Life Is Strange 2: Difference between revisions
From GameLabWiki
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
This picture from a ''LiS2'' blog on tumblr visualises this principle: | This picture from a ''LiS2'' blog on tumblr visualises this principle: | ||
[[File:Choice-table.jpg|thumb|Choice-table | [[File:Choice-table.jpg|thumb|Choice-table<ref><nowiki>https://lifeisstrange-blog.tumblr.com/post/188836949825/everything-you-need-to-know-about-daniel-in-life</nowiki></ref>|none]] | ||
About the choice-table: | About the choice-table: | ||
| Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
Tracy Fullerton wants to explore, which kind of choice is needed to make videogames interesting. She realizes that that the quality of a decision depends on its influence on the narration. | Tracy Fullerton wants to explore, which kind of choice is needed to make videogames interesting. She realizes that that the quality of a decision depends on its influence on the narration. | ||
[[File:Decision scale.png|thumb|Tracy Fullerton´s decision scale<ref>Tracy Fullerton (2019): Game Design Workshop, S. 354.</ref>]] | [[File:Decision scale.png|thumb|Tracy Fullerton´s decision scale<ref>Tracy Fullerton (2019): Game Design Workshop, S. 354.</ref>]] | ||
If | If one assumes that player-agency is needed to have a satisfying game experience, then a game is only allowed to have few “inconsequential” consequences. All kinds of choices of the decision scale are present in ''LiS2'', but most of them are the ones on the lowest part of the pyramid. That is the critique point mentioned in “substructural decisions”. The many choices in ''LiS2'' are at most “minor”, but have immediate consequence (for example in dialog options or quick-time-events). On the other hand, the scope of the consequence is little. Some choices have consequences through dialog options, funny commentary or external minor changes of the game figures. But if all decisions count as one big decision, they would be one “critical” decision regarding the final choice in the game. | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
| Line 117: | Line 117: | ||
English: ''„When the game contradicts itself”'' | English: ''„When the game contradicts itself”'' | ||
One can call it dissonance, when the narrative wants to tell a story, which gets discredited by the game mechanic. ''The Gain Magazine'' published an article about this problem. It takes the reboot of Tomb Rider from 2013 as an example. In this game, the narrative shows how uncomfortable and dreadful the protagonist – Lara Croft – feels when killing. But only a few minutes later – when the player starts to play as Lara – she is no longer portrayed as a woman who must kill unwillingly. The game mechanic (killing people to win the game) undermines the story (fear of killing). <ref name=":1" /> | One can call it ludonarrative dissonance, when the narrative wants to tell a story, which gets discredited by the game mechanic. ''The Gain Magazine'' published an article about this problem. It takes the reboot of Tomb Rider from 2013 as an example. In this game, the narrative shows how uncomfortable and dreadful the protagonist – Lara Croft – feels when killing. But only a few minutes later – when the player starts to play as Lara – she is no longer portrayed as a woman who must kill unwillingly. The game mechanic (killing people to win the game) undermines the story (fear of killing). <ref name=":1" /> | ||
Problems also occur when | Problems also occur when games offer choice options to the players, which do not change the prefabricated narrative, even though they look like it. When the options are too far away from the written, not changeable story. | ||
Frédérc Seraphine writes in his text ''Ludonarrative Dissonance: Is Storytelling About Reaching Harmony?'' about a possible solution for ludonarrative dissonance through “emergent narratives”.<blockquote>"[Emergent narratives are] Games that don't have a specific story to tell, but offering many potentialities of stories to be experienced by the player.<ref name=":0" /></blockquote><blockquote>"Calleja betont damit, dass es sich bei diesen Geschichten [emergent narratives] also nicht um Narrationen handelt, die vom Medium ausgehen, die in seine Programmstruktur eingeschrieben sind, sondern um Narrationen, die dem Spiel vom Spielenden zugeschrieben werden, indem er die gespielte Ereignisfolge narrativ interpretiert und somit sein Spielerlebnis narrativiert."<ref>Kai Matuszkiewicz (2017): Wer erzeugt die Geschichte? Mediale und personale Narrationen in digitalen Spielen, URL: <nowiki>https://www.textpraxis.net/kai-matuszkiewicz-wer-erzeugt-die-geschichte</nowiki></ref></blockquote>English: ''„Calleja emphasizes that these narratives [emergent narratives] are not narratives, which emerge from the written medium which is embedded in the structure of the program, but narratives, which are given to the games by the players by interpreting the played story and narrating the game-experiences.”'' | Frédérc Seraphine writes in his text ''Ludonarrative Dissonance: Is Storytelling About Reaching Harmony?'' about a possible solution for ludonarrative dissonance through “emergent narratives”.<blockquote>"[Emergent narratives are] Games that don't have a specific story to tell, but offering many potentialities of stories to be experienced by the player.<ref name=":0" /></blockquote><blockquote>"Calleja betont damit, dass es sich bei diesen Geschichten [emergent narratives] also nicht um Narrationen handelt, die vom Medium ausgehen, die in seine Programmstruktur eingeschrieben sind, sondern um Narrationen, die dem Spiel vom Spielenden zugeschrieben werden, indem er die gespielte Ereignisfolge narrativ interpretiert und somit sein Spielerlebnis narrativiert."<ref>Kai Matuszkiewicz (2017): Wer erzeugt die Geschichte? Mediale und personale Narrationen in digitalen Spielen, URL: <nowiki>https://www.textpraxis.net/kai-matuszkiewicz-wer-erzeugt-die-geschichte</nowiki></ref></blockquote>English: ''„Calleja emphasizes that these narratives [emergent narratives] are not narratives, which emerge from the written medium which is embedded in the structure of the program, but narratives, which are given to the games by the players by interpreting the played story and narrating the game-experiences.”'' | ||
| Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
Decisions will be influenced by two aspects: '''Daniel´s moral''' and '''his relationship with his brother.''' | Decisions will be influenced by two aspects: '''Daniel´s moral''' and '''his relationship with his brother.''' | ||
