Probably one of the more concise, understandable descriptions of a kind of “interactive narrative” I’ve seen:
The idea of Bending Stories consists in considering the story as a sort of elastic band that the player is free to stretch depending on his actions. The story retains its structure but the player can modify its length and form and thus participate in the narration. In reality the story does not change diametrically from one game to the next, all that changes is the way it is told. However, the player can see parts of scenes and obtain different information depending on the particular path he follows.
Gamasutra – Feature – “Postmortem: Indigo Prophecy” by designer David Cage.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
Nice.
Interesting way of approaching the question of participation. This small excerpt could lead some readers to believe that the authors are arguing for a strong connection between story manipulation and narration participation, i.e. between the object and modes of access (means of production) to the object.
“The story retains its structure but the player can modify its length and form and thus participate in the narration. ”
It is the “and thus” part that could lead readers astray. A story that doesn’t retain its structure, indeed a story that mutates into another story, may equally result in player participation in narration. Never mind may, does.
Still, the passage is suggestive in that metanarrative comments (e.g. a narrative voice calling for reader/players to approach the narrative/story as an elastic band, game of hopscotch etc.) shape approaches to the narration. As with any narrative voice, reliable or otherwise, reader/players can accept or resist the suggestion or assertion.
An elastic band with a twist so that it becomes a moebius strip offers a different game…
Interesting way of approaching the question of participation. This small excerpt could lead some readers to believe that the authors are arguing for a strong connection between story manipulation and narration participation, i.e. between the object and modes of access (means of production) to the object.
“The story retains its structure but the player can modify its length and form and thus participate in the narration. ”
It is the “and thus” part that could lead readers astray. A story that doesn’t retain its structure, indeed a story that mutates into another story, may equally result in player participation in narration. Never mind may, does.
Still, the passage is suggestive in that metanarrative comments (e.g. a narrative voice calling for reader/players to approach the narrative/story as an elastic band, game of hopscotch etc.) shape approaches to the narration. As with any narrative voice, reliable or otherwise, reader/players can accept or resist the suggestion or assertion.
An elastic band with a twist so that it becomes a moebius strip offers a different game…
The game that mutates into another story, though, isn’t a game like Indigo Prophecy – which is not overwhelmingly emergent in its game play or style. Throughout all of my work, it is this question of player participation (so-called “interactivity”) and controlled production that strikes me as one of the fundamental distinctions between game types (and their relationship to narrative forms).