University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Try again: the paradox of failure

(USC Thesis Other)

Try again: the paradox of failure

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content T ry Again
The Paradox of Failure
by
Adam Morina
A Thesis Presented to the
A F ACUL TY OF THE USC SCHOOL OF CINEMA TIC AR TS
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF FINE AR TS
(INTERACTIVE MEDIA)
May 2023
Dedication
This work is dedicated to Carina, Sally , T ony & my cohort. Thank you for believing in me even
when I do not.
ii
Acknowledgements
I am extremely grateful and would like to acknowledge many people. The first are my incredible
faculty Laird Malamed, Martzi Campos, Jim Huntley , Andy Nealen, Danny Bilson, Richard
Lemarchand and Lesley Matheison who have mentored and guided me throughout the process of
developing T ry Again both in thesis research, writing and production within the Advanced Gam es
Project.
Furtherm ore I would like to extend m y gratitude to m y professional m entors Aaron Martin & Anooop
Shekar . W ithout their guidance, input and trust, this project would not have been possible or successful. I
would also like to thank Jake Parm ley , Mari Kyle, Gabe Gonzalez, Gary Conti and the entirety of the
Rockstar San Diego and New E ngland team s.
I am incredibly grateful and would like to thank m y m asterful team . W ithout you all, T ry A gain would not
exist and I would not have such an incredible fam ily of friends. T hank you all for the am azing work you
continue to do. I am especially grateful to Abigail Nakaishi, Adrian L opez, Dexter Knaack, Shravan
Kum ar , Jason Chen, T ai Nguyen, E dwin L eon Du, Akshata Nagendra, T im othy L im , E ggsy Z hang, Mi
Coz, and Y ong Z hang.
T hank you to the USC Gam es ‘23 MF A/MS Cohort. Y ou are all brilliant and I cannot wait to see what
you all accom plish in your careers after the work on your beautiful thesis gam es.
Finally , I want to thank Carina, Sally & T ony for their support + love. L ove you all.
iii
T able of Contents
Dedication………………………………………………………………………………………ii
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………….iii
List of Figur es…………………………………………………………………………………..iv
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………v
Chapter 1: Motivation…………………………………………………………………………1
1.1 Project Description………………………………………………………………….1
1.2 Core Loop………..………………………………………………………………….1
1.3 Design Goals………………………………………………………………………..1
1.4 Early Design Understanding………………………………………………………...2
Chapter 2: Inspiration…………………………………………………………………………3
2.1 Inside & Mirror ’ s Edge……………………………………………………………..3
2.2 Framing Failure through design…………………………………………………….4
2.3 Design Pillars………………………………………………………………………..4
2.4 Experience Goals……………………………………………………………………4
Chapter 3: Foundations of Failur e……………………………………………………………5
3.1 Explaining The Paradox of Failure………………………………………………….5
3.2 Design Structure…………………………………………………………………….6
3.3 Narrative Structure………………………………………………………………….7
Chapter 4: Figur e It Out……………………………………………………………………...8
4.1 Rewinding…………………………………………………………………………..8
4.2 Mechanics…………………………………………………………………………..9
4.3 Level Design………………………………………………………………………..10
4.4 Designing Level Changing…..……………………………………………………..1 1
Chapter 5: Designing Failur e………………………………………………………………...12
5.1 Empathy in playtests……………………………………………………………….13
5.2 Usability……………………………………………………………………………14
5.3 Death to elicit empathy…………………………………………………………….15
5.4 Bleeding in games………………………………………………………………….17
Chapter 6: The Paradox of Failur e…………………………………………………………...18
6.1 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..18
6.2 Summary of Points………………………………………………………………….19
6.3 Detailing the Paradox of Failure……………………………………………………20
List of Figur es
Figure 1 - Original T ry Again Prototype……………………………………………………..16
Figure 2 - Narrative driven Gameplay moment……………………………………………...20
Figure 3 - Death without impact……………………………………………………………..21
Figure 4 - Colliders of f to make death more impactful………………………………………22
iv
Thesis Statement
Death (or failure) is an integral aspect of the player experience in video games. T ypically , as
humans, we do not seek out failure. Rarely in life will one approach a goal with the intention of
failing. W e rarely make decisions that we expect to end in failure. Success is hardwired into our
DNA. V ideo games create a paradox. Although failure is not something we seek out, we are
drawn to games because the experience of perseverance without consequence is so alluring. But
in most modern games, there is no relationship between player failure and character experience.
This has diluted interactive storytelling’ s unique narrative voice to one that emulates cinematic
storytelling. Interactive narrative provides players with agency to define their personal
relationship to the story . Many games have modeled their narrative after a cinematic style which
is not interactive storytelling. In my meta-thesis action game titled, T ry Again, I sought to define
this relationship. The goal: create a protagonist/player dynamic that actively encourages the
player to empathize with the protagonist when they fail during the game by involving the player
as a character within the project.
Abstract
This thesis attempts to provide a unique approach to narrative driven action games by connecting
player failure to protagonist death diegetically through the lens of our project, T ry Again.
Throughout this thesis, I will of fer bits of data attained through user feedback, and formal RITE
method playtesting. Primarily , I will use Jesper Juul’ s analysis of video game failure called, The
Paradox of Failur e, to illustrate the current state of video game death, and how it can be
expanded to heighten its voice within interactive storytelling.
v
Chapter 1: Motivation
In February of 2022 (this exact time last year), I felt a sense of overwhelming doubt. Prototypes I
had built weren’ t exciting, a character I was trying to craft felt hollow . Feeling the pressure to
deliver a good idea, a strong sense of “masterpiece syndrome,” began creeping into my head.
W ith a thesis project, like in video games, failure is objective, and guaranteed. Did your game
succeed? Are the questions posed of value to the medium? Out of ideas, I turned to an
assignment given to us by our Professor Laird Malamed, called the 5 Minute Experience (a
simple narrative assignment). I wrote two, the first, a VR Rewind Puzzle Detective game based
of f of a VR rewind prototype I made, did not turn out as I had hoped. Fed up with the process of
thesis, prototyping & ideating, I felt that I had failed. But this failure was dif ferent from the
repetitive failure of the games I was studying. Players are blessed with second chances. In our
favorite games, Red Shirt Kid from Playdead’ s Inside, Crash from Naughty Dog’ s Crash
Bandicoot, or Joel in Naughty Dog’ s The Last of Us are blessed with the ability to survive death.
But that means they must die over and over . They become “Dummies” for player failure. In a
strange sense, this is how I felt. I wrote a small narrative piece about a character named, Benny ,
stuck in a game by a Designer who can’ t finish the game herself. Because of her own fear of
failure, the character is forced to die again and again for player enjoyment.
Throughout this paper I will outline a concept developed by games scholar Jesper Juul in his
Essays on the Pain of Playing V ideo Games: The Art of Failur e. The Paradox of Failure is
outlined below:
