#narrative devices

[askagamedev]

I saw a video about cutscene incompetence, basically where a character in a game who is easily able to handle a situation when we are in control is unable to do the stuff we can do in gameplay or does something obviously stupid to further the plot (say, letting yourself get handcuffed in the recent Far Cry game). Why does this happen from a design perspective?

The term is called "ludonarrative dissonance" and it's the incongruity between the player character in gameplay and the player character in narrative. Generally, this happens when the narrative design doesn't work closely enough with the gameplay design to ensure a cohesive narrative and gameplay experience. This often happens because of the different speeds at which these get designed - not all gameplay systems exist or are mapped out when initial narrative design happens, and we can continue working on gameplay long after major narrative voiceover recording is already set in stone. The player character complaining about killing a narrative enemy stands out as weird while the party already slaughters thousands of nameless minions in gameplay for levels and loot.

The opposite concept also exists - it's called "ludonarrative harmony". These are games where the gameplay and mechanics of the game work in tandem with the narrative to reinforce and help each other hit harder. The Phoenix Wright Ace Attorney games are a pretty good example of this - the player is using detective and interviewing skills to advance a case and find a killer. The things the player does and the narrative usually line up well enough that the elements feel congruous and work together to become more than the sum of their parts.

The general importance of this depends on how important the team leadership cares about it. If the creative and team leadership wants to embrace ludonarrative harmony, they have to enforce it through the team's tasking and prioritization.

[Join us on Discord] and/or [Support us on Patreon]

Got a burning question you want answered?

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on Twitter

Short questions: Ask a Game Dev on BlueSky

Long questions: Ask a Game Dev on Tumblr

Frequent Questions: The FAQ

[huariqueje]

Analepsis(Flashback) - Carl Hammoud , 2010.

Swedish , b. 1976 -

Oil on linen , 130 x 180 cm.

[follows-the-bees]

Archie's role in season two's narrative

Archie's role is very important, she is brought in to be a new perspective that the audience needs during the second season.

She is the voice of the normal pirate experience. Just like the audience, every member of the crew has learned that there is another way to pirate: Stede's way.

They have seen Ed when he is just Ed. Even before becoming co-captains with Stede, he is still personable and treats the crew nicely.

When Stede leaves, Ed doesn't turn into the Kraken. (Not until he is threatened and has to take up the role to protect himself.)

While the crew and audience know that the way Ed is acting is not "himself" as Fang says "do you think he's getting better?" Archie seems nonplussed by the Kraken's actions because this is what they are used to with the abuse of piracy.

We get hints of her backstory and more of her pirate past as the season goes on. The snake cult, the reaction to Ed's apology, etc.

This is a normal narrative device in media and I think really important to this part of the story to really demonstrate a fresh perspective for the audience.

But moving on from the narrative purpose of her character, Archie also is just a joy! She's competent, fits in with the crew, and brings a lightness along with a reality with her.

[miki-hasugi]

colin bridgerton is a piss poor narrative addition to penelope featherington’s arc

[mercilessmercurialmess]

Me rambling, because I just really enjoy talking about Xena.

[ineffablebookgirl]

Jesper being the audience surrogate and linking the viewer into the story in season 2.

Ep 1. "A heartrender. For what comes next? Wait, what comes next?"

Ep 2. "What!? I have so many questions. How? Why? Who? Where? When-- I guess-- yeah I guess that's all of them."

Ep 3. Wylan: Jesper Fahey, are you worried about me?

Jesper: I saw your face when the Crow Club blew up. You didn't know what you were getting yourself into.

Wylan: Yep, well, I know now. And I'm not going anywhere.

Jesper: Actually, you're walking away for dramatic effect.

Ep 4. "You're gonna say you can't do this without me, yeah? And that you hate it when we're angry at each other, but sometimes brothers fight. And that when all this is over, you're gonna open a tab for me at a club of my choosing. Cause when Pekka's gone, you're gonna take it all! That's what you're gonna say."

Ep 5. *Zoya and Nina fighting*

Jesper: "Soooo now that we all know that you two have history..."

And, later, "This is how we die!"

Ep 7. When they show up to the fight to save the day. "Why's Sturmhond here?"

And then, of course, in Ep 8.

"He's right, you know. We do have our adventures. We should hire a writer to jot down our story! What would we call it? The Four Charming Rogues of Ketterdam!"

Kaz: There's five of us.

Jesper: Right. ... Five of C--

[smhalltheurlsaretaken]

Suffering is not a contest, not even fictional suffering - but fictional suffering has a purpose more often than not. So it’s annoying as heck when somebody who’s clearly gone through way worse (if it can be quantified but you know what I mean) than the protagonist has their story put to the side and their struggles barely examined because it’s not the focus of the actual main story - but that preferential treatment has to be accepted if it serves the plot. (Ex: as shitty as it may feel, Star Wars was not about the destruction of Alderaan, it was about Luke’s journey. So while objectively the deaths of billions is a bigger deal than the death of one, and while in reality Leia should be the one needing the more comfort in the aftermath, exploring that when her apocalypse is nothing more than a narrative device would derail the plot.) 

So while it can be REALLY frustrating to see a problem be completely ignored, we’ve got to take that into account when analyzing anything, and to keep in mind that characters are not people but constructions. Hence why it’s beyond dishonest to bash a character over the narrative not dealing with something. Luke isn’t heartless for not thinking of Leia’s clearly bigger issues - and goodness, no, Spock Prime didn’t carelessly and selfishly traumatize Jim by mind-melding with him when telling the story telepathically was clearly, clearly, clearly merely a way to diagetically fit in some flashbacks + a convenient shortcut to get Jim to understand that Spock has feelings without a lot of onscreen time for their relationship to develop. If I have to accept that Star Trek never dealt with the fallout of the destruction of Vulcan deeply enough because overall the story was about Starfleet and the Enterprise and the crew and Vulcan would get in the way of that, then people have to accept expedient plot contrivances aren’t acts of malevolence on the part of some characters. 

[beepfuckingbeeprichie]

Something ab miraculous that is so interesting to me is that while the characters may be in the dark, the audience never is

Adrien and Marinette share the role of protagonist, so we obviously know who each of them are, and we know who they are from the very beginning. They never used Adrien’s identity as this long, drawn out surprise to the audience. We’re privy to both of their thoughts bc their kwamis serve as their inner monologue, and we’re aware that Tikki and Plagg both know that Adrien is Chat and Marinette is Ladybug, and they’ve been trying to bring them together. Hawkmoth’s identity isn’t learned about right away, but when it is revealed to us it continues to be a secret from the characters. And we hear, from several people, several times, and even from THEMSELVES, that Adrien and Marinette are meant to be, even if they just don’t know it yet.

Tl;dr The entire show is an exercise in dramatic irony and Shakespeare would be delighted