Metal Gear Timing!

2. How is time represented in the game? Is there a separation of story and discourse time? How does the game’s use of time allow for interactivity?

In the article last week, it was mentioned that events represented cannot be past or prior, since players can influence them. A game constructs the story time as synchronous with narrative time and reading/viewing time: the story time is NOW. This is the case in metal gear solid. The word that I would use in MGS is not agency.. but rather.. urgency. You are on a tactical mission, infiltrate the base, seek and destroy metal gear, and eventually escape. The story unfolds in a very narrative way, yet there is a sense of urgency to complete the mission as soon as possible. So time here is immediate and agency is pretty much achieved...

or is it?

MGS is one cleverly designed game that somehow confuses discourse and story time. As mentioned earlier MGS used in-game graphics to every scene, be it in game play or cut scene. Though cut scenes are shown by the use of subtitles and familar cinema wide-screen usage. Sometimes the transition from gameplay to cutscene and to gameplay is seemless. (This however was not experienced in MGS 2: Sons of liberty as the cut scenes tend to go too long, losing the momentum)

So the game's use of time? Whatever that is more narrative in nature, such as the game character's past, or info about his mission, is put as an option to choose at the game start screen. The actual story time, though narrative in nature, blends in seemlessly with gameplay to create that interactive movie experience.

Metal Gear Story?!

The game that I would choose would be Metal Gear Solid - "the game's revolutionary new style of gameplay, which focused on remaining hidden from the enemy and avoiding unnecessary combat, marked a bold departure from previous action games that emphasized attacking and defeating the enemy."

http://www.konami.jp/gs/game/mgs/english/mgs_series.html

Also... some bits on Metal Gear Solid:

Metal Gear Solid, (Japanese:メタルギアソリッド ) commonly abbreviated as MGS, is a stealth-based game developed by Konami and first published for the PlayStation video game console in 1998. It is the third canonical game in the Metal Gear series, produced and directed by Hideo Kojima, with artwork by Yoji Shinkawa. Metal Gear Solid alternates stealth gameplay and expository cinematic sequences. It has been frequently selected by gaming publications as the greatest PlayStation game ever made.

Metal Gear Solid was groundbreaking in its use of spoken dialogue, an intricate plot, and cinematic presentation. The availability of 3D graphics and the extensive storage capacity of the CD-ROM format compared to what the Metal Gear team had to work with in 1987 and 1990 made it possible to create a more complete version of Hideo Kojima's vision of what the previous games for the NES and MSX should have been.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Gear_Solid

1. Discuss the tension between agency and narrative structure within the game. Do you agree that narrative and interactivity can never co-exist? Why/why not?

Metal Gear Solid is one game that focus on both its narrative and gameplay. And I believe it makes a better example the RPG genres. In my personal experience of playing this game, I find it is the tactical espionage gameplay that entices me to attempt a level in different ways, in how to engage with the enemy, either in a gung-ho guns-ablazing fashion (which the game doesn't encourage), or move in a stealthy manner. At the same time it is that desire to advance the storyline, to know the whole 'plot' of Metal Gear Solid. From start to finish, it has both the cinematic and interactive feel to it. Ahh... as this is after all a blog, the best way to discuss the tension between agency and narrative would be to recall as much as possible of my experience in playing the game.

Cinematic intro using in-game graphics: The beauty of MGS is that all the graphics, be it cut-scenes or gameplay, are consistent throughout. No highly rendered FMVs here - but the opening credits was done in a movie fashion, where you see the names of producers and designers of the game, all while Solid Snake, the main character, is swimming towards his destination. The opening narrative, which depicts Solid Snake communicating via a special bio-intercom (no idea what it is!), makes gamers think: what is the purpose of Snake's mission? Why is he here? What can he do to stop it? To answer all these, YOU become Solid Snake, and you move the story forward. All the dialogues, cut scenes and gameplay are done seemlessly, as though it is integrated into a system...

Wait a min...

