What I found to be the most profound in this week’s readings for Interactive Writing in the VM-606 class at Emerson College was the debate on what defines “interactivity” in Chapter 6 of Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals.
Before I dive into my debate on why I was so interested in the many definitions of interactivity I think it is important to look back at Chapter 3 of the Rules of Play and recall what the meaning of play is.
The meaning of play, according to Chapter 3 of Rules of Play, includes the following ways to define what that means; DESCRIPTIVE and EVALUATIVE.
The descriptive definition addresses the mechanism by which all games create meaning through play. Therefore, descriptive is the medium and the mode of play.
The evaluative definition helps us understand why some games provide more meaningful play than others. Evaluative is the “stakes” of a game. However, I see the evaluative side of meaningful play as a bit self-interpreted: meaning; what is important to the player?
In looking forward than to Chapter 6, where we are posed with the issue of defining “interactivity” down to its skeleton and bones, our authors provide us with 4 modes of interactivity; cognitive interactivity, functional interactivity, explicit interactivity and beyond-the-object-interactivity.
Where as the authors of Rules of Play want to expand on the the third mode of interactivity (explicit interactivity) which is an overt participation and therefore the most computer based, for my interests, I will concentrate (and continue to concentrate on) functional interactivity and beyond-the-object-interactivity. Because to me, as a player, I want to be included in the story.
I will pose two examples that will support my argument on the importance of the above mentioned.
1) Functional: interactivity (aka utilitarain participation) is the material components of the system. To me, this is the medium, the mode and the entry point. Take case in point this book: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/forrest-fenn-wants-you-to-find-his-treasure-and-his-bones.html
So, the entry point into this interactive story is a book.
And you are probably saying; “no Amy, no, that isn’t interactivity!”
But I will disagree with you.
Interactivity as we’ve learned is the basic principle that you are creating interaction between individuals.
Looking back on the story of Forrest Fenn and his millions, there are hundreds of stories where family members; friends; hunters; travelers, all bonded through the beyond-the-object-interactivity and embarked the journey to try to obtain the buried treasure. Whether this was a conversation about the “treasure” in a mid-western town between an explorer and a native or if it was a father and son embarking on a journey together – interactivity of many layers are taking place. Kind of cool when you really think about it?
And, should you not think that this beyond-the-object-interactivity is a valuable piece of property as let’s say a “mode 3” game like Worlds of Warcraft (did I say that correctly?) I think we can all agree that the below example of beyond-the-object-interactivity is a pretty good example of how to monetize such experiences.
http://www.flynnlives.com/clip.htm
We all know that Kevin Flynn is apart of a larger – beyond-the-object-interactivity. And it is my intention to focus on this kind of interactivity in order to maximize stories and experiences. To me, game-playing is about being apart of a larger story and if you can incorporate interactivity the way that Forest Fern and the re-booted TRON Legacy did for its “users” or “fans” or whatever you want to call them, than you are a game-maker, more importantly a storyteller.
And I guess we are being taught to understand that game-makers are storytellers too? No?
Red Gypsy 
Amy,
I think I totally vibe with your idea of interactivity as the ability for “reader” or “player” created narrative to emerge through play. Your example of Fenn’s treasure hunt (which is ridiculously cool!) reminds me of the same feeling I get when I think about a good ARG: the ability to truly take part (physically) in that quest I’ve longed for since being 4 years old: follow a map, solve puzzles, traverse obstacles, use items, navigate new space, all to reach an end goal that was placed before me from the beginning.
Though the act of play is interactive in nature, the idea that narrative will emerge (like your examples of the father son journey to find the treasure) is inherently part of the allure.
When I played The Legend of Zelda(legend=myth! orality!) growing up, I was much too young to think critically about how to progress through the 8-bit map the “correct” or “most effective” way. Instead, the fun for me was the combination of associations between the concept artwork in the physical manual meshing with the navigable avatar of link and combining together in my imagination. I remember the thrill in discovering a new dungeon and how I got there became my own mini-narrative that was specific to that play through (I was much too young to understand how to “save” a game, especially since that technology was brand new for console gaming, Zelda being the first game to do it).
