Character Studies: World Character

The world of a videogame can be a character unto itself. Play characters are the portal through which the player engages with the world and non-player characters are the ludic or narrative elements with which they engage. Yet, the world that surrounds everything within the game is itself a character with as much depth and importance to the entire experience as either of the other elements of a game. Beyond a simple setting, the world of a videogame is a livable place inhabited simultaneously by every person, character and idea related to the game. It is also a framing device used to establish the core elements of the game. The world character of a game ultimately defines not only what the game is, but what it will become.

In the most basic terms the world of a videogame serves all the same narrative elements that the setting of a novel does. It establishes a place of action and a feeling of place. Interestingly enough, place of action and the feeling of place are not always the same. In fact sometimes they are purposely conflicting. The place of action is the simplest role that a videogame world plays within the narrative. It is the literal ‘Where is this happening?’ ‘When is this happening?’ A feeling of place is a more complex concept. Adding a level beyond the concrete physicalities established by the place of action, a feeling of place is the emotion or sensation the world wishes to impart. When as a person in real life or a character in a game, you – the player, enters a new area what is it that you think? Do you look around and think ‘This room is approximately 40 sq. ft. with low ceilings, dirty possibly blood splattered floors and several dark menacing shadows?’ Or do you think ‘This place is creepy. I’m getting out of here.’ That feeling of fear, sense of slight disturbance that is a feeling of place. What you think as you enter a new area for the first time, the sensations imparted on you is the feeling of place a videogame world provides. Occasionally for added effect the place of action and feeling of place with conflict with each other to impart greater meaning to the player. Would the sunken city of Rapture from the original Bioshock be so memorable if it wasn’t for the juxtaposition of the broken and ruined physicalities of the place of action in relation to the grandeur imparted by the feeling of place? A videogame world is a character that provides the game with a place of action as well as a feeling of place.

The place of action and feeling of place are both concepts that videogame world character shares with other forms of media; books, plays, movies, ext. Together they form an establishment of setting necessary for all narratives. However, even in setting the interactive elements of videogames establish themselves forcing a change in the way world character is established. The world character does not only reflect and influence the narrative of the game, but so too does it affect the gameplay. As a ludic experience the game and therefore the world character must be dominated by the interaction and engagement that the player, the audience, you, gets to have with it. The place of action and feeling of place have immense ramifications on the gameplay of a game. When all the elements work in tandem; world character, narrative and ludic elements, the total experience is cohesive and all the more enjoyable. The best way to avoid ludonarrative dissonance is through the use of a properly aligned and strongly developed world character. Because ultimately it is the world inhabited by the game; its developer, its characters and you, the player, which create the tone of the game. That tone can range from playful, to sincere, to energetic, to somber depending on the game being played. And it is that tone which gives focus to gameplay. It would not make sense for Mario to stop on a Koopa and there be blood spilling out. It goes against the tone established in world character. Likewise it would be disruptive to have mushroom power-ups in Call of Duty. The place of action and feeling of place work in with narrative to develop a tone pervasive throughout the world character and it is that tone which focuses gameplay. 

Videogames have one last unique characteristic in relation to their world character; the world character of a videogame is transcendent.  Books and films have previously reached levels or transcendence become iconic in their own. But there is degree to their transcendence that is somehow lacking. Less about what the literature, film or even play meant to audience, but what is has meant over the course of time. Although that is a perfectly suitable definition, it is inapplicable to videogames. An unfortunate side effect of the medium being so young. Transcendence in videogames is achieved in another manner. It is directly related to the world character of a videogame that it becomes transcendent. The audience is always the final collaborator; they will bring to the game something unique that will change and differentiate the experience for them. And the world character of a videogame allows for that. Narratives, even in the most open and free form of videogames, are already set by the time a player engages with them. However the world is not. World character is a living conceptual place inhabited by all the collaborators of the game. The developer’s concepts are most strongly felt throughout this world; their characters inhabit the play space after all, but the world character of a videogame adapts and changes as the player engages with it. What you, the player, choice to take, interpret and make your own from the game becomes part of the world character. It is part of you and you are part of the game. In that manner, Fallout became a deeply personal self examination for myself. I choose to believe in something the developers had created therefore making it partly may own. It is for you, the player, to decide in the end how the game will play out and that makes you just as strong a force within the game as the developers who created it. World character for videogames is transcendent. It is a living place that evolves and changes holding on to the ideas and experiences of every person who contacts it. Just take a small dive into any of the massive fandoms surrounding videogames and franchises. All these people believing and committed to the world character of the game, constantly adding to it, expanding it, making it live. That is transcendence.

