Video Games: A Frame Model

In my continuing attempts to develope an analytical frame for video games, I constructed this model. Its development is still in progress. I thought putting it online could get me some feedback from the game geeks out there ;) (which would be highly appreciated). Click on the image to see a larger version of my frame model.


Explanation of the Model

First of all, the model can be seen as construct in which several conceptual ends are tied together. The tension between these tied concepts generates the forces that keep the construct on its feets: pretty much like the Golden Gate bridge, just with more ends tied together. Also let me remind you, that the vertical or horizontal placement of the elements within the model are not meant in a strictly hierarchical sense. It is rather done this way for reasons of practicality, whereas hierarchical or directional relations are indicated through arrows.


The Vertical Ties

On the outer sides of the model we have a pair of tied conceptual ends running vertically. These are:

Technology <--> Aesthetics
Programming <--> Art

The goal of any game development cycle is to create a balance between these ends which results in

-Story/Narrative, and
-Immersion/Flow

respectively.


The Horizontal Tie

When we cross horizontally through this model, we see that there is an ongoing process that aims to connect these vertical lines to reach an equilibrium. Achieving this equilibrium is the goal of Video Game Tectonics. The Game Developer will engage in Design and Production and go through Iterations until a Balance is achieved that results in a Product, the Built/Experience, or in other words, the Game.


Back to Vertical Ties

As the Equilibrium is gradually reached a third vertical connection between two other ends is achieved: that between the Medium and the Player. A reciprocal relation emerges from the game developers attempt that materializes as interplay between procedural processes controlled by articifial intelligence and input given by an intelligent human being. The result is a simulated representation based built around a gameplay cycle.


What's Under the Hub?

If we imagine the vertical and horizontal ties as the construction parts of a tent or try to see it as a hub, then we find some space to place other important concepts and elements into the model.


The World and its Agents

At the center lies lies the relation between the game world and the agents of this game world, which is regulated and defined by rules, game mechanisms, dynamics and systems. While the world possesses certain qualities and displays a behavior that can be seen as some sort of Grammar, the agents (including the player) will have the means to focus on the transformation and utilization of this world, which will result in the emergence of a variety of player "cultures" that will discover and employ their dominant strategies, tactics and other solutions for the challenge posed onto them. These "playing styles" will often emerge within the frame of a competition in which those "cultures" who are more succesful in analyzing the worlds behavior, will turn out to be the winners.


Atlas or the Powers That Carry The Virtual World

The Game Engine is the technical foundation of this virtual world, making possible the interplay between the world and its agents, the governing rules and the assemblage and articulation of all the elements that are utilized in creating the representations that make up the simulation. Game Controls and the Interface are the means connected to the Game Engine, making possible player input and interaction between human and machine. Finally audio-visual Style adds the chrome, the artistic flair to the simulated representation.


Final Words

This frame model is under constant review and probably it will be replaced by a clearer and more functional model in the future. Making a better model will definately require the feedback of people that are themselves busy understanding games. I hope at least a few of them can take some time and put in their two cents.



Was this article useful? Do you think that the frame model presented in this article is of any value? Please leave a comment and share your thoughts with us.
_____

Built/Experience: The Tectonics of Video Games

“I wish to present to you, my comrades in Level Design, three great works that have inspired in me new thoughts on the nature of spatial design, and consequently new ideas on particular aspects of our art. […] I hope to give you insight into their ideas and processes, and toss in a few of my own notions on their expressionistic relationships to our work as geometricians of time, space and experience.” (Warne, 2001)

This excerpt is taken from an article on level design for video games. Its significance for us lies in the analogy that it makes between the “art” of level design and architecture. The author describes the art of level design as the ‘expressionistic work of the geometricians of time, space and experience’. This analogy is not just perfectly formulated; it also can and should be expanded beyond level design.

It is essential to understand that the video game is a Built: This built is achieved through the use of building materials and the application of certain techniques that reach beyond a core functional level and also perform on an expressive level. The video game as a Built is made of joints, which become both a functional and expressive whole. This twofold character of the Built –its technological and its aesthetic dimension- is the key in understanding the player experience that emerges during the encounter with the Built. Furthermore, it is one of the keys to understand immersion in video games.

I will refer to video games as Built/Experience throughout this article. I will do this to accentuate the twofold nature that is so crucial in order to master the design and development of a video game. More than that, I will speak of a tectonics of video games.


What Tectonics Is

‘Tectonics’ is a term borrowed from architecture. It can be described as a term that addresses an essential dual mode of any element that is used for construction. This dual mode is the simultaneous presence of physical functionality and artistic representation in the same element. In his book on tectonic culture, Frampton (2001: 4), reminds us of Karl Ottfried Bötticher’s distinction between Kernform (core form) and Kunstform (artistic representation) as the tectonic qualities within a construction element. “Tectonic", he continues, "signifies a whole system binding all parts of the built into a single whole”, but the whole is two things at once: The technology that makes it stand on its feet, and the artistic expression that comes from its ‘gesture’ as a standing object. There can be extreme examples of tectonics where the built can refer to its own technological perfection as an aesthetic experience. In such cases "monumentalized ability" becomes the “gesture”[1].


