Desarrollo histórico del liderazgo transformacional

There has been research which suggests that game creation involves storytelling, as discussed in section 2.1, but historically there has been much debate about the relationship between narrative and games. Arguments against the link generally come from two angles, firstly the idea that narrative is inherently opposed to interactivity, and secondly the idea that narrative aspects get in the way of the ludic elements which are truly essential to games, and tend to be tacked on stories which could be replaced without changing the underlying game.

Jenkins (2004) discusses the key arguments around these issues in a seminal paper. One of the arguments against the link between games and narrative is put forward in quote from Adams:

“Interactivity is almost the opposite of narrative; narrative flows under the direction of the author, while interactivity depends on the player for motive” (Adams 1999; cited in Jenkins 2004). This argument focuses in on a rather narrow definition of narrative. Jenkins highlights the extent to which it is preoccupied with the activities of the storyteller at the expense of understanding narrative comprehension, and only addresses classical linear storytelling. There are of course many examples of narratives in which the audience has a say in what direction a narrative will take, be it oral storytellers adapting stories based on audience input or the Choose Your Own Adventure books discussed in the previous section (New York: Batham Books 1960-present).

A more subtle, and perhaps more pertinent area of questioning, is whether the quality of narratives are negatively affected by audience/player agency, and whether players feel that they have real choice when playing a pre-planned narrative. Jenkins quotes Costikyan, who sums up these concerns succinctly, saying that “[t]here is a direct, immediate conflict between the demands of a story and the demands of a game. Divergence from a story's path is likely to make for a less satisfying story; restricting a player's freedom of action is likely to make for a less satisfying game” (Costikyan 2000; cited in Jenkins 2004)

Addressing the second of Costikyan’s points first, we come upon a pressing concern for many ludologists; the idea that story elements can get in the way of game play. Giving players a sense of agency is important in all games, whilst conveying a narrative can involve guiding, directing and ensuring a player knows certain information, all of which have potential to work against agency. Juul expresses similar concerns, and also argues that narrative elements are likely to be detached from gameplay, stating that “…narrative tends to be isolated from or even work against the computer-game-ness of the game.” (Juul 1998; cited in Jenkins 2004)

Koster (2004) has also argued that games and stories are entirely distinct, and that story content is clumsily added on to games: “Story, setting, and backplot in games are nothing more than an attempt to give a side dish to the brain while it completes its challenges – sometimes, the hope is that it makes up for an otherwise unremarkable game.” (Koster 2004, ch. 5). It is clear, although perhaps only with hindsight, that this criticism applies only to a very specific type of game.

Lazzaro talks about how to get “more emotion without story” (Lazzaro 2004). Lazzaro does not explicitly address the question of why it should be desirable to avoid story, but tellingly she appears to see story as synonymous with cut scenes. Cut scenes, one way of moving forward the game narrative in which the player watches while an animated and pre-scripted exchange takes place between characters, remove agency form the player. In fact, cut scenes are used less and less, and the player explores the story through conversations and interactions, without having to stop and watch non-interactive cut scenes. Sometimes scripted sequences within the game

engine take the place of cut scenes. These still result in a temporary loss of agency, but are not as jarring as a separate animated cut scene (there are also a wide range of other ways of conveying narrative elements, as discussed in the following sub-section).

Koster and Lazzaro are both referring to games where the narrative is not integrated into the gameplay. Story is seen as an extrinsic motivator in their model (albeit, not a very successful one). As the work on endogenous and exogenous fantasy indicated (discussed in Section 2.1.2), this is only one way in which fantasy can be integrated into a game, and sometimes it is not the most promising way, particularly for educational purposes.

In fact, there are a large number of different game genres and sub-genres, and even within these there is huge variety (Apperley 2006). Some very successful and undoubtedly fun games do use narrative elements as a wrapper, for example we could reimagine the Angry Birds series as

‘Hungry Bats’; a game about bats trying to crack open delicious fruits with frustratingly hard shells. The gameplay would remain the same, but the narrative about green egg stealing pigs would have disappeared. There are other games, however, where the narrative is more integral.

Portal 2 has a strong narrative, and the gameplay is intrinsically linked to the narrative context of a testing facility for the experimental portal gun and other futuristic technology. It is also notable for the way it conveys narrative elements without impacting on gameplay. We learn about a complex tale of failing company fortunes and get to know the eccentric CEO (now deceased) over the facility’s tannoy system, with chunks of backstory dispensed as the player reaches different points in the game. The distinction between game backstory and the player taking part in a narrative within the game is discussed further in the following sub-section.

The other side to Costikyan’s criticism was that divergence from a story's path is likely to make for a somehow less satisfying story. In fact, the extent to which game-narratives really have much genuine divergence from a small number of plot variations is debatable. The Mass Effect series famously kept track of over a thousand key decisions which players made, but only provided three main endings to the series (Mass Effect Wikia, n.d.).

Many people do believe that compelling interactive narrative is possible. Interactive storytelling research has traditionally focused on ensuring genuine interactivity, and largely dispensed with gameplay elements. This approach primarily focuses on integrating artificial intelligence techniques with narrative theory in order to generate fully interactive narratives which are not pre-authored prior to the moment of interaction (Cavazza and Pizzi 2006). One of the most prominent examples in the field is Mateas’ work on the interactive drama system Façade (Mateas 2001; Mateas and Stern 2003).

By comparison, most games do not go to these lengths to support genuine interactivity. The extent to which game narratives have real interactivity varies greatly between genres; in some games the interactivity can be limited to a character either successfully completing a challenge or dying, whilst in others there are a variety of different routes through a narrative which the player can choose between. However, taking an active role in enacting a narrative is only one way in which narrative can be conveyed through a game, as discussed in Section 2.3.3.

The debate about narrative in games has died down considerably in recent years, perhaps because there have been so many games that successfully include narrative elements. Costikyan himself more recently acknowledged “there are innumerable game styles that do combine stories and gameplay successfully, in ways that evidently appeal strongly to wide audiences”

(Costikyan 2007, p.6). In general, interest has turned from the question of whether games can convey narratives to an exploration of how this is achieved, something I examine in the following two sub-sections.