Creating choices for the player: A study about how story choices affect the player’s sense of agency

(1)

C REATING CHOICES FOR THE PLAYER

A study about how story choices affect the player’s sense of agency

Bachelor Degree Project in

Media Arts, Aesthetics and Narration

30 ECTS

Spring term 2018

Tula Eriksson Turtiainen

Supervisor: Lissa Holloway-Attaway

Examiner: Lars Kristensen

(2)

Abstract

The study examines how story choices in video games affect the player’s sense of agency. A literature review was done to understand and define the terms used. Agency is the power to take meaningful action and see the consequences of those actions, also connected to the player’s sense of control. The type of story choices used were meaningful, ones that change the game state, and inconsequential choices, that do not change it. An artefact was created to present these choices through dialogue, in the form of a video game. After playing through the artefact, players were asked to fill in a questionnaire and some participated in follow-up interviews. Results showed that inconsequential choices can affect the player negatively if they realize that the choices were not real, while players requested more meaningful choices. For future work it is of interest to, among other things, examine player’s definition of meaningful choices.

Keywords: agency, meaningful choices, inconsequential choices, players, choices, control

(3)

1 Introduction

The focus of this study will be to investigate how story choices (both meaningful and inconsequential) and their subsequent feedback within video games affect a player’s sense of agency in narrative based games, within the scope of a created artefact. In the last decade, there has been an upswing of narrative-driven games where the player needs to make a multitude of choices of varying kinds. There are choices that changes the game state, for example when the player has to choose between saving Carley or Doug in The Walking Dead (2012) game. The player can during gameplay create emotional attachments to the characters based on the extended narrative situations they encounter, making a choice like this even more impactful. These kinds of choices are often referred to as meaningful choices (Nay & Zagal 2017, pp. 1-2)

Whether or not this specific example is a meaningful choice can be debated, however, as the character the player chooses to save will be killed later in the game regardless of what actions are taken. Therefore, it is not the outcome that is significant, but rather the player’s perception of the choice within the context of the narrative situation and gameplay. What is then perceived as meaningful is not because it actually changes the game state, but rather it affects how the player perceives his or her role is central to the story.

Another type of story choice is the one that affects the player’s perception of things within the game, for example specific characters. These are choices that only change, for example, the perception of the game's protagonist in the player's eyes. They are more clearly defined as roleplay choices. This is where the player, for example, gets to pick how their character is perceived by others, but nothing concrete changes within the game. An example of this would be when the player gets to pick if they want to try and save Luke or not in The Walking Dead 2 (2013) game. Even if the player tries to save him the outcome will be the same, but the player will have role-played their character differently. These kind of choices that allow a player to define and describe their player more fully can also feel meaningful to players, but in a different way.

Because of this, they can be thought of as inconsequential choices. (Nay & Zagal 2017, p. 2) This study’s purpose was to ascertain to what extent a player will perceive differences between these two types of choices (meaningful and inconsequential). Understanding of these player perceptions allows one to understand the connection between narrative choices and player’s involvement with characters by facilitating their sense of agency, whether or not game states or final outcomes are impacted.

The methods used for testing were both lab tests and remote tests. Players of both types played through an artefact of a 2D adventure game, which looked the same for both test groups.

Throughout the adventure the players encountered NPCs that they talked with and through that had dialogue choices they had to pick. There were also enemies they had to decide on how to handle, for example facing them head on or hiding. These choices allowed me to test if the players noticed when a choice is game state changing or not. Lab tests were conducted in a controlled environment where the player got to play through the artefact while being observed.

Afterwards the player was asked to fill in a questionnaire and answer questions in a follow-up interview. The remote tests were done by giving players access to the artefact and the questionnaire over the internet. This allowed players to test when they wished and possibly in a more relaxed environment to enhance the quality of the results.

(5)

2

2 Background

There have been a few studies conducted in recent years which touch upon similar subjects as the one this study focus on. Narrative-driven games have become more popular and common in recent memory (Fendt et.al. 2012, p. 1). With the increased popularity of those same narrative games the importance of choices within games have also risen. If a player feels as if their choice has meaning, consequence and personal importance for them it will often elevate the agency and feeling of engagement that player feels. However, it has been shown that simply adding choices are not enough to create engagement from the player. What seems to be the imperative aspects to create fulfilling choices within the game is that the player feels that they have agency, that they can actively intervene in the narrative and that their immersion is not broken (Iten et.al. 2018, pp. 1, 10).

2.1 Agency

The two main ways to define agency is either as a balance between material and formal affordances, where material affordances are opportunities for actions open to the player and formal affordances are the motivations presented by the game to pursue said actions. Another definition I use in my research was coined by Murray and presents agency as “…the fulfilling power to take meaningful action and see the results of our decisions and choices.” (Murray, cited in Fendt et.al. 2o12, p. 4). As such agency as a concept is present in most, if not all, games available to the public market. In games, the player can exert their power of agency in a multitude of ways; it can determine where they go, what they do, how they do it in any given scenario. Even in a game as simple as Pac-Man (1980), where the goal is to gather all the pieces of fruit on the screen without being touched by the ghosts, the player has the ability to choose where to go, how to plan out their strategy, what routes they want to focus on, the ability to lure ghosts and many more things.

In more narrative driven games, such as The Walking Dead (2012), the player’s agency lies not so much in the way the player controls the main character but rather in what narrative choices are made by the player. Examples of this would be how the character reacts in various situations, which sides to take in conflicts and whom to try to save in a life and death situation.

This could manifest itself as a situation in the game where the player needs to decide whether to help a character that has been a friend to the player's character throughout the story or help a character of a new group they have joined that seems to be more efficient within the game.

The mentioned situation has the player make an active choice which affects not only other characters within the game but also forces them to make a choice of which faction within the game to gain favour with. It is the latter usage of agency that is used in this study, to measure how much the player feel they can control within the artefact. Fendt et.al(2012, p. 1) states that video games are evaluated based on how much control the player has over the story. They hypothesized that “… a non-branching story with explicit feedback on players’ decision will evoke a similar sense of agency to a truly branching story.” (Ibid, p. 1). Their goal was to find a way to provide “…the illusion of control players experience from truly branching stories.”(Ibid, p. 1) and not need to create the same amount of content as a branching story.