Tectonics as Environmental Storytelling

In his article on Environmental Storytelling, Don Carson (2000) gives an insightful lesson about the differences and similarities of immersive 3-D Worlds and Theme Parks. The article is also important in the way it refers to issues that can be seen in regard to the tectonic of video games, since he perceives the design of theme parks and 3-D worlds as a matter of how story materializes as physical (or virtual) space.

“The design of entertaining themed environments is that the story element is infused into the physical space a guest walks or rides through. In many respects, it is the physical space that does much of the work of conveying the story the designers are trying to tell.“ (Carson; 2000)

Without referring to the term tectonic, Carson speaks of tectonic, establishing a connection between the construction of a virtual world as a twofold process, the utilized material and applied techniques in shaping space, and the poetic or dramatic expression of the crafting and order of this space. It’s a lesson on how to shape and join the pieces together to have immersive story, a dramatic experience. The tectonics of video games hence,

“is to be understood as encompassing tekne […] It depends much more upon the correct or incorrect applications of the artisanal rules, or the degree to which its usefulness has been achieved. […] As soon as an aesthetic perspective –and not a goal of utility- is defined that specifies the work and production of the tekton, then the analyses consigns the term ‘tectonic’ to an aesthetic judgment.” (Adolf Heinrich Borbein; in Frampton; 2001: 4).

A Tectonics for Dynamic Structures... like Video Games?

If in architecture tectonics is “the art of joinings” (Borbein, in Frampton; 2001: 4) then video game tectonics has to deal with an important difference: In contrast to the ‘static’ built/experience in architecture, in video games we deal with a dynamic built/experience. The joint elements disappear (alone or as a group), re-join, and even seem to improvise at times (like it is the case in bugs or in emergent gameplay). In other words, the story seems to materialize in a variety of ways, but still a structured and predictable behavior seems to be in place. Goethe’s famous description of architecture as frozen music seems to open a door to get from the static structure in architecture to the dynamic structure in video games.

The expressive power of the video game as a dynamic construct can be better understood when we look at its raw building material and building technology: Code, or algorithm; a sequence of steps, a clearly defined procedure that is designed to perform a certain function and is formulated and expressed through the means of a programming language. Programming languages rely on a variety of essential concepts that enable the creation of such algorithms and procedures. At its simplest, various types of data can be defined and managed through control structures that initialize, continue or terminate the processing of these data. From this perspective, we can perceive the video game as the joining of building materials with a high level of plasticity, altogether creating a dynamic structure which still can be shaped to have predictable behavior. Its plasticity and procedural character enables a discourse on time as well, creating grounds for narrative use.

This dynamic structure is also able to articulate input into this procedural flow, meaning that the created program can engage in reciprocal relations with others by articulating their input into its procedures, changing itself according to the input and feeding the results back to the user. Reciprocity is an important quality of these dynamic structures since it helps us also to establish a connection to one of the oldest literary forms of expression: The dialogue. Once more we can refer to a potential for narrative and story.

The underlying procedural logic together with the capacity of reciprocity, allows us to orchestrate a dynamic whole which is the joining of its dynamic pieces and the dynamic input of its users. It is not difficult to show then where the strength of this medium lies: in its ability to run simulated representations which are open to participation. No doubts, we are talking about the video game.

Industrial practices like iterative development methods, testing and quality assurance indicate that many rehearsals are needed until this ‘orchestra’ gets away from the initial cacophony and becomes ‘sound’ (in both of its tectonic senses, solid and art). During its construction, this built/experience gradually achieves feel, texture and pattern, resulting in more and more immersion. A feel for video game tectonics lies at the heart of this process that aims to bow the ends of technology and aesthetics towards an immersive built/experience.


The Goal of Video Game Tectonics

The goal of video game tectonics can be defined as achieving immersion. It is the art to draw the player away from seeing what he looks at: a construct, made by humans, performing a core physical function. Tectonics is the art to erase the traces of the rough physical side of the construct and make the player step over to the structured meaning it conveys, to its expression as a poetic construct: This is not a screen with pixels re-drawn 50 times a second; this is a unique world and I am part of it. Hence, when we speak of tectonics, we speak of one of the main gates that must be passed to find ourselves inside the Magic Circle. This is a question that goes beyond mere technical perfection. It is a question of how the technological built becomes the aesthetic experience. Hence, a game that seems to work is both Built and Experience; Built/Experience.


Notes:

[1] Just think "John Romero!" here.


References

Warne P. (2001), Three Inspirations for Creative Level Designing, http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20010716a/warne_01.htm.

