Blog Question 10

In her paper "The Puppet Master Problem: Design for Real-World, Mission Based Gaming", Jane McGonigal suggests that "the success of the puppet master challenges our assumptions about the kinds of action and interaction that qualify as gameplay, reveal dramatic interpretation to be a viable game mechanic, and demonstrate the value of a dramaturgical perspective for pervasive game design." Discuss how these ideas could be applied to designing elements of narrative and gameplay in interactive media systems.

Power play is radically different from conventional game play mechanics, in which there is a specific goal for the player to achieve, and the option of choices is deemed as one key part in achieving interactivity. However, in power plays, it seems that the players concede all control to the puppet masters. Their only choice is to play or not, and they follow the command of the puppet masters ‘behind the curtain’ even though they have not clear idea what the objectives of following the instructions. Thus, we shall conclude by saying that power play is not much different from performing a pre-defined narrative by voluntary players, and the system seems to be not interactive at all.

However, conclusion is derived from a over-simplified game mechanic in power plays. The puppet masters are not in the full control of the power plays. Although the players have no direct options to what instructions they will follow, they have the freedom to interpret the instructions, and that causes the puppet masters to rethink their roles in power plays, when player’s actions differ dramatically from their expectations. McGonigal experienced it once in the Go game. Thereafter, during the experimentation of ‘I love bees’, the puppet masters actually anonymously observe the online discussions of players, and adjust according to game rules if the player’s interpretations of the player deviate far away from the expectations.

In fact, I would comment that this mechanism allows a higher level of interactivity. Although the players and the puppet masters are not face to face, computers and technologies become the interface between them, and essentially they are engaged in the listen-think-speak cycle to interact. In traditional games, either programmed artificial intelligence or game masters who could only abide by the rules of the games are responding to the players. As they are confined by the rules of the games, the extent of interactivity given by them is low. In fact, I would consider the option of choices as a pseudo-interactivity, a token added by game designers to achieve some characteristic of interactivity, whereas puppet masters and players are interacting on a higher human intelligence level.

McGonial also mentioned that the joy of power play comes from the excitation of public performance. Power play is essentially a narrative. In traditional drama players, the directors and actors rehearse before they put up the performance. In power plays, the puppet masters direct the play in real time, while the subsequence directions also depend on how the players play it. Technologies become the tool to facilitate the process to happen. After all, games and narratives are essentially human activities. The current ‘interactive narrative games’ place too much emphasis on the interface – the computer, while conceding the human touch. Power play, on the other hand, provides some new thoughts on how the elements of narrative and play can coexist in a gamel.

Exercise 9: Narrative Architecture

Eskelinen argues that in Jenkins’ argument, he has neglected the many and important differences between narrative and games, such as the rules, the goals and the possible presence of other players in the games. He regards Jenkins’ study of media as ‘repetitive’ instead of ‘comparative’, implying that Jenkins is merely extracting the narrative components in games and thus rationalise his argument, instead of regarding narrative and game as separate entities.

Nevertheless, Jenkins, in his preparation for his core argument, has already noted the importance of the fact that games and narratives are separate entities, and although they may overlap with each other, the interaction is of different forms and degrees. Specifically, he concedes that not all games tell stories, though many games have narrative inspirations. He also admits that the experience of playing a game could never be replaced by mere telling of the stories. More importantly, he argues that formal narrative analysis needs to be revamped when it is put in to the analysis of narratives embedded in games. That leads to his core arguments on narratives in games, using the novel perspective of spatiality and game space.

I do not agree with Eskelinen’s dismissal of Jenkins’ approach. Although he is a self-declared ‘ludologist’, I think his understanding of narrative and narrative structure is still based on the formal narratologist, which Jenkins has replaced by spatiality in his approach. From the beginning, Eskelinen uses David Bordwell’s definition of narration as "the process whereby the film's sjuzet and style interact in the course of cueing and constraining the spectator's construction of the fabula." This definition is based on film, a linear narrative, and emphasises more on the author ship of the narrator/director, as the words ‘cueing’ and ‘constraining’ imply. This definition of narration, when extrapolated to games, would certainly exclude the other components of the game which would allow room of ‘play’, as it implies that narratives are self-contained.

