"Interactive Fiction: History and Theories" by Sherry Jones (March 29, 2015)

#Metagame Book Club
“Interactive Fiction: History and Theories”
Sherry Jones | Game Studies Facilitator | Spring 2015 | Twitter @autnes |
http://bit.ly/gamestudies9
Cypher: Cyberpunk Text
Adventure

Texts in Focus
History of Interactive Fiction
● “A History of the Computer Game” by Jesper Juul (2001)
● “Storytelling and Computer Games: Past, Present and Future” by
Dennis G. Jerz (2001)
● “Interactive Fiction: How Is It Different?” by Dennis G. Jerz (2000)
Theories of Interactive Fiction
● “The Gameplay Gestalt: Narrative and Interactive Storytelling” by
Craig A. Lindley (2002)
● “Generating Narrative Variation in Interactive Fiction” by Nick
Montfort (2007)
● “From Narrative Games to Playable Stories: Toward a Poetics of
Interactive Narrative” by Marie-Laure Ryan (2009)

Guiding Questions
Q. What is Interactive Fiction (IF)?
Q. How many IF titles have you played? And, why shouldn’t we consider all
IF works as games?
Q. According to Jesper Juul, why is computer authorship of Interactive
Fiction a problem?
Q. According to Nick Montfort, what is the difference between content
plane and expression plane in Interactive Fiction?
Q. What is Narrative Architecture? How does one create a Narrative
Design?

A Close Reading of
“A History of the Computer Game” by Jesper Juul (2001)
Zork

“Some theories will claim that technology determines culture, some will claim
that culture determines technology. It may be most reasonable to see this as
a history of mutual influences, where technology can inspire (or enable)
cultural developments, and cultural developments can inspire new
technology. To quote an obvious example, the computer game was
originally developed on equipment designed for military and academic
purposes. But today the computer game is the driving force in the
development of much hardware such as 3d graphics accelerators.”
-- Jesper Juul (2001)
Computer and Culture

“Interactive fiction was never defined theoretically, and the theorist Espen
Aarseth rejects it completely as pure connotation without any real meaning.
(Aarseth 1997, p.48) I think this is basically correct: We lack a theoretical
definition, the term is basically used to claim literary qualities for a game.
But the basic image of interactive fiction is as simple as it sounds: It is the
image of a fictive world (fiction taken to mean "narrative"), a world to
interact with, to participate in.”
Definition of Interactive Fiction

“Interactive fiction has from the very beginning been defined in opposition to
other types of computer games, but later on many games have been
promoted as more true "interactive fictions" than other games with the same
label. In actuality, the products labelled interactive fiction have not
developed much on a structural level; they haven’t become more complex
or dynamic. The primary development has rather been a move from text-
based games to games based on graphics. Interactive fiction is then two
things: A utopian idea and a genre continually claiming to have created this
utopia.”
Utopia of Interactive Fiction

“[American Dramaturgist and Computer Theorist Brenda Laurel] proposes
a system for generating well-formed plots as defined by Aristotle in his
Poetics. In this proposed system, the computer program must take on the
role as author while the game progresses. Any action by the player must
lead to the system adapting the fictive world so as to make sure every story is
well formed.”
Computer as Author?

“[MIT researcher Janet H. Murray] says that such work has to move from
simple structures of forking paths to more flexible systems, capable of
adapting to the actions of the player. The problem is that this
presupposes that it is at all possible to teach a computer rules for the
generation of stories, [which] again presupposes that one is aware of
what a story is in the first place. Aristotle has provided a static and
normative framework for this in the Poetics, but in narratology, nothing
suggests that the work is done in any way.”
Problem of Computer Authorship in IF

A Close Reading of
“Storytelling and Computer Games: Past, Present and Future” +
“Interactive Fiction: How Is It Different?” by Dennis G. Jerz (2001)
Myst

“[P]ostmodernist scholar Linda Hutcheon noted what she called ‘a
dethroning of suspect authority’ and also ‘a renewed aesthetic and
theoretical interest in the interactive powers involved in the production
and reception of texts’ (Postmodern Culture 77). She was referring to
literature in general -- novels that fall apart, novels that address the reader,
novels that end up referring to the process of writing the book that you're
holding in your hand, that kind of blurring the line between the reader and
the author.”
“She cited interactive fiction as what she called ‘The most extreme
example I can think of that illustrates this parallel post-modern
tendency.’ That is, a dethroning of authority (a little play on the word there --
author, authority), and paying attention to interactivity.”
-- Dennis G. Jerz (2001)
IF as Challenge to Authority