I’m totally digressing here. More to the original point, I think this mode of player generated narrative is formally being integrated INTO the game systems themselves, so not only does the player have the story outside the game world, but also creates their own story within the game space itself (I’m thinking Minecraft here). There is also the interactive fiction/adventure genre, where the player follows a linear path, but that path diverges and twists and turns, sometimes at moments even unbeknownst to the player, and gives them an experience that doesn’t match up directly with someone else’s experience.
Which then reminds me of the new Walking Dead game which came out this year. It is played in five acts and throughout the game you must make choices, typically who lives or dies, what personal history you reveal about yourself, who you trust or don’t trust, etc. These choices do change a small bit of the narrative progression, but ultimately the same fate is destined for your character.
Now, Whether or not the game is intending to make a claim about the doomed fate of human destiny within the zombie apocalypse or the game design just simply wasn’t fully fleshed out matters not. What does matter, I think, is how the game really makes you feel like your decisions matter, and that your character and narrative is the only character and narrative that exists. Then, when talking about the game with another person who has played it, you will begin to recount the story of The Walking Dead as if you authored it, because many times you aren’t sure where those divergent paths occurred. This idea, I think, is a perfect example of Electracy, where the player is not simply following a linear path, but instead using the world around them to produce their own “play” which then becomes their own narrative, which then becomes their own personal myth.
and I write too much. Don’t hate me!
(not sure if this posted? sorry if its twice!)
Amy,
I think I totally vibe with your idea of interactivity as the ability for “reader” or “player” created narrative to emerge through play. Your example of Fenn’s treasure hunt (which is ridiculously cool!) reminds me of the same feeling I get when I think about a good ARG: the ability to truly take part (physically) in that quest I’ve longed for since being 4 years old: follow a map, solve puzzles, traverse obstacles, use items, navigate new space, all to reach an end goal that was placed before me from the beginning.
Though the act of play is interactive in nature, the idea that narrative will emerge (like your examples of the father son journey to find the treasure) is inherently part of the allure.
When I played The Legend of Zelda(legend=myth! orality!) growing up, I was much too young to think critically about how to progress through the 8-bit map the “correct” or “most effective” way. Instead, the fun for me was the combination of associations between the concept artwork in the physical manual meshing with the navigable avatar of link and combining together in my imagination. I remember the thrill in discovering a new dungeon and how I got there became my own mini-narrative that was specific to that play through (I was much too young to understand how to “save” a game, especially since that technology was brand new for console gaming, Zelda being the first game to do it).
I’m totally digressing here. More to the original point, I think this mode of player generated narrative is formally being integrated INTO the game systems themselves, so not only does the player have the story outside the game world, but also creates their own story within the game space itself (I’m thinking Minecraft here). There is also the interactive fiction/adventure genre, where the player follows a linear path, but that path diverges and twists and turns, sometimes at moments even unbeknownst to the player, and gives them an experience that doesn’t match up directly with someone else’s experience.
Which then reminds me of the new Walking Dead game which came out this year. It is played in five acts and throughout the game you must make choices, typically who lives or dies, what personal history you reveal about yourself, who you trust or don’t trust, etc. These choices do change a small bit of the narrative progression, but ultimately the same fate is destined for your character.
Now, Whether or not the game is intending to make a claim about the doomed fate of human destiny within the zombie apocalypse or the game design just simply wasn’t fully fleshed out matters not. What does matter, I think, is how the game really makes you feel like your decisions matter, and that your character and narrative is the only character and narrative that exists. Then, when talking about the game with another person who has played it, you will begin to recount the story of The Walking Dead as if you authored it, because many times you aren’t sure where those divergent paths occurred. This idea, I think, is a perfect example of Electracy, where the player is not simply following a linear path, but instead using the world around them to produce their own “play” which then becomes their own narrative, which then becomes their own personal myth.
