<<

¢¡¤£¦¥¦§¦¨©§ ¦  ¦¦¡¤¥¦ ¦¦ ¥¦§ ¦ ¦ ¨© ¦¡¤¥¦¦¦¦¡¤¨©¥ ¨©¦¡¤¨©

¦¥¦§¦¦¥¦ ¦¦¦

¦¦¥¦¦¨©§¦ ¦!#" ¦$¦¥¦ %¤©¥¦¦¥¦©¨©¦§ &' ¦¦ () ¦§¦¡¤¨©¡*¦¡¤¥ ,+- ¦¦¨© ./¦ ¦ ¦¦¦¥ ¦ ¦ ./¨©¡¤¥ ¦¦¡¤ ¦¥¦0#1 ¦¨©¥¦¦§¦¨©¡¤ ,2 ¦¥¦ ¦£¦¦¦¥ ¦0#%¤¥¦$3¦¦¦¦46555 Introduction ThisistheEnglishtranslationofmymaster’sthesisoncomputergamesandinteractive. Duringtranslation,Ihavetriedtoreproducemyoriginalthesisratherfaithfully.Thethesiswas completedinFebruary1999,andtodayImaynotcompletelyagreewithallconclusionsorpresup- positionsinthetext,butIthinkitcontinuestopresentaclearstandpointontherelationbetween gamesand.

Version0.92. Copenhagen,April2001.

JesperJuul Tableofcontents

INTRODUCTION...... 1

THEORYONCOMPUTERGAMES ...... 2 THEOFINTERACTIVEFICTION...... 2 THEBETWEENGAMEAND ...... 3 INTERACTIVEFICTIONINPRACTICE...... 4 THELUREOFTHEGAME...... 4 TOREADACOMPUTERGAME...... 5 METHOD ...... 5 THESTRUCTUREOFTHISTEXT ...... 6 THEHISTORYOFTHECOMPUTERGAME...... 7

INTERACTIVEFICTION:UTOPIAANDGENRE ...... 9 Theofinteractivefiction...... 10 BrendaLaurelandJanetMurray...... 12

THEORETICALINTRODUCTION...... 14

COMPUTERGAMES...... 14 INTERACTIVITY ...... 16 GEORGEP.LANDOW ...... 17 ESPENAARSETH...... 19 LITERARYPRECURSORS ...... 21 ADanishangle...... 23 Astrologyandcut-up ...... 24

ATHEORYOFTHECOMPUTERGAME ...... 26

THESTRUCTUREOFTHEGAME ...... 26

ANARRATIVEMEDIUM?...... 27 Frommovietogame:StarWars ...... 28

TIME,GAMEANDNARRATIVE...... 29 Storytime,narrativetime,andreadingtime ...... 30 Timeinthecomputergame...... 30 Ishappening:Thenowofliterature ...... 32 Thetemporaldifference...... 33

SEQUENCE...... 34 AMODELOFNON-LINEARTEXTS...... 35 THENARRATIVEFRAMEINACOMPUTERGAME ...... 36 ThenarrativeframeinSpaceInvaders...... 36 Themeaningoftheframe ...... 38

THENARRATOR ...... 40 Isthisyourdoing?...... 40

THEPLAYERANDTHEGAME...... 42

EMPATHYANDIDENTIFICATION ...... 43 Theactant ...... 44 Theeyeoftheactant...... 46 Theinvisibleactorandtheabstractgame ...... 47 Thebodyandthemotorskills ...... 48 Gameandcognition ...... 50

DESIRE...... 50 DEATH:HIERARCHIESOFKNOWLEDGE...... 51 REPEATABILITY...... 52 READINGS:SIXVERSIONSOFACONFLICT...... 54

READINGACOMPUTERGAME...... 54 Method...... 55

MYST...... 55 Theplayerandtheinterface ...... 56 andtime...... 57 Programandmaterial ...... 58

INTERMEZZO:THEPLACEMENTOFTHEPLAYER ...... 59 DOOM ...... 61 Temporality...... 61 Identification...... 61 Programandmaterial ...... 61

UNREAL ...... 62 MULTIPLAYERGAMES:DOOM...... 63 Programandmaterial ...... 65

INTERMEZZO:TOWARDSANDINTERACTIVEFICTION ...... 66 WITNESS ...... 67 Gametype,interface...... 67 Narrationandtime...... 68 Programandmaterial ...... 69

LASTEXPRESS...... 71 Gametype...... 71 Narrativeframe...... 72 Interface...... 72 Identification...... 73 Pointofviewandplacementoftheplayer...... 73 Programandmaterial ...... 74

CONCLUSION...... 76

ANALTERNATIVEUTOPIA...... 76 THENARRATIVEANDTHEGAME...... 78 THEREADERANDTHEPLAYER ...... 79 HISTORICALPERSPECTIVES ...... 80 METHOD ...... 81 ENDING...... 81 LITERATURE ...... 83 Aclashbetweengameandnarrative

There'saconflictbetweeninteractivityand: Mostpeopleimaginethere'saspectrumbetweenconven- tionalwrittenstoriesononesideandtotalinteractivityon theother.ButIbelievethatwhatyoureallyhavearetwo safehavensseparatedbyapitofhellthatcanabsorb endlessamountsoftime,skill,andresources. -WalterFreitag,gamedesigner.(Platt1995)

Introduction

Itisadisturbingqualityofcomputergames,thattheyalwaysdareyoutoyetanotherattemptat scoringmorepoints,atreachingthenextlevel.Youoblige,butfromaliterarypointofview,itis notatallobviouswhyyouwouldwantto.Computergamesseemsenselesspastimes,devoidofany pointorreason.Itthenfollowsthattheycanhardlybedescribedasartinanycommonsenseofthe word,sinceameaningfulphenomenonisassumedtocontainsomethingthatcanbereadfromthe work.Computergamesseemnottoprovideanyfeelingofhavingdecodedthemeaningofthe game. Asareactiontothesemeaninglessgames,interactivefictionisclaimedtocreategameswith meaning,gamesthattellagoodstory.Theobviousexampleofthe1990'sisthegame(Cyan 1993). Anditdoessoundlikeanobviousenterprise:Tocombinethetwogianthumanactivitiesof storiesandgames.Addtothisthatthecomputergamesoftodayarelargelycataloguesofpopular culture:fastcars,aliens,herdsofmonstersfromhell.Butthisispossiblybecausethecomputer gameforallpracticalitycannottellstories-thecomputergameissimplynotanarrativemedium. Inactualitywearefacingaconflictbetweengameandnarrative:Theyaretwoseparatephenomena thatinmanycasesruleeachotherout. Themainclaimofthisthesisisthatthecomputergameandthenarrativesharesometraits- botharetemporal,forexample-butapartfromthatareradicallydifferent:Itmaybereasonableto claimthattheweightofthenarrativecomesfromasequenceofpastevents,thathavetofollow,and thattheendofeverystorygetsispowerfrom,ifnotdestiny,thenatleastsomecausallogicand inevitability.Interactivityandgames,ontheotherhand,aredefinedbythatthereader/playercan influencetheeventsnow.Additionally,thelackofanarratorinthecomputergamemakesitimpos- sibletousethe'sinterestingdevicesinthetensionbetweennarratorandthenarrated.Com- putergamesareinterestingfordifferentreasons.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page1 Theideaofaninteractivenarrativehasitsproblems.Asthestartingquotesuggests,Iamnot thefirstpersontodrawthisconclusion.Icannotclaimanyoriginalityinthis;thevalueofthisthe- sisisratherthatIundertakeadetailedexaminationoftherelationshipbetweengameandnarrative, anexaminationofhowandwhytheyarehardtocombine.Thisalsoentailsanexaminationofthe computergameasaphenomenononitsown. Theoryoncomputergames Fromaliterarystandpointinthelate1990's,thestudyofthecomputergameismostlyrelatedtothe studyofnon-linearstoriesand.Bynon-linear,Imeantextsandphenomenathatona materialleveldonotfollowthesamesequenceeverytime;forexampletexts,whereyoudonot readthesamewordseverytime.Relatedtothisistheterm,coinedbyTheodorNelsonin themid-1960's: Aspopularlyconceived,thisisaseriesoftextchunksconnectedbylinkswhichofferthereaderdif- ferentpathways.(Nelson1993,p.0/2) Thetechniquesofthehypertextsandcomputergames,combiningpartstocreatesomethingnew, havealonghistory,anddonotpresupposecomputers.Iwillbediscussingboththecanonicalpre- cursorssuchasJorgeLuísBorgesandIChingaswellasintroducingworksbytheDanishauthor SvendÅgeMadsen.

TheutopiaofInteractiveFiction Theterm"interactivefiction"wasfirstusedinthemagazineBytein1981.(Aarseth1997,p.48).It isalooselydefinedterm,usuallyunderstoodinthesensethat"youthetitlerole",orthat"you areinsidethestory",whichagainimpliesthatthereissomekindofstoryatall.Thetermisnotori- ousofit'sunclearness,butthesamelackofclearnessmakesitworthstudyingasautopianidea:A combinationoftheworldofnarrativeswiththeworldofgames,wherereaders/playersdeeplycon- centratedparticipateinastory,continuallyunfoldingandchanginginevermorefascinatingpat- terns.Thisthesisattemptstocapturetherhetoricofinteractivefictionbyexaminingtheof thecomputergame:Theadvertisements,themanual,thepackaging.Anoldadforthesoftware companydisplaysthemainpointsofinteractivefiction: [...]ashardasweworkatperfectingourstories,wealwaysleaveoutoneessentialelement-themain .Andthat'swhereyouenterin.Onceyou'vegotInfocom'sinteractivefictioninyourcom- puter,youexperiencesomethingakintowakingupinsideanovel.[...]Findoutwhatit'sliketogetin- sideastory.(Infocom1984b) Interactivefictionisdescribedastheadditionofliteraryvirtuestothecomputergame,butpara- doxicallythiswillattheveryleastbreakwiththeprinciplesofaclassicalnormativetext,thePoet- icsofAristotle:

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page2 Astherefore,intheotherimitativearts,theimitationisonewhentheobjectimitatedisone,sothe ,beinganimitationofan,mustimitateoneactionandthatawhole,thestructuralunionof thepartsbeingsuchthat,ifanyoneofthemisdisplacedorremoved,thewholewillbedisjointedand disturbed.(AristotlePoetics,1VIII) Acombinationofgamesandnarrativesriskruiningboth.

Theconflictbetweengameandnarrative Computergamesdonotseemtobebasedonnarratives:ClassicalactionbasedgameslikeSpace Invaders(Taito1977)orDonkeyKong(Nintendo1981)docontainaframingnarrativeabout,re- spectively,aspacestationattackedbyaliensandagirlkidnappedbyanevilape.Itisthenthere- sponsibilityoftheplayertorightthiswrong-chaseawaythealiens,rescuethegirl.Thisisthe structureofasimplenarrative:Agoodsituationthreatened,theherohastorestoreorder.Butunlike narratives,whereapartofthereader'sincentiveisthedesiretoknowtheending,theendingofan action-basedgameisknownfromthestart;itisthegoaloftheplayertoactualisethisgood,well- knownending.Additionallythenarrativeframesarenotespeciallytiedtothegames;ittakesonly fewgraphicalmodificationstoturnSpaceInvaders(spacegame)intoCentipede(gamewhereyou fightspidersandcentipede,Atari1980).Atraditionalgamelikechessalsohasasimilarnarrative frame,oneoftwosocietiesatwar.Butthatishardlythepointofchess:Playingagame,onegradu- allyignoresthestoryandgraphicstofocusexclusivelyonthestructureofthegame,i.e.whatma- noeuvresittakestocompletethegame-nomatterwhatthegame"isabout".Tetris(Pazhitnov 1985)withthefallingsquaresthathavetobefittedcontainsnoframestoryoranyindicationof whatyouare"really"doing:Thesquaresonthescreenseemtobenothingbutsquaresonthe screen:Youcanhaveacomputergamewithoutanynarrativeelements. Thereseemstobeaconflictbetweenthetemporalitiesofthegameandthenarrative:When somethingisinteractive-likeagame-theinteractivityhastobenow,whentheplayermakesa choice.Butthenarrativehasabasictraitofbeingaboutsomethingpast.Similarly,spaceistreated differently:Computergamesalwayscreatespace,wheretheplayercanmovearound,butnarratives areveryfocusedonskippinguninterestingspaces;ajourneyisonlydescribedwhensomethingac- tuallyhappens.Itisessentialforthenarrativethatnarrationdoesnothappenwithconstantspeed, butthatweshiftbetweenresume,cuts,andscene.Thecomputeractiongameisbasedonrealtime, ontheconstantcontroloftheplayer. Itisaconstitutingtraitofthenarrativeassuch,andofthenovelinparticular,thatthetimeof thenarratorandthetimeofnarratedaredistancedintime.Andthatanynovelraisesquestionsof theidentityandknowledgeofthenarrator.Thisrelationbetweenthenarratedandthenarratorisan

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page3 importantdeviceofthenovel.Butthecomputergamedoesnotsharethistemporalsplitbetweenthe timeofthenarrated,ofthenarratorandofthereading:Inthecomputergame,thesethreetimesare implodedtoasinglenow.Thismeansthatthecomputergamedoesnotallowfortheinteresting variationsintherelationbetweennarratorandnarrated.

Interactivefictioninpractice Narrativityandinteractivitycannottakeplaceatthesametime:Narrationpresupposesajumping andcompressedtime,interactivityrequiresrealtime.Interactivefictiontriestoworkaroundthisin differentways:Mystcontainsastorythattheplayergraduallyuncoversduringthegame.99%of thegametakesplaceaftertheevent,outsidethestory.InthiswayMystescapessomeoftheinher- entconflictsininteractivenarratives. Interactionisaconstantproblemininteractivefiction:Wherethetext-basedgamessometime endinfrustratedsearchoftherightcommand,thegraphicalgamesfosterirritationthatyoume- chanicallyhavetosearchthescreenwiththemousefortheexactspotyoucanclick1.Insuchcases theillusionofthegameasacomplete,differentworldbreaksdownbecausetheinterfacegetsinthe way-it'sallaboutmouseandkeyboard. Thelureofthegame Therecanbenodoubtthatcomputergamesareveryattractivetomanypeople,butwiththeory fromthenarrativemedia,itisnotallobviouswhy.InhisbookMovingPictures(Grodal1997), TorbenKraghGrodalarguesthatmoviesandothernarrativesneedhumanoranthropomorphicen- titiesfortheviewertoretaininterest.AndthisholdstrueforaclassiccomputergamelikeDonkey Kong(Nintendo1981),whichhasanactiveactor(Mario).Mostcomputergamesdosharethistrait, butnotallgameshavesuchanactor.InthepreviouslymentionedTetris,theplayercontrolsthe movementofsomebasicshapes,butyouarenotassociatedwithaspecificcharacteroractor.In Lemmings(1989),theplayermustguideanumberofautonomouslemmingsfroman entrancetoanexit-inthisgameyouarenotrepresentedonscreeneither;yousimplygiveordersto thelemmings.Accordingly,thesegamesshouldbemarginalandnotverypopular.Butbothgames werebighits,whichleadsmetotheargumentthatcomputergamescanbemuchmoreabstractthat narratives,becausetheywillalwaysinvolveanactivesubject-theplayer.Sothefascinationofthe computergameisnotnecessarilyconnectedtoidentifyingwithacharacteronscreen,butrelatedto thetaskyouhaveundertakenasareal-lifesubject.

1Hencethephrase"huntthepixel".

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page4 InReadingforthePlot(Brooks1984),PeterBrooksdefinesnarrativedesire:Narrativestend tobebothaboutdesireandtostirthereader’sdesireforknowingtheending.Thecontinuingde- layingofScherazade’sexecutioninThousandandonenightsisagoodexampleofthis.Inthecom- putergame,ontheotherhand,theendingisoftenwellknown,butitisoneyoutrytoactualiseby yourplaying. Thedesiretounderstandandplaythegameisdifferentfromthatofthenarrative:Theaverage playerplaysmoregamesofTetristhantheaveragereaderreadsUlyssesorwatchesGonewiththe Wind.Thisseemstobetheconnectedtointeractivity,whichmeansthatthereisnofixedstorythat thereader/playermustwaitfortheendingof.Fromthisfollows,thatthemorestoryyouattemptto addtoagame,thefewertimeswilltheplayerplayit.

Toreadacomputergame InthisthesisIwillmaketheargumentthatthecomputergameshouldbeseenasacombinationofa formallydefinedlevel,theprogram,andasign-basedlevel,thematerial.Inasimplegamelikethe aforementionedSpaceInvaders,thegraphics(spaceships&aliens)andthenarrativeframe(Earth attacked)caneasilybeexchangedwithothergraphicsoranotherstory-theprogramremainsun- changed.Thematerialobviouslymeansalottotheplayer’sexperience,butitistheprogramthat theplayerhastomaster.Toexamineaspecificcomputergameisthenbestdonebylookingatthe relationbetweenprogramandmaterial.Forexampletoseeifthematerialmakesclaims(suchas possibilitiesofinteraction)thatarenotimplementedintheprogram. IhavetoaddthatIamwritingthispartlyfromapositionaspractitioner.Ihavedeveloped severalcomputergames,ofwhichsomewillbediscussedhere:ThetworelatedgamesPulsin SpaceandEuro-Spacearebrieflydiscussed. Thishasthreeimplications:1)Manyoftheargumentsputforthherehavetheirrootinanactual aestheticandtechnicalcomplex;IambasicallyapprovingtheutopiaIamcriticising.2)Ihavea generaltechnicalanddetailedknowledgeofcomputergamesthatthenormalplayerwillnothave. 3)Iamattemptingtoreplacethecommonsociologicalandevenpathologicalquestion“Whydo theyplaycomputergames?”withanaestheticandphenomenologicalquestion;“Whatisacomputer game?”;whatarethelimitsandpossibilitiesofthecomputergame?

Method Thetheoreticalbiasisinseveraldirections.Ingeneralquestionsofnon-lineartexts,thecentral bookisEspenAarseth’sCybertext(1997).Butmyprojectisprimarilyacombinationofthecom- putergameandthetraditionalnarrativemedia:GérardGenette’sNarrativeDiscourse(1980)is

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page5 usedfordiscussionsin,especiallyregardingquestionsoftime,IusePeterBrook’s Readingfortheplot(1984)todiscussthequestionofmotivation,andfinallyMovingPicturesby TorbenKraghGrodal(1997)isusedforquestionsofidentification.Thesetheoriesareappliedtothe computergametodistilgeneralsimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthetraditionalmediumandthe computergame,andtheseresultswillbeusedinspecificreadingsofgames. SpaceInvaders(Taito1977)isusedtorepresenttheclassicalactiongame.Asfurtherdevel- opments,Tetris(Pazhitnov1985)andDoom(IDSoftware1993)areadded.Thediscussionofinter- activefictionisfocusedprimarilyatWitness(Infocom1980),Myst(Cyan1992),andLastExpress (Mechner1997).WiththepossibleexceptionLastExpress,allofthesegamescanbedescribedas milestonesinthehistoryofthecomputergame.LastExpressisusedasexampleofagamethattries toworkaroundsomeoftheinherentcontradictionsofinteractivefiction. Thisthesisdoesnotclaimthatcomputergamesreallyaregreatliterature-theyarenotlitera- tureatall.NeitherdoIclaimthatcomputergamesaresimplytrashypopularculture-Iconsider gameslikeDoomandTetristobequality.Themeritsofthecomputergamearesimplydifferent thathighlypraisedliteraryvirtueslikecharacter,existentialthemes,andvirtuosolanguage.

Thestructureofthistext Thisthesisisinfiveparts: • Thehistoryofthecomputergameisabriefhistoryofthecomputergameandtherhetoricof interactivefiction. • Theoreticalintroductionintroducespreviousresearchonnon-lineartexts. • Atheoryofthecomputergameisthecentralpieceofthisthesis,andexaminesthecomputer gamefromtwoangles:Thestructureofthegamedescribesthestructuralpropertiesofthecom- putergamewithaspecialemphasisontime.Theplayerandthegameisanexaminationofthe relationshipbetweengameandplayer;amorereader-orientedangle.Thisleadstoatheoryof thecomputergameasphenomenonandalistofparametersfortheexaminationofcomputer games. • Readingsusesthetheorydevelopedtoexaminefivedifferentgamestoshedlightonthecon- structionofthegamesandhowtheyconstructtheirgameworlds. • Conclusionsisasummationoftheresultsofthethesis,aswellassomehistoricalandtheoretical perspectives.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page6 Ahistoryofthecomputergame

Thehistoryofthecomputergameis,inparts,ahistoryoftechnology.Thecomputergamerequires technologycapableofhandlinglargeamountsofdataandofrepresentingthisdata.Therelationship betweenatechnologicalphenomenonsuchasthecomputerandthelessformallybasedcultureis notasimpleone:sometheorieswillclaimthattechnologydeterminesculture,somewillclaimthat culturedeterminestechnology.Itmaybemostreasonabletoseethisasahistoryofmutualinflu- ences,wheretechnologycaninspire(orenable)culturaldevelopments,andculturaldevelopments caninspirenewtechnology.Toquoteanobviousexample,thecomputergamewasoriginallyde- velopedonequipmentdesignedformilitaryandacademicpurposes.Buttodaythecomputergame isthedrivingforceinthedevelopmentofmuchhardwaresuchas3dgraphicsaccelerators.

Spacewar!,thefirstcomputergame.(1962) ThefirstcomputergameisgenerallyassumedtobethegameSpacewar!,developedin1962atMIT (StephenRussella.o.)2.SpacewaroriginallyranonaPDP-1computerthesizeofalargecar.By today’sstandards,thegraphicsareratherprimitive,althoughlessprimitivethanmanygamesform the1980’s.Thegameassuchisnotbad:Twoplayerseachcontrolaspaceshipcirclingaplanet. Theplayerscanshooteachother,turntheirships,andaccelerate.Thegoalis-naturally-tohitthe otherplayerbeforebeinghityourself.

2ItshouldbenotedthatWillyHiginbotham,employedattheBrookhavenNationalLaboratory,in1958developeda simpletennisgame,playedonanoscilloscope.(Hunter1998)

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page7 Pong.(Atari1973) AdvertisementforPong. Thefirstcommerciallyavailablevideogame,Pong(Atari1973),wasintroduced11yearsafter Spacewar!Pongisasimpleconceptthathasturnedouttobesurprisinglydurable3eventhoughthe graphicsaresimplywhiterectanglesonablackbackground.Inthebeginning,Pongwasplacedat entertainmentvenues,markets,andfunfairs,nexttomechanicalpastimesandasasupplementto these.ThisisthesamekindofplacewherethegameSpaceInvaders(Taito1977)wasalsointro- duced.SpaceInvadersdefinesmostofthebasicparametersofwhatIcalltheclassicalactiongame: Aplayercontrolsanobject/anactoragainstsomeenemies;ascoreiskept;thegameisreal-timeand requiresfastreflexes;theplayerhasafixedamountoflives(typicallythree);thegameisbasedon successivelevelsofincreasingdifficulty;thegame(orjustthetitle)placestheplayer’sactionas partofaminimalnarrative. Asshouldbecomeclear,therearemanytypesofcomputergames.Intheclassicalaction gameyoucanalmostneverwin,thegamejustgraduallybecomesharder,andthehighesthonour achievableistoenterthehighscorelist.Themostgeneralthingtosayoftheevolutionofthecom- putergameisprobablythatithasbecomegraduallymorebasedongenres.Almostalloftheearly computergamesintroducednewgameplayelements;latergamestendtobeexamplesofspecific genres,borrowingtraitsfromearliergames.(Thecomputergamehasbecomemoreintertextual,if onesodesires.) Aboutthetermcomputergame:Thistermisinsharpcompetitionwithvideogames,console games,andarcadegames.Videogamesandconsolegamesusuallymeansgamesconnectedtoa TV,whereasarcadegamesmeansgamesplacedinpublicspaces(andindividualcabinets).Com- putergamesareoccasionallytakentomeangamesplayedonaPC.Sincealloftheseareashave beendevelopedincloseparallel(andbecauseallofthesegamesareplayedoncomputers),Iam usingthetermcomputergametodenominatealloftheseareasasawhole.

3Ihaverecentlydevelopedamodernweb-basedversionofPong.(Juul1999).

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page8 Butitisanimportantdevelopmentinthiscontextthatthecomputergamehaschangedfrom beingprimarilyplayedatanarcadetobeprimarilyplayedinthehome.Thishasmadeitpossibleto developgamesoflongerduration,tohavegamesnotfocusedonthesimplegoalofhavingasmany playersinsertcoinsasquicklyaspossible.

AtariVCS2600,thefirstpopularhomecomputergamesystem.(1977) Manydevelopmentsinthehistoryofthecomputergamearenottechnologicalbutpurelyconcep- tual.WhereasSpacewar!andPongaregamesformorethanoneplayer,thetimefromapproxi- mately1977to1993iscompletelydominatedbygamesforsingleplayers.Themultiplayergame becomeswidelypopularwhenDoom(IDSoftware1993)allowsforconnectingseveralPCs,for beingseveralpeoplepresentinthesamegameworld.Doomisonthewholeanincrediblyinfluen- tialgame.Ithasbeencriticisedforbeingviolent,butit’soneofthemostpopularcomputergames everandithasledtoawholegenreofgames,the3d-shooterorfirst-person-shoot’em’up4. Inretrospect,therewasnotechnologicalreasonwhythemultiplayergamedidnotbecomepopular inthemid-1980’s.Itwouldhavebeenperfectlypossibletonetworkhomecomputerslikethe Commodore64,onlynobodydid.Andthismustbeexplainedculturally:Thefirstcomputers(like theaforementionedPDP-1)weregiantmachinespricedatmillionsofdollars,andwerethusshared bymanyusers.Inthemid-seventies,theideaofthepersonalcomputeremerges;acomputerbe- comessomethingonepersonplacesonadesk.Inthebeginningofthe1990’stheInternettakesoff outsideacademiccircles,andthecomputerstartstobeseenasconnectedtoothercomputers,partof anetwork.Thesingle-playercomputergameisdominantduringthereigningyearsoftheisolated, personalcomputer.

Interactivefiction:Utopiaandgenre Thefirst”textadventure”,Adventure(Crowther&Woods1977)wascreated15yearsafterSpace- war!.Unliketheactiongame,anadventureisnotbasedonfastreflexes;thetimeoftheisonpausewhentheplayerdoesnotdoanything.Inthetextadventure,theplayercommuni- cateswiththecomputertextually-movementisinitiatedbytypingthedirectiononewantstomove in.AtypicalstartofAdventurelookslikethis(”>”markswhattheplayertypes.)

4Thehistoryofthegenreistracedin(Saltzman1997).

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page9 WelcometoAdventure!

[...]

AtEndOfRoad Youarestandingattheendofaroadbeforeasmallbrickbuilding.Around youisaforest.Asmallstreamflowsoutofthebuildinganddownagully.

>enterbuilding InsideBuilding Youareinsideabuilding,awellhouseforalargespring. Therearesomekeysonthegroundhere. Thereistastyfoodhere. Thereisashinybrasslampnearby. Thereisanemptybottlehere.

>getlamp Taken. ThetraditionaladventuregameismostlybasedonalooseinterpretationofthebooksofJ.R.R.Tol- kien:elves,trolls,dragons,caves,andtreasures.Atypicalgameinvolvestravellingthroughasys- temofcavestofindatreasure.Adventuresrevolveverymucharoundpuzzles;howtoopenthe gate,howtocatchthebird,etc.