1. W e generally avoid failure.
2. W e experience failure when playing games.
3. W e seek out games, even though we expect to experience something that we
normally avoid.
The Paradox of Failure is important to understand when asking interactive narrative focused
questions. Jef frey Y ohalem, narrative director at Ubisoft, describes game narrative as, “The
player feeling the way you want them to feel means you’re telling a story .” Players experience a
whirlwind of emotion when battling through tough situations in games. Development studio,
From Software has specifically designed games like Sekir o to embrace the idea of achievement
through repetitive failure. But with this, narratively , there still exists a separation between player
1
and character . Player is awarded a chance to try again, but in doing so, kills the character that
they are supposed to be in sync with. Current video death narrative states create an emotional
wall between player and character . My goal was to remove that wall.
2
Chapter 2: Inspiration
My initial thesis prototypes focused on time mechanics, specifically , mimicking the analog
rewind of Braid or The Prince of Persia: Sands of T ime in a V irtual Reality set up. I built
multiple prototypes using rewinding as the primary mechanic. An example of this is a “God of
W ar” style cube throw I built in Unreal Engine. The player is able to pick up a cube, and throw it
as a weapon. If they hold the left pad button on the Oculus controller , the cube could be recalled.
If you press the bottom button, the entire scene (simple zombie enemies walking towards the
player) would rewind. After much consideration, I chose not to build my thesis in VR. The
continued mechanical idea always involved analog time manipulation. In theory , I wanted to
force the player to find empathy for their failure by watching the character rewind back through
the pain and to share in the frustration of having to try again. The process began with platformer
prototypes, involving the player escaping a collapsing building and rewinding back. I then added
a voice over of myself (as the character), complaining that it hurt to rewind. My goal: Force
players to put down the controller . Did this work? No. Juul outlines in The Paradox of Failur e:
“The Paradox of Failure could also be called, “Why am I doing this?” When experiencing an
unpleasant failure in a game, yet desperately wanting to continue playing, why do I want to
experience something that I also do not want to experience? This paradox of failure is why we
submit ourselves to tragedies, but the dif ferences give some hints as to how video games dif fer
from more established forms of culture. The paradox of failure concerns the concrete activity of
playing a game and having our performance measured by the game.”
Engagement, and agency is the singular voice video games provide to experiencers through
interactive storytelling. W e seek tragedy to empathize, feel, and connect to the “human
experience.” In games, we seek success through failure by defeating a challenging foe or
building bases on a hostile planet. Games by nature are a strange dichotomy . They are forms of
entertainment, and modern entertainment requires some form of storytelling. But games by
nature are skill tests. Chess, League of Legends and Basketball all fall under the category of
game. Film has used games to tell great sports stories, but by nature, sports do not tell the
experiencer a story . Story is formed by playing or observing the game and feeling an emotional
connection to the participants. As explained by Y ohalem, a story can exist from a feeling towards
3
an experience. As interactive storytelling has found its singular narrative voice, games like Outer
W ilds give you the tools to chart your own path to the story the developers have set up.
Over the last decade with technological advancements, a genre of AAA games has formed that
embraces cinematic storytelling tropes, and has the player controlling for the action sequences.
While this has been done with great success (God of W ar , The Last of Us), I struggle to define
these games as interactive storytelling, falling under the category of cinematic storytelling. There
is a disconnect between player and character . If they fail, the player watches a death cinematic
and starts back at the beginning. But when they move forward, eventually succeeding, the
protagonist’ s death means nothing, creating a disconnect between player and character . The goal
of T ry Again: Create a kinetic and challenging game that uses a self-aware protagonist, and
antagonist who both recognize, diegetically , the player controlling the game. My thesis questions
posed:
- Can a player feel a sense of empathy when the protagonist inevitably dies and is forced to
try again?
- V ideo death is a key part of the player experience, how do we elevate the state of death
and integrate it into the narrative/character experience?
My process in answering these questions for this thesis is or ganized into four chapters:
In Foundations of Failur e - W e will break down the details of T ry Again and our design
intentions, goals and implementation as they relate to The Paradox of Failur e.
In Figur e It Out - I will outline the design and production methods used to define the concepts of
failure.
In Designing Failur e - W e will break down the design intentions and usability feedback to create
a sense of empathy towards the protagonist.
Last is The Paradox of Failur e - Which will be used to detail the layers of failure required to
develop a video game & how it relates to Jesper Juul’ s essay .
4
Chapter 3: Foundations of Failur e
T ry Again is a 2.5d, fast-paced, platformer about a video game temp character named Benny who
has been trapped in an unfinished game by a mysterious, self-doubting figure called The
Designer . The Designer is under a fast-approaching deadline from her publisher , and under
pressure to deliver a hit game, she’ s questioning her work more than ever . Benny wants to no
longer test and move onto the final build. This story is integral to the core question of T ry Again,
and asks a narrative question unique to video games. V ideo games are not passive observation as
in film, television, visual art or any major artform of the last two centuries. Games are “the true
empathetic art form.” W e must factor in someone else while developing; player experience and
sensation. But as an audience, we do not empathize with the characters we control. Y es, we feel a
sense of care for them, as we would in any book, film or song. Our care for them is counteracted
by a direct conflict, the stereotypical goal in action games: survive, kill, make progress. In order
to make progress we must try , fail & try again. In The Art of Failur e Juul develops a game for
testing, a cross between Pac-Man and Snake. He sets up a simple network and asks 8 strangers to
come play with him, asking them to rate the game on a scale of 1-10. Those that did not
complete the game, and completed the game without losing lives both rated the hybrid a 4, but
those who completed the game and lost some lives, rated the game 6-7. As he writes in his
Essays on the Pain of Playing V ideo Games: The Art of Failur e. This confirms the intuition that
though we try to avoid failure while playing, failure nevertheless gives a positive contribution to
our violation of a game. There is something in games that we appear not to enjoy but that
