Researcher: Right so, first question is... when you guys were going through the story, did you notice the other player? Participant 1: Yes Participant 2: Yes Researcher: When did you first notice the other player? Participant 1: i think it was towards the end, like, after act 1, towards the middle of act 2, when, i saw that they ad responsed to something, or it showed me they had chosen a specific answer and I could read through what they'd chosen, or something along those lines Researcher: Okay Participant 1: For me at least Participant 2: Same with me, it was with the text saying that the other player had made this decision Researcher: Cool, intersting. So, if that was the first time that you noticed there was another player, when you noticed that the other player had made that change, how did that affect how you felt about it? Participant 1: It made me feel that, erm, that there was more of a reality to the other person who was playing, or like, this other character who I was engaging with, actually... questioning my decisions more, in terms of almost like, a team mate style. Researcher: Okay, I will also just add that, be completely honest with the interview questions, which I think is a given. Participant 1: Yeah Participant 2: Yeah Researcher: Cool, erm Participant 1: I mean, I don't know if [P2] had anything, Researcher: Yes, what about you [P2]? Participant 2: From my perspective, I was a lot less likely to choose selfish options, like, once more, one I was more aware that the other player was present and involved Researcher: Interesting, did you feel like you would have had more... choice, if you hadn't had the other player there? Participant 2: It's just... it's a different, I don't know if it necessarily the choices are more forced, having the other player there, it's just that you swing more towards one aspect, or one way of acting than another. Participant 1: It depends what kind of moral compass you're plalying with, if you're just trying to be a douchebag, just triyng to promote yourself, then it doesn't make much a difference. But if, I mean, the way it kind of descrives the characters at the beginning is that they are kind of a team, and that they've teamed up in the past, and so.. trying to take on that vibe it meant, it felt as well that I was more inclined to be pushed towards, more... positive treatment to the other character. Researcher: Okay Participant 1: But, I, didn't necessarily mean I had to, I, for example, there was one question where I could potentially show Sarah something, or not show something, and decided that potentially, it was potentially best if they didn't know what I, what, that I'd seen something about them, as a kind of a way of protecting, or mkaing sure they still felt comfortable with me, but not, and then, not making them feel a bit hesitant against me, as in, like, I might be working against then type of thing. Researcher: Interesting, were you, when you made that choice, were you thinking about the character of Sarah? Participant 1: So, in terms of character of Sarah, I'd kind of seen them in the early scenes as a bit more of a dominant chaaracter, as a bit more, they are the one doing things, Todd is the one keeping watch, and so, as opposed to being confrontational with Sarah about it, who wuld probably be a bit more, like, why have you done this? Like, immediately question, immediate like, have a front against it. I thought that, as Todd, being a bit more... quiet about it, not necessarily saying everything, although, following orders but not necessarily bringing that thing up, would be a way of not risking that kind of, dynamic that they had, that friendship dynamic or teamwork dynamic that they had going. Because, it was, they already had that kind of set role. Researcher: Okay, well.. Participant 2: I think that dynamic popped up very early on, for me at least, given that my first choice was to, lie to Todd or not. Which... already, err, showed the kind of knowledge imbalance there and set up that power dynamic. Researcher: Interesting. Participant 1: I remember that one, I remember there being like, two options, I was like "Oh, you've lied to me", obviously, it says that you've lied to me. But, I don't know that you've lied to me, okay, fine. Douchebag. Researcher: So, how did you feel knowing that he'd lied to you? Participant 1: Like, just now? Completely offended! Now that I've remembered. Because, I think, in the early stage of the , I didn't quite realise that that may have been a move, which, the other player has actually decided. It was just something, I missed that. Researcher: Interesting, okay Participant 1: I mean, I read it and... I remember rereading it thinking, "oh, they've lied to me, okay". Fine, they're, they're hiding something potentially. But I... Researcher: So, at the time when you made that decision [P2], did you think it would affect another person? Participant 2: Yes. Researcher: Interesting, how did that affect your decision making? Participant 2: It was, certainly after the fact, it was going through my mind whetehr I'd locked off certain, certain routes or not, and whether that was the right decision. I initially made it because I wasn't, er, fully sure of the background and of the relationships between the characters and, the rest of their organisation, and how that would affect things, and whether Todd was a trustworthy character. Researcher: Intersting, at the time that you made that choice, what made you think the choice would affect the other person? Participant 2: I, would assume, that, a lack of knowledge on the other player's behalf means they're less able to make, or have, changed perspectives approaching other questions. And over events. Researcher: Is that something you think retrospectively, or was that something you thought at the time you made the decision Participant 2: That was, it was definitely retrospectively that I approached it in that, detail. I think, in the moment, it was more focused on how, on trying to work out, how