Therhetoricofinteractivefiction Intheearly1980’s,theadventuregenrewasrenamedinteractivefiction,averycontroversialand slightlyideologicalterm.Interactivefictionwasneverdefinedtheoretically,andthetheoristrejectsitcompletelyaspureconnotationwithoutanyrealmeaning.(Aarseth1997,p.48)I thinkthisisbasicallycorrect:Welackatheoreticaldefinition,thetermisbasicallyusedtoclaim literaryqualitiesforagame.Butthebasicimageofinteractivefictionisassimpleasitsounds:Itis theimageofafictiveworld(fictiontakentomean“narrative”),aworldtointeractwith,topartici- patein.Interactivefictionhasfromtheverybeginningbeendefinedinoppositiontoothertypesof computergames,butlateronmanygameshavebeenpromotedasmoretrue“interactive” thanothergameswiththesamelabel.Inactuality,theproductslabelledinteractivefictionhavenot developedmuchonastructurallevel;theyhaven’tbecomemorecomplexordynamic.Theprimary developmenthasratherbeenamovefromtext-basedgamestogamesbasedongraphics.isthentwothings:Autopianideaandagenrecontinuallyclaimingtohavecreatedthisuto- pia. Therhetoricofinteractivefictionisinterestingpartlybecauseithasbeenconstantforthepast 15years:ManytextadventureclassicsweredevelopedbythecompanyInfocom.Theirtrilogy (1981a,1981b,1982)isbasedontheblueprintofAdventure,withtheadditionofbettertextualde-

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page10 scriptionsandanintelligentsenseofhumour.TheadvertisementsofInfocomatthetimepresented theirgamesasthethinkingperson’salternativetothedemented(andgraphical)actiongame: Weunleashtheworld'smostpowerfulgraphicstechnology.You'llneverseeInfocom'sgraphicson anycomputerscreen.[...]Wedrawourgraphicsfromthelimitlessofyourimagination-a technologysopowerful,itmakesanypicturethat'severcomeoutofascreenlooklikegraffitiby comparison.[...]Throughourprose,yourimaginationmakesyoupartofourstories,incontrolofwhat youdoandwhereyougo-yetunabletopredictorcontrolthecourseofevents.(Infocom1983b) Accordingtotheadvertquotedintheintroduction,theplayerallegedlybecomespartofstory.The sameadvertclaimscrediblecharacters.ThegamesofInfocomclaimtopossessqualitiescloserto thoseofthenovelthanthoseoftheactiongame. Inthemid-1980’s,interactivefictionbegantobecomegraduallymoregraphical.Intheearly hybridTheHobbit(Melbourne’shouse1984),allinteractionstillisdonebytyping,andallgame elementsaredescribedtextually,butsomelocationsarealsorepresentedgraphically:

6 TheHobbit:Textualandgraphicalrepresentation. Amongearlyplayersoftext-basedinteractivefiction,acertainamountofnostalgiaisdirectedtothe oldgamesandnewer,graphicalgamesareviewswithscepticism.InStevenEgmond’sFAQforthe USENETnewsgrouprec.games.int-fiction,theageofInfocomisdescribedagoldenage,followed bythemoresuperficialgamesoftoday: [...]ZorkwaswrittenbyMITgradstudents;thesestudentswerethenucleusofa1980start-upcom- panycalledInfocom,whichproducedaversionofZorkfortheTRS-80ModelIandothermachines. Thisledtowidespreadpopularityofinteractivefictiongames,andwaslaterreferredtoastheGolden Ageofthegenre;forseveralyears,Infocom'sproductswerethetop-sellinggamesonthemarket. Laterevents,however,ledtothedeclineoftheIFgenre.Astheeducationalleveloftheaveragecom- puteruserdecreasedandthefeaturesandcapabilitiesoftheaveragecomputerincreased,thetrendin computergameswentto'arcade'gamesinsteadoftext.(Egmond1997) Thelastpurelytext-basedinteractivefictionswerepublishedinthelate1980’s5,andwiththearri- valofthemouse,textualinteractionwasreplacedbygraphicalinterfaces.

5Thereis,however,alargenon-commercialsubculturedevotedtotextualgames.Thiscanbefound,forexample,at http://www.xyzzynews.com/,gamescanbedownloadedfromftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive/.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page11 Inrecentyears,interactivefictionhashadagiantcomebackwiththegameMyst(Cyan1993).

Myst Structurally,MystisquiteclosetoAdventure.Theplayerexploresaworldandsolvesavarietyof puzzles.ThemostnotablethingaboutMystisprobablytheslightlyliteraryframestory,explaining howtheplayerarrivedinthegameworld: Youhavejuststumbleduponamostintriguingbook,abooktitledMyst.Youhavenoideawhereit camefrom,whowroteit,orhowolditis.Readingthroughitspagesprovidesyouwithonlyasuperbly crafteddescriptionofanislandworld.Butit'sjustabook,isn'tit?Asyoureachtheendofthebook, youlayyourhandonapage.Suddenlyyourownworlddissolvesintoblackness,replacedwiththeis- landworldthepagesdescribed.Nowyou'rehere,whereverhereis,withnooptionbuttoexplore... (TheMystmanual.) TheimageoftheplayerenteringthestorywasusedintheadsofInfocom,inMystthe“entera story”figureisthepartoftheframestory.Mystalsotriestodifferentiateitselffromtheaction gamewithitsexcessiveuseofviolenceanddeath: Mystisreal.Andlikereallife,youdon'tdieeveryfiveminutes.Infactyouprobablywon'tdieatall. [...]ThekeytoMystistoloseyourselfinthisfantasticvirtualexplorationandandreactasifyou werereallythere.(Ibid.) Wecancomparethiswitha1984interview:ThesoftwaredesignerByronPreissfromTrillium SoftwaredesignedgamebasedonlikeArthurC.Clarke’sRendezvouswithRamaandRay Bradbury’sFahrenheit451.ByronPreisssaysofhismission: We'retryingtomakeagamethatisbasedonplotandcharacterisation,notpuzzles-thewayabookis. IfyoureadFahrenheit451,youdon'tgetstuckonpage50.Andifyouplaythegame,youdon'tget stuckonframe50,becausethewholeideaisthatyou'reinterestedinthegamebecauseofthecharac- tersandtheplotandwhat'shappening.(Darling1984,p.52) Interactivefictionisthenautopianideathathasbeenconstantforthepast15years.Autopiathat newgamescontinuallyclaimtohavecreated,whiledenouncingearliergamesmakingthesame claim.

BrendaLaurelandJanetMurray Theideaofstoriestointeractwithandtakepartinhasbeenextendedinamoretheoreticalwayby theAmericandramaturgistandcomputertheoristBrendaLaurel.(Laurel1985andLaurel1991aa,

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page12 p.135-142.)Wherethebriefrhetoricalexaminationabovefocusesongames,Laurelproposesa systemforgeneratingwell-formedplotsasdefinedbyAristotleinhisPoetics.Inthisproposed system,thecomputerprogrammusttakeontheroleasauthorwhilethegameprogresses.Anyac- tionbytheplayermustleadtothesystemadaptingthefictiveworldsoastomakesureeverystory iswellformed. AlaterbutparallelworkhasbeendonebytheMITresearcherJanetH.Murray.Shehasde- velopedtheutopiaofLaurelinherowndirection:ToimportthequalitiesoftheVictorianNovel intothedigitalage.(Murray1997,p.1-10).FollowingLaurel,Murraysaysthatsuchworkhasto movefromsimplestructuresofforkingpathstomoreflexiblesystems,capableofadaptingtothe actionsoftheplayer.Theproblemisthatthispresupposesthatitisatallpossibletoteachacom- puterrulesforthegenerationofstories,whichagainpresupposesthatoneisawareofwhatastory isinthefirstplace.AristotlehasprovidedastaticandnormativeframeworkforthisinthePoetics, butinnarratology,nothingsuggeststhattheworkisdoneinanyway.Intheactualworkwithcom- puter-generatedstories,anoften-usedtacticistocodebasicknowledgeoftheneedsandinterac- tionsofhumans,theirgoals,andthenmakethemactinthisfictiveworld.Butthisisnoteasy,asthe followinggeneratedstoryindicates: JoeBearwashungry.HeaskedIrvingBirdwheresomehoneywas.Irvingrefusedtotellhim,soJoe offeredtobringhimawormifhe’dtellhimwheresomehoneywas.Irvingagreed.ButJoedidn’t knowwhereanywormswere,soheaskedIrving,whorefusedtosay.SoJoeofferedtobringhima wormifhe’dtellhimwhereawormwas.Irvingagreed.ButJoedidn’tknowwhereanywormswere, soheaskedIrving,whorefusedtosay.SoJoeofferedtobringhimawormifhe’dtellhimwherea wormwas...(Murray1997,p.200) Thestoryrepeatsbecausethecomputer-controlledcharacterJoeBeardoesnotknowhowtocon- vinceIrvingusinganythingelsethanworms:JoeBearhasnoworms,wantsIrvingtohelphimand soon...Theprogramisincapableofcreatingaproperstorybecauseitlackssufficientknowledgeof theworld.Andeveniftheprogramknewhowtoavoidabsurditiesasthis,itwouldstilllackaway ofcreatinggoodstories.Andafterthistheactionsoftheplayerswouldstillneedtobeintegrated. Thereisalongwaytogo.6 LaurelandMurraysharetwothings:Thattheydescribeandextendtheideaofsomethingin- teractive,betterthantheactiongame,somethingthataddsliteraryqualitiestothecomputergame. Andthattheirideashavenotledtoanyactualattemptsatfulfillingthesevisions.

6IntheessayThepossibilityofliterature(”Litteraturensmulighet”),theNorwegianauthorJanKjærstadcompletely denouncestheseexperiments:”Idonotthinkthatanyoftheexperimentsconductedsofarareofanyvalue.”(Kjærstad 1997,p.252).

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page13 Theoreticalintroduction

Today,nogeneraltheoryofthecomputergameisavailable,butastextsandasobjectsofstudy, theymostobviouslyfitinwiththestudyofnon-lineartextsandhypertexts(liketheWorldWide Web).Inbothgamesandhypertext,thereader/playerseffortsareassignedaroleinrelationshipto thegame,butitisnotquitethesamerelationship:Hypertexttheoryfocusesonverballybasedtexts consistingofsmallpiecesoftext,thereadermustmovebetween.Unlikethis,thecomputergameis mostlygraphicalandbasedonthecontinuouscombinationofelements. Itisbasicallypossibletoplotthestructureofahypertext.Thesimplestmodelisthatofthe treestructurewhichcontinuouslyforks:

Asimpleforkinghypertext. Amorecomplexhypertext:TheshortstorySpor.(Madsen1982) Morecomplexhypertextsareusuallynotbasedonforkingatregularintervals,butarebetterde- scribedasanynumberofnodesconnectedbyanynumberoflinks.7Acomputergameisamore complexphenomenonsinceitisusuallyasimultaneouscombinationofelements,whichcanthen notberepresentedasnodeswithconnections.Inacomputergame,thereader/playerisnotatasin- gle”location”asthereaderisinhypertext,butonecouldratherseethegameasacomplexsystem inagiven”state”atanytime:thespaceshipoftheplayerataspecificposition,theenemiesheading ataspecificposition;everyobjectwithavelocityinaspecificdirection;theplayerhasascoreand anumberoflivesleft.Butbothhypertextandcomputergamescarrylimitationsandrulesfor movementbetweennodesoftextorstatesofthegamesystem.

Computergames AccordingtothegamedesignerChrisCrawford,computergameshavefourbasiccharacteristics (Crawford1982): 1. Representation:Agameisaclosedformalsystemthatsubjectivelyrepresentsasubsetofreal- ity.(Bysubjective,Crawfordmeansthatagameisnotnecessarilytryingtorepresentreality.)

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page14 2. Interaction:Thegameacknowledgesandreactstotheplayer.(Unlikeapuzzle,whichsimply liesstill.) 3. Conflict:Agamepresupposesaconflict.Thiscanbeeitherbetweenseveralplayersorbetween theplayers’goalandwhateverpreventstheplayerfromreachingthatgoal. 4. Safety.Theplayerissafe(inaliteralsense)fromtheeventsinthegame.(Gamblingpresentsa specialcase,wheretheoutcomeofthegameisdesignedtohaveimpactintherealworld.) ThemostproblematicpointofCrawford’sdefinitionisprobablythefirstone,representation,since itdoessuggestthatgameshaveamimeticrelationshiptotheworld.Thisiscertainlynottruefora gamelikeTetris.Startingformthesefourpoints,thisisthedefinitionofcomputergamesI’llbe usinginthistext: Thecomputergameisanactivitytakingplaceonthebasisofformallydefinedrulesand containinganevaluationoftheeffortsoftheplayer.Whenplayingagame,therestofthe worldisignored. Thisdefinitionexplainsthedifferencebetweengameandlawsoftraffic(trafficdoesnotignorethe restoftheworld),betweencomputergamesandchildren’splay(children’splayisnotbasedon formallydefinedrules,rathertherulesareunderconstantrenegotiation,andplaydoesnotneces- sarilyentailanevaluationoftheplayer),betweengameandstories(astorydoesnotevaluatethe effortsofthereader,andstoriescanhardlybedescribedasformallydefined8). Thoughgamblingbasicallydoesn’tevaluatetheplayer,itisgeneralofobsessivegamblers thattheythinkthemselvescapableoffeelingwhenluckiscomingtheirway;theythinkthatthe outcomeisanevaluationoftheirskills. InthisthesisI’llbeassessingthequalityofmanycomputergames.Aswithothercultural phenomena,thereisnosimpleprocedureforsuchassessments,butthecomputergamedoesdiffer fromthingslikenovelsandmoviesinthatthereisnoapparentconflictbetween”high”and”low” computergames;thegamereviewersgenerallyseemtoenjoythegamesthatarealsowidelypopu- lar.Stillthereareconstantdiscussionsofwhataqualitycomputergamereallyis.Intheprofessional magazineGameDeveloper,TzviFreemanhasputforwardanattemptivelistoftraitsofgoodand badgames,thefirstthreepointsbeingthese: 1. Agoodgameempowersyourimagination. Abadgamegetsintheway.

7Foraoverviewofdifferentconstructionsofnarrativehypertexts(andtheirgraphicalrepresentations),see(Ryan 1997). 8ThoughthishasbeenattemptedintheStructuralisttradition,forexample(Greimas1969),theseattemptsappearun- successful.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page15 2. Agoodgamemakesyoufeelincharge. Abadgamerestrictsyouwithartificialre- strictions. 3. Agoodgameistransparent.Youonlyfeel Abadgamekeepsremindingyouthatagame yourownmind,theotherplayers,theideas. isthere. (Freeman1997,p.30) Manysimilarlistshavebeencreated,butthisonedoesgiveusahintthatfreedomrankshigh,and thatlimitationsshouldbemotivated. Interactivity Gamesandhypertextssharethetraitofinteractivity.Idonotconsiderthisanimpossible-to-define term,butinteractivityhasbeenblindlyandwidelyusedtocoverbothphenomenathatarenecessar- ilyinteractive(”interactivegames”),phenomenawherethetermismeaningless(”interactivedis- cussions”),andasageneralsellingpointforanythingwiththeslightestrelationtocomputers(”in- teractiveeducation”,”interactiveexhibition”).Thisisafatealsosharedbythetermshypertext, non-linear,virtual,cyberspaceandmultimedia:Excessiveanduncriticaluseinbothadvertisingand theory. TheDanishtheoristJensF.Jensenhascompiledadetailedhistoricaldescriptionofdifferent definitionsofinteractivity,someclearlytoospecific(thenumberoflaserdiscplayersinasystem), somelostinfruitlessdiscussionofwhetheremailorsolitairecardgamesarethemostinteractive. (Jensen1998).Inmostcasestheterm-thatoriginallywassupposedtosignifywhatisnewabout informationtechnology-ishopelesslyinflatedandunusable.Somedefinitionsdescribeinteractivity asasocialphenomenonbetweenpeople,andBrendaLaurelclaimsittoequalthefeelingofbeing presentinaworld(agency)9.Formypurposes,itwouldbemoreusefultodescribethestructural propertiesofaninteractivework.ThefairlypuristdefinitionofPeterBøghAndersenstatesthis: Aninteractiveworkisaworkwherethereadercanchangethediscourseinawaythatcanbeinter- pretedandmakessensewithinthediscourseitself.Aninteractiveworkisaworkwheretheinteraction ofthereaderisanintegratedpartofthework’ssignification,meaningthattheinteractionfunctionsas anobject-signthatreferstothesamesubjectastheothersigns,notasameta-signreferringtothe signsofthediscourse.(Andersen1992b,p.89) Soitisnotenoughtobeabletostoporstartamovie,sinceithasnomeaningwithinthemovieit- self.ThesamegoesforswitchingchannelsonaTV.Inthisdefinitionofinteractivity,therehasto 9BrendaLaureltellsthefollowinganecdoteonthe1988conferenceINtertainment: Overthecourseofthetwodays,adebateaboutthemeaningoftheword"interactive"ragedthrough everysession,disruptingcarefullyplannedpanelsandpresentations.Peopleseemedtoregard"inter- activity"astheuniqueculturaldiscoveryoftheelectronicage,andtheydemandedacoherentdefini- tion.Severalspeakerstriedtooblige,butnoonesucceededinpresentingadefinitionthatachieved generalacceptance.Manyparticipantsdepartedangryanddissatisfied.(Laurel1991,p.20)

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page16 besomekindofsignifyingprocessingoftheuser’sinput10.Anon/offbuttonisthusnotinteractive. Hypertextisinteractivewhenthechoicesinreadingaremeaningfulintheworldofthetext,forex- amplewhenthecontextplaneofthetextisdifferentaccordingtothechoicesmadebythereader. Computergamesareinteractivebecausetheactionsoftheplayerplayapartindeterminingthe eventsinthegame. Inmyexperience,manypeoplewillprotestifIsaythattheWorldWideWeboranelectronic encyclopaediaarenotreallyinteractive,thoughthesamepeoplewouldnotdescribeapaper-based encyclopaediaasinteractive.Theabovedefinitioncanthereforebeextendedtodistinguishbetween interactivityonthelevelofthediscourse,andinteractivityonthelevelofthestory.Ahypertext (suchasanencyclopaedia)whereyoucanreadaboutasubjectindifferentlevelsofdetailcanbe describedasinteractiveonthediscourselevel.Butthisisneitherasneworasinterestingasinterac- tivityonthelevelofthestory.(Andersen1997).Iwillonlyuseinteractivityforinteractivityonthe storylevel. GeorgeP.Landow Aninteractivetextgivestheirreaderakindoffreedomthatthereaderofatraditionaltextdoesn’t have.Thishasbeendescribedasasituationwherethereaderassumesthepositionoftheauthor, sincethereadernowdeterminesthetext.Thisideaofhypertextasaliberatingformhasforalong timebeenthedominantwayofdescribingthedomain:Themostinfluentialtheorysofarcomes fromGeorgeP.Landow’sbookHypertext:TheConvergenceofContemporaryCriticalTheoryand Technology(1992,revised1997).Wherethehumanitieshavehithertoseenthecomputerascon- nectedtoarational,centralist,modernproject,Landownowclaimshypertexttobealiberating wholesaleconfirmationofDerrida’sdeconstructionandallofpoststructuralism: [...]hypertexthasmuchincommonwithsomemajorpointsofcontemporaryliteraryandsemiological theory;particularlywithDerrida’semphasisonde-centeringandwithBarthes’sconceptionofthe readerlyversusthewriterlytext.Infact,hypertextcreatesanalmostembarrassinglyliteralembodi- mentofbothconcepts[...](Landow1997,p.33-34,emphasisadded.) ThismeansthatLandowreasonsbywayofanalogiesthatassumedeepconnectionsbetweenphe- nomenathatcouldwellbeclaimedtohaveonlysuperficialsimilarities:Derrida’stheoryondecen- teringisaboutthecollapseofhierarchiesinalltexts,notinhypertexts.AndRolandBarthes’dis- tinctionbetweenlisible(readerly)andscriptible(writerly)textsisadistinctionbetweendifferent

10Itshouldbenotethatinteractivityisonlymeaningfulwhentheworkisanindependententity,atext,ifyouwill.Soa blankpieceofpaperorapieceofclayarenotinteractive.Objectsareinteractivewhentheycontainastructure,buta structurethatcanbeinfluenced-whatPeterBøghAndersendenoteselasticity(ibid.)

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page17 literarytexts.LandowreplacestheobjectsdescribedbyDerridaandBartheswithanewone,which hethenclaimstofittheirtheoriesevenbetter: Derridaproperlyacknowledges(inadvance,onemightsay)thatanew,freer,richerformoftext,one truertoourpotentialexperience,perhapstoouractualifunrecognizedexperience,dependsondiscrete readingunits.(Ibid.p.8,emphasisadded.) Unfortunately,thisisaquiteunconvincinginterpretationofDerrida.Ifoneweretobrieflysketch themethodofDerrida,heisverycriticalofwesternmetaphysics,thatis,themetaphysicsofpres- enceandlogocentrism:Derridaclaimsthatwesternthoughthasprivilegedcertainthingsaboveoth- ers.Ithasprivilegedthespokenwordisassumedtobeadirectreflectionofapriorintention.(In speech,thoughtispresent.)Contrarytothis,Derridanotesthatspeechisalsoaformofwriting,and thatwritingisalwayscharacterisedbydisplacementsintimeandmeaning(differance).Accord- ingly,philosophyhasrepressedthatitisalsowriting;philosophyhasbeenassumedtobeaseriesof thoughtsthatwereafterwardsexpressedinclearandtransparentlanguage.Butphilosophyisalso determinedbythelanguageittriestospeak(andit’slackofstability).Itissubjecttodiscussion whetherDerridadeniestheexistenceofsomethingoutsidelanguage.11Butnomatter,thephiloso- phyofDerridadoesnotcontainanideaofactual,language-independentexperiences,sohypertext obviouslycannotcorrespondtothem.Hypertextisclearlyalsowriting,butLandowtriestoassign hypertextastatusaspresenttothethought,astatusthatisremarkablyclosetotheprivilegingof speechcritiquedbyDerrida. ThemeritofGeorgeP.Landowisratherthathehaspointedtohypertextandtechnologyas somethingthatisnotinradicaloppositionto”culture”or”thebook”,butissomethingthatcanbe studiedbythehumanities.Hehasmadeitclearthatmanyofthecharacteristicsofhypertextcanbe found,inactualityorprophesied,inearliertheoryandinliterature.Hehascollectedthecanonof texts,thatarenowconsideredcentral:Theoretically,VannevarBush’s1945articleAsweMay Think(Bush1945),wheretheconceptofhypertextisintroducedasamechanicaldeskfullofmicro- film.TheodorNelson’sessaysfromthe1960’s,wherethetermhypertextisintroduced.Onthelit- erarylevelitistheelectronictextAfternoonbyMichaelJoyce(1989),wherethereadercanclick

11TheDanishtheoristPeterBornedaldescribesthemethodofDerridaasaphenomenologicalepoché,meaningthat Derridaexaminestheobject(writing)byputtingtherestoftheworld”inbrackets”,sotospeak.Notthathedeniesthe existenceofanexternalworld,but”Allassumptionsaboutconnectionsbetweenthetextandaworldoffacts,orbeing (amaterial,historical,social,psychological,subjectstructureorsimilar)issuspendedintheexaminationofthetext.” (Bornedal1985,p.10-11,mytranslation).Thesameambiguity,whethertheexistenceoftheworldisdeniedornot,can betracedinliterarydeconstruction,whereliteratureisexaminedasaclosedsystem.Bothcanbecriticisedforaten- dencytowardsthetautological,wheretext(withvaryinglevelsofconsequence)isexaminedasanisolatedphenome- non,afterwhichitisclaimed(withvaryingconsequence)thatthetextisanisolatedphenomenon.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page18 throughastoryusingamouse,andtheJorgeLuísBorgesshortstoryTheGardenofForkingPaths (1941,1962) Landowstatesthatforkingtextsandstoriesassignnewpowertothereader,andinthemost extremecasesmakesthereaderanewauthor.Butthisisnotentirelytrue:Aworkhasstillbeen producedbyoneormorepeople.OntheWorldWideWeb,thereadercanonlychangehis/herown text.Andinagameorastorywithmanyendings,thereadercannotmakeanewtext,butonly choosebetweenthepossibilitiescreatedbythewriter/programmer.Thestorycanbenewevery time,butonlynewwithinsomepredefinedconstraints.Thereaderhasanewkindofinfluence,but isnotinpower. EspenAarseth AnewerandmorepracticallyusefuldescriptionofthesubjectcanbefoundinEspenAarseth’s bookCybertext:PerspectivesonErgodicLiterature(Aarseth1997).WhereLandowhasatendency towardsthegeneral,Aarsethisclosertospecifictextsandtriestodifferentiatebetweendifferent typesoftexts.Hismainconceptisthatofcybertext: Theconceptofcybertextfocusesonthemechanicalorganizationofthetext,bypositingtheintricacies ofthemediumasanintegralpartoftheliteraryexchange.However,italsocentersattentiononthe consumer,oruser,ofthetext,asamoreintegratedfigurethanevenreader-responsetheoristswould claim.(p.1) Acybertextisamachinefortheproductionofavarietyofexpressions.(p.3) Acybertextisbothanordinarytextandsomethingmore,amachinecapableofgeneratingseveral manifestationsofthesamematerial.Inrelationtothecybertext,thereistheergodic: Duringthecybertextualprocess,theuserwillhaveeffectuatedasemioticsequence,andthisselective movementisaworkofphysicalconstructionthatthevariousconceptsof"reading"donotaccountfor. ThisphenomenonIcallergodic,usingatermappropriatedfromphysicsthatderivesfromtheGreek wordsergonandhodos,meaning"work"and"path".Inergodicliterature,nontrivialeffortisrequired toallowthereadertotraversethetext.(p.1) Acybertextisdefinedbythatthetextcanbecombined(orcancombineitself)innewconfigura- tions.Theergodicischaracterisedbythattheeffortofthereaderisgreaterthanthatofinterpreta- tion;anergodictextpresupposesactivityfromthereader.Thesetwotermsarefairlybroadinscope, includingalonglistofdifferentphenomenafromhypertexttocomputergames.Hypertextissimply asubcategoryofthelargercybertext. ThestartingpointofAarsethistosomeextenttheoppositeofLandow's.WhereLandowar- guesinanalogies,withrhetoricalsimilaritiesbetweentechnologyandliterarytheory,withhypertext asaradicalbreakwithearlierformsoftext,Aarsethexperiencesthiskindofreasoningasalarge didacticproblem:

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page19 WheneverIhavehadtheopportunitytopresenttheperspectiveofergodicliteratureandcybertexttoa freshofliterarycriticsandtheorists,Ihavealmostinvariablybeenchallengedonthesame issues:thatthesetexts(hypertexts,adventuregames,etc.)aren'tessentiallydifferentfromotherliter- arytext,because(1)allliteratureistosomeextentindeterminate,non-linear,anddifferentforevery reading,(2)thereaderhastomakechoicesinordertomakesenseofthetext,andfinally(3)atext cannotreallybenon-linearbecausethereadercanreaditonlyonesequenceatatime,anyway.(p.2) TheideologicalprojectofAarsethisprimarilythatweshouldnotassumethatthereareradicaldif- ferencesbetweenprintandelectronictexts.Therecanbegreatersimilaritiesbetweenanelectronic andaprinttextthanbetweentwoprinttexts. Theproblemsinterminologyalsoapplytoawordlike”labyrinthine”.Manyhypertextsand gamesarelabyrinthsinaliteralsense;asareaderyoumuchsearchfortheexit.Atthesametimeit isnotuncommontousethetermasdescriptionfor“difficult”textslikeUlyssesorjustlargenovels likeInsearchofTimeLost.Intheliterarysense,“labyrinthine”isa,inhypertextitislit- eral12.Asawayoutofthisproblem,Aarsethsuggeststhetermsunicursal/multicursal.Aunicursal labyrinthischaracterisedbyhavingonlyoneroutefromentrancetoexit;themulticursallabyrinth containsseveralpossiblepaths.WhenUlyssesischaracterisedaslabyrinthine,itisintheunicursal sense.Hypertextsorgamesarebasicallymulticursal. Atheorylikethis,basedontextualphenomena,inevitablyfacessomeproblemsinrelation- shiptothemorevisualandplasticformofthecomputergame.Theunicursal/multicursalpaircar- riestheassumptionthattheplayeralwaysisinonespecific“place”inthe“text”.Butcomputer gamesareunfortunatelynotfixedsequence,butcombinationsofdifferentmaterials.Accordingly, Aarsethmakesadistinctionbetweentextons(thepiecesoftextinthetext)andscriptons(thepieces oftextpresentedtotheuser/reader).Inamoreadvancedhypertext(likethegameAdventure),the userisintroducedtoscriptonsthatarecombinationsoftheimplicittextonsofthegame.Ontopof thisarethetraversalfunctionsofthetext:themechanismsdeterminingwhatscriptonstheuseris introducedtoandhowtheyarecombinedofthetextonsinthetext. Inanattempttocreateanoverallstrategyforthecategorisationoftexts,Aarseththentriesto categorisealltextsaccordingtosevenparametersfortheirtraversalfunctions: 1. Dynamics:Inastatictext,thenumberofscriptonsisconstant.Insometexts,thecontentsofthe scriptonschange(thetextisthenintratextonicdynamic).Inothertexts,bothcontentandnum- berofscriptonschange(thetextistextonicdynamic).