Did I just say a system? Recalling the earlier lecture about the idea of a system, it seems plausible that indeed the narrative and interactivity within the games forms the system, because suppose either of the elements are taken out, it seriously dampens the 'meaningful play' found in MGS. The intercom dialogues, which Snake and other members will get involve in often, are surely part of the narratives. But they are essential to the gameplay cos certain points of the game requires Snake to know certain information. I recall one point of the game where I have to intercom HQ to find a weak point of a certain enemy. I got it through the dialogues where they tell me to shoot from behind!

Hence in terms of tension... I would say MGS provides a unique example where there is little tension between agency and narratives. Either of the elements are not compromised and what you get is a full cinematic interactive experience.

I have a good example of agency and narrative intertwining, based on the earlier example of calling back HQ for tips on killing the boss. The narrative could have been like this : Snake pulls out pistol and shoot boss, boss take little or no damage at all, Snake runs around aimlessly, Snake runs away from boss... Snake still thinking of ways to kill boss... then HQ rings in to tell Snake how to defeat the boss. But if I chose to react by calling in HQ immediately.. the narrative would be, Snake pulls out pistol, shoot, no effect on boss, then intercom to report immediately. The dialogue gives directions. AND YET.. if I have taken a closer look at the cut scene, I would have clues that this boss is tough in front with two chainguns firing at you, but his back is weak. And earlier on I acquired a remote control rocket launcher which can target his back. Hence the narrative complements the interactivity, the interactivity complements the narrative. And the agency that you input determines whether snake is fighting like a hero or a wuss!

Interesting enough, MGS attempts one global agency within one of the cut scenes. Mid-way in the game Snake is captured and put to torture. If you chose to surrender to the toture, you find that your female counterpart in the game, Meryl, will die in the end. But if you choose to withstand the torture, which is to bash your button continously, she'll escape with you in the end. Two different endings... and that's not it, what is truly 'global' is the item you get at the end. Viewing bad ending, you get an invisible suit when you play the game all over again. View the good end, you get a bandanna which grants you infinite ammo. And if you play a 3rd time with both endings viewed, you get to play in a tuxedo suit.

Well, MGS is an industry example of how to seeminglessly integrate narrative and interactivity together. Rather than making cut scenes or FMVs which are pure eye candy purposes. Make it part of the game, part of a system. I guess the complete use of in-game graphics for MGS cut scenes is deliberate. It is when one feels that you play to move the narrative, you view the narrative to play, then you find that it is not a question of whether they can co-exist... it is HOW they co-exist.

Interesting article on Warioware's game design

http://www.gamestudies.org/0501/gingold/

The story: Wario, realizing there is lots of money to be made in video games, decides to found his own game company. The resulting game: Play through a rapid-fire series of bizarre micro games. Each WarioWare level consists of 24 micro games, each about 5 seconds in length.
Wario Ware is a game about games. Some of its micro games are straight re-implementations of earlier Nintendo classics, but WarioWare also parodies older games such as Super Mario Bros[7]. and The Legend of Zelda[8]. WarioWare exhibits and distorts many game design conventions we take for granted. The Dungeon Dilemma game at the end of the Orbulon level, for example, seems to adhere to the conventions of a computer role playing game, but something is off: (do look at the pic from the website as stated above)

The menu system looks like a computer role playing game interface, but the menu options, “success” and “failure”, are not be found in a genuine RPG. The conventions of a RPG have been transformed into an action game: the cursor moves between menu items on its own accord, and you have to push the button to stop it at the right option. WarioWare is crammed full of parody, subversion, and quotation of game clichésand conventions. WarioWare plays with game design idioms, and in doing so foregrounds game conventions. As a result, WarioWare has a great deal to teach us about game design.

WarioWare's most obvious departure from conventional game design is its discontinuities, which illustrate the effects of continuity on game experience. Wario Ware's ultra-compressed games contain only a minimum number of ingredients. These miniature games illustrate how complex games are generally built out of simpler ones. WarioWare’s nonsense and absurdities also explore the relationship between fiction and rules.