coincides with us appreciating a game more. Unfortunately this study also demonstrates that the
failure paradox exists but does not solve it. (Juul 95) W ith this in mind, the experience goals of
T ry Again were steered towards achieving the goals set in pre-production:
1. Players will feel like David in a David vs. Goliath story , narrowly escaping collapsing
rooms, running along walls, and jumping across disappearing platforms.
2. Players will develop a newfound empathy for the suf fering of in-game characters who are
forced to die repeatedly for their enjoyment.
These goals seek to re-evaluate our perception of death towards a character in a video game,
5
through the lens of an action movie style, fast paced experience. Ideally , the player will feel like
they are in Mission Impossible as they narrowly navigate the chaotic levels. The pillars for T ry
Again were defined as:
Pillars:
Spectacle Platforming
- Run, Jump, Crawl, W all Run, V ault and Slide through platforming challenges that
evolve and change as The Designer adjusts the unfinished.
- Fake Bugs such as lighting mistakes or collapsing rooms create unique platformer
obstacles.
- Solve fast-paced puzzles through trial and error .
Destructible Levels
- Levels can and will collapse randomly on top of the player . This goes double for walls,
floors and everything else.
- Satirical conflict drives the “unfinished element” of the game.
- Inside meets Stanley Parable with Parkour.
Fast Paced Action/Dynamic Levels
- Game is fast paced, each level can collapse at any moment.
- Use extensive parkour abilities to move quickly through the challenges of the facility .
- The facility is broken, and falling apart - the facility itself must feel like a character
that is evolving, falling apart and changing. This creates a visual spectacle that
immediately thrusts players into the role of an action star .
Narrative Structur e:
T ry Again features a video game crash-test dummy named Benny . Benny has been trapped for a
long time in an unfinished game by an Oz-like figure called, The Designer . Thankfully , today is
Benny’ s last day on the job, because the final build is due for The Designer . She is on a tight
deadline from her publisher and feels anxious about what she’ s created and is filled with
self-doubt . Benny believes that this will be his last day testing & he will move onto the final
build. The player must help Benny navigate through challenging obstacles that are dictated
depending on The Designer ’ s attitude towards the game she’ s built for her publisher . Throughout
this chaotic platformer , Benny learns a sad truth; this is not his last day , but the final day for his
character model before The Designer upgrades. W ith your help, Benny must escape the test
facility once and for all. Throughout the story , The Designer and Benny’ s relationship evolves as
6
we explore her ideations for the project and her fears. Eventually , it’ s revealed that The Designer
has been testing for 4 years, Benny is just an updated version of the original model. He has been
forced to restart again and again. During the final level, Benny finds the strength to inspire The
Designer to be proud of her work & she ultimately moves him onto the next build.
Section Narrative Goals Design Goals Mechanics Used
T utorial
Shipping/Of fice
Introduce Benny &
The Designer .
Establish dynamic
T each player controls of
the game, get them
familiar with their
movement options
W alking, Running, Jumping,
V aulting, W all-Running, Sliding
Bridge
Boiler Room
Conveyor Belt
Display
self-awareness
through The
Designer ’ s
insecurity reflected
in gameplay
Destroy and change the
level in real time based on
The Designer ’ s feelings
W alking, Running, Jumping,
V aulting, W all-Running, Sliding
Subway Benny and The
Designer are at
odds with each
other
Player throws what they
know out the window ,
finds unexpected things,
then finds an exit
W alking, Running, Jumping,
V aulting, W all-Running, Sliding
AI - Ending Reveal that Benny
has been testing
for many years.
Death is his life
Player uses all they’ve
learned to escape
W alking, Running, Jumping,
V aulting, W all-Running, Sliding
T able 1: Narrative Structure
Early design goals focused on simplicity . W e realized early on building a high-quality 10 minute
game would be a more rewarding experience than going for something out of scope (45 minute
range). Throughout the design process, I questioned the need for rewinding. It didn’ t motivate or
dictate anything within the gameplay . An advisor and friend on the game, T revor Dietz reminded
me that many games do one thing very well. Rocket League, Fall Guys, and Devil May Cry are
all examples of tackling one mechanic and refining it well. T o exemplify failure, it was important
to develop one mechanic properly . Our focus went to the character controller , parkour and
7
creating an old-school platformer arcade experience. W ith this, we were able to sharpen what we
had to within our scope, creating a very high-level system within a student thesis.
W e are more likely to search for causes of failure than for causes for success. Whereas success
can make us complacent that we have understood the system we are manipulating; failure gives
the opportunity to consider why we failed (as long as we accept responsibility for failure).
Failure then has the very concrete positive ef fect of making us see new details and depth in the
game we are playing (Juul 102). During early playtests, testers did not understand the presence
of the player as a character . It was too confusing to focus on Benny , The Designer (embodied
through a television) and the player . This was a nearly immediate wrench in my thesis question.
W ithout the awareness of a player , Benny would exist as a normal video game character . The
game’ s meta had to change to accommodate The Designer . W e developed this into a level system
that represented The Designer ’ s feelings dictating the level set pieces. An example of this is
when she doubts herself and the work halfway through the game and decides to “destroy a level”
creating this exciting facility that shatters as a set piece. Later on, I will discuss the decisions
made to elicit the empathy goal set before development.
8
Chapter 4: Figur e It Out
T ry Again began as a 2.5d shooter in the original 5 minute experience script. The character ,
Benny (the name has remained), is stuck as a test dummy within a “greybox” level. Each zone
would act as a bullet hell, as Benny faces of f with Zombies, V ampires, Giant Hamsters and any
other random stereotypical enemy archetype. I quickly realized that multiple enemies might be
hard to prototype. At the time, I had just come of f making a destructive platformer called Don’ t
T ouch Anything, where a player tried to destroy everything in their parent’ s house. I decided to
continue with what I understood and created a character that could run, roll, jump and take
damage. I asked Ingram Mao, my partner in our previous game, a VR project called Blocks, to
build a structure that could shatter into a lot of pieces. He was learning Houdini at the time, and
constructed an eight room corridor with pillars. Each room acted as its own piece with pre-baked
animation that I was able to trigger in game. I connected the rewinding scripts I had written and
modified them to rewind animations. Everything in Unity plays on an animation track, by turning
it to -1 I was able to rewind music, destruction, player & everything in between. Added