Game makers are story-tellers too? Hmmm, I find this strange. Most of the games I play have no story embedded in the game at all, the story is created through the play. The idea of a story based game is, it seems to me, a fairly new thing. I play poker and chess regularly. Where is the story in either of these? The story is created between the players over a series of rounds of playing. The game is a structure for the players to build their own narrative. They learn about each other and communicate through the game through subtle choices. The designers of chess and texas hold-em were not considering the story. I believe they were trying to create a set of simple rules that led to maximum engagement. It would be my contention that games based on story are bound to have a short lifespan, and limited repeat play. You may replay a story based game a few times, but I have played texas holdem thousands of times, can you say that about any story based game?
My point is game makers may be storytellers, but not necessarily so. But, contemporary games are definitely moving in that direction. And as we use books less and games more, they may become our primary means of storytelling….
I would go so far as to call the treasure hunt an alternative reality game, since it is a situation with rules accentuating the already-present reality. As to whether game designers are also storytellers depends largely on what you mean by “story” and “game.” Fenn is a game designer by virtue of creating an interactive experience (I’ll save “no Amy, no, that isn’t interactivity!” for another day), but I wouldn’t call him a storyteller. I’d call a hypertextual novelist a storyteller, and one who uses interactivity, but I wouldn’t call it a game (the effort in navigating the text is trivial).
To my ends, I’ll create parameters: a storyteller, that is, someone who speaks to relate a plot, is a storyteller (“A is A,” if you will). Then there’s checkers: events occur over the course of the game as laid out by the rules, but it has no story. The events aren’t even coherent, and any relation to the real world, say as a metaphor on war, can only be that: a metaphor. This is why when Yoko Ono painted a whole chess set white, my thought was, “wow. Really deep Yoko. Coasting much?”
That’s not to be reductive of games or story, just Yoko. I should point out, both can be artists, but neither necessarily. In “On Writing Well,” William Zinsser refers to his writing only as craft, not art, possibly because he wrote non-fiction. John Grierson was also a story teller, in that he was a documentarian for the British Post, but would probably have angrily drunk his tea at you if you called him an artist.
There are also media supposed to be linear, but are arts and don’t tell stories. “Serene Velocity” is a good example, especially contrasted with Whedon’s “Avengers,” which I am loathe to call art, even though it tells a story.
So, I suppose, my answer to “And I guess we are being taught to understand that game-makers are storytellers too? No?” is “not necessarily,” and that applies all over the place.
The notion of “explicit interactivity” doesn’t necessarily imply only computer games, as they mention board games and even paper dolls as other examples… The key feature is “designed choices and procedures.” I like their emphasis on “meaningful choice” as being key to interactivity that results in meaningful play.
I didn’t get to read the whole Forrest Fenn article, but I’m wondering how “interactive” he could be if he’s dead! He couldn’t be responsive in the same way that puppetmasters in an ARG could be. And he assumes that it’ll take as long as it will for his body to become bones to crack his code. I think he underestimates the power of collective intelligence!
I wasn’t aware of the whole Flynn lives spectacle, so that was interesting to find out about. As for whether game-makers are storytellers, that’s an on-going debate about whether these two modes are compatible, but we will see models of how they can be fused –ARGS being the one that comes immediately to mind.
Thanks for your replies everyone!
Richard, to clarify, Forrest Fenn would up living for 10 years after his diagnosis. He is still alive today.
Brandon, I disagree that Fenn’s work is ARG because their is a lack of digital and online involvement. The spearhead of the “game” or maybe better worded “experience” was from a book.
I was simply trying to harp and point too interaction going beyond that of typically gaming. That is where my interests lie.
Loudon, I am going to challenge you and say that I think that chess is a game that was made by a storyteller.
The history of chess goes back some 1500 years and was originally created to represent departments of the India and Persian military, thus, telling its players a small story and information about their military (strategies included). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_chess
Chess, has, of course, since evolved and your experience playing chess, yes, is probably more story-oriented over the memories that you have playing chess, but I will argue that is also because you were playing chess in a digital age. Chess in the digital age is considered a bonding of a pastime, it is nostaglic if you will.
I can’t really comment on Texas Hold ‘Em because I don’t play that game but I’m sure if I knew the rules, I’d find a way to argue that it was storytelling that started it. 😀