Treasures of a Slaver’s Kingdom (only in one specific sequence).The player may be explicitly aware that he’s moving towards an unhappy ending, or the protagonist may be framed as a villain/antihero. He guides the protagonist through various challenges, but in a way that leads the protagonist to an unhappy outcome. The player is most like the hand of fate, or the protagonist’s own failings. GLaDOS is far more developed, and undergoes more change, than Chell.
The player-character’s interactions with the real protagonist serve to reveal and/or develop her character, but our own character remains something of a cipher. The player controls a character who is really just a foil to the real main character, whoever that might be. Some of the more common possibilities that don’t identify player and protagonist together: Even where the player character is the protagonist and the player is assumed to share the protagonist’s goals, there are plenty of distinctions to be made (and not just the “characterized” vs AFGNCAAP distinction, either). It may be more successful to think in terms of the relationship between player and story. First, the narrativist approach in particular requires a lot of freeform input from the player, which it is difficult to express in computer mechanics and second, most of this theory does tend to assume that there’s a more or less one-to-one relationship between characters in the story and players, whereas many computer games and interactive narratives disrupt that assumption. In general, I think there are two problems with using GNS theory outside of the human-run RPG context. A couple of weeks ago, I was asked about Narrativist games, and despite a lengthy (and interesting) discussion in comments, there wasn’t a lot of consensus about a corpus of narrativist IF/videogames indeed, some commenters thought that it was more or less impossible to do narrativism properly except through a human GM.
0 kommentar(er)
