A multimodal discourse analysis of video games (toh weimin)
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•542 views
The document outlines a research study that aims to investigate players' understanding of how different modes in video games combine to create meaning and relationships between narrative and gameplay. It proposes using multimodal discourse analysis and empirical data from player interviews and gameplay observations to develop a ludonarrative model and refine existing concepts of resonance, dissonance, and (ir)relevance in relationships between narrative and gameplay.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie A multimodal discourse analysis of video games (toh weimin)
Ähnlich wie A multimodal discourse analysis of video games (toh weimin) (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
A multimodal discourse analysis of video games (toh weimin)
- 1. A M U LT I M O D A L D I S C O U R S E A N A LY S I S O F V I D E O G A M E S : A L U D O N A R R AT I V E M O D E L TO H W E I M I N T H E N AT I O N A L U N I V E R S I T Y O F S I N G A P O R E
- 2. RESEARCH AIM • Investigate players’ understanding of how the different modes (linguistic and visual) combine to create meaning (narrative, gameplay and ludonarrative). • How players understand the relationships between narrative and gameplay? • Research Question 1 • What is the players’ cognitive interpretation of the video game narrative? • Research Question 2 • What specific players’ actions are involved during their interaction with the video game? • How do the actions build up to form the gameplay? • Research Question 3 • What are the different (sub)categories of ludonarrative relationships in video games?
- 3. RATIONALE FOR RESEARCH • Prior research are primarily theoretical • Eskelinen’s (2012) “Cybertext Poetics”. • Aarseth’s (2012) narrative theory of games. • Conceptual terms used do not have empirical basis • Clint Hocking’s (2007) “ludonarrative dissonance” • Watssman’s (2012) “ludonarrative resonance” • Previous research analyse the video game itself • Pinchbeck’s (2009) conceptualisation of diegesis as a function of gameplay in FPS games. • Linderoth’s (2013) investigation of how different types of gameplay mechanics are suitable for some narrative themes and narrative elements but not others.
- 4. METHOD 1. Create rough taxonomy of ludonarrative categories based on literature review. • Integrates theories from Bycer (2013), Pynenburg (2013), Calleja (2011), Watssman (2012), O’Halloran (2007, 2008) and Liu and O’Halloran (2009). 2. Ludonarrative (sub)categories built from literature are modified based on the researcher’s gameplay experience. • Liu and O’Halloran’s (2009) “Intersemiotic consequence” “Ludonarrative resonance consequence” 3. Empirical part of study (to refine ludonarrative (sub)categories) • Iterative process in which ludonarrative (sub)categories and model are refined • Participant recruitment (11 participants Exploratory study) • Gameplay observation in lab • First session’s open-ended interview (qualitative) • Subsequent gameplay sessions were conducted in the participants’ homes • Multimodal discourse analysis of gameplay recordings to create more specific open-ended interview questions • Final session’s open-ended interview (qualitative)
- 5. RATIONALE FOR METHOD • Rather than focusing on the formal analysis of video games based on the “functional characteristics and components of game objects, and the relations between them” (Aarseth, 2014), the emphasis is shifted towards “the game as played…from the player’s experience (Leino, 2010: 6). • In reading a digital text, the researcher must be able to account for the indeterminate nature of the experience in terms of the actualised multiple pathways. • Empirical analysis of a few players’ gameplay of the same portions of the video game. • Apply multimodal discourse analysis framework to create open-ended interview questions. • Understand how players interpret the narrative, gameplay and ludonarrative relationships in the video game. • “Games are performance-oriented, and our own performance might not be the best source, especially when we are analysing it ourselves” (Aarseth, 2004). • In video game analysis, “playing is essential, but should be combined with other sources if at all possible” (Aarseth, 2004).