Carson D. (2000), Environmental Storytelling: Creating Immersive 3-D Worlds with Lessons Learned from the Theme Park Industry, http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20000301/carson_01.htm

Frampton K. (2001), Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture, MIT Press: Cambridge, London.


Was this article useful? Do you think "Tectonics" is a useful concept to grasp the interplay between technology and aesthetics in video games? Leave a comment and share your thoughts with us.
_____

The Grammar of Virtual Game Worlds

In this article I take a look at Fernand Braudel's concept "Grammar" and suggest it as a conceptual tool to gain a deeper insight into the nature of virtual worlds and their shaping role in the emergence of unique player "cultures". I also connect Braudel's model with Umberto Eco's concept of "Forests of Narratives" in order to lay a foundation for an approach that sees virtual worlds and video games as a geo-history that serves as the ground to nurture "playable stories", which in return will transform this grammar. I hope you'll enjoy the read!


The Grammar of Civilizations

One of my starting points in putting down the relation between space and narrative in games is French historician Fernand Braudel’s concept of "historical space" and its impact on the shaping of "culture" –dominant patterns and styles to maintain a living-. Braudel sees history as a long process of interaction between geography (which he calls the "broader tense" of history) and humans. The outcome is what he calls “the grammar of civilizations”, broader patterns of life.

The grammar of civilizations is described as a combined force of limitations and available options which together create certain life styles or cultural patterns along which civiliations develope their deeper socio-economical structures. Individual behavior is often structured by this “grammar”, and despite deviations, the “grammar” –the long term impact of "geographical time", so to say- is the reason behind certain general cultural and behavioral patterns.

Braudel believes that space/geography always means scarcity to a certain degree, but that the same space/geography with all its qualities also offers unique solutions to overcome this scarcity. As humans find solutions to overcome scarcity in a given spatial/geographic context and gain independence from the limitations and challenges of the surrounding physical world, they become more and more depending on the solutions they created. In other words, culture is both emancipation and dependency, caused by and overcome through the same spatial/geographical context.


The Player's Struggle for Emancipation

I believe that this is a good starting point to understand games, which, in that sense, are unique worlds that foster certain behavioral patterns due to the limitations they pose on the player and the solutions that they support in terms of environmental features and game controls (gameplay). Thus, every game world can be considered as a space/geography with it’s own “grammar”.

The qualities of the virtual space and the organization of architectural/landscape elements with their inherent functionality and behavior can be seen as the constitution of this “grammar” of the game world. This “grammar” is the realm where gameplay and story can flourish and nurture.

While Braudel’s grammar of the real world is an impact of historical space, the grammar of the game world is a question of constructing the forces and counter-forces that make meaningful action in the virtual world possible. Spatial organization, gameplay and story elements must be considered simultaneously and in an interconnected manner to achieve verisimilitude. The game world must give the impression that it is a possible, self-sufficient and -in regard to itself- realistic world.


The Grammar of a Context for Meaningful Gameplay

Particularly in 3-D game levels, this “grammar” has a core dramaturgic function. In many games, the problem that is posed onto the player is of a dramatic nature or is being based on a dramatic goal. In other words, it is a goal with an obstacle in its way and in general it suggests or imposes onto the player a logical way of conduct to solve it. The player will strive to complete the story by using the tools that are made available to him to overcome the limits and obstacles that the game world puts in front of him.

Here, especially spatial organization and architectural elements are vital to achieve and/or support the dramaturgic effect of the game. The use of space and architectural elements –actually architectural design itself being a process of problem solving- will often be in accordance with the dramatic arc of the game, suggesting the player paths to follow and allowing for a sense of continuity in the game. Also the mood and the overall believability of the game will depend on the use of spatial or architectural elements.


The Grammar of The Forrests of Narratives

It seems useful to me to connect Braudel's Model with Umberto Eco’s conceptualization of the narrative, which he describes as a “forrest that the reader has to be guided trough”. Guidance is meant here in two dimensions: On one hand it is a dramaturgic question, since the reader is being guided through a story with its unique dramatic aspects. On the other hand it is a spatial question, since a setting, an environment, or a world with its own possibles and impossibles has to be created and maintained in a coherent and consistent way. In games, this relation becomes a very important one, since the player, who is now a dramatic category himself -the hero- , must experience this story through a mediated physical world with its own spatio-temporal conditions and audio-visual style.

It is crucial in game design, to match spatial and architectural needs with dramatic needs to make the game work at all. In other words, the way in which the player is guided through the “forrest of the narrative”, depends also on how the “forrest” is materialized as a spatial experience, all in all pointing at the importance of the design of the virtual landscape and the architectural elements present in the game world.


References:

Braudel F. (1998) Uygarlıkların Grameri (The Grammar of Civilizations) , Ankara: İmge.

Eco U. (1995) Anlatı Ormanlarında Altı Gezinti (Six Trips Through The Forests of Narratives), İstanbul: Can.


