In Telltale's The Wolf Among Us, a choice based game, the player gets to make choices in the form of actual branching path decisions, and dialogue choices, with varying degrees of subtlety. Decision choices, like allowing Faith to continue to drive the axe into the Woodsman, or the choice to rip Grendel's arm off or not, are clear, and exactly as they seem. These are often your 'major' actions, and offer you an opportunity - left or right, yes or no. Whenever I encounter one of these options, I can easily tell which one will progress my story in which direction - choosing to give Faith money, results in Bigby emptying his wallet for her. Choose not to, and you don't, keeping the money for later. Choose to rip Grendel's arm off, and, well - he looses his arm. Not permanently, but you sway him further into his hatred of Bigby. These choices are far from subtle, and for good reason - as most of these are defining choices, and often more specifically, actions. These are the moments where you know there's no grey area. You either do, or you don't, and the game offers you the chance to decide which route you want to take.
Do you want to live up to your fable, and be the Big Bad Wolf they all fear, or do you want Bigby to take the chance to redeem himself?
These options need to be clear, because they form a large part of how other characters will view you, and the overall ending you'll get to the game, whether or not the choices themselves seemed important or not. Sebastian Domsch (2013) suggests that "If all possible ‘after’ states are identical to each other or
even to the ‘before’ state, the options have no differential consequence, and the
choice is therefore not a real choice after all" (p. 114). Almost (I do not remember a single active choice during the game which did not have a differing outcome, but I will not definitively say all of the choices do, as I have no gone through and checked every single scenario again) all of the choices in The Wolf Among Us offer you clear cut variants in the story - Action A leads to Change A, which could be as small as having no money later on in the story, Action B leads to Change B, which could be keeping said money. The changes, and therefore the 'after' states, always differ from one another, meaning that therefore, your choices do matter, albeit in what can often be a minute scale. This is actually a matter that a lot of players tend to complain about in general with Telltale games - they tell us that our choices will shape the narrative, but overall, the stories remain very linear. This however, does not mean these choices are not there, and do not affect the game - they just do such on a smaller scale. These choices are still important to the interactivity of the narrative.
Dialogue, however, tends to be much fuzzier when it comes to which choice means what. The four choices of dialogue offered each time make it clear that it's time for the player to contribute to the story, and help to decide how Bigby's personality comes across. We understand that there is a choice, seeing as we, the players, are being offered options. However, as can be considered a trend with Telltale games, some of these dialogue choices are far from as expected. Some, are, of course, as clear as they were with the action choices. Some, however, reveal less than predicted results - I sat down next to Grendel, hoping to try and be nice to him, and next thing I know, Bigby is snarling at Grendel, tension is rising, and the situation is rapidly going south.
The Wolf Among Us is a heavily choice based game, and yes, the choices are often obvious, usually predictable.
- Domsch, S. (2013). Storyplaying: Agency and Narrative in Video Games. Retrieved from http://animation.onlearn.co.nz/pluginfile.php/2509/mod_resource/content/0/Domsch%2C%202013%20-%20The%20anatomy%20of%20a%20player%20choice.pdf
Thursday, 17 March 2016
17/03/16 - Production Studio (Cinematic) - Finalized Bottle Label
So here we have the finalized (potentially will still be edited later) label for our Funta brand soda.
 |
| The full label (the excess space at the sides is for an estimate with printing) |
 |
| Main logo and front of bottle. |
 |
| (right) Barcode and Nutritional Info |
 |
| (left) Brand copyright and ingredient list |
Sunday, 13 March 2016
13/03/16 - Production Studio (Cinematic) - Bottle Logo
I was tasked with the feat of recreating a logo and branding that was visually similar to the Fanta brand, but different enough to be considered original.
Thus, Funta was born.
A lot of the initial variants were incredibly visually similar, once a base idea had been picked.
Thus, Funta was born.
A lot of the initial variants were incredibly visually similar, once a base idea had been picked.
The logo, in it's current state, looks like this.
Thursday, 10 March 2016
11/03/16 - Interactive Narrative - Never Alone
For this week's look into gameplay and narrative, I looked at Never Alone.
Never Alone readily takes up the the 'string of pearls' method - gameplay, followed by a 'pearl' of story, followed by another 'string' of gameplay, and so forth. This approach to narrative in games can be a difficult one, as you need to balance out the two so that the player both has enough time to interact and play, thus keeping them interested, but also not so much that the story 'pearls' get spaced so far apart that the story is forgotten by the time you reach the next cutscene (some of the Silent Hill games, in particular, have been terrible at this - not because the story was too far apart, but because frquently you could spend hours upon hours, running back and forth, searching for a tiny piece to solve one tiny puzzle - and you'd normally encounter many of these puzzles between each narrative segment. Or wind up with having to open and search rooms A through to M, or something of the like. However, this isn't about the Silent Hill series).
Never Alone was relatively good at balancing the two - after each puzzle, you'd receive a short segment of the story, making the narrative segments much like a carrot on a stick - you progress through the puzzles, following the narrative segments dangled in front of you. The approach worked well with the occasional lines of narration that would sometimes be prompted as you completed a part of the puzzle, reminding you that there is a story there too.