- 6. MULTIMODAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF VIDEO GAME NARRATIVE • Video game narrative is defined as the cognitive interpretation of the players’ ergodic interaction and/or interpretation of the game world that results in a mental construct (Ryan, 2006). • Proposed video game narrative framework used as one part of the analytical lenses to analyse the gameplay recordings to create open-ended interview questions. • In the proposed ludonarrative model, video game narrative is present only when it is elicited in the players’ interviews, gameplay commentary, and reflection (Keen, 2015). • Mental construct is created from both the scripted (cutscenes) and non-scripted sequences (via the linguistic and visual semiotic resources). • Narrative exists on a continuum based on different players’ experience. • Cognitive approach derives from Ryan’s (2003) cognitive maps which forms the lower level analysis 1. Inventory – Obligatory and optional objects 2. Spatial Relations 3. Mapping Style – Symbolic, Iconic and Indexical (My addition) 4. Interactive Character Movement (My addition) 5. Interactive Character Movement with Action (My addition)
- 7. MULTIMODAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF VIDEO GAME NARRATIVE • Fludernik’s (1996, 2003) natural narratology and cognitive parameters form the higher level analysis. Different cognitive frames including: • Action • Telling • Experiencing/Experiential • Viewing/Performative • Reflecting • Manipulation (My addition) The player’s interaction with the video game. • Augmentary (My addition) Backstory, embedded narrative and environmental storytelling.
- 8. PROPOSED GAMEPLAY ANALYSIS MODEL • Gameplay is defined as “the players’ [ergodic] actions, strategies, and motives” (Aarseth, 2004) to manipulate the constituents of the game world during their interaction with the video game to overcome the gameplay challenges which are restricted by rules. • Proposed gameplay analysis model used as one part of the analytical lenses to analyse the gameplay recordings to create open-ended interview questions. • Manninen’s (2003) framework is drawn upon to create the respective players’ (instrumental and strategic) actions to form the lower level analysis of the players’ interaction with the gameplay. • Fabricatore’s (2007) model of gameplay mechanics is integrated with Manninen’s (2003) framework to form the higher level analysis of the gameplay.
- 9. PROPOSED LUDONARRATIVE MODEL • In this model, narrative and gameplay are not totally separated from each other based on the empirical data from the players’ interview (cf. Ryan’s (2009) “narrative games” and “playable stories”). • How much narrative or gameplay is present depends on: 1. How the gamer interprets the different degrees of narrative and gameplay in the game depending on his/her interaction 2. How the game developers create the game. • As contrasted to theoretical models, the proposed ludonarrative model is subjective. • The proposed ludonarrative (sub)categories are aesthetic/pragmatic/experiential in nature as they have to be experienced by the players and need interpretation and negotiation between myself and the participants. • Since the data gathered is subjective, multiple labelling may be present when the analyst conducts the ludonarrative analysis of the video game based on different players’ experience. • The multiple labelling is reflected in the coding of the data.
- 10. KEY CONTRIBUTION OF RESEARCH • Watssman’s (2012) concept of “ludonarrative resonance” (synergy between gameplay and narrative) is refined with empirical data and the (sub)categories in the main category of “ludonarrative resonance” are expanded based on the study of the players’ experience. • Hocking’s (2007) concept of “ludonarrative dissonance” (contrast between gameplay and narrative) is refined using empirical data and the (sub)categories in the main category of “ludonarrative dissonance” are expanded based on the players’ experience. • The new concept of “ludonarrative (ir)relevance” (bridging “resonance” and “dissonance”) is introduced and the (sub)categories in the main category of “ludonarrative (ir)relevance” are expanded using the empirical data. • The refinement of the concepts are conducted using: • 5 different video games (Bioshock, Mass Effect, The Walking Dead, The Last of Us, and Beyond: Two Souls) and • 37 participants who signed up for the study in which 11 completed the entire playthrough of the video games.
