden to possess the other character. A blue dot on a character with a red outline indicates that the players can use Aiden to kill the other character. Finally, a blue dot on a character with a blue outline indicates that the player can control Aiden to knock the other character unconscious. However, the appearance of the colour coding of the dots is inconsistent. For example, the white dot sometimes appears while at other times it does not. The player, Michael assumes that the white dot is used to indicate the direction in which he can control the PC’s action. When the white dot does not appear consistently or is too small to be seen, the player is unsure of the action to take. The player will therefore take a longer time to learn the function of the white dot’s affordance: Extract 8.5 interviewer: You cannot see it also? michael: I cannot. And if you turn back three seconds, you will see the white dot appear, eh are those white dots? You can’t tell. Are those white dots? You can’t tell. Are there white dots that are going to appear? You can’t tell also. Sometimes, the blue dot on a character with a blue outline also has the function to kill the other character (e.g. Jodie’s mother, Nora). In the study, the players (Michael and Matt) were only able to know the function of killing through an additional iconic object, the heart which represents the human life force. The inconsistency of mapping style of the affordance to the PC’s gameplay action in the narrative confuses the players and distracts them from understanding the narrative. An icon attempts to reproduce the visual perception of an observer, and it partially represents the object it refers to (Dirven & Verspoor, 2004). Most units in real-time strategy games are iconic in the semiotic sense where they partially resemble human beings, aliens, or humanoids. The buildings are also iconic, as they resemble the real-world referents. Other

140

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

types of narrative iconic objects include artefacts left behind by the inhabitants of the game world such as notes and photographs. An example of a narrative iconic object is Sarah’s photo with Joel which Ellie passed to Joel in the final chapter of The Last of Us. When the player chooses to interact with the photo, it unlocks further backstory. Joel’s gesture of accepting the photo and his dialogue inform us that he has finally let go of his loss of Sarah and accepted Ellie as his surrogate daughter. Nasir mentioned that the handwritten notes make the game world more realistic: Extract 8.6 nasir: Ya I guess ya because okay at least when you find notes, they bother giving you a like it’s really handwritten or hand scrawled. But then then it’s a nice feature that you can also at the same time use the like a translator so that they have overlay, what their message is talking about so ya as in that’s a nice touch also in it makes the environment more alive. And like if you were to actually find that item, ya that’s what you probably that’s what you would probably see. Ya so it’s quite realistic in terms of the artefacts. Another example of a narrative iconic object is Wrex’s Krogan armour in Mass Effect. Nasir mentioned that the decryption gameplay skill was crucial to unlock the narrative object (Extract 8.7). When the player gives the armour to Wrex after finishing his side mission, it will increase the PC’s relationship point with Wrex and opens up an additional dialogue choice when negotiating with Wrex on Virmire to prevent him from dying. Extract 8.7 interviewer: So the decryption skill didn’t unlock any narrative story for you? It’s only gameplay reward? nasir: The only time decryption unlock narrative is you unlock the armour that the Wrex’s armour cos it was stored in the safe. But that’s it I think ya. As in and I suppose if you decrypt some stuff, you unlock side missions? So but then again, like for Mass Effect, the side missions are quite repetitive so. . . . An indexical mapping style functions by pointing the player towards narrative information that they can interact with (Dirven & Verspoor, 2004). Examples of indexical mapping styles include the multimodal semiotic resources which work together, such as language used in the subtitles, audio prompts from characters or the environment, visuals that highlight a narrative object and so on. These multimodal semiotic resources indicate a character or object that can be interacted with. An example of an indexical mapping style is the audio prompt given by the characters in video games such as The Last of Us. Audio prompts serve a

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

141

pointing function to convey information to players to indicate that they can choose to interact with the characters to unlock further backstory. Symbolic, iconic, and indexical cognitive maps complement one another (Dirven & Verspoor, 2004) to provide the players with the multimodal cues (e.g. visuals and audio) for the cognitive understanding of the semiotic representations in the narrative space. The analysis conducted using Ryan’s (2003) mapping style highlights the importance of facilitating the players’ learning of the functionality of the affordances by providing something new in the appearance of something familiar or consistent with the players’ cultural scripts. The analyses conducted in this section is used to create the ludonarrative subcategory of “ludonarrative resonance metaphor” in Chapter 5.

Interactive Character Movement The PC’s movement during the gameplay is important for generating narrative experiences for players. Mitchell et al. (2017) analysed the players’ experience when interacting with the game, The Graveyard (Tale of Tales, 2008) and found that the PC’s walking created a kind of feeling of what it was like to be the main character, an old lady. However, they mentioned that the emerging narrative meaning created in the players’ experience is distracted by issues related to the user interface and gameplay. White-box analysis of video games has also been incorporated for the formal analysis of the game, Passage (Rohrer, 2007). By analysing the source code of Passage, the character’s movement in the gameplay is related to the character’s life events (Willumsen, 2016). For instance, when the PC is dead and there is no more movement but the mere presence of a tombstone, the source code reads, “if (isPlayerDead()) { // stop moving moveDelta = 0; }”. The PC’s movement also becomes slower when his/her companion is dead or has left him/her which is hard coded in the source code (Figure 8.3). The cognitive map of the interactive character movement has been used by the participants in the study to understand the character’s portrayal in relation to the plot progression. Henry mentioned in the think-aloud protocol that he felt the PC, Lee was going to die soon when he controlled

Figure 8.3 Excerpt from Passage (2007), line 951–956 in Game.cpp (Reproduced from Willumsen (2016)).

142

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

him to move forward but he kept falling down towards the end of The Walking Dead Season 1 Episode 5. In The Last of Us, the PC, Joel became seriously injured in a scripted narrative event as he fought with a bandit and became impaled on a stake at the end of the autumn chapter. In the subsequent gameplay, the players (Alice and Walter) experienced the helplessness of the PC, Joel which was highlighted through the mechanic of “the slow movement” as he became dependent on Ellie. The cognitive map of interactive character movement may be conceptualised by the players as the plot progression. As the PC proceeds in the direction of the goal, the character encounters other objects in the form of enemy units who constitute the gameplay obstacles and may be interpreted as the plot constituent of conflict (Talib, 2014). However, the empirical data has shown that for games such as Bioshock and Mass Effect that are situated more towards the gameplay continuum of the ludonarrative, the cognitive map of the interactive character movement does not translate easily to the players’ conceptualisation of a plot progression: Extract 8.8 interviewer: So for that part when the Big Daddy was fighting the splicer, were you able to see any narrative from the gameplay? loke: er I think it’s similar to the front part where you see the splicer trying to kill the Little Sister to get the Big Daddy ADAM. . . . So it just reiterates whatever I learnt at the start. interviewer: mm so for you can I say that it’s more gameplay for you ah? And then you did not think too much about the narrative? Or did you also think about what is happening? loke: It’s more gameplay lah. In one of the side missions of Mass Effect, Michael encountered a group of humans who have been turned into husks (a subservient robot) as his squad moved further in to explore the planet’s interior. He mentioned that he thought of why the scavengers were turned into husks. However, he did not create his own narrative when prompted about it during the interview: Extract 8.9 michael: Then you will be wondering er I thought we are coming and there are people in there. How come all become husks? So it’s like question mark lor. interviewer: So in this side quest, do you see it more as a gameplay or narrative? michael: It becomes a. . . . interviewer: They say they are trying to find what survey team? michael: It becomes a narrative at this point leh . . . mm. But it is also a side quest itself mah.

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

143

interviewer: So it’s both ah. michael: mm. Ya so you don’t have to care about it leh. I think you can proceed with the gameplay even if you don’t come here. A static character movement might indicate the narrative event where the backstory is been conveyed to the player. Mary mentioned that she paused the game to concentrate on listening to an audio log but a splicer came to distract her: Extract 8.10 interviewer: The gameplay was it interrupting your listening to the audio logs ah? mary: It no I mean I guess they give me time to listen. There was only one part, I think it was in Hephaestus where I was squatting in the corner listening to my audio tape and then one guy suddenly appeared and tried to fight me so I was like. . . .

Interactive Character Movement With Action The cognitive map of interactive character movement may intersect with interactive character action during exploration when players find embedded narrative in the game world. The empirical data from the interviews highlights the multiple interpretations of the minor character, Ish’s backstory conveyed through the narrative iconic objects—the notes in The Last of Us. Nasir interpreted Ish as a more positive character (Extract 8.11) while Alice interpreted Ish as a more negative character (Extract 8.12): Extract 8.11 nasir: Ya. Then as in a bit more light hearted in nature. But at the same time, he also goes through all the same horrors or at least most of the horrors that Joel did lah but he reached out and he wanted to he actually got people to come along with him compared to Joel who prefers not to have other people involved in his business. So ya Ish seems to be more of a I don’t know inherentness there’s more of a goodness in him compared to Joel so I if given a choice, I rather be Ish. As in if they do make a side story about this or maybe a second game about Last of Us, it would be nice to find out what happened to Ish or maybe even play as Ish. Maybe like in a parallel story timeline or sometime in the future. Extract 8.12 alice: Ya I mean he feels that I mean you say it that he is a more hopeful character then I feel that he would have tried to figure out a way and maybe he did er to try and save everybody but in

144

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models the end what he did was that he killed all the children that he was stuck with. On the other hand, you had the cannibals that are fighting for a way to survive. I think that that is more hopeful than what Ish is doing.

Alice mentioned that she would pay more attention to the narrative if it was given in a cutscene or if an affordance such as a visual indexical prompt was given to the player to trigger the character’s backstory during the character’s movement. She felt that it would be better than if the narrative were given simultaneously while she was roaming around exploring the game world’s environment or when there was a gameplay fight happening simultaneously. The reason which is also echoed by Tadi is that it is very distracting if narrative is given simultaneously with gameplay (Extract 8.13). The empirical data shows that the players’ listening to and/ or watching the narrative during the gameplay may not always correlate to a static character movement but may also occur during instances of dynamic character movement and action. It would be easier to focus on narrative interpretation when the player is performing minimal gameplay actions such as controlling movement or turning the camera to look around. Extract 8.13 tadi: Ya because I feel like the game trend right is more shifted now they shifting toward action packed. And then you are like you have er erm you know intermittent of er storytelling in between. It is not like a lot of storytelling. A lot together like all over the game like you know you just walk and listen to the person it’s very distracting. Ya. Dynamic character movements, actions, and dialogue may characterise the NPCs narratively but the players (Alice, Walter, and Nasir) mentioned that they refer more to the NPCs’ gameplay attributes. For instance, common enemies such as the Infected in The Last of Us only move in a fixed predictable direction to rush at the PC when they are alerted to the players’ presence. In contrast, common enemies such as humans will hide and use flanking manoeuvres (Extract 8.14). The analysis conducted here helps to co-construct the ludonarrative subcategory, “ludonarrative irrelevance metaphor” with the participants where the NPCs’ gameplay attributes do not necessarily map to the players’ narrative interpretation in their mental model. Extract 8.14 alice: There’s something that says that they operate differently? But Bill is saying that the humans are more calculating? Which I’m

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

145

not sure in the game that really comes true because it is so computer AI, I don’t think it’s sophisticated enough to really have people plot and plan. According to the proposed cognitive model, it may be easier for players to form a cognitive map of major PCs and NPCs whom they have interacted with for a longer period. These characters’ narrative roles in the players’ mental models are constructed based on the multimodal semiotic resources given in the characters’ dialogue, actions, and movements. Major NPCs such as Tess, Bill, Ellie, and David with multi-directional movements, interactive dialogue, and interactive gameplay actions are interpreted in the players’ cognitive maps as having more important narrative functions. They are not only able to help the player to attack enemy units but also play key narrative roles. Examples of their interactive gameplay actions and movements include throwing medical kits and ammunition to the player during gameplay fights. Ellie’s constant accompaniment of the PC throughout the game and interactive dialogue enable a bond to form with the players (Alice and Nasir). However, Walter did not form any emergent narrative of the characters during the gameplay and he mentioned that their gameplay actions and movements were in line with their narrative characterisation: Extract 8.15 interviewer: This part I want to ask you when Bill helps you in the gameplay. . . . Are you able to form any kind of emotional bond to him? walter: No. interviewer: Do you feel that he is more of a gameplay tool for you? walter: Yes. I mean I like his character because his character can defend himself. His character has a proper gun. . . . Up and then, all characters that you sort of allied with were kind of, I mean Tess was not bad but Tess only had a bloody pistol. Everybody else before that only had a pistol like Marlene had a pistol. She had a pistol and it kind of kind of crappy. . . . So Bill now has a shotgun so Bill is obviously a good companion but I mean yes there was emotion going back yes a good decent amount of companion that can defend themselves but other than that, no. Alice mentioned that she did not map David’s gameplay movements during the gameplay fights to the narrative for characterisation purposes as she was focused more on the gameplay. The narrative interpretation was backgrounded during the gameplay fights as Alice interpreted NPCs as a goal to be overcome. The ludonarrative subcategory, “ludonarrative irrelevance gameplay focus” is hereby co-constructed with the player.

146

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

During the interview, Alice mentioned that she was able to link Bill’s dialogue about the Infected been predictable and the humans been scary to David though because David’s boss fight was the most difficult when played on the highest difficulty level. David will actively track the PC, Ellie during the boss fight which increases the gameplay challenge. Therefore, his gameplay movements and actions enhance his narrative characterisation as the antagonist hunting for Ellie. The analysis of David’s character movements and actions with the player, Alice helps to co-construct the ludonarrative subcategory, “resonance metaphor”. The availability of different character movements and actions to Ellie and Joel contributes to a type of players’ narrative experience. Alice mentioned that Ellie favours a more stealth approach as she perceived Ellie to be weaker than Joel who has more gameplay options. She can choose a brute force or use a stealth approach when fighting as Joel. In this way, the gameplay movements and actions are highlighting the narrative characteristics of the different characters and the interdependence of Joel and Ellie who complement each other in the narrative: Extract 8.16 alice: When you play as Ellie, I feel like you’re more ya you are more you are more. . . . Concerned with what I do because Ellie . . . Is like a little girl and it’s very hard to move from map to map. . . . In terms of a huge map, Joel can take more hits so you can just go in guns blazing and I feel like Joel you know, sixty percent of the time will survive. But if you do that with Ellie, she will only survive like twenty percent of the time. interviewer: Ya so Ellie is like favouring a certain play style only. Like the stealth approach ah? alice: Ya I think that Ellie is definitely. . . . Ya also throughout the game, as it turned out because when Ellie is running away in that winter storm, she only has one health pack, and one dagger to begin with. And when Joel starts off in the winter storm, he has all the weapons instead. He can go pass in it . . . . Ya it’s kind of forcing you in into feeling a certain way because since Ellie doesn’t have a lot of weapons, she’s ill equipped. Like you are been forced to play more stealthily and more conservatively and sneak around. Rather than Joel who can just go and you know, shoot people because he already has ammunition, he has weapons. So. . . . The lack of character movement and actions also plays a part in narrative characterisation, for example, character development. In the beginning of the spring chapter of The Last of Us, Joel’s gameplay mechanic of boosting Ellie is being subverted. Ellie would usually come to Joel to be boosted up to climb over obstacles to unlock them when called, but in the

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

147

spring chapter, she did not respond when the player presses the controller button “triangle” to call her: Extract 8.17 interviewer: Then the next chapter Joel was trying to ask Ellie to boost her up, but she doesn’t respond. Do you see that one is a gameplay that reflects the narrative? nasir: Ya. I guess so. Ya. Ya. Mm. . . . Because at that point it tries to reflect that Ellie is a bit distracted at that point in time. As in she knows that she’s at the end of her journey. It’s like she’s getting emotional. . . . As in I think it’s just trying to, because by that point in time you already played the game so long. . . . So it’s like it’s a nice change to suddenly you want to boost and Ellie is not there. So it’s a refreshing change ah. Ya. This clever subversion of the gameplay mechanics highlights Ellie’s emotional distance from the game world because she killed David in the previous chapter of the game. Therefore, the use of the same gameplay mechanic in different game contexts could be used to produce different narrative and gameplay meanings (Dubbelman, 2016) to influence the players’ interpretations of the video game narrative, such as character development. Based on the analysis here, the ludonarrative subcategory, “resonance metaphor” is co-constructed with the player. However, the cognitive map of interactive character action and movement does not always map to the characterisation of the characters in the narrative as Alice and Walter mentioned that the characterisation of the PCs has been done in the cutscenes (Extract 8.18). In this case, the ludonarrative subcategory, “irrelevance metaphor” is co-constructed with the participants. Extract 8.18 interviewer: So in those gameplay actions, you don’t see them characterising Joel so much? alice: Not really. interviewer: Because his characterisation is mainly in the cutscene? alice: Yes. interviewer: But erm during the gameplay do you see any kind of narrative coming out of your gameplay actions? alice: Not really. All my gameplay actions are just to get to the next main story point. It doesn’t really it hasn’t really been that one of my decisions really has affected the story how it goes. interviewer: So when you engage in the gameplay actions, you are just thinking of the gameplay? You are not you are not so much thinking of the narrative? alice: Not really. I’m just trying to focus on the goals of the gameplay.

148

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

Complication of Cognitive Maps Cognitive maps are complicated by two factors. Firstly, video games are multimodal as they consist of more than one semiotic resource, such as the linguistic and visual signs. Secondly, video games are ludonarrative; they are both gameplay and narrative. These two factors can either complicate or facilitate the formation of the players’ mental models of the video game narrative, depending on whether the game modules and elements have been well designed to work as a whole to communicate a meaningful narrative to the players within the game context. As I have discussed in this chapter, the combination of different elements under the gameplay and narrative modules would give rise to different narrative interpretations, depending on different players’ prior game experiences. In a narrative event, a semiotic mode such as the visual sign may provide gameplay information to the player, while the linguistic sign communicates narrative information to the player simultaneously and vice versa. For instance, towards the end of The Walking Dead, the affordances are provided to the players to enable them to control the PC, Lee to move forward in the gameplay. However, the dialogue together with the slow character movement provides feedback to the player that Lee can no longer move forward. The overall ludonarrative meaning is therefore conveyed to the players that Lee would soon turn into a zombie which may trigger an emotional response in the players. On the other hand, inconsistent affordances in Beyond: Two Souls complicate the formation of the players’ mental model of the game world when they are more focused on understanding how to interact with the gameplay controls such that their narrative interpretations are backgrounded. Having discussed the micro components of the video game narrative analysis framework, in the next chapter, I will discuss the macro components.

Summary In this chapter, I have discussed the various components and elements conceptualised under the micro perspective of the video game narrative analysis framework. I have modified and applied the different elements in Ryan’s (2003) cognitive maps such as “inventory”, “spatial relations”, and “mapping style” to the analysis of video game narrative segments. Additionally, based on the empirical data, I have expanded Ryan’s (2003) model by adding two new elements to the framework, namely, “interactive character movement” and “interactive character movement with action” and demonstrated them using video game examples. I end this chapter with a short discussion of how the presence of multimodal elements, such as the linguistic and visual signs work together to complicate or facilitate the formation of the players’ mental models in the interpretation of the video game narrative, depending on the design of the game structure (relationships between modules and elements).

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

149

References Abrams, S. S., & Gerber, H. R. (2013). Achieving through the Feedback Loop: Videogames, Authentic Assessment, and Meaningful Learning. The English Journal, 103(1), 95–103. Arsenault, D., & Perron, B. (2009). In the Frame of the Magic Cycle: The Circle(s) of Gameplay. In P. Bernard & W. J. P. Mark (Eds.), The Video Game Theory Reader 2. New York: Routledge. Chrastil, E. R., & Warren, W. H. (2014). From Cognitive Maps to Cognitive Graphs. PLoS One , 9 (11), e112544. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0112544 Cole, T. (2015). The Tragedy of Betrayal: How the Design of Ico and Shadow of the Colossus Elicits Emotion. Proceedings of the DiGRA 2015 International Conference: Diversity of Play: Games-Culture-Identities, 12, 1–13. Dirven, R., & Verspoor, M. (Eds.). (2004). Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics Second Revised Edition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Dubbelman, T. (2016). Narrative Game Mechanics. In F. Nack & A. Gordon (Eds.), Interactive Storytelling, ICIDS 2016: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10045. Cham: Springer. Fludernik, M. (1996). Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London and New York: Routledge. Fludernik, M. (2003). Natural Narratology and Cognitive Parameters. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 243–267). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Goodier, C. I., & Soetanto, R. (2013). Building Future Scenarios Using Cognitive Mapping. Journal of Maps, 9(2), 203–217. Graesser, A. C., & Forsyth, C. (2013). Discourse Comprehension. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology (pp. 475–491). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Herold, C. (2009). Ico: Creating an Emotional Connection with a Pixelated Damsel. In D. Davidson (Ed.), Well Played 1.0: Video Games, Value and Meaning. Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press. Jacobs, D. (2013). Graphic Encounters: Comics and the Sponsorship of Multimodal Literacy. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Jacobs, D. (2014). Webcomics, Multimodality, and Information Literacy. ImageTexT, 7(3). Available from www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v7_3/ jacobs/ (Accessed: 30 Nov 2017). Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Keen, S. (2015). Narrative Form: Revised and Expanded Second Edition. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Lallee, S., & Dominey, P. F. (2013). Multi-Modal Convergence Maps: From Body Schema and Self-Representation to Mental Imagery. Adaptive Behavior, 21(4), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712313488423 Laukkanen, M. (1990). Describing Management Cognition: The Cause Mapping Approach. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 6(3), 197–216. doi:10.1016/ 0956-5221(90)90012-6

150

Narration I—Players’ Mental Models

Mitchell, A., Sim, Y. T., & Kway, L. (2017). Making It Unfamiliar in the ‘Right’ Way: An Empirical Study of Poetic Gameplay. Proceedings of the 2017 DiGRA International Conference, 14(1), 1–18. Newman, J. (2002). The Myth of the Ergodic Videogame: Some Thoughts on Player-Character Relationships in Videogames. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 2(1). Palermo, L., Ranieri, G., Nemmi, F., & Guariglia, C. (2012). Cognitive Maps in Imagery Neglect. Neuropsychologia, 50(5), 904–912. Postma, A., & van der Ham, C. J. M. (2016). Keeping Track of Where Things Are in Space: The Neuropsychology of Object Location Memory. In A. Postma & I. J. M. van der Ham (Eds.), Neuropsychology of Space: Spatial Functions of the Human Brain (pp. 231–265). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Rohrer, J. (2007). Passage. PC Computer Game. Ryan, M.-L. (2003). Cognitive Maps and the Construction of Narrative Space. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 214–242). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Skupin, A., & Fabrikant, S. I. (2003). Spatialization Methods: A Cartographic Research Agenda for Non-Geographic Information Visualization. Cartography and Geographic Information Science , 30 (2), 95–115. doi:10.1559/ 152304003100011081 Squire, K. (2002). Cultural Framing of Computer/Video Games. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 2(1). Available from www.gamestudies.org/0102/squire/ (Accessed: 12 Dec 2017). Squire, K. (2006). From Content to Context: Videogames as Designed Experience. Educational Researcher , 35 (8), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0013189X035008019 Tale of Tales. (2008). The Graveyard. PC Computer Game. Valve Corporation. Talib, I. S. (2014). Narrative Theory: A Brief Introduction Chapter 6: Plot. Available from https://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/ellibst/NarrativeTheory/chapt6. htm (Accessed: 15 Dec 2017). Taylor, T. L. (2009). Play between Worlds: Exploring Online Game Culture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Team Ico. (2001). Ico. PS2. Sony Computer Entertainment. Tolman, E. C. (1948). Cognitive Maps in Rats and Men. Psychological Review, 55, 189–208. van der Ham, I. J. M., & Claesen, M. H. G. (2017). Chapter 8: Navigation Ability. In A. Postma & I. J. M. van der Ham (Eds.), Neuropsychology of Space: Spatial Functions of the Human Brain (pp. 267–308). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Warren, W. H., Rothman, D. B., Schnapp, B. H., & Ericson, J. D. (2017). Wormholes in Virtual Space: From Cognitive Maps to Cognitive Graphs. Cognition, 166, 152–163. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.020 Willumsen, E. C. (2016). Source Code and Formal Analysis: A Hermeneutic Reading of Passage. Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference of DiGRA and FDG, 13(1), 1–10. Zakowski, S. (2016). Environmental Storytelling, Ideologies and Quantum Physics: Narrative Space and the BioShock Games. Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference of DiGRA and FDG, 13(1), 1–16.

9

Narration II—Video Game Narrative Analysis Framework

Multi-Linear Narrative One of the unique features of video game narrative is its multi-linearity. The goal of game storytelling is to create a story where players feel they can play a significant role that may affect the outcome, and multi-linearity is an essential way for accomplishing that goal (Richard, 2004, p. 223). Some scholars have used the term “non-linearity” (De Jean et al., 1999; Bryce & Rutter, 2002; Wood et al., 2004; Mallon & Webb, 2006; DeMarle, 2007; Cassidy, 2011; Fassone, 2017; Tawfik et al., 2018) to refer to the narrative structures of video games. However, Murray (n.d.) argues that the term “non-linearity” connotes less specificity and is negative. The conceptualisation of “non-linearity” assumes a binary notion in which “non-linearity” is contrasted with “linearity” where the flow of time cannot be manipulated and every experience, however scrambled the presentation might be, regardless of the amounts of jumps in the internal timeline, is always linear. Even if the game can provide multiple linear strands, in different forms, it cannot escape the restriction of the linear experience of time. Murray (n.d.) prefers the usage of terms such as “multiform” and “multisequentiality”. “Multiform” refers to having more than one type of configuration based on the same general components or framework and a “multisequential story” is one where there is more than one valid and coherent path through a set of segments. Following Murray, I adopt the term “multi-linearity” to refer to the video game structure in the form of multiple narrative and gameplay pathways. The multiple linear routes taken by the players may foreground different story or gameplay elements, or result in different narrative endings. In addition to the terms non-linearity and multi-linearity which have been used to describe video game narrative, it has also been described as possessing a free-form system of progression (Juul, 2005). Free-form games include sandbox and open world games which facilitate the formation of emergent narratives. In a game, the stories are presented in a branching tree of sequences which allows the players to create their own stories by making choices

152

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

at each branch point (Crawford, 1984, p. 10). The player of a game is encouraged to explore alternatives, contrapositives, and inversions and free to explore the causal relationships in the game from many different angles (Crawford, 1984, pp. 10–11). However, multi-linearity is not necessarily better than linearity because they are different ways of presenting the story. A linear story is able to provide greater intricacy and detail of the story by tracing a single sequence of causal development of the story. A multi-linear story, on the other hand, shows all the facets of a single truth of a story, when the game designer creates a complex network of paths for the player to choose in a playthrough. One of the good indicators of a good story is that people want to re-experience it (Nell, 1988; Calinescu, 1993; Odden, 1998; Bacon, 2007). A game’s representational value increases with each playthrough until the player has explored a representative subset of all the branches in the game network (Crawford, 1984, p. 11). The feature of multi-linearity occurs in different types of video game narrative designs. Some examples of the multi-linear story structure include the “hubs and spokes” model, the “branching story structure”, “the side quests and story convergence structure”, and so on. The different types of multi-linear story structures usually do not occur on their own, but combine with each other. In the “hubs and spokes” model (Figure 9.1), each spoke consists of its own content which does not interact with the other spoke’s contents (Sylvester, 2013). The various optional missions of Mass Effect which involve the NPCs’ side missions use this story structure as they do not change the main storyline and do not interact with the other NPCs’ side missions.