However, Jenkins’ approach of spatiality and environmental story telling has transcended the theory of linear narratives and encompasses the ‘rules, goals, the necessary manipulation of equipment, and the effect of possible other players for starters’ mentioned by Eskelinen as well, because the game space is essentially the virtual place where the player perform actions while constructing the narrative. In fact, gaming and narration occur almost simultaneously in this space and they become inseparable. From this point, Jenkins’ model of evoked, enacted, embedded, and emergent narratives are derivatives from the perspective of games space, instead of merely applying narrative theories into the game as argued by Eskelinen. Thus, I do not agree with Eskelinen’s dismissal of Jenkins’ approach.

Exercise 8 games of progression and emergence

Jesper Juul distinguishes between games of emergence, where a game is specified as a small number of rules that combine and yield a large number of game variations, and games of progression, where a game presents the player with a series of puzzles or challenges which must be accomplished in a certain order. Discuss whether games of progression, which often attempt to combine a narrative structure with gameplay, are unique to computer-based games

According to Jesper Juul, games of progression are those which “directly set up each consecutive challenge in a game”, whereas games of emergence are those which “set up challenges indirectly because the rules of the game interact”. Progression could be considered as a characteristic of a narrative, as it essentially encompasses sequence and chronology. Emergence, on the other hand, would be a derivative of play: things emerge in games as the players interact with the rules of the game to achieve a specific goal.

Both progression and emergence are present in computer games. Most role playing games are progression orientated while most strategy games are emergence oriented, although frequently they would intertwine with each other to game a game some partial characters of each genre. Nevertheless, when I look at non-computer based games, surprisingly, I could not conveniently find any examples of progression games. In fact almost all of the non-computer games are emergent, from chess, card games, board games and even to recreational sports. Adventure books may be progressive; however, the lack of goal and struggle could only qualify them as ‘interactive narratives’, but not games.

It would be arbitrary to immediately conclude that games of progression, which attempt to combine a narrative structure with game play, are unique to the computer medium; however, real-life example and experience would make it undeniable that the component of progression only exists in computer games so far, and the other games are generally emergent.

It is, in fact, difficult to give an abstract rational to this observation. However, we could imagine superimposing a game of progression on computer medium to the normal games, let’s say board games, and examine whether it works or why it does not work. Take the example of a progressive role playing game such as Final Fantasy. The setting up of the game itself would be very difficult: too many roles or characters, complicated battles, lack of immersion into the game space and etc. And playing the game would be tiresome and boring too, maybe except the component of cosplay. In fact, it may be easy to translate the narrative/progression structure, but difficult to translate the narrative details, which are essential to computer based progression games: the multimedia environment, the graphic and sound effects, the animations and so on. Furthermore, if such a game is played among several person, there could be only a few person playing the game, while the majority of others have to take on the roles of computer generated NPCs, i.e. no room of play for them.

To abstract the idea, games of progression requires a big storage of information, and complicated processes which could only be handled on a computer platform. Non-computer games could only survive and propagate given that they interesting and easy to play, i.e. with simple rules and easy setting-up. The complicity of rules and processes of progression would, therefore, most like to restrict such games on a computer media, or to be scrapped off the gaming component to become a narrative instead. Furthermore, games of progression would require a ‘hidden hand’ to push the progression forward. Such a consistent latent driving force is difficult to be achieved in usual games.

Exercise 7: Games and Narrative

How is time represented in games? Is there a separation of story and discourse time? How the game’s used of time allow for interactivity?

As a game itself is a ‘fantasy’ generally separated from the real world, the concept of game in time is also an enclosed entity with respect to the real time. To use Neitzel’s words, there is “a cyclical time structure within games”. People may argue that the concept of “present” is actually a turning point at which future is lapses into past. The “present” represented in games, interestingly, is expanded. One could stay in the “present” of the game, especially the turn-by-turn games like “civilisation” forever, but the player could also play in the “present” as so to affect the future of the game, with the involvement of interactivity. Thus, there is a separation between “game” time and “play” time, which is somewhat parallel to the separation of story time and discourse time, as I will discuss below.