This was because players do not usually encounter all paths created in such a story and their conclusion was that giving a player explicit feedback has “…the potential to preserve the player’s sense of agency while reducing the amount of content authors must create.”(Ibid, 1, 11).

(6)

3

There were two central points which I wanted to test when it came to finding meaning within narrative driven game choices: one was whether or not the decision felt as if it impacted the game state in a significant manner and the other was whether or not the choice made the player reflect on the ethics of those choices and thus reflect over their character and/or themselves (Fend et.al. 2012, pp. 8-11; Nay & Zagal 2017, pp. 1-3)

....This way of judging the morality of actions does away with concerns over advantageous outcomes or the loss of those same hypothetical opportunities, and instead brings the focus inward on the motivations and temperament of the actors themselves, and evaluates those actions in the context of the individual perspective.

(Nay & Zagal, 2017, p. 2)

The latter argues that the choices can be intrinsically meaningful within the players themselves and to achieve that state they need not have any important or noticeable impact on the game state itself. While both viewpoints are viable in their own ways, the focus on this study lies on the perceived player sense of satisfaction and engagement when it came to choices that have short and long-term consequences for the game state.

When measuring agency, it is important to note when and how the player feels that their actions matter, that they exert some kind of control. This is especially true when it comes to the feeling that they are progressing the game forward in an active manner (Fendt et.al. 2012, pp. 1-2). In the context of this study it was important to know whether or not the player felt as if their actions had an impact on how the narrative unfolds, whether this was actually true or not.

2.2 Player Engagement

Immersion in games is when the player finds themselves engrossed in the game world, gameplay, characters or events of the game. This is achieved through much the same way as flow, but not necessarily to the same extent (Chen 2007, pp. 31-34). The player needs to be in a state of concentration, lose their sense of self and their sense of time needs to become distorted. As such, there needs to be some believability in the game, consistency that creates the player's suspension of disbelief and allows them to become wholly engrossed. Immersion is a prolonged and extended version of engagement, as such it is very difficult to test in a prototype such as the one I used. It is possible that less extreme states can be achieved through gameplay that does not require full immersion, but still connect the player to characters and narratives through their engagement in making choices that may or may not affect outcomes.

The minimum requirement for engagement is therefore some kind of interest in the activity that satisfies them regarding their role in the narrative and in their perceptions of characters through the opportunity of choice making.

Asking the player when and how they were most invested in the game, in what manner and to what extent was imperative to be able to gauge how engaging the players found the prototype.

(7)

4

2.3 Narrative, player satisfaction and making choices

Earlier studies focusing upon choices in games have looked at choice satisfaction in games.

The results of those studies tend to skew towards a player preference of choices with lasting impacts within the game. It is not always clear what exactly it is that players like or dislike. For example, a study that had very little lasting impact after a choice but had feedback whenever a choice was made by the player was positively received (Fendt et.al. 2012, pp. 8-10) while a game surrounding a homeless man with little to no lasting impact of choices was not very well received by players (Iten et.al. 2017, p. 2). This seems to point towards the importance of perceived impact, whether it is real or not, but it may also point towards other factors such as the quality of writing or to what degree the player found the narrative satisfying.

In the questionnaire for this study there was a question concerning whether or not the player felt satisfied with the choices they had during gameplay. If they weren’t, there was a follow up question that asked what kind of choice they felt were missing. It was important to note if this was a pervasive issue and whether or not the choices missing were homogeneous in nature or tweaked towards individual tastes, and this was taken into account in the study results. I believed it could be important because if a player felt that there should be a specific way for their character to act in a choice situation, but there was no option to do it, it could draw the player out of the immersion within the game. It could also have made the choices that are available to the player not feel meaningful, in the sense that they don't adhere to the personality of the player's character.

2.4 Meaningful and inconsequential choices

Meaningful choices are, according to Nay and Zagal (2017, pp. 1), choices that the player cares about and have tangible consequences that impact the game state. They claim that there is an underlying assumption that a choice only matters when the outcome of said choice changes the game state. This may be due to a famous quote from Sid Meier where he states that games are “a series of interesting choices”, which has come to be interpreted as a series of game state changing choices(Ibid, pp 1-2; Leigh 2012). There is also a risk that a player that is not told that their choices impact the game may think that the choices are inconsequential, this despite those choices changing the game state.

The opposite is also possible, if told that their choices affect the game state inconsequential choices may be seen as impactful upon the game state. According to Iten et.al. (2018, pp. 8- 10) meaningful choices can be moral decision, moral dilemmas, social interactions, and control with consequence. There was also a distinction made between fun and meaningful choices, for choices to become more meaningful in the player’s eyes there often needed to be some kind of moral dilemma within the choice. In this study meaningful choices are defined as choices with a clear effect on the game state within the artefact. An example of this would be if the player decided to steal an item from an NPC rather than getting the item by more modest means such as finding it themselves or trading for it. If this was done, or not done, the choice had a game state changing effect, which allowed the player to either continue the artefact on a shorter path or to take a more circuitous route, as well as other possible consequences for thievery or honesty down the line.

Nay and Zagal (2017, p. 2) define the term inconsequential choices as choices that do not affect the outcome or game state in any meaningful way. Choices that have no real consequence

(8)

5

within the game state are thus inconsequential. There is no clear and readable consequence for the player to ascertain that their choice mattered in some way. An example of this would be a choice that did not change the game state, either a dialogue option that does not change anything at all in any manner within the game state or choosing to save a character that will immediately die despite the player’s choice. In this study inconsequential choices are the choices that do not actually change the game state, an example of this is where the player can decide whether or not to help an NPC, but regardless of the choice made by the player they will have no choice but to help the NPC in the intended manner.

(9)

6

3 Problem

This study’s goal was to investigate the player’s perceived, self-reported feelings of engagement with characters and their feelings of agency within the narrative structures of a game. These were investigated using choices in a created artefact, which was used to represent a game. The data was collected by using qualitative interviews and a quantitative survey.

The research question is:

● How do story choices and their subsequent feedback within my created artefact affect respondents sense of agency?

The question is of interest to game developers, to see possible reasons why some choices do work and others don’t. With this knowledge it can make it easier for game developers to know where to focus their time when creating story choices in video games.

