Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arch-Fiend" data-source="post: 7842076" data-attributes="member: 7016641">so to be honest you use a lot of words i cant exactly understand what you mean when you put together in your first 2 paragraphs in response to me, so im going to have to try and interpret them as best as i can. what i think you are arguing is if we should put the owness on the game for our interpretation of narrative elements in gameplay, essentially the idea being; and this is where its fundamental to the definition of ludonarrative gameplay, while we may interpret a narrative from the purely story elements of a game and a narrative from the purely gameplay elements of the game, we have no way personally of knowing if what inconsistencies given when comparing the 2 together are intentional inconsistency to ultimately form the narrative of the story or the result of the designers accidentally creating such inconsistencies due to poor forethought on how the narrative to their story and the gameplay reflect each other.ei: the game's story is telling you one thing while the games mechanics are clearly telling you something else, but you as the player are suppose to realize this is the story of the game acting as an unreliable source of narration.the first instance of the use of the term ludonarrative dissonance in game critisism comes from this article. <a href="https://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html" target="_blank">Ludonarrative Dissonance in Bioshock</a> now i havent read this article because ive never played the game in question, however what i do know off the top of my head is a more recent instance of it in videogames from the 2013 tomb raider where your character struggles to self defend herself by killing another person and is very emotionally distressed by it to an uncomfortable to watch degree (many people react this way when they have to defend themselves to this extreme) then seconds later the game expects you to go around like a typical FPS shooting hundreds of people with no effect on gameplay by what the story just presented to you.either the story narrative and gameplay narrative are intentionally inconsistent in order to formulate a story under-narrative, the story and gameplay narratives are accidentally inconsistent due to poor oversight by game design, or we inject our own interpretations of story narrative or gameplay narrative when it isint even there. the last option would be the folly of the critic and i think that if the critic is going to be at folly they are just as valid a target of criticism as the game.i do think it is valid to use the concept of ludonarrative dissonance in game critique however because while game may create intentional inconsistency in the story in relation to the narration of the gameplay its undoubted that that there will be games that do this unintentionally, and if we dont question it at all we will never know for sure. our general knowledge about the world will have been less if we choose to stifle our questioning of the world around us simply because we might be wrong about what we think is consistentwhen i say "these 2 mechanics tell different narratives about what is happening yet the game requires them to depend on each other and thus their narratives must also align as the mechanics themselves are abstractions of a narrative event" im also asking the game to provide an answer for how they might not be inconsistent, and if it has a good answer then my criticism is defused even if what is posed is information i couldn't have had before the answer was given.ill say now i could have constructed this argument better but for the life of me i have no idea where to start if i were to reorganize it, so i tried my best, i hope im understandable.you did point that out, its why i liked your comment and why i ultimately wrote an errata which is on my first post nowwhy do you think the fabulist stance is the only stance that is viable for rpgs?</blockquote>

Verification