12ThisleadstoLandow’sviewofhypertextas”analmostembarrassinglyliteralembodiment”ofsometheoretical terms.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page20 2. Determinability:Whetherthetextdevelopsaccordingtofixedcausality;withthesameevent alwaysleadingaspecificotherevent.I.e.ifthereischanceinvolved. 3. Transiency:Whetherthetextdevelopsregardlessofuseractivity;iftimeisafactor. 4. Perspective:Whethertheuserissetasplayingaroleintheworldofthetext(personal)ornot (impersonal). 5. Access:Whetheraccesstodifferentpiecesoftextiscontrolled;ifthereaderhasimmediateac- cesstoallpiecesoftext.(Whichyouhaveinprinttext,butoftennotinanelectronictext.) 6. Linking:Iftherearelinksbetweendifferentscriptons,ifthislinkisexplicit,ifthelinkingis conditional(requiring,forexamplethatyou’vereadspecificotherpiecesoftext). 7. Userfunctions:Iftheuser/readerdoesmorethaninterpret.Inanexplorativetext,theuser choosesapath.Inaconfigurativetext,theuserexplicitlychoosesbetweenscriptons.Inatex- tonictext,thereadercanaddnewtextonsorfunctions. The7parametersleadtoatotalof576differenttypesoftext(3x2x2x2x2x3x4).Thisgives usthehopeofbeingabletosketchsomecleargenres.Aarsethattemptsthisbycategorisingatotal of21texts,suchasMobyDick,Afternoon,andAdventure.Theproblemwiththisattemptisthat mosttextsdonotfitneatlyintoonecategoryortheother.ThegameWitness(Infocom1983)hasan identicalintroductioneverytime(static),butmuchofthegameisintratextonicdynamic.Inregards totime,amodernactiongamelikeDoomII(IDSoftware1994)istransient(timematters)when youarefacedwithopponents,butintransientoncetheseopponentsaredefeated.Regardingaccess, agameisalwaysabalancebetweencontrolledaccessandrandomaccess.Otherwiseitsnota game.(ThisisconnectedtothepreviouslymentioneddefinitionofChrisCrawford,thatagamehas tohaveaconflict.)13 ItismyopinionthatAarseth’stextcategoriesdonotworkasageneralcategorisationoftexts. Butthemodelisusefulasalistofsevenpossibleperspectivesontexts.IdothinkthatAarsethis rightindescribingthesesevenparametersasinterestingandcentraltotexts,theyarejustnotei- ther/orquestions.Ihavechosentousethemasqualitativecharacteristics.

Literaryprecursors Evenifthisthesishasthecomputergameasitscentralfieldofstudy,itmustbesaidthatmanyof thetechniquesinthecomputergame;non-linearity,combinatoricshavebeenutilisedlongbefore theadventofthecomputer.ThemostpopularexampleistheshortstoryTheGardenofForking 13EspenAarsethdefendshiscategoriesbysayingthattheyshouldbeseenasthedominanttraitofaspecifictext.(Per- sonalconversation.)

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page21 PathsbyJorgeLuísBorges(InBorges1941,1962).DuringWorldWarI,themaincharacterYu TsunvisitstheSinologistStephenAlbert.AlberttellsTuTsunabouthisgrandfatherTs’uiPên: Ts’uiPênhadoncedeclaredthathewantedto1)writeabookand2)buildalabyrinth.Nobody everyfoundthelabyrinth,justabookthatseemsamessofcontradictions.StephenAlbertthentells YuTsunthatthebookandthelabyrintharethesamething.Inthebook,everychapterisfollowed by"every"possiblecontinuation: Inallfiction,whenamanisfacedwithalternativeshechoosesoneattheexpenseoftheothers.Inthe almostunfathomableTs'uiPên,hechooses-simultaneously-allofthem.(p.98) Thisisconnectedtoadiscussionoftimeassuch,describedasaplethoraofparallelandpossible futuresinsimultaneousexistence.Regardlessofthisstory’sfame,itisstilljustadescriptionofa non-lineartext.14 AnotherstorybyBorges,AnExaminationoftheWorkofHerbertQuain(InBorges1941, 1962)isnotasfamousbutquiterelevant:ThenarratortellsusofthenewlydeceasedauthorHerbert Quainandhiswork.ThemostinterestingworkbyQuaininthiscontextisthenovelAprilMarch, whichissplitin3levelsand13parts.Eachpartisfollowedby3otherparts.Thenovelcanberead inatotalof9ways,eachwrittenfromauniqueviewpoint:Psychological,communist,anti- Communistetc.: IdonotknowifIshouldmentionthatonceAprilMarchwaspublished,Quainregrettedtheternary orderandpredictedthatwhoeverwouldimitatehimwouldchooseabinaryarrangement[...]Andthat demiurgesandgodswouldchooseaninfinitescheme:infinitestories,infinitelydivided.(p.76) Inthe1960’smanyoftheseideaswererealisedbytheFrenchOuLiPo-group(OuvroirdeLittéra- turePotentielle).Thegroup(countingfamousmemberslikeRaymondQueneau,GeorgesPerecand ItaloCalvino)workedbycreatingmathematical,logicalorlanguagesystemsthatwereusedinthe writingprocess.ThisleadtoRaymondQueneau’sclassicCentMilleMilliarddePoèmes(1961), where10sonnetscanbecombinedonaline-by-linebasistoformatotalof1014formallycorrect sonnets.Anotherstory,Unconteávotrefaçon,beginswiththequestion:”Wouldyouliketohear thestoryofthethreealertpeas?”(OuLiPo1973,p.273).Thetextcontinuesaccordingtothe reader’schoice,andwecanchoosewhetherthepeasshoulddream,whatcolourtheirglovesshould have.Sothistextisastagingofasituationwithaslightlydishonestnarratorandanaudience. Thereisnoeasywaytodemarkthisarea;largeamountofmarginalphenomenadosomething similarinslightlydifferentways.AmongmoviesI’dliketomentionAkiKurosawa'sRashomon (1950),wherethesamestoryistoldthreetimesfromdifferentpointsofview;Kieslowski'sBlind

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page22 Chance(1982)wherethesamesituation–ayoungmantryingtocatchatrain–iscontinuedin threedifferentways.InHaroldRamis’popularmovieGroundhogDay(1993)themaincharacter relivesthesamedaycountlessoftimesuntilhefindstruelove(andinnerpeace).InPeterHowitt's SlidingDoors(1997),awomantriestocatchatrain,whichleadstotwodifferentparallelcontinua- tions.15 Inliterature,TheFrenchLieutenant’sWomanbyJohnFowles(1969)hasthreedifferent endings,eventheyarepresentedinafixedsequence(unicursally,likeBlindChance).Julio Cortázar'sHopscotch(1963,1966)consistsofnumberparagraphsanddescribesitselfastwonov- els:Onefromparagraph1to56,thesecondisasequenceofparagraphsinaquitecomplexse- quence.Nabokov'sPaleFire(1962)isanintroduction,apoem,andfootnotestothatpoem–and canthusbeconsideredaborderlinecasebetweentheunicursalandthemulticursal:Youcanreadit frombeginningtoend,butit’sunlikelythatanybodywoulddothis.

ADanishangle ThereisasmallDanishtraditioninthisarea.IngerChristensen'sAzorno(1967)doesapproximately whatRashomondoes-InAzornoseveralvoicesclaimtobethenarratorofastory.6512byPer Højholt(1969)isanovelwherethepageshavebeentornoutandrearranged,meaningtheorderof readinginprinciplecanbechosenfreely.ButtheprimaryDanishpractitionerissurelySvendÅge Madsen.Tilføjelser("Additions",1967)consistsof5foldersinabox,meaningthattheorderof readingisfree.Thesefoldersarehardlyaboutanything,butmostlycommenteachotherfromspe- cificideologicalstandpoints.IntheshortstoryDenslettefortæller("Theevilnarrator",1970)a storyistoldwheretheBorgbothstaysonandleavesapublicsquare: Helooksaround.Hestaysandhegoeshome.Itishard,butheactuallygoeshome,and heactuallystays.Howcanhechoosejustoneofthepossibilities?Heengagesbothpossibilitiesand predictsacontinuingsplit. Borgstandsaloneonthesquare.Andnothinghappens.Thelonelinessechoesfromthehouses aroundhim. Borgisstandingonthesquare.Suddenlyawomanhasappearedbyhisside.Herhairislong,it isdark,itiswavy. WhenBorgisonhiswayhome,hefeelsveryalone,abandonedbyeveryone.Helooksenvi- ouslytowardseverylitwindow.Everynowandthenheseesahappycoupleholdingeachotherand smiling,heseesamotherplayingwithherchild. Havingwalkedafewstepsfromthesquare,towardshishome,agentlehandsuddenlylandson

14ThisispartofageneralstrategyinBorges’writings,thatofwritingshortstoriesaboutthe(fictive)creatorsofcolos- salliteraryexperimentsratherthanactuallyperformingthem. 15SlidingDoorsseemslikeacheaprip-offofBlindChance,butininterviewsPeterHowittclaimednevertohaveseen BlindChance;thathehadbeeninspiredbypersonalevents.AtthesametimeGroundhogDayissurprisinglycloseto theDanishauthorSvendÅgeMadsensnovelLadTidenGå(1986).

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page23 hisshoulder.Agirlwithasmilesowarm,hisheartnearlymelts.Hetoucheshisbreastandsighsin pain. (Mytranslation.) Bothpathsaretaken,andthisiscontinuedin6levels.(Meaningthatthelastlevelhas64piecesof text.)Thestoryforks,anditmightreasonablybedescribedasnon-linear.Typographically,how- ever,thetextissetupforbeingreadfromtoptobottom,unicursally.InthenovelDagemedDiam ("DayswithDiam",1972),theforksaremappedonpage1,andeachofthepossiblecontinuations haveaseparatechapter.Sothetextmoreopenlyinvitesthereadertomakechoices.IntheSpor("Tracks/traces")inAfsporeterdukommet("Youhavecomefromtracks/traces",1984) thechoiceshavemoreofagamecharacter;thingscangowellorlesswellfortheprotagonist.So SvendÅgeMadseninitiallyusestheforksasamultitudeofpossibleandparallelfutures.Gradually, theroleofthereaderbecomesmoreimportant,andthetextsbecomemoregame-like.Spordoes seeminfluencedbytheChooseyourownadventureseries,wherethereaderhastomakechoicesof thekind"Doyouwanttoattackthedragon?"(Thisserieswasfirstpublishedin1979.)

Astrologyandcut-up Mathematicalprinciples(suchaschance)havebeenusedinthewritingprocessbywriterssuchas WilliamBurroughsinhiscut-upstrategies(IrefertohisessaysLesVoleursandTheFallofArt (1986)).EspenAarsethhasnotedthatsuchtechniquesgomuchfurtherback,asaminimumtothe 3000-year-oldChineseoraclesystemIChing,wherea6-linetextisconstructedbymeansof chance.Itcouldbeaddedthatthisischaracteristicofmostdivination:theuseofchanceinterpreted assignsfromDivineProvidenceorsimilar.Thecut-upmethods,ofteninterpretedaslossofmean- ingorcoherenceintheworld,haveparallelsinsomepracticeswiththeexactoppositeworldview. Today,thebyfarthemostpopularreligiouscombinatorytechniqueisclearlyastrology,wherea numberofpiecesoftextarecombinedaccordingtomathematicalprincipleswiththetimeandplace ofbirthassoleinput.Astrologyisnotinteractive,butIfinditsurprisingthatastrologysharesthe techniqueswithRaymondQueneau,WilliamBurroughsandcomputergameslikeQuakeorMyst. Ontheotherhand,thissurprisebuildsonacommon,butquestionableoppositionbetweenthe “sensitive”and“technical”16.Forexample,theDanishpoetIngerChristensenhaswrittenbotha longpoembasedonthemathematicalFibonacciseries(Christensen1981)andasonnet(1991).The sonnetisinnowaylessofasystemthantheFibonacciseries,butthesonnetisnotcountedasa technicalexperimentsinceitispartoftheliterarytradition.RaymondQueneauisnotobliviousto

16Iknowbyexperiencethatproponentsofastrologyobjecttobeingremindedthatastrologyisamathematicalsystem.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page24 thisconnection,andinhisessayPotentialLiterature(Motte,p.51-64),heexaminesthesonnetas onesystemamonghistoricalanddisusedsystemslikethesestinaandthetrioletalongwithnewer inventionslikeS+7(exchangingeverysubstantiveinatextwiththeseventhfollowingina- ary)andthelipogram(textswherespecificcharactersareforbidden). Thisdoesnotmeanthatmulticursalityandcombinatoricscanbeusedforanypossiblepur- pose.Theydoseemtolendthemselvestomanyviewpointsandmodesofthinking-itishardto describetheirideologyassuch.Theyarefixedonmorespecificandtechnicallevels.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page25 Atheoryofthecomputergame

Thischapterhasasinglepurpose:Todescribethecomputergameasasubjectfortheoreticalstudy, withaspecialfocusonitsrelationshiptonarratives.Iamnotthefirstpersontomakesuchacon- nectionbetweenanaestheticdomaintothecomputer:BrendaLaurelhastriedtodescribethecom- puterwithtermsfromdramaturgy(1991),TheodorNelsonhasproposedweshouldexaminecom- puterslikewe’dexaminemovies(1990),PeterBøghAndersenhastriedtoapplysemiotics(1990), GeorgeP.Landowhasusedpoststructuralistliterarytheory(1992,1997).Alloftheseinitiallyas- sumeacorrespondencebetweentheirtheoryandthenewfieldofstudy.EspenAarsethhasde- scribedthisastheoreticalimperialism(1997,p.16).Inallmodesty,mystartingpointisdifferentin thatItakeliterarytheoryasastartingpointtoexaminewhereandwhythecomputergamediffers fromthedomainofliterature.Iamlookingforsimilaritiesanddifferences. Thisworkleadstoatheoryofcomputergames,atheorythattriestoaccountfortheprimary qualitiesofthecomputergame,theprimaryconflicts,andtheareasofthegreatestvariationbe- tweendifferentgames. Mostexamplesinthetheoreticalchapterareactiongames.Thisisbecauseinteractivefiction ispresentedasanoppositiontotheactiongame,whyitisinterestingtoexaminewhatitisthatis beingrejected.Interactivefictionisanattemptatahybrid,andtounderstandthiswemustshed lightonitsundescribedpart,thecomputergame.Furthermoretheactiongameisthemostpopular typeofcomputergame,and,ismyclaim,thecomputergameinitspurestform. Iexaminethecomputergamefromtwotheoreticalangles: • Thestructureofthegameisastructurallyorientedexaminationofthenarrativetraits(andthe temporalsituations)ofthecomputergame. • Thegameandtheplayermoredirectlyincludestheroleoftheplayerinthecomputergame. Thiscontainsacognitivediscussionoftheplayer’sidentificationwiththegame-world,which leadstoadiscussionoftheplayer’sreasonstoplayagameseveraltimes.

Thestructureofthegame

Thisstructuralexaminationofthecomputergameisfirstandforemostadiscussionoftherelation- shipbetweencomputergamesandnarrativityassuch.Inspecificquestion,myfocusisprimarilyon thenovel.Thenoveliscentral,becauseitistheliterarygenre,whosecharacteristicsregardingtime andnarratorhavebeenmostthoroughlyexamined.Thishappensinthreeparts:

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page26 • Acomparisonofthetemporaltraitsinnovelsandcomputergames. • Atextmodelforcomputergamesandnon-lineartexts-amodelbettersuitedforcapturingthe specificsofnon-lineartextsthanthestory/discoursedistinctioninnarratology. • AdiscussionoftheframenarrativeinthegamesSpaceInvaders,PulsinSpaceandEuro-Space: Amoregeneraldiscussiononhowelementsofnarrationareoftenbuiltintocomputergames.

Anarrativemedium? Thebasicproblemofthenarrativeisthatfactthatthenarrativeasphenomenoncannotbeviewed independently,ansich,butonlythroughanothermediumlikeoralstorytelling,novels,andmovies. Theclassicalargumentfortheexistenceofthenarrativeisthefactthatastorycanbetranslated fromonemediumtoanother: Thistransposabilityofthestoryisthestrongestreasonforarguingthatnarrativesareindeedstructures independentofanymedium.(Chatman1978,p.20) Correspondingly,PeterBrookssays: Narrativemaybeaspecialabilityorcompetencethat[...]whenmastered,allowsustosummariseand retransmitnarrativesinotherwordsandotherlanguages,totransferthemintoothermedia,whilere- mainingrecognisablyfaithfultotheoriginalnarrativestructureandmessage.(Brooks1984,p.3-4) Inanewerandmorecognitivelyorientedversionofthesamethought(narratives/meaningas somethingmental,independentofthemedium),TorbenFledeliusKnapdescribestextsasphenom- enacreatingthesamementalspacesregardlessofthemedium: Thatatextcanbetranslatedbetweenmediapointstothesituationthatatextismorethanjusttheem- piricalmaterialobjectpresentingit.[...]Amentalspacethatarisesandappearssoahumancanfixit asstableandrefertoitdespiteofthefactthattheworldpassesby,isatext.(Knap1998,p.40,my translation.) Itdoesseemfairlyunproblematictomoveastorybetweentraditionalnarrativemedialikethe novel,themovie,andthetheatre.Computergamesareabithardertoplaceintheabovedefinition ofatext,sincetheydo”passby”,andarenotidenticaleverytimetheyareplayed.Onahigherlevel ofabstraction,computergamesarestableandcanbereferredto;level15inDoomisidentical(or variablewithinfixedlimits)nomatterwhereorwhenyouplaythegame.Thisgetsmorecomplex inthemultiplayergame,butyoucanstilldescribeaspecificcomputergameasastablesystem, variablewithinfixedlimits. Theseargumentsfortheexistenceofthenarrativeassomethingmedia-independent,canbe usedtheotherway,asatestofwhetherthecomputergameisanarrativemedium:Ifthecomputer gameisanarrativemedium,storiesfromothermediamustberetellableincomputergames,and computergamescanberetoldinothermedia.Wecanstartbyexaminingagamebasedonamovie.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page27 Frommovietogame:StarWars ThearcadegameStarWars(Atari1983)isbasedontheGeorgeLucasmovieofthesamename.In themovieStarWars,anarmyofrebelsfightaheroicbattleagainsttheevilgalacticempire.The dramaticpeakofthemovieiswhentherebelarmyandthestory’sprotagonistLukeSkywalkermust attacktheevilempire'snewweaponthedeathstar.ThegameStarWarsisinthreephases,inallof whichyoucontrolaspaceshipfromtheinside,presumablyasLukeSkywalker.Thefirstphase takesplaceinspace,whereyoufighthostilespacecraft.Thesecondphaseisonthedeathstar, fightingdifferenttowersandsquareobjectonthedeathstarsurface.Inthethirdphaseyoufly throughatunnelinthedeathstar,whereyoumustattacktheexhaustportattheend.Thismakesthe deathstarexplode.Firstandthirdphaseareimmediatelyrecognisablefromthemovie.Firstphase correspondstoanin-moviebattlebeforeLukefliestothedeathstar-exceptthattherebelfleetis absent.Secondphasehasnoclearcorrelateinthemovie.Thethirdphasecorrespondstoascenein themovie-againwiththerebelfleetbeingabsent.Ifyoucompleteyourmission,thedeathstarex- plodes.Sothegamecopiesasmallpartofthemovie.Wecanalsonotethattheotherrebelsareab- sent,atthatyoufornoapparentreasoncankeeponblowingupthedeathstar,atgreaterandgreater difficulty.

StarWars(Atari1983) Thereisonethingthatencouragestheplayertoconnectgameandmovie:Thetitle”StarWars”on themachineandonscreen.Butitisbasicliteraryknowledgethatweshouldnotassumethetitleor theforewordtobecorrect.Ifweimaginethetitleremovedfromthegame,theconnectionwould notbeatallobvious.Itwouldbeagamewhereoneshouldhitan”exhaustport”(orsimplya square),andtheplayermaynoteasimilaritywithasceneinStarWars,butyouwouldnotbeable toreconstructtheeventsinthemoviefromthegame.Theprehistoryismissing,therestofthe movie,allpersonalrelations.Possiblyweareevenmissingtheunderstandingthatwearefightinga deathstar.Finallythemostobvious:Ifyoudonotcompletethemission,thisisunlikethemovie;if

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page28 youcompletethemission,anotherdeathstarappears-whichisalsounlikethemovie.Thus,thegamedoesnotcontainanarrativethatcanberecognisedfromStarWarsthemovie.

Time,gameandnarrative Narrativeisa...doubletemporalsequence...:Thereisthetimeofthethingtoldandthetimeofthe narrative(thetimeofthesignifiedandthetimeofthesignifier).Thisdualitynotonlyrenderspossible allthetemporaldistortionsthatarecommonplaceinnarratives(threeyearsofthehero'slifesummed upintwosentencesofanovelorinafewshotsofa"frequentative"montageinfilm,etc.).Morebasi- cally,itinvitesustoconsiderthatoneofthefunctionsofnarrativeistoinventonetimeschemein termsofanothertimescheme.(ChristianMetz,quotedfromGenette1980,p.33) Anarrativeischaracterisedbyafundamentaldistancebetweentheeventstoldandthediscourse describingtheseevents.Intheclassicalnarratologicalframework(asputforwardbytheRussian formalists),anarrativeconsistsoftwodistinctlevels,thechronologicalsequenceofeventsandthe sequencethisisbeingtoldwith: • Story,denotingtheeventstold,intheordertheyweredescribedashappenedin.Thisiscalled fabulaintheRussianterminology. • Discourse,denotingthetellingofevents,intheorderinwhichtheyaretold.Thisisthenarra- tiveasasequenceofsigns,beitwordsorscenesinamovie.Thisisalsocalledsjuzet. Toreadanovelorwatchamovieistoalargeextentaboutreconstructingastoryonthebasisofthe discoursepresented.Itissafetosaythatthecentraltextsinnarratologyhavefocusedonthefirst part,thestory.ThisgoesforPropp,GreimasandBarthes.Alargeamountofworkhasbeenputinto findingagrammarofstories,abasicstructureinallnarratives.Therehasbeenlessfocusonthe discourse,andevenlessonwhatcanbecalledthetimeofthereading17.InNarrativeDiscourse (Genette1980),GérardGenetteperformsastructuralreadingofthetemporalqualitiesofthenovel, withspecialregardtoProust’sInSearchofLostTime.ThestartingpointofGenetteisbasicallythe oppositeofthestructuralists’,withspecialfocusonthediscourseandthetimeofthediscourse. Genetteassignsgreatimportancetoreading: Thenarrativetext,likeeveryothertext,hasnoothertemporalitythanwhatitborrows,metonymically, fromitsownreading.(Genette,p.34) Inthisway,heintroducesathirdtime,thetimeofthereading.Myexaminationofthecomputer gameisatfirstabouttherelationshipbetweenthesethreetimes:Thestorytime,thenarrativetime, thereadingtime,andtowhatextenttheycanbefoundinthecomputergame.

17Thissuppressionofthetemporalaspectshasalsobeenoneofthetraitsofstructuralismthathasbeencritiquedby poststructuralist(likeJacquesDerrida,StanleyFish,andPeterBrooks).

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page29 Storytime,narrativetime,andreadingtime Verballybasednarrativesmustnecessarilymarkthetimeofitseventsinrelationshiptothenarra- tivetime: Byadissymmetrywhoseunderlyingreasonsescapeus[...]Icanverywelltellastorywithoutspeci- fyingtheplacewhereithappens,andwhetherthisplaceismoreorlessdistantfromtheplacewhereI amtellingit;nevertheless,itisalmostimpossibleformenottolocatethestoryintimewithrespectto mynarratingact,sinceImustnecessarilytellthestoryinapresent,past,orfuturesense.(Genette, p.215) Themostcommontemporalinnarrativesispasttense,wherethenarratorplaceshim/herself atalatertimethantheeventstold.(Therearealsotextsinfuturetense-prophetictexts,aswell textsinpresenttensewhichI’llgetbacktolater).Thispastnessisinscribedinthe”onceupona time”ofthefairlytale.Andevenaradical,modernistworklikeUlyssesbeginsinthepasttense: Stately,plumpBuckMulligancamefromthestairhead,bearingabowloflatheronwhichamirrorand arazorlaycrossed.(Joyce,p.1) Thistemporaldistanceispartofthenovelasagenre,anditisastrongdevicethatcanbeusedin manyways.WeonlyneedtothinkofLawrenceSterne’sTristamShandy,wherethe triestotellofhispast,buttheactofwritingthisdowntakesmoretimethathetimehedescribes; usingayeartotellofthefirstdayinhislife.

Timeinthecomputergame

DoomII,level2.Theplayeriscornered. Ifwethenproceedtoanaction-basedcomputergamelikeDoomII(IDSoftware1994),itishardto seeatemporaldistancebetweenstorytime,narrativetime,andreadingtime.Wecantalkofarep- resentationofsomeevents,andasaplayeryoutrytoreconstructsomeeventsfromthispresenta- tion:Theblockygraphicscanbeinterpretedsofarastheplayercontrolsacharacter,whosefacial expressionisrepresentedinthebottomcentre.Ontheillustrationthispersonhasbeencorneredbya largepinkmonster,whosehostileintentsareclearlyidentifiable.Theplayerisattackedbymonsters he/shemustdefendagainst;puzzlesmustbesolvedtogettothenextlevel. Unliketheverbalnarrative,thereisnogrammaticaltimetoexplainthetemporalrelations. Andunlikenarrativesassuch,itisclearthattheeventsrepresentedcannotbepast,sinceweas

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page30 playerscaninfluencethem.BypressingtheCTRLkey,wefirethecurrentweapon,whichinflu- encesthegameworld.Inthisway,thegameconstructsthestorytimeassynchronouswiththenar- rativetimeandthereadingtime;thestorytimeisnow.Asaconsequenceofthisbeinganinterac- tivemedium,theeventsofthegameareconstantlyinfluencedbytheplayer’sactions(orlack thereof).Themomenttheeventscanbeinfluencedbytheplayer,thereisnecessarilyanimplosion betweenthethreetimes.Thismeansthatitisnotpossibletousethenovel’sinterestingrelations betweenstorytimeandnarrator. Inagamewheretheuserwatchesvideoclipsandoccasionallymakeschoices,thethreetimes willmoveapart,butwhentheusercanact,theymustnecessarilyimplode:itisimpossibletoinflu- encesomethingthathasalreadyhappened.Thismeansthatyoucannothaveinteractivityandnar- rativityatthesametime.Andthismeansinpracticethatgamesalmostneverperformbasicnarra- tiveoperationslikeandflashforward.Storyanddiscoursefollowinstead. Aparallelperspectiveisthequestionofduration.Itisstraightforwardtodiscusstheduration ofamovie:itsdurationisinscribedinthematerialitisstoredonandinthemachineryfordisplay- ingit.Inthewrittennarrative,thisismorecomplex,sincethedurationofthereadingwillvarywith readingspeed.Whatwecanexamineisvariationsinthenumberofpagesusedtodescribeaspe- cificamountoftime.GérardGenetteidentifiesfourbasictempi(Genette1980,p.95):Pause,where theeventsarestoppedduringthenarration;scene,wherethenarrationrelativelytakesaslongasthe action;summary,wheretheevents(againrelatively)passfasterthanthenarrative;ellipsis,where someoftheeventsareskipped18.Inthecontextoftheseterms,anaction-basedcomputergameal- wayspasseswiththespeedofascene:Oneminuteinthetimeofthegamecorrespondstoonemin- uteofplaying.Thisdoesnotmeanthateverygametakesequallylongtime;thereareprobablyno twogamesofSpaceInvadersortwogamesofDoomII,equallylong.Inthiswaythecomputer gameisclosertothenovelthantomoviesortheatre.Butcomputergamesdifferfromthenarrative mediainthattheyare”told”withconstantspeed:Movingthespaceshipfromthelefttorightside ofthescreenwillalwaystakethesameamountoftime.ThisisunlikeGenette'sbasicdescriptionof thenarrative: [...]itishardtoimaginetheexistenceofanarrativethatwouldadmitofnovariationinspeed-and eventhisbanalobservationissomewhatimportant:anarrativecandowithoutanachronies,butnot withoutanisochronies,or,ifoneprefers(asoneprobablydoes),effectsofrhythm.(Genette,p.88)

18ThetermsofGenettearebasedonthenovel.Hementionsthepossibilityofslowmotion,wheretheeventshave shorterdurationthantheirrepresentation,butdeniesit’sexistenceinthenovel.Inmovies,onemightadd,slowmotion clearlyexists.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page31 Wemayconcludethatthetemporalityofthecomputergameisfundamentallydifferentfromthatof narratives.