The decisions the players make | The decisions the players make affect the parameters moral and brotherhood and will be also compared with the state of these parameters. Depending on this, the players will get the consequence. For example: If the player tells Daniel in episode five that he should punish the bounty hunters who captured them with his power, it depends on the state of Daniel´s moral if he gladly does it or refuses.The state of the moral depends on the decisions the player did earlier in the game. | ||
Daniel´s development determines the whole story, because Daniel also reacts to the last decision the player makes (surrender or fight against the police) and changes it.<blockquote>"Daniel's morality is the most important feature of how the endings unfold. At the end of the final episode, Sean will have to make a choice to either surrender or ask Daniel to use his powers to get the pair past a police blockade. The consequences of both of these choices are dependent on Daniel's morality, leading to four distinctly different endings. From there the other three endings are variants on these, caused by more minor choices made throughout the game. Daniel's morality is affected throughout the entire game by the player's actions as Sean. You're setting an example to your brother through the entire narrative, regardless of if you realized or not. His morality is directly tied to your own, so your choices need to be in line with what you wish for his."<ref>Helen Ashcroft (2019): Life Is Strange 2: All 7 Endings And How To Unlock Them, URL: <nowiki>https://www.thegamer.com/life-is-strange-2-all-7-endings-guide/</nowiki></ref></blockquote>All seven endings are shown on the official Life Is Strange YouTube channel. | Daniel´s development determines the whole story, because Daniel also reacts to the last decision the player makes (surrender or fight against the police) and changes it.<blockquote>"Daniel's morality is the most important feature of how the endings unfold. At the end of the final episode, Sean will have to make a choice to either surrender or ask Daniel to use his powers to get the pair past a police blockade. The consequences of both of these choices are dependent on Daniel's morality, leading to four distinctly different endings. From there the other three endings are variants on these, caused by more minor choices made throughout the game. Daniel's morality is affected throughout the entire game by the player's actions as Sean. You're setting an example to your brother through the entire narrative, regardless of if you realized or not. His morality is directly tied to your own, so your choices need to be in line with what you wish for his."<ref>Helen Ashcroft (2019): Life Is Strange 2: All 7 Endings And How To Unlock Them, URL: <nowiki>https://www.thegamer.com/life-is-strange-2-all-7-endings-guide/</nowiki></ref></blockquote>All seven endings are shown on the official Life Is Strange YouTube channel. | ||
| Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
There are four big different endings and three further variations of these four what results in seven different endings. | There are four big different endings and three further variations of these four what results in seven different endings. | ||
It is a problem, that the game can only offer “extreme” definite endings. LiS2 expects that the player raises Daniel to really high or low moral person as well as having a really good or bad relationship with him and LiS2 presents the player the suitable ending based on these parameters. But that´s not always the case. | It is a problem, that the game can only offer “extreme” definite endings. ''LiS2'' expects that the player raises Daniel to really high or low moral person as well as having a really good or bad relationship with him and ''LiS2'' presents the player the suitable ending based on these parameters. But that´s not always the case. | ||
If player 1 treats Daniel always badly and doesn´t care to raise him, it seems consecutively that he is being a brat in the end and refuses to surrender like Sean wants. Even though it seems a little bit extreme that he kills the policemen without hesitation (a kind of behaviour he didn´t do before). If player 2 sometimes jokes around with Daniel by frightening him and decides three out of five times for these kinds of options which get revenge and lower Daniel´s moral, he gets the same ending as player 1. Player 1 can make much more sense out of his ending based on his actions then player 2, who didn´t expect this at all and experiences ludonarrative dissonance. | If player 1 treats Daniel always badly and doesn´t care to raise him, it seems consecutively that he is being a brat in the end and refuses to surrender like Sean wants. Even though it seems a little bit extreme that he kills the policemen without hesitation (a kind of behaviour he didn´t do before). If player 2 sometimes jokes around with Daniel by frightening him and decides three out of five times for these kinds of options, which get revenge and lower Daniel´s moral, he gets the same ending as player 1. Player 1 can make much more sense out of his ending based on his actions then player 2, who didn´t expect this at all and experiences ludonarrative dissonance. | ||
That is the case, because the substructural decisions must work with hard numbers. If the players decide, for example, out of the eleven decisions that influence the moral parameter, five times for the high moral alternative and six times for the low moral one, it results in an completely different Daniel than the one they were trying to form and got to know throughout the game. This worsens the game experience a lot. | |||
====Personal experience==== | ====Personal experience==== | ||
| Line 157: | Line 157: | ||
In the and one does not say that LiS2 has a problem with ludonarrative dissonance. Yet, the ending is highly possible to cause frustration and incomprehension. | In the and one does not say that ''LiS2'' has a problem with ludonarrative dissonance. Yet, the ending is highly possible to cause frustration and incomprehension. | ||
<br /> | <br /> | ||
===The Moral in LiS2=== | ===The Moral in ''LiS2''=== | ||