Was this article useful? Do you think that video games can be seen as virtual worlds with a grammar of their own? Leave a comment and share your thoughts with us.
_____

Space and Narrative in Video Games

In this article I try to relate Game Design and Architecture to gain an insight on the use of space in shaping narrative structure and story progress in video games. The subject is examined from the perspective 3D level design, but it will say one or two things about other game genres as well. I hope you'll enjoy!


Intro: An Architecture for Video Games

Ching (1996) states that “architecture is generally conceived in response to an existing set of conditions. […] it is assumed that the existing set of conditions –the problem- is less than satisfactory and that a new set of conditions –a solution- would be desirable. The act of creating architecture, then, is a problem-solving or design process.” (p. ix). He continues that “the nature of a solution is inexorably related to how the problem is perceived, defined and articulated.” (p. ix) In game and level design, the problem that architecture has to provide solutions for is to create a challenging and entertaining setting that satisfies the needs of gameplay requirements and specifications that are envisioned in the core game concept or game design document. Architectural elements are expected to help in the implementation of gameplay concepts, the materialization of the story arc and to support the fun and challenge of the game world in general. As Ernest Adams puts it, “the primary function of architecture in games is to support the gameplay.” (Adams, 2002)

However, gameplay mechanics in 3-D game levels are in their implementation tied much closer to architectural concepts, and decisions regarding the gameplay and story in level design must be considered in first stance as architectural design decisions, hence giving architecture a much more important role than Adam suggests. Duncan Brown(2002) describes this close relation between architecture and gameplay by using the words ‘event-driven architecture’. Carson (2000) however, believes that event-driven architecture also brings with it a reversion of the common architectural approach to problem-solving. He states that architecture typically goes from organisation to event, whereas in level design it goes from event to organisation. Often this is expressed by game designers with reference to Sullivan’s famous design-mantra “form follows function”, here however meaning that architecture follows gameplay.


Game Designers and the Use of Architecture

Despite the importance given to architecture, it can be seized out that the perception of architecture amongst game designers remains a rather formalistic one. One major reason for this way of perception are the practices in the game industry. The general point-of-view is that architectural elements and especially buildings are rather used as the visuals or the make-up in games, often only considered as surfaces that have to be covered with a variety of textures. Also architectural functionality gains a different meaning when used in game design (Adams, 2000). Buildings in games are mostly not used in their everyday sense. They are usually spaces to be explored, not to be used or to be lived in, and once they are explored, they have performed their function and lose their importance in the game. It is also rare that a game simulates climatic conditions that would enable buildings to perform their essential functions in real life like providing shelter and protection their inhabitants from sun, wind and rain (unless a climatic system is implemented as part of the gameplay and the option given to counter this gameplay challenge with the use of appropriate buildings or architectural elements).


Gameplay Experience as an Architectural Program

On the other hand it can be said that the game design and the implied gameplay/sequence of events in a game constitute a program in its architectural sense (Chen and Brown, 2001). However, the program of a game level might require the architecture to perform in ways that would have no meaning in real life. As Adams (2000) puts it, “what is right for architecture isn’t always right for gameplay” and vice versa.

Nevertheless, the physical, perceptual and conceptual aspects of architectural orders are instrumental in level design. Spatial systems will be important in the the way gameplay and game narrative is experienced and certain orders and circulation systems will be preferred over others, especially depending on game mode and number of players in a particular level(1).


Shaping and Shifting Context Through Architecture

An important role of architecture in games is in regard to the question of context. Architecture is vital in achieving a feeling of space within the game. Elevation as well as the “depth of the world” are other aspects in this regard. Furthermore, architectural context will play a major role in the suspension of disbelief and the maintaining of verisimilitude. In that regard, architecture is key to game mimetics.


Scale

Scale can become another important issue, especially depending on the game genre. It is often the case that buildings in the Third-Person Shooter genre are modelled double the size of that in First-Person Shooters (Maatta, 2002). The reason for that is to enhance the mobility of the player avatar that is displayed in Third-Person Shooters. In other words, scale must be considered in terms of the coreography of certain events in the game world and its way of representation.

Scale is also a matter when it comes to NPC actions and behavior. Too narrowly designed floor plans and dense object placement can cause problems to computer-controlled unit behavior. An example here are 'bugs' in pathfinding, where the artificial intelligence cannot solve to get the NPC around an obstacle, because the architecture was not flexible enough to meet the limits of the algorithms "perception" of available space.


Building A Critical Path Through The Game World

Put in general, architecture is vital in building and maintaining the critical path through the game. It builds and maintains this critical path by

1) utilizing terrain and elevation to adjust the pace of the gameflow;
2) establishing forced perspectives and frames;
3) setting physical constraints that help in navigation, and by;
4) creating chances for interaction with the environment.

It is an effective tool to establish the nodes in the game world where the events and actions can flow in a sequential way.