3.1 Method

The method for this study was inspired by Fendt et.al(2012) study Achieving the Illusion of Agency. Their study focused on choices with explicit feedback and at such they theorised that a non-branching story could evoke a similar sense of agency like that in a branching story.

They collected data by using a survey with questions connected to the stories they made.

Players were asked to play through one story and then answer the survey. They used a branching story and two non-branching variants. One of the latter had immediate textual feedback to acknowledge the player’s choices while the other had little to none feedback(Ibid, pp 1-2). Their stories were purely text-based(Ibid, pp. 3-4) while Nay & Zagal’s study Meaning without consequence: virtue ethics and inconsequential choices in video games (2017) focused on published narrative games. The difference between these two will be taken up further in, 3.3 Artefact. Note that Fendt et.al(2012, pp. 1.2) did their testing in two parts, first with a branching story from which they then picked the most played path and made into two non-branching variations. This was not done in this study, which only had one artefact created.

To collect data a survey and interviews were used. The questions created for both of them were inspired by or remodelled versions of the questions used for the survey in the study done by Fendt et.al(2012) which focused on agency. Something to have in mind is that (Ibid, p. 3) focused on player’s sense of agency relating to choices of a story’s development and not ones that relate to player character customization or interactions with the environment. The same is true for this study, which focused on story choices in the form of dialogues.

The artefact created was a 2D game in the adventure game genre. The player was able to move a character around using the arrow keys or left mouse button. Interactions with objects or characters was done using the Z-key on the keyboard. Originally the artefact was to be created in GameMaker Studio(1999), but due to time constraints it was changed to RPG Maker MV (2015). See chapter 4, for more details about the creation of the artefact.

The primary focus in the artefact was on interactions with NPCs (Non Player Characters), where the player made choices throughout the dialogues. Some choices changed the game state, being meaningful choices, and some did not and were at such inconsequential choices.

(10)

7

3.2 Collection of data

The gathering of the information for the study was done with the help of a survey and interviews. Mixing qualitative interviews with a quantitative survey is not an uncommon practice in research from nature to humanities (Bryman 2018, pp. 757-759). There was also remote testing done over the net, where volunteer players could playthrough the artefact when it suited them and then fill out a questionnaire online. Combining the two methods, which according to Østbye et.al. (2004, pp. 99-101) are complimentary, was a way to try and eliminate as much errant data as possible, using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to achieve this goal. Having tests where I was present allowed for more follow up questions and an increased amount of data collected.

The artefact was created around the thesis presented in this paper, with a critical view based on the information gathered from the articles used in this paper. The measurement of player felt agency and other parameters during the test was a remodelled version of (Fendt et.al.

2012, pp. 4-5.). They used a survey which measured components of Murray’s definition of agency on a five point scale. Players in their study were asked questions, relating to agency, about if they felt like the actions they took were meaningful, if they were able to see the results of their actions and more. In the other half of the survey the players were shown each decision point in the story, the ones they had selected, and asked questions for each choice(Ibid, pp. 4- 5).

The target group for this questionnaire was respondents who had played my artefact and were the age of 18 or older. Only the ones that played the artefact were intended to answer the questionnaire. The reason for this was to further avoid irrelevant data for the study.

A questionnaire was the main method for collecting data from the testing of the artefact. The questions focused on the choices the player made in the game, what they thought about the choices in the game on a general basis and what they thought about specific choices. This was to see what players thought and felt from different choices in relation to the overall experience.

The questions had a 5-point scale answer system from 1 being "Not at all." to 5 being "Very much.".

Some questions had follow up questions, that allowed the player to answer freeform relating their own opinions concerning the testing. The purpose of having follow up question was to catch the respondents thoughts and feelings about the subject in question. All scale/point questions had to be answered to complete the questionnaire. Several questions were based on the questions used for the study done by Fendt et.al (2012, p. 5). The other half of their study, where they asked about each decision taken by the player, was remodelled and used for the second part of this questionnaire. The biggest difference being that the players themselves picked a choice that were of interest to them, instead of asking about every choice they made.

3.3 Artefact

It was decided that the artefact was not to be made in an engine such as Twine (2009) to create a text-based narrative like other studies that touch upon similar subjects have done(Fendt et.al. 2012, pp. 3-4; Iten 2018, p. 6). Instead the artefact was made in Game Maker MV(2015).

The reason for this was that a text based choose your own adventure seems to be inherently different than a video game. According to Jesse Schell (2014, pp. 51-52) a game is made up out

(11)

8

of four basic elements; Aesthetics, Mechanics, Story and Technology. The technology part is what allows the game to work and be played, this is not just high technology but can be as simple as pen and paper. Mechanics are the rules of the game, what the player may or may not do and how they can interact with the game. Story is the sequence of events that unfolds within the game and how that is presented to the player. Aesthetics is how the game looks, sounds, feels and even smells if that were to be somehow relevant. It is in the latter, aesthetics, that choose your own adventure text experiences are lacking.

One could argue that font, text size and border would make up the aesthetics but, in this study, it felt relevant that the test subject felt as if they were playing a game rather than reading an interactive short story. While a text-based story can provide story choices, a 2D game could better represent games in general and make the study more relevant. Nay and Zagal(2017, pp.

6-7) looked at morality and also choices in two published games Mass Effect 2(2010) and The Walking Dead 2(2012). Which allowed them to look at already created game systems and endings in relation to choices, further they knew that those games were praised and at such knew that many players enjoyed them(Ibid, pp. 6-7). The wish for this study was to closer assimilate such acclaimed video games, even if it was not possible to closely recreate those stories and experiences within the scope of this study.

3.3.1 Inconsequential choices

The following was a proposed scenario where the choice is classified as an inconsequential choice. In the scenario in the artefact the player sees an NPC when leaving a shop. The NPC reaches out to the player for help, and the player can then decide to help it or not. However, in either case the NPC will make the player help them, and the player’s choice itself will not have made any difference on the game state. I tested through my interviews to see if such interactions with NPCs created more interesting and engaging gameplay for the user. The intent was to see if interactions of these kinds, that don’t impact the outcome, still worked as essential components in play to help players become more actively engaged with the game and potentially more interested in non-essential characters.