Essentially, the notion of story and discourse time comes from the study of narrative structure. Story time refers to the time of the events told, while the discourse time refers to the sequence of the story being told. The separation of story and discourse time is subtle in conventional narratives such as stories and movies, however, they are made more explicit in computer games, on the basis that most computer games involves, to different extent, the creation of narratives by the player. That leads to the equivalence of separation of story and discourse time in games. The story time would refer to the part where the player has not control over during the play of the game, like introductory and interlude animations in some RPG games, or even certain plot events that the player is forced to play through to proceed to the next stage of the game. The discourse time, on the other hand, are the occasions during which the players are able to make choices and decisions so as to change either the sequence of the narrative in the game, or even the content of the story. In non-real time games, the discourse time is either manifested as pauses in between turns, or the states in which the RPG characters are free to move around. The case for real time games is a bit difficult to argue, however, we could divide the continuum of time in such games into infinitesimally small quantum of time, and the first choice that the player need to make is whether they want to make the choice to change the flow of the game, followed by the actual choices and decision.

Indeed, the expansion of present and the explicit separation of story and discourse, or game and play time gives the computer games their capabilities and potentials to be interactive. Without the separation of game time and play time, there would be no opportunity for the player to interact with the game or the narrative embodied within. Without the expansion of present, the past, present and future is in a continuum and the time flow is too fast for any decisions or choices to be made. The expansion of present and the separation of story and discourse create an intermediate point or period in which the game time and the real time converge and the player is able to input into the system. The system would then take the input and respond to the player, thus achieving interactivity, although on different levels as suggested by Ryan, depending on the methods and approaches of the game algorithm.

Week 8 Games and Play

1. In his article "I Have No Words and I Must Design: Towards a Critical Vocabulary for Games", Greg Costikyan suggests that "the search for non-game interactive entertainment is wrong-headed, inspired by a failure to apprehend games and a foolish, reflexive response to what they represent, in our culture, at this point in time. Any form of 'interactive entertainment' that isn't a game must be non-interactive; or not entertainment; or pointless." Do you agree? Support your position with reference to specific works.

Greg Costikyan’s argument, which summarized in his concluding statement “interactive entertainment means games”, is much of an absolute and over-generalised idea. Costikyan defines a game as “an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards a goal”. After that through limited example which only supports his point, he proceeds to argue that such an “interactive entertainment” could not exist or has existed but phased out as well. To substantiate his point, he also resorts to semantic analysis of “entertainment” and “entertaining”, which appears the least convincing to me. I disagree with his argument as well as argumentation. Nonetheless, it is the most simple to give an evidence of “interactive entertainment” which is not a game, rather than resorting to complicated logic arguments.

The example I am giving here is star-searching TV programmes which involves spectator’s participation such American Idol and “Super Girl” in China. Costkyan’s may argue that they are actually games as the contestants strive to be the winner of the competition. However, the millions of spectators and fans are not. Of course they make phone calls or send in SMSes to support their favourite candidates at a purpose, however, there is no specific goal that they can achieve. Without the goal, such programmes would not qualify as games, but categorized as entertainments. The spectators could interact with the TV programme, through the voting system and etc. Interestingly, such programmes could be both endogenous and exogenous. The competition being shown on the TV with a final prize would mean that for the contestants, the competition is real, and the final prize has a meaning to them, either in the form of cash or a CD contract, which would have a meaning in the real world as well. However, such competitions also have an endogenous layer, which is unique to the fans and spectators. For example, the fans for the “Super Girls” give unique collective names such as ‘Yvmi’ (corns) and ‘Bigan’ to themselves, which are either meaningless or takes on other meanings in the real world. At the same time, the kind of interactions present in such programmes are definitely not merely a form of clicking buttons, and they are wildly regarded as ‘entertainment’ forms and are popular for a few seasons. Thus, it is too arbitrary for Costkyan to conclude that interactive entertainment does not exist. Nonetheless, given the time he publishes his book, he would possibly not be able to foresee such a development in entertainment industry.

N.B. The response to the other two questions are juts for fun.

