Category Archives: First Readers

Exhibition Review: The Art of Videogames

Today, I took a trip to the American Art Museum to check out The Art of Videogames, and here is what I found:

I was expecting a somewhat larger exhibit than what I ended up finding, but overall it was still interesting. The first of the three rooms gives an overview of the history of videogames. In the second, one finds 4 iconic titles to play as well as a fifth game called Flower, which is more art than game. Finally, the last room has every major console from Atari to Playstation 3, each with clips from four games.

My recommendation for the first room is to go slowly and watch the videos. There’s not a whole lot of text, so that’s where you learn the most about the exhibit. Here, they break the history of videogames into 5 major eras: Start, 8-bit, Bitwars, Transition, and Next Generation. This is also perhaps the most interesting feature of the exhibit. There are five screens side-by-side which show specific game-play elements have changed across the eras. It is striking to see how jumping, for example, has changed in 40 years, and a clip from each era plays simultaneously to highlight that progression. There are also interviews with luminaries in field about how they see videogames maturing as a medium for artistic and narrative expression.

The second room is the interactive one, with a game from each era that visitors can play. Four are classics: Pac-Man, Super Mario Bros, Myst, and The Secret of Monkey Island. However, the fifth was one I had never seen: Flower. It came out in 2009 and is more of a pleasant, relaxation activity than a game. In it, the player is a gust of wind that goes around picking up flowers in a pleasant 3D world with soothing music that responds to the player’s activity. For me, this is the epitome of an art game.

The largest portion of the exhibit was the final room. Here, twenty game consoles are presented in chronological order and each has its most popular game in the genres of Target, Action, Adventure, and Tactics (full list here). For those who have been gaming for a while, the room provides a walk down memory lane with classics such as Sonic, Zelda, Tomb Raider, SimCity, Mario, and others. Take as long as you want in this room, there is a lot to take in. Then, just before the exit is a video discussing more of how videogames are coming to be a more important cultural force.

Overall, I enjoyed the exhibit, and the most interesting takeaway was seeing the progression of videogames all at once (specifically the 5-era display at the beginning). In fact, I wish I had spent more time in that first room watching the videos there. I especially recommend the exhibit for those in our class as an opportunity to see many of the games and consoles we discussed earlier in the semester when we went through an early history of vidoegames.

Finally, here are some pictures I took of the exhibit.

Interactive Fiction: Game of the Mind

In Nick Montfort’s Toward a Theory of Interactive Fiction,  it struck me that this topic is different from other games in that the interaction is strictly intellectual, rather than physical. Almost all video games involve an interaction with or contribution from a player. This often involves a certain amount of physical skill on the player’s part to do well in the game. If one were to think of these games as the telling a story, a portion of the narrative could be imagined as either the epic strength or skill of the player or conversely the weakness and ineptitude.

Unlike these game forms, there is no physical requirement necessary for the player/interactor (other than to be able to type the interaction text). The player’s physical capabilities (i.e. agility, aim, etc.) do not contribute to the story. The player’s contribution is purely intellectual. The “story” told by these games revolves not around the epic abilities of the player, but the pure narrative of what the player is doing and why. Even skills of observation are virtually irrelevant, as there is no time constraint on actions and all available information is presented through the text in response to the player’s interaction.

Indeed, one might even question if these are truly games. As Montfort says, “…a work of IF is not necessarily a game. A work can present a world which is pleasant to explore, but which has no quest or intrigue.” But do not some graphic video games behave in this way? Games such as Minecraft and others focus heavily on the open-ended exploration aspect of virtual worlds and are no less games for it. Perhaps what we’ve really cared about video games has been the intellectual interaction all along. Perhaps Montfort has hit upon something in the reason we play video games–something that interactive fiction is a clear reminder of: that we want a world, a story to tell, and that we play any video game first in our heads before our fingers even move on the controller.

