Are we talking about presenting our own story to the player through gameplay or allowing the player to shape the story through gameplay?

If the former, it's simply a matter of making the player's actions consistant with the story. But that's not always possible, as the player could choose to do anything. So let's have recquired actions add to the story.

If you're having the player shape the story, are you asking how to add meaning to the player's actions? I guess you'd start by presenting them with choices that are important. From there you'd have the same tools that you have for presenting your own story - sunandshadow and TechnoGoth have already summarized a good list of them in this thread.

Re: Zennith
From my perspective we are mostly talking about presenting a fixed story through gameplay. Due to interaction, the player is able to vary the details of the story, but not the message of the story. It is not a discussion of simply given the player a set of choices and let the player create a pleasant experience on their own.

Quote:If the former, it's simply a matter of making the player's actions consistant with the story. But that's not always possible, as the player could choose to do anything. So let's have recquired actions add to the story.

This is incorrect. Making the player's actions consistant with the story is not the power of interaction. Delivery through gameplay does not just mean letting the player act out the story, but also that the message of the story is embedded in the design of game options, and choices. There are correlations between the choices that you provide and the meaning of the story.

For the B&B example, the Beast is given an array of options to make Belle fall in love with him. There will be more options than those provided in the disney movie for instance, including some creative and crazy or outrageous options. However, all of these methods will be judge by Belle on how much the Beast truely loves her, not by the excitement, the urge to impress with expensive stuffs, etc. Through the set of options and their effects, the message about 'what holds true values of love' is presented. You can see that it changes the details of the story, but does not alter the messages.

Quote:If you're having the player shape the story, are you asking how to add meaning to the player's actions? I guess you'd start by presenting them with choices that are important. From there you'd have the same tools that you have for presenting your own story - sunandshadow and TechnoGoth have already summarized a good list of them in this thread.

This is not the discussion that I imagined. It is a rather trivial topic to add meaning to the player's action. Besides, the tools that s/s and technogoth summarized in the beginning are those already done in other media, and was missing the unique tools provided by games.

I neither cheated nor handwaved the topic of this thread. The original topic suggested how other ways can be used to deliver a story. And I tackled these question strongly and directly:

"If a message is delivered by a cutscene, could you have used gameplay to deliver the same message? (this is not about simply letting the player perform the actions of the scenes)"

"In what ways can you embed a message delivered by a dialogue into the gameplay? (this is not about simply letting the player participate in the dialogue)"

"If a message is presented by text, how could you have done the same using gameplay? (and this is not about letting the player click on a book to read it)"


It is the same kind of questions as:

"How do you deliver the essense of a lake in a piece of music? (it is not about simply playing the sound one would hear near a lake)"

"How do you use a painting to deliver the essense of audio noise? (it is not about simply drawing a busy street)"

"How do you present a story using gameplay? (it is not about simply letting the player participate in everything that goes on in the story)"

Do you see the differences? Do you see at what level the discussion is placed? It is a classic discussion pertaining to presentation of a message using different media. It is expectable that technogoth would put up this kind of sophisticated topic. His examples are in the realm of this topic, but there are parts that seemed weak.

The potential of the original topic was stronger than what s/s was leading it to. I was trying to restore its full power.

[Edited by - Estok on March 12, 2005 9:18:36 PM]

Quote:From my perspective we are mostly talking about presenting a fixed story through gameplay. Due to interaction, the player is able to vary the details of the story, but not the message of the story.

I consider details to be part of the story - if the player changes details, he changes the story, even if the core meaning remains.

Quote:
Quote:

Quote:
If the former, it's simply a matter of making the player's actions consistant with the story. But that's not always possible, as the player could choose to do anything. So let's have recquired actions add to the story.

This is incorrect. Making the player's actions consistant with the story is not the power of interaction.

Just because we can have the player set the course of the story - and do it so much better than other media - does not mean that every game has to. There are advantages to a set story, just as there are advantages to a malleable one.

