Narrative Form and Interactivity in the Modern Videogame. David Wilkinson Monash University

Transcription

1 Narrative Form and Interactivity in the Modern Videogame A paper submitted for publication in the proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association Annual Conference, Swinburne University, Victoria 9-11 July, David Wilkinson Monash University wilktron@optusnet.com.au 1

2 Abstract This paper aims to identify, analyse, and interpret the ways in which narrative operates in modern videogames given the addition of interactivity cultured through procedural literacies. The discussion utilises theory across a range of disciplines, although the primary approaches are those of narratology and ludology as posited in relation to videogames by prominent academics such as Jesper Juul, Ian Bogost, Espen Aarseth, and Jason Mittell. Through an analysis of modern games that employ conventional narrative techniques in order to design a story world, this paper demonstrates the analytical complications that arise when player agency is introduced, and how such complications may be overcome through the lens of narrative complexity and procedural literacy. Additionally, this paper will address a set of modern games that operate with an aesthetic similar to that of puzzle or mind-game films through the use of narrative manipulation, deception, and subversion. This paper argues that videogames possess unique qualities separate from other media such as films or literature through the methods by which they train players to interact with them, and their ability to immerse players in malleable stories while still retaining strong narrative flow. To demonstrate these points, the primary texts discussed include Dear Esther (2012), Portal (2007), and The Stanley Parable (2011). 2

3 Narrative Form and Interactivity in the Modern Videogame David Wilkinson The ongoing discussion and disagreement with regard to the theoretical classification of new media (particularly digital media and videogames) may logically give rise to the questions what new elements of this media are in need of further analysis?, and how do traditional concepts of narrative react when faced with such revolutionary innovations to an interactive storytelling form?. A key issue with regard to this is that of narrative subversion, disobedience, or manipulation insofar as what would otherwise be a simple denial of expectation within a filmic or literary context (e.g. a twist within the story) appears to lead to revolutionary transformations of narrative structure and agency for both players and narrators when applied to new media. A recent wave of videogames that mobilise such interactive capabilities of new media exampled herein via Dear Esther (2012), Portal (2007), and The Stanley Parable (2011) demonstrate mechanisms by which an audience s literacy may be exploited to produce effects both unexpected and productive to narrative development. Intrinsic to this understanding is an analysis of the concepts of procedural literacy as well as a discussion of narrative complexity when applied to new media. Similarly, both of these concepts are reliant on contemporary understandings of audience literacy and how such literacy has evolved to allow creators of new media to place a great deal of responsibility on the comprehension and construction of meaning by viewers and players. Particularly with regard to players of modern videogame texts, a significant amount of complex literacy is assumed to have been established prior to engaging with the texts described; literacies that work to successfully manipulate the player by providing tools of interpretation incrementally throughout the text in order to culminate in a grand narrative realisation at a specific point of the creator s direction. These understandings of modern audience literacy are invaluable to decoding the new and original processes of a player s engagement inherent within modern, interactive videogame texts. This paper draws on the theorisation of videogames by such scholars as Ian Bogost, Henry Jenkins, Jesper Juul, and Jason Mittell, with some additional academic commentary from Eric Zimmerman, Espen Aarseth, and Thomas Elsaesser. Thus, before launching into a discussion about the advanced narrative effects of manipulation and subversion that become possible within the context of an interactive new media format 3