Never Alone made each narrative segment feel like a reward, and having each scene be rather short, kept it from becoming too much like it was straying too far from the gameplay.
Playing it myself, I personally didn't find the story engaged me too greatly, but that would likely be down to personal preference. I found the gameplay, and the puzzle solving to be more what encouraged me to continue with my progression through the story, and the narrative segments to be more of a pleasant break, but definitely not quite enthralling enough that I'd want to rush ahead and seek the next piece of the story.
It did keep me interested, and overall I definitely enjoy the game, but in this instance, specifically, I found the gameplay to be more my motivation than the actual narrative.
Never Alone readily takes up the the 'string of pearls' method - gameplay, followed by a 'pearl' of story, followed by another 'string' of gameplay, and so forth. This approach to narrative in games can be a difficult one, as you need to balance out the two so that the player both has enough time to interact and play, thus keeping them interested, but also not so much that the story 'pearls' get spaced so far apart that the story is forgotten by the time you reach the next cutscene (some of the Silent Hill games, in particular, have been terrible at this - not because the story was too far apart, but because frquently you could spend hours upon hours, running back and forth, searching for a tiny piece to solve one tiny puzzle - and you'd normally encounter many of these puzzles between each narrative segment. Or wind up with having to open and search rooms A through to M, or something of the like. However, this isn't about the Silent Hill series).
Never Alone was relatively good at balancing the two - after each puzzle, you'd receive a short segment of the story, making the narrative segments much like a carrot on a stick - you progress through the puzzles, following the narrative segments dangled in front of you. The approach worked well with the occasional lines of narration that would sometimes be prompted as you completed a part of the puzzle, reminding you that there is a story there too.
Never Alone made each narrative segment feel like a reward, and having each scene be rather short, kept it from becoming too much like it was straying too far from the gameplay.
Playing it myself, I personally didn't find the story engaged me too greatly, but that would likely be down to personal preference. I found the gameplay, and the puzzle solving to be more what encouraged me to continue with my progression through the story, and the narrative segments to be more of a pleasant break, but definitely not quite enthralling enough that I'd want to rush ahead and seek the next piece of the story.
It did keep me interested, and overall I definitely enjoy the game, but in this instance, specifically, I found the gameplay to be more my motivation than the actual narrative.
Tuesday, 8 March 2016
09/03/16 - Production Studio (Cinematic) - Group Script
The script took a huge rewrite, based off of Ethan's original idea, but with a lot of revision to make the story and ideas flow better.
Wednesday, 2 March 2016
03/03/16 - Interactive Narrative - Facade
Halfway through attempting to install this game on my laptop, which caused first the installer to freeze, then my laptop to freeze, then to freeze on the reboot screen, I wondered 'why did I choose this game again?'.
But my reasoning was relatively simple - having played all three of the suggested games for this week, I chose the game that was a) the most interesting to me, and b) the game that had your choices matter the most (to an extent).
Ironically, then running the weirdly installed version led to a scenario with no audio, aside from the chosen name (Chloe), and the couple arguing wildly, ignoring most of my comments, and responding to things that had never been actually said.
Clearly, not the intended experience.
No worries, I got the game working as intended - plus having played (a lot) before, I knew the general principal of the game.
The way the story is built in Facade is relatively simple, using a generic three act structure. We start off with a small audio clip, indicating that we are an old friend of Trip and Grace, and that we're meeting them to see their new apartment. Begin Act 1. We're welcomed into their home, and introduced to the characters. We learn that Grace works in advertising, and used to be an artist. She comes from a well off family. Trip is harder to learn about, but we can learn that he came from a poor family, or that he frequents sports bars. Act 1 is driven forward relatively quickly, as a problem is quickly introduced - albeit not entirely clearly. In a tradition Three Act Structure, Act 2 should be prompted by a catalyst, to set things into motion. In Facade, isn't clear to start what, exactly is the specific catalyst - perhaps it's you being there, perhaps it's the new apartment - but regardless, it's noticable that there is some tension and disagreement between the two, which can be picked up in the fact that they are arguing before they ever open the door to let you in, should you sit and listen a little, rather than immediately knocking. The conflict here - which in game, is in the form of Trip and Grace's arguing, with you taking on the role of mediator - spans the majority of the game, with each character raising points and asking you questions, which can escalate into a heated debate, with multiple potential endings - either a successful resolution, either Trip or Grace leaving, should you side with one more than the other, or finding yourself escorted out of the house. These potential endings, although rather short, create Act 3, in which the story, and the points leading up to it, are summarized and end. Interestingly, it's clear to tell when you have reached an 'end', or the third act, as, in at least the cases of the bad endings, (they divorce, or toss you out) the characters will announce that they have either 'had enough', or in the divorce endings, ask you 'is everything you've said tonight supposed to mean something?'. At this point, nothing you can say or do matters anymore, or matters very little.
Though, it's not the first time interactivity in this game means very little. Logically, the point of the game is for you, the player to prompt responses, and respond either postively, or negatively, to their questions. However, it's entirely possible to complete the story, without ever speaking a word. Your interactions, although intended to be the force driving the story forward, do not matter. The characters talk, and should they not receive the answer they want - or any at all - will simply move on to their next point.