World character defines a videogame while at the same time elevating it. The establishment of place of action and feeling of place is also the establishment of tone and gameplay. World character feeds the other elements of the game ultimately creating a living fiction. A transcendent experience shared by millions, but utterly unique to each one. World character in videogames defines what the game is and what it will become.

The Language of Videogames: Part 5 Narrative Significance and Ludonarrative Dissonance

We have already explored the symbolic and systematic basics that underline the functionality of the language of videogames. The way the game is designed is meant to guide the player on an experience of the developer’s choice. Interactive functionality with the game via “win-states” and other gameplay elements are all belonging to a larger group of ludic functionality. Ludic originating from the Latin word ludere which means ‘to play’.  Any word with the root ‘lud’ in reference to videogames and videogames study refers back to play or interactivity. Gameplay and “win-states” are types of ludic functionality that separate and individualize videogames from other media and from themselves. Genres of videogame classification are done by the games ludic functionality; shooter, platformer, puzzle. The language of videogames is ludic in design where each differing vernacular corresponds to a certain genre of game. Yet, where does the story and narrative of videogames fall? How integral a part of the experience are they if the language is designed to be ludic in function? 

As defined by the Oxford Online Dictionary narrative is “a spoken or written account of events; a story”. That definition is suitable, yet lacking. Narrative is also a framing device, the point of view through which a series of events is perceived. That is why within the world of storytelling it is called a narrator. Narrative as told through the language of videogames is no different. Videogames are another form of language through which a spoken or written account of events can be told. Videogames offer new opportunities to tell a story.

Narrative within a videogame gives impetus where “win-states” cannot. From purely gameplay or ludic perspective “win-states” are all that is necessary to make a game compelling. The prime example of this being Tetris. But once the ludic blinders have been removed the experience can fall short. Humans are creatures capable of immense perception. The sound of a subtle door creak, the smell of someplace worn and lived in, the faint brush of wind upon the back of your neck. These are the experiences that we as humans have come to recognize and associate as normal and interesting. Engagement in a purely ludic level quickly becomes tiresome. Narrative the second tool developers use to guide the player along the experience intended for them.

Form the pixilated cutscenes detailing love in Mrs. Pacman narrative has been an important part of the videogame experience. Few videogames go far without a story worth supporting. Bioshock, Mass Effect, The Last of Us are all games touted for their narrative as well as their gameplay. It is this seamless melding of ludic and narrative elements that creates the true beauty of the videogame art form. When interacting with a game the player wants not only to experience the feeling of fun brought froth via a “win-state”, they want to feel as though their actions have influence. Players do not merely wish to shoot at bad guys because it is fun; they wish to shoot at bud guys so they can save the world. It is no surprise that a majority of videogame stories are escapist, wish-fulfillment fantasies. Why would anyone simply read a book or watch a movie where their dream is fulfilled by someone else and they are left with the moderately bitter taste of vicarious enjoyment? Videogames offer unprecedented possibility. As technology increases the limits of what can be created slowly disappear. There is immeasurable potential in the merging ludic and narrative functionality to create something absolutely incredible.

As with all things of great potential there is also a treacherous downside to narrative in videogames that must be carefully navigated. Most commonly referred to as ludonarrative dissonance, it is the discrepancy between gameplay and narrative. When the ludic and narrative elements of a game do not meld the result lowers the entire experience. Recently Bioshock: Infinite has come under fire for the ludonarrative dissonance between its somber story and over the top shooter action. This is little surprise as the original Bioshock is the origin of the phrase. Clink Hocking coined it in describing how the story of Bioshock promotes selflessness by critiquing Objectivism while the gameplay encourages selfishness. The term has been applied to many games since its creation. The Uncharted series is commonly called dissonant for its portrayal of the main character. In cutscenes Nathan Drake is a charming rouge, in gameplay he is a merciless sociopath.   