much I knew about the different characters involved. Researcher: Okay. So, let's... go to the finale, let's have a think about the conversation at the end. So, what choices did you guys make? Participant 1: finding them out there, I think it was to do with either accusing them of what they were doing or saying it was not going according to plan. And I... went with, not according to plan, like, we're doing a job, that kind of thing, that's the focus, not necessarily questioning their motives, initially. Researcher: I was more thinking about when you made the final decision, and that. Participant 1: The final final decision? Researcher: The final final decision, THE decision. What did you choose? Let's start easy. Participant 1: I chose to give them the keys, so they could escape. And not shoot them, I had the option to shoot them, or three other options which were... kind of accusing Sarah, saying you're not going to be able to escape, or saying, yeah, saying, it's a joke that you could try and even hope to escape from the company. Researcher: How difficult was it for you to make that decision? Participant 1: More difficult, than, the other ones, because there had been more options. However, I saw one as a kind of, sort of, err, positive response, as in helping them escape, one as a very confrontational "shoot them", and the other 3 as almost.. because they didn't necessarily state an action, althugh they could have led on to further actions, it felt that, they didn't necessarily, they all felt a bit similar in that respect. I'm trying to remember exactly what the questions said now, one was like a joke, one was saying, why are you doing this, I can't remember the other. yeah, but I kind of questioned it and thought, you know what, I've seen that they've got information on them already, they've done a nice thing for me in the past by giving me some of the money, so that influenced me as well, they were obviously trying to take, like, again, take some aid to try and help themselves get away, and so, they've obviously got some motives behind this, and, in a kind of, that dynamic already being not particularly, or not being confrontational, within the team, decide that we have been a team and try to help them. Researcher: OKay, when you were making that decision, were you thinking of just how it worked with the characters, or.. were you thinking about the other person, what aspects played into the other person? Participant 1: I guess that there was another person, did make me feel that I didn't want to necessarily shoot them, erm, and, kind of, again, we've had this kind of dynamic of being a team and not necessarily feeling like we've done already some things together, although we've done, maybe had, one lie to me, and I didn't reveal all the information there, we have had some good teamwork, and therefore, that was kind of a crux point, not actually kinda backstabbing them, and shooting them in the back, type thing. Just kind of, saying, we've been a team. That's it. Researcher: Okay Participant 1: That's sort of my feeling for it Researcher: yeah, not, it's a really interesting perspective on it. Erm, okay Participant 1: Also, just be careful with that stool, because the legs are in like, very weird locations. Researcher: I wonder if that has to go in the interview transcript? Probably. So, a question to both of you, how much do you think you controlled how uch the finale ended. Participant 2: given there was only one run through, it felt that there was a good amount of control, seeing as the other options seemed very drastic, like shooting the person or staying and facing the organisation together is the other option I didn't go for. But I don't know quite how much earlier actions contributed to those decisions at the end. Researcher: Okay, [P1]? Participant 1: So how much did I think... sorry, so what... Researcher: How much did you feel like you controlled how the finale ended? Participant 1: I feel that, well, I mean, I feel I had control over letting them go, and hopefully letting them drive off to safety, erm, in my own final scene, where I get picked up by the organisation, where I'm having an interview and getting beaten up, rem, but, I've been given a gun which was due to the fact that I tried to.. well, I feel that was my decision to, comfort them as opposed to question them when their home had been broken in with, or broken in. I feel I did have that control over that situation, or I had had to some extent some control tat, because I had tried to be helpful and kind and not accusatory at that point, I'd built that trust in me, and in that trust they'd given me the weapon that they didn't necessarily feel that they needed. Which I then had, and was in possesion of, which I was then able to use and escape, or well, that's kind of where it blacks out. Researcher: Interesting, cool, let's have a look, what else have we got in here... how are we doing for time? Yeah, we've got a bit longer. So was there any part of the story that particularly sticks out in your mind? Maybe it was a decision you made, maybe it was a decision someone else made, maybe it was just a particular scene. If it's easier, what's the first scene that comes to mind? Participant 2: I suppose the ending, the big confrontation, that seemed to be the place where the most branching decisions, er, the rest of it seemed quite binary, from what I had at least. Researcher: OKay. So, if you ook bac at your earlier decisions, how much do you think the choices made early on, by either player, affected your future decisions? Participant 1: i think they helped build up a.. a level of trust and, or, lack of trust in the case may be. So, although i didn't realise that the lie was the first decision that they'd made for me, it hink it helped build a foundation of how your relationship is going to be for more imprortant, more vital situatitions, and how you're going to respond when you're at a c.. at a decision point of shoot or help, type thing, and it forms the