Figure 9.1 The “hub and spokes” model (Sylvester, 2013, p. 98)

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

153

Figure 9.2 The branching story structure (Sylvester, 2013, p. 99)

The branching story structure (Figure 9.2) tries to simulate real-life choices by modelling every possible decision’s outcomes (Sylvester, 2013). The players’ choice of (narrative and/or gameplay) actions causes one or more aspects of the story to change. NPCs may reveal different information to the player depending on how the player chooses to interact with them (DeMarle, 2007). The design of the branching structure facilitates the players’ real-time construction of mental models for causal-agency and narrative complexity to provide the experience of immersive narrative effectence (Riedl & Young, 2006). However, the branching story structure has a fatal drawback—the number of possible branches rapidly explodes. The player who experiences the story misses most of the content on a playthrough, but this may also increase the replay value of the game. Branching multi-linear stories can be further divided into four subcategories. The first is a tree that branches out with different end points. The first subcategory is more difficult to implement because of the programming and asset management challenges (McIntosh et al., 2010). Examples of games which use this structure include The Witcher 2, Mass Effect, and Bioshock. The second subtype involves plot lines that converge or diverge like parallel roads to the same destination. The Walking Dead uses the second subtype. The third involves variation in the

154

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

Figure 9.3 The “side quest and story convergence” model (Sylvester, 2013, p. 100)

micronarratives (Jenkins, 2004) within each chapter of Beyond: Two Souls but the overarching narrative remains the same. Finally, the fourth subcategory includes embedded narrative in the game world told through the notes, audio logs, and the environment. Embedded narrative branches off from the main storyline and is optional, depending on exploration and the players’ interpretations. The example for the fourth subcategory includes Ish’s storyline in The Last of Us. The branching story structure’s fatal drawback can be resolved by changing it to a “side quest and story convergence” model (Figure 9.3). This will enable the number of branches to be reduced. This model has a branching story in which the branches recombine in certain key story points. Players must pass through every reconnected point in a certain order, but they have some freedom to choose how they get there (DeMarle, 2007). This model is also called parallel paths and it balances linear and branching structures (DeMarle, 2007). The benefit of this model is that the players’ involvement in the game’s story can be greatly increased as it grants the player some agency in the development of the story (DeMarle, 2007). Examples of games which use this structure include The Witcher 2 and Mass Effect.

Fludernik’s (1996, 2003) “Natural” Narratology and Cognitive Parameters The conceptualisation of the video game narrative framework in this book is based on the assumption that the players create the mental model of the video game narrative from the perception and comprehension of the information conveyed via the multimodal semiotic resources (linguistic and visuals) of the video game. From a narrative cognitive perspective, players create stories out of everyday moments to process them and incorporate

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

155

them into the greater narrative that is each person’s life story (Bruner, 2004). Players have a tendency to narrativise even situations that do not seem to be narrative at first glance, demonstrate what is considered as classical narrative structure. When the player engages in the gameplay and encounters an enemy, or becomes involved in a conversation with an NPC, these engagements while not narrative in its “texton” form, may become narrativised in the “scripton” form as the text is read/interpreted, through the players’ experience (Aarseth, 1997). The narrative experience is the result of the player interacting with the game. Evidence for the narrativisation of the game content during gameplay can be seen from postgame narrativised discussion of the game (Juul, 2001; Zhou, 2012) which highlights the interpretation of the gameplay moments as a narrativised construct. Thus, gameplay moments in the time frame of the game can be experienced by the player within a narrative context. In Chapter 5, I have discussed an example from the study in The Last of Us where Nasir interprets Tess passing the first aid kit to the PC, Joel in the narrative context of the explosion in the scripted narrative event. Another example is from Beyond: Two Souls where Matt interprets Aiden’s gameplay interaction with the entities in the context of Jodie’s narrative by projecting his narrative interpretation, specifically, his feelings of Jodie and Aiden: Extract 9.1 matt: okay because sometimes you can see these these er situations where Jodie actually controls Aiden to do things. . . . But this one is Aiden acting of his own free will. So maybe it is like Aiden trying to sympathise with her. Right? By doing all these things. So it’s like yes reflective. Reflective of Jodie’s emotions. . . . But at the end of the day ah, at the end of the day, Jodie is your version of Jodie. Aiden is your version of Aiden so your projection of both. Your projection. If you want to separate it, you can. Right? But how can you be how can you think how can you feel for two people at the same time? It’s basically, it’s at the end of the day, still your projection of them. So erm so your feeling is er so it is what you feel. It’s not about what Jodie feels or what Aiden feels. It’s what you feel. Right? If you feel that she should she should be er she should be frustrated, then eventually, it will naturally peel over to what you do with Aiden. So it is at the end of the day, it’s your projection. interviewer: But when you play the game, you are not, you are not projecting it ah? matt: Ya you project, you project your you project what you feel into Aiden’s perspective . . . Ya. So that is why you make Aiden do all these things.

156

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

In games, the micronarratives (Jenkins, 2004) formed by the players do not necessarily conform to traditional narrative structures and rules as there may be a multi-linear narrative formed during the gameplay as a result of the different gameplay choices available to the players. However, whether the micronarratives are formed depend on the players and the game where the gameplay choices may be more limited in more story focused games such as The Walking Dead, The Last of Us, and Beyond: Two Souls and there is less free play. Fludernik (1996) proposes a new model for narrative analysis in “Towards a Natural Narratology”, based on her notions of experientiality, narrativity, and narrativisation. There are two assumptions made on her model. Firstly, the cognitive framework of natural narrative can be applied to all narrative. Secondly, the reading process is fundamental to the constitution of narrativity, which makes a text narrative. According to her model, “narrativity . . . is not a quality adhering to a text, but an attribute imposed on the text by the reader who interprets the text as narrative, thus narrativising the text” (Fludernik, 2003, p. 244). Her model “constitutes narrativity not—as is traditionally the case—in reference to plot or story, but in reference to what [she has] called experientiality” (Fludernik, 2003, p. 245). Experientiality refers to the dynamics between tellability and point which Labov and other discourse analysts note. It describes the usual quality of natural narratives where surprising events impinge on the protagonist (usually coterminous with the narrator) and are resolved by his (or her) reactions which constitute a sequence that provides an illustrative “point” to the story and connects the telling to its immediate discourse context (Fludernik, 2003, p. 245). The concept of experientiality was introduced to describe the purpose and function of the storytelling as a process that captures the narrator’s past experience, reproduces it in a clear manner, and then evaluates and resolves it via the protagonist’s reactions. Finally, the narrator explicitly connects the experiential meaning with the current discourse context (Fludernik, 2003, p. 245). However, Fludernik’s (1996) definition of experientiality does not take into account the players’ experience of PCs where the players can manipulate them by controlling their actions during the gameplay. To incorporate the players’ experientiality into the narrative analysis, I complement Fludernik’s definition of experientiality for NPCs or characters in the cutscenes or scripted narrative events with Pearce’s (2004, p. 145) definition of experiential for gameplay. Pearce (2004, p. 145) defines experiential as the emergent narrative that is produced from the inherent “conflict” of the game from the players’ experience, and the feature of experiential is a component of all games (Pearce, 2004, p. 145). For the narrator, the story’s experientiality resides not just in the events themselves, but in their emotional importance and exemplary nature (Fludernik, 2003). The events become tellable precisely because the narrator is able to find meaning from them and connect to them

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

157

on an emotional level (Fludernik, 2003). Narrativity is thus constituted by the combination of experience reviewed, reorganised, and evaluated (“point”) (Fludernik, 2003). Narrativity depends on story events only to the extent that a significant part of our memorable experience occur in the context of events or series of human actions and reactions (Fludernik, 2003, p. 245). The most important definition of narrativity is not in the series of narrative actions but their experiential (emotional and evaluative) overload, indicating her focus on the human consciousness in defining the object of narrative. I have elicited the experiential, in terms of the players’ emotional and evaluative overload in the gameplay recordings (concurrent protocol analysis) and during the interviews (retrospective protocol analysis), for instance, in Bioshock: Extract 9.2 interviewer: So when you know that you are they are your parents ah. Then what how do you feel now? When you see this Jasmine Jolene’s story. john: Sad lor. How to feel? interviewer: Do you feel emotional for the characters? Or do you still cannot relate to them? john: A bit lah. I have to kill my parents you know. My father killed my mum. Maybe quite bad. interviewer: And then how do you feel about Andrew Ryan now after you find out about the story of Jasmine Jolene? john: He’s bastard lah, that’s why. That’s why going to kill him. (Laughs). interviewer: So does it give you some motivation to kill him? john: Oh. Maybe lah. That time no. interviewer: So I’m guiding you a lot here. john: Ya. interviewer: But if I don’t guide you, do you think what do you think of the Jasmine Jolene’s story? After you hear it. john: er ya lah, I think if I can relate lah maybe I will have motivation to kill Andrew Ryan. Fludernik’s (1996) concept of narrativisation is inspired by Culler’s (1975) notions on naturalisation. Narrativisation is a process or action in which the property of narrativity (as something outside of the text) is imposed on a discourse, thus turning it into a narrative. The process is a dynamic one, and is facilitated by the “interpretative recuperations” carried out during the reading, hearing, viewing, or manipulation process when playing video games. However, the cultural and discoursal context restricts our definition of what can or cannot be a narrative, which shows that narrative is a relative concept. This is one reason why natural

158

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

narratives have been emphasised and the concept of prototype theory is used to suggest that spontaneous oral narration is more universal and is asserted as the prototype for all subsequent cultural developments of mediums and forms of narrative (Fludernik, 1996). Fludernik’s model is divided into four levels. The lowest level is considered as the deep structure of cognitive parameters attaching to narrative. It is related to the “what” to distinguish from the question of “how” in the next two upper levels, which details the manner in which narrative material is conveyed to the person receiving it. The lowest level refers to the basic-level schema such as the readers’ real-world comprehension of what an action, a trajectory, a goal, [agency], etc., consist of (Fludernik, 2003, p. 244). This level is the pre-understanding of how the world functions and contains real-life experience parameters which are the most basic, initial cognitive frames of experiencing. Fludernik (1996) calls these cognitive frames “core schemata” and they relate to presupposed understanding of reality. They make up a configuration of an experienced event that includes (and must include) an evaluation of it and its meaning. This configuration is a mechanism of causality and holds that final causes that exist in nature, e.g. purposes found in human actions, tend towards definite ends, and must be in mutual agreement with the function of evaluation. These cognitive schemas are natural as being part of our consciousness, which enable us to grasp a world of action and change. Herman (2002, p. 331) argues that stories trigger recipients to establish a relatively direct or oblique relationship between the stories they are interpreting and the contexts where they are interpreting them. This prompts the recipients to relate “two types of mental models”, one that they build up from the textual cues, and the other based on their prior experience in the real-world. Hence, there are two classes of mental models, which are formed from the text and the recipient’s real-life mental model of the world, to form the “complete” cognitive schema of the game world. The players’ understanding of the gameplay rules is incorporated into their mental model of the video game narrative. Ryan’s (2003) constituents of cognitive maps, which include inventory, spatial relations, and mapping style and additional constituents such as interactive character movement and interactive character movement with action are brought under the lowest level of Fludernik’s (2003) model. These constituents incorporate the linguistic and visual signs. The lowest level forms the players’ cognitive schema of the video game narrative. The second level of Fludernik’s (2003) model consists of the schemata that define the narrative material within a perspectival paradigm in terms of the ACTION, TELLING, EXPERIENCING, VIEWING, and REFLECTING frames (Fludernik, 2003, p. 244). These cognitive schemata/frames/parameters mediate a story to the recipient and render it accessible. These categories are natural as “explanatory patterns” are utilised by us to understand our daily experience. The second level is

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

159

also reflective, which takes into account the presence of consciousness. The ACTION frame consists of the experiential core and it focuses on the protagonist’s consciousness. It is presented as a series of events and reactions to them. In video games, it concentrates on the PC, the event s/ he is involved in and his/her reactions. However, the player also occupies the perspective of the PC during gameplay. I do not see the player as synonymous to the PC as the player may sometimes not relate to the PC due to the different EXPERIENCING frame. When this occurs, there is player-(game designers’) character dissonance discussed in Chapter 4. The core of experientiality can also be focused on the TELLING frame in which our familiarity with storytelling is being foregrounded. In this frame, a narrator, either explicit or implicit, tells a story to us. The teller’s consciousness is emphasised in the TELLING frame. The VIEWING frame is concerned with witness narratives and the cognitive mode conceptualises an on-the-screen spectator watching the narrative events. This frame focuses on the viewer’s consciousness and in video games, this frame focuses on the player when s/he is watching the video game cutscenes. In the gameplay, when the player is performing1 an action when the game is conveying a scripted designer’s story, the PERFORMATIVE frame takes over. Pearce (2004, p. 145) defines performative as the emergent narrative which is seen by players watching and/or interpreting the game [narrative] underway during gameplay when they are given control of the PC. The EXPERIENCING frame directly touches on the narrative’s experiential core, focusing on the protagonist’s consciousness and immersion in the experience (Fludernik, 2003, p. 246). Pearce’s (2004, p. 145) EXPERIENTIAL frame (defined above) is the equivalent term for the players’ experience of narrative in the gameplay and has overlaps with the PERFORMATIVE frame. Based on the empirical data, I define the EXPERIENTIAL frame as involving more emotional and evaluative overload as the players’ response elicited in the gameplay recordings and the interviews such as anger, sadness, happiness, disgust, and so on. During the interview, Michael mentioned that in Mass Effect, he felt angry when the NPC did not give him the gameplay objective(s) but instead, directed him to another NPC. The PERFORMATIVE frame involves more cognitive thinking/interpretation as the players piece together/project the video game narrative when VIEWING/PERFORMING the gameplay actions. As we have discussed earlier, Matt mentioned that in Beyond: Two Souls, he projected his interpretation of Aiden’s gameplay actions during the interview to reflect Jodie’s mental state in the narrative. Finally, the REFLECTING frame concerns the mental evaluation of the experience (Fludernik, 2003, p. 246), which gives rise to a mode of narrative transmission. It focuses on the teller’s consciousness. In video games, the REFLECTNG frame refers to the player who thinks back on the scripted and non-scripted narrative during and/or after the gameplay which is present in the gameplay recordings. These five frames combine

160

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

together to mediate the video game narrative to the player. During the cutscene, the frames that are present include the (N)PC’s ACTION, EXPERIENCING, and the players’ VIEWING. During the gameplay, the ACTION frame occurs in which the player uses a PERFORMATIVE frame to interpret the interactive story as a narrative and/or gameplay event. In addition to the basic frames from Fludernik’s (1996) model, I add two more frames to the video game analysis framework, namely, the MANIPULATION and AUGMENTARY frames. Fludernik’s (1996) model does not take into account the players’ action involvement during the gameplay. Therefore, I add the MANIPULATION frame (Eskelinen, 2001) which I define as the players’ ability to control the PC’s movement and action in the video game to interact with game objects and manipulate the PC (Toh, 2016). This frame focuses on the players’ consciousness. The narrative “operator”, AUGMENTARY, is defined by Pearce (2004, p. 145) as layers of information, interpretation, backstory, and contextual frameworks concerning the game that enhance other narrative operators. The AUGMENTARY frame includes the embedded narrative such as Bioshock’s audio logs and the notes found in The Last of Us. The third level of Fludernik’s (1996) model incorporates the players’ interpretation of the information from the video game to form a narrative according to their knowledge of the cultural patterns of storytelling and includes genres and conventions. Fludernik (1996) does not contrast “cultural” with “natural”, and she argues that this level is also natural as we naturally employ these culturally acquired capabilities. This level includes the poetics of a genre, and the generic and historical frames such as the “dramatic monologue” or “satire” schemata (Fludernik, 2003, p. 244), enabling its creation and consumption. In video games, this level is equivalent to the players’ current knowledge of the generic features of familiar video games they have played, in terms of how video games function to enable the players’ gameplay actions, restricted by the rules, and obstructed by the challenges in which the players have to overcome to achieve the game goal. This level is also concerned with the players’ knowledge of how video game narratives are different from traditional narratives and also how the video game narrative combines with the gameplay in their mental model to form the players’ experience. The fourth level of Fludernik’s (1996, pp. 43–45) model is the level of narrativisation that combines the elements from the first three levels in order to constitute narrativity. It is a dynamic process of narrativisation in one narrative. Here, we employ the previous levels to construct a coherent narrative that settles problems and contradictions in the understanding of the text. Fludernik’s (1996) modified model which is combined with Ryan’s (2003) modified cognitive maps to form the video game narrative analysis framework is presented in Table 9.1 below.

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

161

Table 9.1 Fludernik’s (2003) model adapted for video game narrative analysis Level

Constituents

1

Deep structure—Players’ core schemata based on the information conveyed via the multimodal semiotic resources from the video game narrative, which are constituted by Ryan’s (2003) modified cognitive maps. Focuses on human experientiality. Mediation—Narrativisation by means of consciousness. Consists of a complex natural category with several frames to choose from. The original five cognitive frames from Fludernik’s (1996) model consist of ACTION, TELLING, EXPERIENCING/EXPERIENTIAL, VIEWING/ PERFORMATIVE, AND REFLECTING. For video games, the additional frames of MANIPULATION and AUGMENTARY are added. Genres, and conventions—Concerned with the cultural patterns of storytelling. In video games, it is not only concerned with the gameplay, but also concerned with how video game narrative is different from traditional narrative, and how gameplay combines with the narrative. The players’ subjective knowledge of video games provides explanations for the different players’ experience. The final level is the surface level, in which the player combines the knowledge of the previous levels to construct a coherent video game narrative.

2

3

4

Fludernik also argues that the “naturalisation” process starts from the deep structure. When the players interact with a new video game, they are at first unfamiliar with the inner workings of the video game rules and mechanics. They have to play the game a few times to form a basic cognitive schema of how the different semiotic resources convey narrative information to the player. The players have to learn the affordances, the gameplay rules, and understand the different degrees of interactivity of the various objects in the game world. The players will utilise the MANIPULATION cognition schema to understand how the game world is mediated to them in terms of the game rules. When the basic schema from the first level and the mediation schema from the second level have become familiarised, the players then construct the cognitive schema for the generic convention of the video game. As the video game becomes familiarised when it has been released for some time and its generic features become stabilised, the video game (narrative) of a specific generic mixture will become naturalised. However, when playing the game, the players’ mental model does not always have to necessarily start from the deep structure. If the action in any gameplay segment matches the players’ general knowledge schema (context) or a generic schema (learnt from prior experience of other texts), the interpretation process may start topdown (Arsenault & Perron, 2009). For some of the players in the study such as Michael, it can also be argued that a combination of bottom-up

162

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

and top-down process is involved in the formation of the mental model. Having discussed the video game narrative analysis model, I will next provide a sample analysis using Beyond: Two Souls to demonstrate how the model can be used to understand the player’s mental model of the video game narrative.

Application of Video Game Narrative Analysis Model The gameplay segment from Beyond: Two Souls which I have chosen for the demonstration analysis is titled, “My Imaginary Friend . . .” which is Chapter 8 in play order, but Chapter 1 in the story’s chronological order. The story in this chapter consists of two parts where the first part involves interaction in Jodie’s house and the second part involves interaction outside of the house. I will only analyse the first part. In the gameplay segment, the player can explore the house by controlling Jodie to move around and interact with objects, her parents or switching to Aiden to interact with objects which are out of reach from Jodie. The story emerges from the player’s interaction and is constituted in the mental model of the player’s video game narrative. Depending on the player’s choice of actions, the micro details in the story will be different and may serve a characterisation purpose of the PC, Jodie, or uncover her relationship with her parents and Aiden. Additionally, the more the player explores the house and interacts with objects, more backstory for Jodie will be revealed to facilitate a deeper understanding of her. After a few minutes into the chapter, Jodie’s mother will ask her (the player) to get some cooking oil for her in the garage (Figure 9.4). Starting from the deep structure of the video game narrative analysis model, Michael forms the cognitive map of inventory where he perceives the bottle of oil as the obligatory object required to progress the narrative and the exploration of the house as an optional object. The cognitive map of

Figure 9.4 The PC’s goal to get the oil from the garage

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

163

spatial relations is more problematic for Michael as he has to calculate the distance between Jodie’s mother, his PC, Jodie, and the specific location of the bottle of oil. The locations of the characters are explicit but the bottle of oil’s location is implicit as there is no affordance given for its location in the house except that it is in the garage. In this case, the spatial relations cannot be formed and Michael cannot complete the obligatory object. Thus, he embarked on the optional object of exploring the house so that he would be able to find the obligatory object through the optional object. For the cognitive map of mapping style, there are conventional/ symbolic indicators which include the white dot that the player by then would have learnt what it stands for. The white dot is an indicator for the player that the objects can be interacted with (Figures 9.5 & 9.6). These symbolic indicators serve as affordance for the player to explore the house by trial and error to find the garage in which the bottle of oil is located.

Figure 9.5 Conventional/symbolic indicators

Figure 9.6 Conventional/symbolic indicators

164

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

Figure 9.7 The box of memories as a narrative iconic object

The narrative iconic object includes the box of memories in one of the rooms located at the second floor of the house (Figure 9.7). When the player interacts with it using Aiden, it unlocks backstory in the form of a flashback which is shown in black and white to distinguish it from the present of the story. The flashback reveals the backstory explaining Jodie’s childhood, specifically why her relationship with her “father” is bad. However, in the study, Michael did not find the box, as he did not explore the room upstairs. When Matt found it, he did not know that he has to use Aiden to interact with it to induce a flashback for the player (Extract 9.3). In this case, the indexical mapping style is absent as there is no explicit multimodal affordance, such as the linguistic or visual semiotic resource to guide the player to use Aiden to interact with the box. The available affordance only indicates to the player that he can use Jodie to interact with it. In this sense, Beyond: Two Souls’ deterministic story structure (Chapman, 2016) is focused on offering players narrative discovery over narrative creation and its story structure can be characterised by Ryan’s (2006, p. 200) “narratively organised system for playing”. Extract 9.3 interviewer: You said there’s a box on top of the cupboard there. When Jodie was very young that time. . . . But then you press the X thing and then. . . . matt: Like eh never mind. interviewer: You cannot you cannot open the box. matt: Huh? interviewer: But actually, you can use Aiden to. . . . matt: Knock open the box ah? interviewer: Interact with the box and then use Aiden to have a flashback.

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

165

matt: Oh you can? interviewer: For Jodie. And then you can get more backstory. matt: Oh I didn’t know that. On level 2 of the video game narrative analysis model, the ACTION frame (which constitutes the cognitive map of interactive character movement with action) consists of the narrative event of Jodie exploring the house, interacting with the telephone, the door, Jodie’s father, and her reactions to them. In the TELLING frame, there is no explicit narrator telling us the story. The VIEWING frame consists of the cutscene where the gameplay is suspended and the player watches Jodie talking on the telephone with her imaginary friend, Aiden (Figure 9.8). The PERFORMATIVE frame also takes over when the player interprets Jodie talking with Aiden on the telephone as he controls her to pick up the phone. From the gameplay observation of Michael, the EXPERIENCING frame tells us that Michael was able to immerse in the optional object of exploring Jodie’s house, but was unable to immerse in the obligatory object of finding the bottle of oil in the garage. He commented that he was playing a game where he did not know where the garage was even though he/ the PC has been living in the house since young. The EXPERIENCING frame therefore creates a specific narrative experience of confusion which is constituted in the cognitive map of the PC’s interactive character movement with action to characterise Jodie as an uncertain and insecure child living in her house for Michael. The REFLECTING frame is related to the EXPERIENCING frame where Michael commented during the gameplay and post gameplay interview that he was playing a game where he did not know where the garage was (Extract 9.4). The presence of the player-(game designers’) character dissonance prevented him from immersing in the PC’s narrative role. The MANIPULATION frame involves the player’s control of the PC to move around the house, explore it and interact with the various objects found in it. The AUGMENTARY frame includes the character

Figure 9.8 The VIEWING frame where the player watches Jodie

166

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

interaction with the telephone, her father and the box of memories which unlock embedded narrative to deepen the player’s narrative experience. Extract 9.4 interviewer: When you mentioned that you cannot find the garage. . . . Even though you lived in the house for the entire life ah. . . . Do you find that there’s some disjunction between yourself and the character you are playing as ah? michael: Of course. interviewer: So that means can I say that you still cannot relate to the character? michael: Let me ask you this question ah. . . . Do you have a garage in your house? interviewer: No. michael: No right? I don’t have either. Already cannot relate. Where’s the garage. To us, where do you usually park your car? interviewer: Carpark ah. michael: Carpark right? Must be downstairs right? This one is not. Most garage are beside the house. interviewer: Do you think that this one is made more for an American audience ah? michael: Probably. The third level of the video game narrative analysis model enables us to know how the player interprets the narrative information according to his/her knowledge of the cultural pattern of storytelling and includes genre and conventions. As Michael has some experience playing point and click adventure games, such as Myst, he was able to know that he had to explore the house by trial and error to find the bottle of oil. Even though the game does not give explicit affordance for the obligatory object, the bottle of oil, he was not stuck for a long time. From his experience with Beyond: Two Souls, he mentioned that he is playing the story (Ryan, 2009) as it is very linear and scripted: Extract 9.5 Ya so I’m playing a story book of my life where I’m trying to find a garage when I lived in this house for the whole of my life. [Opens garage door]. This door? [Switch on light]. Orh I think it is this door. He commented that the gameplay is the narrative, as the game will sometimes run by itself without the player providing inputs to influence the game. He mentioned that there is a limited time in which he could influence the game and things could happen regardless of whether the player likes it or not. However, he also felt that the game is inconsistent, as sometimes it would not proceed if he did not interact with the game:

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

167

Extract 9.6 michael: Until now, I think every choices I make will affect the gameplay and the narrative. So for this particular game, it’s all about the narrative. It’s a game that er you are playing the narrative. Ya there’s no distinction from what I see. You are playing the narrative. So much so that I’m not in control. It’s like reading a story book. I must read from left to right from page one to page two. Although I have a choice of er maybe at some junction to maybe like skip to the other pages like in a adventure story book. But that’s about it. So I’m actually the gameplay. [Game asking player to get the oil from the garage]. See the gameplay is the narrative. It will advance without it will not wait for me lah. It will do what he wants to do. interviewer: If you don’t do anything for ten hours, she will still stay there? michael: This scene ah? The let’s not waste any time lah. See? It’s not consistent you know? interviewer: Why not? michael: Because now I can stand down there for ten hours and do nothing. michael: Earlier scene if I don’t do anything, he make the choice for me. In this sense, Michael mentioned that the game is trying to emulate life (Extract 9.5) which left him confused as to what he was going to do. His confusion was due to the fact that he did not have the cultural knowledge of the location of the American garage inside the house (Extract 9.4). In Singapore, the equivalent term of the garage is the carpark found at the bottom of the housing block. This disjunction in the cultural knowledge of the garage left him confused as to its location in the house. The mental model of the garage’s location in the game world therefore cannot be formed and retrieved from the player’s object location memory. On the fourth level, the player combines the knowledge of the previous levels to construct a coherent video game narrative. From his understanding of the narrative, Michael mentioned that he was unable to connect emotionally to the PC, Jodie. The reasons are because of the disjunction in his cultural knowledge of the garage’s location and the lack of explicit affordance in the cognitive map guiding him in the garage’s direction. Having discussed the video game narrative analysis framework, I will discuss the micro components of the video gameplay analysis framework in the next chapter.

Summary Chapters 8 and 9 discuss the video game narrative analysis model to understand how the players’ process of cognitive interpretation and emotional reactions to the video game narrative can be described. The

168

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

video game narrative model is grounded in the context of the empirical data which includes the method triangulation approach (Denzin, 2006; Torrance, 2012; Barr, 2017) of the multimodal discourse analysis of the gameplay recordings, gameplay observation in the laboratory, concurrent protocol analysis in the gameplay recordings, interviews, and retrospective protocol analysis. The model is summarised in Table 9.2 below.