Why would I want to play through a story, if my actions change nothing? Why not watch a movie instead? Because by playing through it, I'll have a greater sense of empathy with the protagonist - his/her trials will be my own. And besides, it combines two of my favorite things - stories and games.

Quote:Original post by Zennith
I consider details to be part of the story - if the player changes details, he changes the story, even if the core meaning remains.

When you look at a story, there are parts that are essential and parts that are not. The most essential part of a story is the message, from there it goes down a hierarchy of symbols and representations. The details that I was referring to pertain to the events and elements at the bottom of the hierarchy, such as the actual fighting sequence duing an action scene, what cars to put in the background of a busy street, the liscen plate numbers of the cars, etc. When you transfer a work from a medium to another, it is inevitable that details will change. In general, people do not consider that a story is changed if such details are changed.

You are probably thinking about details such as what car a character drives, where the choice of the car reflects the personality of the character. When you put this back into the perspective of symbols and representations, the choice of car is a symbol that is used to represent the personality of the character. You can ask yourself is there some other ways that I can represent the same personality without using the car? By doing so, am I really changing the story? If that really changes the story according to some definitions, how would that matter anyway?

'Details' is a rather vague word. In terms of transfering from one media to another, it is more meaningful to talk about the gist of the story instead of getting bogged down by debating whether the new representation indeed present the same story. The systematic way of doing it is to map the entire story in a semantics hierarchy. Where the items from the top level down to a certain level are considered the gist or the core of the story, and the lower levels can be varied.

In short, you can think that I agree with you that when you change any details, you change the story. In reality I disagree with you. When you read a story from a book, you are encountering a literal presentation of the story. In order words, the 'story' resides in an abstract level in the upper level of the hierarchy. The presentation can change considerably but still present the same story.

Quote:

Quote:This is incorrect. Making the player's actions consistant with the story is not the power of interaction.

Just because we can have the player set the course of the story - and do it so much better than other media - does not mean that every game has to. There are advantages to a set story, just as there are advantages to a malleable one.

Why would I want to play through a story, if my actions change nothing? Why not watch a movie instead? Because by playing through it, I'll have a greater sense of empathy with the protagonist - his/her trials will be my own. And besides, it combines two of my favorite things - stories and games.

I did not deny this. I said that it was a trivial topic. Gameplay intrinsically supports the presentation of HOWs. There is no challenge in letting the player play all the HOWs of the story. The challenge resides in presenting the WHAT and WHY of the story.

I never stated that every game should use gameplay to deliver ever parts of the story. In fact, I stated clearly that an objective of this discussion should include both the strengths and the weaknesses of such presentation. I know very well that there are weaknesses, and suggested that we idenitify these weaknesses by trying to deliver a work from another medium by gameplay.

With respect to this, I also already stated that there was advantages to set stories, and that it is a choice for the designer to deciside whether to use gameplay beyond presenting the HOWs. I explain the disadvantage of indiscriminately using gameplay to present a story. Gameplay can introduce variability. It is an obvious property of gameplay as a delivery channel, it was the first property that I presented. This weakness is not unique to gameplay, it is shared among other delivery methods. Together, I classified this property as being 'imprecise' in terms of delivering the general elements in a story.

I talked about these in the beginning to clean up the discussion, so that we could focus on the non-trivial parts of delivering a story through gameplay.


What I am trying to say is that you are insync with the things I have been posting. What you are thinking now are all correct. I would suggest that we can now move on to the more challenging questions, such as:


How would you use gameplay to deliver the mystery, fear, and danger when Belle's father was getting lost in the forrest? Can you do it without having the player play the father?

This question is ten times more challenging than what we have talked about, isn't it?