Ishappening:Thenowofliterature Whenthishasbeensaidofthegame’sbasicnowasaradicaldifferencefromnarratives,itshould beaddedthatGenette’stermsareaboutthenovelassuch,withspecialfocusonpointingtogeneral characteristicsofthegenre.(EventifthisisprimarilybasedonreadingProust’sexperimentalIn SearchofLostTime.)Butliteraturealsohasanow.DuringthecreationofNakedLunch,William BurroughswritesthefollowexplanationtoAllenGinsberg: [...]theusualnovelhashappened.Thisnovelishappening.(Burroughs1993,p.375) Andthesamethoughtcanbefoundinacompletelydifferentcontext,inRolandBarthes’TheDeath oftheAuthor(Barthes1977).Barthescreatesapartiallynormativedescriptionof”modern”textsas textsthatdonotdescribethingspast,buthappeninthenowofthereading: [inthemoderntext]thereisnoothertimethanthatoftheenunciationandeverytextiseternallywrit- tenhereandnow.Thefactis(or,itfollows)thatwritingcannolongerdesignateanoperationofre- cording,notation,representation,’depiction’[...](p.145) Ifwetakethisatfacevalue,ittellsusthattheabsenceoftemporaldistancebetweenstorytimeand narrativetimecanbeseenintwoplaces:Infragmented(post-)modernliteratureandincomputer games.Wecancomparethiswithastream-of-consciousnesspartinUlysses: IthinkI'llgetabitoffishtomorrowortodayitisFridayyesIwillwithsomeblancmangewithblack currantjamlikelongagonotthose...(Joyce,p.907) Thistexttriestoestablishequivalencebetweenstorytimeandnarrativetime.Orperhapstheevents andthedescriptionoftheeventsarethesamething?WhereBurroughsandBarthesclaimthatthe nowleadstoadismantlingofthestory/discoursedistinctionandafocusonthediscourse,Genette argues: Apresent-tensenarrativewhichis'behaviorist'intypeandstrictlyofthemomentcanseemlikethe heightofobjectivity,sincethelasttraceofenunciatingthatstillsubsistedinHemingway-stylenarra- tive(themarkoftemporalintervalbetweenstoryandnarrating,whichtheuseofthepreteriteun- avoidablycomprises)nowdisappearsinatotaltransparencyofthenarrative,whichfinallyfadesaway infavorofthestory.ThatishowtheworksthatcomeundertheheadingoftheFrench'newnovel',and especiallyRobbe-Grillet'searlynovels,havegenerallybeenreceived[...]Butinversely,iftheempha- sisrestonthenarratingitself,asinnarrativesofinteriormonologue,thesimultaneousnessoperatesin favorofthediscourse;andthenitistheactionsthatseemsreducedtotheconditionofsimplepretext, andultimatelyabolished.(Genette,p.218-219) SoGenettedistilstwotypesofpresenttensetexts.Oneisthecollapsedfragmentedtextpractisedby BurroughsanddescribedbyBarthes,theotherisan”objective”style,wheretheeventsarede- scribedwithoutcomment,withoutanarrator.Itdoesnotseempossibletoplacecomputergamesin onecategoryortheother.Ononehand,theydonothavearepresentednarrator,andtheirrelation-

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page32 shiptotheeventsnarratedseemquite”objective”.Ontheotherhand,itishardtoseewhatother eventstheymightreferto.ThepinkmonsterintheearlierillustrationhardlyexistsoutsideDoomII (anddoesnotseemtoclaimso).ThesamegoesforthespaceshipsinSpaceInvaders(Taito1977) orthemonkeyinDonkeyKong(Nintendo1981):Theydorefertoalargeamountofculturaltexts andthoughts,butcomputergamescarryabasicartificialqualitythatmakesithardtoseethemas signsofsomethingelse.Thisispartlyatemporalquestion;thenowofthegamepreventsitfrom beingarepresentationofsomethinghappeninganothertime.Fromthispointofview,thecomputer gameisonlywhathappensonscreen;itispurediscourse.Itappearscentraltothecomputergame, thatitishardtodecidewhetheritis”objective”or”fictive”;itsimplydoesnotfitthesecategories. Itmaybeobviousthatthemoreopenatextistointerpretation,themoreemphasiswillbeon thereader’sinterpretationnow.Sometheorieswillclaimthatthisisalwaysso,thatinterpretation alwayshappensinthenowofthereading.Thisistrue,butitistheopen(post-)moderntextsthat havebeencharacterisedwiththenowbecausethestoryworlddisappearsbehindtheartificialityof thediscourse:Themoretheeventsofthetextarecoveredbyindicatorsoffictionalityandexplicit contradictions,thereharderitistoreconstructastoryfromthediscourse,themorefocusgoestothe interpretationaleffortsofthereadernow.Thedifferencebetweenthenowinliteratureandingames isthatnowinliteratureisabouttextswherethereader'seffortinterpretingobscuresthetext’spos- siblereferencetoanothertime.Thenowofthegamemeansthatstorytimeandnarrativetimeare identicalwithreading(playing)time.

Thetemporaldifference MoviesandverbalnarrativesarecharacterisedbywhatGenettecallsvariationsinspeed.Inthe moviesthisisimmediatelyclear,intheverbalnarrativeitismorecomplex.Therearebasicallyno movies-especiallypopularmovies-withoutvariationinspeed.WemaythinkofAndyWarhol's6- hourmovieSleep(1963),whereacamerasimplyregistersasleepingman19.Butinthe(action) computergame,thisabsenceofvariationinspeedisageneraltrait:Computergamesmoveincon- stantspeed,anddonotskiptime.Therecanbeintermezzosbetweendifferentlevels,buttime passeswithconstantspeedduringplay.Sotimeinthecomputergameislesssophisticatedthan canonicalnarratives;closertoSleepthanGonewiththeWind. Wecanviewthevariabletemporalitiesinnarrativesasconsequenceoftwophenomena:One thatourimpressionoftimeisassociatedwiththeeventshappeninginaperiodoftime-anactive periodisrememberedaslongerthanonewherenothinghappened.Theotheristhatthe

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page33 reader/viewershouldnotbebored,soinactiveperiodsareskipped.Thecomputergamesolvesthe sameproblemnotbyskippingtime,butbyorchestratingthegameworldfornon-stopaction.This kindoftechniquewouldappearextremelyunrealisticinamovie-possiblybecauseinterestinghu- manactionsappeartooinfrequentlyforatwohourstorytofillatwohourdiscourse20.Computer gamesoftenlacktheassociationwithsomethingwehavealreadyexperiencedweneedtoseeitas unrealistic-wedonotknowmuchaboutspacebattles.Socomputergamescancontainsufficient actiontoworkinrealtime.

Sequence Themostfrequentlycommentedtraitofthecomputergameisthatagamesessiondoesnotfollowa fixedsequence.Thisisofcoursebecausethecomputergameisinteractiveandtherebynon-linear ormulticursal.AccordingtoPeterBrooks,narrativesaretoalargeextentbasedonrepetition: Narrativealwaysmakestheimplicitclaimtobeinastateofrepetition,asagoingoveragainofa groundalreadycovered:asjuzetrepeatingthefabula[...](Brooks1984,p.97) Thecomputergamediffersinthatithastobeanon-fixedsequence;itcannotclaimtorepeat somethingthathasalreadyhappened.(Otherwisetherewouldbenogame!) Thelinearityinanormaltextis,onecouldclaim,centraltothewayweinterpretthem.When MobyDickfinallydefeatscaptainAhab,itseemsaninevitability,somethingthathadtohappendue tohismanicobsessionwiththewhale.InIntroductiontotheStructuralAnalysisofNarratives, RolandBarthesclaimsthathisconnectionisamainspringfornarratives: Everythingsuggests,indeed,thatthemainspringofnarrativeispreciselytheconfusionofconsecution andconsequence,whatcomesafterbeingreadinnarrativeaswhatiscausedby;inwhichcasenarra- tivewouldbeasystematicapplicationofthelogicalfallacydenouncedbyScholasticisminthefor- mulaposthoc,ergopropterhoc-agoodmottoforDestiny,ofwhichnarrativeallthingsconsideredis nomorethanthe'language'.(Barthes1977,p.94,emphasisadded.) Thismeansthatthenonlinearityofacomputergamestopsthiscentralpartofnarrativesfrom working.IfCaptainAhabcanchooseaprematureescapeandsettledownastobacconistinNan- tucket,thestoryceasestowork.Thisisespeciallytrueonapsychologicallevel,becauseAhabhas beendescribedashavingacertainpsychologicalprofile.Ifthisdescriptionistomakesense,hecan onlyactinonewaywhenfacedachoice.Butthesamefeelingofnecessityalsoappliestoevents wherethetexthasnotprovidedanyinformationorindicationofwhatshouldhappen.Thisapplies, forexample,tolargepartsofPaulAuster'swork.InMoonPalace(1989)theprotagonist,bywayof

19Theonlymainstreamreal-timemovieIknowofisJohnBadham’sNickofTime(1995)starringJohnnyDepp. 20JohnBadham’s1995movieNickofTimeisactuallysetinrealtime-butclearly”cheats”bymakingpeoplemove fasterthanisphysicallypossible.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page34 anextraordinarycoincidence,meetshishithertounknownfather.Thisisanexplicitlyrandomand unmotivatedevent,andyetithasacharacterofinevitabilityanddestiny. Thefixedstatusofasequenceofeventsiswhatidentifiesastory-anditwhatmakesittrans- latablebetweenmedia.Thevariablesequenceofacomputergamebreakswiththenarrativeinthis way;aninteractivesequencecannotbetranslatedtoanon-interactiveandfixedsequence.Con- versely,thechronologyofthecomputergameisveryinflexible:Ifaninteractivestorywastoldina discoursethatdidnotfollowthestorychronologically,itwouldquicklyleadtoparadox;withthe player'schoicespreventinganalreadypresentedscenefromhappening.Thisisaclassicaltimema- chineparadoxfromsciencefiction:Howcanyoutravelbackintimeandinfluencesomething,if thischangesthegroundsofyourleavingatall?Sostoryanddiscoursehavetofollowinaninterac- tivework21.

Amodelofnon-lineartexts Whenreadinganovel,weassumethatwemustreadfromthebeginningtotheend.Anon-linear textpresentsexplicitdirectionsastotheorderofreading.Acomputergameissimilarlycomposed ofsomeprogrammingandsomematerial.Theprogramandthereadingdirectionsworktocombine thematerialtotherepresentationreceivedbythereader/player.InAarseth'sterms,thisisergodic: Acomputergamecontainsanumberoffunctionsthatcontrolthereader'saccesstosomematerial orcombinesmaterial.Onahigherlevel,anytext/gamecontainsasetofrulesfor,whentopresent anergodicfunctiontothereader(ifatall).Theserulescanfittinglybedescribedasaprogram.This programupholdstherulesforcombinationofthematerial.Amodelofnon-lineartextsandthe computergamecanthusbepresentedlikethis:

Program Material Rulesforthe Text,graphics, combinationof sound material

Output Screen,sound,text

Amodelofnon-lineartexts

21Ishouldnotethatflashbackspresentlessofaproblemthatflashforwards;itispossibletoflashbacktoaneventthat hasalreadyhappened.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page35 Thismodelisuniversalfornon-lineartexts.WhatIamsayingisthattheinterestingdichotomyina computergameisbetweenmaterialandprogram22.Theinterestingfocusinasystemlikethisre- gardstherelationshipbetweentherepresentedandtherulesforthecombinationsofmaterial. Theprogramandthematerialbelongtotwodistincttraditions.Thematerial:graphics,sound, textbelongtothetraditionalmedia,andareofthetypethatweknowhowtohandleinanaesthetic tradition.Theprogramisnewinthiscontext:Itisformal,workscausallyonanelectricallevel.A dualismlikethisbetweenanunderlying(immanent)levelandaninterpretableandvisible(mani- fest)levelislargelywhatthestructuralistnarratologytriedtocreatefornarratives.WhileIbelieve thatthisdoesnotholdinnarratives,thedistinctionisactuallypresentinthecomputergame:The materialandtheprogramcanbetakenapart. Thequestionofsequenceisveryimportantinthecomputergame.Itjustdoesn'tfocusonthe relationshipbetweenstoryanddiscourselikeanarrativedoes.Theinterestingpartinthecomputer gameistherelationshipbetweenthematerialandtheprogram,howthematerialiscombinedto whatisseenonthescreen,andifthereissomethingthatrelatesaspecificprogramtoaspecific material.Fromthepointofviewoftheskilledplayer,thematerialinanactiongameissubordinated theprogram.Whatintereststheplayeristheprogram'srulesforgameplay.Inthesamewaythat Kasparovdoesnotthinkoftheshapesornameofthechesspiecesinagameofchess23. Thenarrativeframeinacomputergame InthisdescriptionofthecomputergameIhavefirstandforemostfocusedonthetemporalcharac- teristicsandthesequenceofthegame.Butmostgameshaveastoryonthepackage,inthemanual, orsomewhereelse,placingthegameinalargerstory:

ThenarrativeframeinSpaceInvaders

22InAarseth'sterms,thecorrespondstotextons,theprogramtotraversalfunctions.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page36 1.Introduction 2.Game 3.Ending WhenSpaceInvaders(Taito1977)encouragesto"PlaySpaceInvaders",theplayerispresented withanidealstorythathe/shehastorealiseusingskill.AprehistoryissuggestedinInvaders:An invasionpresupposesasituationbeforetheinvasion.Wecan'ttellwhatshouldhappenoncethe invasionhasbeenprevented,itisjustimplicitinsciencefictionmythologythatthesealiensareevil. Thetitlesuggestsasimplestructurewithapositivestatebrokenbyanexternalevilforce.Itisthe roleoftheplayertorecreatethisoriginalpositivestate.Youdothisbycontrollingaspaceshipat thebottomofthescreen.Thisspaceshipisprotectedbysomebunkersthatcanbedestroyed.The enemiesenterfromthetoppartofthescreen.Havingshotallenemies,youproceedtothenext level.Thenextlevelbringsnewenemies,andthebunkersarerebuilt. InthenarrativemodelofGreimas(1969),anarrativeisseenasmovingbetweentwoposi- tions.Hisexampleisaprincessthathasbeenabductedfromherhometoanewpositionbyavil- lain,andissubsequentlyrescuedbyahero.Itisthusasequenceofagoodstatethatisthreatened, afterwhichthereisastruggletorestoretheoriginalstate.VladímirProppaddsthattheinitialstate oftencontainssomekindoflack:Theprinceislackingaprincess,thatkinghasgrowntooold,the princesshasgonecold.Evennarrativesbeginninginmediasres(perhapswithapersonatthetopof his/hercareer)typicallyhaveanimplicitlacksuchasadarkandpoorpast,asadhome,alonglost love.Iwillstartwiththefollowingstructure: 1. Stablestate[withalack]isoverturnedbyanevilforce. 2. Battlefortherestorationoftheoriginalstate. 3. Originalstaterestored,lackresolved. InthearticleAdventuresinComputerville(Jensen1988),JensF.Jensenworksfromaparallel narrativemodelinthreeparts.Hecomparesthismodelto”computergames”(meaningaction games)andconcludesthat:1)Computergamesarenarrativessincetheymovefromlack→lack restored.And2)thatthemaindeviationfromProppisthatcomputergameshavetwoendings:The good:thattheoriginalstateisrestored;thebad:thatitisn’t.Pointoneisnotentirelyclear:Ihave previouslyarguedthatthetemporalcharacteristicsofthecomputergamearequitedifferentfrom narratives.Theotherproblemisthatcomputergamesonlymovefromlack→lackrestoredifthe playerwins.SoJensen’sdefinitionwouldimplythatSpaceInvadersisonlynarrativeifyousuc- ceedinfightingofftheinvasion. 23Achessprogramobviouslydoesnotconsidertheshapesandnamesofthechesspieceseither:Theexistenceofa formalandwell-definedlevel,theprogram,isexactlywhatmakesitpossibletocreateachessprogram.Youcancreate

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page37 ButyoucannotcompleteSpaceInvaders:Havingshotalltheattackers,youaresimplyfaced withanewattack,andthegreenbunkersprotectingyouhavebeenrepairedorreplaced.Sothis suggeststhatsometimehasbeenskipped(ellipsis).Itisaquestionofinterpretationwhetherevery waveofenemiesispartofthesameattack,orifanewinvasionhasoccurred.Itcanmeanthatthe initialstatehasbeenrestored,butthenthreatenedagain,onlythishappenswithoutanyindication fromthegame.Sothenarrativeframedoesrespondtothethree-partmodelabove,butthegame onlyhappensinpoint2,battle. Comparedtothethree-partmodelweshouldalsonotethattherehardlyisanylackintheinitial state.Lacksaregenerallyabsentincomputergames,perhapsbecausetheydonotcontaintheexis- tentialdimensionthattheprotagonists’lackadds.Asaplayer,youareprobablynotinterestedin adoptinganotherperson’sexistentiallack,anditcanbeaproblemtocommunicatesuchimmaterial thingstotheplayer24. Sothenarrativeframeprovidesanexplanationofwhattheplayershoulddo.Inalessabstract way:Itispossiblyobvious,thatwhateverobjectyoucontrol,itshouldbedefendedagainstother objectsmovingtowardsit.(Atleastuntilyouknowotherwise.)Thisiswhythatnarrativeframecan addmeaningwithoutchangingthegame.Itisthusevidentthatthenarrativeframeisnotnecessary toplaythegame,andthatitcanbereplacedwithanothernarrative:SpaceInvaderscanquicklybe changedto–forexample–agamewhereyouareattackedbyinsectsandcentipedeinstead.Thisis thegameCentipede(Atari1980).

Themeaningoftheframe Youarethegoodguy,freedomfighterandrenownedstarpilot.Thebadguys,analienracefroma distantsolarsystemhaveinvadedNeoclyps,oneofyourcolonialplanets. (ThepackageofNeoclyps,Cymbalsoftware1983.) Weusenarrativesformanydifferentthingsinmanydifferentcontexts,bothfictiveandreal.The historyofthecomputergameisfairlyshortandbeginsinthe1960'swithveryprimitivegraphics. Thecomputergamecan,especiallyearly,hardlybetakenforarepresentationofsomethingreal.Up tothemiddleofthe1980'sitwaspossibletobuygameswhereyou,forexample,controlledanex- clamationpoint(awarrior)andfought#'s(monsters).Thisisthereasonwhythenarrativeframes fromtheoutsethavebeenconsideredirrelevant,arbitrary.Andthisiswhyagamealreadyin1983

achessprogrambecausetheprogramdoesnotrequireculturalknowledgetowork. 24Itispossibletoclaimthatasaplayeryouwillinitiallyalwayslackproficiencyinagame,andthatthestoryofthe gameisabouttheplayer’sgettingbetter.Butitisclearthatsuchamovementhappensoutsidethegame,oronanother level.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page38 couldhaveanironicnarrativeframe.Thenarrativeframehasalwaysseemedforced,irrelevantto whatreallymatters:Thegame. Thispointisslightlycontroversialsincemanypeoplewillclaimthattheiractiongamesreally totellstories:Itseemsthatinexperiencedplayerstakethenarrativeframeatfacevalue,"Iam fightinganevilsamurai",whiletheexperiencedplayerdeterminesthegenre;"Itisa3dshooter". Whenvariouscommentators(forexampleJensen1988,Grodal1998,Wenz1997)describethe computergameasnarrative,theyareassumingthatthenarrativeframeorthegamecommercials areright.Itismypointthatthenarrativeframeispurelymetaphoricassignmentofmeaningtothe game. ThispointcorrespondsmoreorlesstoTheodorNelson'scritiqueoftheuserinter- face(Nelson1990):TheMacintosh(andmodernWindows)arebasedontheconceptofmetaphoric design25,whereyoucreateaninterfacebymimickingthingsalreadyknowntotheuser.Themodern userinterfaceisbuiltonadesktopmetaphor.AccordingtoTheodorNelson,thisdoesn'tworkvery wellbecauseyouhavetoexplainmostuserswhythisislikeadesk.Ifyouclickonadocument,itis suddenlyaboveotherdocuments.Ifyoupulladisktothetrashcan,itisnotthrownawaybut ejected(onMacOS).Inthecomputergame,thetitles,introsequencesandcutscenesworkinthe sameway:Theirpurposeistoexplaintotheplayer,whythisplatformgameisatallrelatedtothe movieTheLionKing,whythis3DflyinggameisrelatedtoTopGun.Becauseitisnotclearfrom thegameitself. Modernpinballgamesareanother,andperhapsclearerexampleofthisassignmentofmean- ingtoagame.Youstillshoottheballaroundtohittheflashinglights,butnowadisplayclaimsthat youarepartofastory.OntheStarTrekmachine(Williams1993),youaresentondifferentmis- sion:avoidanasteroid,rescuethecrewfromaplanet.Ormoreprecisely:Youstillhavetohitthe flashinglightswiththeball,butnowadisplaytellsyouthatthehittingaspeciallamprescueda crewmemberfortheplanetandsoon.Thereisanabundanceofpinballgamesbasedonpopular movies.EvenThousandandOneNightshasbeencreatedaspinball-openthegate,flyonthecar- petetc. Noteverythingthatclaimstotellastoryactuallydoesso.Butthereseemstobeatendency forhumanitiesresearcherstotakeeverydescriptionofsomethingtechnologicalatfacevalue-even ifitcomesfromthemanufacturer.Whencreatingagame"basedon"amovie,thereisaclearinter- estinhavingthebuyingpublicassumeadeepconnectionbetweengameandmovie-itsellsthe

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page39 product.Butmovie-basedgamesareknownaslowqualityproducts,thatsimplyseektoexploitthis connection-theyareseldominnovativeorevenespeciallyfocusedonrelatingtothemovie.When moviesforayoungaudienceareconvertedtogames,itisalmostinevitablyasplatformgames; gameswhereyouhavetocontrolamaincharacterjumpingoverobstacles,collectingsmallobjects. Andthisisclearlythediscountstrategyincomputergames:Simplypickawell-knowngamegenre andaddsomegraphicsandsoundfromamovie.Disney'sTheLionKing(Disney1995)orthe TintingameTintin:PrisonersoftheSun(Infogrames1997)aregoodexamplesofthis. Interactivefictionoftendownplaysthegameinrelationtotheframe.Ratherthantryingto achievesomekindofcorrespondencebetweenframeandgame,thecomplexityofthegameisre- duced.Narrativepartsareaddedandinteractivityisremoved.Thisdoesnotmaketherelationbe- tweenprogramandmaterialanylessarbitrary;itsimplyshiftstheemphasis.

Thenarrator Ihavearguedthatinthecomputergamewefindanimplosionbetweenstorytime,narrativetime, andreadingtime.Thisisaconsequenceofthefactthatagameisnotafixedsequencethatthegame hasnothappenedyetbutishappening.Theinteractivitydemandsthatthegamehappensnow,un- likenarrativeswhicharebasicallytoldafterwards.Anarrativecanalsobecharacterisedbythefact thatthereisnarration.Ifthenarratorisnotcharacterisedassuch,atleastthereissomekindofse- lectionofwhattotellandemphasise.Thisselectionisrelatedtothetemporalsituationandvaria- tionsinnarrativespeed.InagamelikeSpaceInvaders,thereisnosuchvariationduringthegame, butthegamehasanarrativeframe,andthereareomissions(ellipsis)intimewhenthegameends: Whentheplayerdoesn'tplay,therearesomeoperationsgoingonthatmayremindusofthenarra- tor'srole.Butnonarratorisindicated.

Isthisyourdoing? Letusthenturntothenovelandconsiderthedetectivestory.Thedetectivestoryneedsacriminal. Thecriminalisnotanarrator,butsharessometraitswiththenarratorinthatthecriminalisrespon- siblefortheexistenceofthedetectivestoryatall.Thecriminalisthesourceofthestory,anditis thejobofthedetectivetofindthissource.Sothedetective’squestiontothecriminalisthis,"Isthis yourdoing?"

25Onmetaphoricdesign,see(K.H.Madsen1994).

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page40 ThecrookinDoomII? InDoomII,asinanygame,thereisacorrespondingimplicitquestionofwhythegameworldlooks likethis.Whocreateditsothataliensareattackingme?DoomIIisinhabitedbyevilmonstersthat havetobekilledtogeton.Butwheredotheycomefrom?Thelastlevel(32)providesapossible answer,asyouarefacedwithagiantmonsterthatshootsmonstersfromaholeinitsforehead26. Thisisthesourceofthegame. Mysthasacorrespondingfigure,onlyexplicit.AccordingtothenarrativeframeofMyst, "you"(thereader)arereadingabookbutsuddenlygetsuckedintoit.Itturnsoutthatthebookas beenwrittenbyAtrus,whohasthegiftofbeingabletowriteworldsintoexistence.Atrusistrapped inbookinsidetheprimarybook/world,andthetaskoftheplayeristorescuehimfromthisother book.Atrusisakindofexplicitnarrator,exceptthatheonlytellstheworldasastructure,butdoes notcontrolthesubsequentactions.SuchastoryofwordscreatingworldshasclearJewish/Christian roots.Thestoryinthestory(miseenabîme)isalsoquiteclassical(Hamlet,ThousandandOne Nights),thesamegoesforthestoryofthecreatorthatlosescontrolofhiscreation(). Thecomputergamehasaconsiderableabilitytouseelementsfromotherculturalcontexts. TheexplicitnarratorinMystisslightlyatypical,butend-of-levelmonstersareacommon occurrenceintheactiongame-toprogressyouhavetodefeatanespeciallylargeandhardoppo- nent.Suchvariations,withchangesinthesize,number,andabilitiesofanopponentenhancethe computergamewithvariationsinintensity,variationsthataresomewhatlikethevariationsinspeed foundinnarratives.

26ClearlyareferencetoZeus,andpossiblealsotoMinotaurus,foundinthemiddleofthelabyrinth.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page41 Theplayerandthegame

Iwillnowproceedtoexaminingtherelationbetweenplayerandgame.Computergamesareinter- active,andIhavepreviouslypresentedadefinitionofthis.Todescribetherelationbetweenanin- teractiveworkandthereader/playerleadstothecuriousproblemthatEspenAarsethdescribed,that alargepartofliterarytheoryuseswordslikelabyrinthineandclaimthatthereadercreatesthetext. Thismeansthatanydescriptionoftheplayer’spartinagame,suchas“theuniquethingabout gamesisthattheplayer’sactiondeterminestheeventsinthegame”,canbeansweredwith“butin anytextthereadershapesthetextthroughhis/herinterpretationalwork–itisexactlythesame thing!”Sothecomputergameisaliteralisationofmanyofthetermsusedmetaphoricallyin. Differentschoolsoftheoryputvaryingemphasisonthereader’sinvestmentinthetext,possi- blytheleastinNewCriticism,andthemostinreader-responsetheories.Reader-responseisinitself alargefield,coveringbothWolfgangIser'sview,thatthetextcontainscertainwell-definedleer- stellen(Iser1978)andthemoreradicalclaimbyStanleyFish,thatthereader(orthereader’sinter- pretativecommunity)createstheentiretext(Fish1980).27ThehypertexttheoristDavidBolter claimsthat: WhenWolfgangIserandStanleyFisharguethatthereaderconstitutesthetextintheactofreading, theyaredescribinghypertext.(Bolter1992,p.24) ThisisproblematicsinceFishandIserdonotsaythesamething,andbecausethetwodescriptions oftheplayer’sandthereader’sinvolvementinthegame/textsoundmuchalikebutmeanentirely differentthings.Theplayerisactiveinhis/herinfluenceonthegameworld,andthisisaconscious act,thathe/shetriestogetbetterat.Thereaderdoesnotinfluencethetextastext,butperformsan interpretation/actualisationthat(itcouldbeclaimed)basicallyworksaccordingtosub-conscious principles.Thereaderseldomlytriestogetbetteratreadingaspecifictext(whichwouldbefutile anywayifthetextdidn’texist),thenon-professionalreadercertainlydoesnottrytoconsciously interpretthetextastoproduceahappyending. Thisterminologicalchaosbetweentermsusedmetaphoricallyandliterallytellsthatthecom- putergamealsodiffersfromthenovelorthemovieinthiscontextaswell.Thischapterexamines theplayer’srelationtothegame;theplayer’sroleinrelationtothestructureofthegame.Thisisin fourparts: 27JonathanCullerdiscussestheconflictbetweenIserandFishinOnDeconstruction(Culler1981,p.75).