And even when you do interact, and attempt to drive the plot in the direction you want it, in many cases, the AI will outright ignore you, or talk over you, driving the topic forward before you even have a chance to reply.
Your input into this story may feel like it has weight during your first attempt. Or maybe you'll miss the story so easily, as many people do, instead finding it humorous to yell random things at the pair, hoping to spur a response. But you play it again. 'Didn't they say this last time?', you wonder, attempting to change the direction of the story, or seek a different conclusion. You attempt to throw in new keywords, hoping for a new line of investigation, only to get yet another 'uhh...' as the characters fail to register your point, and continue with their lines as normal.
And as a test - I played the entire game, doing nothing but saying 'potato', constantly, and managed to get the ending in which they both stop, and deny that anything has gone on, saying they're fine, and that you should leave.
'What does this picture say to you?'
'potato'
'That's a great answer!'
The most interesting point with that, was that Grace raised the point 'You don't even give me a yes or a no answer when I ask', suggesting that they were aware, that yes, I was shouting gibberish at them. But it didn't change the story, at all. In refusing to participate in the story, it carried on without me.
Facade isn't a bad game. But from what I can see, your choices do not matter a great deal, and the narrative will continue regardless of what you do.
But my reasoning was relatively simple - having played all three of the suggested games for this week, I chose the game that was a) the most interesting to me, and b) the game that had your choices matter the most (to an extent).
Ironically, then running the weirdly installed version led to a scenario with no audio, aside from the chosen name (Chloe), and the couple arguing wildly, ignoring most of my comments, and responding to things that had never been actually said.
Clearly, not the intended experience.
No worries, I got the game working as intended - plus having played (a lot) before, I knew the general principal of the game.
The way the story is built in Facade is relatively simple, using a generic three act structure. We start off with a small audio clip, indicating that we are an old friend of Trip and Grace, and that we're meeting them to see their new apartment. Begin Act 1. We're welcomed into their home, and introduced to the characters. We learn that Grace works in advertising, and used to be an artist. She comes from a well off family. Trip is harder to learn about, but we can learn that he came from a poor family, or that he frequents sports bars. Act 1 is driven forward relatively quickly, as a problem is quickly introduced - albeit not entirely clearly. In a tradition Three Act Structure, Act 2 should be prompted by a catalyst, to set things into motion. In Facade, isn't clear to start what, exactly is the specific catalyst - perhaps it's you being there, perhaps it's the new apartment - but regardless, it's noticable that there is some tension and disagreement between the two, which can be picked up in the fact that they are arguing before they ever open the door to let you in, should you sit and listen a little, rather than immediately knocking. The conflict here - which in game, is in the form of Trip and Grace's arguing, with you taking on the role of mediator - spans the majority of the game, with each character raising points and asking you questions, which can escalate into a heated debate, with multiple potential endings - either a successful resolution, either Trip or Grace leaving, should you side with one more than the other, or finding yourself escorted out of the house. These potential endings, although rather short, create Act 3, in which the story, and the points leading up to it, are summarized and end. Interestingly, it's clear to tell when you have reached an 'end', or the third act, as, in at least the cases of the bad endings, (they divorce, or toss you out) the characters will announce that they have either 'had enough', or in the divorce endings, ask you 'is everything you've said tonight supposed to mean something?'. At this point, nothing you can say or do matters anymore, or matters very little.
Though, it's not the first time interactivity in this game means very little. Logically, the point of the game is for you, the player to prompt responses, and respond either postively, or negatively, to their questions. However, it's entirely possible to complete the story, without ever speaking a word. Your interactions, although intended to be the force driving the story forward, do not matter. The characters talk, and should they not receive the answer they want - or any at all - will simply move on to their next point.
And even when you do interact, and attempt to drive the plot in the direction you want it, in many cases, the AI will outright ignore you, or talk over you, driving the topic forward before you even have a chance to reply.
Your input into this story may feel like it has weight during your first attempt. Or maybe you'll miss the story so easily, as many people do, instead finding it humorous to yell random things at the pair, hoping to spur a response. But you play it again. 'Didn't they say this last time?', you wonder, attempting to change the direction of the story, or seek a different conclusion. You attempt to throw in new keywords, hoping for a new line of investigation, only to get yet another 'uhh...' as the characters fail to register your point, and continue with their lines as normal.
And as a test - I played the entire game, doing nothing but saying 'potato', constantly, and managed to get the ending in which they both stop, and deny that anything has gone on, saying they're fine, and that you should leave.
'What does this picture say to you?'
'potato'
'That's a great answer!'
The most interesting point with that, was that Grace raised the point 'You don't even give me a yes or a no answer when I ask', suggesting that they were aware, that yes, I was shouting gibberish at them. But it didn't change the story, at all. In refusing to participate in the story, it carried on without me.
Facade isn't a bad game. But from what I can see, your choices do not matter a great deal, and the narrative will continue regardless of what you do.
03/03/16 - Production Studio (Cinematic) - Production Schedule
Blogger refuses to size this nicely so that it both fits and isn't too small.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)