Issues in Empathy: Recognition

Recognition is the element being examined this week. Usually this isn't an issue in movies but it does warrant examination. Recall that Recognition's definition is the ability of the audience to see that a character is the same person from one scene to the next.

Recognition is important for the audience's understanding of the film's story and plot. We need to know who the story is following. To state the importance of recognition quickly becomes redundant. Without knowing who the people are on screen we won't be able to get why it matters. If the audience is confused for too long then they might just turn the film off.


As for "Back To The Future," due to the time travel in the film recognition takes on an even bigger role. The audience needs to recognize the younger versions of important characters. Just because he's a fun example we'll focus on Biff.

Biff, pictured right, is one of the film's main antagonists. He comes back to this role, in varying degrees, in almost every one of the series. To keep our focus we'll limit ourselves to the first film.

In the original movie Biff is George McFly's work associate and long time bully. We learn this quickly through his manners and interactions with George. Some time after Marty McFly travels back to the 50's we see a younger version of Biff.

We're allowed to recognize Biff through those same manners and actions which defined him earlier. By watching his interactions with other characters we recognize who he is. 

I love that clip. I'm Mad and this is what I've gotten into today.

Issues in Empathy - Alignment

In an effort to find more examples for a website I'm working on I'll be writing about movies for a few weeks. Everything I'm writing will be about Murray Smith's Structure of Sympathy. My next few entries might become repetitive. I've only three elements to work with after all. Once I have that site up and running I'll post a link.

What's interesting about the movie "Conversations With Other Women" this week is how it plays with the element of Alignment. The screen is split in two for most of the film. Either half is focused on of the protagonists at all times.

The story of the movie is that two former lovers meet at a wedding by chance and slowly recognize one another. There's a great deal more in the film so I encourage my readers to give it a look. I'm keeping the synopsis brief so we can move on.

Recall the definition of the Structure's Alignment: How often a character is seen on camera. A film is a journey. The more time we spend with a character the more likely it is we, the audience, will come to like that character.

This film uses strong Alignment to keep the audience in tune with both of its protagonists. We're given glimpses into memories of one character on their screen while watching the reaction of another on the opposing screen. We really get the whole story because of the split screen. Sometimes this makes following the action difficult but this experience has yet to be matched for me.

The picture above is a great example of what I just explained. The picture is of the two characters in the present (left half) and the past (right). On the left we see Aaron Eckhart's expression and how this re-union is making affecting him. The right screen shows how the two of them were as young lovers. This shot is both interesting and confusing. The audience isn't told whether it's Eckhart or Elena Bonham Carter who's looking back on this. Is it Eckhart recalling fond feelings as he debates whether to surrender to them? Or is it Carter enjoying the memory as we see the conflict on Eckhart's expression? We're left to decipher it on our own.

This film gives an interesting take on how to present characters and story. Smith's Alignment is here proven as the definitive method through which we follow characters in film. Having the screen split in two was interesting but overwhelming or confusing at points. I'd like to see what other filmmakers do with this concept down the road.

I'm Mad and this is what I've gotten into today.

Character Arc - inFamous

Cole McGrath is the protagonist of inFamous, pictured left. I've only just played through the game; courtesy of my roommate lending me his PS3 and game. During my play through I found that Cole goes through one of the most interesting character arcs I've seen in a video game.

Cole's character is pretty straightforward. The everyman with a great event thrown in his lap that pushes him into the extraordinary. Basic comic book structure, which isn't to say it's bad but standard for this kind of thing. What was interesting to me was that in the early game Cole is very vulnerable. For a guy who can shoot lightning he can't take much punishment.

After a few hours though I started acquiring new powers and increased my health. This led to Cole being somewhat more versatile but I still relied heavily on the cover based shooting system. It isn't until much later in the game that Cole gets his defensive powers. What struck me as interesting is that the more creative powers appearing later in the game characterized Cole.

This isn't unusual in video games. The more fun and effective powers being held off till later makes for a better difficulty curve. There's just something about the way the upgrades were implemented in conjunction with Cole's low starting health.

Low health at the beginning meant that enemy attacks were always something to be feared. The player has to be careful with their fledgling hero. This seemed to reinforce the fact that Cole was inexperienced and that his powers were maturing. As the game progresses Cole gains more power and learns new abilities. Eventually I ended up playing how I originally envisioned: running around heedless of bullets and attacking at will.

The progression was more engaging than my usual game experience because of this. The gameplay corresponded with what was happening in the game world. With this addition to inFamous' already immersive game I could really lose myself to the game for hours at a time. If any of my readers are on the fence about giving one of last year's top games a shot; do it.

