Fahrenheit's Storytelling

Fahrenheit Indigo Prophecy, is an interactive movie/action-adventure. The first level of this game is a mix of cut scenes and decision based game play.

The opening sequence of the game is told through a cutscene in which the character, Lucas Kane, introduces himself and tells us how he used to be before the following events unfolded. Finishing with the line "Nothing's ever going to be the same again". After this short piece of dialogue the title of the game appears, followed by the opening credits with an establishing shot of the game's New York. The dialogue continues in a similar fashion and the camera begins to follow a crow. The screen then fades to black and the crow is now in another location, we follow it until it eventually lands in the window of a diner. Due to the nature of the gameplay the narrative follows a very linear structure in which there are lots of cutscenes, which are required in order for the narrative to make any sense. A lot of these cut scenes throughout the game require player interaction with real time events integrated into them, however this isn't the case for the first level. 

A multitude of camera shots are used to build up the scene of the bathroom. Lucas Kane is in a toilet stall while an unnamed man is at a urinal. The scene has a very eerie feel to it due to the use of the dutch tilt/and inverted colours. We're given the impression that Lucas is not in control of his body, due to his jerky puppet-like movements in combination with the weird cinematic effects as he exits the stall. Lucas stabs the unnamed man, and we see flashes to a different, almost satanic, reality. We're then shown another unknown character relinquishing control of Lucas. Something I found extremely interesting about this is how the only time we had absolutely no control over the narrative was when the character had no control over his own body. This idea plays on the fact that other games are filled with embedded narrative which offer the player no possible interaction during these scenes.

Once the cinematic ends and Lucas is back in control of his own body, we begin the game, playing as  Lucas Kane in the moments immediately after the event. He says "What have I done?" and we're shown a mood-meter (which we lose points in and go from Neutral to Depressed), showing us as plainly as possible that Lucas is horrified with what just happened. The camera then cuts to show the crow flying off, symbolizing the end of the 'nightmare' in which Lucas was being controlled by. The camera then moves through to the diner showing a police officer at the counter. The camera splits into two parts, one on the bathroom and one on the diner to show us these events are unfolding in real time. Just like in Rayman 3, the cut scenes in this game not only add to the game's narrative, but also provided the player with an objective. This made it feel like it wasn't taking away from the gameplay, as the cutscenes were directly related to what the player was experiencing.

When we take control of Lucas we're provided with a small line of dialogue to provide us with additional information to ensure the player made sense of what was just shown; "Quick, I've got to get out of here before someone comes in here." This lets the player know they're supposed to leave the scene and that they need to do it as quickly as possible, or else they might be caught. The fact that the character is used in this way shows that they aren't used purely for a narrative element, but they also contribute directly to the gameplay, making them a necessity for both. The player is immediately thrown into the decision making element of the game, as there are a range of different things the player is able to do from this point onward. Each action will affect the mood meter, both good and bad, dependent on the action taken.

I found the mood meter to be an interesting addition to the game, because as far as I can tell it doesn't affect anything in the narrative; definitely not within the first level. It almost acts as an incentive for the player to consider every action to achieve the best score. "in a narrative game, the player plays to win, to beat the game, and story is mostly a lure into the game world." (Marie-Laure Ryan). As said by this quote we play to win, an attempt to achieve the best possible results within the game. This makes the mood-meter significantly more important and gets the player to care for the character they're playing as. If the player begins to worry about the affect their decision will have on the character then the game is successful, as they are truly immersed within the game world.

The most important element within Fahrenheit is the decision based gameplay. Although these decisions don't always allow you to alter the game's narrative they allow the player to create their own version of the narrative which is ultimately what the game is trying to achieve. This also counts for any failures the player might make throughout the game, mistakes will stick with them even if the mistake didn't count for much within the narrative it has still had an affect on the player. An example of this is if you tried to exit the diner without paying the bill, it draws attention to the character, exactly what you don't want to happen as it could lead to you being caught or possibly identified later on. The player may constantly worry about this detail even if it doesn't count for anything. Another aspect of the decision making is the time limit you're given, which puts you under pressure."after a finite amount of time – not making any choices will produce an outcome that is different from the choice situation and that therefore constitutes a choice in itself." (Sebastian Domsch). If the player doesn't follow the characters guidance, they take too long to leave or don't clean the blood off their hands then they will be caught, and the game is ultimately over. Just like in real life, hesitation/no action is a choice on it's own.

To summarise my many points, the player is very important within the telling of the story. Without the player the narrative will not progress as the player chooses the direction in which it progresses.

References:

Domsch, S. (Author). (2013). Storyplaying [Book]. Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Ryan, M.L. (Author). (2009). StoryWorld: A Journal of Narrative Studies [Article]. United States: University of Nebraska Press

Quantic Dream (Developer). (2005). Fahrenheit Indigo Prophecy [Game]. France: Guillaume de Fondaumière

Fez & Character Interaction

I feel as if Fez would have been able to tell the exact same narrative without any characters at all. This is because the only character interaction in the game was at the very beginning, and this dialogue wasn't important or required for the game's narrative at all.

