puzzle-story elements and video games fascinates me. I adopt a Kantian ..... A list of additional interview questions for theoretical sampling. (Appendix A) grew ...
Remarks This thesis was examined and accepted at the IT University of Copenhagen for the degree of Master in Science (MSc) in the study line of Media Technology and Games: Design. This document is an updated version of the handed in thesis report, with minor corrections for online publication purposes.
Abstract Anachrony (non-linear chronology) is an interesting narrative device. However, in games, the use of anachrony can lead to coherence problems in the story, as the player may change the course of the future, which can differ considerably from the future already presented to the player. If such issue is not tended to by the design at any point in the game, it means that an unexplained agency-related incoherence (UARI) is introduced into the game's storyline. The interesting questions evoked by this for game design are: What does UARI mean for players? How important game story coherence is for the play experience? Which emotions does UARI evoke? Would players prefer UARI to be removed? To answer these questions, games were developed that feature possibilities for the occurrence of UARI in both anachronic and linear game story scenarios. User studies were carried out with 20 participants, and the data was analyzed using grounded theory principles. In the resulting theory, three main player perspectives to UARI were identified: With anachronic game stories, an acceptive-ludic perspective views the UARI as an inevitable and natural result of the game mechanics of changing the future. With both anachronic and linear game stories, an acceptivediegetic perspective views the UARI as part of the story, belonging to the intended experience. With both anachronic and linear game stories, a rejective-logical perspective views the UARI as an unacceptable error in the logic of the game's causal story world.
Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisors Yun-Gyung Cheong and Mark Jason Nelson for guidance and advice, and my family and friends for support during the thesis project. I should also thank all the people who participated in the study, among those especially my good friends, who never seemed to run out of time or patience when describing their play experience with an analytical view and exhaustive detail, helping me understand their subjective perspectives.
Contents
1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1
Anachrony in games ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1
Stories in games..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2
Time in games ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.2
The coherence problem with interactive analepses ..................................................................... 2
1.2.1
Incoherence in game stories. ................................................................................................ 2
1.2.2
Unexplained agency-related incoherence (UARI) ................................................................. 2
1.2.3
Designing around UARI .......................................................................................................... 2
1.2.4
UARI in games currently ........................................................................................................ 3
1.2.5
Literature review ................................................................................................................... 3
1.3
The purpose of the thesis .............................................................................................................. 6
1.4
The guiding research questions ..................................................................................................... 6
1.5
The structure of this report ........................................................................................................... 7
2
Methods ............................................................................................................................................ 7 2.1
Choosing grounded theory as the research methodology ............................................................ 7
2.2
Positioning myself into the research ............................................................................................. 8
2.2.1
My background and game design research philosophy ........................................................ 8
2.2.2
The underlying research philosophy: Social constructivism ................................................. 9
2.2.3
Preliminary preconceptions and possible sources of bias..................................................... 9
2.3
Designing and developing the testbed games............................................................................... 9
2.3.1
Requirements for the first testbed game ............................................................................ 10
2.3.2
The design of the first testbed game ................................................................................... 13
2.3.3
Requirements for the second testbed game ....................................................................... 14
2.3.4
The design of the second testbed game.............................................................................. 15
2.3.5
Pre-testing the games.......................................................................................................... 18
2.4
The participant protocol .............................................................................................................. 19
2.4.1
The participants ................................................................................................................... 19
2.4.2
Participant recruitment, participation fees, and the researcher’s relationships with the
participants ............................................................................................................................................. 21 2.4.3
Protocol medium and site ................................................................................................... 21
2.4.4
The participant sessions ...................................................................................................... 22
2.4.5
About the data ..................................................................................................................... 24
2.4.6
Transcribing the interviews ................................................................................................. 24
2.5
Data analysis with the grounded theory methodology ............................................................... 24
2.5.1
Starting the coding process – Open coding ......................................................................... 25
2.5.2
Finding causalities – Axial coding ........................................................................................ 26
2.5.3
Integrating the theory and refining the categorization – Selective coding ......................... 26
3
Results ............................................................................................................................................. 26 3.1
Perceptions of UARI in anachronic and linear game stories: A grounded theory ....................... 27
3.1.1
The notion of UARI .............................................................................................................. 27
3.1.2
The attitudinal perspectives to UARI ................................................................................... 27
3.1.3
Emotions evoked by UARI ................................................................................................... 28
3.1.4 3.2
UARI removal preferences................................................................................................... 29
Participant account examples ..................................................................................................... 29
3.2.1
The notion of UARI .............................................................................................................. 29
3.2.2
The attitudinal perspectives to UARI ................................................................................... 31
3.2.3
Emotions evoked by UARI ................................................................................................... 47
3.2.4
UARI removal preferences................................................................................................... 49
4
Discussion and conclusions ............................................................................................................. 51 4.1
Answers to the guiding research questions ................................................................................ 51
4.1.1
How do players perceive UARI in anachronic and linear game stories? ............................. 51
4.1.2
How important is the coherence of game story to payers? ................................................ 51
4.1.3
What emotions does UARI evoke? ...................................................................................... 51
4.1.4
Would players prefer the UARI to be removed? ................................................................. 52
4.2
Other interesting points and connections with other works ...................................................... 52
4.2.1
The importance of story for the game experience.............................................................. 52
4.2.2
The acceptance of incoherence and Coleridge’s willing suspension of disbelief ................ 52
4.2.3
Incoherence and Bullough’s psychical distance .................................................................. 54
4.2.4
The mental game story construct and the ludic situation model ....................................... 55
4.2.5
Players’ reasoning processes behind explaining incoherence ............................................ 57
4.3
Evaluating the study .................................................................................................................... 58
4.3.1
The quality of the testbed games ........................................................................................ 58
4.3.2
The quality of the analysis ................................................................................................... 59
4.3.3
The level of analysis reached ............................................................................................... 60
4.3.4
The significance of the study ............................................................................................... 60
4.4
Future research suggestions........................................................................................................ 60
4.5
Suggestions for game design ....................................................................................................... 61
References ................................................................................................................................................ 62 Appendix A: Theoretical sampling questions ............................................................................................ 69 The player.......................................................................................................................................... 69 The game........................................................................................................................................... 70 The incidents ..................................................................................................................................... 70 Incausality/incoherence .................................................................................................................... 71 Incausality/incoherence, acceptance ............................................................................................... 73 Incausality/incoherence, non-acceptance ........................................................................................ 74
I always thought the pleasure of a book was wanting to know what comes next. Leonard Shelby in Memento (Nolan, 2000)
What kind of really annoyed me about academia and still carries on annoying me to this day is that you have an awful lot of theory written and there is an awful lot of stuff which says that games should really do this or games should do this or games really can do this, and actually as a gamer I was thinking, well, that's kind of boring really because actually there is no answer to that apart from another theoretical paper counter-arguing it, and what that doesn't do at any single point is to develop any kind of information that is useful to the developers, or useful to players. And the other flipside to that was that every single time I wrote… Read, or wrote an academic paper which said “this is what games can be or can't be”, probably at six months before it made it through the pipeline of publication, a developer would pop up and do something which completely disproved everything I was thinking. And this is why game academia is basically rubbish at the moment, because there is no way of speeding that process , and there is no way of keeping up with the kind of innovation which goes on in the industry, and it kind of doesn't respect the level of innovation that goes on in the industry. Pinchbeck (2012)
1 Introduction 1.1 Anachrony in games Anachrony, the non-linear order in narrative chronology (Genette, 1983, p. 11, 36), is an interesting narrative technique in literature and film. Examples of anachrony in games are direct time manipulation in Braid (Blow, 2008), imaginary retrospective sequences in Batman: Arkham Asylum (Rocksteady, 2009), and interactive flashbacks in Fahrenheit and Heavy Rain (Quantic Dream, 2005, 2010). Anachrony provides interesting avenues to, for example, postmodern expression within game stories, as seen in movies such as Memento (Nolan, 2000). However, its implications for game story design needs closer analysis, as a preliminary examination of the concept reveals fundamental issues.
1.1.1
Stories in games
I assert the debated concept of video game story as a subjectively perceived sequence of events, a mental construct built by the player during play. Calleja calls such construct alterbiography (2009). As Bogost (2009, para. 49), I view a game’s "form and function” to consist of preconfigured narrative elements that affect the story construction. However, like Juul, I do not consider the “gaming situation” (term coined by Eskelinen, 2001) itself to be a “narrated” situation (Juul, 2001). Playing is not to witness a re-telling of passed events, but an experience within the now of the player (Juul, 2004, para. 7).
1.1.2
Time in games
Genette examines time in narratives as story time, meaning the time of the story events, and narrative time (1983, p. 33), meaning the order and duration of the telling. Similarly, Juul (2005) divides game time into fictional time (p. 142), meaning the time within the game’s fiction, and play time, meaning the time of play (p. 142). Thus, anachrony in narratives means the non-linear order of story-time, and in games, it means the non-linear order of fictional time. Analepsis means a backwards movement in story time, such as
1
a flashback, and prolepsis a forward jump (Genette, 1983, p. 40), such as a flash-forward. The terms apply similarly to fictional time in games.
1.2 The coherence problem with interactive analepses Anachronic game design implies problems for game story coherence.
1.2.1
Incoherence in game stories.
Coherence means the quality of a story to introduce or imply necessary information for plausible story construction (Toolan, 2002). Incoherence means the lack of such information. This applies to game stories also. In ludonarrative dissonance a game’s gameplay contradicts its narrative elements (Hocking, 2007).
1.2.2
Unexplained agency-related incoherence (UARI)
Forward temporal movement is unproblematic for game story coherence. However, Interactive analepses (including a return after a prolepsis) potentiate the introduction of incoherence into the game’s story, if the course of the previously experienced future is changed within the interactive past events. The problem only exists when such incoherence remains unexplained throughout the story. I call such incoherence unexplained agency1-related incoherence (UARI). In anachronic game design, UARI is a complication of the narrative paradox (Aylett, 2000), which means a clash between interactivity and coherence of the intended story experience. It should be noted that UARI can also take place in linear chronology, if the player’s choices produce unexplained, incoherent results in the story. I regard the severity of UARI as the level of difficulty of imagining an explanation for the UARI occurrence.
1.2.3
Designing around UARI
The problem of UARI necessitates two major anachronic game design paradigms:
1. In the causality-maintaining one, UARI is prevented or corrected.
1
Murray defines agency as “the satisfying power to take meaningful action and see the results of our decisions and choices” (1997, p. 126)
2
a. Examples of diegetic2 prevention are preventive explanations and the removal or adjustment3 of incoherence-potent objects. In extradiegetic4 prevention, the incoherent actions are disabled5 b. In diegetic correction, the incoherence is explained6. 2. In the causality-neglecting one, UARI possibilities are not adhered to.
The problem remains with the causality-neglecting paradigm, and its applicability for anachronic game design remains disputed.
1.2.4
UARI in games currently
Currently in anachronic story-based games, UARI is generally removed by causality-maintaining design. For example, in Heavy Rain (Quantic Dream, 2010), diegetic prevention stops UARI from occurring simply by the absence of any UARI-causing interactions.
1.2.5 1.2.5.1
Literature review Anachronic game design and UARI
Juul notes the problems with anachronic game design for game world causality in his treatments of game time:
In an "interactive story" game where the user watches video clips and occasionally makes choices, story time, narrative time, and reading/viewing time will move apart, but when the user can act, they must necessarily implode: it is impossible to influence something that has already happened. This means that you cannot have interactivity and narration at the same time. And this means in practice
2
” diegesis (ˌdaɪiːˈdʒiːsɪs) … 2. (cinema, literature, formal) in narrative film or literature, the fictional setting, events and characters” (Collins English Dictionary, 2012). In games context, it refers to the story world of a game, including all the narrative structures that define the setting and event possibilities within the game. 3 For example, by setting their positioning or behavior to plausibly prevent the incoherent interaction. 4 Extradiegetic is something outside of the fiction. (Genette, 1983, p. 228). 5 For example, by artificially disabling the ability to shoot a certain person. 6 For example, by informing that the incoherent events were an illusion.
3
that games almost never perform basic narrative operations like flashback and flash forward. (Juul, 2001, para. 41)
Regardless of inspirations from cinema, time in games is almost always chronological, and there are several reasons for this. … an interactive flashback leads to the classical time machine problem: the player's actions in the past may suddenly render the present impossible, and what then? (Juul, 2004, para. 20)
Many analyses, without discussing UARI, criticize Juul’s notions on interactive analepses, noting that games stories often do visit in the past events (Jenkins, 2004, p. 127; Arsenault, 2008; p. 43, Pinchbeck, 2009; p. 51; Calleja, 2011, p. 115). Majewski (2003, p. 25-26, 46, 51) and Wilhelmsson (2009, p. 64) agree with Juul on the issue. Majewski implies that game stories require coherence, and he specifically comments on the problematic nature of UARI. Here is his view on the issue:
The interactive nature of games also means that the designers’ options in terms of chronology are severely limited. While there is no problem depicting events in a non-chronological order in a novel or a film, doing so in a game may cause difficulty. In a non-chronological game, a player’s actions in the game world’s past could make impossible the actions that she had already taken earlier during the gameplay, but which take place later in the game world’s time. Here too, Juul’s point demonstrates that narrative and gameplay do not sit perfectly together … (Majewski, p. 25-26)
Numerous other writers discuss game analepses, without noting UARI (Laramée, 2002, p. 295; Brand, 2005 p. 6, 10, 14; Zagal, Mateas, 2007, p. 4; Koskimaa, 2009; Cicoricco, 2010, p. 235; Gunder 2010, p. 8-10; Wei, Bizzocchi, Calvert, 2010, para. 17-20). Montfort specifies an interactive fiction generator, that can produce anachronic interactive stories (2007). He omits any discussion about the possibility of UARI, and whether it should be prevented in the generation of such stories.
4
Some writers, like Ryan (2005), propose avoiding the problem altogether by rejecting anachrony as a possibility for interactive fiction (para. 40). Similarly, the InStory interactive narrative platform, described by Barbas and Correira (2009), maintained causality by excluding proper interactive analepses (p. 88).
Examples exist of causality-maintaining narrative design strategies that can be used with interactive analepses. Shyba’s and Parker’s post-modern game experiment is a linear interactive story fragmented anachronically “into a series of perpetual presents” (2005). The story in their game does not branch7, due to which UARI is not possible in the main story structure. However, they omit discussing possibilities of being able to influence lesser story elements that could cause UARI, such as the destruction of objects seen in the future, for example. Harris’s proactive mediation (2005) re-structures the narrative plan by anticipating player actions. Guy and Champagnant devised Uchronia, a narrative device for interactive flashbacks, which “leaves a chance of occurrence to potential futures that might have happened” (2012).
As the examples of the literature show, anachronic game design is noted and discussed in the literature. UARI is noted, and generally asserted as a problem from the point of view of anachronic game design. However, there are no or very few investigations into how players themselves perceive UARI in anachronic games, and whether it is a problem for them.
1.2.5.2
The value of game story coherence in general
UARI is a subset of general game story incoherence. Therefore, the general valuation of game story coherence in the literature is of interest to the study.
The literature generally assumes that narrative coherence in games should be maintained (Examples of such analyses are Aylett, 1999 p. 85; Ryan, 2001 para. 15; Mateas, Stern, 2003, p. 4; Mott, Lester, 2006, p.
7
In a branching game narrative configuration, player’s choices drastically change something in the game world’s future, affecting the whole story of the game. Notable is that on a different playthrough, the player can choose differently. In a linear* game narrative configuration, the main story events are always the same on each playthrough of the game, while the player can affect only minor events in the game. * A terminological note for this paper: the term linear in the title refers to linear time as opposed to anachronic time, not to the linearity of the story with regards to game choices.
5
1-3; Giannatos, Nelson, Cheong, Yannakakis, 2011). Yet, Frasca differs: “Coherence from session to session is simply not a requirement in the game world” (2003, p. 7). Pan-narrativists (Eskelinen, 2004, para. 17), on the other hand, insist that humans only make sense of their experiences as coherent narratives (Bruner, 1986; Ochs, Capps, 2001). This is the premise that Si’s and Marsella’s study uses in its argument that game story coherence is necessary (2010, p. 1). However, the literature in general does not refer to studies that evaluate the actual value of game story coherence to game players themselves, because such studies are either rare or nonexistent.
1.3 The purpose of the thesis The purpose of the thesis is to qualitatively explore players’ perceptions of UARI, as the need in the literature for such research clearly exists. While doing so, the study answers Juul’s question “the player's actions in the past may suddenly render the present impossible, and what then?” Only players themselves can tell how they react to such situation. By studying UARI in both anachrony and linear chronology, the study also aids in discovering the value of game story coherence to players in general. This can help us further in answering how important an element story is in games, while extreme ludologist8 perspectives, for example, completely dismiss story as an important factor in games, and hold gameplay as the most important (Eskelinen, 2001). In addition, for the sake of aiding game design as a free form of expression, answering how players perceive UARI informs anachronic game design about the effects of including or removing UARI by maintaining or neglecting causality.