 However, both Bioshocks are still considered exemplary videogames. The Uncharted series has received countless accolades throughout its time. There is a growing faction within videogame development, journalism and criticism that actively looks for ludonarrative dissonance. This group represents a growing sentiment that games deserve serious examination. The growing critical mindset is slowly becoming more prevalent, but it still remains under the majority of developers, journalists and critics that find no problem with dissonance. There has always been some dissonance in even the best of games and it has become accepted as standard. This is the story part of the game. This is the play part. For the longest time a seamless blending of the narrative and ludic elements was impossible or at best poorly done. That is why Bioshock and Uncharted are respected the way they are. Dissonance is not considered a problem. 

Ludonarrative dissonance is still a difficult concept for a large majority of the gaming populace to accept. The concept of intelligent, critical game analysis is still very new.  The transitionary stages of uncomfortable and awkward growth for videogame analysis mirror that of the game’s industry in the past. It is my best assumption that critical analysis will continue to follow the same path videogames as a total have. In the future there will no longer be critiques of games calling them out for ludonarrative dissonance, but instead ludonarrative resonance. 

The future of videogames lies in the complete and seamless melding of ludic and narrative elements. Some games have come close, others have purposely exploited dissonance to create a dramatic disconnect between player and player character, but there is still potential waiting to be achieved in ludonarrative resonance. I cannot wait.

So in reference to my Bioshock related article, Flawed Morality, I got this in my inbox.

“Okay Steven let’s talk. There are three endings to Bioshock one good, two bad. These are based on if you save the little sisters or not, though if you think about it, Jack was not raised in Rapture, he does not have thous ideals as the normal people in it do. The big Daddy’s protected the little sisters from people with low morals, and ever since that first little sister, they have been watching you too. Jack was not raised in Rapture he’s different in his mindset and the game gives him two options, he could be a saint because he went through all that, all of that struggle and anger and still came out with his morals, he was still the “good guy” no matter how much blood was on his hand from the crazy people that lived there. Or he could have lost his morals, all that he was is gone, he gave in to the madness that was there and now that he went top side there is no stopping the insanity. That is what I think the endings mean. Might not be right but my view on it.”

First, thanks for sharing computerbutt. But I don’t agree. I think you are mistaken in your Bioshock facts. There are audio diaries from Dr. Suchong that prove his involvement with Fontaine and the development of Jack as a weapon against Ryan. Suchong mentions how nearly from birth the child was experimented upon and injected with every possible form of plasid enhancements. Suchong also subjected Jack to the mental conditioning that leads to the “Would you kindly?” In another audio diary Suchong mentions how fast the child is growing. “Baby is now a year old, weighs 58 pounds, and possesses gross musculature of a fit, 19-year-old”. Jack was raised in Rapture, by the crazies that were Suchong, Fontaine and Tenenbaum. For all we know Jack could be two, possibly three years old. He was grown from the beginning to be a weapon. He has advanced muscles and strength that make him seem adult. But he had no life on the surface. They were fake memories. Jack was sent to the surface only to come back down.

Which is why I think the endings of Bioshock are so detrimental to the rest of the game. The only person with an understand of conventional morality in Rapture is the player. Ryan is obsessed with Objectivism. Fontaine cares only for his greed. And Jack was raised in a lab in that beautiful, sunken city. He has no understanding of right and wrong. Jack was raised to kill. Bioshock giving the players multiple endings based upon the flawed morality system of the game is terrible. It’s running up to the finish line miles ahead of the competition and then just stopping, turning around and going home. Bioshock lacks the conviction to follow its story and the ideas it wishes to present out to their very end.

Flawed Morality

(BIOSHOCK SPOILERS! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.)

Suspension of disbelief is defined as the willingness for an audience to accept something they know to be impossible for the purposes of entertainment. Nearly every piece of fiction requires some amount of suspended disbelief. These fictional premises may also lend to the engagement of the mind and perhaps the spread of thoughts, ideas, art and theories.  Such is the case with Bioshock. A game lauded for its intriguing story and settings as much as its pitch perfect game play. Just a week and a half ago I finished Bioshock for the first time. (Yes, I know that I am incredibly late, but due to constraints of time and money, I only recently got around to it.) My first thoughts upon completing the game and seeing its ending was: I did not like it. Not to say that Bioshock is a bad game, it is in fact a good game, but Bioshock broke my suspension of disbelief. I could not enjoy it the same after that.

