Anti-gameplay

Often times video games have contradictions between gameplay and narrative. Story and gameplay are handled as two separate entities entirely, both progressing on their own as the game unfolds, but often times there is not much dialogue between the 2.

For an example: in Tomb Raider(2013) the theme of the game is how a young woman is able to overcome all odds in her fight for survival. Early parts of the game quite successfully portray her struggle as she is stumbling forward. Lara is hurt and vulnerable in every scene, shivering by the bonfire, barely surviving every encounter with the baddies and so on -- but then just in a time frame of one scene, Lara gets her gun and slaughters a company of bad guys. From that point on there is a clear shift in focus towards gameplay and making players feel empowered by their killing skills. Narrative themes are set in background, not only that, but these new gameplay elements contradict narrative entirely. The game is clearly not about survival anymore, because you can easily dispatch an army of enemies without breaking a sweat. Similar unfoldings in video games happen all the time. There needs to be an even flow of rewards and new skills that players acquire in order to keep them playing and satisfied in this age of instant reward. Games are often times still first and foremost about gameplay, even more story driven games. This trend in video games, where gameplay contradicts narrative, is called ludonarrative dissonance.

Now what does all this have to do with Fear & Hunger? If you played the teaser demo, you might have been annoyed by certain features and design choices. The game explains nothing. You have to test things by trial and error to find meaning to items that are seemingly useless often times. There are one-way dead ends, with no means to continue the game. There are infamous one-hit kills with next to no warning to them. The whole gameplay system is kind of an anti-RPG system; instead of gaining EXP after every battle and becoming stronger over time - you lose limbs and come closer to being crippled after every encounter with monsters. The anti-gameplay elements serve a purpose however, they're not there just to annoy players. They are there to enhance themes of the narrative. The dungeons of fear and hunger are supposed to be oppressive and hopeless, where bigger forces decide your fate. Characters are meant to survive against impossible odds.

In a way all the anti-gameplay elements are there to create the opposite to ludonarrative dissonance: to create ludonarrative resonance. Things are made uncomfortable, so that the player wants to stay away from the same dangers as the playable character would. Anti-gameplay elements are supposed to make the player feel paranoid about every choice he or she makes and perhaps look for alternative routes for survival, maybe just to make the player run from the battles? I hope it all adds to immersion in the end, which in turn seems to be one of the strongest factors in creating horror experience.

Now all these fancy terms and talk don't mean that these elements are perfect as it is. Teaser demo was there to test out all these features. I'm going to be listening to the feedback closely. I'm going to be working with the balance, making certain things more fair and trying to come up with new ways to introduce more anti-gameplay elements in the future. It is pretty interesting subject imo and indie games are an ideal testing grounds for it.

I just felt like explaining the design choices behind certain elements as it's clear not everyone cares for them :P

Thanks to everyone who gave the demo a shot~!! I'm feeling pretty excited in continuing my work with the game ^.^


oh and check out RagnarRox from youtube who has an awesome analysis on ludonarrative resonance!