1.4 The guiding research questions These research questions guide the acquisition and analysis of data in the study:
How do players perceive UARI in anachronic and linear game stories?
How important is the coherence of game story to players?
8
Game studies. “According to research performed by Jesper Juul, the term was used as early as in 1982, albeit scarcely and with a different meaning.” (Frasca, 2003, p. 2)
6
What emotions does UARI evoke?
Would players prefer the UARI to be removed?
1.5 The structure of this report In this report, chapters are noted by single figure headings (i.e. “1 Title”), and subchapters by double figure headings (i.e. “1.1 Title”). A section has three, a subsection four, and a sub-subsection five figures.
In chapter 2, “Methods”, I will first discuss the selection of the qualitative research method, grounded theory (GT). Secondly, I will discuss my background and the philosophies underlying the study. Next, I will give a treatment of the principles covering the design of the testbed games, and justify the development of two different games for the study. After this, I will convey the participant protocol, covering the selection, recruitment, medium, sites, interview protocols used, and other information regarding the participants and the acquired data.
In chapter 3, “Results”, is a GT based on the analysis of grounded data, presented as a descriptive narrative with illuminating diagrams. The abstract theory subchapter is followed by a subchapter displaying participant account excerpts in support of the theory formulation.
In chapter 4, “Discussion”, I will discuss hypotheses evoked by the data analysis, relating to other studies and theories. I will also suggest future research topics, and give my personal suggestions and recommendations for game design and research, inspired by the results.
2 Methods 2.1 Choosing grounded theory as the research methodology After an initial set of game testing interviews by general qualitative research guidelines, I decided to utilize a formal qualitative methodology. I consulted Creswell’s guidelines (2006), and found GT the most 7
suitable. Suddaby’s comment affirms my decision: “Grounded theory … is most suited to efforts to understand the process by which actors construct meaning out of intersubjective experience." (2006, p. 634) After reviewing different versions of the methodology, I decided to follow Strauss’s and Corbin’s popular version (1998).
A GT study is not based on a preliminary analysis of the literature (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 115), as the resulting theory is built in the process of analysis itself, grounded in data. Thus, I have only introduced a background situation as a literature review for the study, and the report concentrates more on explicating the methods and results. In chapter 4, “Discussion”, I reflect upon the results, noting connections with existing works, according to what the analysis and data indicate (As Creswell suggests (2008, p. 27)). Overall, GT affects the processes of initial literature review (diminishing it), data acquisition (it evolves through the study), and data analysis (done through various GT coding procedures). At different sections of this chapter, I will discuss how GT affected the research element in question. In GT, the researcher should position himself or herself into the study, discussing his or her interests, preconceptions and possible bias on the subject (Creswell, 2006, p. 15, 2008, p. 192). I will do this next.
2.2 Positioning myself into the research 2.2.1
My background and game design research philosophy
My educational background is in business IT, which explains, for example, why I discuss requirements for the testbed games as I would for any software, in subchapter 2.3. My interest in game design started in childhood when I transformed my Legos into playable games. I have been creating games in different forms since. My various artistic skills also help and guide me in the process of envisioning and implementing games.
For me, the interest towards this study stems from the motivational points mentioned in the “Introduction” chapter. As a fan of films with post-modern, twisted narratives and perspectives, such as in 8
the films of Christopher Nolan, Darren Aronofsky, David Fincher and David Lynch, an amalgamation of puzzle-story elements and video games fascinates me.
I adopt a Kantian aesthetic notion (Burnham, 2005) in stating that games should be purposeful by themselves: Games for games’ sake, “ludus gratia ludorum” (Jerz, 2006). I agree with notable independent game designers such as Thomas Grip (GMZ, 2010, para. 5), that game design should not only be studied for its pragmatic business value, nor to produce merely fun (Koster, 2004), but for all the things games can be. Game design artistry and academic rigor should combine to produce interesting experiments, and to analyze the player reactions qualitatively to seek meaningful, unexpected information. Game design study and analysis can map different possibilities, which can empower game designers by tools for expression.
2.2.2
The underlying research philosophy: Social constructivism
I approached the interviews and data analysis with a relativistic, social constructivist perspective (Creswell, 2006, p. 20), appreciating that everyone in the context is making their own interpretations of whatever is being presented; the participants playing the game, me as I interpret their thoughts, and the readers of this report, making their own inferences of what I have written. Thus, I sought to understand the participants’ meanings both as subjects, and as representatives of the contemporary video gaming culture. It also meant recognizing the influence of my own views, while processing the data.
2.2.3
Preliminary preconceptions and possible sources of bias
I had a preconception that players would find incoherence to be an issue in the anachronic game, and more so in the linear game. This was based on the notion that coherence has its undisputed worth for the narrative experience, and I asserted that players would also expect coherence from game narratives. Another premise to this preconception was my assertion that for any experience of a world, human beings would expect events to happen mainly logically and causally, unless otherwise explained.
2.3 Designing and developing the testbed games 9
I used Unity (Unity Technologies, 2011, 2012) as the game development environment. The study began by building the first game for testing. I will discuss further, why two games were eventually needed.
2.3.1
Requirements for the first testbed game
The following requirements were in place for the testbed game of the study by the time of implementation of the first testbed game.
2.3.1.1
Sufficient overall developmental quality
A necessary level of hygiene (Herzberg’s 1968) of the game user experience, as noted by CalvilloGámez, Cairns, and Cox (2010, p. 53), can prevent a dissatisfaction with other game features from distorting the perception of the game feature studied. Thus, the first requirement for a testbed game is that the game experience in general should provide some level of interest. For this discussion, Immersion is an important game studies concept to note. Brown and Cairns sought for a grounded definition of immersion (2004). They found players to regard immersion as a stage of involvement, where the player is first engaged with the game, then engrossed, and finally totally immersed with the game. According to their study, engrossment demands a certain level of developmental quality: “Gamers could tell when a game was well constructed and could see when designers had put effort into construction. This added to their sense of respect for the game.” (2004, p. 1299) They also note: “The barrier to engrossment is game construction. This is when game features combine in such a way that the gamers’ emotions are directly affected by the game.” (2004, p. 1299) Due to these notions, I argue that a testbed game for novel game features should be of sufficient developmental quality to provide an engrossing experience.
2.3.1.2
Sufficient usability and playability
Sufficient usability and playability are also important for a necessary game experience hygiene. Desurvive, Caplan and Toth (2004) define playability as a measure of game play, game story, game mechanics9 and game usability. They note: “game usability addresses the interface and encompasses the
9
”Game mechanics are methods invoked by agents for interacting with the game world.” (Sicart, 2008, para. 1)
10
elements the user utilizes to interact with the game (e.g. mouse, keyboard, controller, game shell, heads-up display).” (2004, p. 1). Thus, a testbed game should have a sufficiently good user interface. In addition, creativity should be used when crafting the story of the game, and the game should give guidance on how to proceed. The testbed game for the study was to be story-based more than action-oriented, which meant there would be less core functionality concerned with controllability, user interface and diversity. However, the few game mechanics available such as dialogues or picking up objects were to be seamlessly controllable in order to not hinder the experience.
2.3.1.3
A non-abstract, mimetic world
The Aristotelian concept of mimesis (Aristotle, 335 BCE) refers to presenting things similarly as they appear in the real world as we know it. Thus, it corresponds to realism in video games context. A nonmimetic element would be an impossibility in the real world. Abstraction in video games is a certain simplification of things (Juul, 2007), such as implementing only certain details of the physical properties and behaviors of the game world. I argue the aforementioned game abstraction to be the removal of mimesis, and thus the inclusion of impossible elements. In games, time and temporality can also be abstracted, but for clarity, the testbed game for the study was not to do this. As to the audiovisual quality, the testbed game did not need to be ultra-realistic. More important was for the players to understand clearly what is being presented. Thus, a graphical surface-level abstraction was acceptable. I reasoned, however, that if a game world would clearly be physically and behaviorally abstracted beyond the surface level, the incoherence might be perceived as part of the abstraction, which would not have served the study.
2.3.1.4
First-person perspective
Some view perspectives were arguably incompatible for the testbed game, such as the side-scrolling perspective, which implies the abstraction of three spatial dimensions onto two. Perspectives such as topdown or third-person imply either non-mimetic, perhaps godlike presences and abilities, or simply extradiegetic camera viewports into the events. Thus, the first-person perspective is the most mimetic 11
perspective, and was chosen for the testbed game. Also, players in Brown’s and Cairn’s, 2004 study noted that first-person perspective games best provided a “totally immersive” experience (p. 1299, para. 24).
2.3.1.5
Story-based
As the study focuses in narrative incoherence, the testbed game was to be story-based. In such games, story, and presence10 are the main experiential components. Dear Esther (thechineseroom, 2008) is perhaps an example of such experience in its purest form. This is in contrast with action games, for example, where the intended experiential focus is within action-oriented game mechanics. Role-playing games (RPG) and adventure games are good examples of story-based game genres. I chose the game to be a first-person adventure game, which I see as a genre with interesting future prospects. The game story was to be short and not too complex, so that the participants would understand even the anachronic version.
2.3.1.6
Reversed and linear chronology versions
To record UARI perceptions with both anachronic and linear games, versions of both type were built.
2.3.1.7
Scene-based chronology
A level (Björk, Holopainen, 2005, p. 60) is traditionally a certain subsection of content in a video game. In games with a level-based structure, the main narrative structure usually progresses linearly from level to level, such as in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (Infinity Ward, 2007). The game starts from the first level, and ends after the last level is passed, which occurs when the player succeeds in setting the game world to a certain goal state. As the testbed games of the study are story-based, I call their levels scenes.
It was for the convenience of both development and the participants’ understanding of the game story that the anachrony should take place at the division of scenes. In the anachronic game, an analepsis would
10
“Virtual reality. Simulation rides. Home theater. ... give the user a type of mediated experience that has never been possible before: one that seems truly "natural," "immediate," "direct," and "real," a mediated experience that seems very much like it is not mediated; a mediated experience that creates for the user a strong sense of presence.” (Lombard & Ditton, 1997, para 2).
12
occur as the scene changes, and an ellipsis11 in the linear game story. Only purely retrograde12 scene plotting was to be used in the anachronic version, because a back-and-forth shuttling story could have caused unnecessary complications for the purposes of this study.
2.3.1.8
Possibilities for UARI
In both chronological versions, a severe UARI was to be a possibility. To gain player perspectives into this type of incoherence, nothing was to imply the UARI to be an error or that it would serve some specified purpose.
2.3.2
The design of the first testbed game
Figure 1. Screenshots of the mysterious game, the first testbed game.
The first testbed game, titled simply as “Miika’s Game Prototype” is a short game with about 5 to 10 minutes of gameplay. I implemented the game according to the requirements listed previously. The game has two scenes. In the first scene (in fictional time) the protagonist is heading home and meets a man calling himself Eddie in the hallway. In the second scene (in fictional time) the protagonist is at home, and Eddie will arrive at his apartment door. Eddie claims to be working at a mental health institute, where he is trying to persuade the protagonist to visit. Eddie also offers medicine. I implemented the game as, how I 11 12
A chronological jump forward in the story. (Genette, 1983, p. 43) Backwards movement in the story. (Genette, 1983, p. 37)
13
regard it, considerably atmospheric and mysterious to arouse player interest in the story. Thus, in this report, I will call the first game the mysterious game from here on. In the anachronic version, the backwards jump in time between scenes is indicated by showing the text “some time earlier”.
The mysterious game provides only one UARI possibility, which I reasoned by attempting to keep the study simple. In the game, Eddie can be murdered in the hallway, in which case his re-appearance at the apartment door causes UARI with both chronology versions.
2.3.2.1
The decision to build another testbed game
I observed that due to the mystery, all participants interpreted the UARI as something that belongs to the experience. As the aim in grounded theory is to continuously evolve the study through the analysis of existing data in order to move towards a richer, deeper dataset, a decision was made to build another testbed game.
2.3.3
Requirements for the second testbed game
When designing the second game, the previous requirements persisted, while new requirements were added to yield a richer data variance.
2.3.3.1
Eliminate the mystery
I decided that the second game should have a more casual, everyday atmosphere to it, so that the mystery would not justify incoherence.
2.3.3.2
The game story should be longer and complete in itself
With the mysterious game, many participants hypothesized the incoherence to be explained later, if the story would continue. I interpreted this to occur due to the players interpreting the game to be incomplete, prototypical, or merely a demo-game of a larger story. To gain data variation, the second game’s story was to be longer, and complete in Aristotelian terms, having “a beginning, a middle, and an end” (Aristotle, 335 BCE, part VII, para. 2). 14
2.3.3.3
More UARI occurrences with various levels of severity
I interpreted one of the reasons for the similarity in the test results to be the perception of the incoherence as severe, as it was connected to central events in the game. This, I believe, further increased the sense of it belonging to the mystery. An interesting question was whether there would be marked differences in the responses with more incoherencies in different severities amidst a longer game story.
2.3.4
The design of the second testbed game
The second game, titled That Evening, was designed based on the requirements for the first game, with the addition of the new requirements. The story of That Evening is complete in itself. That Evening is a longer experience, and it has a clear-cut starting title screen and an ending credits screen, implying it as a finished, if not polished indie game13. Compared to the mysterious game, That Evening is far less mysterious, eerie and gothic. Thus, I will call it the casual game in this report from here on. It is best described as a drama or a thriller. In the game, one plays as Karen Hawthorne, a thirty-something office worker in New York, suffering from depression. As Karen is pondering suicide, a new potential love interest steps into her life, and a chance to settle an old feud appears. A dramatic realization within the story is introduced in the form of a serial killer terrorizing Karen’s neighborhood, causing suspicion to interfere with her personal affairs. The game story was a result of a brainstorming session between myself and my friend Juho Typpö. Audiovisually the game features bright lights, stylized shapes and colors, and a jazzy, lighthearted soundtrack.
13
A term commonly referring to a small-budget game developed by a studio independently of a publisher.
15
Figure 2. Screenshots of That Evening, the second testbed game.
The casual game’s gameplay includes choices that imply a change in the following scenes (in fictional time), but in the following scenes, nothing is ever affected by the choices. In the linear version of the game, scenes simply always start with a certain situation, no matter what was chosen in the previous scene, possibly causing UARI. The reversed version, on the other hand, is in no way designed to prevent UARI. The choices in the game do affect the game’s end result, however, providing for an interesting gameplay experience and replay value. The choices represent a black box14 system. They are bound to the dialogue decisions made in each scene. Certain combinations of choices will lead to Karen’s murder, while others lead to catching the serial killer. The winning choice sequences are found by exploring the options, and they adhere to a warm-hearted procedural argument15, for which one description is: “To succeed, listen to your heart and be forgiving.” Game success ensues if Karen’s romantic wishes are adhered to, and if old grudges are reconciled. In addition to engagement, I reasoned that by keeping the main gameplay elements within the dialogues, the players would pay more attention to the story, to understand when UARIs occur. The
14
In Rules of Play, Salen and Zimmerman note Dunnigan’s critique of the ”Black box syndrome” of computer games (Dunnigan, 2000, p. xii), meaning that they [often] do not “reveal their internal workings” (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004, p. 88). I find black box design as an asset in computer game design, as solving the mystery of the rules can be part of the intrigue during play. 15 Bogost defines procedural rhetoric as ”the art of persuasion through rule-based representations and interactions rather than the spoken word” (Bogost, 2007, p. ix)
16
following is a scene listing in linear fictional time, explaining the story, action possibilities, positive outcome conditions and the four UARI possibilities in That Evening:
Scene 1, titled: “Thursday afternoon” (linear version) / “Earlier that day, on early Thursday afternoon” (reversed version) Karen is stressed and depressed at work. If she goes near the window, she will think of jumping. A colleague, after a chat, will inform Karen of an online news article discussing the actions of a serial killer within Karen’s neighborhood.
Scene 2, titled: [no title] / “Earlier that day, on Thursday afternoon” [Window UARI] Karen will now be at the office coffee room, even if she jumped from the window in scene 1. I classify this as a high-severity UARI, because jumping from a high window should result in death or severe injury in real life. Karen meets John, and a chat ensues. Karen can accept or refuse John’s request for drinks.