Table 9.2 The video game narrative analysis model Level Constituents 1

2

3 4

Deep structure—Focuses on human experientiality Ryan’s (2003) modified cognitive maps (1) Inventory—Priority in which the players place on specific objects in their mental representation. Objects can be classified as obligatory or optional. (2) Spatial Relations—Players’ evaluation of distance between two or more objects. Objects may be stationary or dynamic. Cognitive map may either map to a narrative or gameplay event. (3) Mapping Style—Process in which players map an object to their mental models. Cognitive map may either map an object to a narrative or gameplay object. Mapping style can be conventional/symbolic, iconic or indexical. Categories are not mutually exclusive, i.e. objects can be both narrative and gameplay or both symbolic and iconic. (4) Interactive Character Movement—The players’ control of the PC in the game world. Movement may be stationary or dynamic. Cognitive map may map the characters’ movement to the PC’s characterisation, narrative conflict in the plot or gameplay challenges or both. (5) Interactive Character Movement with Action—The players’ control of the PC to move in the game world to interact with game objects. Movement may be stationary or dynamic. Cognitive map may map the interactive character movement with action to the character’s narrative role or gameplay function or both. Mediation—Schemata or frames that define the narrative material within a perspectival paradigm. Modification of Fludernik (1996, 2003). (1) Action—The events the PC is involved in and reactions. (2) Telling—A narrator (implicit or explicit) tells the story to the player. (3) Experiencing/Performative—Players’ immersion in the emergent narrative. (4) Viewing—The player watches the narrative events. (5) Reflecting—The player thinks back on the scripted and non-scripted narrative. (6) Manipulation—The players’ control of the PCs to interact with itself or other objects. (7) Augmentary—Contextual frameworks around the game such as backstory. Genres and conventions—The players’ current knowledge of the generic features of familiar video games they have played in their situated contexts. Surface overall structure—The dynamic process of narrativisation where the player utilises elements from the first three levels to constitute narrativity.

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

169

This model provides the analytical lens for the multimodal discourse analysis of the gameplay recordings which modifies, develops, and integrates Ryan’s (2003) cognitive maps, and Fludernik’s (1996, 2003) natural narratology and cognitive parameters. I have used the model as an analytical lens to review and analyse the gameplay recordings. I have also created open-ended interview questions during the analysis process to triangulate my analysis and interpretations with the players’ interpretations of the video game narrative during the retrospective protocol analysis in the interviews. This is an iterative process where my analysis and interpretations are combined with the players’ responses to co-construct the ludonarrative model and its respective subcategories with them. The narrative side of the ludonarrative model is shown in Figure 9.9 below. As we can see in Figure 9.9, the narrative provides the context for the players’ cognitive interpretation of the video game based on the semiotic resources. The semiotic resources are manifested as visuals in the graphics and linguistic semiotic resources in the characters’ utterances. The dotted lines bracketing the different components of the model indicate that the players’ cognitive interpretation of the narrative is not always present when the player focuses on the gameplay. The downward arrows indicate that the direction of narrative interpretation flows downwards. The players interpret the narrative using the semiotic resources in the cutscenes, dialogue, and gameplay. In games such as The Walking Dead, the players may have control to select specific choices such as clicking on narrative objects to obtain backstory or selecting dialogue to contribute to consequences where the PC’s relationship with the other NPCs changes. A cognitive model of the narrative is formed in the four different levels of the narrative analysis model. This cognitive model may or may not finally map to the narrative elements such as “character development”, “characterisation”, “plot”, and “theme”, depending on the player’s interpretations. These narrative elements can also be related to each other via causality. For instance, “character development” can cause “plot progression” and vice versa which contributes to the “narrative theme”. However, as I have discussed during the conceptualisation of the model, the players’ interpretation may also proceed top-down, depending on the players’ contextual knowledge and prior experience. Alternatively, the players can combine both bottom-up and top-down processes in order to construct the mental model of the video game narrative. I have integrated the video game narrative analysis model into the ludonarrative model. All the analyses which I have conducted using the narrative model on the gameplay recordings contribute to the formulation of the respective subcategories of the ludonarrative relationships in the ludonarrative model, grounded in the empirical data of the players. For instance, I have formulated the ludonarrative subcategory of “irrelevance—incomplete information problems” in Chapter 6 from the

Figure 9.9 The narrative side of the ludonarrative model

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

171

empirical data where Matt was unware that he can interact with the box of memories using Aiden to unlock backstory for the characters due to insufficient multimodal cues. I have also used the analytical lenses in the model to highlight the different quantity (amount) and quality (in terms of interpretation) of narrative that different players uncovered when playing the game. This enables us to understand how and why different players understand the (narrative) structure of games differently.

Note 1 For the counterargument that gamers are not performers, see Kania (2018).

References Aarseth, E. (1997). Cybertext: Perspectives on Ergodic Literature. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Arsenault, D., & Perron, B. (2009). In the Frame of the Magic Cycle: The Circle(s) of Gameplay. In P. Bernard & W. J. P. Mark (Eds.), The Video Game Theory Reader 2. New York: Routledge. Bacon, H. (2007). Cognition and the Aesthetics of Reexperience. In J. D. Anderson & B. F. Anderson (Eds.), Narration and Spectatorship in Moving Images (pp. 260–276). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Barr, M. (2017). Press Start: The Value of an Online Student-Led, Peer-Reviewed Game Studies Journal. Research in Learning Technology, 25, 1982. http:// dx.doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1982 Bruner, J. (2004). Life as Narrative. Journal of Social Research, 3(71), 691–710. Available from http://ewasteschools.pbworks.com/f/Bruner_J_LifeAsNarrative. pdf (Accessed: 16 Dec 2017). Bryce, J., & Rutter, J. (2002). Spectacle of the Deathmatch: Character and Narrative in First Person Shooters. In G. King & T. Krzywinska (Eds.), ScreenPlay: Cinema/Videogames/Interfaces (pp. 66–80). New York, NY: Wallflower Press. Calinescu, M. (1993). Rereading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Cassidy, S. B. (2011). The Videogame as Narrative. Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 28(4), 292–306. Chapman, A. (2016). Digital Games as History: How Videogames Represent the Past and Offer Access to Historical Practice. New York: Routledge. Crawford, C. (1984). The Art of Computer Game Design. Berkeley, CA: Osborne and McGraw-Hill. Culler, J. (1975). Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. De Jean, J., Upitis, R., Koch, C., & Young, J. (1999). The Story of Phoenix Quest: How Girls Respond to a Prototype Language and Mathematics Computer Game. Gender and Education, 11(2), 207–223. DeMarle, M. (2007). Nonlinear Game Narrative. In C. Bateman (Ed.), Game Writing: Narrative Skills for Videogames (pp. 71–84). Boston, MA: Charles River Media. Denzin, N. (Ed.). (2006). Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.

172

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

Eskelinen, M. (2001). The Gaming Situation. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1(1). Fassone, R. (2017). Every Game Is an Island: Endings and Extremities in Video Games. New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Fludernik, M. (1996). Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London and New York: Routledge. Fludernik, M. (2003). Natural Narratology and Cognitive Parameters. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 243–267). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Herman, D. (2002). Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press. Jenkins, H. (2004). Game Design as Narrative Architecture. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game (pp. 118–130). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Available from www. electronicbookreview.com/thread/firstperson/lazzi-fair (Accessed: 16 Dec 2017). Juul, J. (2001). Games Telling Stories? A Brief Note on Games and Narratives. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1(1). Available from www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts/ (Accessed: 17 Jul 2015). Juul, J. (2005). Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kania, A. (2018). Why Gamers Are Not Performers. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 76(2). First published: 30 Apr 2018. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jaac.12451 Mallon, B., & Webb, B. (2006). Applying a Phenomenological Approach to Games Analysis: A Case Study. Simulation & Gaming, 37(2), 209–225. McIntosh, B., Cohn, R., & Grace, L. (2010). Nonlinear Narrative in Games: Theory and Practice. Available from www.gamecareerguide.com/features/882/ nonlinear_narrative_in_games_.php?print=1 (Accessed: 16 Dec 2017). Murray, J. H. (n.d.). Humanistic Design for an Emerging Medium: Glossary. Available from http://inventingthemedium.com/glossary/ (Accessed: 16 Dec 2017). Nell, V. (1988). Lost in a Book: The Psychology of Reading for Pleasure. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Odden, K. (1998). Retrieving Childhood Fantasies: A Psychoanalytic Look at Why We (Re)read Popular Literature. In D. Galef (Ed.), Second Thoughts: A Focus on Rereading (pp. 126–151). Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Pearce, C. (2004). Towards a Game Theory of Game. In N. Wardrip-Fruin & P. Harrigan (Eds.), First Person: New Media as Story, Performance and Game (pp. 143–153). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Richard, R. (2004). Game Design: Theory and Practice. Plano, TX: Wordware Publishing, Inc. Riedl, M., & Young, R. M. (2006). From Linear Story Generation to Branching Story Graphs. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 26, 23–31. Ryan, M.-L. (2003). Cognitive Maps and the Construction of Narrative Space. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 214–242). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Ryan, M.-L. (2006). Avatars of Story. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.

Narration II—Narrative Analysis Framework

173

Ryan, M.-L. (2009). From Narrative Games to Playable Stories: Towards a Poetics of Interactive Narrative. Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies, 1(1), 43–59. Sylvester, T. (2013). Designing Games: A Guide to Engineering Experiences. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc. Tawfik, A. A., Schmidt, M. M., & Msilu, F. (2018). Stories as Decision Scaffolds: Understanding Nonlinear Storytelling Using Case-Based Reasoning and Educational Design Research. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & K. Kaminski (Eds.), Educational Technology and Narrative (pp. 21–38). Cham: Springer. Toh, W. (2016). Gamers and Their Weapons: An Appraisal Perspective on Weapons Manipulation in Video Games. In S. Tettegah & W. D. Huang (Eds.), Emotions, Technology and Digital Games (pp. 83–114). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Torrance, H. (2012). Triangulation, Respondent Validation, and Democratic Participation in Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 111–123. doi:10.1177/1558689812437185 Wood, T. A., Griffiths, M. D., Chappell, D., & Davies, N. O. (2004). The Structural Characteristics of Video Games: A Psycho-Structural Analysis. CyberPsychology & Behaviour, 7(1), 1–10. Zhou, X. (2012). Designing Games to Be Retold. Master’s Thesis. National University of Singapore.

10 Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

Some scholars (e.g. Eskelinen, 2001; Juul, 2005) have argued that the gameplay is the core component of video games in which the mechanics the players act on produce a kind of narrative experience for them (Larsen & Schoenau-Fog, 2016; Dubbelman, 2016, 2017; Sim & Mitchell, 2017). However, is it necessarily always the case that the players will generate narrative interpretations when they interact with the gameplay mechanics? In Chapter 8, we have discussed how game design issues related to the affordances (Beyond: Two Souls), user interface, and gameplay (The Graveyard) had distracted players and hindered the formation of the emergent narrative in their player experience. The presentation of the game in non-chronological discoursal order would also increase the players’ cognitive load in their narrative interpretation (Lang, 1989). Game narratives presented non-chronologically make it more challenging for causal links to form in the players’ mental models to interrelate the different narrative events with each other to form the plot of the narrative.1 This is because players have to finish playing the game before they can reorganise the narrative events into chronological order to make sense of it. This can be seen in the game Beyond: Two Souls where the players (Matt and Michael) mentioned that they were playing the life story of the PC, Jodie, and each of the chapters are self-contained stories. Mitchell et al.’s (2017) empirical study of the player experience also showed that the non-chronological presentation of time, in the form of film-like jump cuts in the game, Thirty Flights of Loving (Blendo Games, 2012) was a source of confusion for the players as they were struggling to make sense of the game at a surface level. In this chapter, I will discuss the gameplay elements of the video games to understand how the players’ (inter)actions are related to the video game narrative or whether the players focus more on the gameplay challenges, goals, character customisation, and so on such that their narrative interpretations are backgrounded. Following the theoretical discussion in Chapters 1 and 2 where games are action (Galloway, 2006) and performance-oriented, we will first discuss our adaptation of Manninen’s (2003) model for the study of the players’ actions when playing the game by grounding it in the players’ empirical data. The micro actions of the players are structured in a

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

175

feedback loop (Montfort, 2003; Heaton, 2006) with the mechanics (Rollings & Adams, 2003; Hunicke et al., 2004; Sicart, 2008) during gameplay and thus, Fabricatore’s (2007) modified framework is used as a means to integrate the players’ actions and the mechanics into a common framework. In a playthrough of a video game, there are many cycles of feedback loops. Common types of feedback loops combine with each other to become the common gameplay phase types based on patterns (Björk & Holopainen, 2005) in the video gameplay, such as interactions with common enemies, bosses, solving puzzles, quest structure (Fabricatore & López, 2014), and so on to form quests (Ryan & Martens, 2017). Finally, the common gameplay phase types combine with each other to form the video gameplay at the level of the gameplay stages. In the next two sections, we will discuss Montfort (2003) and Heaton’s (2006) model to provide the theoretical basis to construct the feedback loop for the gameplay model.

Montfort’s (2003) Interactional Framework in Interactive Fiction In Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction, Montfort (2003, p. 25) mentions that a work of IF is not essentially a narrative and it is an interactive computer programme. Montfort proceeds to provide examples to demonstrate how a person interacts with IF. He suggests that there is an input and output which forms an exchange. Following Genette’s (1980) terminology, Montfort (2003, p. 26) states that an input that refers to an action in the IF world is a command and the input is diegetic. Commands are usually in the form of imperatives to the PC and do not have to refer to a physical action (Montfort, 2003, p. 26). Commands that fail, but are still understood by the parser, are still considered commands. An input which refers to several actions (e.g. take all) consists of several commands which are decomposed by the parser. Montfort (2003, p. 26) proceeds to argue that all other inputs which consist of save, restore, quit, restart, changing the setting’s details, or addressing an entity to ask for hints which are not part of the IF are categorised as directives. Following Genette (1980), Montfort (2003, p. 26) categorised a directive as extradiegetic. Commands and directives are thus different sets. Montfort (2003, p. 27) next discussed about outputs. He suggests that outputs that follow the interactor’s input and describe anything about the IF world and events in it (including the PC’s inability to enact a particular action as commanded) are replies (Montfort, 2003, p. 27). It is a reply as long as it describes the IF world regardless of whether it is a direct result of what the interactor typed, or the event it described occurred because of a timed or random event. All other outputs that do not describe the IF world are reports. Montfort’s (2003) taxonomy of inputs and outputs, and the relationship between them and the roles of interactor and PC, are reproduced in Table 10.1 below.

176

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

Table 10.1 Montfort’s (2003) two level of diegesis

Input Example Output Example

Extra-diegetic

Diegetic

Interactor Directive Quit Report Are you sure you want to quit?

PC Command Pick up the phone booth Reply You find nothing of interest there.

Figure 10.1 Montfort’s (2003) units of interaction with IF

Montfort (2003) also suggests that there are higher units of interaction with IF. For instance, an exchange is made up of one command and the reply that follows it. An exchange also corresponds to a cycle just like how command and reply correspond to input and output. A series of exchanges that are part of the same narration, and presented with all the embedded directives and reports, makes up a course. A single course can extend across several sessions and also across several interactions. Finally, at the highest level, a traversal of an IF is a course extending from a prologue to a final reply, and from an initial situation to a final situation. Montfort’s (2003) different units of interaction with IF is shown in Figure 10.1 above.

Heaton’s (2006) Circular Model of Gameplay Heaton’s (2006) theoretical model demonstrates how gameplay could hypothetically work when the player interacts with the game elements. The model is abstract and aims to be universal, which is applicable to any type of game. The model’s starting point assumes that gameplay is a property of all games and it consists of a set of interactions between the player and the game, and the model is focused on the player and the player’s actions (Heaton, 2006). The player is an obligatory element (Pagulayan et al., 2003; Gee, 2008; Nacke & Drachen, 2011) of the model as it assumes that gameplay is only present when the game is linked to a human agent. The model contains two components, the player and the game. The player is a human who has elected to play and the game is a system that the player interacts with. Everything which is not the player is part of the game, including other players. All information is conveyed to the player through clearly defined output channels and the player’s actions are

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

177

conveyed through clearly defined input channels (Heaton, 2006). Gameplay occurs when the player interacts with the game. The interaction in this model is circular, it is a flow of information from the game to the player and from the player back to the game. The flow is always in the same direction and no stage can be missed (Heaton, 2006). The initial gameplay interaction model is shown in Figure 10.2. The model also uses only one player and the game when applied to a multiplayer game. Heaton (2006) further develops the gameplay model. He suggests that three things must happen for the gameplay to be present. First, the player must be able to get information about the state of the game. Second, the player must be able to affect the game, creating new states. Third, new game states must be communicated to the player, prompting further actions. Furthermore, in almost all types of games, the game creates new states without the player’s input. New states can be created from other players and through random procedurally generated gameplay events. The updated gameplay model is shown in Figure 10.3, with the interface as part of the model.

Figure 10.2 Initial gameplay model (Heaton, 2006)

Figure 10.3 The model incorporating the player’s observation, action, and interface (Heaton, 2006)

178

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

Heaton (2006) continues to develop the model once more to take into account the player’s decision-making process, which takes place between observation and action. Heaton (2006) suggests that in each cycle of the model, there is only one decision made. A key feature of gameplay in Heaton’s (2006) model is that the player is repeatedly making decisions. Between observation and action, the player uses analytical skills (cf., Jørgensen’s (2003) model of problem-solving for computer games). The player analyses the current and potential future states of the game which inform the player’s decision. The player then attempts to make the best course of action. At the end of the analysis stage, the player makes a decision. The player may also fail to act where a decision was possible. The player’s analytical skills support the decision. After the decision has been made, the player uses another set of skills to implement the decision. Anyone can make a game-related decision, but the skills required to bring that decision about are what distinguishes between a good and a bad player. Action games tends to test the player’s implementation skills, while strategy games tend to test for analytical skills. Each cycle has only one decision and implementation within it. If many decisions are made at once, the model may be applied many times in the same time span of the game. Heaton’s (2006) complete model is shown in Figure 10.4.

Figure 10.4 Heaton’s (2006) gameplay model incorporating the player’s decisionmaking

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

179

There are clear limitations in Heaton’s (2006) model as it is best suited for the analysis of turn-based games such as chess. We can see that the analysis, decision, and implementation are obvious and clearly demarcated, but it is more difficult when one analyses a real-time game. There are overlapping gameplay cycles and the game itself does not have clearly separated phases. The model is also a deliberate simplification and it is challenging to find out the sort of decisions the player is making at every point of the game to understand the scale of analysis and implementation required. Heaton (2006) terms a single complete cycle as a unit of interaction. Each unit of interaction requires analysis, decision, implementation, and change in game state. The unit of interaction can be used as a means to test the game to see if it has given the players enough time to make decisions before they act. The model is descriptive rather than prescriptive and a simplification which describes gameplay in a stripped down and obvious way. Its main purpose is to be used as a building block from which to construct larger scale and less-obvious theories of how games work. The benefits for game designers is that the model’s circularity creates regular patterns of thought and action in the player, who repeatedly makes decisions which are similar but unique. If the game designer is able to analyse the gameplay patterns of different players using qualitative and/ or quantitative methods, it would be possible to design new games which incorporate the players’ decision-making (Hiwiller, 2016; Rosqvist, 2017; Rosqvist et al., 2017; Chuang, 2018) in the game to further facilitate or challenge the player. In the next section, we will discuss the player’s motive(s) to incorporate the player experience into the gameplay model.

The Player’s Motive(s) The player experience is an important factor that contributes to the overall game experience. There are many factors which contribute to the player experience. Some of these factors include the players’ gaming preferences (Merritt et al., 2011), player motivations (Ryan et al., 2006; Yee, 2006, 2007; Koo et al., 2007; Bostan, 2009; Koo, 2009; Tseng & Teng, 2015; Bae et al., 2016; Bostan & Catak, 2016; Yee, 2016; Li & Luh, 2017), player type (Bartle, 1996; Orji et al., 2013; Tseng, 2011; Hamari & Tuunanen, 2014), personality factors (Johnson & Gardner, 2010; Birk et al., 2015), and the way in which the game is designed (Bostan & Kaplancali, 2009; Bostan & Öğüt, 2011; Luh et al., 2016; Sailer et al., 2017). These factors will influence the players’ actions and their corresponding mental model of the video game narrative. The players’ motives are considered as significant factors and are therefore incorporated under the gameplay module of the ludonarrative model. The players’ motives in this book are seen from two perspectives, namely as the contextual factors to interlink the player with the PC, and to interlink the player’s actions with the game world.

180

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

Table 10.2 Mette and Nils’ (2013) Interactive Goal, Motivation, and Conflict (IGMC) framework Video Game

Player

Goal Motivation

Conflict

(1) Investigating (2) Empathetic identification with character (3) Fun and challenging (4) Atmosphere

Character External: Internal: External: Internal:

External: Internal:

Mette and Nils’ (2013) concept of narratification to unify narrative and gameplay is useful to understand the contextual factors which interlink the player with the PC. Their application of narrative methods, the Interactive Goal, Motivation, and Conflict (IGMC) to the player is shown in Table 10.2. Goal is what the player of a game strives for (Juul, 2013a) and is an assignment of value to the possible game outcomes. The goal refers to the game not as an object, but as an activity. Motivation is defined as the processes that serve to energise and give direction to behaviour (Wlodkowski, 1989). In psychology, motivation is a universal concept for a variety of processes and effects whose common element is the realisation that an organism selects a specific behaviour because of expected consequences, and then implements the action with some measure of energy, along a certain path (Heckhausen & Heckhausen, 1991, p. 9). Conflict refers to the challenge(s) that the player faces when playing the game. Mette and Nils (2013) also distinguishes between external and internal factors in the respective categories of goal, motivation, and conflict for the character. External factors refer to the physical context (of the PC) while internal factors refer to the character’s psychology. To interlink the player’s actions with the game world, we adopt Yee’s (2007) taxonomy of player motivations in online games to supplement Mette and Nils’ (2013) IGMC framework. Even though Yee’s (2007) framework of motivations of play is created for online games, some of his categories such as “achievement” and “immersion” are applicable to the analysis of the player’s motive(s). Yee’s (2007) framework of player motivations is multidimensional and consists of the categories of achievement, social, and immersion. Yee’s (2007) taxonomy of player’s motivation is shown in Table 10.3 below. The achievement motivation consists of advancement, mechanics, and competition. Advancement refers to the desire to raise power, progress rapidly, and accumulate wealth and status in the game world (Yee, 2007). The mechanics focus on the player’s interest in analysing the underlying

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

181

Table 10.3 Yee’s (2007) taxonomy of player’s motivation in online games Achievement

Social

Immersion

Advancement Progress, Power, Accumulation, Status Mechanics Numbers, Optimisation, Templating, Analysis Competition Challenging Others, Provocation, Domination

Socialising Casual Chat, Helping Others, Making Friends Relationship Personal, Self-Disclosure, Find and Give Support Teamwork Collaboration, Groups, Group Achievements

Discovery Exploration, Lore, Finding Hidden Things Role-Playing Story Line, Character History, Roles, Fantasy Customisation Appearances, Accessories, Style, Colour Schemes Escapism Relax, Escape from RL, Avoid RL Problems

game rules and system to optimise the character performance (Yee, 2007). Competition refers to the player’s desire to challenge and compete with others (Yee, 2007) and in our study, we refer to the players (e.g. Mary and Loke) competing with each other to complete the game. Therefore, related to this study, achievement motivation is correlated with gameplay motivation. Although social motivation is more applicable to online games, the socialising and relationship aspects are applicable to some players in the study (e.g. Mary and Loke) who chat with each other and help each other out in terms of gameplay strategies in Bioshock (discussed in Chapters 5 and 6). The social motivation has been conceptualised under the regulative rules of the gameplay module in Chapter 3. Immersion motivation consists of discovery, role-playing, customisation, and escapism. Discovery refers to players finding and knowing things that most other players do not know about (Yee, 2007). Role-playing refers to the players creating their character’s persona with a background story and interacting with other players to construct an improvised story (Yee, 2007). Customisation refers to the player’s interest in changing their character’s appearance to suit their preferences (Yee, 2007). Finally, escapism indicates the player’s use of the online environment to avoid thinking about real-life problems (Yee, 2007). We conceptualise immersion motivation as narrative motivation. However, some of the subcategories under immersion could be related more to the gameplay such as “exploration”, “finding hidden things”, and “customisation” if the player focuses more on the actions instead of narrative interpretation in their mental models. In a more recent study, Yee (2016) has developed an empirical framework of gaming motivations using survey data from over 250,000 gamers worldwide. The six clusters of gaming motivations include action (excitement and destruction), social (collaboration and competition),

182

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

mastery (strategy and challenge), achievement (power and completion), creativity (design and discovery), and immersion (story and fantasy). The action, mastery, social (competition), and achievement motivation clusters are incorporated under gameplay motivation; the creativity and immersion motivation clusters are included under narrative motivation; and the social motivation cluster (collaboration) is incorporated into the regulatory rules.

Manninen’s (2003) Interaction Forms and Communicative Actions Manninen (2003) proposed a model of interaction forms for analysing communicative and social aspects of computer-mediated gaming. His work was conducted using conceptual analysis, by applying the Communicative Action Theory (CAT) as the framework. CAT consists of six main types of social actions available to participants. These actions are instrumental, strategic, normatively regulated, dramaturgical, communicative, and discursive action. Further subcategories of interaction actions include autonomous/AI category, avatar appearance, kinesics and spatial behaviour, environmental details, and setting modifications. Some of the communication actions are modified for the analysis of the single player games and I will discuss them briefly. Communication actions are modified to become interaction actions with the gameplay in the absence of other human players. Language-based interaction in video games only occupies one of Manninen’s (2003) categories. This shows that the main types of interaction forms in video games are not based on language, but are based on the actions and non-verbal behaviour of the players involved (Manninen, 2003). I incorporate the adopted interaction forms from Manninen’s (2003) model into the integrated gameplay model to specify the type of actions that the player utilises to interact with the gameplay. The empirical data from the interviews, players’ reflections, audio commentary, and gameplay recordings are used to provide examples for each category towards the aim of developing the ludonarrative model.

Instrumental Actions Instrumental actions are performed by players to advance their personal interests. Individuals intend to bring about a desired circumstance by behaving according to technical rules derived from their technical knowledge or from theoretical models (Manninen, 2003). Instrumental actions are more instinctive and usually do not require preplanning by the player but involves implementation. The main concern is the realisation of a goal by selecting an action from alternatives. The basic actions can include killing monsters to gain experience points and collecting treasures dropped from slain monsters. Other actions include puzzle solving or exploration

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

183

to find a specific item or character to facilitate the player’s overcoming of the gameplay obstacles/challenges. In the Bioshock’s game study, Loke mentioned that he is motivated by investigation (Mette & Nils, 2013) and exploration (Yee, 2007) instead of relying on the narrative to find the location of the incinerate plasmid to melt the ice obstacles at the doors. The reason was that the narrative given in the audio log, such as the “Freezing Pipes” did not provide him with explicit instructions on where to find the incinerate plasmid. The audio log only gave him hints that he has to find something to melt the ice but not where to find it. The interview which I have conducted with him is therefore used to coconstruct the ludonarrative subcategory, “irrelevance—gameplay focus” in the ludonarrative model. Time sensitive instrumental gameplay action is sometimes given together with the narrative but left implicit. For instance, in The Last of Us, Alice mentioned that she discovered the time limit to catch Robert only when she failed the objective after a certain time interval. The narrative showed Robert taunting the player, followed by his action of throwing his revolver at the player, and finally his action of running away. The multimodal characterisation of Robert in the narrative was implicitly hinting to the player that s/he has a time limit to catch Robert before the game ends in failure. However, Alice could not form the link given in the narrative to the gameplay. The analysis which I have conducted with Alice during the interview therefore co-constructs the ludonarrative subcategory, “irrelevance guidance” in the ludonarrative model. The subcategories which I will discuss in the following sections outline the specific instrumental actions which the player employs.

