Week 9&10: Hocking & Sicart

[Ed Chang]

As we touched on in class, the central "issue" with Bioshock -- as a game, as a story, and as an object of analysis -- is the tensions that both Hocking and Sicart identify:

--between Randian objectivist desire and programmatic/gamic logics of choice/unchoice
--between game mechanics and narrative conventions
--between player expectations and game play
--between all of the above

Hocking says, "Bioshock seems to suffer from a powerful dissonance between what it is about as a game, and what it is about as a story" (par. 4).  In other words, this dissonance, this tension is between the "ludic contract" (playing the game and game mechanics) and "narrative contract" (story and expectations of how stories work). 

I am most interested in the moment where Hocking reveals his frustration, distress, and even petulance: "The leveraging of the game's narrative structure against its ludic structure all but destroys the player's ability to feel connected to either, forcing the player to either abandon the game in protest (which I almost did) or simply accept the game cannot be enjoyed as both game and a story, and to then finish it for the mere sake of finishing it" (par. 4).

How might we see this as an unwarranted and unfair critique?  And how might we see Hocking want to naturalize the idea that games and narrative have to be seamless?  How might we understand that narrative of a video game as a different kind of narrative altogether from reading a novel, let's say, or watching a film?   Why is that useful and necessary?

On the other hand, Sicart actually understands the tensions set up by Bioshock, by foiling the expectations that the game will fulfill the player's Randian Objectivist dream of being able to do almost whatever they want, to gather resources, to get more powerful, and to win.  The killing of Ryan sequence "is precisely [the] intense maniuplation of player agency that makes this sequence in Bioshock an interesting successful ethical experience" (155).  He is interested how the taking away of player/character agency forces the player to "think" and to "reflect."  He also faults the other ethical choice mechanic around the Little Sisters as less successful, less powerful.   he says, "[T]he Little Sister mechanic turns out to be an incomplete implementation of an ethical mechanic due to the misinterpretation of the game's weight as a designed system in the ethical configuration of the player and her relations with the game world" (159). 

Is the Little Sister mechanic such a gross failure?  How might we read the Little Sister "choice" as being as limited and as agency-removing as the Ryan mechanic?  Is it true that "it taunts the values of the player...there is no meaning attached to the choice, and the player sees her own ethical agency deprived of any content or capacities" (161)?  And how might that actually be doing the same work that the Ryan mechanic is doing?

These are the kinds of questions (and you may pose others) that are the central conceit of the whole game and the whole course.  All of the readings, all of the game play, and all of the discussions end in this tussle -- cyborg morality and posthuman choice -- intensified by technologies that are all about choice.  The game narrative tells you that technology is about choice, about power, so you use plasmids.  The game itself tells you that technology is about choice, about agency, so you are given menus, actions, quests, buttons, controllers, point of view, save points, and so on.  And even the computer/console that you play on is also about choice and power and freedom, so you are given access, cyberspace, technological liberation (and all of the narratives that go along with it).  Finally, the culture is also ostensibly about choice, morality, agency, and power, so you are given individualism, liberal humanism, democracy, and free will.  How does Bioshock navigate these shoals and depths?  And why might that be important? 

[WillyC]

I think that we can say quite indisputably that a great single-player video game connects game mechanics with the narrative very well; in other words, there is no 'dissonance between what it is about as a game, and what it is about as a story', and the two work to complement each other. Hocking views Bioshock as a game that failed miserably at this aspect. However, as we discussed in class, his critique is unwarranted because of two reasons:
1) his argument leaves out details that might otherwise contradict his argument
2) he (possibly) misinterprets the what the game and story is about

Here, I want to focus on the second of these points. Hocking says the there is a dissonance because the game is about Randian objectivism, and having the power to choose, but the narrative takes choice away from you. Of course, this seems like a dissonance, but (perhaps?) that is precisely what the game AND narrative is about; the conflict between freedom and control, ideals and reality. After all, I don't think the game is about Randian objectivism, but actually its flaws. For example, in the intro scene where we first enter Rapture, we hear Andrew Ryan speak of Rapture, and it seems like a utopian and place where great things could happen (at least I felt that way), but as soon as we get there, we are greeted by a city in ruins with psychotic people. This dissonance makes us think about the game, because it shows a confusing and logical inconsistency; on the one hand, it sounds like a great idea. On the other hand, it obviously has flaws. Whenever we are faced with something that doesn't make sense, or is not as we expect, we think about the situation and what is happening. Another example is the Andrew Ryan death scene. This scene addresses the issue of control vs. freedom. When this scene occurs, it breaks our expectations of how the game and story is progressing, and we are forced to think about what has happened. Most of us like to think that we are in control of our lives and decisions, but how much control do we really have? I think this idea brought up by the Andrew Ryan scene not only pertain to the game, but is meant to extend to our society and reality.

[Zamboni_Rider]

I would agree with Hocking in that, in fact, joining ludic structure and narrative structure is very important in a game like Bioshock. A big part of the experience is the story itself. The ethical parts of playing Bioshock, as well as the story behind the game are just as important as the gameplay itself, and it's clear to me that just as much thought went into each. In such a game, I believe the fact that story and game relate is very important. It allows the experience to function as a connected whole rather than just two separate pieces. They need to be joined together for the game to be great.