The goal in LiS2 is to make Daniel a high moral person (if players want to follow the predetermined way). For that to happen, players must be role models for him. But what is morally right | The goal in ''LiS2'' is to make Daniel a high moral person (if players want to follow the predetermined way). For that to happen, players must be role models for him. But what is morally right and what is wrong? It is not always unambiguously. Players have their own idea of moral, which they bring into the game. Miguel Sicart examines the player´s moral and virtuousness when playing a game – their “ludic phronesis”.<blockquote>"Ludic phronesis is, in this virtue ethics context, the operative ethical knowledge present in the act of playing games, which evaluates the morality of the player’s actions"<ref name=":0">Miguel Sicart (2009): The Ethics of Computer Games, S. 113.</ref></blockquote>Sicart tries to turn away from viewing the player as an unambiguous entity. Instead he defines them as a game-deciding being, who participates actively with their own moral standards and experiences.<blockquote>"The presence of a player/user who actively engages with the system is crucial for understanding the ethical configuration of the game experience. Players are not passive receivers, and they are not just bots clicking on the button to get their ludic fix."<ref name=":0" /></blockquote>If Sicart wants to examine the ethics in videogames, he must acknowledge the player’s “ludic phronesis”, what seems to be the ethical resource for interpreting game experiences. By defining players as virtuous beings with their own ideas of moral, they can be hold responsible for their game experience, not only the game itself, what builds the circumstances for it. | ||
Sicart visualises his theory about the reciprocal influences of moral understanding of the player such as the game moral and other external forces by changing Hans-Georg Gadamer´s hermeneutic circle to a “lucic hermeneutic circle”. | Sicart visualises his theory about the reciprocal influences of moral understanding of the player such as the game moral and other external forces by changing Hans-Georg Gadamer´s hermeneutic circle to a “lucic hermeneutic circle”. | ||
[[File:Hermeneutik-vorverstaendnis.gif|none|thumb|386x386px|Hermeneutic Circle after Hans-Georg Gadamer<ref>Uni Duisburg-Essen: Hermeneutik des NT - Der Entwurf von Peter Stuhlmacher, URL: <nowiki>https://www.uni-due.de/~gev020/studweb/einwaller-stuhlmacher-hermeneutik5.htm</nowiki></ref>]] | [[File:Hermeneutik-vorverstaendnis.gif|none|thumb|386x386px|Hermeneutic Circle after Hans-Georg Gadamer<ref>Uni Duisburg-Essen: Hermeneutik des NT - Der Entwurf von Peter Stuhlmacher, URL: <nowiki>https://www.uni-due.de/~gev020/studweb/einwaller-stuhlmacher-hermeneutik5.htm</nowiki></ref>]] | ||
The picture shows, that a person | The picture shows, that a person had a pre-understanding before he started reading a text. Out of that it becomes a text-understanding, what changes the pre-understanding to a new kind of understanding titled as V1. The new pre-understanding again influences the text again what results in a new text-understanding titled T1. This spiral goes on. | ||
[[File:Sicart, Miguel - The Ethics of Computer Games 107-127.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Reader DC 14.07.2020 14 28 49.png|none|thumb|The Ludic Hermeneutic Circle after Miguel Sicart <ref>Uni Duisburg-Essen: Hermeneutik des NT - Der Entwurf von Peter Stuhlmacher, URL: <nowiki>https://www.uni-due.de/~gev020/studweb/einwaller-stuhlmacher-hermeneutik5.htm</nowiki></ref>]] | [[File:Sicart, Miguel - The Ethics of Computer Games 107-127.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Reader DC 14.07.2020 14 28 49.png|none|thumb|The Ludic Hermeneutic Circle after Miguel Sicart <ref>Uni Duisburg-Essen: Hermeneutik des NT - Der Entwurf von Peter Stuhlmacher, URL: <nowiki>https://www.uni-due.de/~gev020/studweb/einwaller-stuhlmacher-hermeneutik5.htm</nowiki></ref>]] | ||
Sicart | Sicart changes this idea to examine the relation between environment and player. There are four factors, which influence the game and each other. Like Gadamer´s circle, the factors change to newer version of themselves, which then influence the others to evolve as well.<blockquote>"This dialogic procedure of interpretation of the game, along with the actions of the player within the game and the community and her relation to real life is what creates the ludic phronesis that informs the virtuous player. This includes the capacity of experiencing the game within the dialogic interpretational procedures of the ludic hermeneutic circle. Ludic phronesis is the ethical interpretation that takes place in the described stages of the ludic hermeneutic circle. It is a character trait and a knowledge that we develop."<ref>Miguel Sicart (2009): The Ethics of Computer Games, S. 122.</ref></blockquote>Is it possible that in ''LiS2'' the players not only raise the little brother, but are also raised by the game itself? | ||
The interesting part about LiS2 is, that there exists no right and wrong. Almost every decision is leading to a moral dilemma, what encourages the | The interesting part about ''LiS2'' is, that there exists no right and wrong. Almost every decision is leading to a moral dilemma, what encourages the players to think about their ideas of rightness. Sometimes it even achieves to make the player questions their perceptions, because they must not only decide for themselves as Sean, but also have to think about Daniel. Indeed, there exists a moral parameter in the substructure what decides, which decisions are increasing the moral level, but it is not visible for the player. In addition, the “unmoral” decision does not have negative game mechanic consequences, only narrative ones. The game “raises” the player subtly. It brings them in a situation, where the “normal players” are not used to be, what forces them to deal with the situation depending on their virtuousness. | ||
It´s very unlikely that the players had to run from the police, survive in a forest, beg for food and watch after their little brother at the same time ever before. In addition to that, they must deal with their father´s death and figuring out how to | It´s very unlikely that the players had to run from the police, survive in a forest, beg for food and watch after their little brother at the same time ever before. In addition to that, they must deal with their father´s death and figuring out how to talk about that with Daniel. Also, one plays as a half-mexican, bisexual, sixteen-year-old boy on the run. It´s a kind of “extreme-situation”, where many priorities want to be first, but only a few can and have to. | ||
For example: Player 1 made the experience in their life, that people often have much food left and that it´s not a shame to ask stranger for some of it. They would easily ask the family in episode one for some food. Player 2 learned that begging is a real shame, embarrassing and “the lowest of the low”. With this state of mind, he would never ask the family and | For example: Player 1 made the experience in their life, that people often have much food left and that it´s not a shame to ask stranger for some of it. They would easily ask the family in episode one for some food. Player 2 learned that begging is a real shame, embarrassing and “the lowest of the low”. With this state of mind, he would never ask the family and would rather steal some food from the gas station. For player 1 is stealing way worse than just asking for food, because it´s illegal. Player 2 thinks, that the gas station makes enough money and it won´t hurt if something is missing. At least he does ot have to do something embarrassing like begging. | ||