The three principal elements that make Bioshock so incredible and has endeared it into the hearts of thousands of gamers are its setting, principal character and the beliefs that give them both life. Rapture, the man who built it, Andrew Ryan, and Objectivism. Rapture is an astounding place, fully realized and hauntingly atmospheric. The screams of its deranged citizens as they try to find any remnants of their previous life. The way the entire screen shakes as the lumbering hulk of a Big Daddy enters into view. All these little aspects go a long way into building a believably flawed city based around a believably flawed man. Rapture is Andrew Ryan’s city and Bioshock is unquestionably his game. Just as the sea water spills into the city, an ever present reminder of its downfall, Ryan’s philosophies flood the player. He waxes poetic about the virtues of a free and open market. You can hear the fervor of his belief in “the Great Chain” in one audiotape and then hear the self-righteous anger in his voice when it fails him in another. In the games very opening monologue Andrew Ryan claims Rapture to be a city where man can achieve greatness without the constraints of censorship or “petty morality”. The man, the city and the game live and breathe these objectivist philosophies. “Only through individual will and determination can society as a whole be bettered”. These three core concepts give Bioshock a unique feel in terms of setting and story that has never really been matched. 

And yet, with so much of the game riding on those core concepts, Bioshock hangs its ending on the morality system. If you save the Little Sisters then you get the good ending; if you harvest them then you get the bad one. Any other choice you make throughout the course of the game has absolutely no impact upon the ending. I would be alright with this if both respective endings of Bioshock were not so far sided. In the good ending you rescue six Little Sisters, take them to the surface and raise them on your own. You are Saint Jack, Savior of the Little Sisters. In the bad ending you return to the surface bring with you an army of Splicers. Your first action is to hijack a submarine carrying nuclear warheads. You are Jack, Evil Incarnate. There is no middle ground between the two endings. One is gag inducingly good; the other is genocide levels of bad.  Both endings completely rupture my suspension of disbelief about the game. I finished the game, saw my ending and then was saddened as all the rest of my Bioshock memories became tainted.     

Bioshock is a game that excels in the moral grayness of its setting, story and central philosophy. Andrew Ryan is a man of his beliefs. He built Rapture simply to prove that he could, to give physical body to the core concepts which he held dear. The player’s entire experience with the game is dictated by those ideas. The third act twist, that you had been controlled all along, falls within the concepts of individual will. Ryan’s dying words are “A man chooses. A slave obeys”.  It is his ultimate triumph, an idealist victory worthy of sacrificing his life for. The player at that point fully understands and internalizes what Rapture was built for, individual will. The final act of the game has the player hunting down the person who brainwashed them. By the time you ride the elevator up to face the final boss, you are not a slave. You are a man. 

Bioshock encourages the player to lose themselves in the city of Rapture. To give in to the ideals of Andrew Ryan. Personal gain and selfishness are things to be rewarded. Harvesting Little Sisters would not be considered an evil act by Ryan’s standards. The only evil in Bioshock is the failure of the individual. It is that reason that both endings completely ruin the experience. The endings and morality system hold the player to the conventional morality of everyday day life; thou shall not kill. And it has no place in Rapture. To force it in as the game does, to base the games endings upon it breaks my suspension of disbelief. The player character is Jack, brainwashed from birth to kill Andrew Ryan. Jack only goes to the surface so he can be brought back in to Rapture as a seemingly external force. He knows nothing of conventional morality. In the game’s closing moments as Jack and the player have gained free will for the first time throughout their experience, Bioshock forces the player into a pre-set ending cinematic of either good or evil, conventional morality. For the entirety of my play time with Bioshock, I had suspended my disbelief. I knew Rapture was an impossible city and the objectivist philosophies upon which it was built would ultimately fail. Still, I choose not to belief those thoughts, at least for a time, because I wanted to believe in Rapture. I wanted to believe in Andrew Ryan and his ideas.  Yet, the endings of Bioshock were so out of place from the three core aspects of the game that I could no longer believe in it. It is a fault of the game and of its designers that ultimately Bioshock falters in its resolve to deliver an impactful story about individualism and objectivism. It is a failure in a game that otherwise has none. Unfortunately, the end result is a game that builds itself on promise and premise but cannot deliver in execution. Andrew Ryan would not be pleased.