On Interactive Fiction

While reading/listening to Nick Monfort, I couldn’t help but think of the automated options one must sometimes navigate while on the phone.  “Press 1 for ___, press 2 for ___, etc.”  Although interactive fiction seems more evolved because the player physically types in a response, the computer’s action is no different–it reads the command and completes it.  If it does not understand a command, it will ask for a different command/code.  I find the value in these type of games, not in the actual game-play itself, but how the mind may perceive it.

If we ignore the fact that the game was programmed, and think of it as an audio book or another person telling a story, there is some value  within this kind of gameplay.  No longer is the player just trying to illicit some kind of reaction through the program via coding/commands, but is actually interacting and experiencing a story secondhand.  Depending on the size of the program, the routes the actual story could take are limitless.  And instead of focusing on the graphics or sounds of the game, a person is allowing their imagination to take over, something that seems very difficult for adults sometimes (at least in my own experience).  Furthermore, interactive fiction can present a puzzle, riddle, or challenge to solve.

However, before this class, I had never heard of interactive fiction.  My question is, how popular is interactive fiction really?  How else is interactive fiction “rich” in game-play?

Interactive Fiction for the Designer

One of the main things that I think about when I read about Interactive Fiction games, or seeing the games themselves is the appreciation for them.  I feel that with most other game genres, the appreciation for the game comes from the players.  The designers are generally tired of looking at the game (not that Interactive Fiction designers are not), but it is the fans of the game that go through and talk about their favorite parts of the game.  With Interactive Fiction games, I feel that it is the designer of the game who gets the most appreciation out of the game.  The player might find some responses and design features funny or clever, but the designer gets the best kick out of how he designs and plans out the path the player will want to pursue.  The designer can shape the environment completely and ultimately holds control over what options the player has been left with.

One counterexample to this opinion would be of one of the most famous designers in the beginning of the game industry, William Crowther.  Crowther designed Adventure for the sole purpose of helping connect with his daughters after a tough divorce with his wife.  The game spread quickly among colleagues and everyone with a PDP-10.  Everyone loved his game, where he found it as a simple text adventure to grow closer with his family.  Nevertheless, Adventure meant more to Crowther than anyone else.  Designing these game is no small task, like all other games in the industry, but I feel that it is the genre where the designer knows everything that went into the game: his thought process, his choices, your choices, your thought process, and even what could go wrong.  I have the up-most respect for the creators of these types of games.  Even though Nick Montfort doesnt express this message directly in his article, I can tell he shares similar thoughts based on his video.

Interactive Fiction

After watching the video introduction and reading about interactive fiction, I must say it was very hard for me to relate to or even understand what type of games this genre represented. I have never witnessed someone playing these games or even heard about them until now. This leads me to understand why they had not been analyzed until recently.

The idea of this type of game does interest me, but it seems incredibly limited. The fact that these games only recognize certain words could make the “work” difficult and therefore frustrating to complete. However, I find it interesting that it allows the interactor the ability to essentially make the story for themselves. Through the process of typing different words and commands into the computer, they are making the theoretical story for themselves and interacting with the fiction.

This obviously opposes the common form of fiction, books. In fiction, the reader has absolutely no control over what happens in the story. They cannot explore the repercussions of altering the normal route that the main character takes. Although stories can be extremely compelling, they do not offer the ability to delineate from the set path.

Overall, I think the idea of interactive fiction is interesting, but I believe I will need to play or experience one of these works first hand before I truly understand what they are about. Similar to the way fiction in books does not allow you to do some of the things that interactive fiction does, I do not believe reading about interactive fiction gives one the full effect of the IF game itself.