foundation of that relationship between the two characters. Researcher: How about you [P2] Participant 2: It definitely felt like trust built up over the course of, er, of the whole game. To the extent that I probably wouldn't have chosen to lie in the initial one, had that options ocme later, but I suppose the, the extent to which the choices mattered at the end almost seemed of a negotiation with the other player, than, erm, which I suppose is the different between it being a one-player story where your choices matter in a very binary sense, yes or no, building up a score and if you have enough of the score you survive at the end, or something like that, you're negotiation with the other player, in that way. Researcher: In general, how did you feel about the finale compared to the previous flashbacks? Participant 2: it definitely, that, it definitely felt a lot more involved as there were a lot more choices there, and the conversational aspect was interesting. ERm. Participant 1: More emotive, I thought, in that kind of way Participant 2: Because you could directly see when the other player was putting an input Participant 1: And how much thought and time they were actually taking on making that decision, well, if you made your decision quickly, I'm assuming that, from what I saw, I made my choice then I had nothing to do, until you'd made your decision, so you could kind of see how long it was taking them to, yeah. Researcher: Cool Participant 1: ..Make that choice and that was kind of interesting. As a kind of, play by play, yeah. Researcher: Alright, let's think about some of these later questions. A bit of an odd question, during the flashbacks, during the flashbacks, you both made choices that affected the other person. When do you think the other person noticed you making those choices, and did you think about that when you made them? Participant 1: I think I only noticed the other person might see the choices I had made, was when I started seeing the choices they had made, pop up. Which, it felt it appeared a bit later. Because again, I missed the, the fact they had lied to me one. Researcher: Okay Participant 2: i felt very immediately with the choice whether to lie or not that would have an impact on the oter player, because, I would have assumed that had I offered that information, they would have been presented with that information. And, also, in a way, I would have been presented with that information as well, because it's not knowledge that has been prior held. Participant 2: I didn't know what decisions I had made had actually been visible to the other player, I didn't think about that at first. Researcher: Did you think about tat at all when you were making them? Participant 1: Erm. . It didn't occur to me when I made a decision on, the, telling them about the memory stick thing or not. I didn't think if they'd actually see that or not. I just thought, yeag, I didn't think about it like that, to be honest I mainly just thought about the consequences behind it, as opposed to necessarily seeing what my choices were. Researcher: Okay, that's fine. Participant 1: so thinking more about the tone I was coming across, as opposed to actually thinking, ah I've seen their responses, maybe they're seeing mine, except later on when it was kind of that, amost dialogue, situation. Researcher: Ah, okay, cool, so a few bookeeeping questions and a few more just general questions. So, before you both went through this narrative, how well did you know the other person? Participant 1: Each other? Researcher: Yes. Participant 1: pretty damn well, I would say. Pretty well. Researcher: Cool. When you were playing, how often did you think about the other person? Not specifically the character, but the other person. Participant 1: A little bit, like, I knew they were playing, but... just... I knew that I was playing with a friend, erm. I thought maybe how they'd respond to some situations based on their own personality, but not a huge amount of that. Researcher: Okay, cool. Participant 1: I mainly just tried to just involve it based on, kind of the character reactions I'd had from the characters themselves. And the basis of the characters. Researcher: What about you [P2]? Participant 2: I mean, definitely after that initial lie I said that I had sescond thoughts about it, and, err, maybe worrying that I'd cut off some options for the other player. I don't know how much of that is because we're friends or not. But I definitely had those thoughts. Researcher: What about you, on the same lines, how much do you think knowing [P2] affected your decisions? Participant 1: Like, as in, because we're friends, I would say it probably influenced me to choose slightly more positive ones, on kind of, we are a team type basis, as opposed to if it was just a stranger I was playing with, I may not necessarily know them as well and think that, then, they're going to necessarily take, because, we knew each other I thought that they may also make team based, er, friendship based decisions. Whereas if it was a stranger, no idea what their intentions are, no idea how they're going to play the game. Because I've got no idea what the basis is behind their mentality. So don't know if they're going to actually just try and screw me over because someone just wants to play a game, playing it, like, just, screwing everyone over as much as I can, or whether they're atually trying to have an enjoyable game for both players. Researcher: Ah, okay, so are you saying you'd be more unsure about the other player, if you didn't know them? Participant 1: yes. Researcher: Cool, erm, yeah, so how do you think having another player there just, affected your experience in general? Participant 1: Interesting. Like, especially, like, the dialogue aspects later on, was actually quite an interesting way of just having that communication Participant 2: It felt a lot more personal. Participant 1: Participant 1: Like, it didn't necessarily feel that, erm, everything had been yeah, it