4 such as videogames, it seems essential to firstly clarify the concepts that underpin such a discussion. This issue is urgent as the texts explored within this paper seem to frustratingly defy existing methods of new media interrogation to varying degrees. Therefore, it seems more useful to identify views that will emerge as core points of contention. As such, in order to facilitate a useful discussion of the more complex functions of narrative and literacy, it seems essential to first secure a useful set of terms and concepts, especially given that throughout approximately the past two decades of academic inquiry into the videogame medium there has been considerable disagreement on the application of existing theoretical approaches. As Aarseth notes in the opening edition of Game Studies journal, the primary method by which videogames are analysed should not be via incidental representational elements limited to narrative, but instead through the rules of the game and how the player can follow or be manipulated by these rules (2001). This paper suggests that, particularly with regard to this new generation of videogames such as The Stanley Parable, there exists no individual theoretical approach to adequately mete out the true essence of the audience s engagement with such modern texts. The debates with regard to extraordinary effects such as the development of atmosphere, emotional attachment, and immersive capability interactive texts provide are therefore crucial to advancing our understanding of new media games. The authors listed previously have views ranging through strictly traditionalist in their application of established theory (e.g. Juul, Zimmerman) to what could be termed radical in their advocacy for the creation of a fresh scholarly dialogue (e.g. Bogost, Jenkins). Indeed, the primary concern for each of these authors seems to be the careful balance between being able to extract the greatest amount of useful information from a text through the use of reliable theory while minimising the loss of unique information specific to the medium given the relative adolescence of the videogame form. As such, Jesper Juul is a primary figure in the appreciation of strictly pure academic ludology when interrogating videogame texts. He highlights that a clear understanding of the traditional definition of the word game must be posited if any progress is to be made (Juul, 2005: 29 36). With regard to the definition of game, Juul proposes that [a] game is a rule-based system with a variable and quantifiable outcome, where different outcomes are assigned different values, the player exerts effort in order to influence the outcome, the player feels emotionally attached to the outcome, and the consequences of the activity are negotiable (ibid: 36). 4

5 Eric Zimmerman similarly makes clear his intention of establishing a concrete discipline by noting that much of the academic writing on the subject seems laced with frustration at the general adolescence of the medium itself, although does remark that perhaps this frustration is a necessary step in establishing a discipline capable of operating alongside other longstanding critical modes of scholarly discourse (2004: 154). In terms of obstacles that may present the greatest difficulty to adequately disciplining such a discourse, Zimmerman primarily sees the potential for overinclusion through a definition so broad that most anything could be included when trying to classify new and interactive media (ibid: 160). Zimmerman does note, however, that the question of whether a game can actually convey a story or traditional narrative is essentially meaningless as a far more fruitful question would potentially ask what pleasures can [games] provide that books or film cannot? (ibid: 163). Considering this, Zimmerman s argument appears a necessary hybrid to temper the rigidity of Juul s approach in his apprehensiveness to fit videogame criticism into existing media theory. He acknowledges the desperate need for the development of a widely accepted and usefully applicable vocabulary, as well as noting the existence of qualities unique to an interactive media format such as videogames, particularly the elements of motivational narrative motors and immersion for the player in short, a view that both encourages a deeper and more comprehensive study of the medium while also highlighting the care with which such study should be undertaken. It seems clear that there is significant opportunity within Juul s interrogation of modern videogames to disregard a great deal of the unique qualities that exemplify the medium perhaps the only concession Juul makes with regard to this is his statement that the content of some games are thematically closer to traditional narratives than others, which seems decidedly conciliatory from a logic perspective (2005: 159). Continuing from this, an extensive reading of Jenkins reveals that attempts to apply such a limited set of meanings to a media format such as videogames can indeed prove overly restrictive by disregarding a great deal of the unique elements of the form (2004: 118). Jenkins suggests that the discussion thus far has, firstly, operated on far too narrow a model of narrative that concerns itself with classical linear storytelling at the expense of consideration of other kinds of narratives, and secondly, is guilty of neglecting the user s process of narrative comprehension in favour of keeping focus on the storyteller s aspirations (ibid: 119). He clarifies this belief further when he notes that such an approach can seem heavy-handed and literal-minded, often failing to recognise the profound differences between the two media. Yet, at the same time, there is a 5

6 tremendous amount that game designers and critics could learn through making meaningful comparisons with other storytelling media (ibid: 119). Instead of approaching any narrative study of videogames by trying to neatly slot (or indeed shoehorn ) the material into an existing field of established study, Jenkins seems adamant to create fresh ground upon which to design a more specific and comprehensive method by which an analysis of interactive narrative media may indeed reveal some of the suggested elusive qualities such as immersion and emotional attachment. Ian Bogost s inquiry follows a similar thread to Zimmerman, and certainly seems to carry great weight for the extended purposes of this paper with regard to the effect interactivity imparts to narrative operation. He posits the argument that the combinations of literary theory and computation can help humanists take technology more seriously and help technologists better understand software and videogames as cultural artifacts (2006: Bogost.com). In discussing the potential for a comparative videogame criticism he relates the process of modern videogame development to that of an assemblage of a diverse range of elements and suggests that [f]unctionalist questions about videogames what they are or how they function are not invalid or even unwelcome, although he focuses this comment by noting that... more important questions exist: what do videogames do, what happens when players interact with them, and how do they relate to, participate in, extend, and revise the cultural expression at work in other kinds of artifacts? (Bogost, 2006: 54). Appreciating this, the issues of interactivity and agency can be productively discussed in relation to two concepts: narrative complexity (as suggested by Jason Mittell), and procedural literacy (as elaborated upon by Bogost). With regard to literacy, and what types of literacy skills are required of the modern videogame player, there is, intrinsically, a significant amount of technical expertise expected of audiences. Specifically, if one were a producer of such works, one must assume that the operations of a keyboard, mouse, or console controller will not present too great a barrier to the user intending to participate with the text, thus avoiding the alienation of a wider (and less technically proficient) audience. Given the age of the videogame format, it seems that such literacy is now largely assumed by developers in such a way that the responsibility for accurately conveying a narrative that is able to be meaningfully interpreted is thrust upon the audience themselves. No longer do developers entirely control the moving image of the game through interactivity, and the conveyance of procedural literacy is invariably intertwined with this concept. 6

