Month: October 2016

Deliver Me to Hell is an extended advert for a New Zealand Pizza company. The advert follows a pizza delivery guy in a zombie apocalypse. During his adventure, the viewer is given a choice in order to decide how the story progresses. Two options are presented, which link to a different video each. One video is the ‘correct’ option, which continues the story leading to the ending. The other option leads to a video which features a ‘lose’ ending, and presents the option to go to the ‘correct’ option. This allows the viewer to have the story in its entirety, and eventually reach the ‘win’ ending.

 

The advert is featured on youtube, and uses annotations to connect each of the videos. The videos are around 2 minutes in length each, making the viewer make a choice often in the story. This keeps the viewer engaged and connected, as they are not waiting long periods of time to make there decisions.

This differs from the series developed by Chad, Matt and Rob. This is another adventure series on youtube. It follows the same formula, with 2 options; a good and a bad, leading to a final ending. After then ending, the video gives the viewer the option to view all of the ‘bad’ choices, in order to get the full experience of the story. However, the videos uploaded by the trio are around double in length to the pizza advert. The slower pace leads to the story being less engaging; resulting in the viewer being less engaged by the options.

 

For my own project, I would like to have longer elements of story development between choices. In order to keep the viewer engaged in these sections, a first-person perspective will make the viewer feel more engaged and interested in their choices.

 

In order to implement user choice into my narrative, there are different paths in the structure that I need to undertake. An event needs to lead into a choice, which then leads into a choice, and so on, throughout the story. The difference in the structure will reflect how the story plays out to the user.

The first structure form as an event leading to a choice, which results in different outcomes. From each of these outcomes, a choice is presented, which leads to more different outcomes. From this, the user will get a new result from each choice, and no 2 choices result in the same outcome. This furthers the experience, as it provides the most number of outcomes and different routes the user can experience. However, this method leads to the user missing out on the most content as well. As each different choice sends the user a new route, they miss out on all the content from the other routes. Although this content needs to be created, the user will not experience it, unless they go through the story multiple times. This could result in content being made that is never experienced by the user.

The second structure has an event leading to a choice, leading to different outcomes. However, differently from the first structure, these different outcomes feed back into the same resulting event; instead of branching out further. This means that each of the previous events need to end in the same place, to continue on the shared path. This can make it difficult to reflect the user’s choices in key events. However, the different lead ups to the event can change the user’s perspective of them, which can inform their choices after said event. This method has the user making the same number of choices, but also means that they miss out on less content.

The third structure has an event leading into different choices. However, as each event plays out, one allows the story to continue, whereas the other leads to an ending. While this presents the user with choices, making the wrong choice will result in the end of the experience. From this, the story can turn back time to the allow the user to make the right choice, or just terminate the experience as a whole. This will show a large impact of the user’s choices, but make them seem meaningless in terms of the greater story, as there is a set route which cannot be diverted from.

But having elements of all 3 structures, the most diverse story structure can be created. The user will not know what there choice will result in, thus making every choice important. However, this can lead to unsatisfying results for the user on return interactions, as a different story path from multiple choices can lead back around to one made from completely separate choices. This also makes the story more difficult to write, as multiple story paths of diverse choices need to lead up to the same point, making the user’s choices difficult to reflect in the greater narrative.

For my narrative, I believe that the second structure form is the most ideal. This is because it will allow the user to make choices and have them reflected in set ups to big events, whilst keeping key story beats the same for all users. This will allow users to make informed decisions from previous encounters to make there choices and progress through the story in the way they feel is best, without dead ends. The main downside to this structure is that it makes it difficult to reflect the user’s previous choices in the larger experience, as both choices lead to the same path; making the choices seem less impactful.

Super Mario Advance ‘Choose your own Adventure’ is a choose your own adventure book published in 2001. The book follows Mario and friends on an adventure through a new world, to defeat the evil king Wart. The reader of the book choose 1 of 4 characters to follow, and has to make choices throughout the book as to how the adventure progresses. This is done by making a choice, and then going forwards and backwards through the book to the corresponding page.