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page42 • Empathyandidentification:Anexaminationoftheplayer’srelationtothecharacterhe/she controls,primarilybymeansofTorbenKraghGrodal'scognitivetheoryofmovies. • Desire:Adiscussionofhowtheplayer’sdesiretoplayrelatedtoPeterBrooks’theoryofnarra- tivedesire. • Death:Adiscussionofhowdeathinthecomputergameisconnectedtotheacquiringofknowl- edge. • Repeatability:Adiscussionofthephenomenonthattheplayerplaysagamemanytimes,com- paredtotheideaoftheinexhaustiblework. Empathyandidentification InMovingPictures(Grodal1997),TorbenKraghGrodalpresentsthathedescribesasa”holistic” orevolutionary-cognitivetheoryofhowmoviesandmoviegenresaffecttheviewer.Grodal'stheory isinoppositiontobothstructuralistfilmtheory(likeRolandBarthes')andpsychoanalyticallyin- spiredtheory(likeChristianMetz).AccordingtoGrodal(andthecognitivesciencethatbebuilds on),humansarecharacterisedbythatfactthatweareconstantlycreatingmentalmodelsofour- selvesandothers.Whenlookingatanotherhuman(orarepresentationofanotherhuman)wein- evitablycreateamentalmodelofthatperson'sbodilybeing,ofhis/hergoalsandwishes.Thisis relatedtoourbasiccapabilityofthinkingaboutabsentthings,andthatwecanrunthroughasitua- tion"asatest";withoutreallybeinginthatsituation.Thismeansthattheimageofacupandread- ingtheword"cup"activatethesamebraincentresthatareactivatedwhenweseeacupinthe physicalworld.Differentsourcesresultintheactivationofthesamementalimage:

Real-life Linguisticsourceinbrainor source receivedthroughearoreye

Activationofthevisual Sourceinmemories cortexandassociation orimagination areasprovidingimages

AVsource Sourceindreams

(Grodal1997,p.32) Grodaldistanceshimselffromtheideology-criticalfilmtheorythatoftentriestoassertthatthe movie/texthidesthedevicesthatconstructthemeaningofthetext.Thiskindoftheoryhastriedto identify-forexample-linearnarrativesastheproductofaspecifictime&ideology,oftenofcapi-

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page43 talistsociety.Grodalclaimstheopposite,thatthecanonicalnarrativeand(itsadvancing,coherent time)hasanahistoricbaseinamentalmodel: [...]itisveryprobablethatastorythathaslinearandprogressivetimeandiscentredontheexperience ofasinglebeingisamentalbase-model[...](p.88) Grodaldoesnotclaimthatthiskindofnarrativeismore"right"thanformsliketheexplodedtime ofavant-garde-movies,ratherthatthecanonicalnarrativeformcorrespondstosomebasiccognitive phenomena.Thereareotherforms,buttheygettheirmeaningassophisticationsfromthecanonical form.

Theactant AccordingtoGrodal,itisamajorpartoffictionthattheview/readercreatesacognitiveidentifica- tionwithoneormorecharactersoractants,meaningthatwecreatementalmodelsforthesituation ofthesecharacters/actants: Whentheviewer’sattentionhasbeencaught,theapplicationofasetofcognitiveproceduresfollows. Thesewillbelabeledcognitiveidentification:theviewerwilltrytosimulatethesubject-actant’sper- ceptions.Hewilltry,forexample,toconstructthefieldofvisionoftheactantbygeneralizinghis/her ownperceptualexperiencesintoanobjectiveandtransformationalmodel:whatwouldIhaveseenifI hadbeeninthesameplaceastheactant?Thisactivitypresupposestheconstructionofabstractmodels fortheworld.[....]theviewerwilltrytoconstructthesubject-actant’semotions,affects.(p.89) Thisdoesnotmeanthatweattemptacompleteidentification,thatwebelieveourselvesto"be"that person,justthatweevaluatetherelevantgoals,wishesandthreats.Thisisnotexclusivelycon- nectedtopeople,butalsoworksinrelationtoanimalsoranythinganthropomorphic.Andthisis essentialfortheexperienceofamovie: Whenwatchingavisualrepresentationofphenomenawithoutanycentringanthropomorphicactants, weoften'loseinterest'owingtolackofemotionalmotivationforthecognitiveanalysisoftheper- ceived,afactwhichmanymakersofexperimentalfilmshavediscoveredwhenpresentingtheirfilms toamassaudience.(Grodal1997,p.89) Itmightthenbereasonabletoexpectthatsomethingsimilarwastrueofcomputergames,thatcom- putergameswerecentredononeormoreactantswithhumantraits.Butthisturnsournottobethe case.Possiblyhalfofallgamesdonotcontainpeopleatall,andanevenlargerpartdonotfocuson humanrelationsatall.(See"Theinvisibleactor"whereIdiscussgameswithoutpossiblepointsof identification.) InagamelikeSpaceInvaders,itdoesnotmakesensetoclaimthatyoucognitivelyidentify withthesmallgreenspaceship:Atechnologicalobjectisnotsomethingyougenerallyidentifywith (unlessanthropomorphic),andsinceaspaceshipispresumablyneitherintelligentorcapableof emotionsorperception,wedonottrytocreateamentalmodelforit.Thetwo-dimensionalspacein SpaceInvadersisnotcreatedtocallonmentalmodelsofhumanactionintheworld,andwecan

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page44 generallyassumethattheplayerdoesnothavepreviousexperiencespaceshipexperience.Itis clearlynotaquestionofbeingthespaceship.Theansweris,ofcourse,thatyoucontroltheship, butatthesametimemakeamentalinvestmentinthesafetyofthisship.Incommonsensetermsit wouldbethatyouundertakeajob,andthegameevaluatesyourperformance.Incognitiveterms youactivatesomethingthatseemsbothmoreabstractandmorebasicthancreatingmentalmodels foraperson:Youdeemanobject(thespaceship)important,deemsomeotherobjects(theenemies) disposableandevil.Youthenprotecttheimportantobjectaslongaspossible.Thisseemstobea commontendencytoprotectoneselfagainstenemies,whythegamefeelsmoreimportantthanwhat onewouldexpect.Loosingaspaceshipisreferredtoas"dying". SinceSpaceInvadersisagame,thereisanotherconnectionbetweentheplayerandthegame: Gamesareassuchcharacterisedbyanevaluationoftheplayer,andtoplaySpaceInvadersmeans thatyouaresubjectingyourselftoanevaluation.Thereaderofastorycanhopeforagoodending, butisafterallnotevaluateddependingonhowMobyDickends28.Theendingofagamecanhave consequencesfortheplayer'sselfesteemandsocially.Beinggoodatacomputergameisbasicallya positivethingsocially. Theproblemfacedbyofamorethoroughdiscussionofidentificationincomputergamesis thatcomputergameshaveverydifferentprotagonists/actants,andthatsomegamesdonoteven haveacentralcharactertocontrol.Tomakeabrieflistofgameswithprotagonists:SpaceInvaders (spaceship),Battle(),PacMan(yellow"mouth"),Elite(offscreenpersonchangingbe- tweenspaceships),MissileCommand(offscreen,controllingthreerocketbatteriestoprotectsome cities),Frogger(frog),Centipede(spaceship?inagarden),DonkeyKong(smallman-Mario),Zork (themaincharacter-"you",intextualrepresentation),Qix(smallsquaredrawinglines),Journey (allmembersoftherockbandJourney),Pengo(penguin),JungleKing(),MarbleMadness (marble),PolePosition(carseenfromtheoutside),Daytona(car/driver),1942(aeroplane),Star Wars(LukeSkywalker-viewfromthespaceship),BombJack(smallmanthatcanfly),Robotron (robot),Track'n'Field(athlete),Rampage(monster),BurgerTime(chefmakingburgers),Descent (spaceshipfromtheinside),Doom(man,insideview,facerepresentedonthebottomofthe screen),TombRaider(woman-outsideview),Myst(thereaderofabook-"you"-insideview). Fromthislistfollowsthattherelationshipbetweenplayerandprotagonistvariesbetweengames. Generallytheprotagonistseemstobeacharacterthatwouldnormallyhavepositivevalue.Butthe

28Astudentataliteraryeducationrisksthathis/herabilitytointerpretMobyDickisevaluatedwithsocialconse- quences,butthisisnotpartofthestoryitself-itisatraitoftheeducationalsystem.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page45 drawingsquareinQixdoesnothaveaspecialpredefinedvalue,andthemonstersinRampagede- stroybuildingsandeathumans-hardlypositive.Thehumanactorsontheabovelistareclearly heroesfightingagainstevil.Itwouldseemthattheprotagonistisusuallyapositivecharacter,but thisisnotalwaysthecase.

Theeyeoftheactant Computergamesarealmostexclusivelysetinaspace.Thisspaceisalmostexclusivelyintwoor threedimensions29.Gamesareusuallyaboutnavigationinthisspace.Thespaceneednotbegraphi- callyrepresented,butcanbeatextualconstructlikeinAdventure.Mostoftenyoucontrolanactant inthisspace,butthiscomesinmanydifferentvariations.Theclassicalactiongamehasavisible charactermovinginatwo-dimensionalspace.Thisspacecanbeseensideways(SpaceInvaders, DonkeyKong)orfromthetop(1941,Frogger).Inthisrelationshipbetweenplayerandactor,the playerhasinformationofthegameworldthattheactorphysicallycannothave.Wemightassume thatthislessenstheidentificationwiththeactor.Innarratologicaltermswewouldsaythatsucha gameisunfocalised;theworldisnotseenfromtheviewpointofaspecificpersonorwiththe knowledgeofaspecificperson(Genette1980,p.189-194).Inthenewerthree-dimensionalgames, theviewpointisacentralperspective,alwaysplacedwithinorjustbesidestheactor.Thismeans thattheplayerhasthesameamountofknowledgethattheactorhas-whichgivesusfocalisation. Toseefrominsideasetof"eyes"seemstoincreaseidentificationwiththeactor;you"are"tolarge extentidenticaltothisactor.Butthiseffectseemstoworkcontrarytothewayitworksinmovies. GrodaliscriticalofMontgomery'smovieLadyintheLake: Thewholefilm,exceptthenarratorsequences,isshotusing'subjectivecamera';theeffect,however,is notanintense'subjective'identificationwiththeprotagonistbut,onthecontrary,afeelingofaliena- tion,becausethereisnoobjectivemodel,abody,onwhomtoanchorfeelingsofidentification(and therearenot-asinreallife-anybody-sensationstoanchortheobjectivemodeloftheself).The 'subjective'cameraviewcannotthereforebeexperiencedwithcompletecognitiveandemphaticidenti- ficationbytheviewer:itisexperiencedastheviewofanalien.(p.115) Neverthelessthereseemstobeagreementthattheview-from-withinin3dgamesincreasesidentifi- cation.30Thisispossiblybecauseaviewpanningautonomouslyisanunknown(anduncomfortable) experience,buttolookoutfromasetofeyesandbeabletocontrolthedirectionofyourgazeisa well-knowncognitive-physicalexperience.Itsimplycorrespondstoabasicexperienceoftheworld. Butthereisaproblemwithcomputergameswhereyouseethroughsomeeyes:Thatthebodyisnot 29Inthemid-1980'sIdidtryaone-dimensionalgameofgolfwherethestrengthoftheshotandthedistancetothehole weretheonlyparametersinthegame. 30"Beforeyouwereevenoutofthefirstlevel,youfeltasifyouWEREinthosehalls,battlingthosedemons."(ogr.com 1997).

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page46 represented,andthatyoumissthefeelingofitsextentinthegameworld.(Theutopiaofispartlyananswertothisproblem.)Butthefeelingofcontrollingtheviewissufficientto makeupforthis.InsomegameslikeDaytonaorTombRaideryoucanchoosebetweenaninner andanouterview,andthischoiceseemstobeaweighingoftheidentificationemphasisedbythe innerviewandtheextrainformationacquiredbytheouterview-toseetheextentofthebodyinthe gameworld.Innarratologicaltermsthiscanbecomparedtothedifferencebetweenastoryfocal- isedonthemaincharacterandanunfocalisedtextwitha(moreorless)omniscientnarrator.Some gamesshifteffortlesslybetweenthesetwostates. TombRaider(EidosInteractive1997)isfamousforhavingintroducedtheouterviewinthe 3d-shootergenre.Fromtheassumptionthatcomputergamesareprimarilyplayedbymen,itisin- terestingthattheprotagonistofTombRaiderisawoman.Wemightalsoassumethatthereare someaestheticquestionatstake-thatawatchingfemalebodyisconnectedtolibidinousjoyfor men-butfemaleprotagonistsaremuchrareringamesthaninstories.Sothereseemsalogicalcon- nectionbetweentheouterviewandthefemaleprotagonist-asaplayeryou"are"notthemain charactertoaverylargeextent.Therelationbetweenplayerandheroineischaracterisedbyacer- tain"being"LaraCroft,butalsobyamoredistancedidentification.LaraCroftisacharacteryou presumablycareforassomebodyelse,butatthesamesomeoneyouare,andthiskindofplaywith genderandidentityispresumablyasourceofpleasure. Ininteractivefiction,thegraphicalgamesconstructspacewithgraphics,othergameswilluse bothtextandgraphics.Intext-basedgamestherecanonlybetextualmarkersofspace.Thisdoes notnecessarilyhavethatdeepimplicationsforthegame-thesamementalspacecanbebuiltusing differentsources.Injustaboutalltextualinteractivefiction,thegameproceedsasadialoguewitha noteasilyidentifiablenarratorthataddressestheplayer.Thelevelofknowledgebasicallycorre- spondstogameswithinnerviewpoints;youonlyregisterwhattheactantwouldregister.

Theinvisibleactorandtheabstractgame Moviesandotherstoriesarelargelyabouthumans(oranthropomorphicthings)thatthe viewer/readeridentifieswithcognitively.AsGrodalpointedoutpreviously,itbasicallyisboringto view/readfictionswithoutanthropomorphicactors.Thisisnottrueforcomputergames.Games withnoactorsrepresentedonscreenhaveappearedthroughoutthehistoryofthecomputergame. Manyofthesehavebeenextremelypopular.AnearlyexampleisMissileCommand(Atari1980), whereanumberofcitiesareattackedbymissilesthatyouthenhavetodestroyusingrocketsfrom threemissilebatteries.Theplayeristhenotrepresentedonscreenasanentityoractor,butonly

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page47 seestheresultsofhis/heractions.Itwouldbepossibletocreatea"jobdescription"fortheplayer-a soldiercontrollingmissiles;atypicalhero.ItishardertounderstandTetris,whereyoumustcom- bineaseriesoffallingbricks.

MissileCommand(Atari1980) Tetris(Atari's1986version.) Tetrisdoesnothaveavisibleactoreither,anditdoesnotseempossibletoconstructanyactorcon- trollingthefallingbricks.Weareclearlydealingwithnon-anthropomorphicmaterial,onlyafew fallingbricks.AccordingtoGrodal'spreviousremarksaboutmovies,thiswouldberadicallyunin- teresting.ButTetrisisincrediblypopular,andnobodyisdisputingitsstatusasacomputergame.In thelessabstractLemmings(Psygnosis1989),anumberofsmallmenwalkblindlyahead,facing obstaclesanddangers.Itistheroleoftheplayertoguidethemtoanexitsothatnone(orasfewas possible)arelost.Butisnotclearwhythisissonorwhotheprotagonistis. Buthowcancomputergamesbeabstractandwithoutpointsofidentification,andyetbein- teresting?-Nomatterhowvariableorevenabsenttheprotagonistincomputergames,thereisal- waysoneconstant:Theplayer.Itisprobablytruethatthereader/viewerneedanemotionalmotiva- tionforinvestingenergyinthemovieorbook;thatweneedahumanactanttoidentifywith.Thisis probablyalsotrueforthecomputergame,onlythisactantisalwayspresent-itistheplayer.The playerismotivatedtoperformacognitiveanalysisofthegame'ssituationbecausethegameisa taskthattheplayerhasundertakenasareal-worldperson.Andthisiswhyacomputergamecanbe muchmoreabstractthanamovieoranovel.

Thebodyandthemotorskills Whileamoviedoesactivatedifferentmotorschemasinthevieweraspartoftheviewer'scognitive workwithanalysingthecharacters,theviewerstillremainpassiveintheirseats.AsGrodalpoints out,thevoluntarynervoussystemissuppressed,buttheinvoluntarynervoussystemisstillactive- causingtears,sweat,raisedpulseetc.intheviewer.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page48 Asweknow,computergamesarebasedontheinfluenceoftheplayeronthegameworld,and thishappensthroughkeyboards,miceandsoon.Thismeansthattheplayerpresumablyconstructs mentalmodelsfortheactantsinthegames,andatthesametimeactuallyisforcedtoactmotori- cally.Ingameswithnon-anthropomorphicactantsortwo-dimensionalgames,thesementalmodels arecreatedfromdatalesscomplexthaninmovies;thegraphicsingamesarebasicallylessdetailed thantheimagesinmovies.(Textbasedgamesdohavethepossibilityofdescribingwiththesame levelofdetailasthenovel.)IngamelikeTombRaider,withavisiblehumanactantinathree- dimensionalworld,themodellingisforamorefullbodilypresencethanwhenmovingthespace shipinSpaceInvaders.ButonthekeyboardyoucanonlycontrolthemovementofLaraCraftusing verysimpleparameters:fourdirections,jump,duck,fire.Sothereisadifferencebetweenthemen- talmodeloftheactant'sbodyandthelimitedpossibilitiesactuallygiventotheplayer.Fromthis follows-andthisistheinterestingpart-thattheplayerfirstgeneratesamodeloftheactant'spres- ence,thenusesthisasabasisforachoiceofmotoricalactionwhichmustbeexecutedwithmuch simpleroptionsthanthementalmodelprescribes,andfinallyactuallyactsmotoricallyusingthe interface. Thereisavariabledegreeofconnectionbetweenthesupposedpossibilitiesoftheactantand theactualpossibilitiesgiventotheplayer.InadrivinggamelikeDaytona(thearcadegame)the gameiscontrolledwithasteeringwheel,meaningthattheplayerideallyperformsthecorrectmoto- ricalactions.31InTombRaiderthepossibilitiesofcontrolareverylimitedcomparedtowhatabody cannormallydo.ThesamethinggoesforDoom,exceptthatthegameisdeliberatelyrunina sufficientlyhighthatthemoreadvancedmotoricalcapabilitiesoftheplayeraresuppressedinfa- vourofbasicpatternsofescapeandattack.InSpaceInvaderstheproblemisperhapsminimal-it seemsplausibletohaveaspaceship/cannonthatcanonlymoveleftandright,andtheplayer doesn'thaveamentalmodelforspaceships.ThelargestdiscrepancyisinagamelikeMyst,where yousupposedlyarepresentinthegameworld,butwhereallthepossibleinteractionsinpracticeare donebypointingandclickingwiththemouse. Itseemsthatanywishofmovementthatcannotbeexecutedthroughtheinterfaceresultsin thattheplayermovesphysically:ItiscommontoseeplayersunabletoescapeashotinDoomduck physically.Thephysicalbodyactsasareceiverof"overflowing"motoricalimpulses,eventhough

31Todriveacarisreallyalsoaquestionofmappingamodeloftheworldsothatawishofmovingleftdoesnotresult inmovementinthecar,butratherthatthewheelisturned.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page49 trainedplayerstendtobeabletosuppressthisandfocusexclusivelyonthepossibilitiesofferedby theinterface.

Gameandcognition Theseobservationsshowusthatgamesvaryradically,andthattheyareverydifferentfromthenar- rativemedia.Computergamescanbeveryabstractandstillhavemassappeal,becausetheplayer hasreasonsforplayingthatdifferfromwhythereaderreadsanovel.Thisisalsotellsusthatthe creationofacomputergameinvolvesthoughtsandinsightsregardingallcognitivecapabilitiesand preferencesofhumans.Thereis,wemightsay,nothingoutsidetheprogram.BythisImeanthat gamedesignisanartthatdemandsthecombinationofalltechnicalpossibilitieswithknowledgeof howhumansperceivetheworld,aswellasexperiencefromallaestheticfields.

Desire InReadingforthePlot(Brooks1984),PeterBrooksclaimsthatplotisassuchconnectedtodesire, bothinthesensethatplotsareoftenaboutdesire,andinthesensethatdesireiscentralintheplot's productionofmeaning.Thereaderhasadesire:narrativedesiretoreachtheending,tofinishand consumeawork.Adesiretorelievethetensioncreatedbythebeginningofastory: Desireisalwaysthereatthestartofanarrative,ofteninastateofinitialarousal,oftenhavingreached astateofintensitysuchthatmovementmustbecreated,actionundertaken,changebegun.(p.38) BrooksisheavilyinspiredbytheFreudianunderstandingofdesireasatensionlookingforits resolution.Thedesireofthetextisinconstantdangerofaprematureending.Meaning:Thereisa constantdangerthattheprotagonistreacheshis/hergoaltoosoonorisdefinitivelypreventedfrom reachingthatgoal,thusendingthestory. Ifwerefocusoncomputergames,themostobviouspointisprobablythattheplayerfacestwo prematureendings:oneofloosingyourlivestooearly,onethatthegameisactuallytooeasy. Bookshaveonlyoneendingandtheyare-generally-physicalobjects.Thisallowsthereaderto knowthesizeofthebook;youdonotfearaprematureendinginthatsense.Unlikethis,computer gamesareimmaterial,andasreaderyoudonotknowhowmuchisleft(unlessthisisexplicitly markedbythegame).32 Itisclearthatgamescontainsomethingthatmakespeopleplaythem.Thisisadesirethat takesplacewithinanarrativeframethatisoftenonlyhintedat.Butinthegamethistendstowork withaninverselogiccomparedtothenovel.Inthenovel,theendingisyetunknownandyouread

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page50 tofindoutmoreaboutit.Intheactiongame,thegoodendingisalreadyknown:Youhavetosave theEarth,theprincess,yourself.Thebadendingisfailingtodoso.Asaplayeryoudesiretoactu- alisethisgoodandwell-knownending.Youwishtounderstandthestructureofthegame,theme- chanicsbywhichthegameworlddevelops.Andyoudesiretheagilityneededtouseyourunder- standingofthegamestructuretoactualisethegoodending. Sothedrivingdesireofcomputergamesdoesthereforenotseemtobethenarrativedesire thatBrooksdiscussed,buttootherkindsofdesire33thatoftenworkinrelationtoanarrativeframe butdoesn'tpresupposeit:Oneisthedesireforstructuralunderstanding,thedesiretoknowthere- lationsandmechanismsthatmakeonespecificactionhaveaspecificconsequence.Theotheristhe desireforperformance,thedesiretoreachtheagilityandmotorskillstousetheunderstandingof thegamestructuretoreachaperfectperformance.

Death:Hierarchiesofknowledge Whenagameends,italwaysinvolvesthattheplayerstepsoutofcharacter,andceasestoidentify withtheprotagonist(ifthereisaprotagonist).Inthetraditionalcomputergame,thisisaccompanied byinformationonthescoreoftheplayer.Sotheplayerleaveshis/herroleasaplayerandassumes anexterior,evaluationviewpointonthegamethathaspassed. Whenintroduced,Doomwasfamedfortwothings:Therevolutionary3Dgraphicsandthe explicitviolence.Lessacknowledgedwasthenewdevelopmentthatthegamewasnotbasedon points,andtheplayerthusnotevaluatedonanabsolutescale.Doomalsointroducedthatafterthe momentofdeath,thescreencontinuedtodisplaytheviewfromtheeyesofthedeadbody.Ina classicalgame,theworld”GAMEOVER”isdisplayed,afterwhichoneissentbacktothetitle screen.InDoom,theviewfromthedeadbodyiskeptuntilyouclicktoplayagain-automatically directedtowardstheopponentthatkilledyou.Sodeathgivesyouinformation,bothonhowyou diedandwhathappenedafterwards.Againyoustepoutofcharacterandacquireanotherviewon theevents,andagainyougainadditionalknowledge. Thenovelhasacorrespondinghierarchyofknowledge,wheretheprotagonistinprinciplehas theleastknowledge,theexplicitnarratormore(ifthisisnotidenticalwiththeprotagonist);theim- plicitnarratorhasthemostknowledge.Toreceiveastorywhereafictivepersondiesalwaysin-

32WhentheDanishcomputermagazineAltomDatareviewedthegameGhostbustersinthemid-1980's,thereviewer wrotethathehadnotadvancedpastthebigmarshmallowman,butthathewasabsolutelycertainthattherewouldbe muchgametoplayafterwards.Thiswasunfortunatelynotcorrect,hehadinfactreachthemuchtooearlygameending. 33Desire,understoodinapragmaticratherthanFreudiansense.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page51 volvesakindofbonus:additionalknowledgeondeath.Sodeathinthecomputergameanddeathin storiessharealinktothegainingofknowledge. Therearemanyvariationsonthisinthecomputergame.Intheclassicalactiongame,the playercontrolsanobjectseenfromtheoutsideintwo-dimensionalgraphics.Deathdoesnotchange theviewpoint,buttheobjectdisappears.Whenthelastlifehasbeenlost,thegamedisappearsfrom thescreen.InDoomyoukeepyourview,butinadeadbody.InthegameDescent,theviewis movedoutofyouspaceshiptowatchitexplode;inUnreal,theviewmovesoutandyouseethe protagonistfalldead.Ininteractivefiction,youaresimilarlynotifiedthereasonofyourdeath.”You havebeeneatenbyagrue.”,saysZork.Tomyknowledge,innogamesistheviewmovedin whenyoudie. Deathinthecomputergameistheotherdeath,thedeathoffiction.Thedeathyousurviveand learnfrom.34

Repeatability Computergameshaveabadreputationformanyreasons,oneofthembeingthelargeamountof timethatyoucanspendonthem.Thisislogical-weshouldnotwasteourtime.Butwealsolive underaculturalideaoftheendlesswork,ofbooksyoucanreadandreadandnevertireof. TheendlesstextcanbeareligiousworkliketheBible-obviouslycommonintheChristian world.Thesameideaalsoworksformanycanonicalworkslikethoseof,Dante,or,or evenmodernistworkslikeUlyssesorTheWasteland.Contrastthiswiththetermtrashnovel,im- plyingthatabookisdisposableonceread(sinceyoureadfortheplot).Theworksthatyousuppos- edlycankeeponreadingarealsotheonesthatyou"canbegoodat":Ulysses,theBible;textswhere yourabilitytorememberandinterpretthemisoftenevaluated. Thesurprisingpartisthatthenotoriously"low"computergamelivesuptothismuchmore thannovelstendto.Thedominantmodeofreceptionsofnarrativesisone-shot,butgamesarein- herentlysomethingyouplayagain,somethingyoucangetbetterat.Itisslightlysurprisingthat gamesareactuallycritiquedforthis.Thetheatre-inspiredcriticandsoftwaredesignerBrendaLau- reldoesn'tlikegamesthatyoucankeeponplaying: [...]InParkerBrothers'"TheEmpireStrikesBack",theobjectiveistodestroyasmanyoftheImperial Walkersaspossiblebeforetheyreachthepowerplantandblowuptheplanet.However,asauthorHarlanEllisonobservedinanunpublishedreviewofthegame,itisnotpossibletomeet thatgoalbecausethebadguysjustkeepgettingbetter-anafflictionsharedbymanyvideogames. 34Theabundanceofdeathinthecomputergameisoneofthereasonwhyitisseenasimmoral.AgamelikeMystex- plicitlytriestodistanceitselffromtheamountofdeathinthecomputergame.Inactuality,narrativesarealsoawayof survivingdeath,onlythereitisthedeathofsomebodyelse.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page52 "Thelesson",moansEllison,"isthelessonofSisyphus.Youcannotwin.Youcanonlywasteyourlife strugglingandstruggling,gettingasgoodasyoucanbe,withnohopeoftriumph."Onemightspecu- latethatthisincrediblyfrustratingfeatureofgamedesigncontributedtothedeclineofthevideo-game genrein1983and1984.(Laurel1991a,p.107) BrendaLaurel'smaingoalisthatofcreatingsoftwarethatfitAristotelianideals,soherpointisun- derstandable.However,unfinishablecomputergamesarestillverypopular(witnessmulti-player games),andthe1980'scrisisinthevideogameindustry(whereMattelandColecoleftthemarket) mustbeattributedotherfactors(Calica1998).Thereisaclearcommercialinterestingamesthatare finishedin4-5hours-theplayerwillneedanewgamemorefrequently. Itthenappearsthattryingtoaddasignificantstorytoacomputergameinvariablyreducesthe numberoftimesyou'relikelytoplaythegame.Literaryqualities,usuallyassociatedwithdepthand contemplation,actuallymakescomputergameslessrepeatable,andmore"trashy"inthesensethat youwon'tplayMystagainonceyou'vecompletedit.There'snopoint.ThisdoesnotmeanthatTet- risisanendlessworkthatcanalwaysberereadandalwaysshedsnewlightontheworld-forwe usuallydonotseecomputergamesasstatementsaboutsomethingelse.Butitseemsparadoxical thatintroducinganarrativereducesthenumberoftimesyouplaythegame. Inthewayitisused,thecomputergameisclosesttothemythicalnarrative.Inadiscussionof Superman,UmbertoEco(1979,p.107-124)describesthemythicalascharacterisedbyrepeatability: TheaudienceoftheGreektragedyalreadyknowsthestory.Themodernnovelormovieisonly receivedonce,sincetheprimaryaestheticdeviceistherelativeunpredictabilityoftheevents.One importantdifferencebetweencomputergamesandthemythicalnarrativeisthatthemythicalnarra- tivecanberepeatedbecauseitisassumedtoshednewlightontheworld-themythicalrepresentsa universallaw.Thecomputergameisrepeatablebecauseitshowsmoreofitselfeverytime,because theplayergainsexperienceandgetsbetteratthegame.Butunlikethemythical,gamesarenotseen assayingsomethingabouttheworld.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page53 Readings:Fiveversionsofaconflict

Themaingoalofthisanalyticalpartistoshowhowtheprevioustheoreticalworkcanbeusedto saysomethingmoredetailedaboutspecificgames.Atthesametime,thetextperformsasimple movementfromgamesexhibitingtheclassicalproblemsofinteractivefiction,togamesthatcanbe seenasare-interpretationoftheutopiaofinteractivefiction. Firstly,I'llbestudyingMysttoidentifywherethecombinationofgameandnarrativefailsor succeeds.ThenI'llexaminetheactiongamesDoomandUnreal,aswellaswhathappenswhen thesegamesareusedasmultiplayergames.FinallyIwillre-evaluatetheutopiaofinteractivefic- tionandexamineWitnessandLastExpress.Ithinkthatthesetwofinalgamespointnottoaninter- activenarrativebuttowardsacomputergamethatisthematicallyclosertothemovieorthenovel.