2. Consider the work you created for project 1. Is this work actually a game? Why/why not?

Our group project is not an interactive game. Actually it was not meant to be a game at the beginning, and our main purpose was to create an interactive narrative, but not towards to level of a game. In first place, there was not a goal that can be felt by the audience. The goal is set by us, the authors. We were looking into a new method of presenting a narrative in which the audience has more control, compared to the conventional books and documentaries. There wasn’t the sense of ‘space’ of game either as the audience could only change the sequence of the narrative: they are not allowed to change the content/existents. The audience had little opportunity for ‘play’ as well. Ideally we expect the audience to think, before voting at each decision making point, however in actually presentation this was much reduced to the desire to see every episodes in the narrative: no struggle is involved.

3. Costikyan's definition of games as "an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards a goal" includes a stress on the self-contained nature of the meaning within a game. From this definition, any form of gambling, such as mahjong or poker played for money, is not a game. Discuss.

Costikyan’s definition of ‘endogenous meaning’ is similar to Caillois’s characterization of game is ‘separate’, although the latter is more lenient: Caillois indeed include gambling as a type of game and play. Indeed, the definition of ‘endogenous’ is very troublesome. On the first glance it cuts off all links between the game space and the social space, however, such a situation is ideal. Such a definition ruled out not only gambling which involves money, but also professional sports and etc. Similar to the Chinese character ‘wan’, game has many interpretations, from Costikyan’s endogenous games, to Olympic Games, to game theory and etc. Stock market is definitely not a game to Costikyan, but it would be undeniably one to the economists. NBA’s slogan ‘I love this game’ also deviates much from the commercial and professional nature of the league. To some extent, games could be precursors to professions in real society, in the case of professional sports. The vice versa may happen as well, like transforming property markets into monopoly. It could be noted that on general, games have goals. As the winner achieves that goal through some struggle, he obtains a sense of satisfaction. This satisfaction could be purely psychological, physical, but economical — money. In fact, endogenous meaning may not be the deciding factor in judging games, or it could be abstracted to better precisions.

Week 5, beyond hypertext

1. Montfort argues that interactive fiction is distinctively different from hypertext fiction, stating:

"There is… nothing in the nature of the lexia or the link, those fundamental elements of hypertext, that allows the reader to type and contribute text or provides the computer with the means to parse or understand natural language. […] Hypertext fiction also does not maintain an intermediate, programmatic representation of the narrative world, as interactive fiction does."

In terms of understanding how these two forms relate to/differ from narrative, is this distinction significant? Or are they more closely related that Montfort would like to admit? Discuss.

while i was reading Montfort's paper, i was actually very confused, as he makes the distinction between 'interactive fiction' and 'hypertext fiction'. only after i have read his eloration through the example of For a Change, I managed to get what he means by an interactive fiction: one that requires the input from the users, most likely in the format of commands, to unfold an narrative. Essentially i don't feel Montfort's claim is established and it is highly argurable that he's a bit 'dogmatic' over the issue of IF and HF(hehe maybe it's just my personal prejudice). but anyway let me relate IF and HF to narrative first, and to me the distinction is very insignificant.

 

When describing interactive fiction, Montfort introduced the term 'potential narrative'. to him, a narrative is something linear, a 'told' story. That's why he put the word 'potential' before narrative, because in the case of interactive fiction, the story is 'untold', or at least, told but not complete. It would include a prologue, sort of the beginning of a story, with a setting, or environment for the user to explore. So, in an IF, all exsistents are pre-set, and something else pre-set is the rules of exploration, or the commands. meanwhile the computer would also commit some of its memory (RAM while playing and hard-disk after the user saves the session). this pseudo input-memory-out process completes the requirement for 'interactivity'. however in terms of narrative, most of the 'characters' are minimised to 'non-playing characters' while the only 'playing character' becomes the user. the user creates the narrative from the potential, within the boundary of the programme. That's probably also why interactive fiction itself can never be considered at a form of literature.