In a sense, WarioWare is an Understanding Comics[4] of video games: a text that uses the representational strategies of a medium to reflect upon that same medium. But where Understanding Comics is discourse on comics, written in the language of comics, Wario Ware is more like Chuck Jones's meta-cartoon Duck Amuck[2]. WarioWare and Duck Amuck violate convention, and in doing so draw attention to how cartoons and games are both constructed and interpreted.


Do read the rest of the article, as it tells us more on an atypical game design. Warioware seems to defy all the conventional design aspects by... mixing in all types of game design!

In view with the topic discussed this week, Warioware is an interesting example to look at its narrative aspects. For most conventional games, you see that there will at least be some link of the gameplay and the narrative. In games like final fantasy, you will be shown with a nice cut scene and dialogues, but after which the game play will be a continuative action of the story, when players are now in control to 'move the plot'. In warioware, it seems like there's no story at all, cos you'll be playing mini-games which are totally unrelated, but the game cleverly make these unrelated games into a systematic narrative - you gotta beat the games to see an ongoing story of wario himself and his plans in making his company the best in video gaming! So a seemingly collection of mini-games.. there's still a narrative that is driving it!

Arghz, wrong potion used!

Ok, so I did not answer question 3 correctly the first time round. But hope I have enough credits for a continue. So here is another attempt at question 3, using maple story as the game in question.


Following Doug Church’s approach, try to extract the abstract design concepts that constitute the gameplay. Can these be transferred to a different type of game? Why/why not?

And so I began playing Maple more intensively for the past hour (or 2, or 3... darn time passed so fast while you're playing!) Went to the various maps maple and take note of the activities there. Paid close attention to the level design and what FADTs can be abtracted out. Here are my findings.

Also on FADT: http://www.ludism.org/gamedesign/Formal_20Abstract_20Design_20Tools
Basically another way of saying Patterns.
The name, however, makes some interesting points:
Formal: Objective; we should be able to say that the concept definitely is or is not present in a game. This should be able to be reproduced with near perfect accuracy no matter how many people you ask.
Abstract: The core concept behind something, not just one particular, concrete, instance.
Design: The task at hand.
Tool: The concept should be useful for creating games, not simply talking about existing ones, or some other purpose. Above all, our goal is to create better games. To do that, we try to create better tools.

1. Free market economy: This to me is an intentional formal design of the "marketplace" in maple. In certain towns, besides the usual Non-playable Character Item/Weapon shops found in most games, there's a 'free market' mostly inhabitated by players to do trading of items. The free market allows ease of virtual transactions and make aquisition for certain rare items feasible for players who can afford. The free market works hand in hand with the forums and even other sources like irc, where players can arrange to meet at this particular trading place via these mediums. Traditionally for single player games, there's no need for a place or design of a marketplace for players to interact with each other. But for MMORPGs it seems to be a must have.

So hence most MMORPGs would have this free market economies.

2. Emoticons: This seemingly useless feature is now needed in almost every online game! Press F2 for smily face, F3 for 'duh?' face, F4 for crying face. Apparently these buttons add a 'human' touch to your character. Notice that every other side scroll face you play, your character will have pre-scripted expressions on their face? Now you can show your 'true' feelings online with these buttons. And certain a design feature that can be used in all online games. In fact similarly expressions are used as a form of 'taunting' for 1st person shooters. In unreal tornament, certain buttons make u do the 'pelvis thrust' or fake death, can be used strategically to make other people react!

3. 'Hotkey' interface: I'm not sure if it's FADT here, but it seems like with the likes of Diablo 2, most RPGs have the habit of putting certain hotkey items in front so that players can keep track of how much potions, or other important inventories they have.