Instrumental Actions—Environmental Details and Setting Modifications These actions involve interaction with the environment to achieve an advantage and they are more instinctive. The player may break interactive objects to collect consumables, or activate a bridge to gain access to a quest location. Artefact based interaction such as collecting health packs to restore lost hit points forms one of the basic actions in game settings that revolve around material products. In Bioshock, Loke utilises the environment to fight Big Daddy by controlling his PC to jump back and forth between a barrier so that the enemy cannot reach him. In The Last of Us, Nasir, Walter, and Alice throw bottles or bricks to distract the enemies so that they can sneak pass them or use stealth kills to eliminate them. These actions are motivated by the fun and challenge in the gameplay (Mette & Nils, 2013). The analysis of the gameplay recordings and the interviews conducted in Chapters 4–6 show the players (e.g. Loke, Peter, and John) background the narrative when fighting the enemies. Therefore, I induce the ludonarrative subcategory, “irrelevance gameplay focus” from the empirical data.

184

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

Instrumental Actions—PC Upgrades These actions involve interaction with the PC(s) to achieve a gameplay advantage and they are more instinctive and do not involve strategic thinking. These actions upgrade the PC based on the obligatory gameplay goals. This type of upgrade is similar to the category of weapon upgrades performed solely by the game (Toh, 2016). Character upgrades are subsumed under character customisation. They do not provide choice to the player, so there is a lack of player agency. Upgrades performed are also irreversible. In a mission in the latter half of Bioshock, the PC is given a gameplay goal by the narrative to find the different parts of Big Daddy suit to transform his character into Big Daddy. He needs to become Big Daddy so that the Little Sisters will help him through the museum level to reach the antagonist, Frank Fontaine for the final fight. Donning a powerful suit, such as Big Daddy armour in Bioshock enables the player to possess an instrumental advantage over the enemies. In particular, Big Daddy’s body suit provides a twentyfive percent resistance to all damage while wearing it. The player’s actions in this category are motivated by advancement—gameplay progress and power (Yee, 2007). However, from the interviews, John highlights that the narrative was actually demotivating him as it was slowing down the gameplay by asking him to perform repetitive gameplay actions without offering new variety in the gameplay or offering a significant gameplay reward by becoming a powerful Big Daddy. I therefore co-construct the ludonarrative subcategory, “dissonance—demotivation” with the participant.

Instrumental Actions—Kinesics and Spatial Behaviour These are instrumental actions utilised by the player. In The Last of Us and Mass Effect, the players may perform micro actions, such as crouching, to hide under cover to reduce their chances of being shot at by the enemies in the game world. These actions are instinctive and usually do not require preplanning. The player’s actions are motivated by atmosphere (Mette & Nils, 2013). Furthermore, Walter mentioned that in The Last of Us, the PC’s companion, Ellie, is able to integrate into his PC by taking cover with him: Extract 10.1 walter: Ya see this is basically what I was talking about. Basically, you can you can share cover with Ellie. interviewer: Ya she’s integrated into you. walter: Ya. It’s a very nice touch.

Instrumental Actions—Language-Based Communication These actions are present in game communities who support and value the communication aspects of playing (e.g. RPGs). In The Witcher 2, Mass Effect, Beyond: Two Souls, and The Walking Dead, the player may

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

185

select different dialogue options. These dialogue choices enable the PC to influence the other character(s) to provide a different dialogue response or to physically react differently. Language-based instrumental actions include the scenario where the player does not have sufficient time to think of the answer or is under a time-imposed restriction to choose a dialogue option. Time based restriction frequently occurs in The Walking Dead. Based on the empirical data from the interviews, time-imposed restrictions for dialogue choices may make it easier or harder for players to make decisions. On the one hand, Jim mentioned that when making the decisions under a time restriction, it would make it harder for him to make the choice. The reason is that he has to immerse himself more in the PC, Lee Everett’s narrative role in The Walking Dead to understand his perspective. In doing so, he is motivated by empathetic identification with character (Mette & Nils, 2013): Extract 10.2 interviewer: So does it make it easier for you to make the decision or does it make it harder? jim: Harder to be honest. Stress your morality. You only have limited choice, limited amount of time to decide who to save, what to do, it happened that you have to decide quickly. On the other hand, Mary mentioned that it would be easier to make the decision in The Walking Dead as the time restriction made her choice more instinctive as she did not have much time to think of which choice to make. She is motivated by the believable atmosphere (Mette & Nils, 2013) in which the time restriction creates.

Strategic Actions Juul (2013b) defines a strategy as the set of principles that a player adopts to play a game. The goal-oriented strategic action occurs in the social world and involves two or more individuals who comprehend that they are situated in a social context, and seek to bring about a desired state of affairs (Manninen, 2003). In the gameplay analysis framework, I modify strategic actions to also occur in the non-social world where the player utilises actions to take advantage of the environment or unit strengths to overcome the opposition. Strategic actions require preplanning such as analytical thinking and hence take more time to implement. In realtime strategy games, more direct strategic actions are required, while a continuum of strategic actions exist in MMORPGs to Action RPGs. These actions are motivated by mechanics (Yee, 2007) where the players analyse various aspects of the game to achieve their goals. The subcategories discussed below outline the specific strategic actions which the player could employ.

186

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

Strategic Actions—Environmental Details and Setting Modifications These are actions that take advantage of the environment to facilitate the player’s elimination of the opposition, overcoming of the gameplay obstacles, or discovering and unlocking a hidden area. These actions require deliberation and may require some time to set up. They are motivated by investigation (Mette & Nils, 2013), exploration (Yee, 2007), and analysis (Yee, 2007). In Bioshock, where there is the presence of interactive environments in the gameplay, players may lure groups of enemies into a spatial location such as a pool of water before electrifying the water using the shock plasmid power to kill all the enemies simultaneously. Mary solved the puzzle in Bioshock’s Arcadia level by using the incinerate plasmid to light up the second torchlight on the wall which unlocks a hidden area offering gameplay rewards. She made use of analytical thinking during gameplay and did not want to progress the scripted narrative sequence at that time when the Houdini Splicer was trying to get her attention (Extract 10.3). The analysis of the gameplay recordings therefore provides the empirical data to support the creation of the ludonarrative subcategory, “irrelevance gameplay focus”. Extract 10.3 mary: This room can be entered. But it’s not unlocked yet. Dude, you got to wait. Just give me a second. I am a genius. I am a genius. I supposed there will be a text message telling me but the game the game, the map showed me that this area can be entered and it’ll be weird if I can’t right. . . . Ya I supposed there might be some text messages that could let me that tells me that I’m able to do to unlock that tomb, but I don’t really need that. It’s quite obvious like one side is lit up, one side isn’t so. . . .

Strategic Actions—PC Customisation These actions involve interaction with the PC(s) to achieve a gameplay advantage. Character customisation is a broader category that includes character upgrades (Toh, 2016), but it is more deliberate and involves strategic (analytical) thinking. This type of customisation is similar to the category of weapon customisation performed by the player (Toh, 2016) and may or may not be reversible. Reversible character customisation enables the player to experiment with different play styles. These actions are motivated by fun and challenge (Mette & Nils, 2013), and mechanics (Yee, 2007). In Bioshock, the player could choose to alter their equipped plasmids and gene tonics and mix and match different active plasmids with different passive plasmid powers at the Gene Bank. This type of character customisation is reversible. In Mass Effect,

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

187

character customisation is done separately in the character window, and the player could choose gameplay points to add for specific abilities, such as weapon specialisation, class specific powers, paragon, and renegade points, and so on. In The Last of Us, character customisation which includes skill and weapon upgrades are irreversible. Thus, the player would engage in some deliberations on which weapons and skills to upgrade for his/her character. Nasir explained during the gameplay that he chose to upgrade the shotgun’s recoil as he thought that the upgrade will make it more accurate, “I’m guessing this will make it more accurate. Mm why not?” The player may not understand the feedback given through the fictional representations of the objects in the game world during the process of crafting and customising equipments. When this occurs, the players will tend to treat the fictional representations as being irrelevant to their gameplay action of crafting and perform the gameplay action using trial and error (Extract 10.4). I use the empirical data from the player, Walter to co-create the ludonarrative subcategory, “irrelevance metaphor”: Extract 10.4 walter: And also the way you know the crafting system works where you have to collect different items. I really hated that part because you er at first I thought it was like you know you have like the three items. If you picked up an item, it represents one piece but later on I figured out that when you picked up something, it only fills up a part of that particular circle or whatever it is that we are using that pie chart thing it will segment so you will have to pick like three scissors to count as one scissors. Something like that which I thought was a really silly system. Because it was difficult to read, it was difficult to ascertain it. And it was just generally erm ya it was difficult to account for the amount of stuff you use and you found so much stuff in the world anyway. Ya so it was how it is.

Strategic Actions—Kinesics and Spatial Behaviour These are strategic actions performed by the player. These actions are deliberate and involve analysis and reflection by the player when they are deciding to perform the actions. These actions involve micro managing the squad mates in Mass Effect. They are motivated by analysis (Yee, 2007). In The Last of Us, Nasir deliberated during the gameplay whether he wanted to shoot the Clickers and finally decided to do it as he commented that he needed to practice aiming, “Think I’ll try. I need more practice shooting, I’ll try just shooting”. In The Walking Dead, Henry

188

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

deliberated during the gameplay about the player actions that he has to undertake to overcome the zombies. The zombies are obstructing his gameplay goal of reaching the woman trapped in the room to save her. In the think-aloud protocol, he analysed the actions that he had to perform to overcome the zombies in his way before he implemented those actions in the gameplay: Extract 10.5 henry: So it’s pretty obvious that the weapon to use is the screwdriver so I have to find some way to get it quietly. Oh no no. Back down. Let’s see. I’ve to first I’ve to kill this. I’ve to kill this guy probably with the screwdriver before making use of the car to kill something else. So let’s head back to brick wall and find see if can find anything. There’s a pillow here. Oh have to use the pillow to stuff the probably make lessen the noise I guess. So let’s just take it.

Strategic Actions—Language-Based Communication Language-based strategic actions include critical moments in the game where the player takes time to think of which dialogue options to choose in careful consideration of the gameplay outcome. In choosing one of the dialogue options, the player may have to sacrifice one of the NPCs so that they will never appear in the game again. The NPC’s death may not only end their narrative, but also results in the player’s loss of their gameplay abilities during the gameplay fights. In Mass Effect, Michael chose to sacrifice Kaidan instead of Ashley, after careful consideration of the situation, by taking on the perspective of Commander Shepard: Extract 10.6 michael: In this kind of situation, both will die if I don’t do anything. But this is Mass Effect. All of them will die. You see as Shepard now as a Commander, Ashley is a lost cause now. If she activate the bomb, mission will accomplish. If I go to Kaidan, mission will accomplish. If I go to Ashley, I will accomplish the mission, but Kaidan will die in vain. So I am forced to make a choice here. This choice is made in regarding Ashley, not in regarding whether Kaidan is my boyfriend or not. You see, if I go to Kaidan, and Ashley will activate the Nuke. Mission will accomplish. It’s the most logical way to do things right? But if Kaidan is the one arming the nuke, he dies. That’s how it is in the war you know? Commanders have to make the toughest decision.

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

189

These actions are motivated by empathetic identification with character (Mette & Nils, 2013), analysis (Yee, 2007), and role play (Yee, 2007). In this subcategory, narrative interpretation is highlighted through the REFLECTING frame where the participants explained why they make a specific dialogue choice. I use the player’s empirical data to create the ludonarrative subcategory, “resonance parallelism integration” when narrative interpretation and gameplay action occur together. The types of instrumental and strategic actions discussed are summarised in Tables 10.4 and 10.5 below.

Table 10.4 Instrumental actions Type of Action

Description

Instrumental Actions Environmental Details and Setting Modifications PC Upgrades

Instinctive. Interaction with the environment/object to obtain gameplay advantage. PC(s)’ upgrade to obtain gameplay advantage. Irreversible as the upgrade is performed by the game. Controlling the character’s movement and/ or actions to obtain gameplay advantage. Selecting dialogue choices under time restriction with minimal thinking.

Kinesics and Spatial Behaviour Language-Based Communication

Table 10.5 Strategic actions Type of Action

Description

Strategic Actions Environmental Details and Setting Modifications

Require thinking. Puzzle solving, formulating gameplay strategies using the environment to overcome the enemies or obstacles. Broader category that encompasses character upgrades. May or may not be reversible. Reversible customisation enables players to experiment with different play styles. Movement and body actions that require deliberation whether the player wants to perform them or how to perform them. (Choosing actions and/or language) to influence the other NPC(s)’ response. Occurs during critical gameplay moments when one of the NPCs is sacrificed.

PC Customisation

Kinesics and Spatial Behaviour

Language-Based Communication

190

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

Fabricatore’s (2007) Model of Gameplay Mechanics Fabricatore (2007) proposes a model of gameplay mechanics to describe the gameplay elements that facilitate and/or hinders the players’ interaction with the gameplay. The modifications of his model are represented in Tables 10.6 and 10.7. The model is player-centric and Fabricatore (2007) defines core gameplay as the set of activities that the player will be involved more frequently during the game experience, and which are obligatory to win the game. He defines core game mechanics as those which allow the carrying out of the core gameplay activities, and they are the most important in the game because players will have to interact with them during most of their play experience. Core gameplay mechanics are subdivided into two main categories—diegetic and extra-diegetic that facilitate player’s actions. Diegetic player’s actions are subdivided into those which involve interaction with the game “environment, object, or agent” (NPCs) (Pinchbeck, 2009, p. 252) and those in which the interaction is involved with aspects of the player’s avatar or centred on the player’s avatar. In FPS such as Bioshock, the core gameplay mechanic encompasses all the player’s diegetic gameplay actions which include shooting, interacting with and moving through the environment, hacking in-game objects,

Table 10.6 Modification of Fabricatore (2007)—Core gameplay mechanics Core Gameplay Mechanics Extra-diegetic

Diegetic

Input devices Interface

Environment Movement

Object Actions

Agent (NPCs) Dialogue

Avatar Character customisation

Actions (e.g. attack, escort)

Table 10.7 Modification of Fabricatore (2007)—Satellite gameplay mechanics Satellite Gameplay Mechanics Alternate

Enhancement

Opposition

Facilitating

Addition Modification

Static (e.g. environmental obstacles) Dynamic 1. Enemies 2. Moving environmental obstacles Event (e.g. quick time event)

Immediate Delayed

Gradual

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

191

etc. (Table 10.8). Some role-playing core gameplay mechanics introducing diegetic gameplay actions such as character customisation, and choosing to save or harvest the Little Sisters are present (Table 10.8). The player’s extradiegetic actions outside of the game world include pressing the keyboard or mouse to control the PC, and activating the menu to read the gameplay objectives or the map. Extra-diegetic gameplay actions include pressing the mouse or keyboard button to save the game or adjust the game settings. I define gameplay as the player’s [ergodic] actions, strategies, and motives (Aarseth, 2004) to manipulate the constituents of the game world to overcome the gameplay challenges. The challenges depend on rules and appear in the form of mechanics. Some of the core gameplay mechanics inside the game world and challenges for the five video games analysed are summarised in Tables 10.8, 10.9, and 10.10. Challenges

Table 10.8 Some core mechanics and challenges in Bioshock and Mass Effect Bioshock

Mass Effect

Core Mechanics

Challenges

Core Mechanics

Challenges

FPS, switching weapons and powers

Boss fights, e.g. Big Daddy and Frank Fontaine

Boss fights, e.g. Thorian, Saren, and Benezia

Character customisation

Common enemy attacks, e.g. Splicers

Environmental interaction, e.g. unlock doors Saving or harvesting Little Sisters

Timed gameplay events, e.g. mini games Achieving gameplay goals

Static or dynamic movement

Environmental puzzles, e.g. blocked doors

Hacking mini games

Third person shooting, infinite ammo, weapons, and powers PC/squad customisation— class and skill points Environmental interaction, e.g. open containers Character interactions—side missions; Dialogue options; Morality system Static or dynamic movement, crouching, taking cover Exploration (using Mako); Using maps Decryption mini game

Escort NPCs, e.g. Little Sisters

Micro managing squad members

Exploration

Common enemy attacks, e.g. Husks, Geth, Krogan, etc. Timed gameplay event, e.g. mini games Obtaining desired dialogue responses

Achieving gameplay goals, e.g. primary and side missions Moving around the map Environmental puzzles, e.g. locked objects Micro managing AI characters

Table 10.9 Some core mechanics and challenges in The Walking Dead and Beyond: Two Souls The Walking Dead

Beyond: Two Souls

Core Mechanics

Challenges

FPS (Very few instances in episodes 2 and 4)

Timed ludonarrative Switching of event, e.g., dialogue control between and QTEs two PCs, Jodie and Aiden Obtaining desired Point and click dialogue responses environmental interaction

Point and click environmental interaction

Character Environmental interactions and obstacles, e.g., dialogue options zombies Static or dynamic (e.g., crouching or stealth) movement

Exploration

Core Mechanics

Character interactions and dialogue options Static or dynamic (e.g., walking, running, crouching or stealth) movement Exploration

Challenges Highly scripted boss fights, e.g., Asian general Timed ludonarrative event, e.g., dialogue interaction, QTEs Obtaining desired dialogue responses Environmental puzzles, e.g., box of memories

Figuring out PS3 controller

Table 10.10 Some core mechanics and challenges in The Last of Us The Last of Us Core Mechanics

Challenges

Third person shooting, stealth and melee attacks, choosing weapons/powers, limited carrying capacity Character customisation using game objects such as pills and training manuals

Boss fights, e.g. David and Bloater

Environmental and object interaction, e.g. open doors, pick up objects, operate lever and activate torch Character interactions and dialogue Crouching, static or dynamic movement (walking vs running); taking cover Exploration/Scavenging

Achieving player goals, e.g. using stealth to sneak past enemies and performing stealth kills Implicit timed ludonarrative events, QTEs (Scripted) Environmental obstacles, e.g. locked objects and puzzles Figuring out PS3 controller

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

193

are conceptualised as the opposition mechanics in Fabricatore’s (2007) modified model of gameplay mechanics. Fabricatore (2007) defines satellite game mechanics as those aimed at enhancing already existing activities by enriching the core gameplay without increasing its complexity. Satellite mechanics include enhancement, alternate, and opposition mechanics. I only use opposition and enhancement mechanics so only these two will be explained. Enhancement mechanics are defined as mechanics designed to change the already existing core mechanics (Fabricatore, 2007). Enhancement mechanics are subdivided into addition and modification. Addition enhancement mechanics add new features to existing mechanics. Enhancement mechanics can be added to both facilitating mechanics (defined later) and opposition mechanics. When added to facilitating mechanics, it adds new functionality to the player’s weapons (Toh, 2016) or armour. For instance, in Mass Effect, anti-organic ammunition deals more damage to Rachni and Thorian Creepers while anti-personnel and shredder rounds deal more damage to living targets. Modification enhancement mechanics change an already existing feature of mechanics (Fabricatore, 2007). In Bioshock, the player’s weapon could be modified at the “Power to the People” vending machines found throughout Rapture. After the upgrade, the weapon could either hold more ammunition, fire with a longer range, increase its damage or consume less ammunition, and so on. When new addition enhancement mechanics are added to opposition mechanics, enemies will possess new types of attacks and defences, increasing the challenge. In The Last of Us, the different stages of infection resulted in different types of Infected. The first three types of Infected are known as Runners, Stalkers, and Clickers, which correspond to the infection stages one, two, and three respectively. These enemies only have melee attacks. The final fourth stage of infection creates the boss enemy known as the Bloater, which possesses an additional range attack, has armour and durability, and can instantly kill the player when in melee range. When new modification enhancement mechanics are added to opposition mechanics, the enemy will be able to deal more powerful attacks to the player. In the Hephaestus level of Bioshock, the enemies hit harder and are also harder to kill as the player approaches the antagonist, Andrew Ryan’s office. Fabricatore (2007) defines opposition mechanics as powerful ways of enhancing the game challenge. Their main function is to hinder the players’ progress. They offer a different type of challenge to the players as they have to learn to avoid or master such a mechanic to overcome them or to manipulate them for their advantage. An example of an opposition mechanic, the QTEs can be found in The Walking Dead, The Last of Us, and Beyond: Two Souls. The players need to understand how the QTEs function to progress the game. In particular, they need to know that fast reflexes and the correct keyboard button needs to be pressed at the precise

194

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

moment when the prompt appears onscreen to progress the interactive narrative, gameplay, or ludonarrative sequence. Opposition mechanics are subdivided into three categories—static, dynamic, and event based mechanics. Static opposition mechanics are concerned with environmental obstacles. They include locked containers in Mass Effect and The Last of Us, blocked passageways in Bioshock, Beyond: Two Souls, and The Last of Us, and traversing water bodies in The Last of Us. To overcome these challenges, the player has to find or use another in-game object such as keys or new powers to overcome the obstacles. Sometimes, the in-game objects used to overcome the static opposition mechanics are found on dynamic opposition mechanics such as enemies. In The Last of Us, Ellie is a key NPC that not only helps but is also helped by the PC to traverse the water bodies. Dynamic challenges include environmental obstacles that can move about or involve AI enemies. Because dynamic opposition mechanics can move about, it poses a higher challenge to the player compared to static opposition mechanics. Dynamic challenges also increase in difficulty as the player progresses the game. For instance, in the first few gameplay phases, the player encounters easier enemies that can be killed in a few attack moves. However, as the player reaches the peak of each gameplay phase, s/he usually has to overcome a boss enemy before s/he can enter the next gameplay phase. These boss enemies include Big Daddies in Bioshock and the Bloater in The Last of Us who guard highly valued resources of the goal. When boss enemies are defeated, the player is provided access to the facilitating mechanics, rewards, or goal. These facilitating mechanics, depending on the player’s choice of gameplay action(s) can be immediate, gradual, or delayed (discussed below). Event based opposition mechanics include time based events and some dialogue options. For instance, in some of the dialogues in The Walking Dead, the player has to make a dialogue choice within a limited time period. In The Last of Us, there is an implicit timed gameplay event where the player has to catch Robert before it fails and the player has to restart from a saved file. In Mass Effect, there is an explicit timed gameplay event where the player has to defuse a number of bombs on Eden Prime within a time limit shown onscreen. Opposition mechanics can interact with each other to create more complex mechanics. In particular, an event based challenge such as pressing the correct keyboard button at the precise moment when the prompt appears onscreen can interact with dynamic challenges such as enemy attacks in The Witcher 2 to enhance the difficulty of a QTE. In addition to opposition mechanics, I propose and integrate the category of facilitating mechanics into the gameplay model. I define these mechanics as those which function to aid the player’s gameplay progress. Facilitating mechanics can be immediate, delayed, gradual, or a mixture.

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

195

Immediate facilitating mechanics refer to gameplay rewards which can exist in the form of bonus points or benefits to the PC and they are awarded as soon as the player has finished selecting a narrative choice and/or gameplay action. In Bioshock, after the player harvests or saves the Little Sisters, the bonus points awarded are given as feedback displayed to the right hand side of the screen in the form of in-game currency. In Mass Effect, after the player completes the mission, experience points and weapons/armour will be awarded to the player. Delayed facilitating mechanics refer to gameplay rewards in the form of bonus points or benefits that are awarded to the player after a delayed period of gameplay. In Bioshock, the player is rewarded with a significant amount of in-game currency, e.g. 200 ADAMs for rescuing every three Little Sisters. Special plasmid powers and other in-game objects such as EVE hypos and proximity mines are also awarded. The player will discover the delayed facilitating mechanic when playing the game and be enticed to select the gameplay pathway that provides more reward in the long run: Extract 10.7 walter: But the long term one you get more. So it’s kind of like so like when you want to put morality inside your agency, the morality should actually be they wanted to combine it, the morality with gameplay as in the agency but they totally dropped the ball on it because they made it so that if you were good, you ultimately will get will benefit more. interviewer: They are pushing you towards the good side? walter: I don’t think they wanted to push you towards the good side but you know usually when they say when you act altruistic, you actually sacrifice more which means you get less returns? But this one you get more returns, so it’s actually, it’s countering its own message. There’s no reason to be evil in Bioshock because the reason behind been evil is that you get more rewards. But in the long run, you get less rewards, so what’s the point? So that was I mean that was one of Bioshock’s biggest issues lah which is what they tried to fix in Bioshock Infinite. But ya that’s what. . . . interviewer: Ya but when the player starts to play the game, they won’t know about this mechanic ah? walter: No, they know very fast. If you rescue three Little Sisters, they give you a reward immediately. And then you tell oh this is actually more worth it than if I have gone the evil route. Mary mentioned that she chose to save all the Little Sisters because she wanted to collect all the special plasmid power rewards. She chose to save them all after finding out she will be rewarded for every three Little Sisters

196

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

she saved. She mentioned that she is a player who likes to collect everything and that the game repaid her with the ADAM gameplay reward even though it was slightly lesser than if she harvested (killed) the Little Sisters. The ADAM gameplay resource was not very important for her gameplay progress as she mentioned she did not perform a lot of upgrades: Extract 10.8 mary: No I mean before that. Initially lah, I did say I was going to try harvesting, I can’t remember where lah but somewhere. I did say right I was like maybe I should try harvesting because I can get more but then like after getting the first two the amount of ADAM that I get right? I am like since I mean I’m not going to buy much at that . . . because for me I don’t do a lot of upgrades if you realised. I don’t really do a lot of upgrades and what not. So it’s like to me, ADAM is not very critical to my progression. So I was just like okay lor just save them. Then once I saved the third one, I suddenly get like the rewards from Tenenbaum. Then I was like okay, I am going to save all of them. And get all the rewards. Like you know, why not right? Since and then they repay you with some ADAM anyway. I think it’s not it’s not equivalent lah then if you harvest them but then I don’t need that much anyway, and they give me plasmids. So it’s already paid off already. interviewer: So the reason you are going to save them is because you don’t need so much ADAM ah? mary: Ya and I can get plasmid rewards anyway so. . . . Gradual facilitating mechanics refer to gameplay rewards which are awarded consistently to the players. Every time the PC levels up,2 the player will be awarded experience points3 to increase the PC’s attributes to strengthen the PC. In Mass Effect, the player can choose to customise his/her character by investing points to strengthen the character through weapon or skill specialisation. In The Last of Us, if the player uses the gameplay strategy of shooting the enemies instead of using stealth kills, Walter mentions that they will consistently “drip feed” the player with ammunition drops: Extract 10.9 Yes but I mean at the end of the day, if I wanted to say that you know, I had so much resources that I could throw a molotov every battle, no, I can’t do that. But because the game does actually drip feed you resources, you actually have to be careful with how you use your equipment, which is fair. But I wouldn’t say that you know, it’s so little that I always save up and never use anything. So it’s sort of like the nice balance like I mean like yes the game

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

197

will drip feed you er ammo and loot to help you progress, but I never felt that you know they give me so much that I was like I said, they gave you enough that you only maximum hold like three med kits, three molotovs and whatnot which is in an average game that is not a lot but in this context, it is kind of okay, so I would say it would kind of support the narrative. The final category which Fabricatore (2007) proposed for the gameplay mechanics is the peripheral gameplay. He defines it as the category which encompasses all activities which need completely new mechanics (neither relying on core mechanics or on satellite mechanics), and which temporarily replaces the core gameplay at a certain point of the game experience (Fabricatore, 2007). Peripheral mechanics include the mini games in Bioshock and Mass Effect. The players have to win the mini games before they can hack open the various in-game objects, such as the first aid kiosks, turrets, sentry bots, locked containers, doors, and so on. Having discussed the player’s actions and the gameplay mechanics, I will conceptualise the various components of the gameplay analysis model from the smallest unit (the move) to the largest unit (the stage) in Chapter 11.

