The Wolf Among Us

Of the key narrative elements discussed so far in the course (interactivity, level design/linearity, moral choice/non-linearity, character), which do you think is the most prominent, important or interesting in your chosen game?

When it comes to interactive narratives, what appeals to me the most is usually character development and how the story unfolds. Like Tim Schafer says: "You have to provide the character with motivation and you have to provide the player with motivation. Because the character will care about things that the player will not necessarily care about." (Tim Schafer; Interviewed at Game Developers Conference, March 7, 2003). A relatable hero and believable protagonists never fail to get my interest. However, I particularly favor anti-hero types of protagonists who aren't one-dimensional or cannot be categorized as plain "good" or plain "evil". Tales of epic and perfect heroes are great, but a relatable character burdened with flaws and weaknesses is even better in my opinion. This is why Bigby from The Wolf Among Us immediately drew me into the narrative, being the "Big Bad Wolf" from classic fairy tales as they were popularized by Disney's animated feature films. In this particular case, I do not consider Bigby as an avatar, but definitely a character. He is after all a recurrent persona that most people have been exposed to at some point during their childhood; he has a well-known tendency to represent the evil in fairy tales (Little Red Riding Hood, The Three Little Pigs) and as a new player, you are in fact not wrong to assume that he is the "bad wolf" you are used to. But in The Wolf Among Us, Bigby is seen in a completely different light, being appointed the role of Sheriff of Fabletown and trying to free himself from his bad reputation and dark past. This pattern also applies to the non-playable characters, who have been relocated to a brand new environment in modern Brooklyn, holding dark secrets while Bigby tries to solve a case of serial murders. Gruesome violence isn't exactly what one would expect from fairy tale one-dimensional (good versus evil) characters, so when Telltale games translated the famous tales into a Film noir-like scenario, it did not fail to surprise me in the best way possible.

The branching narrative model applied to the game and the strong feeling of tailoring my own unique traversal of it according to the choices I made - or failed to make in time - increased my immersion and engagement with the characters. Letting some of them die when I could have prevented it, and being reminded of that fact after each episode was frustrating but captivated me even more. I particularly enjoyed how paced and  balanced the narrative cut scenes and the interactive moments  (when I had control over the events and choices) was, and always felt quite involved with the decision making because of it.

Lastly, The Wolf Among Us gave me the opportunity to explore my own morality, and ask myself where I would stand in situations that are quite unlikely to happen in real life.  Ethics and morality go hand in hand with the character development in the game and it is made quite clear in the way that it hints how non-playable characters will remember your choices or how you let a character die. The moral involvement of the player makes The Wolf Among Us an eerie adventure, with a constant questioning of their values and with unsettling consequences.
As Shafer cites Sicart: " Sicart points out that playing a game does not change the nature of who we are as human beings, and that actions, even in a virtual world, still carry implications (Sicart, 2009) [...] if players enter into a game as moral beings, as ethical agents (Sicart, 2009), then what they do in the game is meaningful. ".

FEZ

As the player, do you interact with a character or an avatar and how does this affect your involvement in the narrative?

The protagonist in Fez is introduced with their own name, environment and goals. There is no character creation and these facts remain unchanged regardless of who is playing the game and they are what defines Gomez. But Gomez is also the extension that allows the player to interact with the game, an anchor that has its own attributes, but also embodies the player's will and way of playing.
The narrative itself is quite  linear despite the three dimensional space mechanic, and told through very simple dialogues with minimum interaction between Gomez, the geeser, and Dot; but it is understood that the player, through Gomez, is given the mission to save the world thus resulting in a simple common goal.
There is no way that the player can progress without going through these dialogues. But they may choose to ignore and pass the text, and they would still be able to understand that they need to gather cubes to make progress.
As shown in the first minutes of games when a mysterious and unreadable font is seemingly explaining what could possibly be the background story behind the game, it seems that Fez does not need to explicitly give its narrative. In a similar way, it is unnecessary for the player to talk to other NPCs in the game, as doing so does not usually result in any action, choice, or vital information.
The game relies more on the player being intrigued by the challenging complexity of the puzzles and drawn by the beautiful imagery rather than their interest in the narrative itself. The environment is the main focus in Fez and is treated almost like a character: after getting to know all the faces of each environment level and the possibilities it offers, the player understands how to solve the puzzle.

The Wolf Among Us

How does morality influence the choices you make in the game? 