- 11. REFERENCES • Aarseth, E. 2004. Playing Research: Methodological approaches to game analysis. Game Approaches - Papers from spilforskning.dk Conference. Aug 28-29, 2003. Spilforskning.dk 2004. Available from http://www.cs.uu.nl/docs/vakken/vw/literature/02.GameApproaches2.pdf (Accessed: 17 Jul 2015).Aarseth, E. 2012. The Narrative Theory of Games. FDG’12 Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (pp. 129-133). ACM. • Aarseth, E. 2014. “Game Ontology”. In The Routledge Companion to Video Game Studies, B. Perron & M.J.P. Wolf (Eds.). New York: Routledge, pp. 484 - 492. • Bycer, J. 2013. Narrative Dissonance in Game Storytelling. Gamasutra. Available from http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JoshBycer/20130628/195316/Narrative_Dissonance_in_Game_Storytelling.php (Accessed: 17 Jul 2015). • Calleja, G. 2011. Narrative Generation in Lord of the Rings Online. Ring Bearers: The Lord of The Rings Online as Intertextual Narrative. Manchester University Press. • Eskelinen, M. 2012. Cybertext Poetics: The Critical Landscape of New Media Literacy Theory. London, New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA. • Fabricatore, C. 2007. “Gameplay and game mechanics design: a key to quality in videogames”. In Proceedings of OECD-CERI Expert Meeting on Videogames and Education, Santiago de Chile, Chile, 2007. [online] Available from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/39414829.pdf • Fludernik, M. 1996. Towards a ‘natural’ narratology. London; New York: Routledge. • Fludernik, M. 2003. Natural Narratology and Cognitive Parameters. In David Herman (Eds.). Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford; California: CSLI. • Hocking, C. 2007. Ludonarrative Dissonance in Bioshock – The Problem of what the game is about. Available from http://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html • Keen, S. 2015. Narrative Form: Revised and Expanded. Second Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. • Leino, O. T. 2010. Emotions in Play: On the Constitution of Emotion in Solitary Computer Game Play. Doctoral dissertation. IT University of Copenhagen. • Linderoth, J. 2013. Superheroes, Greek gods and sport stars: Ecological empowerment as a ludo-narratological construct. In Mitgutsch, K. Huber, S., Wimmer, J., Wagner, H. G., 327 & Rosenstingl, H. (Eds.) Context Matters! Proceedings of the Vienna Games Conference 2013: Exploring and Reframing Games and Play in Context. Vienna: New academic press, pp. 17 - 30.
- 12. REFERENCES • Liu, Y., & O’Halloran, K. 2009. Intersemiotic texture: analyzing cohesive devices between language and images. Social Semiotics. Vol. 19, No.4 December 2009, 367 - 388. • Manninen, T. 2003. Interaction Forms and Communicative Actions in Multiplayer Games. Game Studies - The International Journal of Computer Game Research. Vol. 3, Issue 1, May 2003. • O’Halloran, K. L. 2007. Systemic Functional Multimodal Discourse Analysis (SF-MDA) approach to mathematics, grammar and literacy. Advances in language and education, ed. by A. McCabe, M. O'Donnell and R. Whittaker, 77-102. London and New York: Continuum. • O’Halloran, K. L. 2008. Systemic Functional-Multimodal Discourse Analysis (SF-MDA): Constructing ideational meaning using language and visual imagery. Visual Communication. Vol. 7. No. 4. pp. 443-475. • Pinchbeck, D. 2009. Story as a function of gameplay in First Person Shooters. PhD Thesis. University of Portsmouth. • Pynenburg, T. 2013. Projecting the Self: Forming Empathy through Ludonarrative Mechanics. Project Cognizance. • Ryan, M.-L. 2003. Cognitive Maps and the Construction of Narrative Space. In David Herman (Eds.). Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. Stanford; California: CSLI, pp. 214-242. • Ryan, M.-L. 2006. Avatars of Story. Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press. • Ryan, M.-L. 2009. From narrative games to playable stories: Towards a poetics of interactive narrative. Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies, 1(1), 43 – 59. • Watssman, J. 2012. Essay: Ludonarrative Dissonance Explained and Expanded. Escapistmagazine. Available from http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.389092-Essay-Ludonarrative-Dissonance-Explained- and-Expanded
- 13. CONTACT INFO Email: A0019282@u.nus.edu; weimin_c38@hotmail.com Website: https://nus.academia.edu/TohWeimin
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Eskelinen’s (2012) “cybertext poetics” integrates Aarseth’s cybertext with Genette’s narratology. He critically refines and expands the narratological categories of tense, mood, and voice to accommodate the possibilities created by the seven cybertextual dimensions of textual dynamics, determinability, transience, perspective, access, links, and user function. Aarseth’s (2012) preliminary model of a narrative theory of games build on standard narratology. A four-dimensional model is formulated to discuss about the different types of elements which exist inside a gameplay level and a narrative level along a continuum. The four ontological dimensions consist of world, objects, agents and events and are present in narrative and gameplay. These four dimensions are configured differently for different games. Hocking’s “ludonarrative dissonance” comes from Bioshock where the player is encouraged to adopt an Objectivist approach to take care of his self-interests to become more powerful to progress the game but in the narrative, the player is encouraged to be selfless and to rescue the other NPCs. With the disjunction between the gameplay and narrative focus, the player may become aware of the inconsistency of the reality portrayed in the gameworld and make judgements as to whether the information given to them by the gameplay and narrative is congruent based on the gameworld’s standard. “Ludonarrative resonance” refers to the gameplay and story integration where they fit together extremely well. When the narrative and gameplay are combined successfully, the game immerses the player in the gameworld and allows them to interact with a story they want to believe in, in a satisfying way. Pinchback’s (2009) ludodiegesis model conceptualises gameplay as the core component of FPS games and the diegesis which refers to the “fictive reality of the game” is used as a support for the gameplay. Linderoth’s (2013) ludonarratological construct analyses whether the gameplay mechanics, such as whether improved character abilities as the game progresses are appropriate for some narrative themes and elements in specific video games which include superheroes, Greekgods and sport stars.