Both decisions are in a grey area but make Daniel to two completely different | Both decisions are in a grey area but make Daniel to two completely different kinds of a person. | ||
The cultural, ethical background such as the experiences of the | The cultural, ethical background such as the experiences of the players influence the game and their decisions. In addition to that, there is a big ''Life Is Strange'' Community, what discusses every possibility. This kind of interaction influences the player as well. | ||
LiS2 and all the other ''Life Is Strange'' games are very instructive in terms of moral and philosophy of life. LiS1 was even played and discussed in religion class.<ref>reli.ch: Ethik und Moral in Games – eine Unterrichtseinheit mit Life is Strange, URL: <nowiki>https://www.reli.ch/ethik-und-moral-in-games-eine-unterrichtseinheit-mit-life-is-strange/</nowiki></ref> | ''LiS2'' and all the other ''Life Is Strange'' games are very instructive in terms of moral and philosophy of life. ''LiS1'' was even played and discussed in a religion class.<ref>reli.ch: Ethik und Moral in Games – eine Unterrichtseinheit mit Life is Strange, URL: <nowiki>https://www.reli.ch/ethik-und-moral-in-games-eine-unterrichtseinheit-mit-life-is-strange/</nowiki></ref> | ||
The ending of the game is determined by the individual perception of moral, what influences the decisions. If the players are not satisfied with their story ending, it could encourage them to question their moral and decisions and even to play the game one more time. Like that, the players could discover, what influences their moral perceptions had on the story and maybe change them to the better. <br /> | The ending of the game is determined by the individual perception of moral, what influences the decisions. If the players are not satisfied with their story ending, it could encourage them to question their moral and decisions and even to play the game one more time. Like that, the players could discover, what influences their moral perceptions had on the story and maybe change them to the better. <br /> | ||
| Line 191: | Line 191: | ||
===Ethnic Studies=== | ===Ethnic Studies=== | ||
The game shows the life of a half-mexican teenager in the USA, where he has to face many racist encounters. Starting by the fact, he has to run from the police, because his father was shot by the police who racially profiled him. By letting the player experience what harm and pain these can cause, it criticizes the American society. LiS2 emphasises the problems of racism. | The game shows the life of a half-mexican teenager in the USA, where he has to face many racist encounters. Starting by the fact, he has to run from the police, because his father was shot by the police who racially profiled him. By letting the player experience what harm and pain these can cause, it criticizes the American society. ''LiS2'' emphasises the problems of racism. | ||
===[[Immersion and Involvement]]=== | ===[[Immersion and Involvement]]=== | ||
The fact, that the Life is Strange games are so popular are also influenced by their immersion in the games. Through their relatable a tragic narratives such as the fitting music it makes it immersive for the players. The Life Is Strange community consists of making game theories and talking about latest games, because they seize players. | The fact, that the Life is Strange games are so popular are also influenced by their immersion in the games. Through their relatable a tragic narratives such as the fitting music it makes it immersive for the players. The Life Is Strange community consists of making game theories and talking about latest games, because they seize players. | ||
== References == | |||
[[Category:Games]] | [[Category:Games]] | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
Revision as of 13:10, 28 September 2020
Life Is Strange 2 is the long-awaited sequel from Life Is Strange, one of the most popular indie-adventures of the last decade. The game series is famous for thematizing queer topics, difficult choice-making, immersive storytelling, and providing the player with a sense of agency. This Wiki will be focusing on these research topics.
About the Game
Life Is Strange 2 (LiS2) is a graphic adventure game developed by Dontnod Entertainment and published by Square Enix. The game is the sequel of Life Is Strange and plays in the same diegetic universe as Life Is Strange: Before the Storm and The Awesome Adventures of Captain Spirit. It is available for Windows, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Linux and macOS. The story is narrated in five sequential episodes which were published from June 2018 to December 2019. The player follows the Diaz-brothers on their escape from the police to Mexico, after their father was shot by a officer through no fault of his own.
After the death of their father, the brothers Sean and Daniel Diaz run away from home. In fear of the police they are trying to reach Puerto Lobos in Mexico, the hometown of their deceased father. On their escape they encounter many difficulties of social matter, but the greatest challenges come to light when Sean realises his younger brother has a telekinetic power, which he is not able to control yet. Suddenly the sixteen-year-old, half Mexican teenager is responsible for Daniels safety and well-being as well as his education and upbringing. While Daniels power is rising, the player in the role as Sean must decide weather to steal or beg for food or how to spend the night in the wilderness. All that, while also trying to be a good example for his little brother, who is counting on Sean and will be influenced by the player´s decisions.
Research-relevant topics of the Game
Core Game Mechanics
LiS2 is a graphic, point-and-click adventure game. The players can explore the environment in a third person view by playing the protagonist Sean Diaz. They interact with objects and talk with non-player characters via dialog. It´s a closed world game, where the player must follow the main story quest but has the possibility to look around and examine characters and objects. Players explore the narrative by making decision concerning the plot. Depending on what they decided, the narrative evolves differently. Making decisions is the core game mechanic of LiS2, which gives the player a sense of agency. Therefore, the decisions will be highlighted in the following.