Yup.. so far spotted these, still abit hazy on FADT though, so perhaps gotta read it more to know the whole idea of FADT

Playtesting experience

Today our group went to playtest our 1st prototype of our boardgame at funan centre.. and well I have to emphasise one more time... it's cos it's the least crowded place in the town area on a weekend, nOT personal favoritism!

Through playtesting, what was taught during the last lesson really come to life... the whole idea of the system. Playtesting is really about interacting with the entire game system - the board, the pieces, the dice, the cards... everything. As we played one round, we made changes here and there, and I was surpised how a simple element in the game can affect overall gameplay (which also means we're doing things on the right track as we created meaningful play, yeah!) I shall highlight some of the things we encountered, and it will prove that every change we made had an effect on the gameplay and the system.

1. Number of face cards. Our game had a simple objective - to get 4 cards that will make up a full face. How is the face that we make determined? Before game starts, players would choose face cards from a deck and place their cards on the board. They are NOT supposed to match the cards they draw in game to the one they made on the board. Instead they are to match the faces of other players. Hmm.. a bit hard to explain without illustrations, but will show in class how it is played. Anyway, the number of cards will determine how long the game would be and its impending difficulty.

2. Dice: One or two dice? Intially thought 2 dice would make the player fly... but it's the objective to complete moving around the board as soon as possible, so one dice would be sufficient. Some minor things like how the dice is thrown was even mentioned (dun throw the dice to the deck of cards!)

3. One major element that will change the system was where the 'danger zones' on the board are put. We had placed where 'miss a turn' was too frequent and causes much frustration to the players. So we shifted some of these zones to other places and find that it works well.

4. There's much element of luck in the game. For the 1st round, one of our grp mates won in under 10 mins, but the next game went on to 15 min and more. Right now i think it is still alright as after one round, the players are itching to play one more round, so hence there's much replayability in the game.

5. Penalty system was revised, our grp talked about how 'harsh' the penalty should be, and come to a agreement that too harsh a penalty can really spoil game. An example would be if in snake and ladder, you reached 90 plus, but a snake made u drop back to zero. The player would probably lose the motivation to carry on.

6. The shouting of 'face-off' when the player is about to gain a full set of face adds a strategic element to the game. It is examplified in games like Uno or even mahjong, where a player can declare last tile to win. This would heighten the excitement and tension the rest of the players would feel.

With playtesting, the system of the game was so much more vivid than when we were merely describing to each other how the game is gonna be played. Also apparent was the unwritten rules that we identified. Things like how the dice should be thrown, how much time a player has to move his or her counter were mentioned.

I would like to thank Peiting and Roger for the quick and useful prototype, that was made with very low cost but very high efficiency. The prototype allows us to see the gameplay mechanics in action and troubleshooting on the spot. Can't wait to get the final prototype done and have a go at it in class!

Back to the QUEST(ion)

3. Following Doug Church’s approach, try to extract the abstract design concepts that constitute the gameplay. Can these be transferred to a different type of game? Why/why not?

Intention: making an implementable plan of one's own creation in response to the current situation in the game world and one's understanding of the game play options.

What is examplified in Mario 64 can be said also in Maple Story. With its simple intuitive controls, players are very much connected to the game character. It is strange and thought provoking that games with simple controls actually make you feel more in control of things, while in real life you have 101 ways to interact with an object (eat, punch, push, pull etc). Yet the intention in maple story is pretty straightforward.. sometimes too straight forward. You have an enemy in front of you... would you, a) attack b) avoid or c) use a spell/special skill? Although all 3 are implementable plans, I find it too simple to be quantified as legitimate game design. But yes, these actions you undertake results in direct, visible feedback. (unless.. the game lags, which can happen in most MMORPG... you whack something and the thing doesn't die)

Perceivable consequences: It's an RPG at heart.. so most definitely it has this element. And one gripe I have is that it is toooooo linear! Because of X, it's almost definite Y would happen, not Z, not anything else.