Readingacomputergame Toreadacomputergameisnotthesameasreadingapoem,amovie,oranovel.Inthetraditional media,theobjectreadis(still)assumedtocontainameaningthatcanbeinterpretedfromtheob- ject.(Nomatterwhatclaimshavebeenmadetothecontrary.)Conversely,thereisnotraditionfor seeingcomputergamesasworksofsubstanceormeaning;therearenopublicationsabouttheinter- pretationofcomputergames,nofaculties,notraditionforthis. Accordingtomymodelofnon-lineartexts,acomputergamehasaprogramlevelandalevel ofmaterial.Thematerialistraditionallyinterpretableelementssuchastext,graphics,andsound. Computersciencedoeshave(many)proceduresforanalysingprograms,butthisisnotoriented towardsinterpretation.Whatispossibleistointerpretthecombinationofprogramandmaterial.In thesimulationgameSimCity(Wright1989),theplayeristhemayorinacityandhastocontrol suchparametersastax,buildingsetc..SimCityclaimstobe(andisoftentakenas)arealisticmodel ofacity.Butanysimulationisobviouslybasedonassumptions,andinSimCitycrimecomesfrom nowhereandcanonlybecounteredwithpolicestations.Andthisisaclearideologicalstatement. TheformulaforcrimeinSimCityisnotdirectlyavailabletotheplayer.(Evenifexplicitlycreated bytheprogrammer.)Theoutputofthisformulacouldalternativelybecalculatedasaproductof industrialisationandpresentedaspollution.(Anenvironmentalistversion.)Thesamematerial(the term"crime"andthegraphicalrepresentationofthecity)couldeasilybecontrolledbythereverse formula,wherecrimedevelopsasaproductofthenumberofpolicestations.(Acombinationthat seeshumansasfundamentallygood,butcorruptable.)

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page54 Asauseritishardtodescribetheprogramindependentlyofitsrepresentationonscreen-you donothaveaccesstoit.Butthereisaprogram,typicallydevelopedinaprogramminglanguagelike C++.Asintheexampleabove,itishardlypossibletoperformsensibleinterpretationsofaninde- pendentformula,independentofitscontext-incasuthematerial35.Theinterestingpartisthecom- binationofprogramandmaterial.

Method SofarIhavetriedtodescribethecomputergameasphenomenonandtosketchinterestingwaysof lookingathis.Ihavepresentedatheoreticaldescriptionofthegame,butthefinalgoalcan'tbejust toconfirmthistheory.Iwillratherbeusingthetheorytoexamineanumberofthings: • Thegame'srelationtointeractivefiction.Ifthegamehasexplicitlybeenpresentedinrelationto interactivefiction. • Gametypeandinterface. • Narrativeframe. • Narrationandtemporality.Ifthegamecontainsnarrativesequences,andifsowhatthismeans temporally. • Identification.Therelationbetweentheplayerandtheprotagonist(ifthereisaprotagonist). • Programandmaterial.Theoverallrelationbetweentheprogram(thegameasabstractstructure) andthematerial,includinggraphicsandnarrativeframe. Iwillbemakingadistinctionbetweengamepassagesandnarrativepassages.Thelattermeans1) thattheplayercannotdoanything2)thattimeiscompressedandthatthetimenarratedisshorter thanthetimeofreading.(InanearlierChristianMetzquote,thenarrativewascharacterisedbycre- atingonekindoftimeusinganotherkindoftime.(p.29))Gamepassagesareinteractiveandhappen now.Thenarrativeislinearandhasanon-correspondencebetweentimeofreadingandtimeofthe narrated.

Myst Whenthecomputergameiscountedasemptyofcontent,itisusuallybecauseitisbeingmeasured bythesamestandardsasusedfortraditionalmedia.Myst(Cyan1993)isundoubtedlytherecent

35TheinterpretationofmathematicalformulaeandphysicalprincipleshasbeenattemptedbysuchthinkersasBaudril- lard,Virillio,andGillesDeleuze.Theresultsarenotthatconvincingtome,simplybecausethemethodisthatofthin- kingbyanalogies:IfAhassimilaritiestoB,theremustbeadeepconnectionbetweenthem.TheAlanSokalparody Transgressingtheboundariesisafairlyrealisticversionofthismodeofthinking.(Sokal&Bricmont1998,p.199-240).

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page55 computergamethathasbeenmostacceptedinculturalcircles.Forexample,TheDanishnewspaper WeekendavisenchosetoreviewMystinthebooksection,concludingthat: Myst[...]theonlyCD-ROMthatcancompetewiththefictionaluniversesofthenovel,withtheim- agesofart,withthesoundscapesofmusic.(Schmidt&Frost-Olsen1995,mytranslation.) RigmorKappelSchmidtandPeterFrost-Olsenpraisethebeautifulgraphicsandambientsound.The gameisnotverywelldescribed.Ifweweretolookatitmoreanalytically,wemightsaythatMyst isaverytraditionalgame-theclassicalhuntforthingstointeractwith,puzzlestosolve.Graphi- callyandthematicallyitwaspossibleoneofthefirstgamestoutilisethelargeamountofstorage offeredbyaCD-ROM.AtthesametimeMystquitehandilynavigatesthemostobviouspitfallsof thegenre. InMystyouhavetoclickaroundasmallislandworld.Accordingtothemanual,"you"have beenreadingabookwhichyouhavesuddenlybeensuckedinto.Youthengraduallydiscoverthat thisworldhasbeencreatedbyAtrus,butthatheandhistwosonshavebeentrappedinseparate books.Youhardlyevermeetthesecharactersduringyourplaying;yougettoseetheminabook, butapartfromabriefmeetingwithAtrusyoudonotinteractwiththemdirectly.

Theplayerandtheinterface Mystisreal.Andlikereallife,youdon'tdieeveryfiveminutes.Infactyouprobablywon'tdieatall. [...]ThekeytoMystistoloseyourselfinthisfantasticvirtualexplorationandactandreactasifyou werereallythere.(TheMystmanual.) InMyst,theplayerisneverdescribed.Youseefromyourowneyesandarenotrepresentedon screen.Accordingtothemanual,youare"yourself".Thusyoudonothavetoidentifywithanother person,butactasyouwould."[...]loseyourselfinthisfantasticvirtualexplorationandactand reactasifyouwerereallythere."Sothemanualaskstheplayertocreatemodelsforhowhe/she wouldreactifhe/shewereactuallyinthefictiveworld.Obviouslyyouarenot"yourself",butplay asaprojectionofyourselfinthegameworld.Thatyoudonothavetoidentifymakessomethings easier:thegamedoesn'thavetocharacterisethemaincharacter,andtheplayer'spossiblereluctance toacceptanotherpersonalityisavoided. TheinterfaceisthemostproblematicpartofMyst.Theframenarrativeclaimsthatyouare insideabook,presentinanotherworld.Buttheinterfacedoesnotrepresentanybodilypresencein thisworld;nopossibilityofmovementusingthecursorkeys.Themouseistheonlyoption: Somelocationsarenotaccessible.Clickinginthoselocationswillhavenoeffect,andindicatethatthe locationisnotimportant.(Ibid.) Thegraphicsgivetheimpressionthatallvisibleobjectscanbemanipulatedandthatyoucanmove inalldirections.Andmanyobjectscanbemanipulated:meaningthattheyarepresentinbothpro-

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page56 gramandmaterial.Otherobjectsareonlyinthematerial.Thisisthesameproblemasintext-based interactivefiction,wheretheambientdescriptionoftencontainsobjectsthatcannotbemanipu- lated.Thisproblemisobviouslynotpresentinnarratives,wherethenarratordecideswhatneedsto beexaminedmoreclosely,whatisforegroundandwhatisbackground.Ifaminorcharacteronly hastwolinesrelevantfortheplot,weonlyheartwolines.Inagame,thereisariskthattheplayer willwanttoaskmoredetailedquestions,andthattheminorcharacterendsuprepeatingthesame lines.Andthisofcoursebreakstheillusionofafreegameworldthatyoucannavigate. Asanexampletheplayerearlyongetstoaswitchnexttoafountain,Youcanturntheswitch onandoff,butyoucannotpickuptheshipmodelinthefountain:

Theplayercanmanipulatetheswitch,butnottheshipmodel. Sowhiletheintroductionclaimsthatyoureallyarethere,theinterfacepositsverystrictlimitsto whatyoucanactuallydo.Itwouldseemlogicalaccordingtothegameworld(thematerial)thatyou couldpickuptheship,butyoucan't(theprogram). Thismeansthatthefocusendsuponthetwo-dimensionalpicture.Theeffortneededtomove themousepointerisnotrelatedtothedistancebetweenthesetwoobjectsinthegameworld;the interfaceonlyrelatestothetwo-dimensionalrepresentation.

Narrationandtime InMyst,timestandsstillwhentheplayerdoesn'tact.Thereisneveranyurgency,nodemandson thereactiontimeoftheplayer.Thisisinsomewayssimilartothetemporalfreedomgrantedtothe readerofanovel. Ihavepointedoutthatyoubasicallycan'thaveinteractionandnarrationatthesametime.Ifa computergameistohavebothinteractionandnarration,ithastoalternatebetweenthetwo.Thetop sellingMystconfirmsthis,albeitinanintriguingway.Onaconcretelevel,theplayer'sactionsin Mystarequiteuninteresting.Theplayermovesaroundcollectinghintsonhowthisswitchmustbe flipped,howthiswheelmustbeturnedetc...Allofthistocollectthemissingpiecesofthebooks,

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page57 AtrusandhistwosonsSirrusandAchenararecapturedin.Hintsarefoundprimarilythrougharte- factsinthegameworld,likethetwofollowing.

Twoartefactswithastory. Thepaperhasadoublefunctionofhelpingtheplayergetfurtherinthegame,andofindicatinga senderandreceiverofthemessage(amanandawoman).Knowledgeispresentedandapartof storyistold.WedonotneedthestoryofAtrusandCatherinetocompletethegame,butitadds someatmosphere.ThebookontherightispurenarrationabouttheprehistoryofMyst,butdoes directlygiveanythingneededfortheplayingofthegame. PlayingMyst,youmeetmanythingsthattellofMyst'sprehistory.Thisnarrationisdone throughartefactsinthegameworld,butisalwaysaboutwhathappenedbeforetheplayerstarted playing.Theplayercanalwaysleaveatextanddosomethingelse.Soadirectconfrontationbe- tweenthetemporallogicsofgameandnarrationisavoided:Itisnotthetimeoftheplayerthatis compressed,butthetimethatistold. ThereisoneobviouscontradictioninthetimeofMyst,sinceMystcontainsatimemachine.It oughttobepossibletogettoapointintimewheretheinhabitantsofMystwerestillaround,but thisisnotpossible.Mystisalwaysempty.Thisabandonmentandthisdisplacementbetweenthe prehistoryandthetimeofthegamearealwaysactiveinMyst.

Programandmaterial ThechallengegiventotheplayerbyMystisprimarilyindiscoveringhowdifferentmechanical devicesinthegamemustbemanipulatedtogainfurtheraccesstothegameworld.Theprogram containssomelogicalconditionswhereagiven"object"(representedinsomematerial)mustbe manipulatedinacertainwaytogiveaccesstomorematerial.Logicalpuzzlesworkwellinagame contextbecausetheyarepurelycausal.Thereisnodoubtthatthereasonthatyouarriveattheend sequenceisbecauseyou'veenteredthecorrectcode.Soitispossiblefortheplayertodiscoverthe structureofthegame,andthismeansthattheplayerhasreasontoplay.Puzzlesworkbecausethey

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page58 connecttheprogramandmaterial.Oneobviouscriticismofthiskindofgameisthattheyareal- waysaboutturninghandlesandfindingkeys-astheyhavebeensinceAdventure.Therealstrength ofMystistheextentthatthissolvingofpuzzlesalsouncoversaprehistory. Therearebothtemporalandtechnologicalreasonsforthegameworldbeingabandoned:Itis veryhardtocreatesatisfyingandconvincinginteractionsbetweenaplayerandcomputer-controlled characters.Themostobviousreasonbeingthatcomputersdonotunderstandnaturallanguage.The narrativeframedoesseemslightlyforcedanddeterminedbytechnologicalandtemporalpossibili- ties. Toreconstructastoryduringtheplayingofthegamegivesafeelingofconnectionbetween thestoryandtheactionsoftheplayer.Atthesametimeitwouldbequiteeasytochangethemate- rialofthegamewithoutchangingtheprogram.Mystcouldbemadeintoagamewhereyou-for example-liveonaplanetthreatenedbyanasteroidandhavetoconnectmachinestodefendthe planet.Orthebookcouldbereplacedbyavideocassettetheme(whichwouldbemorelogi- calsincethebookscontainvideoanyway),butthenMystwouldprobablynothavebeenreviewed inthebooksection...Butperhapsthatisnotthepoint.InsteadIwillsaythatMystworkswellsince thefairlyinflexibleprogram(Mystcouldmoreorlessbemadetoworkontwoslideshowprojec- tors)ismatchedbyanarrativeframethatexplainswhythegameworldisabandoned.Thiscanun- fortunatelyseemslightlyforced.Asagame,Mystisatraditionalpuzzle-basedinteractivefiction, butonewithhighproductionvalues,andanarrativeframethatconcernswritingandfiction.And thismakesMysthighlyvaluedbytraditionalculturalcriteria.

Intermezzo:Theplacementoftheplayer Alargepartofnarratologyhasfocusedontheplacementofthenarratorintheuniverseofthetext.36 Thatis,whatgrammaticaltraitsareattachedtotheenunciation,whatdoesthenarratorknowabout thepeopleandtheworldthatisbeingtold?Ininteractivephenomenaitmaybeusefultofocuson theplacementoftheplayer.Thereader/playerofaninteractiveworkisnecessarilyplaced;the playerhascertainpossibilitiesofinfluence,andthusaninteractiveworksetstheplayerasapartof thetextworld.Inthesamewaythatanarratorcanbeplacedunclearlyinanovel,socantheplayer inagame. TheDanishauthorSvendÅgeMadsen'snovelAfSporeterdukommet("Youhavecomefrom traces/tracks")(Madsen1984)containsashortstorycalledSpor("Traces/Tracks").Sporisclaimed 36ForexampleSeymourChatman,whousestwooutoffivechaptersinStoryandDiscourse(1978)onthequestionof thenarrator.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page59 tobeashortstorywrittenbythecomputerDatam18tocreatealifestoryforthefictiouscharacter RikkardDueboVem.Sporconsistsof24piecesoftext,labelledA-X.The23oftheserefertotwo ormoreoftheremainingpieces,andthereaderhastomakechoicesastowhatshouldbereadthe nexttime.Theprotagonistisanundefined"he".Itispossibletodiscusswhatkindoftext,Sporis. ThereisagameelementnotonlysinceitisclearlyinfluencedbyforkingstoriessuchastheChoose yourownadventureseries.Itisalsoexplicitlymarkedassuchinthenovelwhenthecharactersread Spor: He[Alfreud]wasthelasttocompletetheobstaclecourse.Fegge,whoknewtheprogramhadquickly foundamethodofgettingthrough,Hélenhadfoundtheexitbychance,andVagnhad(Fegge guessed)cheated.(p.94) Theyallhavebeenawareoftheexistenceofan"exit"-meaningagoodending.Andithasbeen possibletocheat.SoSporisatleastdescribedasbeingagame.Accordingtowhatwemightterm the"contract"ofgames,theplayerhasafixeddegreeofinfluenceinthetext/gameuniverse.Most piecesinSpordoliveuptothis,forexampleD: D.Everythingbecomesblack,andwhenthelightreturns,everythinghasbecomewhite.Heisnotsure howlongtimehaspassedsincetheaccident,andheonlygraduallyrealisesthatheisinahospital.But tendercare,notleastfromoneofthenurses,quicklygetshimwellagain.Butafterwhathehasbeen through,heisnotsurewhattodo.(Shouldheconsiderhissituation:B;orbeimpulsive,N?)(p.84-84) Sothereadermakesachoicethatcorrespondstothechoiceoftheprotagonist.Butinotherpieces, thereader'schoiceisaboutwhatshouldhappenasaconsequenceoftheprotagonist'sactions: A.Itisthenextday.Heiswalkingdowntheroad,wonderingwhatlifecanofferhim.Agoodnights sleephasputhiminalight,andhebelievesthathehassucceededinerasingallimpressions fromthedaybefore.Buthedoesnotgetveryfarbeforehisattentioniscaughtbysomethingonthe oppositepavement.Withouthesitationhewalksontotheroad.(Shouldhereachtheotherside,goto E;shouldn'the,gotoH?)(p.82-83). Andfinally,thechoice"Choosetoactonhisown"inpieceEleadstotheprotagonistrapinga womanagainsthiswill.SoinEyoudonotevencontroltheprotagonist'sactions,whereinDyou controlledtheworld.Sothereaderisplacedinthreedifferentpositions:Astheprotagonist,asan omnipotentGod/writer,andassomethingcontrolledbytheanimallustsofthemaincharacter. TheinterestingpartisthatSvendÅgeMadsenstwootherforkingtexts,Denslettefortæller("The evilnarrator",1970)andthenovelDagemedDiam("DayswithDiam",1972)alsoclaimtofork accordingtothechoicesoftheprotagonist,butthattheirforksalsoplacethereaderinseveraldif- ferentposition.IhavetoadmitthatIfinditdifficulttoexplainwhythisisso.Butallthreetextsare perhapsnotasmuchgamesastheyborrowgamestructures.Wemightsaythatthenarrativitywins overthegameelements.Buttheprimarypointmustbethatweshouldnottaketheself-description ofthetextatfacevalue,andthattheplacementofthereaderisworthstudying.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page60 Doom Unquestionably,themostappealingaspectofDoomwasitssheerfunfactor;eachoftheeditorshadto admittospendingcountlesshoursroamingaboutitsvirtualhalls.Butwhatwassofunaboutit?What madethissomuchmorefunthananythingelse?[...]it'sbecausethesegraphicsdidmoretosuspend disbelief-crucialtoacompellinggameplayexperience-thananygametocomebeforeit(andsome wouldsay,thananygametocomeafterit).Beforeyouwereevenoutofthefirstlevel,youfeltasif youWEREinthosehalls,battlingthosedemons. -ThejustificationforpickingDoomas#1intheTop50GamesofAll-Time(ogr.com1997).

Temporality Historically,mostactiongamesforhomeusefollowedthearcadegameprinciplewheretheplayer isneverallowedtotakeabreak.IamnotgoingtoclaimthatDoomintroducedpausestotheaction game,butithasbeenmassivelyinfluential.InDoom,theplayerisnotconstantlyfollowedbya threat.Rather,Doombeginswiththeplayerbeingsafe.Whenyouenteraroom,allmonsterssud- denlybeginmovingandattackingyou.Whenthesemonstershavebeenkilled,youcanonceagain takeabreak.Doomisstillreal-time,butthegameworldhasbeencreatedsoitispossibletotakea breakinthatrealtime.Itisanopenquestionwhetheritisrealisticthatthemonstersdonottryto findtheplayerwhenhe/shestandsstill.Shouldn'ttheyberunningfromroomtoroom?Ontheother handwedon'tknowmuchaboutthesemonsters-andthatisoneoftheadvantagesofplacinga gameinanotverywellknown.

Identification Doomwasreceivedecstaticallybygameplayers,butinothercirclesithasbeendeclaredextremely dangerous.Onanominallevel,thisisunderstandablesinceDoomisaveryviolentgame,andhas spawnedawholegenreofequallyviolentgames.Thereissomethinguncomfortableaboutthepsy- chologyofthegenre,wheretheplayerkillsthousandsofmonsterstogetfurtherinthegame.Itmay remindusoftheegoismofasmallchildbeforethechildbeginstoseeitselfasplacedinasocial context.Anditisabitlikethelackofunderstandingotherpeoplefoundinautism.Doomdoesseem tohavebeenbuiltexclusivelyfortheplayer.

Programandmaterial ThedifferentelementsofDoomfittogetherextremelywell.Theinterfaceisverysimple:Youcan moveforwardsandbackwards,turn,strafe,changeweapons,opendoors,andshoot.Thereisno possibilityofusingsignsoratallcommunicatingwiththeenemies.Andthatisthepoint:Theop- ponentsyoumeetinDoomareclearlymarkedaspurelyevil,unthinkingbeingsthatevidentlyhave tobeexterminated.Thismeansthatthesimplicityoftheinterfaceisnotaproblem,becauseyoudo

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page61 notwishtotrytocommunicate.Theminimal(andbasicallyignored)narrativeframeofDoomisno literarymasterpiece,butitservesthepurposeofpresentingthemonstersasevil: Asyouwalkthroughthemainentranceofthebase,youhearanimal-likegrowlsechoingthroughout thedistantcorridors.Theyknowyou'rehere.There'snoturningbacknow. (Doom.accompanyingfile,lastparagraph.) Theseopponentsarenotveryintelligent.Theyaremainlyoccupiedwithattackingtheplayer,but occasionallyattackeachotheraswell.Thereisalsoanelementofrandomnessintheirbehaviour. Thismeansthatthey,despiteoftheirfollowingwell-definedrules,canactdifferentlyeverytime youmeetthem.Thisisabottom-upconstruction,meaningthatratherthandescribeanoverall structureandchoreographingeveryelementtomatchthatstructure,youconstructanumberof smallelementsthatinteract.37

Unreal ThenewergameUnreal(Megagames1998)isa3d-shooterlikeDoom,andisalsoreal-time. ButUnrealaddssomenewtricks,asinthefollowingpseudo-narrativepassage:

1.Enteringahallway. 2.Abodyfliesthroughtheair.

37Anexampleofacorrespondingbottom-upconstructionistheLarsvonTrierexhibitionVerdensuret(worldclock)in theautumnof1996atKunstforeningeninCopenhagen.Thebasicpersonalitytraitsandrelationsof50charactershad beenpreviouslydescribed,and50actorsplayedthesecharacterswiththeoverallrulethateachhadfourmoodsthat werecontrolledbycolouredlamps,whichagainwerecontrolledbythevideosignalofsomeantsinNewMexico,USA. Inthisset-uptheactorsimprovisedanumberofmainandthatdevelopedduringthetwomonthsthattheexhi- bitionlasted.ItwouldhavebeenaHerculeantasktogeneratethesameamountofmaterialaccordingtoanoverall story.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page62 3.Theattackingmonsterstepsforward Inthefirstimageweareenteringahallway.Togetthisfarmayhavetakenalongorashorttime. Butwheneveryoureachthehallway,youalwayshearascreamandseethisbodyflyingthroughthe air(andthemonstercomingtowardsyou).Itisnotpossibletoconstructanycausalreasonwhythis shouldbeso.Buttheplayer'spresencestartsthescene,andasaplayeryouareguaranteedtowit- nessthisscene,nomatterwhenyouarrive. Icallthispseudo-narrativebecausethereisnovariationinspeedandnodistancebetweenthe timeofthenarratedandthetimeofthereading:Itisthetemporalityofthegame;thattimeisnot modifiedandthattheperspectiveisfixed.Butheresomepredefinedsequencesaretriggeredbythe player'sarrival.Thisgivestheactionsomeoftheeconomyfoundinnarratives:Theplayerwillal- waysexperiencethisinterestingevent. Fromanon-technicalpointofviewthereisnoreasonableexplanationwhythemonster shouldwaitattackingtilltheplayerarrives.Theproblemwiththistechniqueisthatitmakesthe gameworldlesscredible.Byplayingmanytimes,yougettounderstandthatthiscoincidenceisa construction. SoUnrealhasadoubletemporality.Mostofthegameeventsarerealtime,otherareonhold inakindofpseudorealtime,togetsuddenlyactivated(andhappeninrealtime)whentheplayer arrives.

Multiplayergames:Doom Ihavementioned,butnotyetdiscussed,thatDoomandDoomIIhaveaplayingmodewherethe gameisnotspecificallyforoneplayer,butisconstructedforthesimultaneousplayingofseveral people:

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page63 DoomII:Twoplayerswatchingeachother(ondifferentcomputers). MultiplayerDoomrequiresseveralcomputersinanetwork.Itdoesnotpresupposephysicalprox- imity,evenifplayingoverlargedistancescanbeunsatisfyingduetodelaybetweenthecomputers (lag).All3d-shootersthatIamawareofhaveamultiplayermode.Amultiplayergamechanges threebasicthingsinrelationtothegamespreviouslydiscussed: • Perspective.Thereareseveralviewsonandrepresentationsofthesamegameworld.This meansthatthereisn'tjustonereader,andthattodiscussmultiplayergamesdemandsthatyou understandthedoubletotalityoftheindividualperspectivesandtheentiregameasonelarge system. • Thestabilityofthetext.Evenifthepreviousgameshavebeennon-linearandinteractiveindif- ferentways,theyhavebeenconstant.YoucanplayMyst,SpaceInvadersoranothergame,and thegamewillalwaysbethesame;aspecificactionwillmakethegamereactinacertainwayor withinasetofpossibilities.Amultiplayergameplacesmorethanonepersonintheequation,so thegamecanreactverydifferentlyeachtime.Fromtheviewpointofoneplayer,amultiplayer gamecannotbecharacterisedasastabletextsincethegameworldcontainsfactorsthatarenot constant:theotherplayers.Buteventhough,itispossibletorefertomultiplayerDoomasasta- bleunit,onlythisrequiresakindofcollectiveviewofthegame.Youmaypreferonemulti- playergameoverothersduetotheinteractionsandoperationsallowedbythegame.Multiplayer Doomisnotknownbythereactionscausedbyaspecificactionbutbythetypesofreactions causedbyinterplaybetweenmanyplayers. • Time:Thatmanyplayersareactivesimultaneouslycreatessomenewdemands:Somegames containanarrationthatalternateswiththegamesequences.Thesegameshavevariationsin theirtemporality.Multiplayergamesneedtheplayerstobepresentatthesamepointinthe gametime.Thismeansthatthetemporalvariationsfoundinothergamesdonotreallyworkin multiplayergames(oronlyworkifeverybodyexperiencesthematthesametime)-ifaplayer skippedsometimeinanarrativepassage,he/shewouldbeatapointfurtheralonginthegame

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page64 time.Somultiplayergamespresupposesabasicrealtime,atimethatdoesdisplacetheplayers inrelationtoeachother. Thesethreefactorsmakethecomputergameacomplication,theoreticallyandpractically.The evaluationoftheplayerbecomesmoreofasocialfunction.Thegoaloftheplayerisnotjusttoac- quireastructuralunderstandingandperformanceinrelationtothegame,butalsotounderstandand mastertheinteractionbetweenthegameandtheotherplayers.Theindividualplayerisstillata specificscreenandkeyboard,butthesituationnowcontainsothersentientbeings,thatalsocreate mentalmodelsofthegameworld.Thismakeslying,cheating,andfakingrelevant,andrecursive situationsarisewhereAconsidersB'smentalmodelofA'smentalmodeletc.. Themostpopulartypeofmultiplayergameatthetimeofwriting(1998)isthe3dshooter, wheretheplayersarefreetoplayindefinitelyonasinglelevel(accordingtohowthegameitset up).ThehistoricalprecursorofthemodernmultiplayergamesistheoriginalMUD(Bartle&Trub- shaw)from1980:MUD,oftentakenfor"Multiuserdungeon"isamultiplayerversionofAdven- ture:Agameworldbuilt(textually)fromanumberofroomsthatyoucanmovebetweenusing textualcommands.38MUDcontinuestobealargeundergroundphenomenonontheInternetwith thousandsofMUDswithdifferentthemesandstructures.Therevolutionarypartinthiscontextis thatmostMUDsarecontinuouslyactive.Thismeansthatthegamegoeson24hoursaday,withno interruptions.MUDsusuallycontaincharacterscontrolledbytheprogram(non-playingcharacters orNPCs),whichmeansthataMUDcanbeactiveevenwhennobodyiswatching.(Theprograms internalrepresentationofthegameworldisupdatedwithoutitbeingrepresentedvisually).Theper- sistenceofsuchagameworldleadstoanabsoluteabolishmentoftemporalvariations.