I'm Mad, and this is what I've gotten into today.

Character - Movie Characters and Interactive Theory

Carl Fredrickson (Left) is the protagonist of the critically and commercially praised film UP! from Pixar. He's a grouchy old man not wanting to be bothered by the changing world around him.

[2] Calling back to Smith's Structure of Sympathy; we can look into why we come to care about a crotchety old man. The elements to examine were Recognition, Alignment  and Allegiance.

Recognition
UP! provides us with a great opportunity to examine character recognition. In the early film we see Carl as a young child but we are not told that it is our protagonist. We connect the dots through character cues.
 Below is young Carl. We associate his glasses as part of his character as well as his proportions. The short arms and stout build also help us connect the character as he grows up. We see Carl go from a small child to an old widower in a short montage sequence. Recognition is being able to tell which character is which on screen.

Alignment
This element asks how often are we with the character throughout the screen duration (time from opening credits to ending credits). In UP! we are with Carl for almost the entire movie. We're given a few short scenes away from him to follow Russell (the short Asian Explorer Scout) but not much else.

Allegiance
Do we value what Carl values? I'd say so. After watching the intro montage about Carl's life: growing up, getting married, working hard, dreaming of children, suffering hardships and coming to dream again. We learn what he wanted and still wants from life. Carl values the lost love of his wife Ellie and the dreams they shared. These are concepts most of us can understand.

These elements come together to get the audience to sympathize with the character Carl. The Structure of Sympathy works well to define why we care about characters in film. However, I believe that it falls short in interactive mediums. While I was writing last weeks article I was thinking about how Agro was not only a character but a partner in game. Dwelling on this I came up with a new element to grade video game characters by: Utility.

The main difference between video games and movies is interactivity. Agro has another opportunity to endear himself to the players by being useful. Agro saved me on many occasions and there are certain Colossi I would have been unable to best without his help. Utility would be defined by whether or not a character contributes to game play and how efficient the character fulfills that intended role.

Something I'm going to ask of you my audience: Examine a favorite game or two of yours using the Structure of Sympathy. Give it a quick thought. How do the characters you like the most fare under these criteria? Remember the elements are Recognition, Allegiance, Alignment and my new element Utility. Post your thoughts in the comments below!

I included this picture cause Kevin was my favorite character. She was just plain funny!

I'm Mad and this is what I've gotten into today.

Characters - How We Care

To my left is Agro, the horse. For those who have played Shadow of the Colossus Agro is a dear friend. Despite any handling issues most gamers can agree that the wanderer wouldn't have gotten far without Agro.

This week I'm talking about the differences in how an audience sympathizes with characters between mediums. Agro is here for video games and I've chosen Carl from Pixar's UP! to represent film.

An interesting thing, or lack thereof, in Shadow of the Colossus is dialogue. There are maybe about a hundred lines of it in the entire game. For those unfamiliar: The player's avatar is the young man in the picture known only as the wanderer and Agro is his horse. The game briefly sets the scene, tells you which way to your first boss fight and then lets you soak up the scenery. What's odd is that in the in between time and throughout the 16 conflicts of the game we come to care about these two characters. Here I'm focusing on Agro.

Over the course of the game players come to sympathize with Agro. How? He's a horse? Yet the end of his story feels as powerful as the fall of Tony Montana (Scarface) or Donnie (Donnie Darko). Interactivity bred this attachment. [2] According to Murray Smith's Structure of Sympathy we come to like characters by Recognition, Alignment and Allegiance.

Recognition = is this character the same one from the last cut scene?

I'll disregard because it's irrelevant for this game. We never really leave Agro's side so there are limited opportunities to recognize Agro from one scene to the next.

Alignment = how often are we with them?

Agro soars in this element. We spend the whole game with Agro. Wander a few feet away and he will trot after you; patiently waiting as you climb trees or ruins. Through hours of wandering a green pastures devoid of life we bond with Agro. Players will be with Agro chasing lizards in the sun and galloping hard after a mile-long serpent risen from the sands of a forgotten desert. He's always with us. For the carefree fun and the fight.

Allegiance =  do we value the same thing they do?
Again this is an easy win for our horse. Agro is loyal. Should you whistle Agro will come running to your aid. I couldn't say if  Agro knows what's going on in the story or game world but it doesn't matter to him. His master and friend wants something. So Agro wants to help. He wants what the player wants.