Summary Chapter 10 discusses the micro components and elements of the gameplay analysis model for us to understand how the player’s interaction with the mechanics result in the gameplay. The gameplay analysis model is grounded in the empirical data which includes the concurrent protocol analysis in the gameplay recordings, interviews, and retrospective protocol analysis. The gameplay side of the ludonarrative model is shown in Figure 10.5. As shown in Figure 10.5, the “ludo” or the constitutive rules (Searle, 1975) enable the players’ actions. The gameplay side of the ludonarrative model enables us to understand what gameplay actions different players perform in the game world, depending on the type of video games and the players’ motives. “Cheat codes” and “walkthroughs” are optional elements under constitutive rules, which are used based on the players’ gaming preference. Regulative rules (Searle, 1975) are optional and are more applicable for multiplayer games although some players (e.g. Mary and Loke) who are friends in the study discuss gameplay strategies with each other. “Mechanics” are a specific instantiation of “rules” and consist of the categories “core”, “satellite”, and “peripheral”. “Mechanics” interact with the players’ actions and the players’ motives determine how the players will interact with the game. The players first interact with the controls, based on their motives and their interactions are manifested as choices in the types of gameplay actions. Actions are either “strategic” or “instrumental” and the performance of specific actions will result in consequences in the game world. These consequences may or may not

198

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

Figure 10.5 The gameplay side of the ludonarrative model

be feedback to the player via the multimodal semiotic resources. Feedback may sometimes contribute to the further performance of the players’ actions. “Controls”, “choices”, “actions”, “consequences”, and “feedback” form the “quests” or “missions” in the gameplay.

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

199

Notes 1 However, the non-chronological discoursal arrangement of the game narrative can also be used to create specific narrative effects such as curiosity, suspense, and the feeling of disorientation in order to engage the players. For instance, the discoursal beginning (Talib, 2018) of Beyond: Two Souls starts at the second last chapter (prologue) of the game and the PC, Jodie, tells the player in a cutscene that she is trying to piece together the fragments of her memory. Following that, the first chapter of the game is a flashback and shows the player that Jodie is sitting in a police station and she is being questioned by the department’s sheriff. Some players who are interested in narrative games would therefore feel curious as to what events led up to the one shown to them at the discoursal beginning (Talib, 2018) and continue to play the game to piece together the narrative. 2 Refers to the situation when a PC has received sufficient experience points to progress to the next character level. 3 Refers to a unit of measurement used in RPGs to quantify a PC’s game progression.

References Aarseth, E. (2004). Playing Research: Methodological Approaches to Game Analysis. Game Approaches: Papers from Spilforskning.dk Conference. Aug 28–29, 2003. Spilforskning.dk, 2004. Available from www.cs.uu.nl/docs/vakken/vw/literature/02.GameApproaches2.pdf (Accessed: 14 Nov 2017). Bae, J., Koo, D.-M., & Mattila, P. (2016). Affective Motives to Play Online Games. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 26(2), 174–184. Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs. The Journal of Virtual Environments, 1(1). Birk, M. V., Mandryk, R. L., Miller, M. K., & Gerling, K. M. (2015). How SelfEsteem Shapes Our Interactions with Play Technologies. CHI PLAY ’15 Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 35–45). Oct 5–7, London, UK. Björk, S., & Holopainen, H. (2005). Patterns in Game Design. Boston, MA: Charles River Media. Blendo Games. (2012). Thirty Flights of Loving. PC Computer Game. Idle Thumbs. Bostan, B. (2009). Player Motivations: A Psychological Perspective. Computers in Entertainment (CIE): Special Issue: Media Arts and Games (Part II), 7(2). doi:10.1145/1541895.1541902 Bostan, B., & Catak, G. (2016). Explorations in Player Motivations: Gamer Profiles. In B. Bostan (Ed.), Gamer Psychology and Behavior: International Series on Computer Entertainment and Media Technology (pp. 137–153). Cham: Springer. Bostan, B., & Kaplancali, U. (2009). Explorations in Player Motivations: Game Mechanics. GAMEON’2009. Nov 26–28, Mediadesign Hochschule, Düsseldorf, Germany. Bostan, B., & Öğüt, S. (2011). Presence in Computer Games: Design Requirements. Proceedings of the GAMEON 2011 Conference (pp. 5–9). Galway, İreland. ISBN: 978-90-77381-64-9.

200

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

Chuang, T. L. (2018). To Explore Female Players Decision-Making Processes in MMORPGs: A Preliminary Model. In N. Yen & J. Hung (Eds.), Frontier Computing, FC 2016: Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 422 (pp. 917–923). Singapore: Springer. Dubbelman, T. (2016). Narrative Game Mechanics. In F. Nack & A. Gordon (Eds.), Interactive Storytelling, ICIDS 2016: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10045 (pp. 39–50). Cham: Springer. Dubbelman, T. (2017). Repetition, Reward and Mastery: The Value of Game Design Patterns for the Analysis of Narrative Game Mechanics. In N. Nunes, I. Oakley, & V. Nisi (Eds.), Interactive Storytelling, ICIDS 2017: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10690 (pp. 286–289). Cham: Springer. Eskelinen, M. (2001). The Gaming Situation. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1(1). Fabricatore, C. (2007). Gameplay and Game Mechanics Design: A Key to Quality in Videogames. Proceedings of OECD-CERI Expert Meeting on Videogames and Education. Santiago de Chile, Chile. [online] Available from www.oecd. org/edu/ceri/39414829.pdf (Accessed: 20 Dec 2017). Fabricatore, C., & López, X. (2014). Using Gameplay Patterns to Gamify Learning Experiences. Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Game Based Learning (pp. 110–117). Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited, Reading, UK. ISBN 978-1-910309-55-1. Galloway, A. R. (2006). Gaming: Essays on Algorithmic Culture. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and Games. In S. Katie (Ed.), The Ecology of Games Connecting Youth, Games and Learning (pp. 21–40). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Genette, G. (1980). Narrative Discourse (J. E. Lewin, Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hamari, J., & Tuunanen, J. (2014). Player Types: A Meta-Synthesis. Transactions of the Digital Games Research Association, 1(2). Heaton, T. (2006). A Circular Model of Gameplay. Gamasutra. Available from www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130978/a_circular_model_of_gameplay. php (Accessed: 20 Dec 2017). Heckhausen, H., & Heckhausen, J. (1991). Motivation and Action (2nd ed.). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Hiwiller, Z. (2016). Players Making Decisions: Game Design Essentials and the Art of Understanding Your Players. Berkeley, CA: New Riders. Hunicke, R., LeBlanc, M., & Zubek, R. (2004). Mda: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. Proceedings of AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, 4, 1–5. San Jose, CA. Johnson, D., & Gardner, J. (2010). Personality, Motivation and Video Games. Proceeding OZCHI ’10 Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the ComputerHuman Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction (pp. 276–279). Nov 22–26, Brisbane, Australia. Jørgensen, K. (2003). Problem Solving: The Essence of Player Action in Computer Games. Proceedings of DiGRA. Nov 4–6, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands. Juul, J. (2005). Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

201

Juul, J. (2013a). Goal. From Half-Real: A Dictionary of Video Game Theory. Available from www.half-real.net/dictionary/#game (Accessed: 23 Dec 2017). Juul, J. (2013b). Strategy. From Half-Real: A Dictionary of Video Game Theory. Available from www.half-real.net/dictionary/#game (Accessed: 24 Dec 2017). Koo, D.-M. (2009). The Moderating Role of Locus of Control on the Links between Experiential Motives and Intention to Play Online Games. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 466–474. Koo, D.-M., Lee, S.-H., & Chang, H.-S. (2007). Experiential Motives for Playing Online Games. Journal of Convergence Information Technology, 2(2), 37–48. Lang, A. (1989). Effects of Chronological Presentation of Information on Processing and Memory for Broadcast News. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 33, 441–452. Larsen, B. A., & Schoenau-Fog, H. (2016). The Narrative Quality of Game Mechanics. In F. Nack & A. Gordon (Eds.), Interactive Storytelling, ICIDS 2016: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10045 (pp. 61–72). Cham: Springer. Li, E. C., & Luh, D.-B. (2017). Effect of Game Motivation on Flow Experience and Companionship: The Online Pet Games as the Example. Interaction Studies, 18(1), 95–115. Luh, D.-B., Li, E. C., & Dai, C.-C. (2016). Game Factors Influencing Players to Continue Playing Online Pets. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, 9(3), 267–276. Manninen, T. (2003). Interaction Forms and Communicative Actions in Multiplayer Games. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research , 3 (1). Available from www.gamestudies.org/0301/manninen/ (Accessed: 20 Dec 2017). Merritt, T., McGee, K., Chuah, T. L., & Ong, C. (2011). Choosing Human TeamMates: Perceived Identity as a Moderator of Player Preference and Enjoyment. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 196–203). June 29–July 1, 2011, Bordeaux, France. Mette, P., & Nils, S. (2013). Narratification: Unifying Narrative and Gameplay. Paper Submitted and Accepted for the 9th Student Interaction Design Research Conference (SIDeR’13). Available from http://sider2013.au.dk/fileadmin/ sider2013/0125-paper.pdf (Accessed: 23 Dec 2017). Mitchell, A., Sim, Y. T., & Kway, L. (2017). Making It Unfamiliar in the ‘Right’ Way: An Empirical Study of Poetic Gameplay. Proceedings of the 2017 DiGRA International Conference, 14(1), 1–18. Montfort, N. (2003). Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Nacke, L., & Drachen, A. (2011). Towards a Framework of Player Experience Research. Proceedings of the 2011 Foundations of Digital Games Conference, EPEX 11. Bordeaux, France. Orji, R., Mandryk, R., Vassileva, J., & Gerling, K. (2013). Tailoring Persuasive Health Games to Gamer Type. Proceedings of CHI ’13 (pp. 2467–2476). Paris, France. Pagulayan, R., Keeker, K., Wixon, D., Romero, R. L., & Fuller, T. (2003). UserCentered Design in Games. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The HumanComputer Interaction Handbook (pp. 883–906). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

202

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

Pinchbeck, D. (2009). Story as a Function of Gameplay in First Person Shooters. PhD Thesis. University of Portsmouth. Rollings, A., & Adams, E. (2003). Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design. Berkeley, CA: New Riders. Rosqvist, T. (2017). Decision Theory Based Model of Game Morality. The Computer Games Journal, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40869-017-0049-0 Rosqvist, T., Havlik, D., & Meriste, M. (2017). A Reference Decision Model of First Responders’ Decision-Making. International Journal of Emergency Management, 13(3), 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEM.2017.085003 Ryan, A., & Martens, C. (2017). Deriving Quests from Open World Mechanics. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. Aug 14–17, Hyannis, MA. Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The Motivational Pull of Video Games: A Self-Determination Theory Approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8 Sailer, M., Hense, J. U., Mayr, S. K., & Mandl, H. (2017). How Gamification Motivates: An Experimental Study of the Effects of Specific Game Design Elements on Psychological Need Satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 371–380. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.033 Searle, J. (1975). Indirect Speech Acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in S. Davis (Ed.), Pragmatics: A Reader (pp. 265–277). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (1991). Sicart, M. (2008). Defining Game Mechanics. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 8(2). Available from http://gamestudies. org/0802/articles/sicart (Accessed: 31 May 2018). Sim, Y. T., & Mitchell, A. (2017). Wordless Games: Gameplay as Narrative Technique. In N. Nunes, I. Oakley, & V. Nisi (Eds.), Interactive Storytelling, ICIDS 2017: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10690 (pp. 137–149). Cham: Springer. Talib, I. S. (2018). Narrative Theory: A Brief Introduction Chapter 2: Beginnings and Ends. Available from https://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/ellibst/narrativetheory/ chapt2.htm (Accessed: 24 May 2018). Toh, W. (2016). Gamers and Their Weapons: An Appraisal Perspective on Weapons Manipulation in Video Games. In S. Tetegah & W. D. Huang (Eds.), Emotions, Technology and Digital Games (pp. 83–114). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Tseng, F.-C. (2011). Segmenting Online Gamers by Motivation. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7693–7697. Tseng, F.-C., & Teng, C.-I. (2015). Online Gamers’ Preferences for Online Game Charging Mechanisms: The Effect of Exploration Motivation. International Journal of E-Business Research (IJEBR), 11 (1), 23–34. doi:10.4018/ ijebr.2015010102 Wlodkowski, R. J. (1989). Instructional Design and Learner Motivation. In K. A. Johnson & L. J. Foa (Eds.), Instructional Design: New Alternatives for Effective Education and Training. New York: Palgrave Mcmillan. Yee, N. (2006). The Demographics, Motivations and Derived Experiences of Users of Massively-Multiuser Online Graphical Environments. PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 15, 309–329.

Gameplay I—Players’ Actions and Mechanics

203

Yee, N. (2007). Motivations for Play in Online Games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(6), 772–775. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2006.9.772 Yee, N. (2016). The Gamer Motivation Profile: What We Learned from 250,000 Gamers. CHI PLAY ’16 Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (pp. 2–2). Oct 16–19, Austin, TX, USA.

11 Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, and Stage(s)

To construct the higher-level constituents of the gameplay analysis framework, I use Martin and Rose’s (2007) exchange structure to integrate Fabricatore’s (2007) modified model of gameplay mechanics with the player’s gameplay actions. The relationship between the player’s action and the mechanics is shown in Figure 11.2. The centricity of the player’s interaction with the mechanics is emphasised and the integrated framework contributes to a better understanding of the player’s interaction with the gameplay by foregrounding the specific elements involved in the process/ activity and their relationship with each other.

The Move The smallest unit of the exchange structure is a move. Following Lindley (2005), I define a move within a game as an abstract player action, mapping action to a specific importance within the rule set independently of local, personal, and idiosyncratic variations in performance; a move stands for a physical or simulated ergodic action allowed and facilitated by the game’s framing. Defining a move as a single unit of the player’s ergodic action in the gameplay which has a significant impact in changing the existing state of gameplay helps to mitigate the problems of applying a turn-based framework to analyse a real-time game. Firstly, we focus on the player’s ergodic actions that change the gameplay in significant ways, such as overcoming the challenge, defeating a group of enemy units, accomplishing the gameplay objective, and so on to progress the game. This prevents the analysis of every single move that the player makes which will make the analysis incredibly onerous. Secondly, defining the move in this way enables us to group similar player’s actions together as a move, which approximates the real-time nature of non-turn based games. A single move can be explained by Adams’ (2010, p. 40) concept of a gameplay mode (Figure 11.1). Adams (2010, p. 40) defines a gameplay mode as consisting of the specific subset of the game’s total gameplay that is available at any given time in the game, including the UI that presents the subset of the gameplay to the player.

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

205

Figure 11.1 The move for gameplay analysis (Adams, 2010)

A single move operates as follows. As seen in Figure 11.1, the player inputs actions via the UI. The player’s actions then trigger the core mechanics. The core mechanics either activate obstacles to challenge the player (oppositional mechanics) or helps (facilitating mechanics) the player. The manifestation of the core mechanics will be displayed as visuals and/or audio output to the player via the UI. Core mechanics are defined by Adams (2010, p. 287) as the precise definition of the game rules and its internal operations. The core mechanics transform the general game rules into a symbolic and mathematical model that can be implemented algorithmically (Adams, 2010, p. 35). The core mechanic is more specific then the rules. For instance, while the rules state that caterpillars move faster than snails, the core mechanics state exactly how fast each moves in centimetres per minute. The core mechanics are converted into algorithms in the software written by programmers. The core mechanics are the heart of any game because they generate the gameplay (Adams, 2010, p. 36). The mechanics define the gameplay challenges and the player’s actions which can be undertaken to meet the challenges (Adams, 2010, p. 36). They also determine the effect of the player’s action upon the game world (Adams, 2010, p. 36). The mechanics indicate the conditions for achieving the game goals and the consequences that follow from succeeding or failing to achieve them (Adams, 2010, p. 36). In the video game, the core mechanics are hidden from the players and the players discover them through play. As the player replays the game continuously, they eventually become aware of the inner workings of the mechanics and they learn to optimise their play to beat the game (Adams, 2010, p. 36). A quality of core mechanics is the degree of realism. A game is always a simpler model of the real-world situation, to make it more playable and more

206

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

fun. Games fall between a cline of abstract and representational. Abstract games are not a simulation of anything real while a representational game accurately simulates the real-world situation in a simplified manner. Mechanics control how the game world and everything in it behave (Adams, 2010, p. 295). It determines the relationship between entities, events, and processes in the game, and the conditions that trigger the events and processes. The mechanics not only describe the overall game rules, it also determines the behaviour of specific entities which includes the AI of an NPC. There are two types of mechanics. These are global and local gameplay mechanics. Global mechanics operate throughout the game and local mechanics apply only in specific gameplay modes. Some of the functions of core mechanics are listed in Table 11.1. The UI serves a mediating role between the core mechanics and the player, and it is known as the presentation layer (Adams, 2010, p. 37). It represents the challenges generated by the core mechanics as outputs, visually as graphics on the screen or sound from the speakers. The UI also converts the player’s inputs, the button presses and movements on the keyboard or controller into actions within the game context (Adams, 2010, p. 37). The UI also presents the game story and creates the sensory embodiment of the game world, which includes all the images and sounds of the world (Adams, 2010, p. 37). The UI includes the camera model and the interaction model. The game’s interaction model determines the relationship between the player’s inputs and the resulting actions (Adams, 2010, p. 38). The camera model

Table 11.1 Some functions of core mechanics (Adams, 2010, p. 289) Functions of core mechanics

Description

Operate internal economy of the game

Specifies how the game or the player creates, distributes, and uses up the goods on which the game bases its economy. The level design specifies active and passive challenges. Active challenges are governed by mechanics but passive challenges are not. Implements the effects of player’s actions upon the game world and other players. Determines the termination conditions of the game. Detects success or failure in all game challenges, and apply whatever consequences the rules call for. Determines the behaviour of NPCs and AI opponents. Keeps track of the gameplay mode and when the game or player requires a mode change, the core mechanics switch modes and signal the UI to update itself accordingly. Updates the plot when game events or player actions influence the plot.

Present active challenges

Accept player actions Detect victory or loss

Operate the AI Switch the game from mode to mode

Transmit triggers to the storytelling engine

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

207

displays the game space from a specific angle or point of view (Adams, 2010, p. 38). The camera model is the system that controls the imaginary camera’s behaviour (Adams, 2010, p. 38) and it can be static or dynamic. Early games are simple and used a static camera to show a fixed perspective whereas modern games are more complex and incorporate dynamic camera models where it moves in response to the player actions in the game world. Dynamic camera models cause the player’s experience to be livelier and more cinematic (Adams, 2010, p. 38). There are several types of camera models which include first person, and third person in three-dimensional game worlds, and top-down, side-scrolling, and isometric camera models for presenting two-dimensional game worlds (Adams, 2010, p. 39).

The Exchange The move in the gameplay exchange structure starts with the player’s action, and is followed by the game system’s response. The exchange may or may not end with the player carrying out specific follow-up action(s) as a result of the system’s response to advance the gameplay. For instance, if the player is unable to overcome the gameplay challenge in the mini game, s/he may restart the mini game as a follow-up action to retry the challenge. However, the follow-up action is optional. There may also be a system’s response to the player’s resultant actions. The exchange structure for the analysis of the player’s gameplay actions is shown in Figure 11.2. In the IR pairing, the

Figure 11.2 The relationship between the player and the mechanics

208

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

player has carried out an action and the game system then responded to the player. This is similar to Heaton’s (2006) circular model of gameplay. In Figure 11.2, the player’s action initiation and player’s follow-up actions consist of instrumental and strategic actions from Manninen’s (2003) modified model. These actions interact with the core, satellite, or peripheral mechanics to result in the gameplay. During the interaction, the game system may or may not provide a feedback to the player. For instance, the UI may display a timer to indicate to the player how long s/ he is required to overcome a challenge before it fails, and this highlights to the player the opposition gameplay mechanics.

Feedback Types Feedback is the stimuli in which the video game conveys information about the game world’s state to the player. When a player provides input to a game, it may or may not provide feedback to the player. The input to the game is instigated through the keyboard and mouse or the PS3 controller. Whatever the input, the players require feedback from the game or they will be confused and will resort to trial and error to figure out how to proceed the game. Feedback is multimodal and it can consist of a visual animation, an audio prompt, subtitles, and language displayed or all simultaneously. Feedback is crucial for the players to decide what subsequent actions they can choose to interact with the gameplay mechanics and it is classified under “system’s response” to “player’s actions”. Oxland (2004, p. 14) divides feedback into two types. The first type is explicit, which is activated and communicated to the player when s/ he performs an action. The second type is implicit, which is presented informatively (Oxland, 2004, p. 14). Oxland (2004, p. 14) provides the examples of a signpost or a well-trodden path as implicit feedback. In the video games studied in this book, explicit feedback can be presented via the language signs in Bioshock, such as the names of the different settings displayed on the loading screens when the player enters a new region in the game world. Implicit feedback can be presented via the visual signs in Bioshock and The Last of Us, such as the different designs of the settings in the different levels. Implicit feedback is also present in environmental indicators, such as the yellow ribbon in The Last of Us which point the direction for the player to move forward in the game world: Extract 11.1 nasir: Ya. Because like it’s not just that one piece that contributes to the story mah. It’s if you want to I think if environment is to be taken into the story, it’s as a whole lah not small details of it. Ya as a general. Unless that unless that detail is stands out to be unusual lah or something like that. Like the yellow ribbon is just part of a construction scene mah. It’s not weird for it to be there. Ya.

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

209

interviewer: So all those gameplay objects are helping to just progress the narrative ah? nasir: mm. As in progress the gameplay. As in because as in it depends you see. As in because I’m talking as in when you are talking about the Capitol Building right? That’s an endpoint so I can agree that’s towards narrative. But when you talked about the ribbon indicating the end of that zone right? That isn’t telling you much. As in it’s not they didn’t say go find the yellow ribbon. Or something like that so I don’t consider that as part of narrative ah. It’s only when it coincides with the general direction that the story is going. In addition to Oxland’s (2004) explicit and implicit feedback types, I have also observed the absence of feedback in the empirical data of the player’s gameplay interaction. In The Walking Dead, the players Mary and Henry had faced difficulties figuring out how to progress the gameplay in the fight with Andy Saint John at the electrical fence. Even though they continued pressing the same button in the QTE, the gameplay could not be progressed as the game does not provide feedback to guide the players how to proceed. The players had to figure out by themselves that they have to let go of the controls for the game to progress. Oxland’s (2004) taxonomy of feedback types and the addition of feedback absence is shown in Table 11.2. Table 11.2 Oxland’s (2004) modified taxonomy of feedback types Feedback Type Feedback Description Visual Audio Action

NPC Accumulative

Emotional Fulfilment

Informative Absence

This is what the player sees on the screen both directly and indirectly. What the player hears both directly and indirectly. A reaction from the player’s actions. This could be a combination of visual and audio, and is explicit feedback. Feedback from non-controlled characters that populate the game world. As the player progresses through the game s/he is going to require progression or accumulative feedback. This feedback provokes an emotion in the player. This feedback stimulates a sense of fulfilment, and it is important for games to recognise the need for fulfilment. This feedback provides information to the player via a context-sensitive control mechanism. There is no feedback in the game world to guide the players how to progress the game.

Explicit Implicit

210

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

Visual and audio feedback are generic types and they can be found in both the player’s action and system’s response. In Beyond: Two Souls, visual feedback can be used to distinguish whether the player allows the dialogue options to run through on its own or s/he chooses an option. When the player allows the game to auto select the dialogue option for him/her, it will fade out on its own. When the player chooses the dialogue option, there will be no fade out. In The Walking Dead, audio feedback is present in the PC talking to himself to provide the player with hints when the player interacts with objects. Action feedback is more specific, and it is a system’s response to the player’s action. It consists of either or both visual and audio feedback. In Mass Effect, the PC’s health bar would turn green when the player is hit by negative effects such as toxins. However, the interview with the player, Nasir shows us that the visual feedback by itself is insufficient to enable the player to understand its function because it did not tell the player its function explicitly through language in the UI: Extract 11.2 interviewer: But you still don’t know what is this ah? The green colour coding. nasir: Ya. I’m assuming it’s healing. Because in in Mass Effect 2 they didn’t they don’t really play around with er as in it’s not so obvious about poison and stuff lah. I don’t think there’s any poison in Mass Effect 2. It’s only because Mass Effect 1 got poison so . . . it’s a bit vague. NPC feedback is the system’s response which is activated when the player clicks on the NPC to interact with him/her. Accumulative feedback is the system’s response, which is a result of the player’s gameplay actions. For instance, as the player collects the various parts of Big Daddy suit in Bioshock, the gradual transformation of the PC is indicated through both the visual and the audio signs. Visual feedback is provided to the player when s/he wears the helmet and experiences a more restricted field of view, and audio feedback is given to the player when s/he incorporates Big Daddy’s voice box causing him/her to sound like Big Daddy. Emotional feedback is more subjective and it is the player’s experience of emotion(s) upon receiving game feedback. For instance, in The Walking Dead and Mass Effect, the time bar is a mechanic in which the player has either to choose a dialogue option or perform a series of actions within a time restriction. As the time limit is almost over but the player has not made a decision or completed the series of actions, there is emotion intensification and the feeling of anxiousness, especially if the player perceived the choice/action to be difficult. Fulfilment feedback is the system’s response to the player’s action and can be in the form of a cinematic cutscene or NPC’s feedback that rewards the player after his/her successful attempt at overcoming the gameplay challenge. Finally, informative feedback is the system’s response

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

211

which conveys information to the player. This can appear in the form of the timer countdown and time bar in Mass Effect and The Walking Dead respectively. Another example includes the shortening of the PC’s health bar at regular intervals in the latter half of Bioshock.

Gameplay Phase Types In this section, the macro or higher-level components of the gameplay analysis model, the gameplay phase types are introduced. I define the gameplay phase types as localised groupings of gameplay events, made up of moves and exchange(s), depending on the length of the gameplay session. These localised gameplay events are usually initiated by the player (in the user events) but are sometimes initiated by the system (in the system events). Each of the gameplay phase type is categorised according to the similar function it fulfils. For instance, as seen in Table 11.4, the gameplay session introduction serves to provide information to the players in terms of the gameplay objectives. This is contrasted with the boss phase which functions to challenge the player’s gameplay progression. The model of gameplay phase types is adapted from Martin and Rose’s (2008) story phases which I will briefly outline in this section. After I have outlined their framework of story phases, I will provide the modification of their framework for gameplay analysis. Martin and Rose (2008) originally developed story phases to analyse non-ergodic narrative texts which are non-interactive, such as literary works and films. Martin and Rose (2008, p. 82) argue that each phase type performs a certain function to engage the reader as the story unfolds. It performs its function by constructing its field of activities, people, things, and places, by evoking emotional responses, or by linking it to common experiences and interpretations of life. The main phase types and their functions are summarised in Table 11.3. The key principle that organises these narrative phases is expectancy, and the narrative is carried forward by swings in expectancy from phase to phase (Martin & Rose, 2008, p. 85). The narrator engages the reader Table 11.3 Common story phase types and their functions (Martin & Rose, 2008, p. 82) Phase Type

Engagement Functions

Setting Reactions Problem Solution Comment Reflection

Presenting context Behavioural/attitudinal outcome Counter-expectant creating tension Counter-expectant releasing tension Intruding narrator’s comments Intruding participant’s thoughts

212

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

by manipulating the expectancy, that is, by fulfilling or disrupting it, through a series of phases/phase change in each stage. However, gameplay is different from story phases. To analyse the game, I modify the common story phase types from Martin and Rose (2008) and reconceptualised them as the common gameplay phase types. The modified phase types and their functions are shown in Table 11.4. It is noted that the comment and reflection gameplay phases are more free-flowing as they do not necessarily have to occur at the end of the gameplay session. For instance, some participants provided audio commentary while simultaneously playing the game. It is only the more critical reflections that require the player to pause the game which usually occur at the end of the gameplay session. Critical reflections or comments may also occur before or after any of the other gameplay phases. The gameplay session introduction does not necessarily have to be provided by the game, but the players may also provide a recap of what they have done up to that point of their gameplay in the recordings to provide context for the new gameplay. We can modify the gameplay phase types or add new phases when analysing the gameplay of specific video games. To analyse another game, we may need to create different gameplay phase types which are specific to different video game genres. As noted from the review of Heaton’s (2006) gameplay model, it will be more difficult to implement a model which has clearly demarcated moves, exchanges, and phases to analyse games with real-time gameplay. To face this difficulty, we can develop our own taxonomy of gameplay phase types according to our research purposes. We can use multimodal features such as the language and visual signs as markers to distinguish between the gameplay phases. The following sections will provide a brief description of the gameplay phase types as shown in Table 11.4 with supporting examples from the empirical data in the study.