Scene 3, titled: “Thursday Evening” / “One day before, on Thursday evening” [Refusal UARI] John escorted Karen to her home from the bar. John and Karen are in the hallway of Karen’s apartment and chatting. This happens even if the player refused John’s request in scene 2. I classify this as a medium-severity UARI, because one might infer that perhaps during the ellipsis, John has persuaded Karen to accompany him in the bar. During the chat, alarming details of John’s habits can be revealed. Karen goes to her apartment. A TV show aggravates Karen’s emotional issues, and the player can either switch off the TV normally or throw something at it, breaking it. Karen can find her phone on the bed to call her police officer brother to oversee her potential date with John, due to the serial killer situation. This can lead to a positive ending, if Karen accepts John’s date request in scene 5.
Scene 4, titled: “Friday Evening” / “One day before, on Friday evening” Karen visits a coffee shop. Here, Karen can run into her ex-best friend Judith, and get over her 17
traumas by either reconciling with her, or by berating her for good. With the former option, there is a possibility to gain a bottle of pepper spray, which always leads to a positive ending.
Scene 5, titled: “Saturday Evening” (both versions) [TV UARI] Karen is at home again, and her TV is intact, even if broken by the player in scene 3. I classify this as a modest-severity UARI, because a) one might infer that the TV could have been replaced during the time (two days ago), and b) video games often include objects that are inexplicably intact since their destruction on previous sighting, which have been generally regarded by players as minor glitches in the game worlds’ causalities. John visits Karen to ask her out for a date. The player can decide whether Karen is to go out later with John or not. [Judith UARI] After the discussion, John will leave, and the telephone rings. It is Judith. She will sound happy and ask Karen for a lunch. Karen answers in a positive tone. This will happen even if Karen berated her in scene 4. I classify this as a medium-severity UARI, because one could infer that Karen and Judith could have reconciled during the ellipsis.
Sunday morning press (a final closing scene in both versions) In this scene, a final end result of the game is shown as the narrative exposition of Karen’s fate in a newspaper article. In a negative scenario, Karen is murdered by the serial killer. In a positive scenario, Karen seizes the serial killer with the pepper spray, or her brother saves her.
2.3.5
Pre-testing the games
Both games were pre-tested before actual testing within the participant protocol. This was done by people such as the supervisors, family members and friends. During this pre-testing, the most outstanding errors in the usability and functionality of the game were noticed and fixed. For the casual game, pretesting also showed that the understandability of the story needed work, which called for a shortening of the initial story and dialogue.
18
2.4 The participant protocol The participant protocol, performed for each participant (P), consisted of contacting a possible P, agreeing upon the date and time of the session, and conducting the session. The session consisted of observed game playthroughs, play-time questions and interviewing. Sometimes I also contacted the P afterwards to gain clarifications or further information. The data used in the study was Ps’ comments during gameplay observation, and P interviews.
2.4.1
The participants
In total, 25 Ps took part in the study. Five accounts were rejected due to interview protocol issues, or due to a revealed lack in needed gaming experience. The age of the Ps ranged between 17 and 33. The average age was 27.1. The gender division ended up being three females and 17 males. The Ps were mostly students in different stages of education: Eight Bachelor’s students, six Master’s students, two college students, and one PhD student. The rest had finished their studies: One Bachelor graduate, one gymnasium graduate, and one who had finished apprenticeship training. As for occupations, besides the full-time students, there were two graphical designers, a game artist, a 3D modeler, a programmer, a business development analyst, an IT consultant, and a Linux admin amongst the Ps. Marital statuses were: One married, one engaged, four dating, 13 singles, and one did not comment on marital status. Parental statuses were: 18 with no children, one had a pregnant girlfriend, and one did not comment on parental status.
2.4.1.1
The participants’ relationships with video game play
A reasonable video game play (“gaming” from here on) experience was required, for the P to play the testbed game with ease, and to reflect upon the experience by contrasting it with earlier play experiences. I asserted that a person unaccustomed to video games would struggle with the game’s UI and controls, getting distracted from game aspects meaningful for the study.
19
For their early gaming history, at least half of the Ps had started gaming during childhood. Of the ten who commented on when they had started gaming, the average age was 6.1 years. Among the first gaming systems for these commenters were “8-bit Nintendo”, “Amiga”, and “Atari ST”. For their recent gaming history, one P reported having played World of Warcraft multiple hours every day for three to four years, but had ceased this habit since. For their current gaming habits, 11 Ps reported or implied gaming occasionally. One had abandoned a blooming gaming habit since teens. One reported to be a binge player, playing through an occasional interesting game upon its launch. Four hard core player Ps reported or implied playing extended periods daily.
14 Ps listed their favorite video game genres. Within the lists were eight mentions of “RPG”, six mentions of “FPS”, four mentions of “adventure”, three mentions of both “action” and “strategy”, two mentions each of “story-based”, “sports”, and “open world sandbox” type, and one mention of “indie”. Within the eight commentaries on favorite games, there were notably four occurrences of the “Fallout saga”, and three of the “Elder Scroll series”.
2.4.1.2
Importance of story in video games for the participants
An interesting point for the study was to see if the Ps’ possible different valuations for the importance of story in games would affect their reactions to encountering UARI in a game.
14 Ps commented on the importance of story in games. For two, it was the most important thing in a game. For one, it was very important. Two implied story to be an important element in games. One stated: “Story is kind of important”, specifying: “I buy games usually for the campaign, not for multiplayer”. Others of the 14 did not regard story in games as high in importance. Six stated that it depends on the specific game and type, of which one elucidated: “Depends on genre expectations. For instance, high for roleplaying games, low for platform games.” Two Ps regarded story as unimportant. One of them responded: (tr.) ”Story... I don’t know if it’s so important after all. It is good to be there, but it just loses its importance at some point in the longer games, like GTA and Skyrim”. 20
2.4.2
Participant recruitment, participation fees, and the researcher’s relationships with the participants
I recruited five of my ITU co-students, and four of my Finnish friends by direct contact, five Finnish friends of friends by inquiring for interested people, three random HAAGA-HELIA students, and two people from an online message board. I offered nobody else a fee except the people from the message board, where I used Steam gifts for persuasion.
I was well acquainted beforehand with nine of the Ps, less acquainted with three, and eight of the Ps were total strangers to me before the study. The benefit of interviewing strangers, according to Stilling and Grethe (2011), is that they might be able to give information that is more objective. However, as Polkingthorne, I believe, that “…it is not possible to achieve objective knowledge because the only knowledge available to humans is subjective and relative” (Polkingthorne, 1989, p. 27, as cited in Stilling & Grethe, 2011, p. 6), for which I saw no reason to omit interviewing people I was acquainted with. In a study as this, a benefit can be gained from the fact that acquaintances can feel less awkward in explicating their deepest reflections upon their emoting and rationale towards video game phenomena.
2.4.3
Protocol medium and site
12 accounts were conducted via Skype, and eight in person. Of the in-person accounts, three were conducted in the facilities of HAAGA-HELIA, two were conducted at my apartment, two at the P’s apartment, and one at various locations in the center of Helsinki.
It was important to me, first of all, that the Ps felt comfortable with participating in the study, and second, that the choice of date, time, medium and site were suitable for the P’s schedule and comfort of play. I believe that the Ps mostly played the game in an environment they felt acquainted with and comfortable in, as opposed to playing in a novel or stressful environment, which might have affected the results.
21
2.4.4 2.4.4.1
The participant sessions Game playthroughs and observation
The P session had an informal structure. If I was not acquainted with the P, I would build rapport first by discussing about the P’s gaming habits. Before starting the game, I described the basic details of the game, such as the control scheme, genre, style, and view perspective.
The game was played by the P as many times as was needed for a sufficient understanding of the game events and story, as this was a precondition to realize the UARIs. Of 20 Ps, 19 played only one game version, and one player played three for experimental reasons. Thus, there were 22 game version accounts in total. Of the 19, four played the linear mysterious game (LM), four the reversed mysterious (RM), five the linear casual (LC), and seven the reversed casual (RC). The one special P played versions in this order: LC, RC, RM. The average number of playthroughs per version was: LM – 2.5, RM – 2.5, LC – 2, RC – 2.9. The smallest number of playthroughs for all versions was one. The largest number of playthroughs per version was: LM – 3, RM – 4, LC – 3, RC – 5. I hypothesize that more playthroughs were needed for the anachronic versions due to the anachrony making the game story more complex.
Most of the times I observed the play time commentary. Sometimes, I would ask questions during play if an interesting topic was at hand.
2.4.4.2
Interviews
An interview was conducted after each playthrough, if the player had encountered UARIs. In the interviews I used introducing questions, follow-ups and probes to gain free-form information, along with specifying questions, direct questions and interpreting questions to gain perspective onto the hypotheses that emerged within the interviews and in the analysis (Kvale 1996, as cited by by Bryman, 2001). In the end of the interview, I often summarized my interpretations of what the P had just expressed, asking whether I was correct. Helpfully, the Ps were eager to correct any misunderstandings I had.
22
2.4.4.3
Interview protocol A
The first interview protocol in the study was semi-structured and aimed at gaining data on whether or not UARI is a negative issue for players. First, the P would discuss the game freely, during which I would observe for any notions of UARIs. If none would occur, a set of questions that one by one approach the phenomena indirectly would be asked, expecting to eventually obtain the P’s stance on the matter. Finally, if no notions would arise, I would ask about them directly. The aim of the protocol was to find the level of prominence of the UARI as a notable phenomenon. Here is the protocol form:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 2.4.4.4
Ask what the player thought about the game in a general sense. Ask what the player thought about the plot in a general sense. Ask if there was anything wrong with the game. Ask if there was anything wrong with the plot. Ask about the specific incoherent situations. Interview protocol B
A problems with the first protocol was the early conceptually loaded questions asking about something “wrong” in the game. The concern here was if the P would not give his pure, unbiased perception of the UARI, before mentally fitting it into the conceptual slot of “wrong". Additionally, the discussion would constantly tangent into less relevant topics that demanded for polite redirection. Therefore, I devised a new, more concentrated and open-ended protocol to seek how the phenomenon signifies meanings for the Ps themselves:
1. Ask the participant to recall the story of the game. 2. When an UARI-facilitating situation is discussed, inquire closer what the P thinks happened. 3. Continue from 1 until the end. With this protocol, I would turn the inquiry upon the UARIs, as the topic emerged from the Ps’ narratives. This protocol was more effective also in keeping most of the discussion within the topic of the noticed UARIs. Six first Ps were interviewed with protocol A, and 14 Ps with protocol B. The development of another interview protocol did not invalidate the results gained with the earlier protocol. Ultimately, with both protocols, the approach was to first discuss the experience in general terms to gain access to the 23
participants’ own thought structures, and finally to specifically inquire whether the player sees UARI as an error in need of removal from the experience. Additionally, protocol A was used almost exclusively with the first testbed game, except for one account conducted with the second (the point at which I noticed its shortcomings). I conducted additional interviews with protocol B on the first testbed game to ensure that the protocol had not affected the results of the first testbed game. Here I have described the main division of the different forms of the inquiry, the constant development of which being only natural for a GT study.
2.4.4.5
Theoretical sampling
Theoretical sampling, as Strauss and Corbin define it (1988, p. 201 – 216) refers to the selection of where and from whom to gain data next, and the specific nature of the new data to be retrieved, to deepen the emerging theoretical categorization. A list of additional interview questions for theoretical sampling (Appendix A) grew as the study progressed, increasing the interview lengths likewise. The last interviews lasted from two to three hours, while the first ones had taken only 10 to 15 minutes.
2.4.5
About the data
The main data of the study was 26 hours of participant session audio recordings, of which I transcribed 290 pages of text, along with 16 pages of copied emails and instant messaging,
2.4.6
Transcribing the interviews
Each account took a day or more to transcribe. In the transcription, I wanted to stay true to what the Ps said. After directly translating the first three Finnish interviews into English I noted the translation dilemmas in qualitative research (Temple & Young, 2004), and transcribed the rest in Finnish. There were 9 English interviews, all transcribed in English, and 13 Finnish interviews, of which three transcribed in English and 11 in Finnish.
2.5 Data analysis with the grounded theory methodology
24
Strauss and Corbin (S & C) define GT as both an inductive methodology (1988, p.136), and a deductive methodology (p.136). Suddaby notes GT as a creative activity: “Grounded theory is an interpretive process that depends upon the sensitivity of a researcher to tacit elements of the data or meanings and connotations that may not be apparent from a mere superficial reading of denotative content.” (2004, p. 639) The analysis of data in GT is done in three interlacing steps; 1) open coding; an overall review and codification, 2) axial coding; forming the theoretical connections, and 3) selective coding; integration and refinement of the theory. In GT, the goal of the research should be formulating a theory, in which interrelationships and dynamics between found categories in the data are described (S & C, 1998, p. 142). A mere listing of categories does not represented a GT as S & C define it (p. 145).
2.5.1
Starting the coding process – Open coding
Open coding (S & C, 1998, p. 101 – 122) was the preliminary in-depth analysis of the data as it was gathered. For this task, I utilized Dedoose (SCRC, 2012), an online analytic tool. This analysis was a process of coding16 and recording one’s thoughts into memos17. I coded mostly phenomena, concepts, actions, qualities and properties appearing in the data at the level of paragraphs and sentences (p. 120).
2.5.1.1
Constantly posing questions at the data
At the open coding phase, as suggested by S & C (1998, p87-100), I scanned the data with a set of questions in mind, starting with “What is going on here?” (p. 77), and continuing with questions as “Who?” “When?” “Why?” “Where?” “What?” “How?” (p. 92). Raising these questions helped to understand the data in a generalized, theoretical sense, and guided the theoretical sampling.
S & C note on objectivity: “The focusing forces researchers to consider the range of plausibility, to avoid taking one stand or stance toward the data. … The data are not being forced; they are being allowed to
16 17
Marking a passage of qualitative data, usually text, with a label. A GT term for a note.
25
speak.” (p. 65) Thus, for example, If a P implied a sense of losing agency, I could not generalize it as a “negative reaction” without further clarification, because the P did not in words or tone indicate a dislike.
2.5.1.2
Constant comparison
In the analysis, I compared the data instance by instance (S & C, 1998, p. 79, p. 94), to note the interesting dimensional variation of data properties (S & C, 1998, p117), which is the base for defining categories in the data. In this comparison process done after each interview, if the existing categories could not fit the new data, they had to be changed.
2.5.2
Finding causalities – Axial coding
In the axial coding phase (S & C 1998, p. 123 – 142) the GT started to form, as I noted the causalities and relationships within the data. As my theory formed, I realized the meaning of the GT methodology as a way of creating a general view to a large set of data, helping to see in the data the circumstances that produce certain outcomes. Producing such view requires an “analytic distance” (p. 66) to the data.
2.5.3
Integrating the theory and refining the categorization – Selective coding
Selective coding (S & C, 1998, p. 146 – 162) was the final phase, where I integrated (p. 143) the theory. To begin this task, I prepared a high-perspective data view spreadsheet. My first theory draft was a categorization of the different aspects of the Ps’ perceptions of the phenomena. Writing the theory down in a narrative form refined it into the different player perspectives into the phenomena. Finally, I revised the theory into a categorization that corresponds better with answering the guiding research questions.
3 Results For a critical reading of this theory, I should first point out that the theory is based on my interpretation of the data collected. Due to the nature of language itself, any word of my own that I use to summarize or refer to the participants’ accounts is necessarily filtered by my own impression. One should also remember that the theory might only apply with similar games as made for the study. In the theory, I attempt to 26
present an abstract generalization of the Ps' experiences of UARI. The theoretical categories correspond to answering the guiding research questions. Subchapter 3.1 is the theory in short abstract form. Subchapter 3.2 explains the theory by showing relevant examples from the data.
3.1 Perceptions of UARI in anachronic and linear game stories: A grounded theory 3.1.1
The notion of UARI Players perceive UARI in an anachronic game as a discrepancy between the acted present and the
experienced future, and in a linear game as unexpected action consequences.
3.1.2
The attitudinal perspectives to UARI
Figure 3: A player who notes UARI forms an attitudinal perspective towards it
The notion of UARI in a game makes the player form one or more hypotheses of its purpose. As each hypothesis is accompanied by either an acceptive or a rejective attitude towards the UARI occurrence, I refer to the hypotheses as attitudinal perspectives (AP). The main AP of the player is the hypothesis that the player regards as the most plausible. AP formation depends on the game’s chronology, and is co-factored by 27
the player’s traits. Contextual criteria for the AP are the acceptability of the UARI as a byproduct of the game’s mechanics, the genre of fiction that the game implies for the player (and the suitability of incoherent events in that genre), and the plausibility of the UARI to be a developmental deficiency. There are three clearly distinct APs that players form to UARI18. The acceptive-ludic (ALAP) occurs with anachrony only. It accepts UARI as a necessary byproduct of the game’s mechanics. The acceptive-diegetic (ADAP) occurs with both anachronic and linear game scenarios. It views UARI as part of the game story. The rejective-logical (RLAP) occurs mostly with linear chronology, and less frequently with reversed chronology. It regards UARI as a deficiency in the game.