- Bycer (2013) – “narrative dissonance” in game storytelling which refers to “the game mechanics directly clash with the narrative and pacing of the title”. Ludonarrative dissonance contrast – negotiation Pynenburg (2013) – “Ludonarrative dissonance contrast – incomplete information problems” refers to the situation in which “to solidify the empathetic connection between player and character, game designers may force players to make quick, important decisions in the game with limited knowledge of how their choice may affect events further in the narrative”. For instance, when playing The Walking Dead, choosing a different dialogue choice may or may not affect the player’s relationship with the other characters in the narrative, but the players are not explicitly informed about the consequences of their choices. Calleja’s (2011) “ludic belief” which refers to the player’s schematic knowledge of the game’s ludic structures to edit out narrative incongruities or illogical narrative elements are integrated into the subcategory of ludonarrative dissonance negotiation in the ludonarrative model. Watssman’s (2012) “ludonarrative resonance” which refers to the integration between the narrative and the gameplay. O’Halloran’s (2007) concept of the convergence of the meanings in different semiotic modes are critically applied to the creation of the ludonarrative subcategory of “ludonarrative resonance motivation” where the narrative motivates the player’s gameplay actions and vice versa. O’Halloran’s (2008) concept of “intersemiotic metaphor” which refers to “metaphorical shifts that occur where the functional status of elements is not preserved and new elements are introduced”. For instance, a complex scene becomes a metaphorical entity. People dancing in an MTV refers to the narrative metaphor that life is a drama. When critically applied to video games, metaphorical shifts may occur when the functional status of gameplay elements is not preserved as new narrative elements and gameplay mechanics are introduced. For instance, in Bioshock, a narrative event caused the player’s gameplay skills to become non-customisable and the gameplay skills also manifest randomly. The player has to fulfil the gameplay goal before the gameplay skills become customisable and under control again. Liu and O’Halloran’s (2009) “intersemiotic consequence” which refers to the “visuals and linguistic components of multisemiotic texts that can be interconnected through Consequential Relations when one semiotic message is seen as enabling or determining the other rather than simply preceding it”. For instance, a print advertisement may have a textual message that says that some product delivers a positive effect to the user, and the effect is manifested in visuals. When critically applied to video games, “ludonarrative resonance consequence” refers to the long term outcome of a gameplay action on the narrative and vice versa. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Subsequent gameplay sessions were conducted in the participants’ homes where the participants use think-aloud protocol to elicit their narrative interpretations and explain their gameplay actions
- Video game analysis should not only focus on the structural analysis, but must take into account different players’ experiences. Video game analysis requires not only the researcher’s game experience, but also the players’.
- Ryan’s (2003) cognitive maps are originally used to analyse static diagrams/maps, but they are critically applied and expanded to analyse the player’s interpretation of the video game narrative. (1) Inventory – Priority in which the players place on specific objects in their mental representation. Objects can be classified as obligatory or optional. Objects can refer to other NPCs, landmarks, interactive objects and so on which play important narrative roles. (2) Spatial Relations – Player’s evaluation of distance between two or more objects. Objects may be stationary or dynamic. Cognitive map may either map to a narrative or gameplay event, depending on the players’ interpretation. (3) Mapping Style – Process in which players map an object to their mental models. Cognitive map may either map the object to a narrative or gameplay object or both. Mapping style can be conventional/symbolic, iconic or indexical. A symbolic mapping style example includes the colour coding used in Mass Effect’s dialogue wheel where blue colour aligns with the player’s role-playing as a “good” type of character in the narrative and also produces a Paragon gameplay reward outcome. Red colour on the dialogue wheel aligns with the players’ role-play as a “ruthless” type of narrative character and also produces a Renegade gameplay reward outcome. An iconic mapping style includes in-game objects such as Wrex’s armour in Mass Effect which partially resembles the gameplay object and also produces the backstory for Wrex after the mission is accomplished. An indexical mapping style refers to semiotic affordances in the gameworld which points the player in the direction to move. An indexical semiotic affordance includes the NPC Tess in The Last of Us who will usually stand or move in the direction to guide the player the direction to move towards in the gameworld. Categories are not mutually exclusive, i.e. objects can be both narrative and gameplay or both symbolic, iconic, and indexical, depending on the player’s interpretation. (4) Interactive Character Movement – The player’s control of the PC to move in the gameworld. Movement may be stationary or dynamic. Cognitive map may map the character’s movement to narrative conflict in the plot when the player encounters enemies or gameplay challenges or both, depending on the player’s interpretation. (5) Interactive Character Movement with Action – The player’s control of the PC to move in the gameworld to interact with game objects. Movement may be stationary or dynamic. Narrative action can be continuous (QTEs), instant (interacting with notes) or gradual (Controlling a character to move slowly during a scripted event). They are more story-like and involves narrative interpretation. These categories are not mutually exclusive. Cognitive map may map the interactive character movement with action to the character’s narrative role or gameplay function or both, depending on the player’s interpretation.