3.3.2 Meaningful choices

In yet another proposed scenario, the player needs to help a NPC get home, and when the NPC arrives safely home, they will have money that the player needs. The player will during the trip to the NPCs home have the choice of taking the money from them. If the player does take the money from the NPC, they can return home with the fruit. If they do not take it, they will need to return home with nothing unless specific other choices are made that make the NPC feel generous. The differing ends change in game state and moral choice are underlying factors that make this a meaningful choice.

It was imperative to have choices of both kinds in the artefact to be able to research if and how the different kinds of choices affected players.

(12)

9

4 Implementation

When creating the artefact, it went through several iterations and the choice of engine to create the artefact within changed as well. In the end RPG Maker MV (2015) became the base for the artefact. The game follows a young woman whose mother sends her out to get some fruit, upon doing this she realises she has no money and is recruited to help a Noble get home. From here there are chances to get the money needed in a few different ways and several ways to fail to get the money needed for the purchase. Each of these scenarios was thought to create a new and unique ending upon returning to the player character’s mother. This was to allow the meaningful choices to have more impact on the game state.

4.1 Progression

There were several iterations of the artefact. The following is a description of the final version.

The artefact’s gameplay story started off with the player character next to their bed. The player was able to leave the house, but not the area until they interacted with the mother NPC. An example of a choice in the artefact, during the conversation the mother NPC worried about the player character and the player could either accept this or find it annoying. After that the player proceeded to the next area where they had more choices, some which made a difference on the game state and some that didn’t. The gameplay length for the artefact was around 5-10 minutes.

In the artefact the player took on the role of a young woman who was sent on an errand by her mother. The errand was to get fruit for the mother. The player finds out that they do not have any money to buy it with and therefore has to find a way to get the money, coin, required.

Throughout the artefact the player encountered friendly NPCs with whom they could talk to and enemies they had to decide how to react to. One such friendly NPC is the Noble, which the player is forced to escort. If the player decided to avoid conflict, the Noble accompanied the player without complaint, however, if the player decided to gain the attention of enemies the Noble reacted strongly on such a decision. This was done in order to attempt a creation of emotional attachment to the Noble. To note is that all the ways to get the money to buy the fruit are choices connected to the Noble.

Figure 1. The town and shop, area 2.

(13)

10

4.1.1 Artefact

The artefact consists of four main areas; the mother’s house in the woods, the small town, the bandit road, and the Noble’s mansion. The player controls their character either by using the arrow keys and the Z-key to interact/accept and the X-key to open the menu. The gameplay consists of walking around the area within the game, trying to navigate the story to the best of one’s abilities. The main focus lies with the choices that the player can make, they will either be inconsequential or have an effect on the game state.

In Area 1 and Area 2 the choices the player gets to make are all of an inconsequential nature.

The effect of the player made choices in these areas allow for a change in dialogue but causes no real change in the game state.

Area 3 allows for a multitude of game state changing options. The player can refuse to accompany the Noble any further, rob the Noble, hand the Noble over to the bandits or get the Noble safely back to their home. Among these are a few subsets of further choices that tweak the outcomes of the major choices made.

Figure 2. Interaction with the shopkeeper without possessing money.

The narrative arch is as follows; a quest is given by the mother, an obstacle to complete this quest arises, a possible solution presents itself, a moral dilemma is grappled with (player choice), there is some kind of resolution upon returning home.

As stated earlier in this section, the first two areas of the artefact lack game state changing options. The options the player possesses to change the game state come in a few different variations:

● The player may decide to rob the Noble and either return to the shop to get the fruit or return with the stolen money.

● The player may hand over the Noble to the bandits, in this scenario the player may or may not get paid by the bandits, if they do get paid they can chose to purchase the fruit or return with the money.

● The player may decide to avoid the bandits and see the Noble safely home where they will be given a small amount of coin in gratitude which the player can decide whether or not they purchase the fruit with or return home with the coin.

These choices directly impact the gameplay of the artefact, the narrative and what ending they receive. The choices are all different ways to try and get the money needed to buy the fruit.

(14)

11

4.1.2 Engine

The plan for the artefact started out differently than its final iteration. Not only was the theme somewhat different, it was also supposed to be made in GameMaker Studio (1999) rather than RPG Maker MV (2015). This change was made during the development of the artefact as the amount of work to build a functioning roleplaying game system and platforming system was challenging in ways that was not constructive to the study. The amount of time to create the base system within GameMaker Studio (1999) was unsustainable. As such RPG Maker MV (2015) was a fitting substitute, as the basic systems needed were readily available in the engine itself and basic maps were shared so that the focus could lie on the player choices within the game rather than spending too much time on details not directly tied to this study.

4.1.3 Genre

In the original version the test subjects would play a platformer with RPG elements in the guise of a young dragon sent on a quest to get a special fruit by their mother. During this quest two main choices would face the player that changed the game state; whether or not to confront an enemy and whether or not to steal the fruit from a faerie the player is helping. The other choices would mainly consist of inconsequential choices. The mother daughter dynamic, escort mission and the fruit as the game goal were transferred to the final iteration of the artefact. However, all characters were made human.

Figure 3. Original starting area for the intended platform version.

Figure 4. Original design for the player character.

(15)

12

4.1.4 Design

Designing the choices the test subjects were to make through the artefact took some tweaking.

In the beginning of the artefact there are only inconsequential choices, in that they have no relevant effect on the game state. In the third area there are three main choices which all have a consequence that affects the game state. It was important to show that the choices that had consequences clearly showed the effects of those choices in the way that Fendt et.al. (2012, pp.

1-3) mention in their study.

Testing this part a few times led to the decision to change one of the choices, whether to leave and abandon the Noble in the middle of a bandit infested area. Originally, the player would have been able to abandon the Noble and leave, cutting the artefact short. However, it felt as if having an inconsequential choice in this part of the artefact, where it felt as if all choices should have definite impact on the game state, could have led to a missed opportunity for the study itself. There were not enough choices that felt as if they should impact the game, but left the game state unchanged. Because of this the choice was converted from a choice with consequence to an inconsequential choice, to make sure that the test subjects who decide to try and abandon their quest early might react to such a possibly impactful choice being inconsequential. The observation of this choice, and the self-reporting in the questionnaire, was thought to possibly yield important data for the study.