3.1.3
Emotions evoked by UARI
Figure 4: Emotional profile of the attitudinal perspectives
18
As noted by this specific study. Other studies might find different perspectives.
28
UARI can evoke emotions of empowerment, intrigue and confusion in an ALAP player, intrigue and confusion, or no emotions (neutrality) in an ADAP player, or annoyance and disempowerment, or neutrality in RLAP players.
3.1.4
UARI removal preferences
Figure 5: UARI removal preferences with the different perspectives
ALAP and ADAP players view the UARI as part of the experience. For them, the incoherence in the story does not need to be removed by an explanation, for example. RLAP players do prefer the removal of UARI.
3.2
Participant account examples
In this subchapter, I will show how the P accounts support the formation of the theory. Names of Ps have been changed. When relevant, I show in parentheses after the P’s name his or her main perspective to most UARIs that occurred to the P, and the game version the P played.
3.2.1
The notion of UARI
29
The first category represents the notions of UARI by the participants themselves, and what it means to them. This category answers the central GT question “what is going on” in the data (S & C, 1998, p. 114), and on a general level, the first guiding research question of the study: “How do players perceive UARI in anachronic and linear game stories?” Despite a neutral assessment of the data, I did not find the participants’ notions of the core phenomena to surprisingly deviate from my own notions.
3.2.1.1
Linear chronology: Unexpected action consequences
With linearly progressing game events, the notion that players make of UARI is one of unexpected action consequences; what was expected as a result of one’s action in one moment, does not happen in the next. For example, for Oskari (ADAP, LC), a 23-year-old Finnish male Bachelor student, this was the case: (translated) “I: How did it feel to you that you just jumped out of a window, but the story continues? P: Well, it was a bit unexpected turn of events. … you would think that the game is over.” For Ed (ADAP, LM), a 21year-old Danish male Bachelor student, it was a lack of expected consequences: "There were no real consequences for killing the man with the paper knife. (Laughs) So… it’s kind of weird a bit, but maybe it’s all in your head!" (44-45).
Exploring these expectations revealed that players place similar expectations towards a game as towards the real world, if the game implies such mimesis. Stjyrbjørn
(ADAP, LM),
a 31-year-old Danish male
Master’s student of game design and analysis, explained this:
I: Why shouldn’t a guy come back to your door, after you’ve killed him? P: Because, that’s what western logic takes (for granted) I: But do you agree that this is something that happens inside a computer’s memory? P: Of course. … I: Are you expecting things to happen in games, as they happen somewhere else? P: Yeah, umm… I have this you know, very sequential way of thinking, on playing games … it’s pretty much mimicking my mental model of how physical world works, or how I, as a western individual view the world. I: … you place the same expectations towards these phenomena in the video game as in the physical world? P: … I expect the same cause and effect making it in video games. … If I kill somebody in the street right now, I 30
expect that he will not, you know, go for my door, when I turn around again. And that’s the way of logical thinking that I also use while playing video games. (158-192)
3.2.1.2
Reversed chronology: Discrepancy between the acted present and the experienced future
With reversely progressing game events, the notion that players make of UARI is one of a discrepancy between the acted present and the experienced future (changing the future game world state from a previously witnessed one). Dan
(ADAP, RM),
a 27-year-old Danish male Master’s student of game design
implied this: “On the first time I played, I killed him. So, how could he show up later? That’s my question.” (85-100)
Alex
(RLAP, RC),
a 23-year-old Russian male Bachelor student of business IT, found the Window UARI
illogical: “You know, I couldn’t do his, because … all those scenes before wouldn’t happen.”
(37-39)
As with
the linear games, an abnormal causality was noted. Petri (ALAP, RC), a 30-year-old Finnish male PhD student, found the RC game’s causality surrealistic: (tr.) “The normal laws of time do not apply, or the relationships of causality do not apply in the same way. From one does not follow two, but first comes two and then I have to decide will I say ‘one’ or ‘zero’ or something else. Or either ‘one’ or ‘A’, or either ‘one’ or ‘flowerpot’” (320-331)
3.2.2
The attitudinal perspectives to UARI
This category answers the second guiding research question: “How important is the coherence of game story to players”. Additionally, it answers the first research question in more detail.
3.2.2.1
Acceptive-ludic
With the acceptive-ludic19 attitudinal perspective (ALAP), players see the UARI as an inevitable and acceptable result of anachronic game design. In fact, for this perspective there exists no UARI, but simply a causal reconfiguration of the future through game mechanics. In this study, the ALAP occurred with the RC
19
“ludic, adj., Of or relating to play or playfulness” (The American Heritage® Dictionary of English Language, 2009)
31
game only. It was the main perspective for five out of eight Ps who played RC. Sakke (ALAP, RC), a 28-year-old Finnish male 3D modeler played the RC game: (tr.) (During observation of 1st playthrough. Judith UARI:) P: I feel strange … Did I do something wrong [s1a]? (Speculating if he made the wrong choice by not reconciling with Judith, and whether the UARI means a negative game result) … It’s just that… Will you play as the game suggests [s1b], or will you play as you yourself want the protagonist to act [s2a]. (1st interview starts. Game preferences:) I: Favorite games? P: Perhaps ICO and Shadow of the Colossus [s7]. … Games I have played the most are online multiplayers like TF2 and Tribes Ascend [s1c]. With story-based games, I’m not interested in challenges. For challenge, I will play non-story-based-games [s1d]. (Judith UARI:) P: When there was the notion that she … stole her man, I thought negatively of her. .. I wanted the protagonist to be, not too rude, but direct. I: … then you thought about the phone call? P: I thought that perhaps I did something wrong, and perhaps I should have… Usually you play along with the game the first time around [s3a]. I: … as with your earlier game experiences? P: Perhaps … you want to experience it as it was meant to be first, and after that… But then again … Usually when I play … I don’t play as I would act in the situation, but how I would imagine the protagonist to be [s3b]. … Then if you suddenly would change the protagonist’s behavior, it would be like having two different games in the same session [s3c]. … In the first scene I dumped the man … It gave a persona to the protagonist. … I: You stayed in-character since? P: Yes [s3d]. (TV UARI:) I: Now that I mentioned this, what do you think about it? P: … It’s again a tip about how the game wants the story to… Or what is the right order for things. There is some order, to get the story ‘correct’, so to say [s2b]. Then again, it evokes the thought, whether that is the point in the game, or is it to solve it and avoid the death of the protagonist [s2c]. (During 2nd observation. About the ending:) P: … One ponders, if this (death) could be avoided … There are two suspects: Judith and the man, I think. [s1e]. (Final interview. John UARI:) I: Do you apply here again the same formula for thinking about the game, as with the phone call … ? P: Yes … I was trying to make her (protagonist) act …
32
‘correctly’ [s3d]. I: None of the scenes felt like ‘Oh, this is a bug’? … P: I do believe there was some “correct” solution … that’s how it felt [s4a]. (Window UARI:) I: I did not want to jump (on the earlier playthroughs), because my decisions would not have mattered. I am interested to see … where my decisions lead to [s1f]. … Somebody must have stopped the jump [s5a], because it did not happen, if you think about it. … Or, perhaps … it evokes the interest into… There might be a clue to find about … being stopped [s1g] …. I: Would that be more interesting … ? P: Yes … in this kind of game, everything probably has a reason. It makes you want to look into every nook and cranny, and put the pieces together [s1h]. … (Story logic:)I: How about the other scenes … what do you think about going against the plot? ... logically? Or do you care? P: … it makes you feel like ‘it did not go like this!’ ... you want to find out the ways to make it go right [s1i]. I: Ok. But not as with the window scene, requiring an explanation? P: Actually no. … Because it (window UARI) is so conclusive. It would cut it from there. … The others are somehow plausible [s5b]. … I: How important is story logic for you in general? … P: ... It should be logical enough not to bother you the first time experiencing it. Finding illogicalities is not that big deal, perhaps. Almost every story has some. However, by paying too much attention to everything you probably can’t enjoy it anyway [s6a]. I: … If you care about story logic, why did it not bother you … ? I: Perhaps exactly due to the non-linearity [s6b]. It kind of made it. If it would’ve been linear, then it would have bothered me, because it would not have made sense linearly [s6c]. However, because you go backwards, it creates a puzzle feel to it, Making it ok. … A task, a puzzle, a problem to solve [s2d, s6d]. I: … Does it have something to do with the medium? (game) … P: Probably, because there are choices. … If you would not have any choices, then it would bother you. … You can say ‘Ahh, I chose wrong’. P: … By introducing the element of choice, it makes it ok? I: Yes, exactly [s2e, s6e]. … (Solving the game) I: How was the experience of thinking about what could there be behind it? … P: It was positive, like: ‘Ohh, I get it!” … It was like solving a problem. When it was done, it was like: ‘Oh yeah, I did it!’ It was solved. I: Was it satisfying? P: Yes [s1j]. (More about story logic:) P: There should be some logical point for the illogicalities. That might sound strange, but there should be a catch. … In this kind of game, it works 33
well, as a problem to solve [s2f, s6f]. (Developmental stage:) P: It was in its infancy by its technical and visual (aspects), or… It depends how it’s meant. It works fine as it is. … You could call it ready. …. It works as a game, in my opinion [s4b]. … There were no such bugs that I could say that it would have been unfinished [s4c]. … I: Did the developmental stage influence your view on whether the plot is illogical, or if the choices are part of the game? P: No [s4d]. (34-590)
3.2.2.1.1 Co-factor: A lusory attitude The ALAP player approaches the anachronic game with a lusory attitude, a term conceived by Suits (1990/2005, p. 54-55), of which Salen and Zimmerman note: “… players accept these rules, taking on the ‘unnecessary obstacles’ of a game simply because they make play possible.” (2004, p. 77) The ALAP player accepts the anachrony as the structure of the game system, and as such, as a rule, as Petri expressed: “It (causality) does not break, it just goes to another direction. … All the causality relationships exist, and there are the certain possible worlds, certain possible paths to go … it is a game rule that has to be accepted.“ (598604, 1158-1162)
For this reason the implications of the rule, such as UARI, become acceptable.
The player sees this system of rules as a challenge [s1b, s2a], and becomes interested in the end result of the play [s1e], and in learning the success strategies [s1f]. In this engagement, the game logic becomes the primary concern, and the story logic remains secondary. Sakke expressed more concern with the implications of the causality break to his game result [s1a, s1i] than to the story coherence. Petri
(ALAP, RC)
had similar concerns about the game’s causality: (tr.) “(Judith UARI:) I thought … either I get to go back to Friday evening to correct the coffee conversation … so that … she will call me with a positive tone, or for my part, the plot will go to a terribly wrong direction …” (195-198) The story logic does have value for the ALAP player [s5a-b], along with in-character-play [s3a-b], and character-cohesion [s3c-d], but the intrigue of exploring what the game has to offer by its gameplay prevails [s1g, s1h, s6a].
Solving the game is interesting and rewarding for the ALAP player [s1e, s1j], instead of experiencing a course of events, as with a passive narrative experience. For Valtteri (ALAP, RC), a 28-year-old Finnish male IT 34
consultant, the story was unimportant: (tr.) “I: Do you think about the game story afterwards? … P: No … game stories do not stay in my mind … It (story) is important when you play, but not afterwards.”
(260-273)
Mika (ALAP, RC), a 24-year-old Finnish male business development analyst, did not pay attention to the story as a whole: (tr.) “When I played, I did not think about the inconsistencies. I just wanted to see what happens.” (183-185)
By their gaming habits, ALAP Ps appreciate stories [s7], but challenge-based and activity-based gaming habits are pronounced [s1c-d], as with Tapio (ALAP, RC), a 30-year-old Finnish male graphical designer: (tr.) “I: You played WOW intensively? … P: 3-4 years.” (772), and Valtteri: (tr.) “I: You want to do “random” things? P: … a big game world … you don’t do things that you would want to do (in real life), but things you can do (pointing to any possible action, realistic or unrealistic, in a sandbox-type game).” (220-228)
3.2.2.1.2 Contextual Criterion: Acceptability as a byproduct of game mechanics A contextual criterion for forming the ALAP is the suitability of the UARI to be logically perceived as a byproduct of the game mechanics. In an anachronic game an UARI makes sense, when the game progresses backwards [s6b-f]. Mika noted that UARI is perhaps unavoidable in anachronic design: (tr.) “… if you want to make a game that goes backwards, you have to sacrifice such things (story logic) … for the player to have options … you will have to make such narrative compromises.” (156-161)
The UARI is acceptable, because the game presents choices [s2e, s6e], which, along with the special temporal nature create a “puzzle feel” to the game [s2c-d]. For Valtteri, choices in games are paramount: (tr.) ”If you could not make decisions ... it would just be a story. You always need options. That is the fun in games.” (81- 83)
Due to the black box design of the casual game, instead of judging the UARI by logic, ALAP Ps speculated the gameplay implications of witnessing a future state [s2a-b], as Petri: (tr.) “I did not think that the present time was “correct”, but that it would just be one snapshot of some possible way to play the game.” 35
(458-461)
and Tapio: (tr.) “(Judith UARI:)… you were friends in the future ... Then comes the thought: ‘She is a jerk’ (referring to an in-game display of the protagonist's thoughts) … The question is, what is reasonable in your opinion, do you want to be lead, or go against it. It is interesting as well.” (460-466) For Petri, the causality break represented a special ludonarrative20 device, specific to anachronic games: “I: … the fact that this is a game ... how much did it affect your acceptance of this matter (the causality issue)? P: As said, it (causality breaking) was a narrative factor, possible in a game. It does not break the illusion of it being a world. … It brings excitement to the story, and … some challenge … A device.” (1155-1162)
Valtteri opined narrative incoherence as irrelevant in games, and thus acceptable: (tr.) ”P: It (UARI) was a bit illogical ... I: Does it affect your game experience? P: No. ... It’s just a game. You just play it. … In games, you get to do things, and to be a part of it. … I: If you get to do things, logic doesn’t matter? … P: A bit like that, yes. … you’ll just want to try things and see what happens. Usually you can always start again, save it and so on.” (156-156, 191-204)
3.2.2.1.3 Contextual criterion: Implausibility of erroneousness Another contextual criterion for the ALAP is the UARI’s implausibility of erroneousness in the game. The ALAP Ps perceived that despite rough edges in the RC game, its general functionality was not defective [s4ad]. Thus, the ALAP players had no reason to believe that the UARI was as an error. This was in contrast with the RLAP notions discussed later. Mika noted: (tr.) “It was, of course, a bit like a demo, with lots of things to attend to usability-wise, but I liked the narrative and such.” (261-262)
3.2.2.2
Acceptive-diegetic
With the acceptive-diegetic attitudinal perspective (ADAP), players accept the UARI as an occurrence that can be plausibly explained to be part of the story, or to have happened due to events not shown to the
20
Ludonarrative refers to the interactive narrative content in games. The term was coined by Clint Hocking (2007).