felt a bit more like interactive, and not that everything was set. This is when you say, actually evevrything was set and we actually made very different decisions and... arggh. Researcher: Don't worry, I'm not going to say that! Participant 1: were we the blind test? were we the one where... Researcher: Noo, I'll explain everything after the interview. Participant 2: I get the feeling that knowing it was another player made me almost 100%, was never going to choose to shoot the other player. Researcher: Ah, okay. Participant 2: If, there, if I, if there wasn't another person there or if I didn't know there was another person there, that would have had, at least a non-zero chance of me shooting them, but it was kind of, I didn't want to spoil it and kill that character immediately. Participant 1: I felt the same. Researcher: Did you realise the other person had the shoot you option? Participant 2: I imagined they would. Participant 1: I did not realise. Researcher: Interseting Participant 1: because I knew that I did have a gun. But I didn't know the other person had a gun Participant 2: But I'd, we had that, interaction where I'd given you the gun, but I was aware that I'd also had one. Participant 1: I was not aware that you had a gun, because I, I knew that I had a gun earlier on from, well, had used a gun earlier on to shoot a person in the hallway, during one of the earlier robberies, don't know what happened to that gun, can't remember, don't know if I gave it back to them or not. But Participant 2: fair enough Participant 1: i missed that point Researcher: cool, erm Participant 1: but i mean, if i was like, the trained gun person, or like, the person who was slightly hestitantly given the gun, in the past, no. Researcher: Okay, right, so this is where things get meta. how do you think talking about your experiences during this interview has changed how you view the story? Participant 2: its probably easier to connect the person to the character now, and the decisions that were made, when youre able to see the person Participant 1: sorry, i'm really stuggling with this Researcher: that's alright Participant 2: its interesting now seeing some of the reactions, erm, to choices that i made. for instance, with the interaction where it was a standoff, where we both had guns, and could have shot each other, finding out now that only i was aware of that dynamic there... makes that situation, it changed my opinion on it i guess Participant 1: i guess, it adds more context now, having heard the other persons story behind so, so I can kind of see where their ideas may have been coming across, erm, it's... nah Researcher: that's fine, that's fine, last question. have, actually, to each of you in turn, have you experienced many interactive narratives before? If so, what were they? Participant 1: what do you mean interactive narratives? like, multiplayer interactive narratives? Researcher: no, no, just any interactive narrative. have you played many forms of interactive fiction, choose your own adventure, things like the telltale games. Participant 1: i mean.. Participant 2: i've played the telltale games, i've read a few choose your own adventure books Participant 1: i guess some visual novel type things have that option Researcher: that definitely counts Participant 1: i mean, i guess, yeah, just in games like skyrim, where you can decide whether you're going to join up with which team or not, though i guess there's a basis behind the decisions you've made, its not just a completely linear direction you can go, erm, there's something else that popped into my mind, but im trying to think which it is now. I mean, it's only a very early part of it, but a game i used to play on my playstation, where you can choose to be on either the light or ark side and it kind of changes the narrative behind the rest of the campaign, but it's not as much of a, ongoing interactivity, it just a like, light or dark, Researcher: i guess, while [p1]'s thinking, how did you, did your experience with this particular story, differ to your experience with the other types of interactive narrative you've gone through? Participant 2: it was definitely a lot more personal, so for instance, I said earlier that the option to shoot the other person was completely ruled out in this version, or this game type, whereas in, those other forms of narrative where there's not another pesron involved, i might have chosen those option. Researcher: okay, can you talk more about what you mean by 'it's more personal'? Participant 2: yeah, so, options that, may i perceived as locking off options for the other player, erm, were ones i'd be less likely to go for, although I did go for one initially, partciularly the ones where it's another player, because presumably, the perspective was that it'd end their story and they wouldn't be able to continue, whereas if it's, er, singleplayer, and, er, if its singleplayer then shooting that character removes that character from the story, it doesn't then impact, another person in real life. Researcher: cool Participant 1: sorry, its just reminded me of another game that I played, where it was kind of a horror based, survival game, one player, can't remember what it's called, but in the end it goes on to windigos being evil, kind of thing, going on in the background, and there's like, they have a hold load of late teentagers go to a summer cabin, and then horror starts happening, and just thining about that and the way I played through that with a friend, you're very aware that it's a singleplayer game, and, your decisions aren't necessarily affecting anyone else. but if they were affecting other people playing it, I think that'd make me more inclined to try and choose more options to try and help them or save them, and put myself at risk, as opposed to if they're just npcs, where it's like 'you can go and die, i don't mind'. I can't remember the name of the game, it's really irritating me now Researcher: if you remember, let me know.