In my opinion, Fez has no character based narrative outside of  the opening sequence. The only dialogue beyond that sequence is purely informative and offers nothing in terms of story. As far as player created dialogue is concerned, I don't believe anything exists other than whether you complete the stage or give up, as there is no mechanic for failure; if you die you instantly respawn where you were seconds ago, making it so there is no way to fail the game. In previous games I've blogged about there has always been room for the player to create their own narrative throughout the game, whether they take another route or even just dying whilst playing the game, this all adds to the player's own experience with the game.

However, just because there is no player or character driven narrative, it doesn't mean there is no narrative present at all. "Even the genres where stories are not part of the gameplay at all, such as strategy or simulationoneones, fictional worlds prompt players to imagine that their actions take place within a meaningful frame" As said by this quote from 'Understanding video games', even though Fez has no real story, the environments alone are enough to create immersion; arguably they aren't very immersive as you don't spend long in any given area, there is still an element of immersion present. This could be as simple as finding an extra cube in a hidden area or staying in an area long enough for it to cycle through day and night.

I found the lack of narrative also made the game difficult to play, as it didn't provide me with any direction that a 'string of pearls' narrative would have, leaving me lost as to where I should go next. The only exception to this was if I managed to find enough cubes to unlock a door in which I was informed by a floating cube that I had now unlocked a door back at the original junction. Also, there were often times where I had to revisit areas to look for anything I'd missed which took away from the immersion of the environment as I was having to re-explore the same areas.

To summarise, Fez's narrative is told through the environment rather than any character dialogue or other interactions within the game. I found this made the game unnecessarily harder due to this. It felt as if the challenge was in figuring out where to go, rather than game play itself. This also made it fairly boring to play at times, as there was no connection formed between myself and the somewhat lacking narrative of the game.


Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S (Author). (2008). Understanding video games : the essential introduction [Book]. United States: Routledge

Polytron Corporation. (Developer). (2012). Fez [Game]. Canada: Trapdoor

The Wolf Among Us & Meaningful Decisions

In the game The Wolf Among Us, you play as the Big Bad Wolf turned Sheriff; Bigby Wolf. 

Bigby has a known past of being a relentless killer and is feared greatly throughout Fabletown because of this. Due to the nature of the character you play, it is increasingly difficult to play the game as a Pacifist. Although the game forces violence upon you, the player is still able to decide to what degree, and just how Bigby reacts to any given situation. 

The game does not allow you to change the course of the narrative and ultimately the outcome of the game, you are however able to make decisions that change how these narrative events unfold. The player is able to create their own meaningful narrative based on the decisions and actions they take while playing the game. You can attempt to play Bigby as a caring, misunderstood hero, a bloodthirsty Sheriff, leaving death and destruction in his wake, or even an unpredictable mute who can snap at any point; the choice is entirely yours.

Because of this freedom in character expression, or in some cases, lack of expression; I'd say the game is full of meaningful interaction, the story does not have to be changed in order for an interaction to have an impact on the players narrative experience. Although having said this, there are still changes to the dialogue and narrative given the players decision at some points in the game (killing someone vs sparing them).

To further iterate the lack of expression, something I found really intriguing was how the game set a time limit on any decisions it presented you and the mechanic worked just as it would in reality; If you took too long to respond or chose not to reply then the other party would see you as not having a reply or not wanting to respond. "after a finite amount of time – not making any choices will produce an outcome that is different from the choice situation and that therefore constitutes a choice in itself."

This made the game an entirely new form of interaction (or lack of) as when you chose to say something you'd often be cutting someone off mid sentence, so you could choose to listen to the entirety of what they were saying by staying silent, or even make a point by saying nothing at all (such as ignoring Colin's requests).

To conclude, The Wolf Among Us offers choices that alter the ongoing narrative in which the player is immersed in, but does not offer many choices that will change the storyline and narrative direction. Although these decisions may not seem to have much of an impact in terms of story, they are still allowing the player plenty of freedom to progress the narrative in the way they wish to, ultimately changing the narrative events of their own play through.

References:

Telltale Games. (Developer).  (2013-2014) The Wolf Among Us [Game] United States: Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment

Domsch, S. (Author). (2013). Storyplaying [Book]. Germany: Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Fahrenheit & Morality

The game I've chosen to play this week is Fahrenheit Indigo Prophecy, an interactive movie/action-adventure. After playing the tutorial and seeing the simon-says style interaction I really wasn't expecting much from this game; but It's taken me by surprise and I've really enjoyed playing it.