36
player. This AP occurred with all the game versions. It was the main perspective of 4/4 Ps (four out of four participants) with LM, 5/5 Ps with RM, 2/5 Ps with LC, and 1/8 Ps with RC. Next, I will demonstrate two mainly ADAP perpectives. Timias
(ADAP, LM),
a 33-year-old Finnish male Linux administrator, played the LM
game. He came up with multiple story-wise solutions for the UARI:
(tr.) (Story:) I: What did you think about the story? P: Well, it wasn’t very long … Perhaps the music made it, but it was sort of a more distressing one. I have been following other amnesia stories like this [t1a, t5a]. I: What happened on your last playthrough? P: I stabbed Eddie downstairs. Apparently it wasn’t the same Eddie, when the same guy came back up for conversation [t5b]. … If you stab him, you presume he is dead. And he came back as if nothing had happened. So, either it did not happen, or it is not the same guy. … There is the possibility that he (the protagonist) has only been dreaming [t5c]. … As a fan of the supernatural and mystical [t1b, t3a], there is always … the tinfoil hat scenario with space aliens or some mystical thing or such [t5d] … If the game would have continued, it could have given references towards what it would have been about. I: Continued? … P: It ended surprisingly, it was short, and stories can’t end just like that [t6a]. … (Atmosphere:) I: How was the atmosphere? P: The music was the biggest creator of atmosphere, and the sparse lighting and such created a sense of a mysterious scenario [t3b]. … I: Did it affect your interpretation? P: I can’t say. I would have ended up with the first two explanations without such atmosphere, and I believe the third one would have come up even in a different atmosphere [t3c]. … (Error consideration:) I: It did not occur to you that there would be an error in the game? P: I thought about that a few times, but … I don’t believe it. … The sparseness of events and lack of any other options points to it being a planned thing [t4a]. … I: Should such illogicality be corrected? P: I don’t see it as an illogicality. Isn’t it the whole point of the game [t4b]? … P: … even though you appreciate logic in games, you did not think that ‘’Oh, isn’t this illogical”, but you thought that ‘’There must be something eerie going on’’? P: Maybe it’s more about kind of wanting to think that perhaps this would eventually be done in a logical manner [t2a]. … It’s kind of like wishful thinking that…
37
And kind of, maybe if you think like that, then perhaps it will go to such track, and then it’s much more interesting to play [t2b]. … So it’s kind of like, maybe you would be more inside the plot thinking like that, and if you would only think that it’s a bug, then when it would be revealed that it is not, you would have missed a lot of the atmosphere [t2c]. … (Developmental quality) I: Did the scope of the game affect your view of the game being unfinished? … P: There is a feel to it that it could be an intro to a game [t6b]. I: Did the developmental quality affect your views of the incident? P: Not really [t4c]. … I: What in the story made you come up with your interpretations? P: … The content of the dialogues, of course ... a different style or tone in the dialogues would not have affected it [t3d]. (60 – 368)
Kimi (ADAP, RC), a 28-year-old Finnish male Bachelor student played the RC game:
(tr.) (Judith UARI:) P: Basically the information given to the player is not necessarily what really happens in the game world [k5a]. … Another option is that something happens there in between [k5b]. Third option is that it’s a bit illogical if it is so [k4a]. … I: First option? P: … It’s a narrative consideration, as In Fight Club also, Tyler Durden was a fictional character, after all [k1a]. … I: The second option? … P: Probably Judith would catch her up on her way home [k5c]. … I: Illogical? (3rd option) P: … If it would not be designed … it would break the thought pattern. … It would be a relatively weak game design [k2, k4b]. … (Starting to notice more discrepancies:) P: On the second playthrough, I noticed the discrepancies. I: What did you think then? P: That there are probably yet more things that I did not pay attention to [k3a, k6a]. … I: Your first reaction was that it was a narrative thing? P: Yes, more so [k7]. … It seems that things are not how they appear. … if you jump out of the window, you’ll get news that you were killed, meaning that you did not jump [k3b]. (TV UARI:) Could you tell me a brief history of that TV in the game? I: Well, it gave me the impression that the protagonist might be delusional [k3c, k5d]. … You can break the TV the previous day, but it will be intact the next day anyways. … I: Did you have any other explanation? … P: Well, one possibility is that it would have been changed [k5e], but… Then again, it seems in a way much more illogical, because if you think about it, it’s a TV, it should have been fetched 38
from somewhere, or somebody should have brought it [k5f]. … I: It’s a bit tricky thing to do in real life? P: It takes time. I: And thus would be unlikely? P: Yes. [k3d] I: How important was the Judith’s case for the plot, compared to the TV? P: … The conversation with Judith, due to it being more inevitable, seems like a more important element plot-wise. On the other hand, the TV indicates that things are not as they seem to be [k8]. … (John UARI:) P: This could also indicate that things happen against the protagonist’s will. I: Against? P: There is a possibility to refuse. … I: And you’re still returning with John? P: Yes. In that sense, it seems that she is not in control of the situation [k3e]. … The points, where the next day should be affected but is not… Either there has to happen something that is not told to the player, or it does not happen in reality [k3f], narrative-wise. … It would be delusional. The reality of the game world is not mediated to the player [k5g]. (Window UARI:) I: You jumped from the window in the past. P: If that would be real, then nothing else there could happen. … It confirms the thought that the game is situated outside of reality, and inside the protagonist’s head [k3g, k5h]. I: This is your major interpretation? P: Yes [k3h]. … This interview has also opened it more to me. … I: I think that this interview has also strengthened this impression? P: Yes, it has. I: However, I don’t think I have told you what to think about it. P: No, nothing like that [k9]. (Story preferences:) Mostly, with story-based games, one longs for a deeper story than just a US soldier killing lots of enemies [k1b]. … When you start playing a game, you try to guess where the story will lead … You require a certain complexity to the story, and more twists than the usual single one [k1c]. (Atmosphere:) P: The atmosphere seemed to be an unusually light one. A bit like in the Sims. Basically like one seen in relationship-based games. On the other hand, pertaining to my background, as I assume that in games the idea usually is, that the atmosphere might be created to a certain direction, and then turned into another, you could predict that there is a certain horror or psychological element involved [k1d]. So, I thought that the atmosphere was pretty solid after all. (158 – 591)
3.2.2.2.1 Co-factor: Acquaintance with incoherence-permitting genres
39
A co-factor for forming the ADAP is if the player prefers, or is familiar with genres of narrative or ludonarrative fiction, where incoherence could be regarded as a narrative device, or a common storytelling trope. If the circumstances are correct, such player chooses to interpret the UARI by the ADAP. For Timias [t1a, t1b], and Kimi [k1a], this was the case. Meg
(ADAP, ML),
a Canadian 23-year-old female college student
agreed: “I: Do you think games and stories you have experienced affected your interpretation? P: Possibly, I play a lot of creepier games … I: Do you speculate that playing other creepy games makes you come up with this kind of explanation? P: Yeah … Because I tend to see things as being more interesting than usually they are. I: Ok, so is it … How would one describe it … adds to a certain paranoia about the plot? P: Yeah, I agree!” (133 – 141) For the ADAP player, story is important [k1b-c].
The ADAP player interprets the UARI to belong to the experience in a narrative sense [t5a-d, k5a-h], making it more rewarding [t2c]. Timias explained how he wanted the UARI to be intended as mysterious and interesting, so he chose to interpret it as such [t2a-b]. Meg agreed: “I: Another participant told me that he wanted there to be something … What about you? P: That makes sense. Thinking that something is wrong makes it a little bit more interesting.” (142 – 145) Kimi gave the design the benefit of the doubt, as the UARI would represent bad design [k2].
3.2.2.2.2 Contextual Criterion: Implied incoherence-permitting genre The ADAP can be formed, when the player interprets the game to imply an incoherence-permitting genre, due to the diegetic setting and presentation of the game world. In an incoherence-permitting genre such as mystery fiction, incoherence can be understood as part of the story as something to be deciphered or pondered upon. Timias’s (ADAP, LM) initial assumption was a genre of mystery or supernatural fiction [t3a], due to the music and lighting [t3b]. For Timias, the main indication of the UARI being a mysterious phenomenon was the narrative [t3c-d]. For Susie (ADAP, RM), a 17-year-old female Canadian college student, it was the atmosphere:
40
I: … did atmosphere affect your interpretation … of the incident with Eddie? P: Definitely. Because umm… When you say that everything is lit up, you know, just happy, frolicking, I couldn’t see this as some umm… toy or something. Because the atmosphere, you know, it’s darkness, he’s walking slowly, and you know, you hear noises in the background in the first scene, umm… It all gives it a very dark, surreal image that you can see the kind of plot behind it is like dark as well. (103-107)
With the casual game, the UARI itself created a sense of mystery into the plot. The more UARI instances Kimi encountered, the more he was certain that everything in the game was not as it seemed [k3a-h]. Mystery scenario was for him more plausible than possible story-based explanations for UARI [k3d]. For Topias
(ADAP, LC),
a 31-year-old Finnish male graphical designer, the UARIs confirmed his Lynchian21
impression of the LC game: (tr.) “First impression was a Lynchian thriller … a small-scale, bleak, primed with dramatical devices … when the hasty saxophone started playing, I knew something bad will happen, as it expressed the narrative lines to follow. (Window UARI:) I speculated whether it was purposeful, but on the other hand, I knew already after playing it once that this is a quite psychological thing” (46-51, 376, 378)
3.2.2.2.3 Contextual criterion: Implausibility of erroneousness Yet another co-factor for the ADAP is the UARI’s implausiblity of erroneousness in the game. One pointer to this conclusion with the mysterious game was the sparsity of any other significant events in addition to the UARI [t4a]. Stjyrbjørn (ADAP, LM) elaborated how he could not see the UARI in ML as a bug: “… first of all, I don’t think it’s a bug. Umm, but it’s a possibility. I think it’s not a likely possibility, if you have set up the scene… Well, it’s quite a crucial bug, so I’d say that you, yeah, you would have eliminated that bug, in a way. I definitely think, when we’re thinking this through, that of course the amnesia or insanity explanation are much more likely.” (119-122) The developmental quality of LM did not affect Timias’s (ADAP, LM) perspective [t4c]. With the mysterious games, the story was seen as short, and the UARI was speculated to 21
Having qualities similar to the movies of David Lynch. His movies often start with an everyday setting, into which dark and surreal psychological elements are gradually introduced.
41
be explained later on, if the story would continue [t6a-b]. Kimi (ADAP, RC) did not believe that the casual game would be so badly designed that the UARI would be an error [k4a-b]. Sakke
(ALAP, RC)
hypothesized that
narrative elements explorable in the game could reveal the mystery behind the Window UARI [s1g].
3.2.2.2.4 Different story-based explanations for UARI The types of story-based explanations that ADAP players devise for UARI were not directly within the scope of the theory. Regardless, they have value of interest in themselves for the analysis of player reactions to game story incoherence.
With the mysterious game, the storyline hypotheses for the dead man’s return were dreaming [t5c], hallucinating, madness, schizophrenia or amnesia [t5a] by the protagonist, a ufo or supernatural scenario [t5d], and double character hypothesis [t5b]. Stjyrbjørn
(ADAP, LM)
explained: “Well, I thought that either I
must be dreaming, or just insane. Yeah. Blending reality and dream together made me pretty much sense from a logical point of view, if you had amnesia”
(53-55),
Megan
(ADAP, LM)
said: “I thought, maybe he is
schizophrenic, you know, have multiple personalities. … the place looks haunted.” (66-68)
With the casual game, the ADAP Ps hypothesized the UARIs to represent either intriguing mysteries, delusions of the protagonist [k5a, k5d, k5g, k5h] or to be explainable by events happening outside of the presentation [k5c, 5e]. Topias (ADAP, LC) found the UARIs mysterious: (tr.) “(Judith UARI:) It was funny because I had thrown the coffee and so on … It felt strange, but it has something to do with the plot, probably … It’s also that this Mr. John had just been at the door, making similar suggestions. I got the impression, that there is something Lynchian underneath.” (112-127) Venla (RLAP, LC), a 22-year old Finnish female gymnasium graduate speculated upon a storyline hypothesis: (tr.) “… maybe John wanted to go out so badly that he had persuaded her to go, which was not described in the game. … But that would’ve been a bit funny situation” (498-500)
The window UARI, due to its implausibility, remained as a mystery for most Ps. Oskari
(ADAP, LC)
considered the dream explanation for it: (tr.) “But… I don’t know what the meaning of that was. I mean… Was it a dream, or…” (56) 42
3.2.2.3
Rejective-logical
With the rejective-logical attitudinal perspective (RLAP), players view the UARI as an error in the game’s internal logic pertaining the game world’s causality and the coherence of its narrative elements. RLAP players dislike UARI. This AP occurred with both versions of the casual game. It was the main AP for 3/5 Ps with the LC game, and 2/8 Ps with the RC game. Jussi (RLAP, LC, RC, RM), a 31-year-old Finnish male IT consultant played three game versions. Here is his account of the LC game he played first:
(tr.) (Window UARI:) P: I thought it was a bug. … suddenly I was in the cafeteria. … Usually if you jump from a window, you die (laughs). I: In the real world? P: Yes. I: But, wasn’t this a game? P: Yes, but it was, or at least I thought it was a realistic game [j2a]. … I: What made you think so? P: There was nothing out of the ordinary. It seemed like everyday life. At least there was nothing pointing to it not being so [j2b]. I: Normal life would not have been like this (survive a fall)? P: I don’t know. I was expecting, when she appeared there (cafeteria), that there would have been some … explanation [j3a] … I: Were you annoyed by getting no explanation? I: Yes. I thought it was a bug, because I got nothing [j3b]. (John UARI:) P: I thought that … would it be an error, or would John have eventually persuaded me. I: The bug explanation came first? P: Yes. I: How would you have explained it? P: I think it would have been boring, if I couldn’t say ‘no’, meaning that she would have gone anyways. Then I thought that there was no effect with what I said to him [j4a]. I: This was dull? P: Yes … I choose ‘no’ and it still went so [j4b]. … It annoyed me. I: A negative feeling? P: Yes. The game did not care about what I chose. It was always the same conclusion [j4c]. I: Ok, so even if it wasn’t a bug, you would be annoyed due to having no power? P: Yes [j5]. I: … would you want it to be explained? P: Yes, of course! [j4d] (Judith UARI:) P: Then the phone rang, and there was some lady … who I had never met (he had not run into Judith on that playthrough). I: What did you think … ? P: I thought that she will always call, even if I did not talk to her [j4e]. … I thought that it’s just a bug, that it did not notice that I hadn’t talked to her. (P's gaming history) I: How does your gaming background affect what you thought of the cases? (UARIs) P: Perhaps so that it doesn’t go as would be expected [j1a], which makes me think that it's probably a bug. I: Is that 43
related to the kinds of gaming experiences you have had earlier? P: Well, probably with that too. In any case, I myself think logically about what happens [j1b], and then… As there really was no such thing that I would have died when jumping out of the window... I did not know if it would be about anything special (supernatural)... As it wasn’t explained, I thought it was a bug. I: Nothing pointed to something supernatural? P: Exactly [j2c]. (Developmental stage:) I: How did you see the game’s developmental stage? Were there some usability problems or such that would have affected your thinking of these as bugs? P: Not really [j3d]. (64-207)
3.2.2.3.1 Co-factor: A requirement of diegetic causality A co-factoring player trait for the RLAP is a pronounced sense of respect for diegetic causality, due to which the player dislikes and disapproves behaviors contrary to the assumed norms of game world logic and causality. For Jussi, the LC game’s causality did not work as he would usually expect, contrasting to his previous game experiences [j1a-b]. For Abhay
(RLAP, LC),
a 25-year-old Indian male Bachelor student, the
incoherent character behaviors needed fixing: “(Judith UARI:) Well, instead of this praising yesterday’s chat, you can introduce something… Something rude. That Judith knows that the thing that you did yesterday I didn’t like anymore, we are not friends anymore … To express her… anger.”
(80-90)
Alex
(RLAP, RC)
dislikes
illogicalities: “(Window UARI:) I think it is stupid. It was good, I mean, the stuff, but you know … I really hate those kind of things, like these inconsistencies.”
(65-96)
Venla discussed her conception of the gap between
the player and the game that the lack of diegetic causality created for her:
(tr.) P: If many things occur in a game inconsistently with how things occur in real life, it creates a gap between the player and the game. ... If people behave totally differently than in real life, it looks stupid. It is no longer fun, no longer believable … Eventually, it will just be a game that I am playing, but I do not experience identifying with the story and living it. (900-943)
3.2.2.3.2 Co-factor: Disapproval of arbitrary agency constraints
44
The RLAP player, in addition to opposing illogical game world behaviors, disapproves any constraints for agency that seem arbitrary. In the linear chronology case, UARI is perceived to irrationally restrict the player's power in the game world [j5]. Venla discussed how the restriction of player’s influence in games creates frustration and leads to indifference: (tr.) “it feels a bit like … nothing I do has any effect here. Then, either I don’t quite want to do anything, as nothing makes sense, or I might just lose control and trash everything.” (561-620) Jussi played the RC game after LC. He disliked the agency constraints in both versions:
(tr.) Now I felt that … I can’t influence it (the events), when in the other (linear version), it (UARI) felt a bit like it was a bug. … I didn’t like it (agency constraints in RC). I thought it was an odd solution. … I am not sure if it was due to just having played it the right way around. … It (anachrony) wasn’t my thing. (278-312)
I inquired him afterwards (by phone) if this was due to perceivably not being able to affect the game world’s immediate future, even though he could change the ending, to which he agreed.
3.2.2.3.3 Contextual criterion: Implied incoherence-incompatible genre The RLAP players do not find such incoherence to fit the genre they interpret the game to represent. This criterion is well exemplified by Jussi’s notion that for him, nothing in the LC game pointed to a scenario outside of everyday life [j2a-b], such as a supernatural one [j2c].
