Comments on: To Be An Actor… http://www.jeffongames.com/2006/03/to-be-an-actor%e2%80%a6/ This is Jeff. This is Jeff On Games. Fri, 05 Sep 2008 17:45:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Jeff http://www.jeffongames.com/2006/03/to-be-an-actor%e2%80%a6/#comment-105 Jeff Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:53:05 +0000 http://www.jeffongames.com/?p=29#comment-105 For the first point, I'll be getting into that in my second post (which is called Stating the Story). In short, you can consider the current state of the characters part of the the state of the game, which in turn means that cutscenes are simply changes in game state. I'll explain fully next post. In the second case, here's how I look at it. There is a story there, you're right, but not for you. As you were stating in your posts, playing the game does not really reveal a story that is part of the game. The story there exsists because either someone is watching you or you are remembering playing the game. In both cases, the story is not the story of the game (or intrinsic to the game) but instead the story of you playing the game, which I consider seperately. Certainly, they're both important, and maybe I should add a 5th post on the difference (and importance) of each one. For the first point, I’ll be getting into that in my second post (which is called Stating the Story). In short, you can consider the current state of the characters part of the the state of the game, which in turn means that cutscenes are simply changes in game state. I’ll explain fully next post.

In the second case, here’s how I look at it. There is a story there, you’re right, but not for you. As you were stating in your posts, playing the game does not really reveal a story that is part of the game. The story there exsists because either someone is watching you or you are remembering playing the game. In both cases, the story is not the story of the game (or intrinsic to the game) but instead the story of you playing the game, which I consider seperately. Certainly, they’re both important, and maybe I should add a 5th post on the difference (and importance) of each one.

]]> By: Craig http://www.jeffongames.com/2006/03/to-be-an-actor%e2%80%a6/#comment-103 Craig Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:01:22 +0000 http://www.jeffongames.com/?p=29#comment-103 This is fascinating! I think there's going to be some rough going. For example, you can have a narrative and/or story without affecting the game state <i>at all</i>. When I played the original Final Fantasy, I had an excessively high fever. I thought the game characters were talking to me. It was remarkably coherent for a fever dream, but only affected the game mechanics through me, in a way the designers certainly didn't intend. Similarly, many games feature a paper-thin "story" that serves no purpose but to reward the player for advancing through another generic level. This is especially true in small, Japanese games. These stories have actors and actions, but do not really affect the game mechanics. On the other hand, you can probably have a narrative and/or story without an actor, because at some level, the player can be considered to have a vested interest and position in the game world, just like an actor would. The tension you feel as you begin to lose Tetris, for example. When you play chess (or, preferably, go), there is a story there: a battle. But it's not the story of the king, or the stones. It's the story of the commander's actions. That would be you. I think you're entering a realm where "narratology" breaks down and becomes a broader system for experiencing emotions. Narratology is theoretically a subset of that more abstracted system - a theory involving particular focuses and data orientations. I have a personal theory of how characters and actions intertwine. I'm very interested in seeing how similar your own theory is. This is fascinating!

I think there’s going to be some rough going. For example, you can have a narrative and/or story without affecting the game state at all. When I played the original Final Fantasy, I had an excessively high fever. I thought the game characters were talking to me. It was remarkably coherent for a fever dream, but only affected the game mechanics through me, in a way the designers certainly didn’t intend. Similarly, many games feature a paper-thin “story” that serves no purpose but to reward the player for advancing through another generic level. This is especially true in small, Japanese games. These stories have actors and actions, but do not really affect the game mechanics.

On the other hand, you can probably have a narrative and/or story without an actor, because at some level, the player can be considered to have a vested interest and position in the game world, just like an actor would. The tension you feel as you begin to lose Tetris, for example. When you play chess (or, preferably, go), there is a story there: a battle. But it’s not the story of the king, or the stones. It’s the story of the commander’s actions. That would be you.

I think you’re entering a realm where “narratology” breaks down and becomes a broader system for experiencing emotions. Narratology is theoretically a subset of that more abstracted system - a theory involving particular focuses and data orientations.

I have a personal theory of how characters and actions intertwine. I’m very interested in seeing how similar your own theory is.

]]>