“Modern designers of games do generally supply a rudimentary plot thread,
something like a quest or personal vendetta; a story that contextualizes the
battle sequences or the arcade sequences. But programmers -- here's my
English professor bias coming through -- programmers who invest energy
in things like real time lighting and fog effects and rendering the
behavior of fire or droplets of blood rarely end up with stories of any
lasting value.”
Rudimentary Plot in Game Design

“A ‘conversation tree’ … presents the player with a list of possible
conversation topics or dialogue. Such trees explicitly displays all the options
currently available to the user, whether those choices are sprinkled
throughout the text, or collected into a single multiple choice question.”
“The classic IF interface, by contrast, requires the user to intuit, deduce,
or otherwise stumble upon alternative actions.”
IF is not a Conversation Tree

“Most "serious" hyperfiction does not phrase narrative choices in
simplistic terms which control the outcome ("click here if the monster
hugs the stranger; click here if the monster attacks the stranger), but
rather in controlling the reader's perspective on the story (a reader may
choose to revisit the same scene from a different character's perspective, or
explore an interconnecting web of relationships among characters).
Hypernarrative is, in this sense, more passive than IF (since the reader is still
simply clicking on links) but richer than ordinary tree fiction (since the reader
doesn't always know what will happen when he or she clicks a particular link).”
IF is not a Hypertext Narrative

“IF takes place in a single-user textual environment, which resembles a
depopulated MOO. Shared [virtual] environments rely heavily upon
improvised interactions between the visitors; hence, MOOs rarely involve
complex puzzles, or any sort of dominant plot. MUDs and MOOs rely upon
interaction between users to provide depth. IF, on the other hand, tends to
rely less on interactions with simulated people (all of whom are
controlled by the computer) and more on puzzles that rely upon
simulated physical environments (a sprawling cave, a hedge maze) or
objects (a locked door, a rickety bridge, a hostile animal). As the user
solves more puzzles, new areas open up for further exploration, and typically
the over-arching story connected to those objects and places begins to
unfold.”
IF is not a MOO, MUD, or MUSH

A Close Reading of
“The Gameplay Gestalt: Narrative and Interactive Storytelling” by
Craig A. Lindley (2002)
Facade

“The narrative structure of computer games is typically constructed according
to the conflict-driven model of dramatic narrative“ (204).
“The overall restorative three-act model is applied to the action game
experience as a whole, and the dramatic arch is completed when the user
finishes the game. At this level, however, the story is usually not
interactive, since act one, containing the initiating conflict, key scenes
within the story of act two, and the playing out of the consequences of
the final resolution in act three, are typically achieved by cut scenes,
sequences of conventional, non-interactive video material“ (204).
-- Craig A. Lindley (2002)
Dramatic Narrative and Lack of Interactivity

“A gameplay gestalt may capture part of the notion of non-semiotic
performance within gamespace identified by Tronstad [8], as a form of action
without language-like semiotic encoding (perhaps the point here should be
that it lacks the second articulation of textual language, as described in [7],
being more like cinema in its means of semiosis), although the gestalt is
more of an interaction pattern involving both the in-game and out-of
game being of the player” (207).
“A gameplay gestalt, however, as a pattern of perceptual, cognitive, and
motor operations, is not only more specific, but could perhaps be measurable
in terms of the perceptual, cognitive, and motor requirements of performing
it“ (207).
Gameplay Gestalt

“[A] narrative gestalt [is] a cognitive structure allowing the perception and
understanding of an unfolding sequence of phenomena as a unified
narrative” (209).
“In the context of a computer game, one must learn and then perform a
gameplay gestalt in order to progress through the events of the game. To
experience the game as a narrative also requires the creation of a
narrative gestalt unifying the game experiences into a coherent narrative
structure. The tension between gameplay and narrative can now be viewed
as a competition between these respective gestalts for perceptual, cognitive,
and motor effort” (209).
Narrative Gestalt vs. Gameplay Gestalt

“Is it worth trying to jump over a ravine at the risk of falling and having to
reload a past game state for the sake of a health pack that may help me to
get past the tough enemy ahead without then having to reload and retry
when the enemy defeats me? The conflict is an ergonomic one within the
terms of the gameplay gestalt. And this has nothing to do with the higher
level narrative context“ (210).
An Example of Gameplay Gestalt

