This week focused on understanding narrative as an interactive system, rather than a linear story delivered to the player. Building on the foundations established in Weeks 1–4—tone, genre, visual direction, and early worldbuilding—Week 5 challenged me to consider how narrative meaning emerges through player action, choice, and interaction.
A key question introduced this week was: Where does narrative come from in games?
Rather than existing solely in dialogue or cutscenes, narrative can emerge from:
- Player decision-making
- Environmental design
- Mechanical feedback and pacing
This reframing aligned closely with my project’s direction. Instead of relying on explicit exposition, the game’s story is communicated through atmosphere, space, and limited but meaningful interaction, supporting a horror-driven experience where uncertainty and interpretation are central.
The lectures emphasised that narrative design is inseparable from gameplay design. Mechanics are not neutral; they actively shape narrative meaning. Decisions such as what the player is allowed to do, when they can act, and how the world responds all contribute to storytelling.
This directly informed my GDD, where player agency is intentionally constrained. Actions such as observation, exploration, and interaction with the environment become narrative tools rather than simple gameplay functions. By limiting choice, tension is heightened, and the player becomes more aware of consequence and emotional pacing.
Classical narrative frameworks, including the Three-Act Structure and The Hero’s Journey, were explored as tools for understanding pacing rather than strict templates. Applying these models helped clarify how tension can escalate and resolve within an interactive experience.
Rather than outlining every narrative beat, I focused on identifying key moments of change—points where the player realises something fundamental about the space, the situation, or themselves has shifted. This approach supports narrative coherence while remaining flexible and manageable in scope.
The horror workshop translated theory into practice by exploring branching narrative through a limited design exercise. Rather than creating complex narrative trees, I identified two key player decisions that subtly alter emotional context rather than radically changing the plot.
This reinforced the idea that meaningful choice does not require multiple endings. Instead, player decisions can:
- Shift emotional tone
- Reframe narrative interpretation
- Influence how the story is remembered
This approach fits both the horror genre and the project’s practical constraints.
Environmental storytelling played a central role this week. Objects, lighting, sound, and spatial layout were treated as narrative elements rather than decorative assets. The moodboard and storyboard task encouraged a focus on a single space and a single narrative moment, reinforcing how atmosphere can carry a story without text.
This process strengthened the cohesion between narrative intent and visual design, ensuring that spaces communicate history, tension, and meaning organically.
Week 5 clarified that narrative in games is not something written for the player, but something constructed through interaction. By focusing on emotional flow, pacing, and environmental cues, I have refined the narrative direction of my project while keeping it aligned with scope and feasibility.