The thing I've found most intriguing with the game is how the decisions are presented to you. In traditional decision based games you're presented with a menu and near infinite time to decide; allowing you to really weigh up each option and make a meaningful decision. The way Fahrenheit goes about this is much closer to reality. You're given mere seconds to give an answer, there is no way to undo what you said (unless you restart the level)  and no way to guarantee you're making the right decision.

This is a very powerful way of involving the player in the games narrative as they aren't given time to think which action is most favourable and the possible outcomes they instead have to go with their gut feeling and it all unfolds from there. Because of this the player is essentially making their decisions as if it was a real scenario, they aren't able to think of it in terms of game play, unless of course they know the outcomes, making it a great test of morality.

A perfect example of how morals affect decisions in the game is when you foresee a child falling into the icy lake. You're given the option of either saving the child's life and being identified by the approaching Police Officer, or leaving the child to die and evading the approaching Officer. I chose to take the risk and save the child (as that's what I would have done in the situation). And as it played out saving the child was the correct decision as it had no negative repercussions, and Lucus even says "At least now I can look at myself in the mirror without cringing." making it seemingly positive.

Another way the game adds to the decision making is it's status meter which measures your character's emotion. It makes it so even the smallest of decisions impact the game play, although I am yet to see how much impact it has. I feel like this adds an extra level of morality to the game as it shows whether the player actually cares about the well being of the character or are instead trying to discover every interaction in the game/progress the story.

In conclusion, Fahrenheit is a very unique decision based game in which the decisions the player makes are gauged off of their morals rather than their prediction of the decision's outcome.

References:

Quantic Dream (Developer). (2005). Fahrenheit Indigo Prophecy [Game]. France: Guillaume de Fondaumière

Rayman 3 & Linear Narrative

This week I played Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc. I remember seeing this game on the cover of a magazine when I was a kid, now 13 years later I finally get a chance to play it!

Nostalgia aside, Rayman 3 is a platformer game with a very linear story which follows the 'string of pearls' approach. While playing through the game, whenever you enter a new area or trigger an event you are 'rewarded' with a cut-scene. These short cutscenes remove the players control over the game events and you have to watch the embedded narrative unfold. Although you aren't able to change the course of the narrative, you are presented with several existents you must overcome before the narrative progresses.

I personally find these kinds of games the most entertaining to play as you can play them over & over as the narrative is not the core focus of the game, it is instead the game play. "in a narrative game, the player plays to win, to beat the game, and story is mostly a lure into the game world." (Marie-Laure Ryan). As said by M-L Ryan, the story is used to create an immersive experience. Without the story, you are solely playing to beat the game rather than playing it for the experience it provides. This is what makes the story-nodes in Rayman absolutely necessary as they are the core of the games narrative. Without these story-nodes the game could be described as 'limbless man jumps on platforms'.

I found the cut-scenes not only built upon the games narrative but also gave insight as to what the player was tasked to do for that level, providing critical information giving the player a direction and objective. These didn't necessarily make the game easier but gave you a path to follow whilst still allowing you to explore the area. Although the game is far from open world in terms of exploration it is still well-worth exploring the level as you're rewarded with extra points, life restoration and other secrets; if you're able to find them.

In summary Rayman 3 follows a linear narrative which provides you with a cutscene whenever you successfully make it through an area. These cutscenes show the player a set path they need to follow in order to progress the story, however you are able to explore the given area and are rewarded for doing so. I would say this game is an example of a relatively successful linear narrative with a nice balance between story and gameplay; it can be immersive at times and other times just plain frustrating, which brings the narrative to a halt (looking at the camera controls that get me killed over and over).


References:

Ryan, M.L. (Author). (2009). StoryWorld: A Journal of Narrative Studies [Article]. United States: University of Nebraska Press

Ubisoft (Developer). (2003). Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc [Game]. China: Ubi Soft Entertainment, Feral Interactive

Façade & User Input

This week I played through Façade, a game in which you interact with AI using text input to progress the story.

On my first play through I was lost as to what to do but eventually worked out how the AI would respond to things and what my role as the player was within the story. After playing for a while I begun to realise the game was basically keyword bingo and that the only real progression which could be made was with a simple yes/no answer to the character's questions or to chance upon a 'correct' keyword which would trigger a response. Although this still allowed the player to choose how the story progressed there wasn't as much 'freedom' as I'd hoped from a game like this.

I managed to get several different endings to the game only one of which was a 'successful' ending in which I'd helped the couple, yet in that play through I wasn't even trying to progress the story which made it feel like my input wasn't even acknowledged. There were often times where the AI would misinterpret the meaning of what I said or would just ignore it, making me feel as if the only real interaction I had with the game was answering yes or no to Trip's questions. And answering these questions was a complete coin toss as to which way the game would progress. When I got a 'good' ending I felt like it was given to me purely by chance rather than a reward for good decision making or by 'beating' the game.