7 Mittell notes that complex narratives make advantageous the mixture of the story itself the diegesis and the conventions by which the story is presented to us (often including cliffhangers, unreliable narrators, temporal manipulation, and plot twists) (2006: 37). In making such an observation, he is unable to avoid the similar suitability to modern videogames: he notes that the literacy required of audiences is essential to not only succeeding at a game, but also necessary to fully engage with the narrative presented within (Mittell, 2006: 39). Perhaps more pertinent for this paper s discussion is his notion that such an engagement is in fact a recognition on the part of consumers that, in order to understand and succeed in such constructs, a procedural mastery must be attained by players (ibid: 39). Typically, videogames begin with a diegetic training module that trains the player incrementally in the methods required to comprehend the digital world around them, as well as providing the tools needed to effectively interact with this world (ibid: 37). This usually begins basically, such as providing a threat-free environment in which the player can familiarise themselves with fundamental elements such as movement controls, and progresses to detail the expectations of them so that they might win the game (a difficult concept in itself when discussed in relation to games like The Stanley Parable). Bogost, who has written extensively on the application of procedural literacy with regard to videogames, notes that... procedural literacy can be cultured not only through authorship, such as learning to program, but also through the consumption or enactment of procedural artifacts themselves. In other words, we can become procedurally literate through play (2005: 34 35). Modern videogames have begun to integrate such training into the game narrative itself in ways that are by no means explicit, such that the player may not even realise immediately that they are being trained, which then allows the almost subconscious nature of that training to manifest usefully when the scaffolding of game rules collapse in order to produce a desired narrative effect. However, having noted this it should be said that most games will considerately include a tips feature that can be turned on if said training is still confusing or obscure to players needing to apply it at later stages of the game story so as not to force players to repeat initial training sections. Such procedural literacy is thus absolutely reliant on the interactive format of videogames such that the training the player must employ to navigate the game is imbued via the experience of carrying out the necessary action and is therefore learned via experience. 7

8 Appreciating these issues of classification, and in order to adequately address the exampled texts, it may indeed be necessary to bounce between several schools of thought to appreciate the complex subversive and manipulative narrative effects of the examples chosen herein. The minor ad hoc modifications that both Juul and Zimmerman suggest should be made to existing theory in order to squeeze videogames into their analytical scope seem to be at the expense of what may, in fact, fundamentally separate them from such theoretical investigations. The tone of both Jenkins and Bogost is often cautionary of exactly this; that early, heavy-handed attempts to rein videogame criticism into line with existing theoretical movements may actually prove restrictive in their ability to gain useful information from a text, and furthermore prove actively destructive by stunting the possibility of the creation of new or revolutionary concepts through limiting the space available for fresh theory. The videogames exampled herein should demonstrate why there is such difficulty in regulating existing concepts, and how particularly interesting and as-yet undefined narrative effects may be easily lost. Dear Esther serves as an excellent introduction to how traditional narratives can be wellrepresented in an interactive format. With regard to the specific nature of interaction, Dear Esther is comparatively stripped of multitudinous complex elements as the play experience is akin to that of navigating a museum with a set path to determine the order in which one should witness the individual pieces. The innovation, then, is not through the movement of the player through this world, but the randomisation of epistolic story elements. Over the course of a single playthrough of Dear Esther, it is not possible for the player to hear each and every letter from the narrator; a randomisation algorithm has been used to not only strengthen the arbitrary nature of the complete text, but also strengthen the impetus for players to embark on a second playing, as such an activity may reveal previously undiscovered story elements. Thus, while the story may not fundamentally change per se, and while the method of interaction as it is implemented may not operate outside established systems of play familiar to gamers, the randomised operation of narrative strengthens the overall ambiguity the progression of the text thrives on. Also of note in this regard which becomes clear upon playing Dear Esther is that the reward system provided to the player revolves solely around their curiosity. This is in opposition to what might be described as typically simplistic and easily measurable player rewards, such as points or tokens common to a significant portion of videogames; Dear Esther spurs the inquisitive player to investigate the landscape provided in the hope of uncovering a previously undiscovered fragment of 8