“A major issue for game form is the current lack of narrative depth in
games. Gameplay gestalts may be highly demanding, and therefore highly
immersive, but tend to be very shallow thematically, and performatively
repetitive. These are positive values for many game players, frequently
leading to addictive playing. There is nevertheless a widespread desire for
greater thematic depth, even among dedicated gamers” (210).
“[G]ameplay must be more than a repetitive interaction mechanism for
progressing through a larger scale but fixed and linear narrative
structure” (210).
Problem of Focus on Gameplay Gestalt

“A LARP is a form of improvisational theatre without an audience. . . . The
experience sought by LARPers is one of deep characterisation and
intensity of emotional experience in character. One of the main questions
being investigated by the Purgatory Engine project is that of whether and
how it might be possible for players of a computer-mediated experience
to achieve levels of immersion, engagement, and emotional intensity
comparable to those of LARPers” (210).
“What is the basic language of interaction in such a system? What kinds of
messages can be delivered by players and by what means such that
interaction is fundamentally dramatic, and not a repetitive cognitive
interaction pattern referred to above as a gameplay gestalt“ (211).
LARP in Computer Games?

“In the Zero Game Studio we refer to this evolved dramaturgical form as the
first-person actor, a new genre of computer game based upon dramatic
immersion. Enhanced features for dramaturgical interaction in the first-
person actor may include:
• Avoidance of computer game staples, such as treasure (or “easter eggs”),
weapons, damage, and health.
• A language of interaction that extends basic movement functions currently
found in computer games to an extensive repertoire of communicative
gestures, expressions, and body language. Keyboard/mouse actions have
gained conventional uses for computer games” (211).
First Person Actor

A Close Reading of
“Generating Narrative Variation in Interactive Fiction”
by Nick Montfort (2007)
The Walking
Dead

“ At its best, interactive fiction can provide transformative experiences that
can help readers to understand the world from new perspectives” (7).
“Interactive Fiction is a demanding aesthetic application. It provides a
way to disseminate research widely, bring ideas about generation into the
popular consciousness, and have one’s work tried and tested by a huge
range of users. An innovation in the use of natural language generation in
interactive fiction would be well poised to reach other real-world systems
beyond IF and to attain widespread use in a variety of contexts” (7).
-- Nick Montfort (2007)
Interactive Fiction as Transformative and
Academic Text

“The ‘content plane’ of story has been discussed, since Aristotle, as
mythos, fabula, histoire, and narrated; it is, essentially, what is told about.
The ‘expression plane’ of discourse has been framed as logos, sjuzet, récit,
and narrating; that is, the telling itself” (9).
“The idea that what is told about can be considered as distinct from the
telling itself is not a particularly controversial one. In fact, the idea has been
fundamental to narratology” (9).
Story vs. Discourse

“Narrative 1 - John ate a sandwich, and then he died.”
“Narrative 2 - John died after eating a sandwich.”
“[T]he basic technique -- changing the order in which the events in a given
temporal sequence are related -- is important to the aesthetic and the
rhetorical effect of more complex narratives and to ones of more literary
interest. Even in these examples, many readers will find some higher-level
differences in these two narratives: perhaps one provides a wry humor, or
one suggests causality more strongly (although neither indicates this
explicitly), or one suggests more of a plodding progression, and ending, of
life. Even when the information conveyed is the same, the way it is told is
important”(9). -- Nick Montfort (2007)
Applying Computational Linguistics to
Discover Narrative Variation

“The content plane can be seen to have two fundamental elements:
events, which are things that happen, and existents, which are the entities
in the story (Chatman 1978: 43-145). Actors, physical objects, and places are
all existents, for instance, while any change in the state of these is an event.
An event can be caused by some actor in the story, or it may be a happening
with no agent, such as ‘there was an earthquake.’ This concept allows the
content plane to be understood as being partitioned into (a) a state of all
that exists in the story world, and (b) the changes in that state. The
distinction between events and existents serves as the basis for the enriched
world models of the proposed system” (10).
Narrative Variation in Content Plane