The Game Level as a Dramatic Unit

To define the role of architecture in level design in more detail, it has also to be taken into account that a level is a dramatic unit. A game level is the equivalent of a scene in a movie. In other words, every level can be seen as a scene with a unique purpose, often directly drawn from the goal of the player. A scene/level typically has a problem-solution arc and must deliver a feeling of dramatic progress (the so called climbing-ladder). Architecture functions as one of the tools to construct the climbing ladder of the drama. This involves the shape of the path, the nodes for encounters with enemies or obstacles, the control of timing and pace of the flow and the revealing of background information to put the scene as a whole into a meaningful frame.

While these various uses of arcitecture are obvious, it is a more difficult task to find a general frame to categorize these uses in a systematic way. This would allow for a structural analyses of architectural elements as narrative functions.

But let this be the subject of another article.


Notes:

(1)The events in a story-driven single player level typically would be aligned along an axis and be rather build around a linear system, while multiplayer modes such as “deathmatch” or “capture the flag” prefer centric or radial orders that aim to direct the player as soon as possible to the battlefield, the centre of the action and the spatial layout.


References

Adams E. (2000) The Role of Architecture in Video Games, http://www.gamasutra.com.

Brown D. (2002) New York City as a Conceptual Tool, http://www.gamasutra.com.

Carson D. (2000) Environmental Storytelling: Creating Immersive 3D Worlds Using Lessons Learned from the Theme Park Industry, http://www.gamasutra.com.

Chen A. and Brown D. (2001) The Architecture of Level Design, http://www.gamasutra.com.

Ching F. (1996) Architecture: Form, Space and Order. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Maatta A. (2002) Realistic Level Design for Max Payne, http://www.gamasutra.com.


Was this article useful? Do you think that concepts borrowed from architecture can help game writers to improve the way they tell their stories? Leave a comment and share your thoughts with us.
_____

Non-Linearity and Multiple Endings (Continued)

In my previous article, I tried to put forward a view about non-linearity in games, based on a quote of Berthold Brecht. I basically argued that most of the games which are called non-linear games or games with multiple endings, aren't really non-linear, nor do they really have multiple endings. In this article I continue to elaborate on this argument and share some of my thoughts on branching structure and multiple endings. Well, here we go.


The Challenge of Multiple Endings

The challenge of multiple endings lies in the fact that each different pair of endings (B and B') will require a different set-up or plot of its own (the A), because an ending makes only really sense if it relates to the problem that lies at its core. In that sense we must plant the seeds of more than one row-of-crisis + climax in the build-up of the game.


How to Overcome the Challenge?

One method for this would be to use subplots that unfold differently depending on how the main plot or other subplots develop, thereby changing the dramatic direction of the story (altering the nature and scope of the problem) and turning the game towards a different climax or maybe multiple climaxes (maybe a better word for "multiple endings"?). Another way could be to manipulate exposure in a way that results into different knowledge regimes as I go through the game, changing my experience as individual, although the event unfolds the same (For example I might or might not know that there was an agreement with the cops while I play a character in a Mafia game, depending on if I'm a cop or a mafia member)

Designing this maze of mazes is different from designing the pathways of the single maze with its single entrance and exit (A, B, B'). In many of the games based on moral choices, the design effort actually goes into the pathway of a single maze, and not into multiple storylines and multiple endings, but still these games are called non-linear games or games with multiple endings. But multiple storylines and multiple endings is to have multiple mazes (packed into one big maze, or arranging them as overlapping/intersecting mazes, or have them as parallel mazes). The problem now is how to intersect these mazes, if you should do that at all and not instead prefer to make two or more different games.

This multi-maze is different from the single-maze, because it has many points to enter and many points to exit; maybe some parts of the path would need to be walked through in each one of the stories (like if it is the only bridge over a river that runs through the maze) while certain parts of the maze might be not connected to any other path, once you decided to turn into that branch. In some designs it would be difficult to tell which path connects which entrance to which exit.

A story that aims for multiple endings would be served better, so it seems to me, if it has multiple antagonists at once, with their unique motives. This would make it easier to plant the seeds for multiple storylines and enable the writer to weave compelling story-branches out of them. This character-engendered approach could be accompanied by a variety of event-engendered situations, alltogether creating a huge story.


How the Evaluate the Branches

I think stories with multiple branches need evaluation criteria not only on the horizontal, but also on the vertical level. You could have a variety of story-track parts, A, B, C, D, E.... etc etc... but what matters is not just if B logically follows A, or if we can trace back A coming from B. It also matters what emerges through the combination of A and B, i.e if AB propels the act onto a higher level. There could be situations in which E would propel B onto an unexpected height, but not D, of which it is just a repetition. So when we combine many storylines consisting of many story-track parts, which are the track parts that ensure a climbing story when combined and which ones would cause the story to stagnate?Would there be a way in which a narrative engine could evaluate the 'topos' of the particular track parts of every story line and direct the player towards those parts that ensure that the plot keeps climbing and away from those that would stagnate story development, depending on the current topos that the player holds?