- Action The player character’s performance of action and his/her reactions (which is not the same as the player’s interaction). Telling A narrator telling the narrative to the player, e.g. usually in scripted (Bioshock’s audio logs) and rarely in non-scripted sequences. Experiencing/Experiential The player’s experience of the emergent narrative (elicited through open-ended interviews post gameplay and think-aloud protocol during gameplay). Viewing/Performative The player’s simultaneous performance and viewing of the unfolding narrative (observed in the lab and through the gameplay recordings). Reflecting The player thinks back about the narrative (elicited through think-aloud protocol). Manipulation (My addition) The player’s interaction with the video game (observed in the lab and through the gameplay recordings, explained through think-aloud protocol and open-ended interviews). This cognitive frame may be more gameplay like compared to “viewing/performative”, but is not as challenging as gameplay action such as in FPS shooting. Augmentary (My addition) Backstory, embedded narrative and environmental storytelling (observed in the lab and through the gameplay recordings, narrative interpretation explained through think-aloud protocol and open-ended interviews).
- Instrumental actions – more instinctive and do not require strategic and critical thinking. Takes very little time to actualise. Environmental details and setting modifications - These actions involve interaction with the environment to achieve an advantage and they are more instinctive. Player character upgrades - These actions involve interaction with the PC(s) to achieve a gameplay advantage and they are more instinctive and do not involve strategic thinking. These actions upgrade the PC based on the obligatory gameplay goals. Kinesics and spatial behaviour - These are instrumental actions utilised by the player. In TLOU and Mass Effect, the players may utilise micro actions, such as crouching, to hide under cover to reduce their chances of being shot at by the enemies in the gameworld. These actions are instinctive and do not require preplanning. Language-based communication - Language based instrumental actions include the scenario where the player does not have sufficient time to think of the answer or is under a time-imposed restriction to choose a dialogue option such as in The Walking Dead and The Witcher 2 & 3. Strategic actions – require more strategic and critical thinking and are less instinctive. Takes more time for deliberation to actualise. Environmental details and setting modifications - These are actions that take advantage of the environment to facilitate the player’s elimination of the opposition, overcoming of the gameplay obstacles or discovering and unlocking a hidden area. These actions require deliberation and may require some time to set up. PC Customisation - These actions involve interaction with the PC(s) to achieve a gameplay advantage. Character customisation is a broader category that includes character upgrades. But it is more deliberate and involves strategic (analytical) thinking. Kinesics and spatial behaviour - These are strategic actions performed by the player. These actions are deliberate and involve reflection by the player whether they want to perform the actions. These actions involve micro-managing the squad mates in Mass Effect. Language-based communication - Language-based strategic actions include critical moments in the game where the player takes time to think of which dialogue options to choose in careful consideration of the gameplay outcome. For instance, in choosing one of the dialogue options in Mass Effect, the player sacrifices one of the other characters to die so they will never appear again. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Fabricatore’s (2007) model includes the core diegetic gameplay mechanics enabling player’s action(s)/interaction(s) with the environment, object, agent, avatar, and also includes the satellite gameplay mechanics such as enhancement, opposition and facilitating mechanics.
- Empirical data obtained from gameplay observation in the lab, analysis of gameplay recordings, think-aloud protocol used by the players and open-ended interviews (involving retrospective protocol analysis).