The second to last iteration of the artefact was more open ended, almost every choice had different outcomes and when making a choice the player could use the mechanics so that they say one thing and do another. Although this gave the player a much larger scope of freedom when it comes to choice not only of word but of action, it inevitably became too much to track and creating a template for any kind of coherent questionnaire became near impossible. Each choice, instead of having two to three different outcomes suddenly had at the minimum five, creating a complex but difficult to follow web of interactions and consequences. This approach was deemed too complex and scaled down to make sure that each choice had more controlled consequences or lack thereof. There was also a sense of the choices and interactions becoming overwhelming and too complex, the sense of agency became less tenable due to the unforeseeable consequences brought forth from small decisions as well as having the player character’s actions contradict their oral choices. All which threatened to lead to confusion rather than creating a heightened sense of agency.

Originally the narrative was planned to follow the structure of the model The Hero’s Journey, created by Joseph Campbell (Lebowitz & Klug 2011, pp. 46-55). The twelve stages in the model was a good base to use for the narrative’s progression. The two first stages, ordinary world and call to adventure, of the model exists for a short within the artefact, where the player wakes up and talks with the mother who has a request. While talking to the mother the player can decide if they want the refusal stage to happen by not wanting to help out. As the artefact was aimed to have a shorter playtime it was not deemed reasonable to have all the stages in, instead parts were used as an outline to create the story, which according to Lebowitz & Klug(2011, 46-55) is okay, as the model should be seen as a set of guidelines.

The final iteration of the main narrative choices for the artefact can be seen in Figure 5. In the final version of the artefact, the ending where the player gets arrested was not implemented due to time constraints. Instead it ends in the step before, with the player returning home with the fruit.

(16)

13

Figure 5. Flowchart of main narrative choices.

In the artefact all interactions are based on if variables and value variables. For example; if the Noble is robbed by the player then the variable “robbed” is set to 1 and the variable “coin” is set to 1 as well, allowing the fruit to be purchased upon returning to town. Each choice is also built in such a way that each time a choice is made the player is forced to abide by their choice.

Figure 6. Script for returning the Noble to his home.

An important part of the artefact is the characters, especially the player character. Wendy Despain(2009, pp. 20-22) writes that a character for an adventure should make sense in the world they are in and in an adventure game. Even if the character doesn't have to belong in the world, it shouldn’t strain the player’s sense of credulity. It is also important to consider what opportunities there are for conflict and drama when the character meets other in the world. When creating the character it should be interesting, but some details should be left out to allow the player to fill the character out themselves. The last thing to have in mind is to avoid stereotypes and cliches. With this information in mind it was decided that the player character would be a dragon to fit into the setting of the first thought artefact. When it was decided to change to another engine the character changed as well and became a young woman as the previous graphics would not work. The graphics didn’t work because in the new engine the view was different, before it was from the side, see Figure 3 & 5, and in the new a top side view, see Figure 1 & 2.

(17)

14

In games, as taken up by both Carr (2006, pp. 162-178) and Bryce et.al.(2006, pp. 185-201), female characters have a tendency to be both sexualized and ornamental. The female character could be more of a reward or a goal to get to, like Princess Peach in Nintendo’s Super Mario franchise, where she first appeared in the game Super Mario Bros(1985). In the game Princess Peach is kidnapped by the games antagonist and has to be rescued by Mario, the games protagonist. This use of female characters is a trope known as ‘Damsel in distress’ (Sarkeesian et.al. 2013) and exists in different types of media. The character in the artefact can be said to look stereotypical feminine as she has long pink hair and a skirt, see Figure 7, but is allowed to be both sassy and a criminal in the game if the player so wishes. This design choice was made to avoid the stereotypes and cliches mentioned earlier. Further Carr (2006, p. 168) talks about how the player through input can decide what parts of a character to highlight.

A trait expressed by the game, through dialogue, via gestures or actions, or by an avatar’s body, might become either emphasized or irrelevant – depending on the player’s actions and priorities.

- Carr, 2006, p. 165

By allowing the player to have the choice to play this female character as the main character on a short adventure where the choices made can be helpful or criminal, the trope ‘Damsel in Distress’ is avoided. Instead the player get the possibility to play the character out as a hero or a villain, albeit in a small scope.

Figure 7. The player character Isabelle in area 1.

4.2 Pilot Study

The pilot study was conducted in the researcher’s home making use of an acquaintance. It was determined from the pilot study subject’s personal gaming history that they possessed more than adequate prior gaming experience to participate in this study, playing over 10 hours a week. The pilot study participant was instructed in the basic controls of the artefact and then

(18)

15

allowed to play at their own leisure. The participant was allowed to ask questions, but this was not utilized during the testing.

During the testing the test subject was observed to both make sure that there were no serious errors in the current version of the artefact and to observe any interesting or noteworthy behaviour in the subject. In this specific instance there were no real noteworthy reactions or comments from the pilot study subject. The test subject performed the tasks set out in the game quickly and effectively. During the playthrough a couple of minor bugs were noted, however, they did not change the game state or playthrough in any significant manner. The bugs were map related where the player character could move on certain tiles and thus limited areas supposed to be inaccessible were accessible. These were fixed for the final version of the artefact.

After the playthrough of the artefact the pilot study test subject was directed to a questionnaire created in Google Forms, which is a part of the program Google Drive (2012). The subject was told that they may ask for clarification if needed and was left alone with the form. After completing the main part of the form and the first of three sections asking the participant to give feedback on choices they found to be interesting in any capacity, if any. This section repeated three times to give the respondent the possibility to give opinions on up to three different choices in the artefact. However, it turned out that this was confusing as it was not communicated clearly enough that there were three different sections with the same set up.

The test subject answered the main part of the questionnaire and filled in two out of the three optional parts. Thereafter an interview was held to test the interview questions.

After the test, the subject was asked to respond on the clarity of the artefact, questionnaire and interview questions so that any potential changes that needed to be applied could come to light. The response from the test subject was that it was somewhat confusing with the near identical parts after the main questionnaire. Where the artefact was concerned they felt it was straightforward and the objective clear. As such, with some minor tweaks to the artefact and questionnaire form, the study should be able to shed some light on the research question posed in this paper.