additional rewinding time length to 120 seconds. This became the original T ry Again prototype.
A guy stuck in a big corridor able to run & roll escaping a building that was collapsing behind
him.
Figure 1 - Original T ry Again Prototype
Throughout the prototype, I added audio of my voice making the player feel bad that the
character had to die. No matter what, they would always be hit. My goal: to gauge player
reaction when they were purposely getting beat up by the game. The rewind acted as a way to
9
view your mistakes and sit with the pain inflicted on the poor character . I wanted players to feel
bad for trying and dying. Rewind would later be cut from the game.
At this point, my mechanics in the project had consistently focused on the player's manipulation
of time. I’d built rewind, pause and fast forward abilities, allowing players to manually scale
time backwards and forwards. Providing players with an ability to revert and see the ef fect, I felt,
would deliver a forced sense of empathy towards Benny’ s pain. This didn’ t have the desired
ef fect. I looked at my prior art references, focusing on many works across dif ferent mediums.
These works are: Braid by Jonathan Blow & Thekla, Portal by V alve, Run Lola Run by T om
T ykwer , and Inside by Playdead.
It’ s important to note that I began with mechanics. This means that the first project I need to
highlight, not only did the same thing, but set the bar for player controlled time reversal in video
games. Braid by Jonathan Blow is a 2-D, Mario-esque platforming game released in 2009. The
player takes control of T im, an average man in a suit. Through each level, the player learns of a
story between T im and the Princess. T im feels that he destroyed their relationship by being too
possessive, and he misses her . She’ s been kidnapped by an evil beast, and he needs to go save
her . They were a strong couple. Each level is a puzzle driven by 3 systems: Character
platforming system, enemy movement system, and rewind system. Jonathan Blow uses these 3
systems to create the puzzles rather than pre-scripted puzzles. Let me elaborate, your goal in
Braid is to collect puzzle pieces through each level. While playing a level of Braid you will be
asked to jump across a cloud bridge. The player jumps on one moving cloud, and then another
but oops…you fell of f. The game doesn’ t tell you to try again, or kill you, it asks you to hold
Left Shift to rewind. Y ou now have complete freedom to rewind the level as far back as you
want. But because of the systemic design of Braid, it’ s designed so that certain objects in the
world cannot be rewound. Simple adjustments to the system like this create disruption and form
a puzzle. Jonathan Blow has said publicly in his talks at GDC that Braid started with rewinding
as a game development idea. He later built the character of T im around the ideas of regret. What
is regret but the feeling of time slipping away? T im wishes that he could “rewind time” and fix
things with the princess, so the player mechanics match the narrative. That is my entire goal in
10
the design of this project. Finding a true motivation for my time mechanics that is not just
convenient but an active motivator in player decision and character arc.
The second project I will be highlighting is another game where mechanics came first. That
game is Portal. Portal is a first person “shooter ,” in which players wake up in an Aperture (fake
company) science laboratory . The only character you’ll interact with is an AI named GLaDoS.
She’ s sassy , sarcastic and manipulative. Y ou are just a “test subject” to her . The brilliance of
Portal is its mechanic. In the game your only tool is a portal gun. This portal gun can shoot one
blue portal (nearly) anywhere in the level with the Right T rigger , and then one red portal (nearly)
anywhere in the level with the Left T rigger . Players can walk through one portal and out the
other . This is another example of mechanics driving design both in game and narrative. While
watching the Devs React to the Portal Speedrun series on IGN, gameplay programmer Jeep
Barnett talked about the team goal of creating a controllable portal gun in game. Inside by
Playdead, is a game that has clearly defined mechanics which leads with narrative first. This
project has no dialogue, it is entirely environmental storytelling. The game is a 2-D side scrolling
game with three mechanics - movement on the stick, jumping on X, and grabbing/pushing
objects with Square. In Inside you take control of a young boy , his age is never clearly defined.
When the game begins, you’re escaping from what appears to be dystopian government control,
akin to a concentration camp. The brilliance of Inside is their use of foreground and background
to tell the story . No matter what, you can only move along the X and Y Axis (side to side), but
the environment tells you what is happening in both the foreground and background. W ithin the
game design, you’ll be required to sneak left to right in order to hide, but enemy flashlights can
come from the 3-Dimensional background to catch you.
W ith T ry Again, I wanted players to realize the ramifications of trying again and what that does
for a character within a digital space. Through development, the narrative became lighter . By
nature the narrative was a constraint of this game. If Benny’ s goal is to escape the level, The
Designer has god-like control and could easily delete him or respawn him. Originally , I wanted
to lean into this dynamic by deleting Benny from gameplay and putting players into the engine.
Over the course of development, this changed, and we started to fall into the trap of AAA
cinematic storytellers. Games like Inside play with player perspective and awareness. Initially ,
1 1
we assume that the boy is a victim. When the player realizes that the boy is a part of the problem
through gameplay and environmental storytelling, the player is not told to have a new
understanding of the narrative, they just do. Players had to realize that trying again deeply af fects
Benny through animation and environmental storytelling.
Narratively , rewinding posed a problem. When developing the rewind mechanics, I was drawn to
the control player ’ s had within the world. W e tried to involve the rewinding into our gameplay
meaningfully . Even going so far as to build a prototype that allowed players to kill themselves
and use their bodies as a physical pressure plate. While playtesting did elicit empathy with this
mechanic, we chose to lean into one of our set pillars which was a fast-paced, kinetic game. I
imagine with AAA development, fun and an active experience is more valuable than a forced
mechanic to re-define failure. I ultimately cut rewinding from the game to remove complications.
Through this development the game began to embrace the standard traps used by
action-cinematic AAA games. This was a linear story that used death in the way that most games
do, to represent player failure. W e had lost the connection between player and character , and
needed to find something that could help define that unique voice within our design.
12
Chapter 5: Designing Failur e
There is a goal within the AGP structure to build out a game that is gameplay rich and narrative
driven. This is one of the most challenging modern elements of game design. Games such as The
Last of Us and God of W ar have set this impossibly high standard, melding incredible game