[Edited by - Estok on March 14, 2005 12:23:45 AM]

Quote:Original post by TechnoGoth
While it is true that you can present the growing in love between Belle and the Beast in this manner, the real question becomes deliver the emotional impact effectively? The real danger with this sort of thing is that it fails to deliver the emotional aspect of the story effective if it all.

now you are insync with the discussion. In the previous posts I said that there are different aspects that gameplay can be weak in delivering. Part of the discussion is to identify the weakness. However, emotion is not part of the weakness of gameplay. Gameplay is capable of inducing emotion directly in the player. Insteading presenting a love relationship between the Beauty and the Beast, gameplay is capable of letting the player fall in love as the Beast. The question is, how would you improve it? Or do you believe that it cannot be done any better using gameplay? (We are still talking about the just dancing scene, not the overall falling in love part, the overall falling in love part is actually easier to be done with gameplay.)

Quote:Take the dance sequence the typical way this would be portrayed is through a dance game where the player has to dance well until the affection meter reaches green and then they can press the kiss button and win the sequence. But that is a very poor way to portray the event since it reduces it purely mechanical exercise where the actual events are merely background for the game play. How you portray story effectively in this manner is by using techniques from other mediums as listed earlier. For instance instead of having an affection meter use visual and auditory clues to show the growing affection between the two characters. You could gradually soften the focus and are shimmer to bells movements as you two grow closer together. The actual game play aspect doesn't change but the representation does and that improves the effectiveness of the delivery. But a good question is how can you alter the game play aspect to enhance the emotional delivery without it becoming artificial and mechanical.

We already know what atmosphere effects you can do. Those are the trivial topics, the kind of stuffs we already know. The questions is "what is the limit of gameplay", and "could you have delivered the same aspect through gameplay". I did imagine the 'greenlight' during the dancing sequence. I did not think it should exist. Think about the dance sequence this way. Instead of having the player adjust the dance distance, or the dancing stance, Belle is going to adjust them. The Beast can try to change it but ultimately has to follow Belle's pace. As the Beast is able to follow Belle, Belle becomes more comfortable and the distance decreases and become easier to dance. The player is able to feel in the gameplay that the wall between the two has disolved, the initial difficulty is gone, and the player can now dance with a control system that is smoother and more responsive. Using the adjustment of the dance gameplay control system, the growing connection and synchronization between the lovers is presented. Not only could you see that you are dancing smoothly with Belle, you can feel that it is going smooth. This is again a delivery through gameplay, through the game mechanism of interaction in particular.

Quote:

Quote:How would you use gameplay to deliver the mystery, fear, and danger when Belle's father was getting lost in the forrest? Can you do it without having the player play the father?

This question is ten times more challenging than what we have talked about, isn't it?

As we have already mentioned the basic techniques of light and sound, there is no need to mention them again here. By combining fear with speed we can induce panic in the player, if as the fear builds the player has less and less time to think about which options to select and instead they simply have to react. I can’t remember the actual scene, but I think he was ridding a horse cart and being chased by wolves… So why not have the whole scene from the horse’s perspective?

There is no need to mention light and sound ever again in this thread in my opinion. Speed is a good game variable to adjust. If you are allowed to play the father, you can make the control system of the father 'panicky'. For example, you tell him to go left, and he would dash left with an overshoot (won't stop right at the moment you released your finger from the button).
For games that usually shows a minimap or other forms of navigation, you can deny all of those in the forest. (The player would walk and walk and go where am I? let me check the map. Oh my god there is no map, where did I come from?) This does not directly apply to this situation.

I had expected someone would suggest to show it from the horse's view. I did not leave out that possibility to see how high you are shooting. There are two underlying topics that I considered when I chose this scene to convert:

1) Is gameplay an appropriate choice for depicting scenes where the player is absent in the scene?

2) Is there a way to depict a scene through gameplay, where the player does not have any controllable avatar in the scene? What kinds of gameplay is available without an avatar? (I am not talking about dungeon masters)


The topic about how to deliver love in the dancing scene, and how to deliver fear in the forest scene are not finished. There are a lot more that can be done in gameplay. What else would you (technogoth and others) add in gameplay to deliver them?

Quote:Original post by sunandshadow

Quote:Original post by Estok
We already know what atmosphere effects you can do. Those are the trivial topics, the kind of stuffs we already know. The questions is "what is the limit of gameplay", and "could you have delivered the same aspect through gameplay".