The questionnaire was constructed in the manner mentioned earlier in this study. What was added was inquiring about the gender and age of the respondent as well as make the specific choice sections more clearly divided and marked as separate. The specific choice part was changed to only being answered once, instead of the earlier three. This addition was to see if there were any significant differences between the experience players of different ages or players of various age groups. The age groups added were: 18 to 20, 21 to 25, 26 to 30, 31 to 35 and over 35.

(19)

16

5 Evaluation

In this part the information gathered from the testing will be presented and analysed.

Information regarding how the study and survey were done will also be provided. A conclusion will be provided at the end. While reading the analysis take into consideration that a player’s sense of agency and their feeling of control is necessarily not the same but they are closely connected.

5.1 The Study

The study was done by asking for players on different social media platforms. The platforms used were Facebook(2004) and Discord(2015). These two were used because of the different groups with people that I had access to, some of them were gaming related and others I was aware that people had an interest in video games as well. Before posting in any of the groups, permission to do so was asked of the administrators of the respective groups. After gaining permission a post was done where a request for players for this study was done. The post contained a link to where the artefact could be downloaded and a link to the questionnaire.

Instructions to first play the prototype and then answer the questionnaire were also written out to try and prevent gathering of irrelevant data. It was also clarified that the testing was voluntary and that they did not have to finish the testing if they did not wish to do so. In case they had any questions they were allowed to contact me directly if they wished. The players were also told what the information gathered would be used for (Østbye et.al. 2004, p. 104).

Players were also found through convenience sampling for lab testing, where they tested the game while being observed. After playing through the artefact they were asked to fill in the questionnaire and at the end was asked questions in an interview. See Appendix A for a list of the questions. The players are the respondents for this study.

5.1.1 Questionnaire

The questions in the questionnaire were of three different kinds, the one appearing the most being that of a linear scale ranging from 1-5, where 1 represented ‘not at all’ and a 5 ‘very much’.

For gathering gender and age, multiple choice questions were used. The last type used was that of paragraphs, where the player could answer with free written text.

Chart 1. Showing the answers to gender, a multiple choice question.

(20)

17

The questionnaire used for gathering the information was designed into two sections, the first one asking about the player’s gender, age and questions concerning all the choices in the artefact.

Chart 2. Showing answers to the general question, Did you feel that the choices you picked were meaningful to you?, linear choice question. 1 represents ’not at all’ and 5 ’very much’.

The next section were questions asking about one specific choice in the game that the player could choose themselves. This was a mandatory part, but again free text answers were not required to answer.

Chart 3. Showing the answers to the specific choice question, Did this choice feel meaningful to you? 1 represents ’not at all’ and 5 ’very much’.

5.1.2 Interviews

A total of six players were chosen to be interviewed. The interviews were held in each of the player’s respective homes. The player first had to playthrough the artefact and then proceed to fill out the questionnaire like the remote players. After that the interview was held. All of

(21)

18

the six players agreed to be interviewed upon completing the questionnaire. A total of four questions were asked, with follow up questions based on their answers.

5.2 The Results

There were a total of 20 responses to the questionnaire and at such the results will be treated as if there were 20 players, even though it is possible that more people tested the artefact than there were responses. All players were between the ages of 18 and 30. 45% of the players were women, 40% men and 15% other. 6 of the 20 players did the testing in a lab with a follow up interview. Furthermore 60% were between the ages of 21-25, 35% 26-30 and 5% 18-20. To note was that no conclusions could be drawn between age or gender when it came to the players opinions, the collected data in the questionnaire, and age and gender is therefore only mentioned in the part about the interviews.

5.2.1 Overall game questions

The first question concerning the game was if they would play the game again or not. The results lean more to players wanting to play again and nobody said they would not at all want to play again.

Chart 4. Showing the answers to the question, Would you play the game again?

1 represents ’not at all’ and 5 ’very much’.

The reasons for not wanting to play again varied, as could be read in the follow up question’s answers. One player felt that the choices just weren’t hard to make, that there was no emotional impact for them and that there were other games they could play instead that had more interesting choices. Four players thought that the content was too thin and one played through the game five times and could find no more paths and therefore had no further initiative to play.

(22)

19

Chart 5. Showing the answers to the question. Did you feel that the choices you picked were meaningful to you? 1 represents ’not at all’ and 5 ’very much’.

On average the answers to this question is more to the positive side, over half the players thought the choices were meaningful to them and a few were in between. One player did however feel that the choices were not meaningful to them.

Chart 6. Showing the answers to the question, Did you feel that the choices you made were important to the story? 1 represents ’not at all’ and 5 ’very much’.

The answers to this question were a little more evenly distributed, but still leaning more towards the positive side. In the follow up question the ones that did not think the choices were very important to the story said that the reasons for it was that they didn’t have any emotional attachment to the character or the world. Some reasons from other players were that the story was not reasonable in their opinion, it was too thin or too short. One player answered with a 1, stating that they did not at all think their choices were important. A reason for this was that they felt forced to get the money in the game one certain way and would have preferred more ways to do this. This player encountered a bug when they tried to sell the Noble

(23)

20

to the bandits, making it impossible for them to proceed in the game. As they continued on through the questionnaire often answering with low numbers or negative comments. The player also stated that they played through the game 5 times.

Two of the four that answered with a 3, thought that their choices mostly didn't matter, but argued that they might have thought the choices mattered more if the game had been longer and through that have seen more consequences of their actions. The other player that answered with a 3 was not happy with the choices available and thought that they were forced to a choice of either playing a good or bad character. They also stated that they didn't like that there were only two choices available and would have preferred more.

When it came to the players that answered 4-5, one that gave a reason for it argued that they had an impression that the choices mattered, as they played through the game once and through that couldn't tell if the ending would have been different or not. They also thought that the choice to steal or not was important to give their character a certain personality.

Further they argued that even if it wouldn't have changed the character in game, it would have changed how they viewed the story. Another player stated that they were interested in seeing what would have happened if they had picked the path to rob the Noble instead of leading him home, this made it feel to them as if there were multiple scenarios.

Chart 7. Showing the answers to the question, Were you able to see the results of you choices? 1 represents ’not at all’ and 5 ’very much’.

