Talk:Ludonarrative dissonance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 February 2019 and 31 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jqhoidn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More references?[edit]

The page seems a bit short on references, making it unclear if this is a recent term used only by a few bloggers or a more robust term used elsewhere--say, in the VG industry or by media studies scholars. I'm glad the page is here, but references would beef it up and answer those questions for casual readers (like me). Basementwall (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the term was used here:
These are just the first few I found by Googling. Plenty of published books make use of the term, but generally don't focus on it very much, making it hard to use them as references. I'm not entirely sure what to do with them either, but I think it at least establishes notability. Maplestrip (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debates on the potential positive use of the notion[edit]

This section is poorly written and should be removed. EggsInMyPockets (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then fix it or remove it :) It seems like half of the section is sourced to an article on Academia.edu, which probably isn't a reliable source. The origin of the other source I haven't heard of before. ~Mable (chat) 06:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most examples used are incorrect applications of the term[edit]

(apologies in advance for the formatting, this is my first time engaging with wikipedia's editing)

Ludonarrative dissonance refers to where the gameplay themes contradict the narrative themes, not that the narrative and gameplay are segregated. The original use for the term (http://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html) by Hocking criticising Bioshock highlighted the difference between the 'Randian rational self-interest' expressed in the gameplay (specifically the option to save the little sisters or sacrifice for personal gain, part of the "ludic contract"), and the narrative twist that reveals that you were never acting out of free will (or generally the "narrative contract" of 'Help Atlas and you will progress'). The Dissonance comes from the fact that you can choose to help the little sisters and help Atlas to oppose Ryan (rejecting the objectivist approach), but if you do choose the objectivist approach and sacrifice the little sisters, you are still forced to help Atlas to oppose Ryan. After setting up the themes of the gameplay, they are subverted by the narrative to force the player down a single storyline (with the plot twist acting as deus ex machina).

As a term to describe the uncharted games, ludonarrative dissonance is misused, as the term requires there to be an initial engagement between the gameplay and themes in a meaningful way, else there is nothing for the narrative themes to be dissonant with. The Uncharted games and others like it that have been described as ludonarratively dissonant would be more accurately described as having segregated narrative and gameplay, as having a casual attitude towards shooting people can't contradict with any themes of condemning violence if those themes don't exist in the first place. If the games did narratively explore the effects of PTSD and stress associated with killing multiple people then there would be a ludonarrative dissonance with the gameplay treating people as target practice, but this isn't the case.

The term has a highly specialised use to describe a rare problem in games (where the game allowed the player to meaningfully interact with the themes through the gameplay, but then the narrative contradicts the themes communicated through the gameplay in a way that invalidates the player's 'ludic engagement'), but has been popularly used instead to describe a different abstract problem of segregated gameplay and narrative.

SolePorpoise on YouTube in his video "The Most Abused Term in Videogame Criticism"(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8PAWO4Y_rY) does a better job at explaining it than I can, and also highlights a good example of a game that has ludonarrative harmony (called ludonarrative consistency in the wiki article), 'Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons', and how you could change the story to create actual ludonarrative dissonance.

Tephrite (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

this. the current explanation is so confusing. it doesn't explain it all nor anything else really. I only recently learned about this term and this wiki page makes a very poor job at explaining the term. the page needs to be revised heavily. At least the people that use that term will do me a favor by making it easier for me to spot the wannabe shakespears and ignore their opinion. Glad I don't read the outlets that use it. I saw the term on resetera, out of all places lol, in the tlou2 review thread. Nestea Zen (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph about the Last of Us 2 actually misunderstands the article it is citing. The article says that TLOU 2 does NOT have ludonarrative dissonance, but rather harmony: "The developers... have finally bridged the gap between story and action, dragging the story kicking and screaming and gurgling on its own blood to align with what you actually do in their games: kill people" but he thinks the effort to avoid ludonarrative dissonance may be a bad thing: "Thirteen years ago, critics and designers imagined games would no longer have ludonarrative dissonance, that the stories video games want to tell would align with the actions they demand we commit. But if this is the result, then you know what? I’m cool with dissonance. I’ll take violent games that strive for fun and don’t pitch any greater meaning, rather than violent games that seek to justify their violence." Tuesdaymush (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hocking is objectively wrong[edit]

Hocking gets several basic facts about Bioshock's narrative and gameplay wrong, suggesting that he is forcing his own desires for what the game was trying to say with what it actually clearly said, chief among them his assumption that the narrative is "clearly implying" that there's no benefit to rescuing the little sisters -- the narrative is actually very explicit that there's a benefit to it, especially from a moral sense. Next is his completely nonsensical misunderstanding of objectivism itself -- I'm no fan of objectivism, but "it's never a good idea to help someone else for any reason" is a very, well, stupid caricature of "Randian self-interest". Finally, there's the completely numerical false claim that it is "never in the player's best interest to rescue the little sisters", for which he references an escapist article, which is...completely 100% false. It feels like he got about two hours in, completely misinterpreted everything about the game, and then decided to write a smug review about it.

Is there really nobody critiquing his deeply flawed analysis of the game that we can cite, other than a few posters on the blog? It's maddening to see that review spread everywhere and cited as if it's some brilliant insight, when it's so blatantly ignorant to anyone who actually put in the time to finish playing the game before claiming they knew for certain what it was trying to do. I can't believe any literature or film reviewer would be able to do something like this without getting laughed out of the profession.50.194.115.156 (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, found one -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8PAWO4Y_rY. This should be added.50.194.115.156 (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that his statements about the game are incorrect; however, this article doesn't really take a stance on the veracity of his analysis. What's most important/relevant is that Hocking coined the term. If you can find a reliable source that rebuts his analysis, then the counterargument can also be mentioned in the article. That YouTube video, however, does not meet this criteria. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not exclusive to video games?[edit]

Sure, introduced in the context of a video game. But there's no factor that limits the usage of the term and it is already in use among board game designers too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110F:D1C:9900:5521:93BE:8A24:D0D6 (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find reliable sources that discuss ludonarrative dissonance in board games, we can certainly include it, but we need that sourcing first. --Masem (t) 23:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a 2014 blog post about a conflict in comics and TV shows between the explicit moral communicated by what characters say, and the moral communicated by what they do and what results they get: "Superman taught me to kill". Seems to me like a very similar concept. Philgoetz (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Ludonarrative consistency" section[edit]

This section currently seems lacking, mentioning only a single game series with a single source to back the claim. At present, it reads as if someone was a big fan of Dead Space and really wanted to praise it in this article. I think the section should be removed, unless it can be expanded upon with more examples or relevant claims. --Revolutionary girl euclid (talk) 07:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree. If not deleted, then at the very least it could be better merged into the above section rather than having its own. Moozipan Cheese (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ludonarrative_dissonance&oldid=1208616006"