Table 11.4 Common gameplay phase types and functions Phase Type

Engagement Functions

Gameplay session introduction Monster group n Boss 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase n Monster group n Boss 2 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase n Comment Reflection

Presenting the gameplay objectives Opposition mechanics Opposition mechanics

Opposition mechanics Opposition mechanics

Game developer’s/Narrator’s/Player’s comments Player’s gameplay discussion/reflection

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

213

Gameplay Session Introduction This common gameplay phase serves the function of orientating the player to the gameplay objectives. It is usually given at the start of a new level or during a cutscene. For instance, in The Last of Us, the cutscene immediately after the prologue informs the players that they have to find Robert. The cutscene’s narrative motivates the players (Alice, Walter, and Nasir) to find Robert in the gameplay (see “ludonarrative resonance motivation” in Chapter 5). In Bioshock, the cutscene introduces the player to Big Daddy as a boss enemy and its symbiotic relationship with the Little Sisters. The cutscene’s narrative helps the player (Loke) to formulate general gameplay strategies/actions to overcome Big Daddy to gain access to the Little Sisters (see “ludonarrative resonance guidance” in Chapter 5). Gameplay interaction also introduces the gameplay ability of common enemies. In The Last of Us, interacting with the Clicker stuck on the door caused Tess and Ellie to provide the PC, Joel, and by extension, the player with crucial information regarding the gameplay ability of the Clicker in the narrative (event) where it was encountered the first time (see “ludonarrative resonance metaphor” in Chapter 5). This gameplay phase therefore sometimes occurs before a new enemy or boss encounter where it is necessary to explain the difficult or different gameplay mechanics to new players. However, the game does not always explain in detail the gameplay mechanics of enemies such as the boss, Bloater in The Last of Us and it increases the challenge when the players have to formulate strategies themselves to overcome the enemy.

Monster Group n These are common enemies that attack the players in packs or groups and they usually serve as opposition mechanics to the player before the harder boss encounter. The n denotes the number of such groups before the boss encounter. Each successive groups may have different abilities or more difficult challenges as the player approaches the boss encounter. Common enemies include Splicers in Bioshock, Geth and Krogans in Mass Effect, zombies and humans in The Walking Dead, Infected and human enemies in The Last of Us, and entities and humans in Beyond: Two Souls.

Boss This is the hardest part of the gameplay. It consists of a single (or multiple) boss who may be accompanied by common enemies. For instance, in Bioshock’s final fight, Frank Fontaine is accompanied by his Splicers and security bots. There may also be different phases during the boss fight where the boss switches form and mechanics to deal different forms

214

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

of attacks. In the final boss fight, Frank Fontaine appears in form one— fire during phase one, form two—ice during phase two, and finally form three—lightning during phase three. The different forms are in order of increasing difficulty. However, players (e.g. Mary) mentioned that Frank Fontaine’s boss fight was not challenging as they could overcome him easily in his three forms due to their fully upgraded PC by the end of the game. Sometimes, there are multiple bosses. Multiple bosses usually occur towards the endgame. In the final chapter of The Last of Us, two Bloaters obstruct the player’s progress towards the Firefly’s (the name of a revolutionary militia group) hospital where Ellie is been prepared for operation.

Comment The game developers congratulate the players after they have successfully overcome the boss challenge. They may also provide further gameplay information to the players, such as the name of the boss (Bloater) and their characteristics in The Last of Us through the characters after the players have completed a (boss) challenge, to progress their gameplay. This gameplay phase usually occurs at the end of a boss encounter, but is free to appear before, during or after the other gameplay phases. This gameplay phase also functions as an indicator of phase change when control is withheld from the player in a cutscene as the boss speaks to the player. The participants may or may not provide commentary during their gameplay.

Reflection This gameplay phase involves the players’ discussion or verbalising of their thoughts about the narrative, gameplay, and ludonarrative of the selected video game after they have finished a gameplay session. This gameplay phase may occur after the boss gameplay phase, but may also be free to appear before, during, and after the other gameplay phases.

Player Effectance In contrast to the key principle of expectancy which organises the narrative phases, the key principle which organises the gameplay phases is the notion of player effectance. The reason for the use of the concept of player effectance is because of the ergodic nature of video games. The player is the central agency who advances the gameplay. Effectance is a motivation concept defined by White (1959). In White’s (1959) effectance motivation theory, human being’s motivational system is being energised by an urge towards competence, that is, making progress in the knowledge and

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

215

abilities that support the individual’s struggle to survive (Hartmann & Klimmt, 2006, p. 136). According to White (1959), the human motivational system is laid out to secure adaptive behaviour, which means to gain new competencies. But people are not aware of this superordinate function of their activities. Instead, human beings perform actions that lead to competence gain because of more contextual-based and immediate reasons (Hartmann & Klimmt, 2006, p. 136). White (1959) argues that the subjective reward of participation in such activities is the perception of satisfaction in having imposed an effect on the environment. By achieving this experience of gratification, the individual is provided with an immediate motivation to deal with one’s environment. As this experience is motivating, people will be encouraged to develop a stable motivation to enter this condition. The motivational disposition ensures that the individual continues to actively interact with the environment to gain new competence. White (1959) terms this as effectance motivation. In video games, it is the players’ agency that advances the gameplay. As they change the gameplay state through their actions, new system events will be procedurally generated to offer the player continuous challenge to immerse him/her in the game world. When the players are able to overcome the gameplay challenges, they will feel an immense satisfaction as it is their effort or effectance that contributes to the winning of the game. The manner in which gameplay phases serve as pulses of effectance is depicted in Figure 11.3. The dotted lines indicate that these gameplay phases are free-flowing and can move around. The gameplay session introduction creates a counter-effectance of common enemies through the player’s active interaction with the gameplay after they have understood the gameplay objectives. This is followed by counter-effectance of more groups of common enemies after they have defeated the previous wave of common enemies. The counter-effectance of common enemies eventually leads to the boss encounter. This chain of gameplay phases repeats itself after boss encounter 1 on the way to boss encounter 2. The interaction of the player in these gameplay phases engages the gameplay to advance the game. The game will need to constantly challenge the player with new opposition mechanics to immerse him/her in the gameplay. The gameplay phase ends as the final boss is defeated and the player exits the game.

Figure 11.3 Gameplay phases as pulses of effectance

216

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

Gameplay Stage(s) The final or highest level of the gameplay is the gameplay stage. I define a stage as an entire playthrough of a video game, made up of gameplay phases, exchanges, and moves. I propose a few theoretical stages which may not generalise to different player types as different players have their own way of learning and playing. In stage 1, the player first encounters the gameplay. This stage corresponds to the early or cognitive stage in which the player as a learner tries to understand how to approach the task given to them in the game (Bradshaw, 2007). Some games will scaffold the players’ learning of the mechanics during their initial encounter with the gameplay by providing a tutorial level either separated (e.g. The Witcher 2) or integrated into the game levels (e.g. The Last of Us). In stage 2, the player continues to learn the gameplay mechanics and this stage corresponds to the intermediate or associative phase (Bradshaw, 2007). Stage 2 may co-occur with stage 3 as the player continues to learn the mechanics through application of the knowledge and skills s/he has acquired during the early or cognitive stage to overcome the challenges or experiments with different strategies. During stages 2 and 3, the player analyses the mechanics by exploring the tasks required for each gameplay phase in the feedback loop consisting of “actions”, “feedback”, and “progression or failure”. When there is a failure in the learning of the mechanics, the player will restart at the beginning of the feedback loop by practising the actions allowed by the mechanics until they have learnt from their failures. In stage 4, the player masters the gameplay mechanics. This stage corresponds to the autonomous phase (Bradshaw, 2007) in which the skills learnt by the player become increasingly automatic. By this stage, the player requires minimal direction in the gameplay and s/he thinks less about what s/he does. New and more challenges (at higher difficulty levels) can be introduced here by scaffolding the new mechanics with skills that the player has already learnt in the previous stages. Finally, in stage 5 the player focuses on the temporal mastery such as speedruns where the player sets his/her own challenge to complete the game in the shortest time possible. After completion of all the stages, the player may start to tire of the gameplay when s/he has mastered all the mechanics and overcome every challenge in the game. Game developers will have to entice players back to play the game by including patches with new content or randomly generated dropped items that are extremely rare to hook them to continuously play a multiplayer game. They will have to update the single or multiplayer game with new gameplay content such as expansion packs or DLCs. The gameplay stages are shown in Figure 11.4.

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

217

Figure 11.4 Proposed gameplay stages

Multi-Linear Gameplay The gameplay content can be interacted with in different ways in various video games, depending on the game structure and the players. Drawing on Ryan’s (2001) exploratory-ontological binary pair/split in narrative digital media, Chapman (2016) proposes three game-specific categories of story structure, deterministic, open, and open-ontological. Deterministic story structures are fixed and linear because the framing narrative (game designer’s story) is privileged in the construction of the overall game narrative. In contrast, open-ontological story structures dramatically privilege the ludonarrative (the game structure that emerges from the player’s decisions during their gameplay interaction) in the construction of the overall game narrative because this type of story structure has very weak framing narrative. Games with open-ontological story structures therefore include sandbox games where the player’s story is emphasised in free play. Open story structures are situated in-between deterministic and open-ontological story structures. In games with open story structures, the player’s actions have some influence over the arrangement of the narrative fragments of the framing narrative. The five games in this book belong to either the deterministic or open story structure. Games with deterministic story structure include The Walking Dead, Beyond: Two Souls, and The Last of Us. Those with open

218

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

story structure include Mass Effect and Bioshock. In The Walking Dead and Beyond: Two Souls, the player only has the choice to select or not to select the type of gameplay actions to utilise through point and click. As these games are narrative focused, the presence of choice do not contribute to multi-linear gameplay, but contribute to minute changes of the narrative on the micro level. For instance, in both games, choosing to explore the game world will unlock backstory for the characters. In Beyond: Two Souls, choosing the gameplay action of using Jodie or Aiden to possess the Asian general will contribute to two different narrative pathways where the PC, Jodie, will be caught in different ways within the chapter: Extract 11.3 interviewer: Is the way you are caught lah. matt: Ya. You get caught in the front or you get caught in the back haha. interviewer: Later on only. matt: Exactly, it’s like you know, I cleared. interviewer: Is it not meaningful for you? matt: It’s just a means lah. The means to an end. The same ending you know? Ya lah not very meaningful lah. At the end of it, we still reaching the same end. Ya. Matt was unaware that he can use Aiden to possess the Asian general because there was no multimodal affordance provided explicitly. He also did not feel that the different narrative pathways were meaningful, as they will eventually converge to the same ending at the end of the chapter. The analysis here provides empirical data for the co-creation of the ludonarrative subcategory, “irrelevance—narrative focus” where the player may be unaware of the different gameplay actions that they can choose to change the micronarratives. In The Walking Dead, choosing to go out of Clementine’s house with her either in the day or during the night will contribute to two different narrative events. If the player chooses to go out in the day, the player will encounter Chet and Shawn, but if s/he chooses to go out in the night, the player will encounter the zombie Chet and a police officer: Extract 11.4 interviewer: So this part if you choose to go out in the dark, you also think the gameplay will be the same? mary: I actually never choose it so I mean I never seen anyone choose it so I have no idea what the outcome would be. Do you know? interviewer: Something will happen to Chet. mary: Oh damn. I don’t want but nothing happened to him when he travelled in the day so. . . .

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

219

interviewer: So you think the story choice will not influence the gameplay ah? mary: erm maybe a bit because like if your characters some of the characters die then they won’t appear in the future parts where the gameplay require them in that sense. But er it doesn’t feel that impactful when you are playing it lah to be honest unless you played it multiple times lah then you realised there’s a difference lah. But at the first run, don’t really feel much difference I suppose. Mary did not realise the difference as she only played it once and has no basis for comparison. This analysis provides empirical data for the ludonarrative subcategory, “irrelevance consequence” for the players who have only played the game once. First-time players are unaware of the narrative consequences (or the different outcomes are irrelevant to them) because they have not explored the different gameplay choices in the dialogue options. In Bioshock and The Last of Us, there is optional gameplay that contributes to multi-linear gameplay where players can choose to explore hidden areas in the game world to scavenge for items. In Bioshock, the player can choose when to kill or spare certain NPCs such as Sander Cohen during the gameplay. The choice to kill or spare NPCs such as Sander Cohen in Bioshock is a gameplay event since, the narrative is linear and cannot be changed. However, the choice of saving or harvesting the Little Sisters is a ludonarrative event that can change the narrative ending. Out of the five games in the study, Mass Effect has the most flexible game structure. There are side missions on the various planets of Mass Effect where the players have a choice to complete or skip them. The choices available to the players create a vast number of possible multi-linear gameplay pathways, as the players are given a choice to do the optional secondary missions which may not only complement the main mission, but also create different gameplay pathways (Figure 11.5). The advantage of having a multi-linear gameplay is that players do not have to worry about getting stuck on a tough mission as they can skip the harder missions first and return to complete them after they have accumulated sufficient character experience or in-game rewards. This strategy is not possible for deterministic story focused games such as The Walking Dead, Beyond: Two Souls, and The Last of Us where the gameplay is determined by the narrative. Compared to games with an open-ontological story structure, games with an open story structure such as Mass Effect have a certain restriction in that once players have finished the game, they cannot go back to explore previously unexplored game areas as the game is not open world. Nasir mentioned that he was unable to return to complete the side missions once the primary mission or main plot in Mass Effect was resolved:

220

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

Figure 11.5 Examples of multiple gameplay pathways in Mass Effect

Extract 11.5 nasir: I was thinking I also thought that er like once you finished the main storyline, you have like a free to roam kind of mode where they just let you finish your side quests. But apparently not lah so I did want to I did want to finish the side quests but only later on. I thought it was possible to clear it after the main mission. . . . Ya I guess as in the main like ya the main story is more important. You can do all the side stuffs later on. Like even for World of Warcraft, I guess if for that example, like let’s say example would be let’s say you are level okay you are level 20, let’s say er they give you the option of you want to go to this zone or that zone and both of these zones are for that level. It’s just give you a option ah. Ya so it’s like if you choose to go this zone then the stories would be different. Each as in each zone would have its kind of its own story if you if you bother to read. And follow the quests. Ya then once you are done with let’s say you have option with this zone A and zone B. Once you are done with zone A er you could go back to zone B.

Application of Gameplay Analysis Model I have chosen the gameplay segment from Beyond: Two Souls for the demonstration analysis titled, “Dragon’s Hideout” which is Chapter 22 in play order, but Chapter 24 in the story’s chronological order. The story in this chapter is focused on the CIA’s sending of Jodie and a team to

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

221

infiltrate a secret base to destroy the condenser technology (a device which can open a tear in the fabric of reality to connect the physical world with a parallel world) to keep that technology exclusive to the CIA and its allies. Jodie and Ryan (Jodie’s teammate) managed to infiltrate the base but they were captured. Aiden (Jodie’s entity) managed to free Jodie, and Ryan and Jodie had to dive underwater to put explosives on the condenser to close the rift. As Jodie returned to the base, she had to fight the commander of the facility and overcome him before she can escape from the base. The demonstration analysis will focus on the analysis of the boss fight. The data of the two participants, Matt and Michael are analysed for comparative purposes to highlight their different interactions with the gameplay which contribute to two different narrative outcomes. The analysis of Michael’s gameplay shows that he had experienced trouble mastering the controls whereas Matt was more proficient with the controls. As a result of his focus on the gameplay controls, Michael became more passive as the game progressed. When he realised that the PC will not die in the scripted QTEs even if he did not input the PC’s actions (correctly) using the PS3 controller, he allowed some parts of the latter half of the game to run on its own, such as letting the game automatically select the choices for him. During the boss fight with the commander of the facility, Michael did not provide any input to the gameplay as he remained passive and simply watched the scene as an audience. Using the gameplay analysis model, I collectively analyse Michael’s actions as a single move of “no action” with the system automatically generating responses to the player’s inactivity. The narrative outcome for Michael’s passive interaction with the gameplay is that Jodie had to be rescued by Ryan and she had to be resuscitated by Ryan when they reached safety. In contrast, Matt followed the game prompts closely and chose to be guided by the game. He participated in the gameplay and chose all the dialogue options without allowing the game to choose them for him. He engaged in all the QTEs and pressed all the correct buttons. There was minimal narrative interpretation when he engaged in the gameplay as he was focusing on performing the correct gameplay actions to prevent Jodie from becoming injured. Using the gameplay analysis model, I collectively analyse Matt’s actions as a single move of “instrumental actions—kinesics and spatial behaviour” with the system generating responses in the form of event based opposition mechanics (QTE) to form a series of feedback loops. The boss fight ended with a facilitating mechanic from the system where the commander/antagonist was killed by the sea entity that he created. The different narrative outcome for Matt was that Jodie escaped together with Ryan from the base in the submarine and had a kiss when they reached safety. Having discussed the video gameplay analysis model, I will conclude this volume with the application, contributions, limitations, and future directions in the final chapter.

222

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

Summary Chapter 11 discusses the macro components and elements of the gameplay analysis model for us to understand how the micro components and elements combine with one another to form the higher-level constituents of the gameplay analysis framework. I first conceptualised the move as the smallest unit of gameplay. The move starts with the player’s action and interacts with the system’s response to form an exchange or feedback/ gameplay loop. A series of gameplay exchanges combine to form the gameplay phase types. The highest level of the gameplay analysis model is the gameplay stage which I define as a single playthrough of the video game. Following that, I provide a brief discussion of the feature of “multilinearity” in video gameplay in order to account for the different ways in which different players interact with different video games, depending on the game structure and the players. This chapter ends with an application of the gameplay analysis model on a gameplay segment to demonstrate how it can be applied to analyse and understand the players’ interaction with the game.

References Adams, E. (2010). Fundamentals of Game Design. Berkeley, CA: New Riders. Bradshaw, H. (2007). Computer Game Playability: Learning through Gameplay Design. In M. Taisch (Ed.), 2nd International Learning with Games Conference. France: Sophia Antipolis. Available from www.hazelbradshaw.co.uk/ downloads/Learning_Gameplay_Design.pdf (Accessed: 31 Dec 2017). Chapman, A. (2016). Digital Games as History: How Videogames Represent the Past and Offer Access to Historical Practice. New York: Routledge. Fabricatore, C. (2007). Gameplay and Game Mechanics Design: A Key to Quality in Videogames. Proceedings of OECD-CERI Expert Meeting on Videogames and Education. Santiago de Chile, Chile. [online] Available from www.oecd. org/edu/ceri/39414829.pdf (Accessed: 20 Dec 2017). Hartmann, T., & Klimmt, C. (2006). The Influence of Personality Factors on Computer Game Choice. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences (pp. 115–131). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Heaton, T. (2006). A Circular Model of Gameplay. Gamasutra. Available from www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130978/a_circular_model_of_gameplay. php (Accessed: 20 Dec 2017). Lindley, C. (2005). The Semiotics of Time Structure in Ludic Space as a Foundation for Analysis and Design. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 5(1). Available from www.gamestudies.org/0501/lindley/ (Accessed: 20 Aug 2015). Manninen, T. (2003). Interaction Forms and Communicative Actions in Multiplayer Games. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research , 3 (1). Available from www.gamestudies.org/0301/manninen/ (Accessed: 20 Dec 2017).

Gameplay II—Loop, Phase Types, & Stage(s)

223

Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause (2nd ed.). London and New York: Continuum Impacts. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equinox. Oxland, K. (2004). Gameplay and Design. Harlow, Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited. Ryan, M.-L. (2001). Beyond Myth and Metaphor: The Case of Narrative in Digital Media. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research, 1(1). Available from www.gamestudies.org/0101/ryan/ (Accessed: 31 Dec 2017). White, R. W. (1959). Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Competence. Psychological Review, 66(5), 297–333.

12 Video Games as Ludonarrative Application and Future Directions

In Chapter 3, I have provided a comprehensive description of the ludonarrative model for video games. This model provides us with the analytical lens for the ludonarrative analysis of video games by integrating the narrative analysis framework in Chapters 8 and 9, and the gameplay analysis framework in Chapters 10 and 11. I have used the model as an analytical lens to study and refine the ludonarrative relationships in the five different video games using the empirical data from the players. Based on the multimodal discourse analysis of the gameplay recordings, I have developed open-ended interview questions to understand the players’ narrative interpretations, reasons for selecting specific gameplay actions, and their experience of ludonarrative relationships during the retrospective protocol analysis. The empirical data which I have used to develop the ludonarrative model include the gameplay recordings and the open-ended interviews. The ludonarrative model highlights the respective ludonarrative (sub) categories in the selected video games by foregrounding the interactions between the narrative and gameplay modules. Because the ludonarrative model is built and refined using the players’ experience, we can understand how and why different players understand the narrative, gameplay, and ludonarrative structures of games differently. Based on the study of players, the three main categories of the ludonarrative model are “ludonarrative dissonance”, “ludonarrative resonance”, and “ludonarrative (ir)relevance”. Using the empirical data from the players and past ludonarrative studies, I validate and refine Hocking’s (2007) concept of “ludonarrative dissonance” to build further subcategories such as “contrast”, “incomplete information problems”, “anagnorisis”, “player-(game designers’) character dissonance”, “negotiation”, “demotivation”, and “imbalance”. I define “ludonarrative dissonance” as the disjunction between the narrative and gameplay modules on a continuum and the respective subcategories are presented in Table 12.1. Using the empirical data from the players and past ludonarrative studies, I validate and refine Watssman’s (2012) concept of “ludonarrative

Video Games as Ludonarrative

225

Table 12.1 The subcategories of ludonarrative dissonance (Toh, 2015) Ludonarrative Subcategory

Description

Dissonance Contrast

Constituents from gameplay contrast with constituents from narrative. Players possess limited knowledge about how their gameplay actions/ choices affect the narrative and vice versa. Usually occurs during a “recognition scene” or plots during the principle reversal or peripety that occurs from acquisition of knowledge previously withheld but when known, contributes to a decisive change (in the gameplay). Player’s knowledge of the game world during gameplay is more or less than what they think the game designers know about the PC in the narrative. Constituents from the gameplay and narrative are negotiated in the players’ mental model which result in a macroshift in meanings and this involves re-contextualisation to bring about a reconciliation between the meanings from the different concepts. The narrative demotivates the player from achieving the gameplay goals, choosing specific gameplay choices, or performing specific gameplay actions and vice versa. Either the gameplay or narrative is more dominant than the other.

Incomplete Information Problems

Anagnorisis

Player-(Game Designers’) Character Dissonance

Dissonance Negotiation

Dissonance Demotivation

Dissonance Imbalance

resonance”. The new subcategories are “motivation”, “guidance”, “metaphor”, “semiotic metaphor”, “balance”, “consequence/contingency”, “causality”, “succession”, “parallelism integration”, “prominence”, “player-(game designers’) character resonance”, and “information solutions”. I define “ludonarrative resonance” as the congruence between the narrative and gameplay modules on a continuum and the respective subcategories are presented in Table 12.2. I coin the new category “ludonarrative (ir)relevance” based on the modification of Watssman’s (2012) “ludonarrative alienation”. I have used the empirical data from the players to refine “ludonarrative (ir)relevance” to create subcategories such as “gameplay focus”, “narrative focus”, “incomplete information problems”, “metaphor”, “consequence”, “guidance”,

Table 12.2 The subcategories of ludonarrative resonance (Toh, 2015) Ludonarrative Subcategory

Description

Resonance Motivation

The narrative motivates the player to achieve the gameplay goals and vice versa. The narrative instructs the player what to do in the gameplay and vice versa. Also refers to the sequential organisation of the game. The gameplay mechanics are presented to the player through the narrative elements and vice versa. Metaphorical shifts which occur when the functional status of gameplay elements is not preserved as new narrative elements and gameplay mechanics are introduced for narrative effect. This involves the resemiotisation process where meanings are transformed from one semiotic system to another. The gameplay challenge does not interfere with the players’ narrative interpretation and vice versa. Player’s gameplay action creates a narrative outcome and vice versa. The consequence can only be observed after the narrative or gameplay option has been made after some time. The player’s gameplay action creates an immediate narrative outcome that is apparent to the player and vice versa. The player may be able to predict the outcome. A gameplay event’s transition to a narrative event and vice versa, but there is no strong link between the events. Configurative elements from the gameplay function to correspond with the interpretive elements from the narrative and vice versa. Elements from the narrative are incorporated by the player or the game to draw attention to particular elements from the gameplay and this gives rise to a semantic expansion and vice versa. Player’s knowledge of the game world in the gameplay aligns with what they think the game designers know about the PC in the narrative. To solidify the empathetic connection between player and character, game designers may encourage players to perform gameplay actions or make important decisions by providing them with explicit knowledge of how to overcome the gameplay challenge(s) or make a narrative choice. The gameplay consequences are explicitly shown to the players as feedback in the narrative setting.

Resonance Guidance

Resonance Metaphor

Resonance Semiotic Metaphor

Resonance Balance Resonance Consequence/ Contingency

Resonance Causality

Resonance Succession

Resonance Parallelism Integration Resonance Prominence

Player-(Game Designers’) Character Resonance Resonance Information Solutions

Video Games as Ludonarrative

227

Table 12.3 The subcategories of ludonarrative (ir)relevance (Toh, 2015) Ludonarrative Subcategory

Description

(Ir)relevance Gameplay Focus (Ir)relevance Narrative Focus

Players focus more on the gameplay such that the narrative is backgrounded when they play the game. Players focus more on the narrative interpretation such that the gameplay is of secondary importance to the narrative. The game does not provide sufficient and clear information to the players via either the gameplay or narrative to unlock more gameplay or narrative information.

(Ir)relevance Incomplete Information Problems (Ir)relevance Metaphor (Ir)relevance Consequence (Ir)relevance Guidance (Ir)relevance Prominence

Players interpret the information conveyed by the narrative appearance of game objects to teach them the new gameplay feature as being irrelevant. Players do not know the consequence of the gameplay action on the narrative and vice versa which contributes to its irrelevance. The guidance given by the narrative for the gameplay and vice versa is irrelevant either because it is obvious to the player, or it is implicit. Elements from the narrative or gameplay is incorporated by the player or the game to draw (ir)relevant attention to particular elements from the gameplay or narrative, respectively, and this gives rise to a semantic expansion.

and “prominence”. I define “ludonarrative (ir)relevance” as the narrative and gameplay modules having a weak relationship with each other on a continuum, neither conflicting, as in dissonance, nor harmonising, as in resonance. The respective subcategories are presented in Table 12.3.