The responses to this question were on the positive side, with two not being able to see the results of their choices at all. The follow up question to this one was “Did this make a difference in terms of other choices you made?”. Here a few of the players brought up terms such as moral compass and character personality. One of the players stated that through being able to talk back to the mother in the beginning they started reflecting on what moral compass they wanted to have throughout the game. In this case they decided on the righteous path which impacted their choices during the rest of the playthrough.

Two of the players didn’t notice that it made a difference on them, where one of the two said that they tend to go towards the good choices in a game. Further they said that seeing the result of a choice is more like a bonus to them and makes their choices feel more important. There were two players that felt that they didn’t see the result of their choices and both said in the follow up question that choices were emotional based and not gameplay based. They also

(24)

21

commented that you either bring the man home or rob him and in the end you will get the money and fruit no matter what.

Chart 8. Showing the answers to the question, Did you feel that the story would have been different if you had selected other choices? 1 represents ’not at all’ and 5 ’very much’.

Over half the players thought that the story would have been different if they had selected other choices, some were a bit less sure about how different it would have been. In the follow up question “What kind of choices might these have been?” four players believed that there might have been a small difference, but still thought the end result would have been the same where you get the money and the fruit. Two of them mentioned that they avoided interactions with the bandits and that it could been a choice that possibly could have changed the ending.

A choice that was mentioned by many of the players was the option to rob the Noble or not.

Two of these players also brought up that they could have made an enemy or in another way have failed robbing the man and ended up in prison. Other subjects that came up were the idea of not helping the mother and simply turning down her request for help, interacting with the bandits and not escorting the Noble. Two players brought up different ways to get the money that didn’t exist within the artefact. A few examples of what they brought up, finding it in a well or bush, stealing from a house and going back to the mother to ask her for the money.

(25)

22

Chart 9. Showing the answers to the question, Did you feel that you had control over the parts of the story you wanted to? 1 represents ’not at all’ and 5 ’very much’.

The answers are more to the positive side, with four players not feeling like they had control over what they wanted to, two of them feeling like they didn’t at all have control over what they wanted.

Chart 10. Showing the answers to the question, How did your interactions with characters influence your choices? 1 represents ’not at all’ and 5 ’very much’.

The results here are even, ending up in the middle. Some of the players didn’t think that their interactions with characters influenced their choices very much or at all. Two players did feel that the character interactions they had affected their choices a lot while two not at all.

5.2.2 Specific choice question

There were a total of 19 responses to part 2 of the questionnaire which is about the specific choices, with one player’s response missing.

(26)

23

Chart 11. Showing the answers to the question, Did this choice feel meaningful to you?

1 represents ’not at all’ and 5 ’very much’.

A majority of the players mention the Noble in their specific choice, where seven of the players chose to rob the Noble or not, in some cases formulated as taking the shortcut. Five players felt that the choice was very meaningful, felt important to the story and that they saw the result of the choice. When it came to the question if they were content with the choice options available four players were very content with it and did not wish for more choice options. Two were content and one might have wished for more choice options answering with a 2 to the question.

One player wrote that they thought the choice of robbing or not was the most interesting one, even though they had already decided against it. Their reason for not wanting to rob the Noble was that they didn’t think their character had any experience doing things like that based on how it had interacted with characters before that. This lead them to be curious about what could happen but also worry that they would lose the game or not be able to get the fruit for the mother, making them pick the seemingly safer choice. Furthermore two players were against the idea of robbing someone, even if it was in a game.

Two players chose what to do with the Noble as a choice, meaning what they would do with him throughout the game during different situations and choices. These players thought the choice was meaningful, answering with a 4 and a 5. One of the players thought it was the only real choice and that everything else was just to move the story forward up to that point. This player continued on to answer with a 3 on if the thought the choice was important to the story and if they felt like they saw the result of the choice. They did feel as if the story would have been different if they had picked another choice. When it came to having more choice options they would very much have liked to have more, giving a few examples of having more ways to get money or not being forced to escort the Noble.

One of the players thought it was the most significant moral choice they could do as their character. They felt that the choice was very important to the story and would have liked more possible choices. One choice they would have liked would be to lead the Noble straight into the bandits. Another choice they would have liked would be to ignore the Noble and find another way to get money.

(27)

24

Chart 12. Showing the answers to the question, Did you feel as if you saw the results of this choice? 1 represents ’not at all’ and 5 ’very much’.

Chart 13. Showing the answers to the question, Would you like to have seen more choice options for this choice? 1 represents ’not at all’ and 5 ’very much’.

There were four more players that mentioned the Noble in their choice from the game. Two of them picked the choice option where you can tell the bandits to jump on the Noble. They didn’t think the choice was very meaningful, but thought it was funny, unique and added some charm to the game. Further, they didn’t think that the choice was very important to the story. On the question about if they felt that the story would have been different if they picked another choice they answered very much, same with the next question asking if they were content with the choice options available. They both would however, still have liked to see more choice options.

The other two players picked the choice to take the Noble with you, which they both also stated themselves, not an actual choice you have in the artefact. Their reasoning behind it was that it didn’t feel believable, that a real person would have gone back home to their mother and gotten the money from her instead or found another way. They did not like that there wasn’t another

(28)

25

choice available here and because of this they didn’t find the choice meaningful or important to the story. They weren’t happy with the choice options available and would have liked a choice to not help the guy and been able to get the money from somewhere else.

A specific choice a player chose is “How my character would act morally in the game”. This was a personal choice and not one that existed as a dialogue option in the artefact. It was a very meaningful choice to them. They wrote the following in the follow up question.

To be able to do any actions in a role playing game you need motivation It’s usually the first thing I decide for the characters I play.

(Anonymous player, 2018)

However, the choice was not very meaningful to the story. They did however state that they very much saw the result of this choice and felt that the story would have been different if they had picked something else. When it came to the choice options they were okay with those available, but would have liked more choice options, where one should be that you could steal from the shopkeeper.

There were a few players that thought all the choices were the same, good or bad and did not state a specific choice. They would have liked some more in-between or complex options. One didn’t want to have to be either a good hero type or a villain. They did not want to have to go on a hero’s journey and would have preferred to explore the village and help the mother at the house. Another stated that the lack of in-between choices didn’t feel realistic and found themselves being trapped with the Noble, not wanting to act out being bad but they also didn’t want to have to escort him. They wanted alternate ways to get the money.