A last note

One risk you always face while having multiple storylines or many perspectives at once is that the story could lose its focus and go off-track. What if the story just feels like branching away from what has been perceived as the initial conflict? The player would probably think after a while: "What was I trying to solve? Was this my problem at the beginning? What the heck is my goal now? What is this game about?? Am I character X trying to save Y, or am I character Y, trying to save X?"


Was this article useful? Do you agree with the idea that having multiple antagonists would create a better basis for branching structures in story-driven games? Please leave a comment and share your thoughts with us.
_____

On Non-Linearity and Multiple Endings

In this article I will elaborate on Non-linearity and Multiple Endings in Video Games. The article was inspired by a discussion on the IGDA Forums which was recently my favorite place to lurk around. I hope you will enjoy it.


The Shortest Line Between Two Spots: a Curve?

Berthold Brecht says, "The shortest line that connects two spots is, if there is an obstacle inbetween, a curve." I believe that most games can be summarized like this. They are basically "stories" with one problem/conflict (spot A) that call for one truly desirable solution/ending (but this is an ending that we as players usually experience in the form of an anachronism: either success (spot B) or failure (spot B')). As a result of the reciprocal influencing of algorithmic procedures and player input, a variety of curves will emerge, which most of the time will result in an undesired B', until the player learns to withstand the challenges of the game dynamics and manages to reach the desired B.


The Curves of Linear Gameplay

The video game as a medium has a great advantage over Film and TV in that it allows the player to interact with the dynamics that carry the story from A to B'. You have algorithms that can endlessly reproduce the dynamics of a world (and the potential stories that could emerge in it), and you have human players with the desire to understand and achieve, and the ability to learn. So you don't really need to define every detail of how this interaction between human and machine takes place. You could just define the options that are provided and the overall processes that articulates the chosen options. Then, in the build-up of the game, you'd try your best to make the player adopt the problem (to achieve B) and let her work towards this solution by allowing her to discover the tools and methods to manipulate the dynamics of the game, meanwhile keeping her happy enough to repeatedly send herself through various A-->B' curves.

This type of interaction or storytelling is something computers and therefore video games are very good at, for Film and TV productions consist of "records of the past" and therefore are to a great extent constructs created through the one-time arrangement of recorded events, which after that are not really futher open to aesthetic or narrative manipulation; while on the other hand the algorithms that manage a game are rather "blueprints of a future" (roadmaps on how things would/could/should unfold, which are yet to be negotiated with the player), and in that sense they are almost predictable but not fully predetermined procedural systems with an agenda of their own, which are however open to manipulation through player choices articulated into this process as input, therefore all this being a reciprocal (or interactive) process of becoming.

Probably the line between A and B' is shortest when the player does not try to change his algorithmic fate: Then the game will straight go from A to B' (Just watch how blocks pile up in Tetris). All other situations mean that there is a curve, not a line.


Conclusion: Linearity as Controlled Freedom

Many players, designers and marketing departments call the various "curves" that emerge in a game "non-linear gameplay" and based on this they claim that their story is non-linear, which I think does not reflect the truth. In one of his articles on level design, Cliff Brezinski uses the words "controlled freedom", which I find a very good description: You seem to be free to make many curves, but then all you actually try to do is to connect A to B (the plot being a controlling force of how we bend the curve in most of our 'free' attempts.). We can compare such game stories to a maze with one entrance, and many forking paths that lead to or away from the only exit which we search for (meanwhile facing the danger to get lost on the way, so that we find ourselves frozen to death in the morning... yeah, yeah, The Shining ) They are linear stories in the sense that, there is only one truly desireable line to draw, that between A and B, despite the fact the we musn't follow it; and indeed, once we accept the role of the player, we most often find ourselves trying to draw the narrowest possible curve around the obstacle, from A to B, and in this our attempts we often end up in a B'.


Addendum:

Games like Tetris (and many of the old coin-op games) have no B at all, and rather follow a proverb of Samuel B'eckett: "You've lost. Good. Lose again, lose better." They are "A-->B' Only" games, but the B' can be converted into a B with the help of highscore lists or a hall of fame, which means that performance feedback is presented in the format of agon, so that the player still can compete with others or her past performances. Also each level that we finish in Tetris can be seen as a subgoal, meaning that we achieve a row of succesful A-->B curves, but not in an ultimate sense. We can win a lot of levels until we lose, which is quite different from losing directly. (And the reverse of many FPS type games were we lose, until we win, which is different from winning directly .


Was this article useful? Do you agree with the argument that many games are not truly non-linear, despite them having many gameplay "curves" to offer? Please leave a comment and share your thoughts with us.
_____

How to build Tertiary Motion into Gameplay? (Continued)

In my last article I wrote about Tertiary Motion in video games. In this article I will continue on the topic and put forward some ideas on how to built tertiary motion into gameplay without alienating the player.