By choosing the different pages, the reader decides on the flow of the adventure, and is actively deciding on the route that there chosen character takes. These routes can also lead to multiple endings, with good and bad consequences. This allows for the reader to experience the book multiple times, following different paths and story elements each time; giving it the ability to be enjoyed differently on multiple occasions.

In my project, I want the user to be able to make choices that effect the flow of the story, making them feel more involved. Although there will be an overall narrative that the user experiences, elements can change each time to reflect the choices they have made. This also allows for multiple endings to be gained, where the effects of the users choices can be reflected.

A second ending can also be achieved in my previous inspiration, Danganronpa. After making a choice, the outcome of a story element changes.

 

However, in this example there is only one right answer, and getting it wrong pushes you back to the choice to choose again. In my project, each choice will be permanent, and the resulting ending will reflect this.

Keep Talking and No One Explodes is a 2015 VR game developed by Steel Crate Games. In the game, one player wears the VR headset and is tasked with defusing a bomb. Another player(s) has the bomb’s manual and gives the defuser instructions on what they need to do. The game needs at least 2 players to work, one to interact with the bomb in VR, the other to read the manual to them. The manual can be downloaded as a PDF for free from http://www.bombmanual.com and printed for use, or viewed on a screen separate to the VR device.

The game needs both the VR element and the manual element to work, showing how a project can work across 2 different mediums. I wish to incorporate this idea into my own project. No One Explodes needs more than 1 user to work, as wearing the VR headset means that the manual cannot be seen. However, as my project will not have a VR element, the user can look at the screen and the booklet themselves, meaning a second player is not required.

By having the manual available for a free download means it can be accessed by anyone, regardless as to whether they have the game. However, it only works with the game, which needs to be bought. This is an effective way to have the separate elements, as it can always be accessed when needed online, but can easily be transferred into a physical format.

Danganronpa is a Japanese video game series developed by Spike Chunsoft, and the main inspiration for my project. In the 2010 game, the user controls a character from a first person perspective, living a ‘killing school life.’ The premise of the game follows 16 high-school students trapped own a school, and forced to kill each other. It is split into 3 different parts; Daily Life, Deadly Life, and A Class Trail.

In Daily Life, the user can go around and talk to characters of their choosing to learn more about them. Characters talk directly to the camera, with there poses changing to reflect there emotions. Their words are written in text boxes, and the replies of the user character are also written in boxes. The user only has selected points in which they can choose an answer, and they have unlimited attempts to get the ‘right’ answer. The user also has the option to give presents to the other characters, rising there affinity with the user-controlled character. However, this has no impact on how the story of the game progresses. The story progresses around a day system, leading up to the next killing; but in a limited number of slots, the user has free time to interact with the other characters as they see fit. Once a killing has occurred, the game progresses into Deadly Life.

Deadly Life sees the user character undergoing an investigation to solve the murder. The user interacts with the other characters and locations in the same way as in daily life, but they collect pieces of evidence to use in the class trail. Once all the evidence has been collected, the game moves onto the class trail. The Class Trail changes up the gameplay. Although the characters still talk in the same way, the user has no choice in the order of interaction.

The main style I wish to emulate is having the characters talk to the camera with changing poses. This will allow the characters to reflect personalities and mood changes to the player, whilst staying simple and not distracting from the text. Using a text-based format to tell the story will allow the user to read through at there own pace. However, having fully voiced characters could lead to a more immersive experience, as there would be more room to show emotions into the characters.

Although the game offers a limited form of interaction, it has no story impact. In my project, I want the user’s  interaction with the story to be the focus. Even though there will be a clear story, I would like the user’s interactions to have an impact on how events play out. This will make the user feel like they have more of a role in the story, instead of just watching a story unfold around them.