Decisions and agency
As the players must make many decisions throughout the game, they develop a sense of agency. Here one must divide between visible, invisible and substructure decisions. Florian Sprenger´s definition of microdecisions shows that control emerges from decision-making.[1] The person who is deciding controls the situation. If you transfer this thought onto videogames it means that agency and control can be gained with making a choice out of many possibilities.
Janet Murray says about agency that “when the things we do bring tangible results, we experience the second characteristic delight of electronic environments - the sense of agency. Agency is the satisfying power to take meaningful action and see the results of our decisions and choices.”[2]
But especially decision in games are based on a written script which determines the seemingly free choice-making. According to Claus Pias, every gameplay is subjected to a map which builds narrative and guides the player.
„Betrachtet man die Karten von Adventures und rekonstruiert die zugehörigen Spielwege, so wird deutlich, dass es sich nicht um Bäume handelt, sondern um zusammenhängende Graphen mit zwei ausgezeichneten Knoten, nämlich dem ersten Raum s und dem letzten Raum t“[3]
English: „If you look at the maps of adventures and reconstruct the matching game paths, it will be clear that there are no trees, but coherent graphs with two shown knots, namely the first room s and the last room t”
This kind of structure also lies under the narrative of LiS2. The players can decide and also experience the consequences of their actions, but all of that is limited through the substructural system. The narration is steady for most parts because of its narrative linearity.
For example, following situations are not changeable:
- The father’s death
- The plan to escape to Mexico
- Living with the grandparents, Cassidy and Finn or the mother for an episode
- The dog´s death
…and many more.
The way – or story – of the brothers is given. The player has only a few possibilities to change the narrative.
LiS2 has two levels. One is the space for players´ action where they can make visible and invisible decisions, which are responsible for slight changes in the story. The other level lies deeper and is the space for substructural decisions where the game´s system decides for the players on the basis of their visible and invisible actions, because the ending of the game depends on how the player behaves and communicates with Daniel. On the level of substructure are parameters, which assign behavior of the player to one of the possible endings. More to this point can be found under “substructural decisions”.
Visible Decisions
The visible decisions in LiS2 are shown clearly, when the game flow stops, the game “pauses”, and the player has unlimited time to decide for one of the shown choices. This kind of decision design often appears in situations, where the player must decide quickly in reality. The game takes away the used pressure of fast choice-making deliberately to force the players to really think about their decision. Like that, impulse decisions can be eliminated.
Invisible Decisions
Invisible means, that is it not visible for the players if the decision even has an impact on the story or if it is irrelevant. In contrary to the visible decisions, these are not clearly marked for the players. Only after a decision is taken, a wolf symbol on the right corner visualises/indicates that the action will have consequences. Often the players do not realise that they are doing something that the game remembers. There are also situations where the wolf symbol does not appear although the action will have an impact on the game. Not only dialog options but also quick-time-events and to investigate or not investigating objects, persons and the players´ environment belong to the invisible decisions. Especially the optional investigation can, but does not have to have consequences. The name “invisible decisions” is so justified. By this means, the game tells the players that everything they do or do not do could have consequences for the story, but it does not necessarily have to. Looking at the number of possible decisions, one can say that the players have agency playing LiS2. What kind of quality the decisions have will be discussed under “Fullerton´s decision scale”.
There is no difference between the visible and invisible decisions concerning the intensity of impact they have on the story. They are equally important.
Substructural Decisions
"Die Basis des Strukturmodells liegt auf der mechanischen 'Substrukturebene' [...] [Sie] kann also als die Summe aller möglichen Einzelaktionen eines Avatars begriffen werden"[4]
English: “The basis of the structure model lies on the mechanic ‘substructure-level’ […] [It] can be described as the sum of all possible individual actions of an avatar”
In Baumgartner´s substructure-model player-actions are located in microstructures, which are in turn located in macrostructures. The game registers the player´s actions and makes it dependent on that, how the game ends for them individually. In LiS2 exist seven different endings, which can be presented to the player. The substructural decision is not just a different kind of decision-making design like invisible and visible decision. Rather it is the case, that the substructure lies under the visible and invisible decisions. While these other choice-making possibilities are influencing the story slightly, every decision which applies to the substructure and decides the ending of the plot. By this means, the player can only influence the ending indirectly. The substructure of the game stays hidden for the player. Through visualising consequences with help of the wolf symbol the player can get a sense of the scope of his actions, but it will never be revealed how exactly the consequences – the substructure, the invisible decisions and visible decisions – work together.
In contrast to games like Silent Hill 2 or Metro 2033, LiS2 doesn´t keep track about things like the players movement activity. It focuses more about how the player raises Daniel and how he behaves as a role model.
There are two parameters on the substructure: Daniel´s moral and Daniel´s relationship to his brother.
If the players choose on the visible and invisible decision level options, which seem to be morally right, they will get an ending, where Daniel is a high moral person who wants to confess to the police. This means that not only one decision, but the sum of all of them are responsible for the individual end of the game.
This picture from a LiS2 blog on tumblr visualises this principle:
About the choice-table:
"Choice 1: Sean reminds Daniel that stealing is wrong, in every situation, and refuses to take money from an unattended wallet. Choice 2: Sean ‘borrows’ a can of cola from a store, to quench Daniel’s thirst, and promises he’ll send the store a couple of dollars in the mail when they get some money. Choice 3: Sean stays up late entertaining Daniel with bedtime stories, with wholesome morals, staving off his nightmares and helping him sleep through the night. Choice 4: Sean shoots a potential kidnapper in the arm with the man’s own gun, in order to save Daniel. Choice 5: An angry Sean blames Daniel for having to shoot the man."[6]
On the 29th of April in 2019 the Life Is Strange marketing team published a video, which explains the decision- and consequence-mechanics of all the Life Is Strange games and compares them to each other. In the end, it talks about the substructural decisions in LiS2.
