G.J. - The notion of 'stake' you have osunds similar to Llaura's "anecdote" - or maybe I'm just relating these two concepts to understand them. There's a notion of trying to understand a Real WOrld System (e.g. capitalism). I think by having the 'stake' thing you mention - you can illuminate aspects of the system? So that's similar to Llaura's anecdote. The terms both get complicated-ish..but I think you both are going towards similar ideas, the usefulness of something in the category of The Marriage or in How Do You Do It.
Anyways I am thinking about the usefulness of small games vs long games. Small seem to be useful in the sense of being able to clearly (or more succinctly) attempt to articulate one's observations from their experience, illuminating an aspect of a Real World System: e.g. HDYDI with child sexuality, or whatever else game....alt games, etc...
the small vs long is definitely a too narrow spectrum. but you barely, barely (if ever?) see "alt games" with lengths over 2 or 3 hours or so. Maybe beeswing exceeds this, not sure - need to finish it
Well not quite, anecdote is descriptive of the art, stake is prescriptive. In fact anecdote as illustrated by Laura is closer to behavior than stake, and even with behavior anecdote is more likely to frame it rather than inform implementation. Anecdote to me is more a unite of "theming" inside a bigger theme.
But it seems that the discussion was tangentially about "the art" and more "the purpose" or "the cultural breadth" of the medium. I'll roll with it anyway
Consider one problem with game, in literature information is presented sequentially there is no problem of "direction" to the player as the direction is the linear unveiling of information fed by the sequence. Game can rely on sequence but that's not the forte of the medium. Anticipation is build through acquiring information that lead to the realization of a revelation will happen in the direction.
Stake allow to have both direction and anticipation by setting up tension, it's not theme as it depend on it and put it in narrative tension, nor anecdote as it isn't of the same nature, nor it is system as it does not describe behavior and ultimately it's not purely narrative as it describe abstract gameplay too (help define lose/win or gameplay pressure) but is not limited by it (help give to define the weight of pure dilemma and other narrative choice as well). So it's essentially a "art of writing" distinction, a useful cognitive tools to help organize and understand narration in game. It allow to find what is significant in a narrative or gameplay system without distinction between the two by framing where tension happen, as such it inform implementation. It's not about length at all.
Consider the following simple setting: a serial killer follow an unaware girl ... it has an implicit stake of survival, as such all interaction will be frame by the weight given by this stake, should the girl talk to someone and it allow the serial killer to get closer, all interaction will be seen by the weight stake put in them (you can have multiple stake).
So you have "direction" and meaning to interactions before there is even a system, behavior is complementary as the way they exist in stake convey meaning, for example the cops in civil prevent the serial killer to reach the girl we know the stake it allow to identify them by behavior alone (even though they might share similar mechanics or even system with the serial killer). All of that happen without TELLING just DOING, that's why Kopa's Lim is so efficient while being completely abstract.
But it also give you anticipation, because there is weight through possible consequence, as the distance of resolution is clearly defined by the proximity of all the elements (here physical with the serial killer to girl distance), it also give anticipation as tension rise as the resolution draw toward closure. This anticipation don't have to be specific to action or physical settings, it also work with emotional or abstract distance.
It also give control over pacing and revelation, let say the serial killer finally reach the girl, the reason we anticipate bad outcome is because we know he is a serial killer, but by using behavior we betray the logic and have the serial killer give the girl flower. Stake allow to understand the flow of information and how it impact the audience by its authored structure.
Now the reason I held "how do you do it" so highly is that it is a perfect demonstration of those effect. Interaction there aren't just illustrative they part of the expression of the stakes, that is the mystery of conception from a children point of view, the system is shallow ( rotate figure and collide them) but perfectly embody the behavior, and what makes it break from mere "illustration" (aka redundant or pointless addition to given information) is that each collision is rewarded with thought snippet and therefore act as a pay off that validate and express the closure of the works. As repeated collision and different poses give different snippet it allow a sens of progression. It work even greater because there is an illusion of progression where there is none and this is relevant to the theme, the little girl remain absolutely clueless even though her thought (imagination) progress on the matter and the audience is embarked in witnessing where she goes (which make the interaction meaningful). The punchline (the mother return) works because the tacit complicity of the audience and the knowledge distance between us (we know how to do it) and the girl (she still doesn't). It's a very rare and brilliant example that sublimate what I demonstrate above and actually show the full mastery of the concept beyond the direct use (as in the serial killer example).
But the pay off can be a dilemma too as in mass effect (the way they expose information during a mission as thesis and antithesis and lead the player to anticipate a choice to be made as the final pay off). Phenix wright also work by using rythm of stake/resolution at different hierarchical level, PT is another brillant demonstration of narrative leading with narrative pay off and tension between progression and anticipation (the player expect bad thing to happen, but bad thing only happen if he progress and make them happen, and progressing rely on understanding the narrative even though it's never clear, and each element convey information that build onto themselves).
To contrast, the small game you released about your asian identity failed to link the interaction with the text, it was confusing in that it was like a bad example of Chekhov gun, engaging with it was thematically illustrative to the message but didn't participate to it nor establish anything significant, it's there because it is introspective thought over a breakfast, but taking bit of cereal don't play with the works closure, it doesn't direct, have redundant meaning and build no anticipation. The actual stake was about asian identity and the tension between cultural heritage, social pressure and individual aspirations. The text has a clear progression on this and cannibalize everything else.
That's quite the wall
I hope you appreciate!
Edit:
Another way to put information flow in game is to look at this diagram of puzzle game, replace the term by appropriate narrative terms and it will complement what I demonstrate above.
Replace:
- problem by stake
- insight by interaction/exposition
- solution by realization
- application by resolution/pay off/punchline
Community