The Jogging Technique
One way to include more tertiary motion in games (and as a result, having them more 'cinematic' in style) would be to emphasize the outcome of small events through quick, short-term camera position switches, known as "jogging".

Assume that in an ambush, I fire a bullet to an enemy at a distance... the camera could quick-jump to a position that shows me with a close shot the impact of the bullet I just fired , but only for half-a-second or so, long enough to tell me that I hit or was very close to hit. (actually any game with a sniper-mode should have the basis for such a camera-algorithm already built into the game engine).In other words, the AI would respond by switching cam position if my bullet 'lands' within a certain range of the target, including the target itself. The quick switch to a close shot of the player's attempt to hit the enemy, could be a way to get her deeper involved with her objective, to hit the enemy. Examples of jogging can be seen in the Need For Speed series, in which the camera jogs to positions in which we see our cars flying through the air in slow motion from the most spectacular angles. But once the car touches the ground again, we are back in "normal" mode.


Jogging with Caution

It could be annoying for the player to see the cam switching too often, because basically it happens not as the result of a player decision. Also the interaction between game mechanics and various AI-controlled AI features can cause problems: for example it would be a huge task to get AI-contolled tertiary motion to work proper when a player uses automatic guns in a FPS. Such tertiary motion features would need to be tested in a variety of situations and probably presented as features that can be turned off if the player doesn't feel confortable with the switching.

One rule with jogging is that it should be done at locations or in situations in which the player has time to adapt to the return to normal gameplay mode after the jogging; meaning that in no way she should lose an advantage as a result of the absence of control during the jogg. Going back to the shooting example, a player probably would get angry with the game if she should discover that she was killed while the camera was jogging and the player had no control over the event. In short: Jogging should be meaningful in both aesthetic and narrative/dramatic terms, AND it should prevent all action that could damage the players status during jogging from happening.


What do you think about this article? Do you remember great moments of gameplay achieved through the use of tertiary motion? How do you think could game designers and game writers use tertiary motion to enhance gameplay experience? Please leave a comment and share with us!
_____

How to build Tertiary Motion into Gameplay?

In this new article I will share some of my thoughts on how to achieve a level of visual narration in video games that comes close to that of film. This is of interest to game writers with a background in film and literature especially, because most of them have difficulties in adapting to the differences of the video game medium.


Video Games: Not Suited for Tertiary Motion?

Film is often hailed as the art of montage or editing, which is the re-arrangement of recorded events. Montage or editing creates the type of motion that we call tertiary motion (or sequence motion). In other words, tertiary morion is the visual development of a screen event based on shot variation, especially through the use of cuts. Here, so it seems, lies one of the bigger differences between films and video games. While in most films, tertiary motion lies at the heart of the aesthetic experience, in games we rarely see tertiary motion during gameplay, because it makes control difficult. Todays games are heavily based on a combination of secondary motion (camera moves) and primary motion (moving objects). This is also the main reason why game-trailers shouldn't be seen as promises regarding gameplay. A trailer is something to watch, not to control; usually it is built on an amount of tertiary motion that the game would not be able to support during gameplay for reasons of player control.


A Brief Overview of Tertiary Motion in Video Game History

Despite the huge technical developments in the history of video games, it is interesting to see that tertiary motion could not really break through. As I said, propably the reason for this is the different positioning of the participating player in games, requiring control over movement and decisions, which is seemingly not getting along well with tertiary motion types (because basically they appear to be the result of someone elses decision).


Primary Motion Games

The typical action-arcade game of the 70s would be a game based on primary motion (object motion), like theatre so to say, where we have a static frame or a 'stage' and objects move within it, or in and out of it: Pong. Space Invaders, Centipede etc... Secondary motion (camera movement) was not part of the gameplay yet. It was more often used during level transitions, for example when our spaceship advanced to a new level in a space-shooter and seemed to move forward until a new group of enemy ships cut our way. Tertiary motion (or sequence motion) usually would be only observable at the beginning of the game, during transitions between levels, and at the end of the game. For example, the game would cut or fade to another static screen, like the Highscores screen. A few game that broke this rule come in mind, but they rather seem to be rare: Asteriods used cuts (tertiary motion) during gameplay, which functioned as a jump to another 'slide' when your spaceship travelled out of the previous one. Joust worked the same way. A genre that seemed more suitable for this kind of Tertiary motion was the adventure game, because of it's sequential progress of puzzles and the progress from "room to room" of which each one was a different slide.


Secondary Motion Games

With the introduction of side-scrollers, secondary motion (a moving camera during gameplay) became an essential part of video games. Now not only objects moved, but also the camera. However, tertiary motion again, could not be found much during gameplay, but rather at the beginning and ends, or inbetween levels. Secondary motion was usually limited along the x and y-axis. The game scrolled to the left or the right, or up and down. In some games you could also zoom into events, but this was not yet continuous motion along the z-axis.