However, where I disagree with Hocking is in what he considers to be the plot and theme of the game. He seems to think that the only focus is on Randian Objectivism. While that is a big issue that the game discusses, it's hardly the only one. Like Willy said, the narrative is also about having the power to choose. The fact that the game takes this ability away from you is very significant, both to the story and the gameplay. Hocking sees the relation to the gameplay, but his main objection to the mechanic is that it detracts from the story. I would argue that it adds to it. By taking away free will, the game brings up a lot of ethical points and also significantly progresses the story.

Hocking also seems to think the player should embody Randian Objectivism until the very end. From the start of the game, we are presented with a world which used this philosophy and shown how it failed. If Randian Objectivism failed the people of Rapture so, what would it say if our character used its beliefs and succeeded at doing so. It would be a valid way to tell the story, but would send a very different message from the one that Bioshock currently sends. The narrative would be very different, and the game entirely different by extension.

It seems like Hocking gets all this and more. He definitely understands the multilayered ethical messages Bioshock intends to give, and I agree with all he says. He is, at least in my opinion, correct about the Little Sisters. While the twist where freedom of choice is retroactively revoked causes a lot of reflection on the player's part, the little sisters do not do this. At that point in the game, all I and most other players considered is what is the "correct" option for them -- which will get them the best ending and rewards. We don't think about the fates of the Little Sisters at all, we'd kill them in a second if it would get us better guns. While this may be not true in some cases, like the few you presented in class, it is true in most. In this sense, the Little Sisters failed. We aren't presented with an ethical decision, we're presented with a decision of which path gives us more rewards. Without the context of a class like this, none of us would likely have morally reflected on the Little Sisters at all.

[redoleander]

I personally rather liked what Hocking had to say about the Little Sisters. As I was playing the game, I had a very similar reaction. I felt like this choice could have be emphasized by having bigger advantages, or consequences to choosing either side.  I felt like more explaining should have been done, to allow us to know whether the Little Sisters would even have somewhere to go, if we did save them. It just seemed like this could have been a good moral question, but ended up being rather pointless, because it doesn't really matter what you choose, except at the very end.

However, it also doesn't make sense that he seems to understand the lack of choice that occurs in the "twist" in the game, but doesn't understand the little sisters.  In the game, what choices do you really have? Is it really any different that the Little Sisters end up not being much of a choice at all?  I think perhaps it's just disappointment. You want to think that you have one aspect of this game in which you truly control, something that will make a vast difference, however it doesn't. While this could be disappointing, it also simply goes along with the game.

I believe that Hocking's criticism is interesting, and valid, but I also think that are many other interpretations. If you simply interpret the meaning of the game differently, you're not going to see the dissonance that Hocking talks about. As mentioned earlier in the thread, if the game is really about the lack of choice, or the illusion of options, and freedom, then the game and the story do meld together well.  However, I don't think there's one true answer as to what this game is really about. You can look at it a thousand different ways, and none of them are wrong, or unwarranted, they are just simply different opinions.

-Micaela Petty

[Norin1]

>How might we see this as an unwarranted and unfair critique? How might we understand that narrative of a video game as a different kind of narrative altogether from reading a novel, let's say, or watching a film?   Why is that useful and necessary?<

I think it's a bit unfair mainly b/c some games, like this one, try to both entertain and tell a story. To say that it can not do both at the same time seems a bit unfair especially when I personally didn't feel that the game really does split between game and story that much.

The issue with the narrative of a game compared to a novel or a film is that the player is involved. The player has to be drawn in and kept in as an active participant instead of a passive observer.  Thus, we can't treat it in the same way that we treat static mediums like novel and film where the experiencer has no input or interaction with the work.

[paaze]

The issue with the narrative of a game compared to a novel or a film is that the player is involved. The player has to be drawn in and kept in as an active participant instead of a passive observer.  Thus, we can't treat it in the same way that we treat static mediums like novel and film where the experiencer has no input or interaction with the work.

I disagree.  In both literature and film, the reader/watcher is performing an active role.  S/he is actively interpreting what s/he reads or sees and making it his or her own.

How might we understand that narrative of a video game as a different kind of narrative altogether from reading a novel, let's say, or watching a film?   Why is that useful and necessary?

I think that at its core a video game narrative is a set of coded rules that the player interacts with.  Contrast this with a book, which is a set of words that the reader interacts with.  Or a film, which is a set of frames...

Hocking really wants to separate game play and storyline.  I don't know if this is a fair thing to do; it seems like the storyline IS the game play.  That is, it's part of the framework the developers put together when designing the game.  Or: the storyline is part of the rules.

-Jeff

[Matthew Kaplan]

Pazze,

I can definitely see what you're saying. Whenever you begin to disassemble a complex system the divisions are sometimes arbitrary. However, gameplay and static narrative can be separated. The static narrative is that which is unchanging - not the narrative created by gameplay. Whenever a set, non-dynamic, non-interactive event happens in a game (which are often used for narrative purposes) I believe we can separate those from gameplay. By its very nature, gameplay is dynamic and thus can be separated from anything static. Now internally, the player is generating narrative in themselves as they play. When a player enters a gunfight in Halo there is no fixed outcome or fixed choreography of their crosshair on the screen and so dynamic narrative is being generated. But there is a distinct separation between those two types of narrative and I believe that whenever narrative in games has been talked about in relation to other medium its being spoken of in its static form (or even large choice driven narrative ala choose your own adventure form).