Wolf Among us and The Banner Saga: Meaningful Outcome

2. Discuss the meaningful outcome of your choices on the story in your chosen games(s).

In "Wolf Among us", the choices the player makes feel meaningful in terms of story as the outcomes will change depending on what choices you make."Colin" asks "Bigby" if he can still be in Bigby's apartment when Snow said that he is to be send to the Farm. The player is given the following choices: "Sorry. Rules are Rules.", "I wouldn't do that to you.", "Snow will change her mind" or to say nothing at all. If the player chooses the second option, the game will notify you what decision you made: "You chose friendship over rules." The player can assume that from this, you will keep the friendship between "Bigby" and "Colin".
This choice feels meaningful because the morality/personality of the player is questioned and the result is reflected in the game. It depends on the player's personality whether they would "go by the rules" or to choose friendship.

In "The Banner Saga",the results of the choices the player makes feel micro towards the story but macro in terms of strategy. Further in the game, "Alette" is about to be struck by a "Dredge" and it is up to the player what to do next: if the player chooses either to shout her name or to shoot the arrow, the same result will happen: another character will jump between the "Dredge" and "Alette" and die.
This choice doesn't feel meaningful in terms of story because no matter what the player picks the end result will not change, whereas deciding how long you want to "rest" at a camp can change the strategic aspect of the game: it will improve the caravan's morale.

Overall, I feel that "The Wolf Among Us" feels more meaningful in terms of story as the story will change depending on what choice the player makes, while in "The Banner Saga" it will not.

Prince of Persia and Rayman 3: Story Nodes

2. Do the story nodes in your chosen game(s) work well to support gameplay and gameplay objectives? Why or Why not?

My chosen games are Prince of Persia and Rayman 3 and the story nodes worked well to support gameplay and gameplay objectives in Prince of Persia but not in Rayman 3. Both of the games feel different from one another, Prince of Persia relies more on narrative and Rayman 3 relies more on gameplay.

Prince of Persia opened with a story node (cut-scene), establishing the characters and setting making the objectives clear. Through the story nodes I found the story interesting but the gameplay uninteresting and repetitive. I found myself playing only because I was engaged and excited about the narrative but not the gameplay, and as a result I saw the story nodes as rewards which came in a variety of forms; cinematic (start of the Game), scene and mood setting (when the level is shown to the player) and gameplay catapult (Father and son win the battle and give the sand of time to ally).

In Rayman 3 I found myself enjoying the gameplay but not the story nodes. It opens with a story node establishing the characters, plot and setting. The game used story nodes, only to make objectives clear to the player but not to engage and excite the player for the narrative. It felt very much like Mario where the story is not necessary for the gameplay to be enjoyable. The player lost agency when the story nodes played and I felt detached, just wanting to get to the gameplay instead of paying attention to the story nodes.

Overall, I think the story nodes supported gameplay and gameplay objectives in Prince of Persia but not Rayman 3. The story nodes immersed the player into the narrative in Prince of Persia but in Rayman it was used to get the character from “A” to “B”.

Facade: User Input

3. Does your chosen game(s) make user input feel meaningful in terms of story direction and progression? Why or why not?

My chosen game is "Facade" and it makes the user input feel meaningful in terms of story direction and progression. The user input feel meaningful because the story's resolution relies on the user's decisions.

The input of the user is writing down their responses to a situation simulated in the game. The narrative of "Facade" will progress differently depending on what the responses are of the user. An example of that would be if the user types :"I hate you." The couple will then ask the user to leave, resulting the game to end. Having the couple ask the user to leave is one of many different outcomes.

If the user decides to not say anything the result of the story will always be the same, but if the user inputs their decisions , the progression of the story will change depending on what they write. If the user progresses far enough into the story they will find out things like; that the couple has cheated on one another. This can result in different outcomes; the couple breaks up or make up. If the user chooses not to get involved in any of the arguments the story will progress negatively; resulting the couple to break up. This demonstrates that the story will go on like a "movie", making the user input feel meaningless but the story will progress differently if the user does input.

Overall, I think that "Facade" makes the user input feel meaningful as the story will not change if the user chooses not to respond, but if the user does input the story will change according to what the user responds, making the story end differently.