Advanced Secondary Motion: 3D Games

When 3D graphics arrived, we were now able to move the virtual camera continously along the z-axis, and into whatever other direction we want; which gave incredible depth to the games, but actually still none of these games were based on tertiary motion. Again video games were based on primary and secondary motion. Usually at the beginning of an FPS, we were "discovered" by an NPC, who spoke while directly looking into the camera, thereby establishing the "subjective camera" that represents us, and after that, we moved this "subjective" camera (secondary motion) around and engaged with enemies that moved within our range-of-view (enemy moves being primary motion).


Is it the Turn of Tertiary Motion?

It can be said that still today, sceen events in most of the video games genres are articulated differently from those in film, things becoming more problematic when tertiary motion is involved. In most games, events are placed along the pathway of one long uncut shot, seen through a single camera that continously travels through the virtual environment. An important part of storytelling and dramatization is done with the help of graphication devices such as HUD-displays and other visual elements that blend in during gameplay.. and sound of course.

These differences require filmic writing approaches to be reviewed. Not necessarily in terms of the basic principles of drama and narration, but in regard to the qualities of the medium. While writing, the writer maybe needs to be aware that the video game "director" cannot make as heavy use of tertiary motion as the film director can. The writer must understand that writing for games requires player control to be considered while we write how the scene unfolds.


Was this article useful? Do you remember any games in which tertiary motion played an essential role in gameplay and narration? How do you see the future of tertiary motion in video games? Leave a comment and share with us!
_____

Character Creation, Game Mechanics and Controls: Related, or unrelated?

In this article I argue that character design in video games starts already with the design of game controls, since game controls are the means for both action and expression of intention. No doubt that these are essential in the creation of character with dimensionality.


More than a Character

The mutuality between game controls, game mechanics and game characters has rarely ever been examined. The standart in most game design documents is to tackle these aspects of game development under seperate chapters, the creation of the character being the job of the writer and later on modeller, the design of game mechanics and the specification of game controls being the job of the designer and later on programmer. My thought is that designing basic game mechanism and their controls, is already the first step in building the player-character. I believe that for better character design and dramatically more compelling gameplay, the writer and designer have to work together and actually design the "player", which is a mix of contols, mechanisms and character.


The Strenght and Ability of a Character

In drama, one of the guidelines about creating character is that they should be donated with the strenghts and abilities to carry out the role that the nature of the conflict demands from them. For example if a character is a "weakling", he should put his weakness forward in a strong and convincing way, so that his weakness feels real. In terms of game design, then, the creation of "strong and convincing" characters already starts with the design of game controls, because these are the tools the player will use to carry out the actions which he will overcome the challenge with. Poor key assignment for instance, would take away from the powers of the character, because it would hamper her ability to "realize" herself.

A choice and the action that follows from it, is one of the basic methods to give the characters dimensionality. Often we judge characters and identify with their roles in regard to what they have chosen to do or what they will be able to do. The same, it could be argued, goes for games. We understand the character as he acts and thereby reveals his intentions, his goals and his personality. This is also a point where ecology, physics and AI become important, because they will have an impact on the options that a character can interact in order to "realize" herself. As a player-character, can I destruct? Swim? Jump? Drive? Dive? Deceit? Convert? Converse? What is there in the world that I can interact with and how does it behave and respond to my decisions and actions? How does it affect the ways in which I can realize myself and reach my goals? How does it relate and build up my image as a character? Without even the need for backstory and other characterization, just through the use of controls we have already a foundation for strong and convincing character, because control enable to act and decide. These build character.


The Character and the Challenge

Most important is the nature of the challenge as it relates to the control of the character and the execution of actions/decisions. If choice and action relates to the challenge and can be carried out the challenge demands it, then the character feel much more able, and hence identifyable. For example in the Mario series you don't have billions of choices, but the few ones you have, really count; also the required skill-set is limited, but it is fully functional in regard to the challenge. The key assignments are neat and simple. In short, Mario has all the strenghts and abilities to carry out his role, is easy to control and hence feels like a character.

There are many games in which the characters are great although we don't know anything about their backstories and all the other things that we would ask for in characters. Alone the available actions and the decision that these acrions reflect, are already character. For example in a game like Soul Calibur, we don't know the backstories of fighters very well, but the variety of actions that they can carry out and the decisions that we can make in the given context, is enough to make them feel convincing and three-dimensional. With their plain functionality they perfectly serve the challenge that the player faces: to win a fight. The visual appearance and associated sounds of these fighters add enough chrome to round up their unique feel and makes it fun to be in their shoes.


Was this article useful? Do you agree that game designers would do better if they would perceive the design of game controls also as the first step in building the player-character? What would be ways to increase the collaboration between writers and designers during the creation of the player-character? Leave a comment and share your thoughts with us.

---