The character of Bigby is a particularly interesting case because a basic knowledge of fairy tale characters gives the player a background story of murder and people-eating tendencies; however the game makes it clear to the player that this character now endorsing the role of Shérif is trying to redeem himself and play the good guy. During my play-through I have felt compelled to make the most important decisions in the most moral way possible because of it. However for least important choices like giving a sip of spirit to a flatmate, I had fun playing with the "bad guy" side character by choosing not to, until the game let me know "Cliff will remember your silence" to which I felt guilt and ended up giving him what he wanted.
Morality I would say played a big role in my decision making even in the fictive world of The Wolf Among Us. The simple fact that the game hinted at me that my choices mattered and the characters would remember them rectified my position and made me rethink my choices. As Brandon Perdue puts it: "but there is a level of satisfaction (...) in giving the player a clear measure of their moral standing.".
I cannot deny that I did not feel pressured to behave, and felt guilt when my choices had cost a character their life. I also recall a scene in which I could have explored an area fully, but hearing crying in the next room, i gave up searching and went to check where the cries came from. I was pretty upset to discover that the area was rendered inaccessible after I tried to come back, as knowing this would have made me spend more time searching rather than check on the crying character. This does prove however that the weight of morale forced me to go find the character in pain instead of continuing my investigation.

Fahrenheit/ Indigo Prophecy

Are the “choice situations” in the game obvious or subtle? Do you know the outcomes of your choice prior to making a decision?


In Fahrenheit/ Indigo Prophecy, your choices are played through quick time events and also rely on your ability to get keyboard/controller sequences right so they are quite obvious and not really integrated seamlessly into the story. You are warned by the words "Get Ready" every time you have to perform a sequence correctly and you have a limited time to make any choice.

Unlike most of the games in the list for this week, Fahrenheit/ Indigo Prophecy starts with a set character: Lucas. The game puts you directly in Lucas' shoes and you are thrown in a situation where you must make tactical choices to escape a murder scene. It draws you directly into the story and you have a large number of interactions available to you, enough so that you immediately feel involved as if you were already in control of the outcome. Although you are informed that there is a cop in the area and you will most probably get caught if you don't make the right choices, you cannot predict exactly how the story will unfold unless you have played through the game multiple times.

The story splits into different nodes depending on your choices but there is still a path that you must follow; for example if you let Lucas get caught by the police too soon, you will face a game over. When you leave a scene, sometimes the screen splits and let you see the consequences of your previous actions play out live, so in a way, the results of your actions become protagonists themselves.

Right after you make Lucas escape the crime scene, you are put in control of 2 other characters, both from the police, and investigating the recent murder. Switching between characters is very important because some interactions can only be performed by a single one of them (ex: look through the trash bin or check the toilet tank). Playing multiple sides of the story ( either criminal or cops) gives you an advantage since you witnessed the crime in the opening cut scene but some details have been hidden from you like where Lucas put the murder weapon, and you still have to make a little effort to progress in the game.

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time

Did linear storytelling in your chosen game(s) engage and excite you as a player? Explain why or why not.

My first step into the game was naming my character, so onward did Gonzalo go and after a short cinematic introduction I was left in charge of the game. After jumping around and trying to make sense out of the controls my slow progression started. I quickly noticed that my position on the map triggered events like fireballs, arrows thrown at me and ledges falling off. Good! That felt pretty immersive up to that point.
Narration happened as I was still in control of my character, and that was a nice surprise. It happened regularly; discovering a new area often came with narration informing me of my character's thoughts and objectives ( ex: "i could not rest until I had found her again." as I was chasing the girl.).
The present tense used in the narration as I was moving through the obstacles definitely made me feel like I was making the story happen. If the player is good enough, the flow of the story can be quite well paced and there is enough interactivity to keep the illusion of control.
As far as cinematics go, although sometimes lengthy, I believe they are necessary as they explain the story to the player and introduces the characters as well as the world of Prince of Persia.
What Jesse Schell calls "string of pearls approach" is quite obvious in the game since each node of the story is followed by gameplay which is rewarded by another node and so on.
However, The tutorial texts, crazy camera and intricate sequence of actions required to pass obstacles often frustrated me and were more of a distraction from the story than anything else. I eventually gave up trying to reach the dagger because of my poor skills, although I really wanted to know what would happen afterwards.
In conclusion, the linear storytelling was good and kept me interested, however the camera and controls made me too frustrated to keep trying.

Her Story

What traditional narrative techniques or structures are used in your chosen game(s)? How are they changed by interactivity?

Her Story is a game in which the player has to piece a story together watching footage of recorded interviews of a woman. In Her Story, the narrative is not linear. To progress in the game, the player has to watch the available footage, and use the key words in those recordings as tags to find more recordings to watch and so on. Each of the play-through of the game and the sequence in which the story unravels will be specific to the person playing.
The story itself is very open to interpretations, and the ability of the player to find all the recordings and how they decide to piece it together.
At first the player is led to believe they are a detective investigating a case on a police computer. However, once in a while the reflection of a girl can be seen on the monitor and the player is suddenly excluded from being the protagonist. Clues suggest that the computer has been hacked, and that person in the reflection is watching those recordings to find what the story is too.
Although the game does not seem to have a traditional narrative structure, it relies on the assumption that the player have been exposed to narratives that blur identities; thus the game expect the player to ask themselves: "what if that person isn't who they pretend to be?".