9 story that may clarify or strengthen the greater overarching interpretation. Naturally, this brings what constitutes an adequate definition of the word game into question (as per Juul) given the subjective nature of what may comprise a satisfactory outcome. Certainly, winning Dear Esther is descriptively as relevant as winning the reading of a novel what are the conditions, for example, of successfully completing a reading of a novel? Of course such a question is facetious, although there are many who would contend that Dear Esther is in fact not a game due to its lack of a concrete system of reward and punishment adherent to those of games such as chess or poker. The compulsion for the player, the reward system that drives them onwards, is that of story and increased understanding and immersion in the text the completion of which provides narrative resolve in much the same way as the final scene of a film, or final chapter of a novel. In relation to the nature of interaction, it is relevant to note that there are no enemies to be defeated in Dear Esther and, due to this, no complex systems of combat need to be mastered in order to progress. There are no puzzles that require deft manipulation of digital elements in order to progress through the game world, nor is there a vast maze of possible paths to venture throughout before a player discovers the correct route. Thus, the assumptions of technical mastery Dear Esther places on its participants are indeed comparatively considerate, presumably to primarily preserve the lyrical nature of the story without too many interruptions in the form of obstacles that players who may lack expertise would otherwise, metaphorically speaking, run aground on. In this way it is possible to appreciate the consideration Dear Esther has taken in terms of its presentation, and similarly the complexity with which it chooses to convey its ambiguous narrative to players. Appreciating Dear Esther as an example of traditional modern videogame narrative, it is now possible to address two recent texts that make advantageous a range of decidedly complex narrative features. Both games exampled in this regard make a significant demand of their audience in terms of technical mastery and complex literacy; and those interacting with these games have gained a considerable amount of the literacy training required simply from playing other games. As with Dear Esther, the methods of interaction needed to engage with the texts discussed here are certainly not overly complex in terms of player input. Instead, their complexity lies largely in the player s literacy of the format and the ability to play along with the narrative deceptions in order to fully appreciate the text. Due to the introduction of interactivity, the methods by which any narrative revelations are reached are dependent on 9

10 the player s engagement with these manipulative or deceptive elements. Elsaesser, in his discussion of mind-game films and their implications for spectatorship and contemporary narrative operation, highlights the significance of the videogame format in relation to game theory and its usefulness for imbuing such films with an interactive feel, as if the viewer is responsible for decoding the puzzle (2009: 24). His discussion is also useful for linking the operations of these puzzle films with the concept of procedural literacy in that such films encourage the establishment of automated feedback from their audience by way of... a lowering of self-consciousness and a different form of recursiveness by... knocking out part of the conscious mind altogether (ibid: 24). In beginning a close textual analysis of such issues with regard to videogames, Valve Corporation s 2007 videogame Portal is ideal for connecting the aforementioned category of traditional videogames with those that utilise a more subversive system of narrative. Fundamentally a physics-based puzzle game, Portal presents its digital world to the player via a first-person perspective, and requires the player to complete a series of test chambers that typically consist of utilising a portal gun to teleport themselves (or mission-critical objects) in a variety of combinations to ultimately escape their situation. Present throughout the testing facility is the artificial intelligence which acts as narrator throughout the game (known as GLaDOS an acronym for Genetic Lifeform and Disc Operating System) and is responsible for conveying to the player game rules and setting. While the rules of the game are quite basic in essence (navigate to the exit of each test chamber while traversing obstructions and avoiding lethal obstacles via the use of the portal gun) the player must essentially identify these rules through trial and error. As the player progresses the presence of GLaDOS becomes more prevalent and begins to act as a flawed narrator who will distort, omit, or outright lie about game information when addressing the player. Such narrative deception becomes unmistakable when the player progresses to test chamber nine, at which point GLaDOS significantly announces: The Enrichment Centre regrets to inform you that this next test is impossible. Make no attempt to solve it. Once again, the Enrichment Centre offers its most sincere apologies on the occasion of this unsolvable test environment. Frankly, this chamber was a mistake. If we were you, we would quit now. No one will blame you for giving up. In fact, quitting at this point is a perfectly reasonable response. (Portal, 2007) 10