Story: haha.. it's not called maple story without a reason. But what I think is a trend in MMORPGs is that players create their own 'story', their own 'narrative'. Say for example you're engage in a party quest. Everybody would have their own tale to tell in their experience. So hence everybody get to tell a different story each night as they meet different pple and monsters. The story hence is not a story written in advance by designers, but an experience to be made by the community in maple.

Questions!!! Answer them!!!

Ok... been gaming too much over the new year... but at least now I can write something very relevant to the questions that have been asked... so here goes...

My game of choice? Maple Story... yes that kiddy looking game which captures almost all the primary school population in Singapore and some parts of South East Asia.. and one of the leading online Asian games in Korea/Japan!
www.maplesea.net

So let's see what's so great about this 'kiddy' game:


1. Describe the formal elements that make up the game. Be as clear and detailed as possible.

Alright, the maplesea website itself provided me with the answers so I'll highlight them here:

• Easy interface with simple controls: No complicated 3D movements that induce vertigo here. It's plain simple 2D side-scrolling and most of the time you only need to move left/right, jump, attack and use special skills, heal... that's about it! Not much of key memorization needed. It's easily approachable for anyone to play.
• A combination of interesting items: Which basically means you get to wear all types of clothing! This is how maple story makes its profits: If you want to wear cool looking clothes or have different hairstyles you need to buy maple cash... which means going down to your nearest 7-eleven store or comic connection to buy a pre-paid card. The clothes and accessories are not cheap, can range from $5 to $28 and more... depending on how 'fashionable' you are.
• Creative ideas: "In MapleStory, unique and bizarre items appear alongside the usual items that are available in most common games. Unexpected items appear as weapons and clothes to give you the kind of fun simply unavailable in other games." Erm, well... you can plungers, surfboards or some other weird items as weapons. It's creative in a sense that the game humors you in a light way, and it's refreshing to have a more light-hearted approach in fighting monsters.. unlike the usual mmorpgs where you feel like you're fighting life and death.
• Adding humor to the game: Indeed the game design is cutesy and anime like. All the character design, you know they aren't gonna be your serious looking dudes out to kill monsters. And some monsters.. are actually too cute to be killed!
• Distinctive graphics: All i can say is if you saw it... it's easily identifiable that the screenshot is from maple.

2. Does this description fully capture the requirements for playing the game? Are there any additional rules or assumptions that you may have left out? Do these need to be written down? Why/why not?

Definitely NO man... anyone reading this do take a look at the forums in maplesea. One topic that is always the hot topic is the idea of kill stealing and change channel (known as the cc pls syndrome)

It's gonna be a long tiring debate cos these topics would never have a conclusion. I can only comment that online games nowadays would have community/societal problems that wasn't found in games many years ago. The idea of kill stealing - killing a monster that 'supposed' to belong to another person's kill, is never heard of in the days of nintendo 8-bit or the console games.

But stealing.. is a real world social illness and it's been transferred to the virtual world. The act of kill stealing is virtual, but it is performed by a real life person. (sighz, that is why the issue is so complicated it's hard to dwell into it without writing a whole lot of stuff.. if you get what i mean)

So right now I think there are much more unwritten rules in computer games than before cos the online element had merged virtual aspects with real world aspects. The virtual world as it seems is not confined to its algorithmns. Ever heard of marriages in games? The game wasn't programmed to handle such events, but players themselves created this idea, this 'space' for marriage to happen in virtual areas. And to write all these rules down .. it would take too long, and too much time. These rules would get edited and re-edited- what is the use of rules that changes frequently? (recall the calvinball topic)

Yup, ultimately No is the answer for this question especially in relations to online games. I would say what you wanna write down as rule in the game would only be valid within the 'community' that you have come across - now known as 'guilds'. Guilds in maple story actually have their own house rules which they write down somewhere online. These rules are not universal throughout the game.. so when guild members are told not to kill steal or be rude, they will definitely still encounter people who dun obey the rules and start disrupting the game. This actually provokes a thought if those guild rules are of any use.

Question 3 to be continued...