There is… nothing in the nature of the lexia or the link, those fundamental elements of hypertext, that allows the reader to type and contribute text or provides the computer with the means to parse or understand natural language. I would not agree on this point, and it is here that i found the dogmatism. Montfort is essentially arguing that the distinction between IF and HF lies in the difference that IF requires user to type in understandable 'natural language' to construct the narrative, while hyperlinks would probably need severy clicks from the mouse. but essentially they are the same function: making a choice. the difference is in the form. nontheless, the user constructs his own narrative through typing in commands in the same way as he clicks his mouse. it maybe argued that IF looks more 'free' and 'liberal' and the command line is pre-set to be empty and the user may type in anything as a choice, as compared to hypertext that everything is on the screen and thus the number of choices is limited. however, if we go deep into the 'diegetic, extradiegetic and hypodiegetic commands as introduced by Montfort, we may just realised that IF is offering the same false sense of choice as the hypertext: the choices are limited by the number of commands or key words, in the same way hypertext builders decide on how may links they are going to build. IF is more linguistic, when for HF, the language part is built-in through the thinking and exploration process of the user.

Hypertext fiction also does not maintain an intermediate, programmatic representation of the narrative world, as interactive fiction does. I would agree upon this point to a certain extent, that IF has a more 'contrived' programme, or plot, while the 'programmatic representation' of hypertexts seem more casual. As in, in an IF, which is similar to an RPG game, the flow of events is fixed, through some riddles or puzzle, e.g., the PC could not proceed unless he obtains certain tools or spoken to certain NPC. Hypertexts, on the other hand, could be more random. IF would require a goal for the user to achieve, which may not be necessary for hypertext. nonetheless, through the empoyment of 'locks', hypertexts may also exhibit the more systematic form of 'programmatic representation. thus, to summarise, although there seems to be some minor distinctions between hypertexts and interactive fiction, they are apparently cousins, if not brothers belonging to a much bigger family, and in most cases, they are much closer than Montfort has imagined.

2. Espen Aarseth defines cybertext as a perspective on textuality, which considers a work as a textual machine, and sees the reader as having to make a non-trivial effort to traverse the text. Discuss whether Scott McCloud's "Carl" comic strip can be considered a cybertext.

Aarseth's definition fo cybertext involves a triangular stability involing the  operator, the mediu and teh verbal. It has jumped out the etymological conflicts with the prefix-cyber, and thus extends the notion of cybertext to many other forms of media which carries the spirit, characteristic and mechaism of cybertext.

 

the 'Caul' comic strip looks like a multicursal labyrinth upon my first glance. whether it could be considered as a cybertext is rather subjective, as the notion of 'non-trivial' may have different standards to different people. To some extent, the comic strip may be considered as a primitive form of cybertext, as the readers need to think and make decisions along the way as they explore the web of frames. however, the decision make are rather trivial. in the first place there aren't much choices to make, and to add on to that, not much logic or thinking is required to make the decisions: it's just a matter of feeling.

3. Does a potential narrative such as Paul Fournel's "The Tree Theatre: A Combinatory Play" satisfy Crawford's definition of interactivity? Could it be considered an example of interactive media? Why/why not?

If i am crawford and i'm asked to give a scoreon interactivity on Fournel's work, i would give 50/100. the reasoning is actually a bit dogmatic.

Crawford's definition of interactivity has two fundamental components: it is the listen-think(memory)-talk process, and the other being that the process must be two-way and forms a 'cyclic' process. Fournel's "the tree theatre: a combinatory play' would satisfy part of crawford's definition. The audience would look and listen to the scence, think about it, and respond to it through some voting process, and the piece of play would be 'respond', as in oriented in the way the audience would prefer.

However, on difficult part to fulfil is the 'memory' component. in this case, the 'memory' is pre-determined through carefully planned script writing, and it could not be change, as least during the play. the relationship between crawford's model in interactivity is two-way: thinking would relate something to the memory, and the memory would be a reference to the thinking process. nevertheless after the thinking part the memory itself would be changed. Fournel's model has only a 'static' memory. the problem of a 'static' memory, together with the problem of choice and voting, would give a pseudo-sense of interactivity, which would be discussed later.

if we look at crawford's interactivity from another perspective, we would observe that the outcome of the response would be very different by different people, because they have different thinking habits and past experience( i.e. memory). however, in the case of 'the three theatre', the introduction of 'choice' reduces the number of possible scenarios from happening. the audience, in this case, are 'guided', and the voting would also imply that some minority responses would be ingnored. Thus, the interactivity as designed here is sheared so as to acommondate the reality of theatre performance. nontheless, the involvement of the audience would definitetly put it under the realm of interactive media, and the question would instead be the degree of interactivity, as put by crawford.
 