moments with emotional narrative beats all during gameplay . W e wanted to try and develop these
qualities within our production. Past thesis and AGP games typically do one of these two
successfully . W e wanted to try and nail both.
Figure 2 - Narrative driven Gameplay moment
Failure and success became our high level design goals, how could we convey a feeling of
failure to the player that went beyond just dying and trying again? W e knew that it had to be
worked into the narrative. T o do this, we created a dynamic system that would respond to your
actions. An example of this, is if you fall of f of a bridge, Benny complains / The Designer
comments. If it happens again, Benny is aware that it has happened before and so is The
Designer . This allows the characters to comment on your mistakes as they happen in real time,
rather than a preset awareness of death or failure. W e also added a system to make the level
become an antagonist in and of itself. As The Designer works and adjusts her game in real time,
this will reflect in the gameplay . This creates a genuine connection between movement, level
design, mechanics all reflected through the antagonist. Most games (especially AAA), repeat
lines or comments as you play through the game. Why? Because there is a ton of content, and it’ s
very dif ficult to adapt from moment to moment. W e focused T ry Again on a short 10 - 15
13
(sometimes 20) minute experience that prioritized quality over quantity . In doing so, we were
able to track every move the player would make in our linear experience. This allows us to have
our characters comment on each situation and their feelings towards the player ’ s behavior . An
example of this is shown below:
Jesper Juul discusses an idea of emer gent failure. When games are designed to create
self-defeating behavior , spectacular failure can be embraced. This could be with software bugs,
built in features, or painful emer gence through the weirdness of the systems. W e tried to display
this within our game where we could by pre-scripting certain moments to show Benny’ s pain,
trying to elicit a sense of guilt within the player . For example, there is a shipping container
section within our game, where giant shipping containers are dropped and Benny must run under
them. For many iterations, the shipping containers would do this:
Figure 3 - Death without impact
As you can see, the shipping containers (massive multi-ton objects) would land on Benny but we
would not deactivate his collision. Because of this, the weight of his pain is not displayed within
the game. Throughout our early Usability testing, 65% of players reported feeling no sense of
emotion when Benny died, because they were conditioned to try again within games. They never
felt that Benny was getting hurt or feeling the ef fects of the level. Because of this, it would not
14
allow them to feel a sense of empathy . Like most games, they would get up and try again. After
tweaking, we started to make the world clearly hurt Benny with very simple adjustments. Our
updated shipping container is shown below:
Figure 4 - Colliders of f to make death more impactful
These changes are made throughout the game. In doing so, after alpha testing, 70% of those
tested felt a sense of empathy towards Benny’ s deaths. Small changes like this helped us create a
sympathetic connection between the player and Benny .
In The Art of Failur e Juul explains that protagonist success & failure mirrors player achievement.
When we fail, the character fails, when we succeed, the character succeeds. Most modern AAA
games take this concept at its face value. An example of this would be in The Last of Us. Joel can
be killed by a human or infected, but when this happens repeatedly we lose our understanding of
why it's meaningful. All death is a reflection of our failure. Is it possible to have a
counterintuitive disconnection between the enjoyment of our accomplishment and our empathy
with the plight of the protagonist? (Juul 101) If we were to knowingly play for a tragic ending,
our priorities as players would not be aligned with the interest of the protagonist as much as with
the completion of the story arc. W ithin T ry Again, we were able to accomplish one element of
our thesis goal. The player does feel a unique sense of empathy to the player , but in order to
15
finish the arc, and complete the story , they must continue to try again. A more apt attempt at
structuring this within a game design context, would’ve been to make the player feel so badly
about killing the protagonist, that they give up the game entirely and put the controller down.
This is obviously wishful thinking, and counterintuitive to motivate players to pick up the game.
Looking back on my concepts, this seems to be the only way to achieve the original thesis goal,
stripping fun from the game.
But what is fun in games? Games as an art form can fit into many dif ferent categories from
competitive to dramatic and emotional. The game, The Graveyar d, is nothing more than a player
controlled old woman, walking through a graveyard. Is that fun? W ell, no. Not particularly , but it
is meditative. In its way , interactivity is telling you a story using its voice. The player ’ s
relationship to controlling the woman is an experience that is driving towards an emotion. W e
chose to steer our game towards fun, embracing the AAA tropes along the way , the game
becoming more accepted and likable. Is this the right thing to do? It’ s an impossible question to
answer , but I sympathize with studios that focus on cinematic storytelling because it is far more
accessible to all audiences.
In games, there are many situations players are placed in where they fundamentally disagree with
the choices they are required to make as the protagonist such as the ending of The Last of Us or
playing as a career criminal in the Grand Theft Auto series. W e do not automatically endorse the
actions of a protagonist (we don’ t), but whether we are willing to work for a goal that contradicts
the interests of the protagonist. (Juul 98) And in truth, we are unwilling to measure pain over
pleasure, which would be required to ask a player to actually hate something so much that they
put the controller down. It is so far against what we look to achieve within game design, that it
would require out of the box solutions to find that result satisfactory . This is in direct
contradiction to single-player action games.
For a player to feel a sense of accomplishment, games must consider the goal they ask the player
to achieve. In developing The Art of Failur e Juul worked with a small team to create a project
called The Suicide Game. The goal of the game asked two players to work together to stab
themselves with a knife and drink the poison. One player volunteered the information that a
16
friend of hers had killed herself, but stressed ‘this is just a game.’ W e interpreted this to mean
both that the game had made the player associate it with personal experience and that the player
believed it customary not to ‘take games seriously . (Juul 97) Players have an awareness and
preset understanding of what games mean. No matter the tone, subject matter or goal, the player
associate's “game” with a challenge and goal. As Juul writes, the experiment showed that the
question of game tragedy is not either/or . The graphics and the tone of the game appear to make
the act of self-destruction less disconcerting than it would otherwise have been. Setup,