Over the hours the player spends wandering the forgotten land and battling ancient creatures Agro becomes more than pixels. The player eventually shares the same relationship with Agro as the Wanderer must. He becomes our horse.

This post has run a little long so I'll save Carl for next week. If you haven't seen UP! I'd recommend giving it a look. Was the first Pixar film nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. An animated film was nominated for Best Picture, it's that damn good.

New Media - The ARG

The Alternate Reality Game is a new art form for storytelling. Like video games it is lauded for interactivity but is set apart by alternating degrees of player agency. ARG's are difficult to define because they are so diverse. The format can vary from posts on Facebook, YouTube channels to individually owned websites.

Fun in an ARG can come in many forms. I find the most common to be in solving puzzles and enjoying the atmosphere the game masters are building. Where things get very interesting is when the audience can interact with the characters. Interactivity takes on a whole new meaning when you can talk to and advise the characters in a story. I'm using my first ARG experience as my prime example, Marble Hornets.

Centered around a film student trying to figure out why is friend dropped a project after months of work, marble hornets drops us in en media rez.(Hey guys I know Latin!)
After a few videos we get the sense that something isn't right about these tapes. Originally the videos were released weeks apart creating tension as we worried about Jay, the student watching his friend's tapes.

This style of ARG interests me for its delivery of story. We get movies allowing for more traditional forms of character recognition, empathy and similar forms of engaging in the story. However, through the twitter account we get interactivity with Jay. We got to advise and ask of Jay to bring us closer to the character and further into the story. This was effective because speaking with Jay gave a sense of reality to the events on the tapes.

Marble Hornets succeeded in bringing players in through interaction with the characters. Cause an ARG can take any form on any site I also applaud the game masters for using only YouTube and Twitter. The smaller range allowed for greater focus.

 ************************************************************

SPOILER ALERT

I'm about to talk about the end game. If you have any interest in looking over the videos come back later.

It is a great experience I don't want to rob you of it!

You have been warned. Now I am wrapping up so I won't be saying too much. The fear brought on by their camera techniques was both frugal and effective. Between that and the video responses of totheArk I was petrified during some junctions of the game. Though we are left on a cliff hanger with no real resolution I eagerly await the next installment. After all, Jay never said he was done. 

Mr Plinkett and New Media Ventures - How Do They Work?

To my left is Mr Plinkett. He is an aging serial killer who spends his time downing pizza rolls and reviewing movies. Some new, some old but all hilariously broken down between condescending rants and critical points. I'm introducing Mr Plinkett as an example of a New Media Venture. I'm not too sure on my terminology because the subject matter is so new. Seriously, I could only find one course about these Ventures.

New Media Ventures are a medium for story telling set apart by their formats. YouTube videos, blogs, and even hidden inside of other mediums. These ventures are usually interactive and are thus forth called games. These games are, in most cases, defined by two traits; interactivity and emergent properties. The interactivity comes in many forms whether in solving a puzzle to help out the characters or actually conversing with the characters themselves. This is where emergent properties come in. These properties are brought in unexpectedly by the players or audience. Depending on how much agency, ability to affect the story, the game masters give their audience. The game masters have to alter their story and push forward in response to what the players are talking about and where they are headed. Occasionally they entirely veer off course. New Media Ventures are smaller forms of a greater art, the ARG. Alternate Reality Game. For more information about ARGs follow this link to ARGnet. 

For now let's focus on the smaller and the more easily defined Ventures.

Take Mr Plinkett for example: On the surface these are movie reviews with quirky commentary. However, upon further examination of his Star Wars Prequel Trilogy Reviews one could see the emergence of a story. Between the jokes and critiques of the films we get to know Mr Plinkett as we would any character in literature or movies. We come to know and like him, despite his psychopathic tendencies.

 Later this week I'll add another post to expand on New Media Ventures and next week at my regular post time I'll go into ARGs. Starting with Marble Hornets.

Note: If you watch the Marble Hornet videos I'd advise to do so in chronological order while watching out for video responses. It's the best way to make sense of it.

Retaining Focus - Preservation of Narrative

Hello everyone! This week I'll be referencing the book you see to your left. [1] Quests by Jeff Howard. This text concerns game design from the stand point of improving story. Or designing a game so that the actions re-enforce the themes of the game. The text is a pretty light read so I'd recommend looking it up if you're one for game design.


So last week's post was over the execution of choice in the Starcraft games. My end point was that I didn't agree with Blizzard's new direction in the story choices department. That static menu options that lead to potentially far reaching ramifications feels clumsy. Which is why I'm bringing in Mr Howard's works. To review his expert opinion on narrative, briefly, and purpose an alternate method.