3.2.2.3.4 Contextual criterion: Plausibility of erroneousness For the RLAP player, UARI seems like an error, because decisions made do not have an effect [j4a], which linear chronology makes more obvious [j4b]. The repetitive nature of the UARIs in the LC game amplified the error perception [j4c, j4e]. As the UARIs are unexplained [j3a, j3b], the error hypothesis remains as the main hypothesis. The casual game’s developmental level was seen as fair in general, but the RLAP Ps found the developmental quality lacking which further increased the error interpretation’s plausibility for them. Venla (RLAP, LC), after doubting her own actions in the game, noted that there are similar faults in even further polished games: (tr.) “(John UARI:) … I thought: ‘Did I press the correct key?’ … after 45
that I thought … could the game be buggy, in a developmental stage. … there are games on sale with such faults. … the implementation is not, in my opinion, very much finished” (446-486) For Venla, the TV UARI was a minor aesthetic issue that developers usually ignore: “… like being fooled, as I wouldn’t notice … because many times in games things just get fixed by themselves … like in cartoons, when they have a chase scene, and they put the same background in again and again, to save on the effort, and because the viewers would not notice that the same thing is rolling again.” (523-711)
3.2.2.4
The influence of the severity of incoherence on the perspective
For evaluating the influence of severity of incoherence to the P perspective in the casual game, the comparison between the perceptions of the high-severity Window UARI and the modest-severity TV UARI in the casual game is relevant. As was expected, players regard severe UARIs as less plausible than less severe ones. Severe UARIs are also more readily noticed by the players than less severe ones.
3.2.2.4.1 The window UARI The Window UARI was the most implausible for the Ps, and noted by all who encountered it. ALAP Ps had story-based (ADAP) and also rejective (RLAP) notions. Sakke
(ALAP, RC),
whose AP to other UARIs was
ALAP, hypothesized a narrative explanation for the implausible Window UARI [s5a-b]. Mika (ALAP, RC) noted a conflict within the Window UARI: [tr.] “I interpreted that I did drop down from there, but… Then again… The news article was in conflict with that.” Sakke’s and Mika’s reactions convey that ALAP players also seek a certain story-based plausibility of the events that take place in the game, even if they accept minor UARIs to be caused due to the game mechanics. Other ALAP Ps found the Window UARI strange, but accepted it as part of the gameplay. For the ADAP Ps, the Window UARI was the greatest mystery the game presented [k3g]. For the RLAP Ps, the Window UARI was the worst error. I will repeat Alex’s (RLAP, RC) notion here: “You know, I couldn’t do this, because … all those scenes before wouldn’t happen.” (37-39)
3.2.2.4.2 The TV UARI
46
The TV UARI was paid less attention to in general. For the ALAP Ps, it was simply part of the gameplay as the other UARIs, but was not well noted. Petri (ALAP, RC) made a notion only after I specifically inquired about it: (tr.) “When you started playing the game, was the TV broken? P: No … I: Did you pay attention to this? … P: No. I: Why did it not occur to you? P: I didn’t think that the present time would have gone in a certain way. I thought that I can change the present time myself with different choices in the past.” (451-461) For the ADAP Ps, the TV UARI was part of the story [k3c], when it was noticed. Topias
(ADAP, LC)
did not note it,
because it was unessential to note in the situation: (tr.) “There was the threat of the man (John), which occupied my thoughts. … I did not pay attention to the environment.” (659-671) For the RLAP Ps, it was a trivial defect. Abhay
(RLAP, LC)
saw it as a minor issue: “I: What do you think about the TV being repaired? … P: I
would not repair it (Told as game development advice). P: But normally, all the games, whenever things are broken, when you return they are fixed up.” (68-72)
3.2.3
Emotions evoked by UARI
This category answers the third guiding research question: “What emotions does UARI evoke?” The association of different emotions for the perspectives in the analysis depended largely on my interpretations of the tone and the emotional manner and attitude in which the Ps expressed their thoughts on the UARIs.
3.2.3.1
Empowerment
I interpreted the power of re-configuring the future as inducing a sense of empowerment in the ALAP players. Valtteri (ALAP, RC) shared his view: (tr.) I: What thoughts does it evoke that you can choose something that is not… It is not so logically with the phone call? P: You mean CAN choose? Or just about the choosing? I: Both. P: If one could not choose anything … It would just be a story. … There should always be an option. That is what is fun in games. (67 – 83)
3.2.3.2
Intrigue 47
Intrigue was associated with the ALAP and the ADAP. The emotion was accompanied by a sense of being interested, fascinated, puzzled, and cogitative about the UARIs meaning. Sakke (ALAP, RC) was interested and puzzled by solving the gameplay implications of UARI in the RC game [s2b, s2c]. Pat (ADAP, RM), a 32-yearold Dutch male game design student, noted: “I thought it was very interesting that the game allowed me to break causality. You know, to kill a guy that I talked to later on.” (123 – 127)
3.2.3.3
Confusion
Confusion was associated with ALAP and ADAP. It is a certain bafflement about the UARI along with being surprised over it. I interpreted the confusion and surprise from the Ps' tones, as here with Sakke (ALAP, RC):
“(Judith UARI:) P: Now I'm having a strange feeling. ... Kind of like... There is something wrong, heh!
Basically. I'm just thinking... In the beginning (of the phone call) there was the thing that it's nice that we are friends again. It kind of goes against it.”
(30-56)
With Topias
(ADAP, LC),
I inquired for confirmation about his
tone, which I interpreted to be quite confused and surprised:
(tr.) (Judith UARI:) I: Was there any discrepancy for you that your character also says to her quite nicely that… P: Yes, yes! It was very strange indeed. … Strange, In a Lynchian way. I: Which word would describe your emotion? Perhaps confusion, or surprise, or something similar? P: Confusion. I: Were you surprised? P: Yes, actually I was. … The earlier action, compared to the phone call, was totally something else. Or in conflict, exactly with the player’s own choice. Or at least with the choice that is shown in the game. (160 – 168)
3.2.3.4
Neutrality
Stjyrbjørn (ADAP, LM) maintained a neutral emotional stance towards the UARI.
I: Were you confused when you met Eddie again? What did you feel? … P: No feelings really. Tried to rationalize yes. I: Oh, ok. Could you say why did you not feel anything special at that point? For instance, people have been confused with the casual version. P: I don't know. I had no emotional relation to Eddie and was used to tackle narrative inconsistencies analytically. I: you said that narrative inconsistency was 48
also your main explanation for the event, so I presume this lead to your reaction, or lack of reaction in this case. P: fair to assume, yes. (237-250)
3.2.3.5
Annoyment
Annoyment was related with the RLAP. Alex’s
(RLAP, RC)
was annoyed due to incoherence: “(Window
UARI:) I think it is stupid. It was good, I mean, the stuff, but you know … I really hate those kind of things, like these inconsistencies.”
3.2.3.6
Disempowerment
With disempowerment, I mean the obvious sense of frustration the Ps expressed due to not having influence on the game world with their decisions. Jussi was frustrated by John UARI: (tr.) “P: when I did choose ‘no’, it still went like that. … It bothered me. It did not matter what I chose. I: It is a negative feeling? P: Yes.” (123 – 138) Venla was unhappy due to having no influence in the game world:
(tr.) I: I thought that it didn’t have any effect, and that this doesn’t make any sense. I: That it’s somehow stupid. … Just like I wouldn’t notice that, the TV is intact again, because many times in games things just get fixed by themselves and disappear, and it feels like: “Well…”, and then it feels a bit like: “there’s no sense in this, nothing I do has any effect here” .. I mean, what’s the point if I can just trash the whole room. … It also feels that on such occurrence, the viewer or player is underestimated, just like he or she wouldn’t notice something, something small in the background. … I would want to discuss about one topic; how would It affect the person’s psyche if in games, things are corrected by themselves, if no actions have consequences. It would be an interesting thought. … in shooting games, or in others, people are killed, and we face no consequences. Will this affect us in that we would be more violent? (528 – 738)
3.2.4
UARI removal preferences
This category answers the third guiding research question: “Would players prefer the UARI to be removed?”
49
3.2.4.1
Acceptive-ludic
For the ALAP Ps, there existed no UARIs in RC, as they perceived the causality to be changeable. Thus, addressing the issue was of no concern to them. Such was the case with Petri (ALAP, RC):
(tr.) I: If you think about the plot and the breaking of causality, do you think it should be fixed and explained at some point? P: No, it shouldn’t. The player has to create his/her own way of thinking the game in my opinion. … by trying different strategies it will be found out how the game works. I: Should the causality somehow be explained, and when it breaks, should there be something… P: It does not break, it just goes to another direction … we can think that it has happened already, and we have to uncover what has happened. All the causality relationships exist, and there are the certain possible worlds, certain possible paths to go.” (593-604)
3.2.4.2
Acceptive-diegetic
The ADAP Ps often suggested to leave the UARI up for interpretation, as it added an element of mystery. Pat (ADAP, RM) explained: “I: Do you think it is a negative thing, if there is this kind of logical error in the game, caused by your own action? P: No, I think it’s rather ‘cool’. I don’t think that you have to explain away everything.” (78-82)
3.2.4.3
Rejective-logical
For RLAP Ps the UARIs were unwanted features, in need of removal. Abhay (RLAP, RC) suggested a change in the game straight away as an answer to my question of how he feels about the Judith UARI. “I: instead of this praising yesterday’s chat, you can introduce something… Something rude. That Judith knows that the thing that you did yesterday I didn’t like anymore, we are not friends anymore”
(88 – 125)
Alex
(RLAP, RC)
expressed his unhappiness: “I: Would you feel better, if there would be something to explain that? P: Uhuhh … Unless there are some kind of superpowers or something… … There is no logic, I mean, if it goes backwards, then how can I jump out of the window …” (67 – 74) Jussi preferred explanations: (tr.) “I: Were you annoyed as you got no explanation? P: Yeah. I thought it was just a bug, because I did not get any. I: How 50
would’ve you wanted it to be explained? P: Maybe there could have been one of those thought bubbles.” (93 – 101)
4
Discussion and conclusions
4.1
Answers to the guiding research questions
Here are the main points of the theory, repeated in the form of answers to the guiding research questions. Please see chapter 3 for more details, and participant account excerpts.
4.1.1
How do players perceive UARI in anachronic and linear game stories?
In anachronic game stories, players generally perceive unexplained agency-related incoherence as a discrepancy between the acted present and the experienced future. In chronologically linear game stories, players perceive it generally as unexpected action consequences. When encountering UARI, players speculate its meaning, and consider different hypotheses. In anachrony, for acceptive-ludic players it is a feature caused by interactive analepses. In anachronic and chronologically linear games, the acceptivediegetic players infer explanations for the incoherence by the narrative elements presented. For the rejective-logical players, the implied causality break represents weak game story design.
4.1.2
How important is the coherence of game story to payers?
The acceptive-ludic players accept UARI, and reject coherence as necessary. This alone already means that anachronic game design is less problematic than what Juul suggests (2001, para. 41, 2004, para 20, 2005, p. 147-148). For acceptive-diegetic players, in any type of chronology, UARI heightens a mysterious experience. The acceptive-diegetic player can also explain UARIs through other story elements and events in the game. For the story-conservative rejective-logical players, coherence is necessary and represents proper game story design.
4.1.3
What emotions does UARI evoke? 51
UARI can evoke emotions of empowerment, intrigue and confusion in acceptive-ludic playes, Intrigue and confusion, or no emotions (neutrality) in an acceptive-diegetic players. UARI evokes annoyance and disempowerment, or neutrality in rejective-logical players.
4.1.4
Would players prefer the UARI to be removed?
Acceptive-ludic and acceptive-diegetic players view the UARI as part of the experience. For them, the removal of UARI by an explanation, for example, is not necessary. Rejective-ludic players prefer the UARI to be removed.
4.2
Other interesting points and connections with other works
4.2.1
The importance of story for the game experience
As I discussed in subchapter 1.3, the value of game story coherence can perhaps help us to determine the value of game stories for the game experience. 6 Ps of the 14 that made notions about the importance of game story for them noted story as the most important element in a game. For another 6/14 Ps, its importance depended on the game type. For the rest 2/14 Ps, story was unimportant. These remarks indicate a variance in the perception of game story’s importance among players in general. The different levels of valuing of story are divided amongst the attitudinal perspectives as follows: Most important: AL 1, AD 4, RL 1, depends on type: AL 1, AD 5, RL 0, unimportant: AL 2, AD 0, RL 0. ADAP players accepted and enjoyed UARI, and the story made coherently sense, as they interpreted the genre to be suitable for UARI. The RL players disliked UARI. For them, the story did not make sense. These two findings together would lead us to an initial conclusion that it would be reasonable to hypothesize that a perception of coherence is required for an enjoyable game experience. Yet, for the AL players, game story coherence was unnecessary, because their engagement with the gameplay completely overrode coherence requirements. Therefore, a fair concluding hypothesis is that whether story or gameplay is more important varies between players.
4.2.2
The acceptance of incoherence and Coleridge’s willing suspension of disbelief 52
When Timias
(ADAP, LM)
encountered UARI in the mysterious linear game, he wanted it to be caused by
mysterious phenomena related to the atmosphere:
[tr.] P: … even though you appreciate logic in games, you did not think that ‘’Oh, isn’t this illogical”, but you thought that ‘’There must be something eerie going on’’? P: Maybe it’s more about kind of wanting to think that perhaps this would eventually be done in a logical manner [t2a]. … It’s kind of like wishful thinking that… And kind of, maybe if you think like that, then perhaps it will go to such track, and then it’s much more interesting to play [t2b]. (250-268)
Timias’s comments gives grounds for Adams’s (2009) comparison of immersion with Coleridge’s poetic faith, which demands a willing suspension of disbelief (Coleridge 19817, Chapter XIV). Adams notes immersion as “ … the feeling of being submerged in a form of entertainment, or rather, being unaware that you are experiencing an artificial world” (Adams, 2009, p. 25).
Timias’s comments also stand in support of Karhulahti, who discusses Coleridge’s treatment of the story experiencer’s suspension of disbelief over the improbabilities in the presented story, noting: “The plausibility of components in all artworks must not be judged against the mundane but against the means of the medium and the logics of the work.” (2012, p. 6) Timias accepted the UARI due to the mystery genre implied in the mysterious game. Thus, incoherence was suitable. Karhulahti continues: “While improbable components inescapably distract the reader, they are at the same time indispensable for the story to rise above the mundane ⎯ to separate it from the ''apparent and extraneous.´´ An improbability may function simultaneously as a vital, positive feature and as a disturbing, negative one.” (2012, p. 6) For Timias, the incoherence certainly was a positive addition to the experience, in a “disturbing” way, which is characteristic for the gothic psychological horror genre that the game implied for him. Hume comments our twisted enjoyment of the bleak: “It seems an unaccountable pleasure, which the spectators of a wellwritten tragedy receive from sorrow, terror, anxiety, and other passions, that are in themselves disagreeable and uneasy.” (1742, I.XXII.1). Karhulahti continues: “Constructing illogical coherence is no more an 53
attainment of poetic faith, but rather that of a child’s.” (2012, p. 7) I agree that a lusory attitude, which demands a ludic, childlike, playful approach to a set of fictional conventions, propagates willing suspension of disbelief. Players not only accept illogical rules that complicate their progress and challenge their endeavors, but also accept incoherent stories, twisted by those rules. The argument is now grounded in the fact that the acceptive-ludic participants in this study accepted the breaks in diegetic causality because they accepted anachrony with all its diegetic implications as rules of the game.