Application of the Ludonarrative Model— The Last of Us’ Prologue Following the discussion of the ludonarrative relationships in the ludonarrative model, I will now perform a detailed application analysis on The Last of Us’ prologue to demonstrate the usefulness of ludonarratology as a frame for game studies scholarship. I provide a frame-by-frame analysis of The Last of Us’ prologue to show how the respective ludonarrative subcategories from the ludonarrative model can be used to analyse the player’s interaction with the video game. This approach enables us to understand the player experience of the video game which consists of the narrative interpretation, performance of gameplay action, and ludonarrative relationships.

228

Video Games as Ludonarrative

The Last of Us’ prologue enables us to first control Sarah who is Joel’s daughter, followed by Joel. The prologue serves an important narrative function by setting the game such that we are made privy to Joel’s loss of Sarah at the very start of the outbreak of the infection. It helps us to feel empathy towards the PC, Joel, by enabling us to understand why he did not want to form emotional connections to other characters in the game world, especially Ellie, a girl who is of similar age to Sarah whom Joel meets shortly after the prologue: Extract 12.1 nasir: Ya. As in because most apocalyptic games don’t show you how it was like when things first started to go bad. So because of that, at least for this one, we know what Joel went through. So we can somehow relate to why he doesn’t want to form an attachment with Ellie because he doesn’t want to risk that happening again ah. So in that sense, it gives a bit more depth as to the character’s motivations about why he’s cold or why he prioritises survival and so on. The prologue also serves as a gameplay tutorial to scaffold our learning of the game mechanics as we are introduced to them one at a time. For instance, we first learn how to interact with game objects, then to control the PC’s movements using the PS3 controller, and finally to interact with the Infected and other characters during QTEs. In this way, we are allowed to familiarise ourselves with the controls in a progressive and manageable level. The game starts with a non-interactive cutscene to introduce Joel and his daughter, Sarah to highlight their close relationship. Joel comes home late at night and talks to his brother Tommy on the phone. Sarah is sleeping but wakes up when she sees Joel and gives him a new wristwatch for his birthday. Sarah falls asleep shortly after that and Joel puts her to bed. A couple of hours later, Sarah wakes up and gets a frantic phone call from Tommy who is looking for Joel but the call is disconnected. We are then given control of Sarah as she gets up to look for her father in the house. There is “ludonarrative resonance balance” where the gameplay and narrative balance is created by setting the game challenge such that it does not interfere with our narrative interpretation. The sense of urgency is not there as there is no time limit imposed by the gameplay for the narrative to progress. Thus, the game encourages us to explore the game world and interact with objects to obtain more narrative to orientate ourselves in the game world. The narrative also motivates us to achieve the gameplay goals, to choose specific gameplay choices, or perform specific gameplay actions. This is classified under “ludonarrative resonance motivation” in the

Video Games as Ludonarrative

229

ludonarrative model. When we control Sarah to explore the house, we are allowed to perform a restricted number of gameplay actions, such as to interact with the birthday card, and later on, the newspaper, the birthday note stuck on the fridge, and the handphone on the table. If we explore the house thoroughly, we will be able to obtain embedded narrative to deepen our understanding of the video game narrative, specifically the relationship between Joel and Sarah and the current state of the game world. Therefore, the narrative not only motivates our actions, but the gameplay exploration and actions also feed back into our narrative interpretations which serve a contextualising function to the gameplay. Compared to other games such as The Witcher 2 which has its gameplay tutorial given as a separate gameplay session from the main campaign, The Last of Us’ tutorial is integrated into the game’s narrative. At the beginning of the game, we are given control of Sarah to learn how to navigate the PS3 controller for basic movement. More advanced movement control such as running is only unlocked for us after the session containing Sarah’s gameplay. The more we explore the game world using Sarah, the more narrative information we uncover. When we continue to control Sarah to search for Joel in the house, we are drawn to the news on the television. “Ludonarrative resonance prominence” is present when the news provides the narrative information of the infection and the symptoms in the infected humans such as increased aggression because the narrative information of the Infected’s behaviour also draws our attention to them as a potential enemy later in the game. As we watch the news on the television, the simultaneous explosion on the television and the nearby building outside Sarah’s house highlight the narrative tension and foreshadows the gameplay movement later when Sarah, Joel, and Tommy have to abandon their house during the apocalypse outbreak. As Sarah goes downstairs, she reunites with Joel who has just returned from outside the house. Upon entering the house, Joel immediately arms himself with a loaded pistol and closes the glass door. However, the aggressive Infected hurls his body against the glass door and breaks it to approach Joel and Sarah. To protect Sarah, Joel has no choice but to shoot the Infected without remorse. The ludonarrative subcategory of “resonance prominence” is present at the part of the game where Joel shoots the Infected. Joel’s action in the cutscene not only highlights the apocalyptic narrative setting of the game, but also brings into prominence the gameplay characteristics of the first Infected type known as the Runner. Runners cannot be negotiated with and runs straight at us when they detect us and therefore must be killed once they have discovered us. The other ludonarrative subcategory of “resonance guidance” is also present where I define it as giving us the overall objective or guiding us to formulate the general and specific gameplay strategies/actions. By showing Joel

230

Video Games as Ludonarrative

killing the Infected, the cutscene gives us the general idea that the main gameplay action to interact with the Infected is to kill them. When Tommy drives Sarah and Joel towards the checkpoint away from the infection, we are given some free play movement in the gameplay to turn around and look at the surroundings. “Ludonarrative resonance prominence” is present here where the gameplay serves to support the narrative by providing more narrative information to us. We can choose to look outside the car windows at the surroundings or listen to Sarah, Joel, and Tommy’s dialogue which contrasts their characters with each other or we may look and listen simultaneously. On our way out of town, our car is hit by a truck from the side. This event serves as a transition from the gameplay to the narrative where the cutscene shows Sarah’s leg is injured during the accident. The narrative then shifts gameplay control back to us but now we control Joel to carry Sarah to safety. The ludonarrative subcategory of “resonance motivation” is present where the cutscene contextualises the gameplay by bringing a broader context and meaning to the gameplay to motivate us to achieve the gameplay goal of bringing Sarah to safety by controlling Joel. The ludonarrative subcategory of “resonance guidance” is also present where the game is sequentially organised in a linear manner. The game world is depicted to be spacious, but specific narrative tricks such as the explosion causing the electrical pole to fall down and Tommy’s directions to Joel subtly guides us in the direction we are supposed to move towards in the game world. The ludonarrative subcategory of “resonance guidance” gives us an idea that The Last of Us’ prologue is heavily scripted. The environmental indicators in the narrative setting also serves as gameplay guidance to us to point us in the direction we should move. The use of language signs such as “open” above the door, the use of lighting, and the yellow ribbons are environmental indicators for the gameplay. At the final part of the prologue, we might have an expectation that Joel and Sarah are going to be rescued when they reached the checkpoint. Instead, gameplay control is being taken away from us at the final moment. We might feel a sense of helplessness and hopelessness as we have been betrayed (Reina & Reina, 2005) or manipulated by the game design and we experience “ludonarrative dissonance contrast”. The soldier who is supposed to protect us from the Infected is instead ordered to kill us (both Sarah and Joel) who are suspected of being infected. Even though Tommy arrives at the critical moment to shoot the soldier, Sarah has been shot and dies in Joel’s arms. However, players who have experienced narrative with similar events might instead expect the betrayal to occur and therefore experience “ludonarrative resonance parallelism integration”. They will feel that the gameplay is building up the emotion in the narrative where Sarah is killed in the final cutscene of the prologue (Extract 12.2). The prologue ends in a grim tone and provides the ludonarrative setting for The Last of Us.

Video Games as Ludonarrative

231

Extract 12.2 interviewer: So after that part, you have to carry Sarah all the way to the checkpoint ah. . . . Do you think that part the gameplay is building up the emotion in the narrative where Sarah is killed in the scripted cutscene? Do you think the gameplay is building up the emotions in the narrative? Because in the end, you cannot get to save her. Even though you tried to save her. nasir: Ya. Ya I guess that that part of the gameplay complements the as in it’s it’s integrated well with the narrative because you are carrying her so that so as in. . . . interviewer: It’s building up the narrative. nasir: Ya it really build as in ya correct. Builds up the narrative . . . . Because especially you just played her a moment moments ago. . . . Then suddenly she’s gone. It’s like okay. Ya it really sets the tone for the game lah. It think it was a very bold and effective start to the game.

The Ludonarrative Model as a Holistic Approach I began this book by providing a short account of a player’s experience through her think-aloud protocol and gameplay commentary to situate the player as the core component of performing video gameplay analysis in game studies. The ludonarrative model integrates the players’ experience in the form of the ludonarrative relationships (elicited in the thinkaloud protocol and interviews), the playing process as an activity (in the gameplay observation), and games as object in the form of the gameplay recordings (analysed using multimodal discourse analysis). The model provides us with a holistic approach to understand how and why different players interpret and interact with the video games in different ways.

The Narrative in the Ludonarrative Model In Chapters 2, 8, and 9, I have conceptualised video game narrative as the players’ cognitive interpretation of their ergodic interaction and/or interpretation of the game world in both the scripted and non-scripted sequences. The cognitive approach draws upon and expands Ryan’s (2003) cognitive maps which places emphasis on the spatiality of the game world, defined by Murray (1998) as one of the distinctive attributes of digital media. I combine Ryan’s (2003) cognitive maps with Fludernik’s (1996) natural narratology and cognitive parameters which form the higher-level analysis of the video game narrative framework. Using Ryan’s (2003) category of spatial relations to understand the players’ cognitive interpretation of the narrative shows us that the players either seldom form a narrative during gameplay or the narrative formed during gameplay was backgrounded. In

232

Video Games as Ludonarrative

Chapter 8, I have provided the example of Bioshock’s escort mission of the Little Sister where the players, Loke, Mary, John, and Peter focused on the gameplay goal of keeping the Little Sister alive. Therefore, they interpreted the spatial relations according to the strategic or instrumental actions that the PC takes to protect the Little Sister when she is harvesting from the corpse. The players did not focus on the narrative interpretation during the escort mission. They perceived the mission as more of a gameplay event and were more focused on the narrative consequence. Another important feature of the video game narrative framework is the notion of multimodal mental maps in which multiple modes or semiotic resources such as the use of image repetition, lighting, character dialogue, and affordances are used redundantly to emphasise the importance of an obligatory object to the player. The presence and absence of specific multimodal semiotic resources may cause the player to focus more on the gameplay rather than interpret a narrative during gameplay. In the Beyond: Two Soul’s study, the lack of clear affordances and dark lighting used in the setting prevented the player, Michael from evaluating the spatial relations between his PC and the narrative goal. Thus, he perceived the scene as more of a gameplay event compared to a narrative event based on his difficulty in evaluating spatial relations. Ryan’s (2003) cognitive map of mapping style highlights to us the importance in the use of clear affordances for the player to understand the meanings conveyed via the multimodal semiotic resources. In Mass Effect, the players, Michael and Nasir demonstrated understanding of the different colour codings in the dialogue wheel based on their experience of playing previous games. These previous games include Mass Effect 2 (for Michael) and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (for Nasir) which also have similar “good” or “badass” dialogue choices. The “good” or “badass” dialogue choices are distinguished by the linguistic resources used (for KOTRO) and colour coding (dialogue interrupts in Mass Effect 2). Inconsistent colour coding for the affordances in Beyond: Two Souls confused Michael and delayed his learning, interpretation, and thus enjoyment of the game’s narrative. Iconic narrative objects such as Wrex’s armour in Mass Effect and Sarah’s photo with Joel in The Last of Us unlocks further backstory for the player. Inhabitants’ notes also add to the believability of The Last of Us’ game world. These iconic narrative objects immerse the player in the game world. However, in Beyond: Two Souls, the presence of iconic narrative objects by themselves is insufficient to facilitate the players’ uncovering of narrative in the game world. There is also a need for indexical mapping style which orientates the players towards the narrative information that they can interact with. The combined use of multimodal affordances which include language, audio, and visual indexical prompts successfully indicate to the player narrative information in the game world that they can interact with.

Video Games as Ludonarrative

233

The interactive character movement of the PC may create a cognitive map which is used by the player to understand the plot progression. For instance, Henry can understand that his PC, Lee Everett, was going to die towards the end of The Walking Dead. When he tried to control his PC to stand up and move forward, the PC could not do so as the gameplay forbade it. However, the empirical data from other players such as Michael (in Mass Effect) and Loke (in Bioshock) shows that they do not necessarily interpret a narrative conflict in the plot based on the enemies they encounter in the game world who constitute the gameplay obstacles. Similarly, the cognitive map of interactive character action in the gameplay does not necessarily map to the characterisation of the characters in the narrative. Players such as Alice indicated that the participants perceived the narrative characterisation to be done primarily during the scripted sequences such as the cutscenes and more optional narrative is present in the gameplay. During the interviews, the attempt to elicit the players’ narrative during the gameplay was not always successful as they were more focused on the gameplay fights with the enemies and backgrounded the narrative. Interactive character action and movement may intersect during exploration to uncover embedded narrative in the game world. The empirical data from the interviews indicate the formation of multiple interpretations of Ish’s backstory in The Last of Us based on their personal experience of the story. A static character movement/action helps players to focus and interpret the narrative compared to the instance when they have to engage in the gameplay fights/PC’s customisation and interpret the narrative simultaneously. Different character movements and actions contribute to a specific type of narrative experience in the player, Alice. In The Last of Us, the favouring of the stealth movement for Ellie and the flexibility in play style for Joel highlights the narrative characteristics of these PCs. Furthermore, the interdependence of Joel and Ellie in the narrative is highlighted by their different gameplay styles. As the narrative progresses, these characters develop a symbiotic relationship with each other in the ludonarrative. Fludernik’s (1996, 2003) “Natural” narratology and cognitive parameters have highlighted the importance of cultural and contextual experience in the narrative interpretation. Although the empirical data has shown that players seldom interpret narrative out of the gameplay events, players do sometimes link the gameplay to the narrative context. This facilitates their understanding, learning, and engagement with the gameplay mechanics by placing the gameplay event in a narrative context. However, the linkage to the narrative context is only elicited during the retrospective protocol analysis so care has to be taken when interpreting the findings. In Chapter 5, we have discussed how the gameplay tutorial was embedded in various degrees by the players, Walter, Alice, and Nasir in the narrative context to learn how to use the medical kit passed to Joel

234

Video Games as Ludonarrative

by Tess after the explosion. We have also discussed in Chapter 9 how the player, Matt interprets Aiden’s gameplay actions in Beyond: Two Souls by projecting his interpretation of Jodie’s emotional state in the narrative to Aiden’s gameplay actions. Cultural experience is an important factor to facilitate the players’ immersion in the video game narrative and relate to the PC. In Chapter 9, we have discussed how the disjunction between the PC, Jodie, and the player, Michael was manifested when a different cultural cognitive frame was used to interpret the narrative goal, the garage’s location. The different cultural cognitive frame slowed down the player when he was exploring the house to find the obligatory object in the narrative. Therefore, the player has to first embark on the optional object of exploring the house based on the available affordances to facilitate the completion of the obligatory object of finding the garage. The difference in the cultural cognitive frames between the player and the game designer has contributed to the player’s characterisation of Jodie as a confused and insecure child in her home.

The Gameplay in the Ludonarrative Model The gameplay analysis model integrates the players’ micro actions which are the instrumental and strategic gameplay actions with the higher-level gameplay interactions which are the gameplay exchange, gameplay phase, and the gameplay stage. The players’ micro gameplay actions build upon Manninen’s (2003) interaction forms in online games modified for the analysis of single player games. Based on the analysis of the players’ empirical data of their gameplay, the micro actions are in turn divided into instrumental actions which are more instinctive and strategic actions which require more thinking. Instrumental actions are usually time sensitive but not always so. Time sensitive instrumental actions include those that require players to complete an action within a set amount of time. These actions include selecting a dialogue option or completing a series of actions before the time bar runs out in The Walking Dead, defusing a number of bombs in Mass Effect within a time limit, and beating the mini games in Mass Effect and Bioshock before the timer is up. Time sensitive information can be given implicitly in the narrative and may require the player to fail the gameplay event before s/he realises that there is a time limit. For instance, in The Last of Us, Alice mentioned that the time limit in catching Robert was discovered only after she failed the task when she made a wrong turn as she was not able to receive the gameplay hint given via the narrative. Instrumental actions which are performed by the players may in actual fact be controlled by the game. In this case, the players’ agency is restricted as they do not have any choice in changing the game state of their characters or the game world. I have discussed an example of this type of instrumental

Video Games as Ludonarrative

235

action in Chapter 10 which involves the game’s gradual upgrade of the PC into a Big Daddy in Bioshock through the player’s actions of finding the various Big Daddy parts. Strategic gameplay actions require critical thinking by the players. They usually require preplanning and take more time to implement. Hence, the game does not usually place a time restriction for this type of action but when it does, it makes the game more challenging as the player is given less time to think. Strategic gameplay actions include puzzle solving in all the games of the study and PC customisation in Mass Effect, Bioshock, and The Last of Us. The overcoming of the environmental obstacles in the form of enemies also involve deliberation where players think about the actions that they would use against specific enemy types in specific contexts. In Mass Effect, critical moments occur where the players have to think of a squad member to save in which saving one will sacrifice the other. The death of a side character will result in the loss of both their narrative and gameplay abilities. In The Walking Dead, although there is a time limit given to save, spare, or kill a specific character, it can be classified under strategic actions when the players are observed to vocalise their thoughts when and after making the choice in the gameplay recordings. The reason is that the players still think about their decision when making it during the gameplay. However, in Bioshock, the saving or harvesting of the Little Sisters can be classified under instrumental actions because the players, Loke, Mary, John, and Peter did not think about whether to save or harvest them. They mentioned that their real-life personality influenced them to save the Little Sisters. The empirical data from the interviews has also shown us that these players understood the long-term benefit of saving the Little Sisters is greater than the short-term benefit of harvesting them. Therefore, the choice becomes a more instinctive choice once the players know about the ludonarrative relationship of “resonance consequence” after they have encountered this mechanic. The higher-level gameplay interaction model builds on Fabricatore’s (2007) model of gameplay mechanics which is integrated into Martin and Rose’s (2007) exchange structure. This model enables us to understand the players’ interaction with the gameplay on a macro level based on how the players perceive the feedback given to them from the game. The benefits of this model is the minute details in which the players’ moves are understood in the context of a gameplay phase. In Chapter 11, I have performed an application analysis of two players’ (Michael and Matt) gameplay actions in the boss fight of Beyond: Two Souls. Depending on the play style (passive versus active), we can understand how their gameplay actions are motivated by their gameplay preferences. Michael and Matt’s different choice of gameplay actions resulted in two different pathways—one of narrative viewing and the other of gameplay interaction. The two players’ different pathways changed the micronarratives within each chapter of Beyond: Two Souls.

236

Video Games as Ludonarrative

The Ludonarrative Relationships in the Ludonarrative Model In Chapter 3, I have conceptualised the ludonarrative model. Then, I theorise, validate, and refine the three main categories of “ludonarrative dissonance”, “ludonarrative resonance”, and “ludonarrative (ir)relevance” in Chapters 4–6. I have further refined these three main categories using the method of multimodal discourse analysis explained in Chapters 8–11. I have used interview questions derived from the multimodal discourse analysis to co-construct further subcategories in the ludonarrative model with the players during the retrospective protocol analysis. To summarise, “ludonarrative dissonance” occurs when there is a contrast between the information conveyed via the narrative and gameplay modules. This contrast can contribute to various effects such as the disjunction between the player and the PC s/he is controlling or the experience of helplessness when control is taken away from the player during the cutscene. The dissonance or contrast can be perceived in both positive and negative terms as seen from the empirical data depending on different player types. Players who prefer to play games for the narrative may become motivated to progress the gameplay to uncover more narrative explanation to reduce the disparity of the knowledge between the player and his/her character. Players who prefer to play games for the gameplay would rather that the narrative be conveyed to them in a clear manner instead of been enticed by plot hooks to continue playing. “Ludonarrative resonance” occurs when the narrative and gameplay modules are so integrated with each other that they cannot be separated. When this occurs, the players feel a heightened emotional experience when the gameplay actions that they perform is equivalent to the actualisation of the narrative. Narrative may also help the players to understand and learn the gameplay mechanics and vice versa. Metaphorical shifts in the narrative or gameplay functions of the mechanics may also contribute to gameplay challenge. Meaningful outcomes produced as a result of the choices made in the narrative or gameplay may also contribute to player agency. “Ludonarrative (ir)relevance” is present when the players focus on either the narrative or gameplay module and background one of them. For example, three of Bioshock’s players such as Peter, John, and Loke chose to focus on gameplay and background the narrative information from the audio logs which they deemed to be irrelevant to their game experience. In Beyond: Two Souls, Michael was focused on mastering the gameplay controls and the narrative (interpretation) became irrelevant to him. The conveying of subtle information through one of the modules (either narrative or gameplay) by the game to interlink the two modules may also contribute to the players’ inability to form the ludonarrative linkage resulting in ludonarrative irrelevance.

Video Games as Ludonarrative

237

The main contribution of this book is the research methodology where I have shown how I have constantly refined the ludonarrative model and ludonarrative relationships in an iterative process. As I gather more empirical data from the players to co-construct the model with them, the model is developed. Using the empirical data from the players which include the gameplay recordings and the retrospective protocol analysis, I have validated and refined Watssman’s (2012) concept of “ludonarrative resonance” and Hocking’s (2007) concept of “ludonarrative dissonance” to produce new subcategories. I have introduced a new category, “ludonarrative irrelevance” and refined new subcategories using the players’ empirical data.

Limitations This book proposes a conceptual model to analyse video games in terms of the ludonarrative relationships, narrative, and gameplay. However, the model has only been built and refined from five video games such as Mass Effect, The Walking Dead, Bioshock, The Last of Us, and Beyond: Two Souls. More video games are needed to further develop and refine the categories in the ludonarrative model to ensure their applicability to video game analysis. I have used a qualitative approach in the form of interviews to gather the empirical data to develop and refine the theoretical model. A total of 37 participants signed up for the study but only 11 participants have completed the entire study where some players played a few games. As a result of the qualitative approach used, the results obtained from the study are not generalisable and as such, this study is treated as exploratory. The exploratory study builds on existing research done on ludonarrative in game studies and paves the way for future research to be done on ludonarrative relationships in video games. Another limitation comes from the approach used in the interviews. Open-ended interviews are subjective and it would not always be easy to understand why a specific interviewee understood a ludonarrative relationship or interpreted the video game narrative in a specific manner. In using interviews, we could not access the cognition or emotional standpoint of the interviewee completely because there might be private issues that the interviewee chooses to withhold from the interviewer. For example, the player, Jim in The Walking Dead’s study mentioned that there were some personal issues that he would rather not talk about when I questioned him further about his game choices. Hence, a significant amount of the findings would have to depend on the interviewer’s interpretation. The selection of participants is also a limitation. I have recruited participants from the National University of Singapore with the age range between 19 and 33 years old. I have selected a participant (e.g. Michael) from my pool of gamer friends. I have also obtained some participants

238

Video Games as Ludonarrative

(e.g. Mary, Henry, and John) via snowball sampling where the current participants introduced their friends. As a result, the participants did not fulfil all criteria. These criteria include a balanced gender ratio and players from diverse backgrounds. This means that the study is more exploratory and the findings cannot be generalised to the female population as there are more male gamers than female gamers in the study. The researcher may also form another limitation to the study. I may interpret the data to fit the model and this forms the researcher’s bias (Merriam et al., 2010). I have used guiding questions during the interviews when the participants (e.g. John and Nasir) did not provide a detailed answer. Some participants (e.g. Walter and Henry) also did not understand some of the interview questions so I have reworded the questions to better convey the meanings. Care has to be taken in interpreting the responses obtained in this manner. In developing the model, I have attempted to take into account the player types by using Yee’s (2007) taxonomy of players’ motivations in online games which I have adapted for the analysis of the player experience in single player games. However, it is not easy to correlate the player types with the ludonarrative categories because of the different games used in the study. For instance, players who are both oriented towards “achievement” in gameplay and “immersion” in narrative could sometimes face a conflict in choosing whether to focus on the narrative or gameplay in specific contexts. Mary mentioned that when she was listening to Bioshock’s audio logs in a corner, an enemy came to fight her which distracted her from focusing on the narrative interpretation. Henry is also an “achievement” and “immersion” player type. When playing The Walking Dead, he was able to experience “ludonarrative resonance” in instances where the gameplay actions are integrated with the character’s narrative. Therefore, different types of games will affect the correlation of the player types with the ludonarrative categories. Player types also exist on a continuum and it is hard to restrict the players to a player type according to theoretical models.

Implications and Future Research The findings from the study could highlight some aspects of the ludonarrative relationships in video games which can be improved. For instance, in Bioshock, the audio logs’ narrative have provided gameplay hints but they were too subtle to be picked up by the players. The empirical data from the interviews highlights that some players such as Peter and John treat the audio logs’ narrative as noise as they do not understand the language used in them. The game developers could also minimise the interruption or dissonance between the different modes and modules such as the narrative or gameplay when designing video games to help the players focus when playing the game. However, game developers could also leverage ludonarrative dissonance to create specific emotional and ludonarrative

Video Games as Ludonarrative

239

experiences in players (on this, see Kuznetsova, 2017). Clear affordances could be designed and implemented in video games to guide the players during the gameplay to reduce incidences of confusion by learning from the player’s experience (Michael) in Beyond: Two Souls. By using the ludonarrative model, video games with both narrative and gameplay could benefit from a balancing of both modules through playtesting. When the playtest reveals the presence of the category, “ludonarrative irrelevance”, the developers can redesign the game such that both narrative and gameplay could be more integrated with each other. Game designers can learn to make certain aspects of video games more fun. The interview data has shown us that memorising door codes in Bioshock is tedious and participants chose to play the mini games to overcome the gameplay obstacles. The game designers have improved Bioshock 2’s game design by showing the door code to the players (when the players hacked the doors) after they have uncovered the code in the audio logs. Perhaps the game designers can also integrate narrative into the gameplay as a form of puzzle or riddle such as those which have been used in The Witcher series. An important finding is that players do not usually form their own narrative during the gameplay. Players treat the pre-scripted narrative in the video games as the canonical story that they adhere to. Out of the five video games used in the study, the most emotionally engaging game where the players (e.g. Mary and Henry) were able to form an emotional bond with the PC was The Walking Dead. In this game, some of the players (e.g. Henry and Walter) mentioned that the gameplay and narrative are integrated with each other such that they cannot be separated. On the one hand, the gameplay actions that the players performed in The Walking Dead contributed to their emotional engagement with the game characters. As I have discussed in Chapter 5, the player, Henry, who performed the gameplay action of killing the PC’s brother to get the pharmacy’s key in The Walking Dead felt empathy towards the character he was controlling. On the other hand, in some other games, the players separated the narrative from the gameplay when they were more focused on fighting the enemies (in Bioshock, The Last of Us, and Mass Effect) or figuring out the gameplay controls (in Beyond: Two Souls). As such, how gameplay could be used in narration is not clearly understood in game studies. When playing the game, players need to care about the PCs in the game world. Their emotional connection to the characters arise when their morality is being judged during critical moments where they were asked to make a difficult choice or perform a morally ambiguous action. This type of difficult choice seldom occurs in the selected video games except for The Walking Dead and Mass Effect when the narrative and gameplay are resonating with each other. Difficult choices occur in The Walking Dead when the players are forced to make a dialogue choice which clashes with their personality (Mary) or when they (Jim, Mary, and Henry) are forced to side with a character.