Mr Howard writes about meaning in video games. How a game quest could be compared to medieval works of allegorical fiction. Heroes journeying to defeat an incarnation of evil or topple an oppressive government. That systems in games can reflect the greater world and buff up the story. Prototype's Web of Mystery is an interesting idea for this aim. The biological design of the Web's interface, soft whispers echoing in the background and the branching paths of neurons connecting the nodes made for good atmosphere while simply navigating a menu. I have a lot to say on Prototype and that will be my next subject. For now, back to Starcraft, Choice and the reason I bring up Jeff Howard. Direction. Howard's style of meaning is heavily influenced by linearity.


Developers have to choose how much power the player has over the story. Starcraft 1's original idea of alternate forms of the same mission is a hell of a choice. Though admittedly there's no real effect on the narrative this immediate gratification, though shallow, may be a very effective method for implementing choice. While it's true taking power away from the player preserves the story and message it also defies what makes the medium great.

Starcraft II's choices are so far reaching that the story is put at risk. Player choices affect certain character arcs, technologies and in some cases entire planets. This is what I'd call a continuity nightmare. These branching story paths will determine technologies available to the characters in the context of the story. The developers will have to plan out dozens of potential stories just to reach their desired ending. I'm not saying this is a mistake. After all, games like Mass Effect thrive under these constraints. The point of this particular post is to highlight potential problems and short comings with this style of choice.


Do you think I'm right or talking out of my ass? Let me know! Leave a comment, or send me an email. (jsnrez@gmail[dot]com)
I'm Mad and this is what I've gotten into today.

Wings of Liberty: Execution of Choice

Choice in video games; this usually brings to mind static menus and conversation trees. This isn’t our only option though. Choice has been very popular for morality systems. Whether the Paragon - Renegade of Mass Effect or Demon’s Soul’s world status it’s the same choice. Be a good guy and save the world, or do the dastardly deeds. I think we, as developers and gamers, need to remember that choice isn’t just moral. I choose pie over cake, and not because the cake’s a lie, but simply for taste.

In the Starcraft Brood War expansion the players were given choice. The mission I recall was the preparation for the siege of Korhal. To undermine the Dominion’s force you had to choose, by action, whether to destroy the nuclear silos or physics labs of the enemy. Eliminating one group would end the mission and affect which mission you would play next. You got to choose your next mission based on which base you attacked. The back story is that taking out the silos eliminated the threat of nukes while taking out the physics labs disabled the Dominion’s fleet of Battlecruisers.

This was a brilliant move. Let the player choose their enemy and affect the narrative in a non-consequential way. No matter your choice Korhal was to fall, it was how you the player wanted to go about it. Minor changes to the narrative about whether it was nuclear bombardment or a hail of capital ship fire can go unmentioned. This kind of choice carries over into Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. I won’t go into spoiler details but I will summarize what leads up to the choices.

Before certain missions there are cut scenes of Jim Raynor discussing the impending mission. Some extenuating circumstance is brought up and two support characters will give Jim an alternative mission. You pick the mission and it only affects that one mission. One affects the type of units you can build but also the fate of a character. Continuity of story is sacrificed to give the player a static choice. While this is the more popular method today we have to ask if it’s the best.

The original formula worked so well because at any moment you could switch which base you were attacking. The player made the choice through actions in game. If one base was proving too hard then they could regroup and try for another. This style of choice is interesting to me. I’ll go into further detail in my next post. Cause this is getting a little long.

How about you, readers? Leave a comment or send me an e-mail about interesting choices in video games you’ve played or heard of or anything you’d like to talk about. Bonus points for youtube videos.


EDIT
I changed up the font so that it would be uniformed. Did it for all my posts. Let me know if you like it. I'm open to suggestions on fonts. Still trying to find the right one. 

Hello World

Hi there, I'm Mad and my thing is story. I'm a young writer, avid gamer and student of video game design  at the University of Texas at Dallas. Between reading and gaming all my life I understand storytelling in different mediums. That's what I'm here to talk about. Stories across mediums whether in movies, literature, video games or new media endeavors.
I'm here to talk about the good or bad ways developers and writers implement their stories in their given mediums. Movies don't work the same way a video game does just as you would expect a movie to differ from a novel. Then there are new media stories; an odd area I've studied where a story is told through new and unexpected modes. These are hard to define or explain but are remarkable for the level of interactivity in the stories. I'll get into that in a future post though.
For now just remember my name is Mad and I'm here to see what I can get into. Maybe y'all will like it too.