Foundations

After reading and watch Nick Montfort’s article and video on interactive fiction, I started to see a similarity between interactive games and the role-playing games that I play today. Obviously before computers or video devices, people could only play role-playing games in either text based books or oral games. These two forms however were very limited in either the imagination of the person the player was playing with, or the story/plot of the book the game was based in. Furthermore, players could cheat by reading ahead in books, or would have trouble keeping up with what was going on in an oral game if any of the other players were also having trouble. These limits were overcome with the creation of the personal computer, which allowed texts to be created in endless possibilities. However, with the lack of anything visual being visible on the computers, the text became even more important to the whole experience of the role-playing game. While books could have drawings and in oral games you could draw pictures, in text based interactive fiction games the player had to picture the entire world based on the worlds that were given to him. This made text based interactive fiction the first step towards today’s modern role-playing games, in that it forced the player to picture the entire world in their heads, it kept them from cheating by reading ahead in the books, and allowed for players to play by themselves. These abilities transformed the role-playing experience for many players, and allowed the genre to become more and more open ended. The less structure a game has, the greater a player’s ability is over his or her choices in the game. This in turn, leads to the production and creation of many possible styles of game play and story paths on which a character can follow. With the rise of better graphics and video capabilities on computers, it was only a matter of time before the visual components of the gaming world replaced the dominance of textual components. This underlying foundation in the role-playing genre of games can still be seen today in games such as Skyrim. In which the player after doing the introduction is free to go do whatever and talk to whomever they wish to, with only a slight overall story arc guiding them—just like the text based interactive fictions of old. While a game’s world is no longer described in words alone, thanks to the advancements in video games, the influence of open ended play that developed under the texted based interactive fiction is still the foundation that modern role-playing games use.

A Closer Look at the Plinkett Test

Following the Dramatic Storytelling in Games presentation by Seamus Sullivan at the Writing for Games Conference on Tuesday, I wanted to further investigate his second tip for creating videogame characters: Apply the Plinkett Test. I personally had never heard of this test, and thought Sullivan’s description of it was intriguing. Basically, the test consists of describing a character in a story, or movie, or game, without referencing their appearance, profession, or what they do in the story. Sullivan asked a few members of the audience to present their favorite videogame characters and subject them to this test. Two of the proposed characters were Sonic the Hedgehog and Mario. Surprisingly, even with the little narrative, per say, that exist in the games that these characters are a part of, the audience members were able to describe these characters using this test, describing Sonic as cocky, and sort of a BA with a good heart, and Mario as a light-hearted hero. Now of course, not all games are intended to have characters that play integral roles in the games themselves, and some omit characters completely. But, for the games that Sullivan was pinpointing, it was interesting to think about just how crucial it is to develop characters that the audience can really relate to, in and out of the game. The Plinkett test is a great indicator as to how well we will be able to associate with these characters, and just how much we will invest in them. Mario and Sonic are two great examples of characters that are globally recognized because players see them as more than just a hedgehog and a plumber. Gamers worldwide relate to the character of these characters, for lack of a better terminology. When developing games that are story-based, Sullivan stressed just how crucial it is to give the player someone to see themselves in, because this is in fact who will be leading us through the entire game. Also, Sullivan proposed that if the main character is going to be rather void of details, that there should be other non-player characters (NPC’s) that fulfill this same purpose.

Anyway, I just found this test to be very accurate in terms of identifying characters with more to them than a name and face, but rather, an identity. If you’re interested, you can view the original Plinkett Test from Red Letter Media here, beginning at around the 7:00 mark. (WARNING: Graphic Language.) In this original test, the characters in Star Wars Episode I were being put to the test. Through this video you can see the stark contrast between the greatly detailed and rounded characters of the first movies, versus the empty, essentially floating characters of Episode I. The video in its entirety is pretty entertaining if you’re interested, but you’ll find the Plinkett Test applied at that location.

This test, and (the playwright) Sullivan’s presentation are yet a further demonstration of the interconnectivity between the integral component of storytelling in all areas: literature, movies, and videogames.