11 While it is highly improbable a player would literally exit the game given this advice from GLaDOS, particularly after plenty of cues have been given by this point as to the deceptive nature of the narrative advice, the above statement places the responsibility to distrust this instruction firmly on the player based on previous experience. The cumulative experience and lessons learned throughout the previous test chambers, both in relation to gameplay mechanics such as manipulating portals to solve physical problems, and in appreciating the purposefully misleading narration, culminates in the crystallisation of distrust in players and the need to think for themselves in order to successfully navigate the test chambers that incrementally increase in difficulty. To cement this concept and give the player some understanding of the psychological nature of the testing, upon their completion of the allegedly impossible test chamber nine, GLaDOS remarks: Fantastic! You remained resolute and resourceful in an atmosphere of extreme pessimism (Portal, 2007). This particular test chamber is, for the purposes of this discussion, significant with regard to narrative manipulation given that it functions effectively as the final stage of the mimetic training module designed to imbue the player with lessons through hands-on experience. This is opposed to Mittell s mention of a diegetic training system via which players are told explicitly what is expected of them within the game and are then able to confidently follow such instruction without fear that the explanatory information is flawed or misleading. The terms mimesis and diegesis are used here in their most fundamental Platonic and Aristotelian contrasting sense; that diegesis tells and mimesis shows. Appreciating this, one could go so far as to argue that Portal represents both models of player training; GLaDOS as the diegetic system which (despite providing untrustworthy information in this case) is omnipresent as instructional narrator, while the player represents the mimetic training model in their role as imprisoned test subject, forced to learn through trial and error while running the facility s numerous deadly gauntlets. These points considered, it is possible to see how, although the story of Portal may not change, full advantage is taken of the player s ability to learn through interaction when placed against an untrustworthy system of narration. Similarly, it becomes clear how such a game can exploit player expectations to develop a narrative system reliant on the disobedience to the given voiced narration in order to not only solve the physical problems at hand, but also to defy the trust that players may have with any narrator as a familiar occupant of modern games. 11

12 Following from this, The Stanley Parable demonstrates just how far this concept of narrative subversion can be taken when approached as an experiment in narrative interactivity. Davey Wreden and William Pugh developed the game in 2007 as a freely downloadable modification to the Source game engine in an attempt to answer the question what would happen if you could disobey the narrator? (Mattas, 2011). The game is presented from the first-person perspective and involves no combat or characters other than Stanley (the player) and the Narrator (presented as a voiceover). The interaction is basic in that the player may control their movement and interact with their environment to the extent of needing to press buttons or open doors, and as such there is no requirement for complex, multifaceted interactions that may sully the narrative process. The Stanley Parable puts the player in an active role in terms of exploring the operations of narrative in a videogame environment primarily by creating an oppositional relationship between the player and the narrator. Indeed, within the first few minutes of play, the narrator soon becomes a character the player will actively rail against through sheer petulant, defiant impulse. As the player is granted control (immediately in the first person, as with Portal) the voiceover narration notes that [Stanley] never functioned well by himself, and constantly needed support and guidance from others, so the thought of total solitude was terrifying to him (The Stanley Parable, 2011). Instinctively, the mere suggestion that the player is incapable of dealing with the situation presented prompts contempt for the narrator and urges the player to, in some way, prove such an assessment incorrect. Such inflammatory narratorial voicing is only compounded as the player is soon faced with a room containing two doors at which point the narrator remarks: When Stanley came to a set of two open doors, he entered the door on his left (ibid). Immediately the realisation occurs to the player that there is no force, no prerendered cut scene, no de-privileging of control or movement that will propel them through the left door against their will; the player is entirely capable of disobeying the narrator s stated action. If the player does indeed choose to disregard the instruction and venture through the rightmost door, the narrator remarks: This was not the correct way to the employee lounge, and Stanley knew it perfectly well. So he turned left at the first open door and walked back in the right direction, at which point a door automatically opens further down the corridor to provide the player an opportunity to rectify their deviational choice (ibid). If the player does indeed choose to disregard the conciliatory correct pathway that has been opened to them, the narrator notes: 12