"You could think of the choice and consequence system as not a single snowflake, but a collective of multiple flakes that end up transforming into a tranquille snowscape or a biting blizzard."[7]
Further Content of the Game
Consequences and enlightenment of the player
A wolf symbol on the right bottom corner visualizes if a choice has consequences. The players know if the consequences are relevant for Sean, Daniel or both by the different highlighted wolfs.
In the end of every episode the player finds out what the other players decided for. An internet connection is needed. The decisions are divided in “relevant for Daniel” and “relevant for Sean”.
Especially for the invisible decisions this feature is very interesting because it explains
- that there was a choice option. For example: If the players do not go to Daniel, who is trying to flit stones in episode one, then it will be counted as “Daniel didn´t learn how to flit stones” in the statistics later. The players decide against teaching Daniel without knowing this option. The players, who gives up on Daniel too early while teaching, gets the same result in the end.
- how a decision could affect the story in a different way to what the players could have known. Most of the choices are binary Yes/No options. For example: Sean goes for a swim or not. But in the statistics in the end it is revealed what would have happened, when the players decided differently. The scope reaches from unexpected haircut to death of a beloved character. If the players choose to go to sleep with Daniel and resist Sean´s wish to hang out with the others in episode three, they do not know what they had missed. The statistic explains that Sean could have gotten a haircut.
It is important to mention that the choice statistic does not reveal what the decisions are depending on and how they influence each other. Also, not every little consequence or difference in dialog is listed. So, the player is encouraged to discover these other options, even though most of them are shown in the end of every episode.
A complete list of all decisions in every episode and how they influence the narrative can be found on the fan made Life Is Strange Wiki:
https://life-is-strange.fandom.com/wiki/Choices_and_Consequences_(Season_2)
Tracy Fullerton´s Decision Scale
Tracy Fullerton wants to explore, which kind of choice is needed to make videogames interesting. She realizes that that the quality of a decision depends on its influence on the narration.
If one assumes that player-agency is needed to have a satisfying game experience, then a game is only allowed to have few “inconsequential” consequences. All kinds of choices of the decision scale are present in LiS2, but most of them are the ones on the lowest part of the pyramid. That is the critique point mentioned in “substructural decisions”. The many choices in LiS2 are at most “minor”, but have immediate consequence (for example in dialog options or quick-time-events). On the other hand, the scope of the consequence is little. Some choices have consequences through dialog options, funny commentary or external minor changes of the game figures. But if all decisions count as one big decision, they would be one “critical” decision regarding the final choice in the game.
The Ludonarrative Dissonance
"For Makedonski (2012) ludonarrative dissonance 'at its core' happens when the discourse conveyed through a game's story and environment contradicts the discourse underlying its gameplay. From this contradiction, according to him, the player becomes 'unimmersed' and 'disconnected' from the experience. Therefore, it comes back to the concept of emersion. To put it in other words, ludonarrative dissonance could be a state of emersion that is triggered by a semiotic mismatch between play and narration."[12]
„Wenn sich das Spiel selbst widerspricht"[13]
English: „When the game contradicts itself”
One can call it ludonarrative dissonance, when the narrative wants to tell a story, which gets discredited by the game mechanic. The Gain Magazine published an article about this problem. It takes the reboot of Tomb Rider from 2013 as an example. In this game, the narrative shows how uncomfortable and dreadful the protagonist – Lara Croft – feels when killing. But only a few minutes later – when the player starts to play as Lara – she is no longer portrayed as a woman who must kill unwillingly. The game mechanic (killing people to win the game) undermines the story (fear of killing). [13]
Problems also occur when games offer choice options to the players, which do not change the prefabricated narrative, even though they look like it. When the options are too far away from the written, not changeable story.
Frédérc Seraphine writes in his text Ludonarrative Dissonance: Is Storytelling About Reaching Harmony? about a possible solution for ludonarrative dissonance through “emergent narratives”.
"[Emergent narratives are] Games that don't have a specific story to tell, but offering many potentialities of stories to be experienced by the player.[12]
"Calleja betont damit, dass es sich bei diesen Geschichten [emergent narratives] also nicht um Narrationen handelt, die vom Medium ausgehen, die in seine Programmstruktur eingeschrieben sind, sondern um Narrationen, die dem Spiel vom Spielenden zugeschrieben werden, indem er die gespielte Ereignisfolge narrativ interpretiert und somit sein Spielerlebnis narrativiert."[14]
English: „Calleja emphasizes that these narratives [emergent narratives] are not narratives, which emerge from the written medium which is embedded in the structure of the program, but narratives, which are given to the games by the players by interpreting the played story and narrating the game-experiences.”
It´s not very likely, that there will be a ludonarrative dissonance between the game mechanic and the narration in LiS2, because – like most adventure-games – the mechanic consists of walking around, exploring the environment and talking to characters. But if one defines decision making itself as the game mechanic in LiS2, there can occur ludonarrative dissonance (for more information about defining decision making as a game mechanic one can read “Core game mechanics”).
The main emphasis of LiS2 lies on the raising, education and forming the character of the little brother. So, it must be questioned, if the decisions the player as Sean is making also have a conclusive effect on Daniel.
The Level of Visible and Invisible Decisions
If one examines the level of decisions the player deliberately makes through dialog-options and quick-time-events, one won´t find ludonarrative dissonance. If the player rebukes Daniel for swearing often, he will stop. If the player steals food in front of Daniel, he will also steal stuff. It gets more complicated when the substructure influences the decisions.
The Level of Substructural Decisions
Decisions will be influenced by two aspects: Daniel´s moral and his relationship with his brother.