“Besides order, speed, and frequency (collectively referred to as narrative
tense) and narrative voice, there is more category of variation: narrative
mood. The perspective from which the story is told, also called the
focalization, is an important part of mood. The focalizer of the story
determines what information is available to narrate, but does not have to
be the ‘I,’ the narrator” (12).
Narrative Variation in Mood & Focalization

“In narratology, the content plane is properly considered to underlie any
representation, where it is a text, a diagram, or a set of data structures in
a computer program. So a mapping could be reasonably consider the
software world model to be a form of expression itself -- a intermediate sort
of expression, hidden from interactors but accessible to certain types of
analysis” (13).
“Interactive Fiction produces texts that describe characters and objects even
when these characters and objects are not simulated, that is, when they do
not have a representation in the world model” (13).
Narrative Variation in Expression Plane

“To build a theory of interactive fiction that is useful in deeply understanding
how interactive fiction is experienced, and how better sorts of work can be
created, a stronger approach than that of the theory-bag is necessary, one
which distinguishes those elements of interactive fiction that result from it
being
● a text-accepting, text-generating computer program.
● a potential narrative, that is, a system which produces narrative
during interaction;
● a simulation of an environment or world; and
● a structure of rules within which an outcome is sought, also known as
a game” (26).
Developing a Theory of IF

A Close Reading of
“From Narrative Games to Playable Stories: Toward a Poetics of
Interactive Narrative” by Marie-Laure Ryan (2009)
Life is Strange

“[From Janet H. Murray], the Holodeck is a computer-generated, three-
dimensional simulation of a fictional world. The user is invited to step into
this world, to impersonate a character, and to interact through language and
gestures with synthetic (i.e., computer-created) agents. No matter what the
user says or does, the synthetic agents respond coherently and integrate the
user’s input into a narrative arc that sustains interest. . . . Brenda Laurel calls
interactive narrative, ‘an elusive unicorn we can imagine but have yet to
capture’ (2001: 72). It would take an artificial intelligence far beyond the
capabilities of existing systems to be able to process whatever the user
decides to do or say, and a creativity far beyond the imagination of the best
novelists and playwrights to be able to integrate this input into a well-formed
plot.”
-- Marie-Laure Ryan (2009)
A Unicorn in IF: The Holodeck Model

“‘[T]he interactive paradox’: the integration of the unpredictable, bottom-up
input of the user into a sequence of events that fulfills the conditions of
narrativity—conditions that presuppose a top-down design. As Aylett and
Louchart formulate the paradox (2004: 25): “On one hand the author
seeks control over the direction of a narrative in order to give it a
satisfactory structure. On the other hand a participating user demands
the autonomy to act and react without explicit authorial constraint.”
The Interactive Paradox

“While narrativity is a type of meaning, interactivity, when put in the service
of entertainment, is a type of play. . . . in a narrative game, story is meant to
enhance gameplay, while in a playable story, gameplay is meant to
produce a story. The concepts of narrative game and playable story reflect,
in their opposition, the distinction made by the French sociologist Roger
Caillois between two types of game: ludus and paidia (1958/2001: 13). . . .
[Paidia] games do not aim at a specific goal, and they do not lead to losing or
winning. The pleasures of paidia reside in the free play of the imagination,
in adopting foreign identities, in forming social relations, in building
objects, in exploring an environment, and above all in creating a
representation: paidia games are fundamentally mimetic activities.”
Ludus vs. Paidia

“The Holodeck, as a whole, may be a castle in the air, but this does not take
anything away from the validity of its individual features as goals to pursue
for researchers and developers of interactive narrative. In this section I
propose to use three of these features [Natural Interface, Integration of
User Action Within the Story, Dynamic Creation of the Story] as a point of
departure for a poetics of interactive narrativity, measuring them against
the devices, interfaces, and design philosophies of actually implemented
forms of narrative games and playable stories.”
Poetics of the Holodeck

Lecture By:
Sherry Jones
Philosophy | Rhetoric | Game Studies
@autnes
Writings & Webcasts
Link to Slides: http://bit.ly/gamestudies9

"Interactive Fiction: History and Theories" by Sherry Jones (March 29, 2015)

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a "Interactive Fiction: History and Theories" by Sherry Jones (March 29, 2015)

Similar a "Interactive Fiction: History and Theories" by Sherry Jones (March 29, 2015) (20)

Más de Sherry Jones

Más de Sherry Jones (20)

Último

Último (20)

"Interactive Fiction: History and Theories" by Sherry Jones (March 29, 2015)