4.2.3
Incoherence and Bullough’s psychical distance
Khandaker argues for the status of games as art, and proposes the term aesthetic distance as capable to be used in the context of games (2010, p. 146). Aesthetic distance means the “degree of emotional involvement in a work of art” (Brooklyn College, 2012), and is derived from Bullough’s psychical distance:
The proof of the seeming paradox that it is Distance which primarily gives to dramatic action the appearance of unreliability and not vice versa, is the observation that the same filtration of our sentiments and the same seeming 'unreality' of actual men and things occur, when at times, by a sudden change of inward perspective, we are overcome by the feeling that "all the world's a stage." (Bullough, 1912, para. 15)
There are two ways of losing distance: either to 'under-distance' or to 'over-distance.' 'Underdistancing' is the commonest failing of the subject, an excess of distance is a frequent failing of Art, especially in the past. … the verdict in the case of under-distancing is that the work is 'crudely naturalistic,' 'harrowing,' 'repulsive in its realism.' An excess of distance produces the impression of improbability, artificiality, emptiness or absurdity (Bullough, 1912, para. 27)
The concept thus applies to the level of mimesis, or plausibility of simulation in games. Venla (RLAP, LC) specifically described a “gap” between the player and the game, created by the clear and disruptive UARI:
54
(tr.) P: If many things occur in a game inconsistently with how things occur in real life, it creates a gap between the player and the game. ... If people behave totally differently than in real life, it looks stupid. It is no longer fun, no longer believable … Eventually, it will just be a game that I am playing, but I do not experience identifying with the story and living it. (900-943)
UARI represents an improbability, an over-distancing of the psychical distance for players. The distance pulls them out from the experience, breaking immersion. The characters in the stageplay of the diegesis are no longer imaginary actual men, but artificial puppets. The player’s actions no longer matter, the experience becomes absurd. When the narrative coherence of the virtual world breaks, the actor (player) as the avatar becomes, as could be described, virtually insane. This leads either to a regression to depression, or to the violent purging of the scene for twisted enjoyment. Venla further explicated this position: (tr.) “it feels a bit like … nothing I do has any effect here. Then, either I don’t quite want to do anything, as nothing makes sense, or I might just lose control and trash everything.” (561-620)
4.2.4
The mental game story construct and the ludic situation model
From the way in which the participants explained the game events, and how they understood the incoherencies within those events, it is obvious that each of them had built a sequential, chronological mental structure to hold the events in mind. The same phenomenon happened with both chronologies:
[tr.] I: How did the game go for you, starting from the beginning? P: First I tried suicide. I: What happened? P: Then I was in the cafeteria all of a sudden. I: Ok. What did you think about that? P: I thought that it was a bug. I: Why? P: Because I had just jumped out of the window, and I was at the cafeteria all of a sudden. … I: What happened after that? H: Then the John guy came to talk with me, and asked me for a date, and I refused it. Then I found (John’s) workstation, and there was the pink phone. (Jussi (RLAP, LC) 54-105)
55
I: What happened in the first scene? P: It was Saturday. … In the first scene she was in the room, and then a man came knocking in her door, and then they agreed to go out that evening. I: Was there anything else? P: The phone rang, after that the old friend called, who she had run into the previous day by accident, and they got some issues reconciled. … Then, the previous day when they met each other in the next scene, the dialogue went into another direction, meaning that there was no such reconciliation taking place, because she (Karen) threw the coffee onto her (Judith’s) chest. (Petri (ALAP, RC) 61-79)
Jenkins notes fabula in narratives as “the viewer's mental construction of the chronology of those events” (Jenkins, 2004, para. 24). From this chronological sequence experiencers of stories recall the most central elements the easiest (Thorndyke, 1977). Players in the study usually recalled the most salient events of their game experiences, without noting, for example, particular control movements. I should add here that any issues with the controls or other glitches do become such salient events, and they are readily commented between the story descriptions.
A mere sequence of events is, however, void of interrelatedness in meaning. Thus, cognitive narratologists have theorized that narrative readers form referential situation models (Graesser, Singer, Trabasso, 1994) of the described events: “A situation model is a mental representation of the people, setting, actions and events that are mentioned in explicit clauses” (1994, p.371) Additionally, for the information that is not explicitly mentioned, the reader fills in by constructing inferences of the other information given, such as “The goals and plans that motivate character’s actions” (1994, p. 371). Venla inferred that Judith might possibly be lying to Karen, when the phone call had a positive tone: “I: I was in disbelief and confusion. I didn’t know what she was talking about. Did she think it (getting coffee spilled over her) was funny? Also, could she be lying?” Thus, I believe that players of video games also construct referential situation models, when playing video games.
I should note the existence of two main dimensions for story constructs and models: The past, and the future. In the minds of both narrative and game experiencers, the past is stored both as a factual sequential 56
(perhaps hierarchical (Thorndyke, 1977)) experience representation, along with a speculative model of why the events happened (Graesser, Singer, Trabasso, 1994). For the story’s future, however, I argue that the models differ between narrative and games. In narrative reading, only a speculative model exists of what might happen, because the reader’s tangible input (other than interpretation) is not considered. Games, however, are interactive and usually pose or imply objectives and goals for the experiencer (player) to achieve. Thus, achievement-oriented gaming demands not only a speculative future model of, for example the behaviors of other characters and game objects, but also an action optimization plan within that future model to achieve the objectives, along with various considerations of the effects of those actions. I call the combination of the future model and planning the ludic situation model. Jenkins notes the constant reiteration of plans needed in games due to changes in the situation model: “In games, players are forced to act upon those mental maps, to literally test them against the game world itself. If you are wrong about whether the bad guys lurk behind the next door, you will find out soon enough - perhaps by being blown away and having to start the game over.” (Jenkins, 2004, para. 24).
4.2.5
Players’ reasoning processes behind explaining incoherence
According to Graesser, Wiemer-Hastings, and Wiemer-Hastings, readers of narrative texts fill gaps in stories by inference:
According to the constructionist theory of inference generation, comprehenders of text attempt to a construct a meaning representation and supporting inferences in a fashion that achieves 'coherence' at local and global levels. Readers generate inferences that fill gaps in the main messages. (Graesser, A. C., WiemerHastings, P., Wiemer-Hastings, 1994, p. 6)
Graesser, Singer, Trabasso note that story gaps are filled “inferentially by world knowledge” (p. 371), that is, diegetic information surrounding the story gap. The data of the study indicates that players fill holes in game stories similarly. The acceptive-diegetic participants not only accepted UARI as part of the story structure, but also were capable of mentally structuring the experience coherent as a whole. With the 57
mysterious game, for example, many ADAP participants inferred the UARI to be caused by the protagonist’s delusions, because for them, a psychological thriller genre was clearly implicated. Upon the TV UARI was inferred that the TV could have been replaced in the two days since it was broken. Upon the Window UARI was inferred that Karen was saved by her co-worker, who was sitting nearby (See sub-subsection 3.2.2.2.4).
4.3
Evaluating the study
A strength of the study was its evolving nature, to continuously strive for a more relevant dataset without compromises; the testbed game, the interview procedure, and the growing set of furthering questions (theoretical sampling) were all iterated upon during the study. The data analysis was careful and performed according to the guidelines set by Strauss and Corbin (1998).
4.3.1
The quality of the testbed games
According to my interpretation of the participant accounts, the quality of the testbed games was sufficient at an overall level. There were many minor deficiencies, however.
4.3.1.1
Graphics and audio
Both games had a similar overall audiovisual quality. Tapio is a 30-year-old Finnish male graphical designer. His comment proves that the graphical quality of the casual game was sufficient for the purpose of the study: (translated) “P: ... the environment looks nice. There is a huge difference in quality between the human models and the environment … I: Was it so bad that it would have influenced your opinions such as the parallel-universes-interpretation of the game? P: Not really, because it was strongly based on the text and in the thing (anachrony).” (1076 – 1088) The lack of voice acting was criticized.
4.3.1.2
Story
Both game’s stories were perceived generally as intriguing. Some male participants initially doubted their interest in the casual game’s female-perspective story, but were soon drawn in by the drama.
4.3.1.3
Gameplay 58
The sparse gameplay options in the mystery game did not hinder the participants’ intrigue by the overall mysterious experience. With the casual game, players were intrigued by the dialogue choices.
4.3.1.4
Controls
There were minor frustrations reported with the game controls. In the mysterious game, players were stuck in odd places. With the casual game, the walking speed was regarded as a bit too slow.
4.3.1.5
Graphical user interface
The usability and readability of the games’ dialogue boxes were adjusted according to feedback along the testing process, due to which the earlier participants perceived them to be more lacking in quality than the later ones. Most criticized was the large amount of text appearing at once.
4.3.2
The quality of the analysis
4.3.2.1
The participants
A weakness of the study was the low number of female participants compared to men. Future studies on the subject should seek more female players, and also players from different cultural spheres.
4.3.2.2
The truthfulness of the participant accounts.
I have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the Ps’ accounts, as no sensitive information was discussed. I also told the Ps that they would remain anonymous in the study.
4.3.2.3
Observer effect
Awareness of the testing situation and my observation was likely to cause an observer effect (AQL, 2012), making the Ps more attentive and analytical towards their experiences than how they would normally be when playing a game. This was unavoidable, but did not negatively affect the study.
4.3.2.4
Validating with participants
One measure I used in validating my analyses was usually by inquiring the Ps about whether my interpretations of their statements were correct. I also often inquired about the soundness of my 59
interpretations of other participants. In this way, the participants worked as my co-researchers in the process.
4.3.3
The level of analysis reached
A GT study is finished, when all categories become finished, when all relevant categories become saturated. “… when no new properties, dimensions, conditions, actions/interactions, or consequences are seen in the data.” (S & C, 1998, p. 136) Another finishing point is simply when time or resources run out. (p. 136). I acquired a sufficient amount of P accounts, and spent a formidable amount of time with the analysis. I consider the main categories of the theory to have reached a relevant amount of saturation to reveal how players perceive UARI in different cases.
4.3.4
The significance of the study
This study is the first comprehensive qualitative inquiry into the player perceptions of unexplained agency-related incoherence. At the same time, the study manages to explore the meaning and value of game story coherence to players. It found that players do not necessarily need a coherent game story, if the gameplay is the culprit in the break of causality. Otherwise, however, players do require the diegetic game content to make sense. The results of the study evoke discussions about the players’ mental models of understanding and processing game stories and incoherence within them, to which the study gives its own comments.
4.4
Future research suggestions Implications of general narrative incoherence within the pre-narrated elements of a game is an interesting topic for future studies. In such scenario, the player’s agency has no part in creating the incoherence.
60
The processes of construction of a mental sequential representation of game story, and the mental correction of game story incoherence, topics for which I gave grounded hypotheses, should be studied further with qualitative analysis. The processing of the ludic situation model that I proposed in section 4.2.4 warrants qualitative research. This study concentrated on UARI in a very specific subset of video games, according to the hypotheses and arguments made in chapter 2.3 for the testbed game requirements. However, UARI and general narrative incoherence should be studied with more abstract and varying game scenarios.
4.5
Suggestions for game design
I would suggest game designers to introduce non-linear chronology into a game’s story especially when a post-modernist, experimental anachronic game story or gameplay scenario is intended. UARI within the experience can be removed by causality-maintaining design, if game story coherence is desired. However, as the study shows, game story coherence is not always necessary for many players, and UARIs in anachrony could be accepted. For others, on the other hand, game story coherence is important, depending on the context, and especially if nothing seems to justify such incoherence. I myself find interesting the implied anachronic gameplay paradigm concerning reconfiguration of the future, time paradoxes, and other implications that anachrony affords to game design.
61
References nd
1.
Adams, E. (2009). Fundamentals of game design. (2 ed). New Riders Pub.
2.
Aristotle. (335 BCE). Poetics. In The Internet Classics Archive. Retrieved 15.10.2012 from http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/poetics.html
3.
Arsenault, D. (2008). Narration in the Video Game. An Apologia of Interactive Storytelling, and an Apology to Cut-Scene Lovers, [Master’s thesis] Montreal, Quebeck, CA: Université de Montréal.
4.
AQL. (2012). Observer Effect. In The Association for Qualitative Research. Retrieved 24.11.2012 from http://www.aqr.org.uk/glossary/?term=observereffect
5.
Aylett, R. (1999). Narrative in virtual environments-towards emergent narrative. In Proceedings of the AAAI fall symposium on narrative intelligence. Pages 83-86.
6.
Aylett, R. (2000). Emergent Narrative, Social Immersion and "Storification" [online article]. In Proceedings, Narrative Interaction for Learning Environments, Edinburgh, 2000.
7.
Barbas, H., Correira, N. (2009). The Making of an Interactive Digital Narrative – InStory. In Euromedia’2009.
8.
Björk, S., Holopainen, J. (2005). Patterns in game design. Hingham, MA, USA: Charles River Media.
9.
Blow, J. (designer, developer). (2008). Braid [video game]. Publishers: Microsoft Game Studios, Number None, Inc.
10. Bogost, I. (2007). Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of Videogames. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. 11. Bogost, I. (2009). Video games are a mess. In IAN BOGOST - VIDEOGAME THEORY, CRITICISM, DESIGN. Retrieved 15.10.2012 from ttp://www.bogost.com/writing/videogames_are_a_mess.shtml 12. Brand, J. (2005). The Narrative and Ludic Nexus in Computer Games: Diverse Worlds II. In DiGRA 2005: Changing Views: Worlds in Play, 2005 International Conference. 13. Brooklyn College. (2012). Aesthetic distance [online article]. In Brooklyn College English Department. Literary terms. Retrieved 28.2.2013 from http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/english/melani/lit_term.html 14. Brown, E. and Cairns, P. (2004). A grounded investigation of game immersion. In CHI '04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, CHI EA '04. Pages 1297-1300. 15. Bruner, J. S. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA, US: Harvard University Press. 16. Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods. Oxford, UK: OUP Oxford.
62
17. Bullough, E. (1912). 'Psychical Distance' as a Factor in Art and as an Aesthetic Principle . In British Journal of Psychology. Volume 5. Pages 87-117. Retrieved 28.2.2013 from http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361_r9.html 18. Burnham, D. (2005). Kant’s aesthetics. In Internet encyclopedia of philosophy – A peer reviewed academic resource. Retrieved 30.11.2012 from http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantaest/#SH2a 19. Calleja, G. (2009). Experiential Narrative in Game Environments. In DiGRA 2009 - Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory. 20. Calleja, G. (2011). In-Game: Immersion to Incorporation. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. 21. Cawelti, J. G. (2004). Mystery, violence, and popular culture. Madison, WI, USA: University of Wisconsin Press. 22. Cicoricco, D. (2010). Games of Interpretation and a Graphophiliac God of War. In Intermediality and Storytelling (Narratologia. Contributions to Narrative Theory). Pages 232 -257. Edited by Grishakova, M., Ryan, M.-L. de Gruyter. 23. Coleridge, S., T. (1817). Biographia literaria; or, Biographical sketches of my literary life and opinions. (volume 2) 24. Collins English Dictionary. (2012). diegesis. In Collins [online dictionary]. Retrieved 27.12.2012 from http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/diegesis nd
25. Creswell, J. W. (2006). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. (2 ed.) Sage publications. rd
26. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3 ed.) Sage publications. 27. Desurvire, H., Caplan, M., Toth, J. (2004). Using Heuristics to Improve the Playability of Games. Vienna, AT: CHI conference, 2004. 28. Dunnigan, J. F. (2000). Wargames Handbook: How to Play and Design Commercial and Professional rd
Wargames. (3 ed.). San Jose, CA, USA: Writer’s Club Press. 29. Encyclopædia Britannica (2010). Aesthetic distance. In Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 28.2.2013 from http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/7465/aesthetic-distance
63
30. Eskelinen, M. (2001). The Gaming Situation. In Game studies – The international journal of computer games. Volume 1, issue 1. Retrieved 15.3.2012 from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/eskelinen/ 31. Eskelinen, M. (2004). Six Problems in Search of a Solution: The challenge of cybertext theory and ludology to literary theory. In Dichtung Digital [online article base]. Retrieved 25.2.2013 from http://www.dichtungdigital.de/2004/3/Eskelinen/index.htm 32. Calvillo-Gámez, E. H., Cairns, P., and Cox, A. L. (2010). Assessing the core elements of the gaming experience. In Bernhaupt, R., editor, Evaluating User Experience in Games, Human–Computer Interaction Series, chapter 4. Pages 47-71. London, UK: Springer London. 33. Frasca, G. (2003, November). Ludologists love stories, too: notes from a debate that never took place. In Proceedings of International DiGRA Conference. Retrieved 25.2.2013 from http://www.ludology.org/articles/frasca_levelup2003.pdf 34. Genette, G. (1983). Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University Press. 35. Giannatos, S., Nelson, M. J., Cheong, Y. G., Yannakakis, G. N. (2011). Suggesting New Plot Elements for an Interactive Story. In Workshops at the Seventh Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference. 36. GMZ (2010). 12 questions: thomas grip – frictional games. [blog post] In GMZ. Retrieved 17.12.2012 from: http://gmzzz.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/12-questions-thomas-grip/ 37. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. In Psychol Rev, 101(3). Pages 371-395. 38. Graesser, A. C., Wiemer-Hastings, P., Wiemer-Hastings, K. (1994). Constructing Inferences and Relations during Text Comprehension. Revision 1/15/99. The University of Memphis. 39. Gunder, A. (2003). As if by Magic: On Harry Potter as a Novel and Computer Game. In Level Up: DIGRA 2003 Conference Proceedings. DIGRA. 40. Guy, O., Champagnant, R. (2012). Flashback in Interactive Storytelling. In ACE 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Volume 7624. Pages 246-261. Springer. 41. Harris, J. T. (2005). Proactive Mediation in Plan-Based Narrative Environments [Master’s thesis]. North Carolina State University.