Programandmaterial Themultiplayergamepositssteepdemandsonthetemporalrelationsandequallysharpsteepde- mandsontheprogramconstruction.Iamnotawareofanymultiplayergamesbuiltonnarrative passages-thisissincethemultiplayergameworksmuchagainsttemporalvariation,andalsobe- causegamesconstructedaccordingtoanfixedsequencearemuchtoinflexibletoaccommodate severalsimultaneousplayers.

38AhistoricaldiscussionofMUDscanbefoundin(Aarseth1997,chapter7.)AarsethsaysoftheMUDabbreviation: [...]socialscientistsdoingresearchontheMUDphenomenaoftenrefertoMUDsdisingenuouslyasmultiuser domain,multiuserdialogues,oreven,incongruously,multiuserdimensions,toavoidassociationwiththeembar- rassingtermdungeon,whichmightremindtheirreaders(andtenurecommittees)oftheMud'spuerileoriginasa game.(p.143)

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page65 ThestructureofDoomallowsforvariationandflexibility:Inaway,thewholepointofthe actiongameandofmostgamesassuchisthattheyconsistofanumberofsmallcomponentsthat canbecombinedinlargenumberofways.Ontopofthiswetypicallyfindanendingprinciplein- fluencedbythesesmallelements.InDoomtheenergyoftheplayerrunsoutbygettinghitbyoppo- nents-accordinglyeachmonsterisconnectedtoanamountoftension.InaboardgamelikeMo- nopolyitisthefinancialstatusofeachplayerthatrisksgoingtozero.Thiskindofbottom-upde- signmakesthegameworldinfinitelymoreflexiblethanifdesignedaccordingtoaplotorafixed sequence.

Intermezzo:Towardsandinteractivefiction Hypertextisinherentlynon-linear,sothetraditionalnarrativeiswhollyinappropriatetohypertext work.[...]ifhypertextfictioneverbecomesartisticallysuccessful(nothingI'vereadis),itwillbe throughthecreationofanewnarrativeform,somethingthatwewillbehard-pressedtocall"story." (Costikyan1994) Thetemporalaspectsarenottheonlythingsthatdistinguishesacomputergamefromanovel,there areotherbasicdifferences:Thenarrativebasicallyworkswithfixedsequences,humanrelations, butcomputergamesarealmostalwaysaboutphysicalmovementsinspace.InSpaceInvadersyou moveasmallspaceship,inMystyoumove"yourself"aroundanisland.Withasweepinggenerali- sationwemightsaythatnarrativesareabouttime,butthatcomputergamesareaboutspace,orat leastaboutspaceonalevelofdetailthatisnotrelevantinnarratives. Whenthecomputergameisnotcapableoftellingstories,butisyetoftenseenastodry,ab- stract,oremotionless,theseelementshavetobeintroducedbyothermethodsthanthatofnarration. Wehavetoacknowledgethatthecomputergamehasavarietyofdevicesthatworkverywell,and thatthereisnospecificreasontoworkagainstthese.Sowehavetomakeadistinctionbetween narrativesandthethemesfoundinnarratives.Mostnarrativesareaboutthingslikehumanrelations, ambition,anddesire.Sincethesethemescannotbeintroducedassimpleadditionalsymbolisation (narrativeornot)ofasimplegame,thegamestructurehastobeextendedtocontainmodelsofthe humanrelationspresented.Thethemeshavetobeimplementedintheprogram,bemorethanpos- tulatesonthepackaging. Weneedtogettoasituationwheretheplayercaninteractwithaworldthatdevelopsno matterwhethertheplayeractsornot.Andtheplayerhastobeabletoactwithoutthegameloosing itsprogression-theplayerstillneedssomethingtoplayfor.Ithinksomegamespointtowardsthis utopia,buttodescribethisIwillstartbygoingback15years:

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page66 Witness ThetaxihasjustdroppedyouoffattheentrancetotheLinders'driveway. Thedriverdidn'tseemtolikeventuringintothismazeoftwistystreets39 anymorethanyoudid.Butthehousewindowsarefulloflight,andradio musicdriftstowardyou.Yourfavoritepistol,asnub-nosedColt.32,is snuginitsholster.Youjustpickedupamatchbookoffthecurb.Itmight comeinhandy.GoodthingyoulookedupthepolicefileonMrs.Linder's death.Hersuicidenoteandthenewspaperstorytoldyouallyouknowabout thefamily.Thelongweekisfinished,exceptforthisappointment.Butwhy doesanominousfeelinggripyou?(ThebeginningofWitness.) Witness(Infocom1983)isfromthegoldenageofthetextadventure.Witnessistext-based;the gameworldisrepresentedtextuallyandtheplayeractstextually.Witnessistheoldestgametoget analysedhere,butitalsocontainssomefairlymoderntraits,traitsIbelievecouldbepartofafuture forinteractivefiction.Themainthingsistherelativeautonomyofthegameworld,i.e.notevery- thingrevolvesaroundtheplayer.

Gametype,interface Witnessworksasadialoguebetween"thegame"andtheplayer."Thegame"describesthescenario, andtheplayercanreact.(">"Marksthewritingsoftheplayer.)Theillusionisoccasionallybroken sincethereisnodirectconnectionbetweenthevocabularyusedinthedescriptionandthevocabu- larythattheplayercanuse: >wait Therainisfallingheavilynow.

>drinkrain (Sorry,buttheprogramdoesn'trecognizetheword"rain".) Witnesssuffersfromtherecurringproblemofinteractivefiction,thatnotalltheinformationinthe description(textualorgraphicalasinMyst)canbeinteractedwith.40 Witnessisadetectivestorywiththeplayerasthedetectivethathastoexaminethecircum- stancessurroundingthedeathofaMrs.Linder.Usingthetextualinterfaceyouhavetoexamine things,collectevidence,interrogatesuspects(tothedegreethatthisispossible).Youcanthenarrest asuspectwhenyoufeelcertain,andtheverdictofthecourtdependsonhavingcollectedsufficient evidence.(Nomatterifyouhavearrestedtherightpersonornot.) EspenAarsethhasmadeananalysisofthepredecessorofWitness,Deadline(Aarseth1997, p.115-128),wherehedescribesDeadlineasanautisticgame(lackofrelationtopainetc.),andcon-

39ThisisareferencetoafamouspartinAdventure(Crowther&Woods1976),whereyouarriveat"Amazeoftwisty passages,allalike". 40BrendaLaurelhasaparallelcritique(Laurel1991b,p.59),evenifshecuriouslyseemstobelievethattheproblem wouldnotariseinagraphicalsystem,andsomearachaicallydescribestheproblemasconflictbetweenlanguageand thought.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page67 cludesthatthevoiceofthegameishardtoplacesinceitbothdescribesthescenario,commentsits ownabilities(asintheabovequote),andaskoverallquestionsaboutthegameflow("Thiscase hasended.Wouldyouliketostartyourinvestigationfromscratch?(Y/N)"). Thequestionisthenhowtoexplainthisunreliablenot-really-narratorthattheplayerinteracts with.Ithinktheinspirationisfromthecomputeritself.TheoriginalAdventurewascreatedata timewhenalmostalloperatingsystemswerebasedoncommandlines.Ifacommandistypedcor- rectly,itisexecutedandtheresultsaredisplayed.Mistypingresultsinanerrormessage.Thisdia- loguebetweenuserandcomputerworksonmanydifferentlevels;failuretounderstandtheuser's command;failuretoexecutetheuser'scommand;theresultoftheuser'scommand.Anotherpossi- bleinspirationisJosephWeizenbaum'sclassicalprogramEliza(1966),whereaprogramworksasa therapist,answeringanswerorquestionwithanewquestion.(Thisconnectionhasbeensuggested byNiesz&Holland1984).

Narrationandtime WherethetimeofAdventureisratherabstract,witha"move"astheunit,timeinWitnessismeas- uredinminutes.Thegamestartsat8:00.Everyactionperformedtakesaminuteinthegametime.It ispossibletowaitforaperson.("waitforMonica")ortowaittoacertainpoint("waitto 8:59").Ifsomethinghappensinthemeantime,youareaskedifyouwanttogoonwaiting.This allowstheplayertoskipdullperiods. ThereallyinterestingpartaboutWitnessisthewayinwhichtheplayer'sactionsinteractwith somefixedeventsthattakeplacewithorwithouttheplayerbeingpresent.Toshowthis,wecan lookatapassageearlyinthegame.YouhavearrivedattheLinderfamily,havegreetedeveryone andfollowedMr.Linderintohisoffice: [...] ThisisobviouslytheofficeofMr.Linder'scompany,PacificTradeAssoci- ates.Atthewestendoftheoffice,amassivedeskofteakandmahogany facestowardthewindow.Ithasnodrawers,butthetopiscoveredwith pilesofletters,somenewspapers,atelephone,andvarioussouvenirsfrom theFarEast. Behinditisalargeornately-carvedchair,likeacruiserescortingabat- tleship.Asimplewoodenchair,polishedsmoothbyvisitors,flanksthe deskontheotherside.Onthenorthwallisalounge,upholsteredingreen velvetandabitlumpy,withaframedwood-blockpicturehangingoverit. Ontheoutsidewall,nexttoadoorandwindow,standsagrandfatherclock, tickingrelentlessly.Afilecabinetstandsinthecorner. Thedoortotheinteriorhallwayisopen. Acatissleepinginthecorner. Lindersitsdowninthecarvedchair.

"Ifyou'lljusttakeachair,I'llexplainwhatthisisallabout." Therainoutsideisfallingheavilynow.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page68 >sitonwoodenchair Youarenowsittingonthewoodenchair. Linderbeginshisstory."Mylatewife,maysherestinpeace,gotinvolved withayoungmannamedStiles.NaturallyItriedtostopthisaffair,but withoutmuchsuccess.Sincemywifepassedaway,thisStilesfellowhas goneoffthedeepend,I'mafraid,andblamedmeforherdeath.Itriedmy besttoignorehim,butheseemstohavelosthissenses.ThismorningI receivedthisnoteanddecidedtoaskyourhelp."Hehandsthenotetoyou.

[...]

>wait Timepasses... Theclockchimes9timestomarkthehour. Youhearthedoorbellring.

Linderlookstowardthewindowandsays,"Idon'tthinkPhonghasanswered thedoorbellyet."Hereachestowardthebutler'sbuttonandatthesame instantshouts"Stiles!"Youturnaroundanddimlyseeafigureoutside. Suddenlythereisaflashoflightandanexplosion,andthewindowfalls intodozensofshinyshards.Thecatboltsanddisappearssomewhere.The figureoutsideturnsandrunsbeforeyoucanseetheface.Whenyouturn backaround,youseeLinderslumpingdowninhischair,withabloodystain spreadingacrosshissilkshirt.Heteetersontheedgeoftheseat,then fallsontothefloor,quitedead. It'snow9:04p.m. Ifyoudon'tacceptthechair,thefollowinghappens: >wait Timepasses... Youhearthedoorbellring.

Linderlookstowardthewindowandsays,"Idon'tthinkPhonghasanswered thedoorbellyet."Hereachestowardthebutler'sbuttonandatthesame instantshouts"Stiles!"Youturnaroundanddimlyseeafigureoutside. Suddenlythereisaflashoflightandanexplosion,andmortalpainradi- atesfromyourheart.Asbloodfillsyourlungsandascreamfillsyour brain,youfeelsureofonlyonething:youshouldhavetakenachairwhen Linderaskedyouto. Thereareotherpossibilities:Youcanchoosenottokeepyourappointmentandrathergotothe backyardtoseeStilessneaktowardsthewindow.

Programandmaterial Stilesalwayssneaksintothebackyardjustbefore9:00.Correspondingly,Linder'sdaughterMonica alwaysgoestothemoviesjustafterthegamehasbegun,andshealwaysreturnsatacertaintime. WhereMystorUnrealopenlyfeaturevideooreventsthatonlyhappenwhentheplayerarrives,the eventsinWitnesshaveanautonomythatmakesthegameworldmorecredibleandlifelike. InReadingforthePlot(1984)PeterBrooksmakestheclaim(usingTodorov)thatthedetec- tivenovelisameta-novelinthesensethatitisaboutapersonthatusingclues(discourse)recon- structsastory-adescriptionofthecrime.(Brooksp.29).Thismeansthatthedetectiveandthe

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page69 readerperformthesamemovement,andthatthedetectivenovelgetsmuchstrengthfromthispar- allelbetweenreaderanddetective.Acomputergamebasedonacriminalcaseworkswellsincethe playeralsouncoversastorythatisearlierintimethanthegameevents.Thedetectivenovelisob- viouslynotjusttheuncoveringofastory,butastoryinitself.InWitness,theuncoveringisagame, whichisnotentirelythesamething.Butitisadetectivegame,anditcarriesaminimalidealstory- thedetectivefindsandarreststheculprit.Youthenplaytodiscoverhowtoactualisethisideal story.41Theuncoveringofthestructureofthegamealsoleadstoanuncoveringoftheprehistory. Mystisnotadetectivestory,butfollowsthesamestrategy-throughyourmovementsinthegame youuncoveraprehistory.Inbothcasestheuncoveringofthepasthassomerelevanceforthegame: ItmayforexampletelluswhowouldhavemotivetokillMr.Linder(ortheplayer). TheworldofWitnessdoesnot-unlikethatofDoomorUnreal-seemcreatedjustforthe benefitoftheplayer.Witnessgivestheimpressionofworkingindependentlyoftheplayer.Fur- thermoreitsucceedsinbuildingdramaticaltensionbasedonhumanrelations.Andthishappens withoutlockingtheplayerinnon-interactivesequences.TheweakpointofWitnessisprimarilythe modeofinteraction:Youtrytocommunicateusingnormalsentences,buttheprogramturnsoutto beincapableofunderstandinganythingbutthemostbasicconstructs.Correspondinglyitturnsout tobequitedifficulttointerrogatethegamecharacters,sincetheyunderstandverylittleandcanonly answerwithafewcannedphrases.Againthisisaconflictbetweenthepromisesofthematerial- thecharactersaretextuallypresentedascharacters-andwhattheprogramcandeliver-afewpre- definedresponses. Witnessisanearlyexampleofagameabouthumanrelations,butonethatworkswithout lockingtheplayerinaninflexibledualitybetweennarrationandinteraction.

41WemighttheoreticallyconsiderthepossibilityofagamebasedonafaileddetectivestorylikePaulAuster'sCityof Glass(Auster1985),astectivestorywherethedetectiveiscaughtbygreaterforcesandneverreallysolvesanything.In practice,computergamesarejustaboutalwaysfaithfultotheidealstorytheyputforwards.Probablybecausetheplayer wouldfeelcheatedbyhavinginvestedalargeamountofenergyinaprojectthatdisappearsintonothing.Adetective storycanfailbecauseitisthedetective,notthereader,thatfightsinvain.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page70 LastExpress

LastExpress:MissWolff,theprotagonistRobertCath,andaconductor. TheLastExpress(Brøderbund1997)isanewerandmoreadvancedattemptatcreatinganinterac- tivefictionthatdoesnottraptheplayerwithinafewpre-definedchoices.Itisnotaperfectgame, neitherdoesitmatchtheutopiaIhavedescribed.Butitisagoodexampleofhowthethemesof narrativescanbeaddedinacontextthatismoregameandlessofaninflexibletreestructure.In somerespects,LastExpressisalotlikeWitness-itispartlyadetectivestory,andyouuncovera prehistorywhileplaying. Graphics,narrativeframeanddialogueareofunusuallyhighquality.42Butthemostinterest- ingelementistheuseofmeaningfuleventsthattakeplaceinthereal-timeofthegame(ratherthan beingtoldinthesametime).Youcanwitnessdiscussionsandeventsthataremeaningfulinthe overallgame,butwithoutbeinglockedintimeorwithoutinteractivity.Thissolvessomeproblems, sincethegamesIhavepreviouslydiscussed(withWitnessasanexception)onlyintroduceinter- estingmaterialbyaddingartefactsorhavingstraightnarrativepassages,wheretheplayercan'tdo anything.LastExpressincludinginterestingeventsintherealtimeofthegame.

Gametype Thebiggestchallengeforusallalonghasbeenwhatwecallthecharacterlogic.Creatingthisillusion oflifethatyouhaveasyoumovethroughthis3Djourney.Eachcharacter-andtherearearound35 substantialcharacters-hasthissetofroutinesthattheygothrough.They'reinteractingwitheachother andthereareallthesesubstorieswindingbackandforth.Butthefactthattheplayeristherecauses eventshappenearlierthantheywouldhave,causesthemtohappenindifferentsequence,orcauses completelynewevents.(MarkMoran,programmer/technicaldesignerofLastExpress-accompanying video.) TheinterestingelementofLastExpressisthatitisagameworldbuiltaroundanumberoffairly autonomouscharactersthatinteractwitheachotherandwiththeplayer.Theplayercanmove aroundsixtraincarriages,talktothecharactersandlistentoconversations.

42Spoiler:Thisisalsooneoftheveryfewgamesnottohaveahappyending.Tilltheverylastmoment,youtendto believethatthingswillturnoutright,buttheydon't.(Thewargetsintheway.)

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page71 Narrativeframe DuringthisthesisIhavedescribedthecomputergameasastructurewithanarbitrarynarrative frame,butinthiscaseIhavetoacknowledgethattheLastExpresshasanexcellentframe-con- flictsonthelastOrientExpressbeforethebreakoutofWorldWarI.Thegamecontainsmanydif- ferentnationalities-British,French,German,Russian,Serbs.Theyallspeaktheirownlanguage (thegameissubtitled).Therearevariousdiscussionsofthepoliticalsituation,theyoungRussian anarchist'sdeclaringhisbeliefintheclass-lesssocietyetc.

Interface Accordingtothemanual,LastExpresshasacontext-dependentinterface.Thisbasicallymeansthat itworkslikeinMyst:Youcanonlyactivatecertainthingsandperformcertainactions,andthisis indicatedthroughtheshapeofthemousepointer.Dialogueworksbysimplyclickingonaperson, whichmakestheprotagonistsaysomethingthattheplayercannotactuallycontrol.Asingleclick mayresultinalongorshortconversation.Onsomeoccasions,theprotagonistbecomespartofa longerandclearlynarrativepassage. Somethingsarenotentirelylogical:Whenyoufirstenteryourcompartmentandfindthe bodyofCath'sfriendTyler,yourclothesgetbloodstainsallover.Tyler'sjackethangsonthewall, butyoucanonlyputitononceyouhavehiddenthebody.

Atfirstyoucan'tpickupthejacket,lateryoucan. Withinthegameworldthereisnoreasonforthis-itisofcoursealimitationwithintheprogram, andalimitationaccordingtotheflowofthegame.Itisnotanopenworldtointeractwith. Ifyoumakeamistakeorwishtoredosomeaction,itworksinaprettyuniqueway.Usinga clockyoucanrewindtimetothepointyouwishtostartfrom:

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page72 Usingaclockyoucanturnbacktime. Insomecasesyoudonothavetheoptionofbeingpresentataspecifictimesincethegameis lockedinanarrativepassage,andtheclockwillonlyletyoujumptoapointintimewherethe playercaninteract.

Identification YouassumetheroleoftheyoungAmericanRobertCath,boardingtheOrientExpressonlytofind thathisfriendTylerhasbeenmurdered.CaththendecidestopretendbeingTyler.Thisisasensible construction:Asdescribed,thereareproblemsingettingtheplayertoidentifywithanotherperson- toactinasituationisverydifferentfromsimplyunderstandingwhyanotherpersonwouldactina certainway.Thereisasymbolicdifferencebetweenidentifyingwithacharacterandactuallyper- formingthatcharacter'sactions-evenifitisjustagame.LastExpressdoesnotblindlyseekthis problem-theprotagonistisablondehero-butatthesametime,anextraeffortismadetoevade theidentificationproblem.FirstlybylettingtheprotagonistbeanAmericanonaEuropeantrain, leadingtoaslightlydistancedviewonthegameworld.Secondlybylettingtheprotagonistassume anotherperson'sidentity,thusminimisingthepotentialconflictbetweentheidentitiesoftheplayer andtheprotagonist. ButLastExpressisalsoaboutuncoveringwhathappenedbeforethegamebegan.Thisgoes fortheothercharacter'srelationtoeachother,anditisalsorelevanttothequestionofwhatthe protagonisthasdonepreviously.OnthefirstnightyouareintroducedtoMissWolff-stillundera falsename-andourprotagonisttellsher"Ibelievewe'vemetbefore."Butthisisneveruncovered. The"I"oftheprotagonistpossessesknowledgethatisnotcommunicatedtothe"I"oftheplayer.

Pointofviewandplacementoftheplayer Thegameusesavarietyoffilmicdevices:Youbasicallymoveaboutwatchingtheworldinfirst- personperspective.Whenyouareinadialoguewiththegamecharacters,youchangetoanoutside view.Ifkilledbyanopponent,thegamestops.Ifarrested(youareafugitivefromthelaw),the gameisalsostopped,andafemalevoicereadsfromadiarydescribingtheevents:

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page73 Adiaryexplainswhathashappenedtotheprotagonist. Thediarybelongstoafellowpassenger.Inthisgame,deathisclearlyalsoconnectingtoincreased knowledgefortheplayer. TheplacementoftheplayerinLastExpressisambiguous.Ononehandmostofthegameis aboutmovingaroundthetrainandwatchingwiththeeyesofthemaincharacter.Accordinglythe playerisstagedastheprotagonist.Wheninteractingwithotherpeople,yousimplyclickonthem, whichleadstoanarrativepassage.Insuchanarrativepassage,Cathsays(anddoes)anumberof thingsnotspecifiedbytheplayer,sotheplayerisrathersetasacounsellorthatcanpushCathin differentdirections.

Programandmaterial Ofthegamesdiscussedhere,LastExpressisthegametomostsuccessfullycombinenarrativema- terialandinteractivity.Structurally,itisduebothtothe(moreorless)bottom-upconstructionwith interactingcharacters,butasagameitisinawayclosertotheactiongamethanMystis:Youoften dieinLastExpress.AsinWitness,theactiongame,andmostinteractivefictions,thenarrative framehasonepositiveendingandaplethoraofnegativeendings:Gettingcaughtbythepolice, killedbyopponents,blownupbyabomb.Ineverycase,thegameendsandyourestartbeforeyou committedthelasterror.Sobasicallyitisasimplestructurewithanideallinetofollow.Thepoint isthatwithinthisyoucanexplorethegameworld,discoverthesamethingindifferentways,listen toanumberofconversations. Placingthegameinasettingwithstrongspatialandtemporallimits-atrain-makesiteasier tocreateaflexiblegameworld.Atthesametime,timeis(sotospeak)meaningful,sincethetrain movesthroughdifferentcountriesinaEuropeonthebrinkofwar.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page74 Finally,thereisgoodreasonforcreatingthegraphicsinthestyleofthe1910's,ArtNouveau-since ArtNouveauhaslargemonochromeareas,theimagesareeasilycompressibleandtakeupverylit- tlespaceontheCD-ROM.Sothisstylehasatechnologicaladvantageoverphotography. LastExpressdoesunfortunatelycontainmuchofthenon-repeatabilityofthenarrative.Hav- ingcompletedthegame,thereisnotthatmuchreasontoplayagain,evenifthereissomeattraction intryingtocompletethegameinadifferentway.IconsiderLastExpressthemostsuccessfulat- temptincreatingagamethatusesthethemesofthenovelorthemovie,butatthesametimeevades theworstconflictsbetweennarrativityandinteractivity.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page75 Conclusions

InteractivefictionisaUtopianideaformanyreasons.Therearetwophenomena,eachwellproven: Narratives,linearandfixedsequences,achainofeventsthatareclaimedtonecessarilyfolloweach other;variablespeed,skips,andadistancebetweenthetimenarratedandthetimeofthereading. Thecomputergame,interactiveandnon-linear,withsmallerelementsthatcanbecombinedagain andagain,aninteractivitythatpresupposesanowwheretheuserhasinfluence,andwherethetime narratedandthetimeofthereadingareidentical. Thesetwoaretoodifferenttobesimplycombined.Theinteractivenarrativeisnotimpossi- ble,thatis,workscanbecreatedthatarealternatingnarrativeandinteractive.Butitdoesnotcreate somethingnew,somethingjustequaltothesumofitsparts.Whichmeansthatthecriticsarepar- tiallyright:Thecomputergamecannotcreatetheexperiencesthatagoodbookormoviecancreate. Andtheydoseemtolacksomethingbasedmoreontraditionalstorythemesandlessonmotorskills andreactiontime. Thisconclusionisanelaborationofanalternativeutopiaofinteractivefiction,andanelabo- rationthemainpointsofthethesis. AnalternativeUtopia Thedreamofinteractivefictionispartly-asdiscussedinthehistoricalchapter-aboutgameswith contentclosetothatofthenovel,lessfocusedonviolenceandaction(andphysicalmovement). Accordingtomyclaimthatnarrationcombinedwithinteractionisalwaysunsatisfactory,theques- tionisthenwhetherthesamedreamcanbefulfilledwithoutusingnarration.Meaning:Yourefrain fromcontrollinganoverallsequenceorplot,andrathercreateagamethattakesplaceinaconstant noworpresenttense.Insteadofconstructinganumberofdevelopmentswithanumberofendings, youconstructanumberofelementscapableofinteracting,andthuscapableofcreatinginteresting patterns. Suchahypothetical&utopiangameshouldhavethefollowingcharacteristics: 1. Itmustbeabouthumanrelations,aboutthethemesofthenovelorthemovie. 2. Itmustnotperformnarration:Everythingshouldhappeninthenowoftheplaying;thereshould benojumpsintime. 3. Itmustbepossibletointeractwitheverythingpresentedonscreen. 4. Thegamemustdevelopnotjustonprinciplespostulated;allrulesofdevelopmentmustbeim- plemented.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page76 Thesefourpointsarenotespeciallycharacteristicofnewgames,rathermostofthedevelopmentin thefirsthalfofthe1990'sgraduallydecreasedtheplayer'soptionsinfavourofalessandlessflexi- bleprogramandsomepoorqualityvideoclips.Itseemsthatthetechnologicalpossibilityofcreat- ingimagesthatsatisfiedtraditionalaestheticcriteriawasemphasisedoverthethingsthattheseaes- theticsdonotunderstand:theprogram,theinteractivity,thegame.Theurgetomakethecomputer gameastory,hasbeensostrongthattheexperienceoftheuser/playerwasforgotten. Inthealternativeutopiawecanturnourbacktothenarrativeandratherfocusonflexibility andpossibilities.Butthisisnotwithoutproblemseither:Whenwearedealingwithpeopleandtheir relations,thecomplexityismuchlargerthanwhatcanbereadilysimulated.Itisatallnotpossible tomakethecomputerperformhumanreasoning.Theproblemis,saysMarie-LaureRyan,that computerslacksufficientcognitiveskills,anddonothaveabody: Thecreationofintelligentandbelievablecharacterswithwhomtheusercanengageinameaningful dialogueisthereforeoneofthemajordesignproblemsfacingInteractiveDrama.[...]Inasystemal- lowingareasonablylargechoiceofaction,thistaskpresupposesextensivesituation-analyzing,lan- guage-understanding,andlanguage-generationcapabilities.Computershavemadesignificantad- vancesinthisdomain,buttheyarestillalongwayfromthehumanleveloflinguisticandpragmatic competence.Theabilitytocommunicateverballypresupposesavastamountofworld-knowledge, whichcomputerscannotacquireontheirownsincetheirlackofbodydeprivesthemoftheproperin- terfacetotheworld.(Ryan1997,p.692-694) Thereareseveralwaystogetaroundthis.ThefirstpossibilityisoftencalledtheElizaeffect,after JosephWeizenbaum'stherapistprogramEliza.(Murray1997p.68-74,Hofstadter1997p.87-89). Theprogramwastosomeextentcreatedasaparodyofthekindoftherapistthatanswerseverything withanewquestion: ELIZA:Hello.IamELIZA.HowcanIhelpyou? ME:I'mworriedaboutthefuture ELIZA:Howlonghaveyoubeenworriedaboutthefuture? ME:SinceIwasateenager&Iheardaboutthegreenhouseeffect&theozonelayer. (Beaton1997) Elizadoesveryfewthingsandunderstandsevenless.Theprogramsimplylooksforanumberof knownphrasessuchas"Iam",andthenturnsthesentenceintoaquestion.So"IamX"istypically answeredby"HowlonghaveyoubeenX"or"DidyoucometomebecauseyouareX",etc...But thisisoftensufficienttogivehumanstheimpressionofintelligence: Iwasstartledtoseehowverydeeplypeopleconversingwith[theprogram]becameemotionallyin- volvedwiththecomputerandhowunequivocallytheyanthropomorphisedit.(Whichmeans-pro- jectedhumanqualitiesontoit.)Oncemysecretary,whohadwatchedmeworkontheprogramfor manymonthsandthereforesurelyknewittobemerelyacomputerprogram,startedconversingwith it.Afteronlyafewinterchanges,sheaskedmetoleavetheroom. (Weizenbaum1976,p.76,quotedfromBeaton1997)

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page77 Youshouldn'toverestimatetheabilitiesofEliza.Ittakesverylittlefortheprogramtoexhibitits lackofunderstanding;itonlyworkswithinthebasicquestion-answerformat,andonlywithvery fewalreadydefinedmarkers. Anotherpossibilityistoadjusttheplayer'sexpectationsofthecharacter'sintelligence,making itfitthattheprogramcanactuallydeliver.Computersarebetteratsomethingsthanatothers:Itis mucheasiertomakeacomputerseemmentallyillthansane.43Thisshouldn'tmeanthateverygame fromnowonshouldtakeplaceamongthementallyill,butthatwhatispossibleshouldbepartof thedesignprocess.Thereisnopointinfantasticetherealideasthatcannotbesatisfyinglyimple- mented. Athirdpossibilityisalienation:Thelesstheplayerknowsofthegameenvironment,theless expectationsofwhatispossibleinthegameworld.Thatmostactiongamestakeplaceineithersci- encefiction-orworldsisanexampleofthesameting-theplayerisunlikelytohaveexten- siveexperienceswithspaceshipsordemons.Thelanguageproblem,thatthecomputerisincapable ofunderstandingnaturallanguagehasbeencircumventedinasimilarway:InpartofTheEdifice (Smith1998),theplayerhastocommunicatewiththeinhabitantsofthegameworldusingthefic- tivelanguagenalian.Accordinglytheplayerisnotinclinedtocreatecomplexsentences,andthis alsoexplainsthecharacter'sfailuretounderstandtheplayer. Allthesetechniquesareinadangerbeingusedtoofrequently,andofleadingtonarrative framesthataremadetooopenlytocoveroveraweakprogram.Thisalternativeutopiaisthusnota universalsolution.Inintroducesnewproblems,butavoidsmixinggamesandnarrativesdirectly.