The decisions the players make affect the parameters moral and brotherhood and will be also compared with the state of these parameters. Depending on this, the players will get the consequence. For example: If the player tells Daniel in episode five that he should punish the bounty hunters who captured them with his power, it depends on the state of Daniel´s moral if he gladly does it or refuses.The state of the moral depends on the decisions the player did earlier in the game.
Daniel´s development determines the whole story, because Daniel also reacts to the last decision the player makes (surrender or fight against the police) and changes it.
"Daniel's morality is the most important feature of how the endings unfold. At the end of the final episode, Sean will have to make a choice to either surrender or ask Daniel to use his powers to get the pair past a police blockade. The consequences of both of these choices are dependent on Daniel's morality, leading to four distinctly different endings. From there the other three endings are variants on these, caused by more minor choices made throughout the game. Daniel's morality is affected throughout the entire game by the player's actions as Sean. You're setting an example to your brother through the entire narrative, regardless of if you realized or not. His morality is directly tied to your own, so your choices need to be in line with what you wish for his."[15]
All seven endings are shown on the official Life Is Strange YouTube channel.
The ending with high brotherhood and high morality consists of Daniel throwing himself out of the car, because he does not want to be associated with his brother´s actions. In another ending, Daniel would lose his mind completely, drives the car by himself and kills many policemen to get to the other side of the mexican-american border. By this action, Sean – the protagonist – gets killed in the end. Even if the player chooses the unmoral options throughout the game, Daniel´s reaction doesn´t really fit the expectations the player has of him in the game.
There are four big different endings and three further variations of these four what results in seven different endings.
It is a problem, that the game can only offer “extreme” definite endings. LiS2 expects that the player raises Daniel to really high or low moral person as well as having a really good or bad relationship with him and LiS2 presents the player the suitable ending based on these parameters. But that´s not always the case.
If player 1 treats Daniel always badly and doesn´t care to raise him, it seems consecutively that he is being a brat in the end and refuses to surrender like Sean wants. Even though it seems a little bit extreme that he kills the policemen without hesitation (a kind of behaviour he didn´t do before). If player 2 sometimes jokes around with Daniel by frightening him and decides three out of five times for these kinds of options, which get revenge and lower Daniel´s moral, he gets the same ending as player 1. Player 1 can make much more sense out of his ending based on his actions then player 2, who didn´t expect this at all and experiences ludonarrative dissonance.
That is the case, because the substructural decisions must work with hard numbers. If the players decide, for example, out of the eleven decisions that influence the moral parameter, five times for the high moral alternative and six times for the low moral one, it results in an completely different Daniel than the one they were trying to form and got to know throughout the game. This worsens the game experience a lot.
Personal experience
It hurts me, that Daniel decides to throw himself out of the car, because he suddenly doesn´t want to be longer connected to his brother´s actions. I as a player was confused that this was the outcome of my efforts to have a high moral Daniel with high brotherhood. Just a few minutes before that, Daniel´s relationship to Sean was just fine. There were no signs of this kind of exaggerated behaviour. In my game experience it doesn´t make sense. That was one example of heavy ludonarrative dissonance.
In the and one does not say that LiS2 has a problem with ludonarrative dissonance. Yet, the ending is highly possible to cause frustration and incomprehension.
The Moral in LiS2
The goal in LiS2 is to make Daniel a high moral person (if players want to follow the predetermined way). For that to happen, players must be role models for him. But what is morally right and what is wrong? It is not always unambiguously. Players have their own idea of moral, which they bring into the game. Miguel Sicart examines the player´s moral and virtuousness when playing a game – their “ludic phronesis”.
"Ludic phronesis is, in this virtue ethics context, the operative ethical knowledge present in the act of playing games, which evaluates the morality of the player’s actions"[12]
Sicart tries to turn away from viewing the player as an unambiguous entity. Instead he defines them as a game-deciding being, who participates actively with their own moral standards and experiences.
"The presence of a player/user who actively engages with the system is crucial for understanding the ethical configuration of the game experience. Players are not passive receivers, and they are not just bots clicking on the button to get their ludic fix."[12]
If Sicart wants to examine the ethics in videogames, he must acknowledge the player’s “ludic phronesis”, what seems to be the ethical resource for interpreting game experiences. By defining players as virtuous beings with their own ideas of moral, they can be hold responsible for their game experience, not only the game itself, what builds the circumstances for it.
Sicart visualises his theory about the reciprocal influences of moral understanding of the player such as the game moral and other external forces by changing Hans-Georg Gadamer´s hermeneutic circle to a “lucic hermeneutic circle”.
The picture shows, that a person had a pre-understanding before he started reading a text. Out of that it becomes a text-understanding, what changes the pre-understanding to a new kind of understanding titled as V1. The new pre-understanding again influences the text again what results in a new text-understanding titled T1. This spiral goes on.
Sicart changes this idea to examine the relation between environment and player. There are four factors, which influence the game and each other. Like Gadamer´s circle, the factors change to newer version of themselves, which then influence the others to evolve as well.
"This dialogic procedure of interpretation of the game, along with the actions of the player within the game and the community and her relation to real life is what creates the ludic phronesis that informs the virtuous player. This includes the capacity of experiencing the game within the dialogic interpretational procedures of the ludic hermeneutic circle. Ludic phronesis is the ethical interpretation that takes place in the described stages of the ludic hermeneutic circle. It is a character trait and a knowledge that we develop."[18]
Is it possible that in LiS2 the players not only raise the little brother, but are also raised by the game itself?