64
42. Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: how do you motivate employees? In Harvard Business Review (JanuaryFebruary). Pages 53-62. 43. Hocking, C. (2007). Ludonarrative dissonance in Bioshock: the problem of what the game is about [blog post]. In click nothing [blog]. Retrieved 15.7.2012 from http://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html 44. Hume, D. (1742). Essay XXII: Of Tragedy. In Essays Moral, Political, and Literary. Retrieved 28.2.2013 from from http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Hume/hmMPL22.html 45. ESSAY XXII: OF TRAGEDY 46. Infinity Ward (developer). (2007). Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare [video game]. Publishers: Activision, Square Enix. 47. Jenkins, H. (2004). Game Design as Narrative Architecture. In FirstPerson: New Media as Story, Performance and Game. Wardrip-fruin, N. (Author), Harrigan, P. (Author). Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. 48. Jerz, D. G. (2006). A Force More Powerful [Review] [blog post]. In Jerz's Literacy Weblog. Retrieved 15.11.2012 from http://jerz.setonhill.edu/blog/2010/03/05/writing-index/ 49. Juul, J. (2001). Games Telling Stories? - A brief note on games and narratives. In Game studies – The international journal of computer games. Volume 1, issue 1. Retrieved 15.3.2012 from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/juul-gts/ 50. Juul, J. (2004). Introduction to Game Time. In First Person [article series]. Within Electronic Book Review [peer reviewed online journal]. Retrieved 25.12.2012 from http://www.electronicbookreview.com/thread/firstperson/teleport 51. Juul, J. (2005). Half-Real: Video Games Between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. 52. Juul, J. (2007). A Certain Level of Abstraction. In Akira Baba (Ed.), Situated Play: DiGRA 2007 Conference Proceedings. Pages 510-515. DIGRA Japan. 53. Karhulahti, V. M. (2012). Suspending virtual disbelief: a perspective on narrative coherence. Interactive Storytelling, 1-17.
65
54. Khandaker, M. (2010). How Games Can Touch You: Ethics of the Videogame Controller. In Designing Games for Ethics: Models, Techniques and Frameworks. Pages 142 – 159. Editors: Schrier, K., Gibson, D. IGI Global 55. Koskimaa, R. (2009). Changing the Past: Time-Reversal as Game Mechanic. In MIT7 – "Transforming Narrative" Panel Retrieved 24.2.2013 from http://web.mit.edu/commforum/mit7/papers/MIT7_Paper_Koskimaa_08_05_11.pdf 56. Koster, R. (2004). A Theory of Fun for Game Design. Paraglyph Press. 57. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Sage publications. 58. Laramée, F. D. (2002). Game Design Perspectives. Hingham, MA, USA: Charles River Media. 59. Lombard, M., Ditton, T. (1997). At the Heart of it all: The concept of Presence. In Journal of Computermediated Communication Volume 3. Retrieved 24.11.2012 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue2/lombard.html 60. Nolan, C. (Director & writer). (2000). Memento [Film]. USA. Newmarket Capital Group, Team Todd, I Remember Productions, Summit Entertainment. 61. Majewski, J. (2003). Theorising Video Game Narrative [Minor thesis]. Robina, Bond University. 62. Mateas, M., & Stern, A. (2003, March). Integrating plot, character and natural language processing in the interactive drama Façade. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Technologies for Interactive Digital Storytelling and Entertainment (TIDSE-03). 63. Mott, B. W., Lester, J. C. (2006). U-director: a decision-theoretic narrative planning architecture for storytelling environments. In International Conference on Autonomous Agents. Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems. Volume 8. No. 12. Pages 997984. 64. Murray, J., H. (1997). Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. 65. Ochs, E., & Capps, L. (2001). Living narrative: Creating lives in everyday storytelling. Cambridge, MA, US: Harvard University Press. 66. Pinchbeck, D. (2009). Story as a function of gameplay in First an analysis of FPS diegetic content 1998-2007 [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Portsmouth.
66
67. Pinchbeck, D. (2012). Dear Esther / Dan Pinchpeck / thechineseroom - GameCity Nights. Retrieved 15.10.2012 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Olk-AJDWs_U, GameCity Notthingham. 0:02:56 – 0:03:46. 68. Quantic Dream (developer). (2005). Indigo Prophecy [video game]. Atari. 69. Quantic Dream (developer). (2010). Heavy Rain [video game]. Sony Computer Entertainment. 70. Rocksteady (developer). (2009). Batman: Arkham Asylum. Publisher: Eidos Interactive. 71. Ryan, M. L. (2001). Beyond myth and metaphor: The case of narrative in digital media. In Game studies – The international journal of computer games. Volume 1, issue 1. Retrieved 25.2.2013 from http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/ryan/ 72. Ryan, M.-L. (2005). Peeling the Onion: Layers of Interactivity in Digital Narrative Texts [online article]. Based on a talk presented at the Conference "Interactivity of Digital Texts," Münster, Germany, May 2005. Retrieved 23.2.2013 from http://users.frii.com/mlryan/onion.htm 73. Salen, K., Zimmerman E. (2004). Rules Of Play – Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press. 74. SCRC (developer). (2012). Dedoose [software]. (V. 4.5) 75. Si, M., & Marsella, S. C. (2010). Modeling Rich Characters in Interactive Narrative Games. In GAMEON-ASIA. Shanghai, CN. 76. Sicart, M. (2008). Defining Game Mechanics. In Game Studies – the international journal of computer game research. Volume 8, issue 2. Retrieved 21.2.2013 from http://gamestudies.org/0802/articles/sicart 77. Shyba, L. M., & Parker, J. R. (2005). Opening doors to interactive play spaces: fragmenting story structure into games. In Proceedings of the second Australasian conference on Interactive entertainment. Pages 167-174. Creativity & Cognition Studios Press. 78. Strauss, A., Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing nd
Grounded Theory. (2 ed.). Sage publications. 79. Shuttleworth, M. (2009). Research Bias. In Explorable. Retrieved 08.11.2012 from http://explorable.com/research-bias.html 80. Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. In Academy of Management Journal 2006, Vol. 49, No 4. Pages 633–642. 81. Suits, B. (1990/2005). The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia. CAN: Broadview Press.
67
82. Temple, B., and Young, A. (2004). Qualitative research and translation dilemmas. In Qualitative Research, 4(2). Pages 161-178. th
83. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language. (2009). (4 ed.). ludic. In TheFreeDictionary [online dictionary]. Houghton Mifflin Company. Retrieved 5.11.2013 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ludic. 84. thechineseroom (developer). (2008). Dear Esther [Half Life 2 modification]. Distributed by: Mod DB. 85. Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive Structures in Comprehension and Memory of Narrative Discourse. In Cognitive Psychlogy. 9(1). Pages 77-110 86. Toolan, Michael. (2012). Coherence. In Hühn, Peter et al. (eds.): the living handbook of narratology. Hamburg, DE: Hamburg University Press. Retrieved 1.3.2012 from hup.sub.unihamburg.de/lhn/index.php??title=Coherence?&oldid=1676 87. Unity Technologies (developer). (2011, 2012). Unity [software]. (V.3.4 (2012), V. 3.5 (2012)). 88. Wei, H., Bizzocchi, J., Calvert, C. (2010). Time and Space in Digital Game Storytelling [online article]. In Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Surrey, BC, CA: Simon Fraser University. Retrieved 23.3.2013 from http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijcgt/2010/897217/ 89. Wilhelmsson, U. (2009). Game Ego presence in video and computer games. In Extending Experiences. Structure, analysis and design of computer game player experience. Pages 58-72. Editors: Leino, O., Wirman, H., Amyris, F. Rovaniemi, FI. Lapland University Press. 90. Zagal, J. P., Mateas, M. (2007). Temporal Frames: A Unifying Framework for the Analysis of Game Temporality. In Leonardo: Journal of the International Society for Arts, Sciences and Technology. Volume 34, number 2, 2001. Pages 147-153.
68
Appendix A: Theoretical sampling questions This list is an example of the theoretical sampling questions and internal interview guidelines for the study. The total list grew as the study progressed. I did not ask all of these questions in each interview, however. The questions simply exemplify the large number of questions evoked in the process of GT. Theoretical sampling means in grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin 1998) that one should note new questions as they rise from the analysis, and ask them from the next Ps. The list might give an idea of the evolving nature of the inquiry.
The player Player’s gaming background
More about player’s preferences of games How important is story In general, the participant’s context in her view on the issue is very important. From what kind of background does this kind of outlook on the issue stem from? Non-gamer participants could also shed more interesting light on the issue. The meaning is to get broadly a map of what can be going on to form hypotheses of it, not to “prove” something, except of course by getting some categories saturated will strengthen that category. It should be important to get to such level in the questioning that I am starting to ask “why” in the level of the explanation getting to touch the persons own history, values and beliefs to explain the behavior. Player expectations
Realism? – Do players base their expectations in realism? I should ask: Can you tell a bit more about what you would've expected the outcome to be? ... Can you tell more about why you would expect such an outcome? Is real life your default setting to which you compare the phenomena in the game? Why? (Is it because of the mimicry etc, this I should try to find out, to get assurance for the connection in the player’s mind). Other media? – If the player sees there “traditional” elements in the story, perhaps familiar from other media, will he/she base expectations towards this presentation, or watch it with an eye familiar from watching the other media as well? – I hypothesize now that players have familiarity with certain tropes from other media, and for a game that has similarities with existing media, the phenomena in such game could be connected with certain familiar tropes, thus this familiarity would create a certain acceptance of these phenomena.
69
The atmosphere – How much did the atmosphere influence your expectations and acceptance of what is happening? Player’s story preference
Do you prefer a challenging or less challenging story? In a game, otherwere? Tell me about the importance of the concept of “plausibility” in games to you, and tell me how this game relates to that context. Player’s perception of the sequence of events
I could see if the player constructs inferences of the events like in Graesser’s constructionist theory. Player’s age affecting preferences of game types, etc? Player’s mental state affecting the interview? Tired?
The game Enjoyment of the game as a cognitive challenge
If makes complex explanations, did he enjoy it? One participant noted the enjoyed of a “mindfuck”, but this was with the linear version. Could I get similar results with the non-linear version? The effect of being able to perceive the passage of time correctly
How important is time perception for the atmosphere and story? The surrounding experience
How does the player feel about / What does the player think about: o The surrounding experience, meaning all other elements of the game, other than the incoherencies. o Incoherencies in the story. o The overall experience What was the effect of the events that the game did not
The incidents
Are the coffee room scene and the corridor scene similar, making it hard to distinguish, making it harder to remember discussion details etc? TV incident: Tell me about the TV. Tell me more about the TV. Could you summarize the history of the TV to me? 70
Does it feels stupid (especially the window thing) because it is a major plot element? When the participant gets totally baffled about what to think about incoherent events, what is he or she thinking about at that specific moment? Is his or her mind overwhelmed by thoughts, or are there no thoughts at all at that moment? What exactly in the sequence of events causes you to think they are incoherent? Where does your belief into the sequence of events get cut off?
Incausality/incoherence Noticing incausality/incoherence, why exactly?
What made you think there is an incoherence/incausality involved? What does the player think about the incausalities?
Always ask why, why, why. Why did you feel confused about it? What is confusing about it? Which facts of the events got you confused? (if it was confusing or “why it was X”, if it was X) Tell me about your thought process of explaining what is going on here. (for an instance of incausality, or of the game) Why do you think that the game does this? Tell me about how YOU perceive this thing as a part of the game (I’ll try to get into whether the participant thinks this is part of the rules, or does he/she think it is a law in the game world’s time-space continuum. Also to see if a player would by default expect a reality-mimicking game to adhere to the laws of reality). Are you confused over this? – With the reversed version. With the linear version, there was noticeable confusion. This is for comparison. Not noticing incausality/incoherence, why?
Why did players have a hard time noticing incoherence with the linear version? Story-wise explanations
Which of the incidents are impossible to explain by adding to the story by imagination? Why did you figure out/ not figure out story-wise explanations for the incidents. Incausality vs. normal causality
How would the experience of an incoherent plot event differ from a coherent one? Do the participants place significantly more thought towards analyzing incoherent passage of events than when compared to when the events pass along coherently? – This was confirmed in the study of Memento, I think [Author’s note: reference missing] – or then it was about the NLC in that study, where it took more time to understand. Perhaps I should also check how much NLC accounts for increased analysis in games as well. I could also get my supervisors to tag along it I could get them to be interested in some data, topics and questions that are popping up in the study. I need to get them involved, interested and hot about it as well. 71
Learning the incausality
How is the player learning it by time? What affects it? The exposition? The observer’s telling? The effect of having utilized one’s own agency or not as the incausality/incoherence happened (on the pereption of the incausality/incoherence)
Games portray fantasy, which can be a well-known premise in an argument. Also, a player mentioned this as a reason why he accepted the illogical incoherence resulting from his agency. However, what about if the player did not have agency, how would he feel about that? If the player can’t choose in the situation what he/she wants, how does it make him/her feel? (could it be, for example, “Frustrated?”) The effect of atmosphere to the perception of incausality/incoherence
-‘’-? The effect of developmental quality to the perception of incausality/incoherence
On what level of development do you think the game was Do you think that the developmental quality affected your view on there being multiple realities created, meaning, did it affect your view on how the game was designed? How much would you think the developmental level of the game affected your views? Would you think differently in some other case? (If it was better developed) The effect of not knowing the rules to the perception of incausality/incoherence
Explicate the rules and say that changing causality does not matter, perhaps in the end. Does this make IC a negative thing? Perhaps I know already that this is not, like in Petri’s case. However, I should perhaps take one player who knows it from the start. Then I can ask of his opinion about it. But, the thing is, that this is leading the player to a certain mindset. I am already saying that IC is ok. The effect of previous NLCG experience to the perception of incausality/incoherence
Question to ask: do you have previous experience on NLC games such as the Indigo Prophecy? – This can be rare, and if is, then I should trim the effects of this dimension out of the final theory. – Theoretical sampling could be to ask players of Indigo prophecy to play the game. The effect of understanding the story to the perception of incausality/incoherence
Are the participants accepting the incohesive events and not paying specific attention to them, because the story is not yet so familiar to them? It could be, that the death of the protagonist is the only truly incoherent event, grabbed from the first time. The effect of understanding the temporal paradigm to the perception of incausality/incoherence
Scenario to test: Try to take the intermittent texts out to see the audience’s reactions within a such play of the game. 72
Why is it so important to “know everything” in a story?
Why is it so important to have knowledge of events? What is behind it, would it be possible to elaborate and analyze? Why does it bother to have insufficient knowledge of events? Should incoherence/incausality be corrected?
What kinds of adjustments to the incoherencies What kinds of impressions and in which order?
Remember to verify the order of impressions. This is also important. “First impressions matter”, as they say. What was the first thought about the situation? Or perhaps the biggest impression of these? Can there be said to be the biggest impression or the heaviest or weightiest impression, or the “most likely” explanation for the situation in the context?
Incausality/incoherence, acceptance What causes acceptance?
Provisional hypotheses for causes of indifference towards incoherence: o Games portray fictional elements, which are not always logical. The plot elements can be part of this as well. o Despite the chronological ordering of scenes, if the game has a well-defined plot arc in the sense of revealing bits of plot-wise important information as the story progresses, and most importantly, revealing the crucial information in the end, (traditional narrative arc? – all threads come together), then it can have macro-level cohesion, despite micro-level cohesion breaking down. The incoherence is more acceptable, the less the events in question have relevance to the progression of the story. o Petri expressed that he saw the game as creating multiple realities. Therefore there is no one story that would go wrong; in a way a “new story” is created along with the new parallel reality, and that story would be coherent within itself. o Tapio expressed that one reason for acceptance is that the player is figuring out the winning strategy for the game and trying to figure out the game rules occupies the player’s mind more than thinking about how incoherent the plot was. The problem here was that the player (Maurice [Account later discarded from theory formation due to initial interview procedure issues]) only played the game once, meaning that the incoherencies did not bother him. This fact can be viewed as data as well.
Confirm my interpretation of Maurice’s notion that games have unexplainable, illogical elements of fantasy, for which the perfect logic of the plot does not matter either. Perhaps it is interesting, but is it a “positive” experience? (Verify)
73
(If the participant thought that the incoherence was interesting, intriguing) You expressed that the incoherence you encountered was interesting, intriguing, perhaps. a) Is this a positive feeling? (at this point it should be asked clearly whether or not, I can’t go on and ask “how would you describe this as a positive feeling” or “why is this a positive feeling”? Or, I could ask “Why do you find this interesting and intriguing”? – This is just to verify, to not to use terms, concepts or qualities that the participant would disagree with. This is about the concept of “participant as co-researcher (Creswell writes about this)
Incausality/incoherence, non-acceptance Feeling of being disrespected by the developer
If the player feels that his/her intelligence is being underestimated, does he/she feel disrespected? Is the feeling of being disrespected with the TV incoherence stemming from a notion that the TV incoherence should be easy to fix by letting the TV be as it was? So bad that it is funny
Elaborate over incoherence being amusing due to feeling that the game is so badly developed that it is funny. Lack of consequences
With lack of consequences, do you mean in the sense that as the game in other areas mimics a real life setting, not a fantasy setting (I should first ask, how much fantasy do you think there is involved, and how much do you think the game presents the real world and real life), but certain consequences are missing that would surely occur in real life?
74
