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.

---

Tertiary Motion, Vector Consistency and Game Controls

In this article I discuss the problem of vector consistency during tertiary motion in video games and point at possible solutions to overcome this problem.


The Problem of Vector Consistency During Gameplay

One of the important problems that is caused by tertiary motion during gameplay is that of vector inconsistency. As the camera quickly switches from one position to another, a move which is often referred to as jogging, it is possible that the player loses the feeling of control and has difficulties in maintaining directional continuity. Since immersion requires the illusion of agency, and agency is based on a feeling of control over actions, the resulting disorientation will pull the player out of the depths of her experience. One reason for tertiary motion being so distracting is that it happens often based on a decision of the game AI, and not the character. It is normal that any player would perceive this as an interference to gameplay and a loss over agency. This problematic situation requires tertiary motion to be build very carefully into gameplay. Vector Consistency is one of the concepts that can help us in this regard.

Indeed, one of the things that the camera use in games obeys to, seems to be vector consistency.In many games the camera is locked onto the player character (based on certain parametres like distance, angle etc, which do not change during gameplay). Vector consistency is maintained during the whole process, even if we have very lively secondary motion (like in FPS or TPS games where the player constantly moves around in a 3D World).


How do Video Game Ensure Vector Consistency?

Vector consistency is maintained in a few simple ways:

1) Either the camera frame is identified with our gaze (which makes it a subjective camera), or;

2) the camera follows the player’s avatar in a pre-set way, visually assisting the player in maintaining the feel of agency.

In both cases, the camera motion is glued to the player or his representation, rarely ever leaving this locked position. Despite all the action, there is no visual jumping that confuses the player. This is quite different from what happens in film, and it is a difference that game writers need to notice. In film you rarely see scenes with cameras locked onto the subject for a long time, and if, then these scenes often aim for the creation of a specific meaning.


Vector Consistency during Tertiary Motion

However, despite the cam-lock in games, slight cam-moves are used frequently. Usually their aim is to add depth to gameplay or give comfort to the player by providing cam adjustment to the conditions. For example the cam drags behind for a few seconds when you accelerate your car in NFS, which help you to feel the energy under the hub. In some shooters on the other hand (for example Full Spectrum Warrior) the camera strafes to the right or to the left to gain more field-of-vision for the player when he rests close to a wall corner that hinders sight. However these are secondary motions in accordance with the active vector, and often contribute to the experience, rather than taking away from it. The question is how tertiary motions like cuts should be built into gameplay without making the feel of control suffer.


The 30 Degrees Rule: A solution for video games?

It has been said that a cut that changes the camera-angle less than 30 degrees confuses the film spectator, because the change in the angle usually feels too insignificant as to cause a difference in the situation it narrates. Therefore the spectator doesn’t get what reaction is expected from him and wonders why the cut actually happened. On the other hand, in games, the player gets confused when during ongoing motion in gameplay the angle changes too drastically, because the player loses connection to the motion vector he believes to “ride” on in that very moment. Maybe the 30 degree rule can be applied in a reversed way to games, meaning any cut during gameplay or player motion should not exceed 30 degrees, because as long as the cut remains in that range, the player can maintain his connection to the motion vector he feels to be riding on. If over 30 degrees, then the shift feels too big as to maintain vector continuity and the player feels like losing control over his direction. On the other hand, we also need to ask: If a angle-change less than 30 degrees feels meaningless in film, does it feel meaningless in games too?


Cutting along the Z-Axis

Probably the best way to avoid confusion during cuts is to select a frame that is located onto the direction of the motion vector that the player holds. If this is primarily the z-axis, then our cut should jump anywhere along the z-axis, preserving the initial angle. Cuts should remain in a spectrum that ranges from Long-shot to close-up's, not playing with the angle at all.


Moving the Camera when the Player stands still

Also, it could be claimed that the player will tolerate more tertiary motion if she doesn’t move at the moment of the switch, because there is a stable frame of reference that puts the camera motion in context, without causing confusion.


AI That Serves the Intention of the Player is Key

The problem of visual and vectoral continuity is less a problem when the player herself decides to change the angle and moves the camera deliberately, because then the player is fully aware of the intention behind the camera move (which simply is her own intention). It becomes rather problematic when the design of the cam algorithm is not really able to follow the basic player intentions that emerge during gameplay. The player continually will experience a lack of correspondence and feel that the game is difficult to control. Even if the cam design is ok, a player atill can mess up things and lose sight (or orientation), so some games provide this cool button that resets your view to the “standart” camera position of the game. This means you can re-build your feeling of continuity, and that is the reasons why it feels so much home, so much safe to be able to do this.


Was this article useful? Can you imagine better ways to maintain visual diversity during gameplay without endangering vector consistency and the player's feel of control? Leave a comment and share with us.
_____