13 Stanley was so bad at following directions, it s incredible he wasn t fired years ago. Maybe this is why everyone had left; no one wanted to be around someone as bad at listening as him. And since he was walking into the middle of nowhere, and thus ruining the entire story, Stanley decided that he would punish himself. (The Stanley Parable, 2011) It is in this initial exchange between player and narrator that the directive motor of the game s narrative is set. Providing for particular combinations of choice within the game, there exist a total of six possible ending scenarios, each of which reflect the narrator s preference in storytelling logic and how closely the player has adhered to this logic. While there is admittedly a strong similarity to something akin to a choose your own adventure book in this sense, it is the completely self-aware attitude towards protagonist and narrator the text vamps on that makes The Stanley Parable a fascinating example. In much the same way that the fourth wall is broken in a Bugs Bunny cartoon when an enormous eraser at the end of the animator s pencil invades the frame to somehow alter the setting or character, The Stanley Parable reinvents this concept through interactivity the player as mischievous protagonist, determined to somehow subvert the story they find themselves trapped in, and the narrator as external agent with a predetermined story in mind, willing to extend into the realms of incongruity or outright ridiculousness in order to preserve the script. From these examples, and considering the views of the theorists discussed here, it seems clear that past dilemmas emerging from disciplines unable to adequately address the videogame format from a critical perspective, at the very least in terms of narrative processes, are beginning to subside. Bogost and, to a lesser extent, Mittell have taken vast strides in terms of providing a conceptual framework that, when analysing a modern videogame text, can produce meaningful ideas and resolutions from both a rule-based and narrative perspective. Procedural literacy is perhaps the most significantly useful concept as it manages to simultaneously examine both the reading of authorial work and the writing of users input with regard to narrative operations within videogames. Extraordinary qualities, such as the immersive and emotionally poignant capabilities of more traditional modern videogame texts such as Dear Esther, and the reinvention and expansion of deceptive or manipulative qualities, such as the unreliable narration employed throughout Portal and The Stanley Parable, indeed seem worthy of such critical attention lest the specificity of the roles of interaction and player agency become overlooked. 13

14 Works Cited Aarseth, Espen, 2001, Computer game studies, year one, Game studies, no. 1.1, pp Bogost, Ian, 2005, Procedural literacy: Problem solving with programming, systems, and play, Journal of Media Literacy, no , pp Bogost, Ian, 2006, Unit Operations, Bogost.com, viewed 4 October Bogost, Ian, 2006, Unit operations: An approach to videogame criticism, The MIT Press. Dear Esther, 2012, The Chinese Room, PC, Source Engine 14 (Build 4932, 9 May 2012). Elsaesser, Thomas, 2009, The mind-game film, in W. Buckland (ed.), Puzzle films: Complex storytelling in contemporary cinema, Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell, pp Jenkins, Henry, 2004, Game Design as Narrative Architecture, in Wardrip-Fruin, Noah and Harrigan, Pat (eds.), First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game, Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, pp Juul, Jesper, 2005, Half-Real.net, JesperJuul.net, viewed 4 October 2013, Juul, Jesper, 2005, Half-real: video games between real rules and fictional worlds, IT University of Copenhagen, Digital Aesthetics and Communication. Mattas, Jeff, 2011, Interview: The Stanley Parable developer Davey Wreden, Shacknews, viewed 21 May 2013, Mittell, Jason, 2006, Narrative complexity in contemporary American television, The Velvet Light Trap, no. 58.1, pp

15 Portal, 2007, Valve Corporation, PC, Source Engine 15 (Build 5135, 28 November 2012). The Stanley Parable, 2011, Davey Wreden, PC, Source Engine 14 (Build 4104, 1 February 2010). Zimmerman, Eric, 2004, Narrative, interactivity, play, and games: Four naughty concepts in need of discipline, in Wardrip-Fruin, Noah and Harrigan, Pat (eds.), First person: New media as story, performance, and game, MIT Press, pp