240

Video Games as Ludonarrative

When the players are forced to side with a specific character, the game (The Walking Dead) will penalise them when they remain neutral, where the other character reprimanded them for doing so. When the player sides with one character, the narrative outcome is that the PC’s relationship with the other characters will deteriorate. A difficult choice occurs in Mass Effect, where the players have to sacrifice one of their squad members (either Kaidan or Ashley). In the study, more complex emotional judgements of the game characters such as empathy did not happen when players focused on the controls. Instead, more basic emotions relating to “winning” or “losing” the game such as (in)capacity, (dis)satisfaction, or (un)happiness arise due to goal-related evaluations in the gameplay (Toh, 2016). Future research could be conducted to find out how gameplay can be used in video games to evoke more complex emotions and create players’ emergent narrative.

Summary This chapter provides a summary and application of the ludonarrative relationships in the ludonarrative model to demonstrate the utility of ludonarratology as a useful frame for game studies scholarship. This approach provides us with a frame-by-frame analysis of the players’ interaction with the gameplay, their narrative, and ludonarrative interpretations to shed light on how the game is designed to provoke a specific (emotional and cognitive) experience in the players. By studying the players’ micro interactions using the ludonarrative relationships in the ludonarrative model, we would therefore be able to understand how the gameplay and narrative work together in different ways/combinations to create myriad forms of experiences for the players to facilitate their constant engagement in the game in a nuanced manner. The key contribution of this book is in the research methodology where we can use empirical data to develop and constantly refine the theoretical model. The implication and importance of the contribution is on viewing video games as “ludonarrative” where the players, their gameplay interaction as an activity, and the video game structure is conceived as a whole. The proposal of the taxonomy of different ludonarrative relationships in video games could be used as a template for researchers, game developers, industry professionals, and gamers to discuss and understand their subjective experience. The game developers can also design video games using the ludonarrative relationships to provoke specific (emotional and cognitive) experiences in players.

References Fabricatore, C. (2007). Gameplay and Game Mechanics Design: A Key to Quality in Videogames. Proceedings of OECD-CERI Expert Meeting on Videogames and Education. Santiago de Chile, Chile. [online] Available from www.oecd. org/edu/ceri/39414829.pdf (Accessed: 8 Dec 2017).

Video Games as Ludonarrative

241

Fludernik, M. (1996). Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology. London and New York: Routledge. Fludernik, M. (2003). Natural Narratology and Cognitive Parameters. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 243–267). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Hocking, C. (2007). Ludonarrative Dissonance in Bioshock: The Problem of What the Game Is About. Available from http://clicknothing.typepad.com/ click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html (Accessed: 7 Jan 2018). Kuznetsova, E. (2017). Trauma in Games: Narrativizing Denied Agency, Ludonarrative Dissonance and Empathy Play. Master’s Thesis. University of Alberta, Edmonton. Manninen, T. (2003). Interaction Forms and Communicative Actions in Multiplayer Games. Game Studies: The International Journal of Computer Game Research , 3 (1). Available from www.gamestudies.org/0301/manninen/ (Accessed: 8 Dec 2017). Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause (2nd ed.). London and New York: Continuum Impacts. Merriam, S. B., Johnson-Bailey, J., Lee, M.-Y., Kee, Y., Ntseane, G., & Muhamad, M. (2010). Power and Positionality: Negotiating Insider/Outsider Status within and across Cultures. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 20(5), 405–416. Murray, J. H. (1998). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. New York: The Free Press. Reina, D., & Reina, M. (2005). Trust and Betrayal in the Workplace Building Effective Relationships in Your Organization (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Ryan, M.-L. (2003). Cognitive Maps and the Construction of Narrative Space. In D. Herman (Ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 214–242). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Toh, W. (2015). A Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Video Games: A Ludonarrative Model. Ph.D Dissertation. National University of Singapore. Toh, W. (2016). Gamers and Their Weapons: An Appraisal Perspective on Weapons Manipulation in Video Games. In S. Tetegah & W. D. Huang (Eds.), Emotions, Technology and Digital Games (pp. 83–114). Amsterdam: Elsevier. Watssman, J. (2012). Essay: Ludonarrative Dissonance Explained and Expanded. Escapist Magazine. Available from www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/ read/9.389092-Essay-Ludonarrative-Dissonance-Explained-and-Expanded (Accessed: 31 May 2018). Yee, N. (2007). Motivations of Play in Online Games. Journal of CyberPsychology and Behavior, 9, 772–775.

Appendix A Session 1’s Open-Ended Interview Questions

1. Can you briefly tell me the story of the game you just played? 2. What does the gameplay consist of in this game? 3. What do you think is more important in this game: narrative or gameplay? 4. In general, do you play games for the story or for the gameplay? 5. Do you like the scripted game sequences, e.g. cutscenes or are they an annoying interruption of gameplay? 6. Do you like the gameplay or would you prefer a story that unfolds without giving you something to do to progress in the plot? 7. Are there moments when you think there is a conflict between gameplay and narrative? If so explain? 8. Do your actions make the story progress, or does it progress only in the scripted game sequences, e.g. cutscenes? 9. In narrative theory, event has been defined by Bal as a transition of one state to another, and by Rimmon-Kenan (1983:15) as a “change from one state of affairs to another”. I have provided the formal definitions of event but these are not the only definitions. I would like you to: a. Give me an example of a narrative event. b. Give me an example of a gameplay event. 10. Discuss whether you are clearly able to see a divide between narrative and gameplay in the game. Please provide examples when a. You feel there is a clear divide between narrative and gameplay. b. You feel that narrative and gameplay cannot be separated.

Appendix A

243

11. If you are able to see a clear divide between the narrative and gameplay, do you find the narrative and gameplay complementing each other? OR do you feel that the narrative and gameplay are present in the game but exists independently? 12. When you are asked to make a narrative and/or gameplay choice, how do decide which option to choose? Narrative choice refers to the dialogue options in Mass Effect, or the narrative action that you choose to save or harvest The Little Sisters in Bioshock that has consequences on the storyline (ending). Gameplay choice refers to the action that you can choose in the gameworld such as harvesting The Little Sisters in Bioshock that has consequences on the gameplay, e.g. direct rewards when you harvest them instead of saving them. Discuss this in relation to the information provided to you from the game in terms of the language/audio and visuals. 13. Discuss whether narrative information provided to you in the game by the different characters influences you when making a gameplay choice. For instance, in Bioshock, when Tenenbaum asks you to save The Little Sisters, do you follow her advice and save them, or do you follow Atlas’ advice and simply harvest them to get more direct gameplay reward? 14. Discuss whether gameplay information provided to you in the game influences you when making a narrative choice. For instance, in Bioshock, when the gameplay informs you that you will receive twice the amount of reward directly for harvesting a Little Sister, do you choose to harvest her instead of saving her? 15. Discuss how you feel about the making of narrative/gameplay choices in the gameworld when you feel that the narrative and gameplay are related to each other. Compare this to your experience of making narrative/gameplay choices when you feel that narrative and gameplay are unrelated to each other.

Glossary

ADAM A substance harvested and processed from a type of sea slug in Bioshock. It is the primary resource used by the player for character ability development. Aiden He is the secondary playable character in Beyond: Two Souls. His spirit remains tethered to Jodie which allows him to communicate with her. Andrew Ryan He is the founder of Rapture and the main antagonist throughout most of Bioshock. Andy Saint John He is an antagonist who is present in Season 1 Episode 2, “Starved for Help” in The Walking Dead video game. He is a cannibal who hides his true nature behind a kind and caring personality. Apollo Square This location is found in the eleventh level of Bioshock. It was once a lower-class residential district in Rapture that housed many of the city’s workers, but has since been used to contain Atlas’ followers during Rapture’s civil war. Arcadia This location is found in the fifth level in Bioshock. It is the living, breathing heart of Rapture and contains lush forests and abundant plant life. Ashley Williams In Mass Effect, she is a human soldier who served in the Systems Alliance as a Gunnery Chief in the 2nd Frontier Division on Eden Prime, and was later assigned to the PC, Commander Shepard’s squad after the Geth attack on Eden Prime. She is a potential romance partner for the male Shepard. Atlas He is the revolutionary who led many of the disillusioned citizens of Rapture against Andrew Ryan and his supporters during the civil war. As a significant character in Bioshock, he guides the player through the failing utopia after the player character’s arrival. Audio log The audio log is also known as the audio diary and is the main narrative device of the Bioshock series. It is recorded by the citizens of Rapture as notes for themselves or as messages for other residents. Big Daddy He is a genetically enhanced human being who has his skin and organs grafted into an enormous diving suit in Bioshock. His

Glossary

245

primary purpose is to protect the Little Sisters by escorting them around Rapture to collect the substance called ADAM. Bill He is a character who appears in The Last of Us and is a survivor who maintains an uneasy alliance with Joel and Ellie. Boss It is a powerful computer-controlled enemy in video games. It takes strategy and specific knowledge about the boss to defeat it. Brigid Tenenbaum In Bioshock, she is a geneticist who discovered ADAM and developed it into products for commercial sale. She is the creator of the Little Sisters and the player is able to win her support by saving the Little Sisters instead of harvesting them for ADAM. Clementine She is one of the main characters in The Walking Dead video game. She is portrayed as a mature, kind, and polite girl who acts as the moral compass of the group. Commander Shepard He is the human protagonist of the Mass Effect trilogy. He is the first human to join the Spectres, an elite special task force for the Citadel Council. Crawford It is a district within the city of Savannah and the main location in “Around Every Corner” of The Walking Dead video game. It is home to a group of survivors who adopt extreme measures to ensure their own safety. Cutscene It is a narrative event which is used to convey story information to the player and is non-interactive, breaking up the gameplay. Danny Saint John He is an antagonist who is present in Season 1 Episode 2, “Starved for Help” in The Walking Dead video game. He and his family lure unsuspecting survivors to their farm where they dismember and murder them to cook their human meat and trade them as food to the bandits in return for protection and supplies. David He is the main antagonist of the winter chapter in The Last of Us, appearing as the charismatic leader of a group of cannibalistic survivors. Diane McClintock She is a supporting character in Bioshock and is Andrew Ryan’s mistress before the period of the civil war in Rapture. She became disillusioned with Andrew Ryan after witnessing his methods of internment of his opponents and subsequently defected to Atlas, one of the main antagonists of Bioshock. Electric gel It is an ammunition type for the Chemical Thrower weapon in Bioshock. It deals moderate electric damage and stuns enemies on contact. Ellie She is a playable character in The Last of Us. She is depicted as a nineteen-year-old survivor and “mature beyond her years” as a result of the circumstances of her environment. E.M.P. bomb The Electromagnetic Pulse Bomb is a device created to overload the energy core in Bioshock. Ethan Jeong He is a human ExoGeni Corporation representative on Feros in Mass Effect.

246

Glossary

Fort Frolic This location is found on the seventh level of Bioshock. The Fort was run by Sander Cohen, an artist, director, gallery owner, and a psychopath. Frank Fontaine He is one of the primary antagonists in Bioshock. He is the arch-enemy of Andrew Ryan and the leader of the opposition in the power struggle which led to Rapture’s collapse. Gene traitors Refers to Splicers, common enemies in Bioshock who altered their genetic structure using the fictional substance ADAM. Glenn He is a comic-adapted main character who appears in Season 1 of The Walking Dead game prior to the events in the comic book series. The story explains his actions and whereabouts during the beginning of the outbreak. Hephaestus This location is found in the eight level of Bioshock. Ryan’s office is found in Rapture Central Control where he has barricaded himself. Hershel Greene He is a comic-adapted character who appears in Season 1 of The Walking Dead game prior to the events in the comic book series. He owns a farm outside of Atlanta and helps Lee Everett and Clementine when they arrive with his son, Shawn Greene. Jasmine Jolene In Bioshock, she is an exotic dancer at Eve’s Garden in Fort Frolic and is Andrew Ryan’s mistress. She is the biological mother of the player character, Jack. Jodie Holmes She is the primary playable character, and the protagonist of Beyond: Two Souls. The game’s narrative follows her through 17 years of her life from 8 to 25 years old. Joel He is a playable character in The Last of Us and a survivor in postapocalyptic America that has been ravaged by the cordyceps brain infection. Kaidan In Mass Effect, he is an initial member of Commander Shepard’s squad. He is a possible romance partner for the PC. Kenny He is one of the main characters in The Walking Dead video game. He acted as the de-facto co-leader of the Motel Survivors, alongside Lee Everett and Lily. Larry He is a main character who appears in Season 1 of The Walking Dead video game. He mainly cares about the safety of his daughter, Lily and generally has good intentions. However, his loud and judgmental attitude causes him to be disliked by most members of the group. Lazarus Vector It is a chemical solution which by design would bring dead plants back to life in Bioshock. Lee Everett He is the protagonist of Season 1 of The Walking Dead video game. He was convicted of murdering a state senator who slept with his wife, but was freed from this fate by the apocalypse and encounters a young girl called Clementine.

Glossary

247

Liara In Mass Effect, she is an Asari researcher who has spent the past 50 years of her life studying Prothean technology and culture. She became part of Commander Shepard’s squad after he rescued her from one of the sites she was researching. She is a potential romance interest for either a male or female Shepard. Lily She is a main character who appears in Season 1 of The Walking Dead video game. She is Larry’s daughter and initially acts as the leader of the Motel Survivors, but eventually relinquishes the role to Kenny and Lee after suffering from paranoia. Little Sister She is a young girl who has been genetically altered and mentally conditioned to reclaim the substance called ADAM from corpses around Rapture in Bioshock. Lot 192 It is a biological modification designed as an antidote to the Mind Control Plasmid in Bioshock. Matriarch Benezia In Mass Effect, she is an Asari biotic and Liara’s mother. She attempted to guide Saren down a less destructive path but became enslaved to his will. She is the boss enemy that the player fights on Noveria. Molly She is a non-playable character in Season 1 of The Walking Dead video game. She is portrayed as a lone female survivor who is relatively uncaring, rude, and extremely cocky, but also does what she can to protect those she trusts. Nihlus Kryik In Mass Effect, Nihlus is one of the Citadel Council’s most decorated Spectre (Commando) agents and was an old friend of Saren. Olympus Heights This location is found in the tenth level of Bioshock. This district was once where the upper class of Rapture had their apartments, but it was damaged during the civil war of Rapture, leaving it in a terrible state. Quick time event A quick time event is a scripted sequence where the player can perform an action such as pressing the correct keyboard button, mouse or PS3 controller button when prompted to do so and feedback will be provided to him/her regarding the success or failure of his/her action. Rachni In Mass Effect, the Rachni are an extinct insect-like species. Rapture In Bioshock, the Rapture Colony is a massive underwater city constructed by its founder, Andrew Ryan to escape from the political, social, and religious anxieties of a post-World War II world. Robert He is the first major antagonist in The Last of Us and appears as an arms dealer who owed weapons to Joel and Tess, but ended up selling them to the Fireflies, a revolutionary militia group. Sarah She is the playable character in the prologue of The Last of Us. She was the 12 year old daughter of Joel before the cordyceps brain infection outbreak.

248

Glossary

Saren Arterius In Mass Effect, he is one of the main antagonists who serves the primary antagonist, the Reaper Sovereign. Splicer The Splicer is the common enemy in Bioshock. They are human beings who have altered their genetic structure with ADAM. This term has since been used to describe those who have become addicted to the substance, lost their sanity, and become physically deformed from the addiction. Tali She is a Quarian and a member of Commander Shepard’s squad in Mass Effect. Tess She is a non-playable character in The Last of Us. She was the longterm partner of Joel who made their living as smugglers who traded supplies with survivors outside of the city. The Fireflies They are a revolutionary militia group in The Last of Us. They revolt against military oppression in numerous Quarantine Zones with the aim of eventually restoring the US government. However, they are currently on the losing end. The Geth In Mass Effect, they are a race of networked artificial intelligences that are created by another race, the Quarians as labourers and tools of war. The Geth became sentient and started to question their masters. The Quarians tried to exterminate them but the Geth won the ensuing war and reduced the Quarians to a race of nomads. The Krogan In Mass Effect, they are a species of large reptilian bipeds native to the planet Tuchanka, a world known for its harsh environments, scarce resources, and overabundance of vicious predators. The Reaper Sovereign In Mass Effect, it is the primary antagonist, an actual Reaper which is a fully sentient and extremely powerful AI. The Thorian In Mass Effect, the Thorian is an ancient sentient plant at least 50,000 years old found on Feros. It is a unique creature with mind-controlling and telepathic abilities, and a massive sensory network. It is the boss enemy that the player fights on Feros. Thorian Creepers In Mass Effect, these are creatures who appear as corpse-like humanoids controlled by the Thorian with long claws and no noticeable eyes. Urdnot Wrex He is a famed Krogan mercenary and bounty hunter in Mass Effect. He is one of the last Krogan Battlemasters, rare individuals who combine powerful biotic abilities with the devastating firepower of advanced weaponry. He is recruited to become one of Commander Shepard’s squad members.

Index

The numbers in bold refer to tables Aarseth, Espen 3, 51, 89, 155, 191 actions: instrumental 182–185; performance 3, 13, 52, 67, 89, 174, 181, 197–198, 204, 227; strategic 118, 185–189 affordance(s) 82–83, 94, 100, 133, 137, 139, 141, 144, 148, 161, 163–164, 166–167, 174, 218, 232, 234, 239 agency 4, 23, 34, 46, 50, 51, 153–154, 158, 184, 195, 214–215, 234, 236 artificial intelligence 77, 81, 145, 182, 191, 194, 206, 248 coding scheme 8, 120–121, 126 cognitive map(s): complication of 148; defined 132–133; interactive character movement 42, 131, 141–143, 158, 168, 233; interactive character movement with action 42, 131, 143–147, 158, 165, 168; inventory 134–135, 168; mapping style 42, 131, 133, 138–141, 158, 163–164, 168, 232; narrative event(s) 42, 47, 59–60, 65, 78, 82–83, 85, 87–89, 91, 93, 132–133, 136, 142–143, 148, 155–156, 159, 165, 168, 174, 218, 226, 232; spatial relations 132–138, 158, 163, 168, 231–232; see also game object defamiliarisation 90 discourse comprehension 21, 131 embodied experience 82, 90 emotional proximity: defined 79–80, 84, 94

emotions: basic 76, 89, 210, 240; complex 240 Ensslin, Astrid 23, 26n1, 35, 52, 78, 90 environmental storytelling: embedded narrative 2, 143, 154, 160, 166, 229, 233; emergent narrative 50, 145, 151, 156, 159, 168, 174; enacted actions 124; narrative spaces 24, 122–124, 132–133, 141 feedback: players’ 7, 41; type(s) 79, 88, 93, 104, 137, 195, 198, 208–211; haptic 90; loop 25, 132, 175, 216, 221–222; characters’ movements 132, 148; circular model of gameplay 176–179, 208; units of interaction with interactive fiction 175–176; players’ actions and mechanics 187, 208, 216, 226, 235, 247 first-person shooter 51, 123, 190, 191–192 game design 2, 7–9, 24, 34, 46, 49, 71, 90, 106, 137, 174, 230, 239 game object(s) 7, 42–43, 67, 76, 82–83, 113, 118; narrative icon 140, 143, 164, 232; obligatory 3, 118, 131, 134, 135, 162–163, 165–166, 168, 232, 234; optional 82, 110, 131, 134–135, 162–163, 165, 168, 234; and players’ conceptualisation of the plot 134; players’ learning of functional role 7, 104, 141, 216; see also scaffolding

250

Index

gameplay: defined 191; challenge(s) 7, 49, 53, 58, 71, 79, 85–86, 93, 123, 146, 160, 168, 174, 179–183, 191–192, 193–194, 210, 236; flow 61; interface 24, 141, 174, 177, 190; loop(s) 25; mechanics 7, 21, 24–25, 40–41, 45, 49–51, 52, 53, 58, 71, 75, 80–86, 90–91, 94, 100, 102, 110, 118, 122, 124, 146–147, 174, 190–197, 233, 236; move 204–207; multiple pathways 114, 124, 151, 217–220; as narration 5–6, 44, 53, 83–85, 239; phase type(s) 25, 175, 211–214; players’ actions 24–25, 40–42, 45, 54–55, 58–61, 69, 75–78, 81, 86–87, 92–93, 102, 105–106, 139, 144, 160, 184–189, 229–230, 234–235, 238–239; and players’ decisionmaking 7–8, 79–80, 91, 108–109, 117, 178; rules 40–41, 43, 158, 161; as a process 5, 8, 34, 113, 231; stage(s) 175, 216–217; strategising 2, 41, 58, 110, 131, 133, 181; see also feedback loop; mechanics gamer discourse: defined 13n4 game structure: flexibility 6, 219; multiple pathways 151; rigidity 6; indeterminacy 114 game studies: narratological approaches 23–24 Halliday, Michael A. K. 22, 35–36 Hocking, Clint 6, 49–50, 51, 112, 224, 237 information dissonance 53–55, 58, 71, 88, 121 interactive fiction 175–176 interactivity: defined 23 Kress, Gunther Rolf 21–22, 26n1, 39, 47 logical inconsistencies 53, 56, 58, 71, 121 ludic belief 52, 66–67 ludology versus narratology debate 5 ludonarrative: defined 2; functional ludonarrativism 34; and ludotextuality 35; model 39–46; and player experience 107–110; relationships 49–51

ludonarrative dissonance: anagnorisis 60–62; contrast 59; defined 53; demotivation 68–70; incomplete information problems 59–60; negotiation 66–68; player-(game designers’) character dissonance 62–66; imbalance 70–71; see also information dissonance; logical consistencies; narrative dissonance ludonarrative harmony 50 ludonarrative (ir)relevance: defined 99; gameplay focus 99–101; narrative focus 102; incomplete information problems 102–103; metaphor 103–104; consequence 104–106; guidance 106–107; prominence 107 ludonarrative resonance: defined 75; motivation 78–80, 84; guidance 81, 84; metaphor 81–84; semiotic metaphor 85; balance 85–86; consequence/contingency 86–87; causality 87–88; succession 88–89; parallelism integration 89–91; prominence 91–92; player-(game designers’) character resonance 92; information solutions 92–93 ludonarratology: frame 5–8; and multimodal approach 21–23 massively multiplayer online roleplaying game 185 mechanics: challenges 191–192, 194, 205, 212–214; and character development 83, 146–147; defined 190; and functions 82–83, 91–92, 102, 206; core 190–191, 205; peripheral 197; and player engagement 7, 80; satellite 190, 193–194; see also rules medium and materiality 38 metafunctions 22 mixed method approach: close reading 3, 112, 114; formal analysis 141; iteration 113; member checks 119; multimodal discourse analysis 3, 5, 21–25, 113–114, 118, 126, 131, 168–169, 224, 231, 236; open-ended interviews 4, 7, 10–12, 24, 114, 116–119, 169, 224, 237, 242–243; player observation 3, 5, 34–35, 113, 116, 118–119, 165, 168; reflection 3, 54, 58, 71, 90, 120, 126, 182, 187, 211, 212, 214

Index modes: defined 22; see also multimodality modules: defined 22, 26n1; and modes 9, 11, 22, 36, 38–41, 53, 58–59, 78, 92, 238 multimodal discourse analysis: defined 21 multimodality: defined 21; and meaning making 22; and SFL 22; and social semiotics 22; theoretical contributions 21–23; see also modes narration: defined 131–134, 154–155; and cognitive framing 132, 158– 162; and cultural context 157–158, 160–161, 166–167; and interpretation 39, 42, 46; and player experience 141, 155; and players’ mental models 24, 35, 42–44, 47, 51, 53–55, 77, 81–82, 88, 118, 131, 154, 169; and plot 38, 168–169; and spatial frames 133; see also players’ conceptualisation of the plot narrative: defined 151; and branching story structure 153; and “hubs and spokes” model 152; and multilinearity 151–152; and “side quest and story convergence” model 154; and “string of pearls” model 124; and comprehension 2, 44, 154, 158; and cutscene 40–42, 56, 68, 76, 78–79, 85–86, 89, 118, 144, 147, 156, 159–160, 165, 169, 199n1, 213, 228–231, 233, 236; and perspective shift 36, 65; and surprise 88–90, 94 narrative belief 67 narrative dissonance: defined 50 narrativity: defined 156–157 narrator 23, 42, 156, 159, 165, 168, 211–212 non player character: attachment 7, 91, 93; characterisation 1, 42, 56–57, 80, 83, 107, 145–146, 183, 233 O’Halloran, Kay 21–22, 59, 78, 85–86, 89, 112 permanent death 67–68 Pierce, Charles Sanders 23; icon 37, 138–140, 143, 164, 168, 232; index 37, 51–52, 107, 136, 138,

251

140–141, 144, 164, 168, 232; symbol 37, 104, 138, 141, 163, 168 player: goal(s) 3, 67–70, 78, 84, 105, 122, 133–134, 137, 142, 145, 160, 162, 174, 180, 182, 184–185, 188, 191–192, 194; 205, 225–226; 228, 230, 232, 234, 240; conflict 41, 134, 156, 180, 238; learning of game structure 6, 58, 71, 116, 216; motivation(s) 7–8, 42, 50, 51, 79, 84, 92, 157, 179–182, 213–215, 225–226, 228, 230, 238; as part of gameplay 3, 231 player character: characterisation 42, 83–84, 118, 146–147, 162, 168–169, 233–234; customisation 87, 122–123, 174, 181, 184, 186–187, 189–192, 233, 235 player effectance, 214–215; see also player motivation(s) player experience: as a contextual factor 10, 25, 107–110, 179–180; and decision-making 7–8, 43, 50, 59–60, 79, 87, 91, 93, 108–110, 117, 123, 147, 178–179, 185, 188, 210, 217, 226, 235; designed 240; and empathy 8, 58, 61–62, 79, 94, 228, 239–240; and empirical study 10, 107, 109, 119, 125, 174; and immersion 7, 13n2, 41, 46, 100, 108–109, 133, 159, 168, 180–182, 234, 238; and negotiation of interpretations 5, 119, 126; and personality traits 7; and subjectivity 4, 34; and suspense 65, 94, 199; and user research 2; player types: gaming preferences 7, 41, 116, 179, 197 plot hooks 79, 84, 94, 236 quick time event 46, 190, 247 real-time strategy 139 researcher’s bias 114, 238 role-playing game 40, 42, 122–123, 184–185, 199 Ryan, Marie-Laure 11, 23–24, 34–35, 37, 46, 53, 80, 83, 118, 131–133, 136, 138, 141, 148, 158, 160–161, 164, 166, 168–169, 217, 231–232 Saussure, Ferdinand de: semiotics 23 scaffolding 83, 86, 216

252

Index

semiotic systems 23, 226 SFL (systemic functional linguistics) and multimodality 22 signs: concept of 35–37, 40, 136, 148, 158, 208, 210, 212, 230; see also modes simulation 35, 52, 206 situation model(s) 2, 13n2 text: and communication 21–22; and meaning-making 35, 37, 131 theories: co-creating ludonarrative subcategories 8, 119–120, 125, 187; continuum based approach 6, 36, 51, 68, 91, 99, 110, 115, 142, 185, 224–25. 227, 238; game-player relationship 4; iterative process 4, 11, 113, 120, 169, 237; refining 115, 125; see also coding scheme

theory building and player experience 35, 112–123, 122 think-aloud protocol: concept of 2, 117; concurrent protocol analysis 117, 157, 168; retrospective protocol analysis 11, 13n4, 87, 104, 117, 119–120, 157, 168–169, 233, 236–237; stimulated recall 117, 119 transmodological approach: common semiotic principle 5, 35–38, 40, 132; transmodal elements 5, 37–42 triangulation method: data triangulation 5, 125–126; method triangulation 5, 126, 168; theoretical triangulation 4 van Leeuwen, Theo 21–22