5.2.3 The interviews

The interviews were out of convenience done in the six player’s respective homes. Due to the anonymity of the questionnaire it was not possible to link who the six players were in the questionnaire and look at their answers there to compare them to what they said in the interview. Therefore this part focuses solely on what was said in the interviews. To note was that players gender and age group were collected at the start of the interview as well. The interview contained follow-up questions asking about the content and their thoughts on the artefact. The data collected here was qualitative, while the data from the questionnaire was quantitative. To provide clarity the players will be numbered, but in no particular order.

Table 1. Showing interviewed players gender and age.

Number Gender Age

Player 1 Woman 21-25

Player 4 Man 26-30

(29)

26

Player 5 Other 26-30

Player 6 Man 21-25

Four of the players, 1, 2, 4 and 5, interviewed thought that the most important moment in the artefact was when they had to choose between robbing the Noble or continuing on with escorting him. They did not however have any difficulty with picking this choice and did not encounter any other such moments during the gameplay session.

Player 2 found the player character cute and a bit odd in the other seemingly rough landscape of the game, while player 5 stated that the player character was adorable and very feminine.

Player 4 would have preferred to pick the characters appearance themselves and was a bit disappointed in how pink the character was and at such didn’t think it fit in with the game world. Player 6 said it was okay to play as a female character and would have liked to have more NPC interactions. Further about the NPCs, players’ 1 and 4 thought the shopkeeper had too few lines and should have been nicer to them as a customer in the game. An NPC all of them commented on was the Noble who was thought of as a bit annoying.

Player 3 found the choice to be rude or not to the mother important. It was perhaps not the only important choice in the game according to them, but they found it important for setting down the role for their character. At one point during the game the player found themselves a bit indecisive about what choice to pick and this was when they could choose to rob the Noble or not. This was because they couldn’t decide if it felt reasonable for their character to robe the Noble or not. The reason also answers the next interview question and it was due to the characters seemingly cute and feminine appearance. The player thought it would be fun to play the character as really “badass”, but not sure if they wanted to make them a thief. A character the player commented on was the Noble, he seemed like a jerk according to them and was thought of as stupid for not bringing his own guards with him. The player also wished that the bandits would have had more time in the game as they seemed interesting, due to the choice of being able to alert them.

Lastly player 1 thought the choice to alert the bandits the most important and wondered where it could have taken them in story, they did not pick the choice to alert them during their playthrough. This was also a choice that they had a hard time picking, but found themselves not wanting to the Noble over to bandits even if he had been annoying. It would been a choice that would have made them feel bad morally and didn’t think that their character in the game should act in such a way. They continued on to saying that they liked having a cute female character and playing as one might have made them want to be more law-abiding and not take risks. In retrospect they said that if they had played a male character they would probably have taken the choice to alert the bandits, finding it intriguing that maybe they would be able to become a cool outlaw.

5.3 Analysis

It became clear that a few players reacted negatively to the inconsequential choice of helping the Noble NPC in the artefact get home or not. Two players took up this choice specifically in the second part of the questionnaire as a choice that stood out, while a few others mentioned it in other free text portions of the questionnaire. The choice of picking ‘No’ became a

(30)

27

frustration to the players and affected them negatively, making them feel forced upon a specific path. To exemplify, one of these players stated that it would have made more sense to go back home and ask the mother character for money instead of helping a stranger. Another suggested other ways to get the money that did not exist within the artefact. They all wanted more control over their actions, by having more choices and at such also the following consequences. According to Murray’s definition of agency(Murray, cited in Fendt et.al 2012, p. 4) it is important that the player can see the results of their choices, which the players in this case were not able to see and at such leading to a lower sense of agency.

On the other hand those that did not comment on this choice most likely answered with ‘Yes’, and therefore upheld the illusion of choice and the sense of having control. Through the received feedback they perceived their choice as impactful. This can be compared with the well-received game in Fend et.al(2012) study which had choices didn’t change he game state but had feedback(Ibid, pp. 8-10). Their conclusion was that games “…where players’ actions are acknowledged but don’t influence gameplay has the potential to preserve the player’s sense of agency while reducing the amount of content authors must create.” (Ibid, p. 11). The players who chose not to escort the Noble did not get a lot of feedback that acknowledged their choice, while the players who chose to escort the Noble did. This suggests that inconsequential choices will work if they player receives enough feedback and also if the player picks the already intended path. It can however become an issue if the player tries to divert from the path, thus destroying the feeling of control.

Another key fact to remember is that one player stated that an important choice to them was that they could talk back to the mother character in the artefact. The choice to talk back or not was a purely cosmetic dialogue-changing, choice and thus an inconsequential choice. However the player started reflecting on what moral compass they wanted to have during the playthrough. What was intended as an inconsequential choice was made meaningful due to the player engaging with their character’s mindset and how to play them out, engaging in roleplay. This is in line with Nay and Zagal’s(2017, pp. 2-3) argument that inconsequential choices can be meaningful to a player as they “…can help the player reflect meaningfully about the subtleties and motives behind their actions without a focus on outcome.” (Ibid, p. 2). It is also related to Iten et.al. (2018, pp. 8-10) argument that meaningful choices, among other things, can be social interactions. Therefore this shows that it is in part up to the player to decide what a meaningful choice is and what is defines as meaningful can change between players.

The choice of robbing the Noble or not was the choice brought up the most by the players. The majority stated that it was a very meaningful choice, important to the story and that they saw the result. A key fact here, referring to the view of two players, is that they for moral reasons did not wish to rob the Noble. In contrast another player was intrigued by the choice and still decided against it, wondering if their character had enough experience to successfully follow through on such an action. This is interesting as the two players mentioned possibly thought morally outside of the game, while the later player put themselves in the characters shoes and tried to figure out the best course of action, while they might have picked to rob the Noble if they hadn’t. This shows an emotional connection to the characters in the game and also that the players felt fully in control during the choice. The choice being moral in nature successfully made the choice meaningful for the players. This strengthens Iten et.al.(2018, p. 10) results

Creating choices for the player: A study about how story choices affect the player’s sense of agency