Storytelling in Gaming

For Tuesday’s class I attended Seamus Sullivan’s “Dramatic Storytelling” session. Over the course of the session, Sullivan briefed over different tips in building a successful story as relates to video games. He started the session by saying “Every game is a drama – whether simple or complicated.” In order to bring this point home he illustrated with Tetris as a remarkably simple drama, with the player as the main protagonist, and Assassin’s Creed II as a complicated web of narratives inside a larger story with Desmond/Ezio being the protagonist. While I quite enjoyed Sullivan’s expansive description of characters and dialogue, I would challenge him on this introductory point. To make this sweeping generalization about all video games seems to provide a narrow view of gaming. As we’ve read from Ian Bogost, video games can do much more than simply tell a story. If every game is a drama, where would that leave throwaway games, for example? What about casual games? Does solving a game of Scrabble against someone else really tell much of a story? It might, but it almost seems to broken down even to be considered, and it certainly wasn’t the goal of the game developers. Thus while Sullivan provided a very well laid-out format for how to approach games, using great examples such as Half-Life and Portal, I believe this doesn’t cover a wide enough platform that he claimed it did, but rather only certain types of games, namely the ones that focus on storytelling in particular. Part of this class’s goal is to figure out how to expand the world of video gaming to multiple different lenses. In this way, storytelling is merely one aspect.

An Initial Look at Interactive Fiction

Interactive fiction is an interesting combination of a game and a story. It is essentially based upon the concept of the user’s typing of text and the software’s response thereto. In his article, Toward a Theory of Interactive Fiction, Nick Montfort quotes interactive fiction as being “a text-accepting, text-generating computer program; a potential narrative; a simulation of an environment or world; and a structure of rules within which an outcome is sought, also known as a game.”

What I think is interesting is how interactive fiction resembles storytelling and how it can be manifested in the form of a game. You basically have a conversation with a computer. You type input in the form of a command or question, and the computer almost immediately responds to you with text output. Add a simulated world and a few basic goals, and you’ve got yourself a playable game that is based entirely on text input. Dennis G. Jerz’s instructions for interactive fiction describe how the player can do such things as move around, manipulate objects, interact with non-player characters, and save the game—all just by typing a command on the keyboard.

The way I see it, interactive fiction has a lot of resemblance to a role-playing game. Think about it; you are free to interact with a virtual environment in which you make decisions that make things happen immediately or influence events that happen later in the game. Each type of game has a set of goals that the player is responsible for completing. In both interactive fiction and a role-playing game, there is a character that the player can control. The only difference is that in a role-playing game, the player uses a controller to determine what happens instead of a keyboard.

Interactive fiction is a type of game that I have not previously considered before now. It is a unique and interesting type of game that I think has not received enough attention. I am still absolutely fascinated by how interactive fiction, as described by Montfort and Jerz, is so similar to a role-playing video game.

Show, don’t tell.

Like many of you guys, I attended Seamus Sullivan’s “Dramatic Storytelling in Games.” Sullivan shared quite a few tips on how to write strong characters and dialogue, tips which, I thought, were very insightful. But one point especially got me thinking – Character Tip #3: “Show, don’t tell.” One example he used to illustrate this point was the first cut scene from Thief: The Dark Project, in which Garrett first encounters a Keeper. The scene begins with a voice-over by Garrett, and transitions into dialogue between him and the Keeper. Other posts have described Sullivan’s analyzing process: in short, he extracted information about the characters and their environment based on the way they spoke and behaved, rather than by what was explicitly said.

When he first used the phrase “Show, don’t tell,” I was a bit confused, as I thought he was encouraging purely visual rather than verbal information, and the scene from Thief was pretty wordy. While I recognized seconds later that he was referring to the “between the lines” of the words in the cut scene, that initial thought stuck with me. Obviously, dialogue is invaluable for its implied message as well as the explicit. But there are also instances where even layered dialogue falls short of the image. As great as the script is (but not the original one) of the “Tears in Rain” scene from Blade Runner, the imagery of Rutger Hauer releasing the dove has depth and symbolism that I don’t think could ever be properly translated into words. In film, the filmmaker determines the narrative context of every frame. So in a way, films have something of an advantage over games in visual communication. Still, thinking about this has made me want to be more perceptive to the imagery in video games, not just to the dialogue.