presentation and gameplay strongly influence our experience of a tragic ending. (Juul 43)
Because the game was lighthearted in its visual presentation (cartoon style), players did not
invest the emotional weight necessary to create an impactful empathetic experience with suicide.
In T ry Again we made a conscious, early decision that we would not have Benny bleed. This was
a mistake to elicit empathy from the player towards the protagonist. V iolence does help stir
empathetic emotions towards the player . For The Last of Us Part II, Naughty Dog chose to zoom
in during close combat melee kills, and show you that what you’re doing is wrong. It’ s violence.
Because Naughty Dog chose to make the violence ultra brutal, they wanted players to look away
for a close up stealth kill. Unlike most AAA games that make it seem like you’re doing
something of value, The Last of Us asks you to consider what you are doing. Looking back,
blood and clear indications of pain aside from narrative barks would’ve helped us achieve the
goal of creating an empathetic connection between the player and Benny .
1 7
Chapter 6: The Paradox of Failur e
Did I answer my thesis question, and in development learn to elevate the state of video game
death? Y es and no. When I first wrote this section of the paper , I leaned into the failure in
directly answering my question. After speaking with my thesis professor , Martzi Campos, she
helped me realize something. Failure is not objective. This game and paper is not about failure,
but about acknowledging failure. My learnings of developing this game were immense for many
dif ferent reasons, but the initial questions posed were not found. Empathizing with video game
protagonists is obviously possible, but not to the point that players choose to not play , or stall a
character in the idle position. W ith T ry Again, we chose things many AAA studios must too:
fast-paced, fun, accessible, for giving in ways. Managing a team of 52, delivering a game that
required massive coordination between departments, and finding a valuable connection between
gameplay and narrative is hard, and I believe we did it successfully . Through development, I’ve
realized the value of death within a video game. Failure happens in life when we don’ t
accomplish something, lose a sporting event or just feel down about the daily happenings of life.
In a video game, or in other words entertainment, games give us a second chance without
consequence. More often than not, failure state in a game has to be death because what else
would make a player want to try again? W e understand the weight of our failure through video
death.
As Juul outlines, “Players operate in sync with the character , if the character must save the
world, our goals will be to save the world.” Designing and developing a game is a constant
pursuit of failure. T ry Again is a game about failure, but on multiple levels. The player will fail in
playing because the game is a challenging, fast-paced platformer . In doing so, the character of
Benny is forced to restart and try again, feeling the brunt of the player ’ s failure. The Designer
who built the game within T ry Again is failing to deliver her project on time, and succeed to
herself through her work. I came to this idea through my own failure to come up with an idea for
my thesis. Because of this connection, the gameplay & narrative feed this meta story about
failure and the ways we perceive success. Through development, I came to the conclusion that
my questions were not fully answered, thus failing to answer my thesis questions properly . This,
in and of itself, is the paradox of failure. The pursuit of playing games, and the goal of
developing them. The success of our game all derives from implementing failing, adjusting and
18
trying again. Come up with an idea early on, and in developing the game, questions fail to be
answered, because we do what’ s best for the game. There is a persistence required to create
games & play them. The entire medium is one of overcoming failure. Whether playing or
developing. T o evoke empathy both as a player and developer , persisting through failure is how
we learn, grow & get better .
Is game failure painful? Can failure elicit a unique connection between player and character? The
answer is yes. It is possible to add a layer of motivated narrative failure that fits in line with the
player ’ s goals as they continue to try again. W e accomplished this in T ry Again in certain ways.
The root of our failure stems from losing the meta element of game design that asks the player to
be involved as a character in the game rather than a bystander . W e did not have the ability to
clarify that with complex animations. T wo out of three disembodied characters are confusing.
Failure is baked into every element of our game. The first ideas developed out of failure. The
Designer is constantly failing herself. But by the end of the game, she chooses to succeed, and
accept her work for what it is. Games are not motivating despite the fact that they give us no
tangible rewards but because they give us no tangible rewards, and hence no tangible punishment
for failure. (Juul 122) They give us the opportunity to try again, and get that second chance that
life rarely rewards us. Failure forces us to reconsider what we are doing, and to learn. As we
control Benny in The Designer ’ s game, she battles her failure which reflects in real time changes
that af fect both the player and Benny . In that, if the player feels that sense of powerlessness, we
are telling a story through their emotional experience. One that aligns with Benny’ s journey as a
test character . Failure forces us to reconsider what we are doing, to learn. Failure connects us
personally to the events in the game; it proves that we matter , that the world does not simply
continue regardless of our actions. (Juul 122)
Anger and frustration are motivators to keep playing. W e do not need to baby players through
games in order to ensure they are “having fun.” Fun emer ges from challenges set by the
software, coupled with continued learning. In T ry Again we adapted our game to favor a
complete experience that told a story rather than the singular meta commentary we originally set
out to. This is developed and shown to the player through the lens of a character who has
perceived their work as failure. The Designer comes to learn that she built something, something
19
that is cool and it works. That is not failure. Failure is subjective, it is personal perception.
Looking at the work we’ve done on T ry Again I realize that my experience mirrors hers. This
game is something I could not have dreamed of making, even four years ago. It’ s got a unique
narrative, it’ s fast-paced and driven through gameplay . These are the games I love and one I’ve
longed to make. Should that be classified as failure? No. Although we failed to answer our
questions successfully , the joy we see in players and the care they have for Benny is success.
Failure is not the goal. It is a tool to expand the state of interactive storytelling.
20
Bibliography:
Bogost, Ian. Persuasive Games: The Expressive Power of V ideogames. MIT Press, 2007.
“Crash Bandicoot.” Naughty Dog, 1999.
“God of W ar .” Santa Monica Studios, 2018.
“Inside.” Playdead, 2016.
“Inside Presentations.” Playdead Articles.
Juul, Jesper . The Art of Failure: An Essay on the Pain of Playing V ideo Games. MIT Press, 2016.
“The Last of Us.” Naughty Dog, 2013.
Juul, Jesper . The Suicide Game. 2019.
21