The interesting part about LiS2 is, that there exists no right and wrong. Almost every decision is leading to a moral dilemma, what encourages the players to think about their ideas of rightness. Sometimes it even achieves to make the player questions their perceptions, because they must not only decide for themselves as Sean, but also have to think about Daniel. Indeed, there exists a moral parameter in the substructure what decides, which decisions are increasing the moral level, but it is not visible for the player. In addition, the “unmoral” decision does not have negative game mechanic consequences, only narrative ones. The game “raises” the player subtly. It brings them in a situation, where the “normal players” are not used to be, what forces them to deal with the situation depending on their virtuousness.
It´s very unlikely that the players had to run from the police, survive in a forest, beg for food and watch after their little brother at the same time ever before. In addition to that, they must deal with their father´s death and figuring out how to talk about that with Daniel. Also, one plays as a half-mexican, bisexual, sixteen-year-old boy on the run. It´s a kind of “extreme-situation”, where many priorities want to be first, but only a few can and have to.
For example: Player 1 made the experience in their life, that people often have much food left and that it´s not a shame to ask stranger for some of it. They would easily ask the family in episode one for some food. Player 2 learned that begging is a real shame, embarrassing and “the lowest of the low”. With this state of mind, he would never ask the family and would rather steal some food from the gas station. For player 1 is stealing way worse than just asking for food, because it´s illegal. Player 2 thinks, that the gas station makes enough money and it won´t hurt if something is missing. At least he does ot have to do something embarrassing like begging.
Both decisions are in a grey area but make Daniel to two completely different kinds of a person.
The cultural, ethical background such as the experiences of the players influence the game and their decisions. In addition to that, there is a big Life Is Strange Community, what discusses every possibility. This kind of interaction influences the player as well.
LiS2 and all the other Life Is Strange games are very instructive in terms of moral and philosophy of life. LiS1 was even played and discussed in a religion class.[19]
The ending of the game is determined by the individual perception of moral, what influences the decisions. If the players are not satisfied with their story ending, it could encourage them to question their moral and decisions and even to play the game one more time. Like that, the players could discover, what influences their moral perceptions had on the story and maybe change them to the better.
Related Research Approches
Queer Studies
In LiS2 the player takes the role of a bisexual protagonist. It is interesting to study how the game deals with that fact and what kind of reaction it gets in the community. Therefore, it intersects with the Queer Studies.
Ethnic Studies
The game shows the life of a half-mexican teenager in the USA, where he has to face many racist encounters. Starting by the fact, he has to run from the police, because his father was shot by the police who racially profiled him. By letting the player experience what harm and pain these can cause, it criticizes the American society. LiS2 emphasises the problems of racism.
Immersion and Involvement
The fact, that the Life is Strange games are so popular are also influenced by their immersion in the games. Through their relatable a tragic narratives such as the fitting music it makes it immersive for the players. The Life Is Strange community consists of making game theories and talking about latest games, because they seize players.
References
- ↑ Florian Sprenger (2015): Politik der Mikroentscheidungen: Edward Snowden, Netzneutralität und die Architekturen des Internets.
- ↑ Janet Murray (1997): Hamlet on the Holodeck, S. 126.
- ↑ Claus Pias (2000): Computer Spiel Welten, S. 174f.
- ↑ Robert Baumgartner (2016): Prozedurale Entscheidungslogik im Computerspiel, In: Franziska Ascher: Funktion, Inszenierung und Wandel von Entscheidung im Computerspiel, S. 262.
- ↑ https://lifeisstrange-blog.tumblr.com/post/188836949825/everything-you-need-to-know-about-daniel-in-life
- ↑ Life Is Strange Blog: Everything you need to know about Daniel in Life Is Strange 2, URL: https://lifeisstrange-blog.tumblr.com/post/188836949825/everything-you-need-to-know-about-daniel-in-life, aufgerufen am 13.07.20.
- ↑ https://youtu.be/Z6NAaMLwWNo
- ↑ https://life-is-strange.fandom.com/wiki/Wolf
- ↑ https://life-is-strange.fandom.com/wiki/Wolf
- ↑ https://life-is-strange.fandom.com/wiki/Wolf
- ↑ Tracy Fullerton (2019): Game Design Workshop, S. 354.
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Frédéric Seraphine (2016): Ludonarrative Dissonance: Is Storytelling About Reaching Harmony?, S. 3. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name ":0" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 13.0 13.1 Nora, Gain (Games Inside) Magazin (05.10.2018): Selbstreferentialität und Grenzüberschreitung – Walk the Line, URL:https://www.gain-magazin.de/selbstreferentialitaet-und-grenzueberschreitung-walk-the-line/
- ↑ Kai Matuszkiewicz (2017): Wer erzeugt die Geschichte? Mediale und personale Narrationen in digitalen Spielen, URL: https://www.textpraxis.net/kai-matuszkiewicz-wer-erzeugt-die-geschichte
- ↑ Helen Ashcroft (2019): Life Is Strange 2: All 7 Endings And How To Unlock Them, URL: https://www.thegamer.com/life-is-strange-2-all-7-endings-guide/
- ↑ Uni Duisburg-Essen: Hermeneutik des NT - Der Entwurf von Peter Stuhlmacher, URL: https://www.uni-due.de/~gev020/studweb/einwaller-stuhlmacher-hermeneutik5.htm
- ↑ Uni Duisburg-Essen: Hermeneutik des NT - Der Entwurf von Peter Stuhlmacher, URL: https://www.uni-due.de/~gev020/studweb/einwaller-stuhlmacher-hermeneutik5.htm
- ↑ Miguel Sicart (2009): The Ethics of Computer Games, S. 122.
- ↑ reli.ch: Ethik und Moral in Games – eine Unterrichtseinheit mit Life is Strange, URL: https://www.reli.ch/ethik-und-moral-in-games-eine-unterrichtseinheit-mit-life-is-strange/