Week 4, Hypertexts

1. In "Hypertext, Hypermedia and Literary Studies: The State of the Art", Landow and Delany suggest that “hypertext can be expected to have important institutional as well as intellectual effects, for it is at the same time a form of electronic text, a radically new information technology, a mode of publication, and a resource for collaborative work… Hypertext historicizes many of our most commonplace assumptions, forcing them to descend from the ethereality of abstraction and appear as corollary to a particular technology and historical era. We can be sure that a new era of computerized textuality has begun; but what it will be like we are just beginning to imagine."
   
   This passage was written in 1991, at a time when hypertext systems were available in somewhat limited forms such as Hypercard and Intermedia, use of the Internet was largely confined to academic institutions, and the term “World Wide Web” had only just been coined. Now, 15 years later, comment and reflect upon the impact hypertext has had on the world.

Computerisation has been changing, and is changing the world --- what it looks like, how it functions and et cetera. However, the power of computerisation is multiplied and amplified by the linking of computers into a network, a.k.a the Internet, and hyperlinks and hypertexts are the major components for the 'surfing' of internet to occur. and, unlike conventional methods of information exploration and gathering, hypertexts are changing the mindsets of people --- what and how they perceive the word, and how they react to their perceptions and observatios.

to comment and reflect upon the impact hypertext has had on the world is really a big topic. So let me start with the reading for this work first. In hypertext, hypermedia and literary studies, landow and delany examines the impact of hypertext on literary studies, or more generally, interlectuality and academia. they started off by arguing that the 'mental model of hypertext' buries deep in the academic tradition of referencing and cross-referencing. however on the other hand it breaks down the linear structure of traditional academia as extensive and reader-friendly hyperlinks continuously shifts the centre of the context. Hypertexts 'shifts the boundaries' between the producers of the text and the readers. (yes i avoided saying 'authors' because) the authors, in the context of hypertext, loses the 'authority' in them: they may start off with a beginning, but the readers may construct their own endings, or, the readers may have different paths, or experiences, before getting back to the same conclusion.

Let's go back to the reality of the world from academia. blogs and civilian journalism are offering altenrative perspectives on what is happening around us as well as around the world, and they are merely a few clicks away through the hyperlinks, compared to the hustel of flipping through newspaper and magazine articles. and essentially you and equal with the 'authors' of the blogs --- the common denominator of 'netizen' levels all other differences in wealth, power, race, and etc, thanks to the 'virtuality' and anonymity (all except IP address) internet gives to us. meanwhile, when we take a broader look of communitie on the internet, we see latent collaborations everywhere, from pure replication to editing to upgrading and et cetera. one example would be the open source softwares receiving contributions from professional or amateur programmers from all over the world.

it seems that i've wandered off quite far away. time to get back to hypertexts. landow and delany argue that collaboration invokes the dialectic thinking in human society: the sociable façon and the selfish side. Intellectual properties and copyrights well penetrates into hypertexting, although the violation of such on internet is still difficult to be traced an punished. (nonetheless we are working towards that)

one of the most important impact that the hypertexts have on the world, is how it changes the way people think and perceive things. in the past, bounded the the print media, and later, television, most people are passive receivers of information. in addition, referencing and cross referencing takes too much time and physical trouble. the so called academia, thus, is distant and how in the ivory tower where accessed to relevant resources are more ready. in the world now, hypertexts perovides the convenience of referencing and cross-referencing. in the past, the equilibrium of information source and the readers' acceptance is tilted towards the former. Nowadays, hypertextx reverses the order of the assymmetry.

As the result of the assymmetry, we are perhaps facing the problem of 'information overflow': there is just too much information gathered through browsing in hypertexts are ppl are confused about what to believe and how to structurise what they have found out. because of the de-centering implications of hypertexts, on one hand, people have enough individulism and uniqueness to play around; on the other hand, they find it difficult to make their work stand-out among the others, or in the other words, they need more intuition and thought to 'etheralise' what they find out from the hypertexts.