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Death (or failure) is an integral aspect of the player experience in video games. Typically, as humans, we do not seek out failure. Rarely in life will one approach a goal with the intention of failing. We rarely make decisions that we expect to end in failure. Success is hardwired into our DNA. Video games create a paradox. Although failure is not something we seek out, we are drawn to games because the experience of perseverance without consequence is so alluring. But in most modern games, there is no relationship between player failure and character experience. This has diluted interactive storytelling’s unique narrative voice to one that emulates cinematic storytelling. Interactive narrative provides players with agency to define their personal relationship to the story. Many games have modeled their narrative after a cinematic style which is not interactive storytelling. In my meta-thesis action game titled, Try Again, I sought to define this relationship. The goal: create a protagonist/player dynamic that actively encourages the player to empathize with the protagonist when they fail during the game by involving the player as a character within the project.

This thesis attempts to provide a unique approach to narrative driven action games by connecting player failure to protagonist death diegetically through the lens of our project, Try Again.

Throughout this thesis, I will offer bits of data attained through user feedback, and formal RITE method playtesting. Primarily, I will use Jesper Juul’s analysis of video game failure called, The Paradox of Failure, to illustrate the current state of video game death, and how it can be expanded to heighten its voice within interactive storytelling.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Last broadcast: making meaning out of the mundane