I disagree. I think the question is, "What type(s) of atmosphere and/or gameplay is most effective for conveying each element of story?" I think you can't talk about gameplay without talking about atmosphere, because gameplay is only effective at conveying story info when combined with atmosphere - the same gameplay communicates something totally different if shown with stick figures and bleep bloop sound effects than if shown with detailed 3D models, dramatic lighting, and emotional music.

I agree with you and disagree with the way you think about it. Of course I know that we should compare the different methods, but keep in mind that the story that we are discussing is originally from the book/movie medium. It is like asking, "How would you use a piece of music the protray the essense of a quiet lake?" and then someone suggests an idea, and you go, "but isn't using a picture of visual techniques better?" The point of the discussion is to squeeze out what gameplay can do. You should have already understood that the delivery method of gameplay and the other methods are orthogonal. In other words, the end result of this discussion is not to replace the other methods, but to agument them.

That is why nowadays when you film a quite lake scene, there is actually a music that goes with it. Where did that music come from? What questions did they initially asked to develop such music? In what ways are we asking the same questions in this discussion?

Quote:Original post by EricTrickster
Just a thought I had. You could also do the forest scene from the Beast's perspective, if I'm remembering the movie right. Didn't he end up saving the father from the wolves?

If you have him hear, or see, the father's carriage behind hounded by wolves then the goal for the player is to reach the father in time to save him. Intersperse that with wolf howls and barks, the sounds of the horse whinnying in fear, and the father crying out for help - getting louder as your get closer. You might have to jump ravines, climb up or down a cliff, and constantly change direction as the carriage runs wild trying to escape the wolves.

There can even be moments when you can actually see the carriage and the wolves, and you may have to stop to fight the occasional wolf - losing track of the carriage in the process, and having to find another way to get to them quickly depending on the terrain.

In the beginning I talked about three major properties provided by gameplay: interaction, choice, and initiation. In the original idea about the dance scene, having different choices with different effect according to the 'love content' is delivery through choice. In the second example of the dance scene, the use of progressively smoother control system to emulate the unity of the two is an example of delivery through interaction (or interaction mechanism).

The example in Eric's post is not from the story, but that doesn't really matter. In that example it shows a delivery through initiation. That is, if you are the beast and you see the father being chased around in the forest (through your mirror), you have a choice of going out to the forest to help the father. This is a form a self-expression, where the player as the Beast can vary in the medium of a game. In other words, the player can adjust whether the Beast is just a dumbass who had never fallen in love before, or that there are addition profound constraints that make it challenging to express love.

The second and third paragraphs aren't really related to delivery through gameplay however. They were simply letting the player exist in the scene, they are in the realm of letting them play the 'HOW', which is not that challenging for gameplay. The HOWs are the intuitive domain of gameplay, it is rather a no brainer that you can let the player play through all the events. Take the quiet lake analogy for example, it is the same as saying, "Well, I am going to use the natural sound near the lake in my music, and that would do it right?" But if you listen to the actual musics about lakes, that is not what being done. What did they do? Why did it work?

It is done in the transition of notes, elongated melodies, etc to emulate the sensation of smoothness, tranquility, you can even make use of reflectfion (in the music), propagations to show ripple caused by single droplets. Why can works in other media be described in this dimension but not games? Don't you think that it is time to go beyond the superficial understanding of gameplay?

For the forest scene, one way that fear can be elicited is but hitting a player out of the comfort zone. For example, in a Grind-type MMORPG, it is more 'fearful' if you are away from the 'zoneline'. Is there anyway that we can hit the player out of the comfort zone using adjustments in interaction or choices mechanism? Suppose you can always use potions, but suddenly you can't access your inventory (your horse is gone and the bag is with it).

Another intuitive observation about fear is that, "if you already know that the father is going to just end up in the castle, why would you feel fear?" In what ways can you make a player geniunely worry about something in game? How do you deliver worriness through gameplay?