Thenarrativeandthegame Ontheotherhand,bothnovelsandmoviessufferfromsomebasicproblems:Fromwheredoesthe narratorgethis/herknowledge?Buttheydoseemsomehowadjustedtotheproblem.Somenarra- tiveshaveanexplicitlydescribednarratorwithpotentialpossibilityofactuallyknowingwhatis beingtold.Insomecases,thenarratorisnotdescribedatall.Inimpressionistliterature,theposition ofthenarratoroftenchanges,whatisacceptedinthatgenre.Onotheroccasions,textsmakeunac- ceptableinconsistenciesintheplacementofthenarrator.Thequestionisthenifwemightimagine

43In1950,theBritishresearcherAlanTuringproposedwhatisnowknownnastheTuringtest.Acomputerandahu- manhavetocommunicateinwritingwithatestperson.Thecomputerandthepersonmustbothtrytoconvincethetest personthattheyarethehuman.Toconstructaprogramcapableofnormalconversationseemsimpossible-eventhe mostbasicconversationcontainsvastamountsofworldknowledge.Themoresuccessfulconversationalprogramsare eitherveryconfusedoractwithinaverylimitedarea.(Hofstadter1997,p.71-74).Ihaveattemptedthesamethingwith theinstallationReceptionsmaskinen("thereceptionmachine",Juul1995),thatallowstheusertoleadasimpleclichéed conversationwithaneroticsubtext-aparodyofaconversationinthebaratareception.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page78 thatsomeoftheproblemsininteractivefictionarenotsolved,butseenasinexplicablebutyetac- ceptablecharacteristicsofthisnewcomputergame?Idonotthinkso,sincethecombinationof gameandnarrativeleadstounsatisfyinginteraction,andtheinteractionhastobeinterestingina game. Asideeffectofthisthesishasbeenthatthecomparisonofgamesandnarrativeshaspointed tosomerarelycommentedtraitsofnarratives.Narrativesaresowidelyused,bothinpracticeandin thecurrenttheoreticalclimateassourcedomainfortheoreticaldescriptions,thattheyarehardly evercomparedtootherphenomena.Itisinitselfasurprisingthattheremightbeamediumthatis notnarrative.Butthecomputergameissimplynotamediumfortranslatingnarrativestoandfrom. Thereisnotranslatabilitybetweenthecomputergameandothermedia. Narrativeturnsouttobecharacterisedbydescribingeventsthatarenotimplemented.Narra- tivessimplydonotcontainthemechanicsordynamicneededtosimulatetheeventstheydescribe. Thepsychologyofthecharactersmaybedescribed,butitisneverthere.Therearemanyhuman, non-productiveformsthatdifferinactuallyworking:Computergames,otherkindsofgames, sports. Inaway,everynovelisinteractivetothemaincharacter.Thenovelpositsaworldthatreacts tothemaincharacterinacertainway.Themaincharacteronlycanplayonce.Theactionsofthe maincharacterareintegratedintotheexpression;itisanintegratedpartofthetext.Anovelcan psychologisethemaincharacter,butinthecomputergame,thereactionpattersofthemaincharac- terarenotfixed.Sothegameriskshavingamaincharacterwithanunconvincingpsychology. Spacealsoworksdifferentlyinthecomputergameandinnarratives.Thecomputergameis basicallyaboutnavigatinginspace,andthegoaloftheplayeristomasterthis.Butthenarrative onlyusesspaceasfarasitismeaningful.Inthegame,theplayerhastomoveallthewayfromAto B,butinnarrativesthejourneyisonlydescribedifitaddssomethingtothetotalityofthenarrative. Interactivefictionsharesthispartlysinceitoftensplitstheworldindiscretelocations,thusignoring someofthespaceusedbytheactiongame.Yetinteractivefictionstillhasaninternalcontradiction inthattheplayeroftenhastousemuchenergymovingbetweenpointsevenifitisuninteresting withinthestorythatthegametriestotell.

Thereaderandtheplayer Computergamesdonotnecessarilyfocusonmeaningatall.Thisiswhycomputergamescanbe muchmoreabstract(unsemanticised)thannarratives.Computergamesonlyneedtheflowofmov- ingthroughspace,theconcentrationongeometricpatterns,thepossibilityofgettingbetter.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page79 Ihavepointedtowardssomereasonsforplayingcomputergames:thedesireofunderstanding thegamestructure,andthedesiretobeabletousethisknowledge.Therearereasonswhyhumans havethesedesires.Mammalshaveanevolutionarilydevelopedcuriosityandanabilitytoplay.We basicallywanttomasterthings,andcomputergamescansatisfythiscraving.

Historicalperspectives Evenifthecomputergamehasbecomepopularinahistoricalperiodoftenlabelpost-modern,itis hardtofitthecomputergameunderthisheading:TheAmericanliterarytheoristBrianMcHale (1987)hassuggestedaninteresting(butnotespeciallyperfect)distinctionbetweenmodernistand postmodernistliterature:Modernistliteratureisdescribedasepistemological;orientedtowards knowledgeandtheconditionsforourknowingtheworld,whereaspostmodernismisontological; orientedtowardscreatingfictiveworlds.Thecomputergameiskindofhardtoplace.Theplayer clearlytriestodiscoverhowthegameisstructured-whichisepistemological.Butcreatingagame isclearlycreatingaworld,andonethatisusuallywithoutspecialreferencetoanything.According toMcHale,thedetectivenovelistheprototypicalmodernistnovel,sinceitisaboutgainingknowl- edge-andaswehaveseen,manygamesborrowelementsfromthedetectivestory.Buttheproto- typicalpostmodernistnovelaccordingtoMcHaleissciencefiction,sinceitcreatesfictiveworlds.A verylargeamountofallcomputergamesalsocontainelementsofsciencefiction. Computergamescanthusnotsimplybedescribedasmodernistorpostmodernist.Atthesame time,therearen'treallyanygameswithatothem.Ontheotherhand,wemightimaginea gamebasedonMozart'sDonGiovanni:AgameworldwherethepromiscuousDonGiovanniis punishedbythestoneguest,whileavirtuousDonGiovanniescapesthefiresofhell.Thismeans thatthereisnospecialtechnologicalresistancetocreatingastronglymoralcomputergame.Itis rathertheplayer'sreluctanceagainstgettingcaughtinatoolimitedgameuniversethatleadstothe slightlyamoralcharacterofmanygames. Thecomputergameandthenon-lineartextsarespecialobjectsofstudybecausetheyina doublemovementbothmatchanddon'tmatchbothstructuralismandpoststructuralism.Every playing/readingofanon-lineartextoracomputergamecanbeunique,andthishasmadeGeorgeP. Landowandothersproclaimthisnewfieldasequivalenttopoststructuralismassuch.Aclaimthat thesenewtextsareevenmoreunstableanddifferingthatothertexts.Butthesetraitsdodependon sometechnologicalphenomenathatareclearlymoreformalthanothertexts-theprogramina computergameishandledbyacausalmachine.Sothenon-linearityofthecomputergamemayon thesurfacelevelremindsusofapopulariseddeconstruction,butthisnon-linearityisalsotheprod-

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page80 uctofsomeformallydefinedmechanisms,thatpreciselydonotfitunderthesameheading.And thisiswhyLandowdoesnotdiscusstheprogram. Thedualismdescribedbetweentheformalprogramandtheinterpretablematerialdemon- stratesthedoublecharacterofthecomputergameasbothmorefixedandmoreevasivethanthe textsweusuallystudy.Suchadualismisuncommoninthehumanitiestoday,butitisveryuseful sinceitdescribesanactuallyexistingphenomenoninthecomputergame;thepotentialconflict betweentheconstructionofthetext/gameandthematerial,usedforpresentingthisconstruction. Thisrealisationhelpsustellingthedifferencebetweenthedescriptionandthephenomenon,be- tweentheadvertisingandthegamebeforeus. Method Myexaminationofcomputergamesandnarrativeshasfocusedondescribingthecomputergameas such.Thishasbeendonestrategically,withthepurposeofexamininginteractivefiction.This sketchesseveralareassuitableforfurtherinvestigation:Thefact,forexample,thatcomputergames aregames.Mytheoryofcomputergamesmightsuitablybeconnectedwithmoreoveralltheorieson games,evenifthecomputergamemostlikelydiffersonseveralkeypoints.(Themostobviousbe- ingthepossibilityofrealtimeandthecombinationofdifferentmedia.)Itwouldalsobeinteresting toworkmoreondescribingmultiplayergameswithoutdefaultingtothesociological. Myoverallpointaboutthedistancebetweenthegameandthenarrativehasoftenbeenmet resistancebypeoplepresentedtoit.Onereasonisthatthenarrativetodayisahopelesslyinflated term.Anotherreasonisthatmanytaketheself-presentationofthegamesatfacevalue.Theybe- lievethattheyfightanevilempireinStarWars.Ihavetriedtocreateathesisthatdidn'tsimply believethepackaging.

Ending Computergamesareoftencriticisedfornottellinggoodstories,andIhavepointedtoseveralrea- sonswhythismightbeso.Iamnotsayingthistodevaluecomputergames,buttopointoutthatthe qualitiesofcomputergamesarebasedonentirelydifferentfactors:Incomputergamestheplayeris givenalibertytoexploreandunderstandthestructureoftheunrealgameworld,andtogetbetterat handlingit.Addingmorestorytothisinevitablyleadstolessfreedomandlessgame,andtothe playerplayingthegamefewertimes:HavingcompletedMyst,thereislittlereasonforplaying again,whereasasimplegamelikeTetrisisgreatforplayingagain. Thecomputergameshowsusthatsomepartsoftheworldarenotcapturedinthegrandcate- goryof"thenarrative":Games.Computergamescanbeexploredandchallengedindifferentways

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page81 thatliterature.Itisduetotheabsenceofthenarrative,thattheaverageplayerofQuakespends moretimewiththe"text"thantheaveragereaderofMobyDick.Thismeansthatthereisnopointin insistingoncomputergameswithagoodstory,sincetheyworkthewaytheyare.Computergames arenotnarratives,butphenomenawhosequalitiesareinexplorationandrepeatability.Inacon- structionthatallowsthesamesmallelementstobecombinedandrecombinedinnewandinterest- ingconfigurations. Iamnotsayingthatyoucannotorshouldnotcombinethecomputergamewiththenarrative. Iamsayingthatthecombinationofthetwoleadstoanumberofconflicts.Iwillnotmaketheclaim thattheseconflictsnecessarilyaredevoidofaestheticvalue.Butifnot,thisvaluehasbeenre- pressedratherthanused. Itisthenthestrengthofthecomputergamethatitdoesn'ttellstories.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page82 Literature Theory EspenJ.Aarseth:Cybertext:PerspectivesonErgodicLiterature.JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress 1997.

PeterBøghAndersen,BeritHolmqvist,JensF.Jensen:Thecomputerasmedium.CambridgeUni- versityPress,1992a.

PeterBøghAndersen: "Interaktiveværker.Enkatastrofeteoretisktilgang".("Interactiveworks.Anexaminationthrough theory")InAlmenSemiotik5,1992. LectureoninteractivityintheCenterofArt,Science,andTechnology,DTU,Lyngby,April22nd 1997.

Aristotle:Poetics.

RolandBarthes:Image,Music,Text.Fontana,1977.

G.C.Beaton:SurfingwithEliza.1997. http://writers.ngapartji.com.au/eliza.htm

J.DavidBolter: WritingSpace:TheComputer,Hypertext,andtheHistoryofWriting.Erlbaum,1991. "LiteratureintheElectronicWritingSpace."IMyronC.Tuman(red.):LiteracyOnline:The Promise(andPeril)ofReadingandWritingwithComputers.UniversityofPittsburghPress,1992.

PeterBornedal:SkriftogSkribent.("Writingandwriter")MuseumTusculanum,1985.

PeterBrooks:ReadingforthePlot.Knopf,NewYork,1984.HarvardUniversityPaperbackEdi- tion,1992.

VannevarBush:Aswemaythink.1945.Reprintedinmanyworks,forexampleinTheodorHolm Nelson:LiteraryMachines.MindfulPress,1993.p.1/39-1/54.

BenCalica:"Atarineverdies…quite".In:Gamasutra.Vol.2:Issue34.1998. http://gamasutra.com/newswire/industry_analysis/the_score/19980828.htm

SeymourChatman:StoryandDiscourse:NarrativeStructureinFictionandFilm.CornellUniver- sityPress,1978.

GregCostikyan:"IHaveNoWords&IMustDesign".1994. http://www.crossover.com/~costik/nowords.html

ChrisCrawford:TheArtofComputerGameDesign.1982,electronicversion1997. http://vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/game-book/Coverpage.html

JonathanCuller:

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page83 StructuralistPoetics.CornellUniversityPress,1975. OnDeconstruction.Routledge,1981.

NielsDalgaard:DagemedMadsen.("DayswithMadsen.")MuseumTusculanumsForlag,1996.

SharonDarling:"ByronPreissandRonaldMartinez.TrilliumSoftwareDesigners".ICompute's Gazette.December1984.

UmbertoEco: ATheoryofSemiotics.IndianaUniversityPress,1976. TheRoleoftheReader.Hutchinson,1979.

StephenvanEgmond:rec.games.int-fictionFAQ.1997. ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive/rec.games.int-fiction/FAQ

StanleyFish:IsThereaTextinThisClass?HarvardUniversityPress,1980.

GerardGenette: NarrativeDiscourse.CornellUniversityPress,1980. FiguresofLiteraryDiscourse.ColumbiaUniversityPress,1982

TorbenKraghGrodal: MovingPictures.ANewTheoryofFilmGenres,Feelings,andCognition.ClarendonPress,1997. "Filmfortællingogcomputerspil".IJensF.Jensen(red.):Multimedier,Hypermedier,Interaktive Medier.Fisk-Serien3.AalborgUniversitetsforlag,1998.

DavidGraves:PlotAutomation.1991. ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive/programming/general-discussion/Graves.3

AlgirdasJulienGreimas:"Grundtrækafennarrativgrammatik".IPoetikIII,1969.

MeretePrydsHelle:"Jegharskabtenverden.Historienbagetcd-romspil".IKritik135,1998.

DouglasR.Hofstadter:LeTonbeaudeMarot.BasicBooks,1997.

WolfgangIser:TheActofReading:ATheoryofAestheticResponse.Baltimore:JohnsHopkins UniversityPress,1978.

JensF.Jensen: "AdventuresinComputerville:Games,Inter-Action&HighTechParanoiaiArkadia".IKultur& Klasse63,1988. "Interaktivitet&InteraktiveMedier".IJensF.Jensen(red.):Multimedier,Hypermedier,Interaktive Medier.Fisk-Serien3.AalborgUniversitetsforlag,1998.

JesperJuul:"EnkampmellemSpilogFortælling".IKritik135,1998.

JanKjærstad:"Litteraturensmulighet".("Thepossibilityofliterature".)IMennesketsFelt.H. Aschehoug&Co.,1997.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page84 TorbenFledeliusKnap:Opbygningafrum:Omtekstensfænomenologiskestatus.(Theconstruction ofspace.Aboutthephenomenologicalstatusoftexts.)InKritik133,1998.

LarsKonzack:Softwaregenrer.Master'sthesis,Informationscience.UniversityofAarhus,1997.

GeorgeP.Landow: Hypertext:TheConvergenceofContemporaryCriticalTheoryandTechnology.JohnsHopkins UniversityPress,1992. (red.)Hyper/text/theory.JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1994. Hypertext2.0:TheConvergenceofContemporaryCriticalTheoryandTechnology.JohnsHopkins UniversityPress,1997.

BrendaKayLaurel: "TowardtheDesignofaComputer-BasedInteractiveFantasySystem."Ph.D.thesis.,TheOhio StateUniversity,1986. (ed.)TheArtofHuman-ComputerInterfaceDesign.Addison-Wesley,1990. ComputersasTheatre.Addison-Wesley,1991.

Jean-FrançoisLyotard:VidenogdetPostmodernesamfund.Sjakalen,1982.(Laconditionpostmo- derne,Minuit,1979)

KimHalskovMadsen:"AGuidetoMetaphoricalDesign".ITheCommunicationsoftheACM, Vol.36,No.12,pp.57-62,1994.

BrianMcHale:PostmodernistFiction.Routledge,1987.

JanetH.Murray:HamletontheHolodeck:TheFutureofNarrativeinCyberspace.TheFreePress, 1997.

GrahamNelson:TheCraftofAdventure.SecondEdition,1995. ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive/info/Craft.Of.Adventure.txt

TheodorHolmNelson: "TheRightwaytothinkaboutsoftwaredesign".IBrendaLaurel(red.):TheArtofHuman- ComputerInterfaceDesign.Addison-Wesley,1990. LiteraryMachines.MindfulPress,1993.

AnthonyJ.Niesz&NormanN.Holland:"InteractiveFiction".ICriticalInquiry11.Universityof ChicagoPress,1984.

CharlesPlatt:"InteractiveEntertainment".IWired3.09,1995. http://www.wired.com/collections/robots_ai/3.09_stories_interact1.html

VladímirPropp:MorphologyoftheFolktale.UniversityofTexasPress,1968.

Marie-LaureRyan: PossibleWorlds,ArtificialIntelligenceandNarrativeTheory.IndianaUniversityPress,1991.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page85 "InteractiveDrama:NarrativityinahighlyinteractiveEnvironment".IModernFictionStudies, Volume43,number3,Fall1997.JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.

LucianP.Smith:"Parlez-vousNalian?".IXYZZYnews#16.1998. http://www.xyzzynews.com

AlanSokal&JeanBricmont:IntellectualImpostures.ProfileBooks,1998.

EricW.Weisstein:TheCRCConciseEncyclopediaofMathematics.1998. http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~eww6n/math/math0.html

JosephWeizenbaum:ComputerPowerandHumanReason:FromJudgementtoCalculation.W.H. Freeman&Co.,1976.

KarenWenz:Cybertextspace,1997. http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb8/privat/wenz/space/contents.html

Literature PaulAuster: CityofGlass.Sun&MoonPress,1985. MoonPalace.FaberandFaber,1989.

JorgeLuísBorges: Ficcones.GrovePress,1962.(Org.publishedinSpanish1941.)

WilliamS.Burroughs: NakedLunch.OlympiaPress,1959. TheAddingMachine.SelectedEssays.ArcadePublishing,1986. ThelettersofWilliamBurroughs1945-1959.Ed.byOliverHarris.PenguinBooks,1993.

JulioCortázar:Hopscotch.RandomHouse,1966.(SpanishRayuela,EditorialSudamericanaSo- ciedadAnónima,1963.)

IngerChristensen: Azorno.Gyldendal,1967. Alfabet.Gyldendal,1981. Sommerfugledalen.Brøndum,1991.

JohnFowles:TheFrenchLieutenant'sWoman.JonathanCape,1969.

SvendÅgeMadsen: Tilføjelser.Gyldendal,1967. Maskeballet.Gyldendal,1970. DagemedDiamellerLivetomnatten.Gyldendal,1972. Tugtogutugtimellemtiden,Gyldendal,1976. Afsporeterdukommet.Gyldendal,1984. Ladtidengå.Gyldendal,1986.

WarrenF.Motte,Jr.:Oulipo:APrimerofPotentialLiterature.UniversityofNebraskaPress,1986.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page86 VladímirNabokov:PaleFire.G.P.Putnam'sSons,1962.

Oulipo: Lalittératurepotentielle.ÉditionsGallimard,1973. Atlasdelittératurepotentielle.ÉditionsGallimard,1981.

MiloradPavic:DictionaryoftheKhazars.HamishHamilton.London.1989.(Org.publishedin SerboCroatian1988.)

Software (Notethatsomegamedeveloperspublishtheirgames,whynopublishedisspecified.)

Atari: Pong.1973. BattleZone.1980. Centipede.1980. MissileCommand.1980. StarWars.1983.

RichardBartle&RoyTrubshaw:MUD.1980.

WillieCrowther&DonWoods:Adventure.1976.(Quotedversion:DavidM.Baggett'sreconstruc- tion,1993.)

Cyan:Myst.Brøderbund,1993.

CymbalSoftware:Neoclyps.1983.

DataEastInc.:Burgertime.BallyMidway,1982.

Disney:TheLionKing.Disney,1995.

DMADesign:Lemmings.Psygnosis,1989.

EidosInteractive:TombRaider.,1997.

EpicMegagames:Unreal.GTInteractive,1998.

IDSoftware: Doom.GTInteractive,1993. DoomII.GTInteractive,1994. Quake.GTInteractive,1997.

Infocom: Zork.1981a. ZorkII.1981b. ZorkIII.1982.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page87 Witness.1983a. HitchhikersGuidetoTheGalaxy.1984.

Infogrames:Tintin:PrisonersoftheSun.1997.

JesperJuul: Receptionsmaskinen.InstallationattheDanishMinisterofCulture’sconferenceonITsociety. Ebeltoft,Denmark1995.WithMadsRydahl. PulsinSpace.http://www.soup.dk/pspace,1997.(Graphics:MadsRydahl.) Euro-Space.http://www.soup.dk/eurospace,1998.(Graphics:MadsRydahl.) PingPong.http://spil.tv2.dk,1999.(Graphics:MadsRydahl.)

MichaelJoyce:Afternoon.EastgateSystems,1987.

JordanMechner/SmokingCarProductions:LastExpress.Brøderbund,1997.

Melbourne'sHouse:TheHobbit.1984.

Namco:Pac-Man.1980.

NintendoInc.:DonkeyKong.1981.

AlexeyPazhitnov:Tetris.SpectrumHolobyte,1985.

StephenRussellet.al..:Spacewar!.1962.Aversionoftheprogramcanbefoundat: http://lcs.www.media.mit.edu/groups/el/projects/spacewar/

LucianP.Smith:TheEdifice.1997.

Taito: SpaceInvaders.1977. Qix.1981.

WestwoodStudios:BladeRunner.1997.

WilliamWright:SimCity.MaxisSoftware,1989.

Textsaboutcomputergames RonDulin: "BladeRunnerreview".Gamespot,1998. http://www.gamespot.com/adventure/bladerun/review.html "LastExpressreview".Gamespot,1997. http://www.gamespot.com/adventure/lastexpr/review.html

TzviFreeman:"MonitoringDevicesinGames".IGameDeveloper,April-may1997,p.22-31.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page88 AllenGreenberg:"BladeRunnerreview".ComputerGamingWorld,1998. http://www.gamespot.com/adventure/bladerun/review_cgw.html

WilliamHunter:TheDotEaters.ClassicVideoGameHistory.1998. http://www.emuunlim.com/doteaters/index.htm

Infocom: "Weunleashtheworld'smostpowerfulgraphicstechnology".AdvertisementinCreativeComput- ing.September1983bp.112-113. "Andnowforsomethingincompletelydifferent!".AdvertisementinCompute'sGazette.December 1984b,p.14-15.

StevenKent,JerHorwitz,JoeFielder:HistoryofVideoGames.VideoGameSpot,1997. http://www.videogames.com/features/universal/hov/index.html

PetriKuittinen:HistoryofVideoGames.1997. http://www.hut.fi/~eye/videogames/ ogr.com:Top50GamesofAll-Time.1997. http://ogr.com/specials/top50/top50_5.shtml

MarcSaltzman:TheHistoryofthe3DShooter.Gamespot1997. http://www.gamespot.com/features/3dshooter/index.html

RigmorKappelSchmidtogPeterFrost-Olsen:"Mystifikation".ReviewafMystin"Weekendavisen Bøger"27/1-2/21995,p.8-9.

Movies JohnBadham:NickofTime.1995

PeterHowitt:SlidingDoors.1997.

KrzysztofKieslowski:BlindChance.1982.

AkiraKurosowa:Rashomon.1950.

HaroldRamis:GroundhogDay.1993.

AndyWarhol:Sleep.1963.

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page89 Indexofauthorsandsubjects ergodic,23 3d-shooter,12 fabula,32 Adventure,12 Fibonacci,28 agency,20 Fish,Stanley,46 Andersen,PeterBøgh,20 Fowles,John,26 AndyWarhol,37 Freeman,Tzvi,19 Aristotle,4 ArtNouveau,78 Genette,Gerárd,36 astrology,28 Genette,Gérard,32 Auster,Paul,38 Ginsberg,Allen,35 GonewiththeWind,7 Barthes,Roland,21,35,38 Greimas,Julien,40 Bolter,David,46 Grodal,TorbenKragh,6 Borges,JorgeLuís,25 Brooks,Peter,7,30,37,54 Hobbit,The,14 Burroughs,William,27,35 Højholt,Per,26 Bush,Vannevar,22 Byte,4 IChing,28 Infocom,4 Centipede,5 Interaction,18 Chatman,Seymour,30 interactivefiction chess,5 rhetoricof,13 Christensen,Inger,26 computergame Interactivity,19 theoryof,29 Iser,Wolfgang,46 vs.videogames,consolegames,arcade Jensen,JensF.,19,41 Joyce,James,33,35 games,11 Knap,TorbenFledelius,30 computergames Kurosawa,Aki,26 andspace,50 Landow,GeorgeP.,21,29 beingabstract,51 LastExpress,The,74 historyof,10 Laurel,Brenda,16,29,56 Lemmings,6,52 Conflict,18 Cortázar,Julio,26 Macintosh,42 cybertext,23 Madsen,SvendÅge,27,63 material,38 death,55 McHale,Brian,83 Derrida,Jacques,21 Metz,Christian,32,47 desire,54 MissileCommand,52 forperformance,55 MUD,69 Multiplayergames,67 forstructuralunderstanding,55 Murray,Janet,16 Myst,3,6,15,59 destiny,38 mythicalnarrative,57 Discourse,32 DonGiovanni,83 Nabokov,Vladimir,26 DonkeyKong,5 narrativeframe,40 Doom,65 narrativity,30,32,37 DoomII,33,44 Nelson,Theodor,4,29 Neoclyps,42 Eco,Umberto,57 non-lineartexts Eliza,80

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page90 modelof,38 StarWars,31 Sterne,Lawrence,33 now,35 Story,32

OuLiPo,26 Tetris,5,52 theoreticalimperialism,29 pinball,43 Time,33 Pong,11 TombRaider,51 program,38 Ulysses,7 Queneau,Raymond,26.See Unreal,66 repeatability,56 VCS2600,12 Representation,18 Ryan,Marie-Laure,80 Witness,70

Safety,18 Zork,14,56 SimCity,58 sjuzet,32 Aarseth,Espen,22,29,46 SpaceInvaders,5,40 Spacewar,10

Aclashbetweengameandnarrative.Page91