PDF

Hedge hug -- a narrative-driven interactive exploration on low self-esteem and social anxiety

PDF

The mountain calls: an exploration of immersive storytelling through art and level design

PDF

CODA: the making of a team reliant first person shooter game

PDF

Garden designing a creative experience with art and music orchestra

PDF

Wandering light: an interactive visual novel

PDF

The Cleaner: recreating censorship in video games

PDF

The witch: Identity construction and the fairy tale in interactive narrative

PDF

Free Will: a video game

PDF

Metamorphosis: Thyota's journey - embedding environmental themes into fantastical elements in games

PDF

Chaos

PDF

Defectum: a journey toward embracing failure

PDF

The moonlighters: a narrative listening approach to videogame storytelling

PDF

Inclusive character creator: an exploration of inclusive design for 3D character creators

PDF

Parallel: authorial intent in a self-reflective narrative game

PDF

The voice in the garden: an experiment in combining narrative and voice input for interaction design

PDF

Come with Me: a cooperative game focusing on player emotion

PDF

Reversal: expressing a theme through mechanics

PDF

a•part•ment

PDF

Working through death and grief with a video game: the design and development of Where the sea meets the sky

Asset Metadata

Creator Morina, Adam (author)

Core Title Try again: the paradox of failure

School School of Cinematic Arts

Degree Master of Fine Arts

Degree Program Interactive Media

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 04/11/2023

Defense Date 05/09/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Adam,failure,fast-paced,gameplay driven,kinetic,meta,Morina,narrative driven,OAI-PMH Harvest,platformer,try again,video games

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Bilson, Danny (committee chair), Fullerton, Tracy (committee member), Lemarchand, Richard (committee member)

Creator Email adam.morina000@gmail.com,morina@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113010392

Unique identifier UC113010392

Identifier etd-MorinaAdam-11608.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-MorinaAdam-11608

Document Type Thesis

Format theses (aat)

Rights Morina, Adam

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230412-usctheses-batch-1020 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu