Advertisement

Perceived Agency as Meaningful Expression of Playable Character Personality Traits in Storygames

  • Liting Kway
  • Alex Mitchell
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11318)

Abstract

Academic discussion about agency has shifted towards agency as something the player perceives, rather than necessarily involving visible and lasting effects within a storygame. Existing work suggests players experience perceived agency even when no consequences result from their choices, due to various features and techniques used in storygames. This paper aims to understand the experience players have when engaging with choices and playable characters when playing storygames that produce a sense of perceived agency. We conducted retrospective protocol analysis and interviews with 15 players who played one of three games, The Wolf Among Us, Oxenfree and Kentucky Route Zero. Our findings suggest that perceived agency arises both from the player’s ability and willingness to engage in meaningful expression of the playable character’s personality within constraints, resulting in the creation of a unique playable character, and from the system’s recognition of this expression of the playable character’s personality through appropriate feedback.

Keywords

Perceived agency Choice Characters Meaningful expression 

References

  1. 1.
    Murray, J.H.: Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. MIT Press, Cambridge (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wardrip-Fruin, N., Mateas, M., Dow, S., Sali, S.: Agency reconsidered. In: Proceedings of the 2009 DiGRA International Conference: Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory, West London, UK (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Reed, A.: Changeful tales: design-driven approaches toward more expressive storygames (2017)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Day, T., Zhu, J.: Agency informing techniques: communicating player agency in interactive narratives. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games, pp. 1–4. ACM Press (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thue, D., Bulitko, V., Spetch, M., Romanuik, T.: A computational model of perceived agency in video games. In: Proceedings of the Seventh AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, pp. 91–96. AAAI Press, Stanford (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Telltale Games: The Wolf Among Us. Telltale Games, San Rafael (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Night School Studio: Oxenfree. Night School Studio, Glendale (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elliott, J., Kemenczy, T.: Kentucky Route Zero. Cardboard Computer, Chicago (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mateas, M.: A preliminary poetics for interactive drama and games. In: Wardrip-Fruin, N., Harrigan, P. (eds.) First person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game, pp. 19–33. MIT Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tanenbaum, K., Tanenbaum, J.: Commitment to meaning: a reframing of agency in games. In: Proceedings of the Digital Arts and Culture Conference 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cheng, P.: Waiting for something to happen: narratives, interactivity and agency and the video game cut-scene. In: Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference: Situated Play, pp. 15–24 (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elliot, J., Kemenczy, T.: Balloon Diaspora. Cardboard Computer, Chicago (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weir, G.: Analysis: incidental character choices in Balloon Diaspora (2011). http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/124604/Analysis_Incidental_Character_Choices_in_Balloon_Diaspora.php
  14. 14.
    Kway, L., Mitchell, A.: Emotional agency in storygames. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. ACM Press, Malmö (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fendt, M.W., Harrison, B., Ware, S.G., Cardona-Rivera, R.E., Roberts, D.L.: Achieving the illusion of agency. In: Oyarzun, D., Peinado, F., Young, R., Elizalde, A., Méndez, G. (eds.) ICIDS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7648, pp. 114–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34851-8_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cardona-Rivera, R.E., Robertson, J., Ware, S.G., Harrison, B., Roberts, D.L., Young, R.M.: Foreseeing meaningful choices. In: Proceedings of the Tenth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, pp. 9–15. AAAI Press, Raleigh (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    MacCallum-Stewart, E., Parsler, J.: Illusory agency in Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines. Dicht. Digit. 37 (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ericsson, K.A., Simon, H.A.: Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. MIT Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Knickmeyer, R.L., Mateas, M.: Preliminary evaluation of the interactive drama facade. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2005), p. 1549. ACM Press, Portland (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klimmt, C., Hefner, D., Vorderer, P.: The video game experience as “true” identification: a theory of enjoyable alterations of players’ self-perception. Commun. Theory 19, 351–373 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communications and New MediaNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations