In “Metaproceduralism: The Stanley Parable and The Legacies of Postmodern Metafiction,” Bradley J. Fest argued that The Stanley Parable reminded players of “how play and labor have become blurred within the ubiquitous contemporary logic of computation and the spread of endless microlabor to every corner of their online existence.” I agree with Fest that The Stanley Parable does a great job presenting how play and labor become interchangeable as enacting processes of a game.
Here are a few quotes from Fest to further explain this idea:
The Stanley Parable questions whether there is really any difference between digital labor and play, and if anything like a real “choice” can exist—and thus a real “action”—within the algorithmic confines of a videogame.
“Metaproceduralism: The Stanley Parable and The Legacies of Postmodern Metafiction” (Bradley Fest, Wide Screen, 2016)
But of course the “Art Ending” resembles labor far more than it does play, as does most of the game, truthfully. … Play in videogames more fundamentally serves to shed light on other structures, namely a game’s processes. Furthermore, as “play” is the word most often used to describe the simple act of operating a videogame, play should not only be understood in terms of possibility, but in terms of control.
“Metaproceduralism: The Stanley Parable and The Legacies of Postmodern Metafiction” (Bradley Fest, Wide Screen, 2016)
Fest distinguishes the proceduralist play from the metafiction play, which is a play with the semiotic/linguistic system and essentially a free play of ideas. Instead, the proceduralist play is subordinate to the processes and is the work to enact the pre-defined processes. In this sense, recreating. a proceduralist game is quite different from an open-world game, which arguably encourages emergent gameplay and the production of new content in addition to realizing the already-defined processes. The Stanley Parable comments on such distinction in the Games Ending, where the narrator accidentally transports Stanley into an open-world game, freaks out, and turns it into a closed-world game by adding high walls. Returning to the metafictional definition of play, the pre-proceduralist play highlights the act of ironizing, rebelling against, and thinking meta about the rules. This is also closer to my own understanding of “play”: “play” should be more akin to creative choices, such as finding solutions to puzzles, constructing castles from logo pieces, and role-playing in a TRPG, instead of blindly and repetitively enacting a set of processes. In this sense, “play” can be coming up with exciting new ideas and this is what meta-games such as The Stanley Parable encourages us to do, rethinking procedures and games. I’ll argue that when we first set out to explore possible pathways in The Stanley Parable, it is genuine gameplay in my ideas. We are constantly thinking of how to poke the game, creating new problems for the narrator, and discovering new endings. However, when we exhaust our creative choices and turn to guides to unlock full endings or full achievements, following a fixed set of steps, we become labor machines that merely enact the software processes. Similarly, when we are determined to follow the 4-Hour Ending, we cease to play but start to labor.
Specifically, Not Stanley Ending / Real Person Ending is a nuanced comment on play as labor and the relationship between a game and its player, or a process and its enacter. At one moment, the narrator demands Stanley to speak the code “Night-Shark-1-1-5” to access the Mind Control Facility, but the game does not have a microphone, and Stanley is programmed to disobey the narrator[1]. The player, who has followed the narrator’s direction and chosen the left door, is prohibited from following the narrator. The process becomes dominant and enacts itself without the player. This also seems to ridicule a player’s act of disobedience as only an extended part of the process: doing the exact opposite of an order is a recognition of this order. In the ending, however, The Stanley Parable presents the pity of a game as a process that has to wait for an enactor: the player appears on the ceiling of the Two Doors Room and is unable to control Stanley[1]. Stanley now stands motionlessly while the narrator pitifully begs Stanley to move and make a choice to enact the process[1]. This reminds me of strikes and how capitalist processes of production are similarly dependent on the enactors, and the most effective way to protest is to be motionless and hinder the process from running. Unfortunately, The Stanley Parable is a single-player game and is dependent upon you, but the capitalist processes and multi-player games are not. These relentless processes constantly demand actions for competition and trigger anxiety, because any moment you “slack off” (which should be better understood as a rebel against actions and deviation from the process) makes you more disadvantaged in the system of the processes. Processes are dependent on enactors and also cease to control the enactors through their internal logic.
[1] https://thestanleyparable.fandom.com/wiki/Not_Stanley_Ending