Week 3, comics are interesting

In his paper "Modular Structure and Image/Text Sequences: Comics and Interactive Media", George Legrady states: "Meaning in the interactive work is a result of the sequential selection of components that the viewer assembles in the viewing process. The viewer can then be considered as someone who actively constructs the narrative through the assembling of fragmented or modular information elements. The sequential sum of viewed selections becomes the narrative." This approach to interactivity is reflected in his work Slippery Traces.

Discuss how this approach to constructing a narrative changes the roles of the reader and the author in the process of narrative transmission.

ok, to start off, we need to look at the 'before and after' effects when we talk about changes.

it sounds a bit cliché to me. In old narratives, authors are generally given the 'authority', as suggested by the name 'author'. Be it films, books, symphonies and etc, the author did the job of choice and selection, as well as sequencing and making sure that it begins with a beginning and ends with an ending. He has to ensure that kernel is kernel, and satellites are satellites. The readers, on the other hand, are quite obedient. they may not be satisfied with how narratives is going on. they may not want to see their heroes or heroines fall into the traps and hardships; however, the author has decided the plot, and all what the reader could do is to follow the linear narrative towards the end, and at most complain to his/her friend about the unneccesary trouble the heroes/heroines have gone through. well, but relating to personal experiences, this is the interesting and fun part of such 'non-interactive' narrative transmission. you try to put yourself in another's shoes as you follow the plot. it would be, actually, very dull if the plot is kind of 'flat'.

then we talk about legrady's approach to construct his narrative transmission. Firstly, there is the 'blurring', or breakdown of the distinction between the author and the reader. the author, in this case, would still do the choice and selection job, and a little bit (well actually it's quite A LOT) of sequencing, but putting all those links and hyperlinks. The readers would do most of the sequencing job, and construct 'their own narratives'. the reason that i used the inverted commas is that, if we think twice, the narratives are not entirely the readers' own. yes, they make their choices and go through their own paths, however, the linkages between the nodes are pre-set by the author. Does the reader really gets what he wants? i guess that the answer is a partial yes or partial no. what the reader really get, after 'constructing' his own narrative, is always a mediated version from the author of the work. or to put in other words, in the 'old narratives', the author rigidly fixed the events, existents and settings, while in 'interactive narratives' as suggested by Legrady, the author provides choices for events, existents and setting, but subtlely confines the way the reader reconstruct the narratives, through pre-set computer programming, i.e., the limit for the reader's 'play'.

we may view from the other perspective of 'transcoding'. it appears to me that the author in Legrady's cases, are becoming the collectors and moderators of some kind of database, the computer media is the interface while the readers become the users of the data base, who would search and construct their 'narratives' thanks to the benefits of digitalisation, modularity, variability and automation. so maybe we can view it as an example of how the cultural layer of computerisation gives its impact on the metamorphosis of narratives.

Picture narrative
just couldn't upload all my photos here. so pls visit the link below
http://sg.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/zhouxiang_85/slideshow?.dir=/180bscd&.src=ph

Write about the narrative that your group has chosen for project 1. Why have you chosen this work? How might you approach the task of re-configuring it as an interactive piece? Be prepared to discuss your group’s choice of work in class on Thursday.

Well we haven't really decided. two options now. one is to run lola run. we would do the snapshots of the movies and rearrange them into some other sequences in which the readers may make decisions at branching points. captions may also be added so that the same picture may have different meanings in the plots. and maybe, from nani's point of view for the narrative. the other idea is the snow white story. kind of play. the setting is like in a trial. the snow white and the queen would defend for themselves while there would be witnesses as well. the gist is to present the narrative from different perspectives, and in the end, allow the audience to choose who should be punished.

so basically thanks to modularity and digital representation we are able to do such kind of projects. we try to get the involvment of the audience, letting them to make the decisions, thus achieving kind of interactivity. the branching of pictures provides opportunities for the readers to construct their own narratives and have different endings, different from the fixed plots in old media