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.

---

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.
_____

First-Person Shooter in Cappadocia Settings

I thought it might be a cool idea to use the underground or cave cities in Cappadocia as the backdrop for a First-Person-Shooter.

It's a weird atmosphere there... kilometers of quite narrow tunnels, then suddenly small chambers, hidden doors... and at some point you are back overground. I think with a good scenario it would make an excellent game. Actually when looking deeper into the historical background of the cave cities, one can find interesting materials for a good scenario. According to one story, these cave cities have been built for resistance again alien invaders. Another, more realistic story claims that these cities were build by Christians as a place to hide from the Roman administration. Whatever, it could be a setting for a cool Sci-Fi story or a Horror/Mystery game a la Silent Hill. Or maybe a medieval detective story like Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose.




Was this article inspiring? What is your opinion on using Cappadocia as the backdrop of a First-Person Shooter? Leave a comment and share with us?
_____

Press 'H' to Build Hell: On Prompting the Player to Action

In this article I examine the use of prompts in video games and compare their funtions in regard to game writing.




It seems like an innocent call when an in-game text in Sid Meier's Civilization prompts the player to take her first action in the game: Press "b" to built a city . What she doesn't know yet, but afterwards experiences soon, is that she actually lays the first stone of the road to hell. Once she builds that city, the game dynamics starts to cycle around her like a shark before its deadly attack.

Of course it is not the prompt that builts hell. The prompt just prompts us to do something we don't know the meaning of yet. But what do prompts in games really do? Can we define an area of function for them or can we distinguish between types of use? On the other hand, are there good ways to employ them, could we eventually suggest some rules of thumb for using prompts? Can we regard prompts as category of their own or are they only a subcategory of another major category of game elements?


Prompts as a way of Exposure

If I had to place the prompts subject in a book about screenwriting, I would have placed it under the chapter about exposure and the techniques of exposure. Hence, it seems like that a broader category for prompts exists. But then, I would have also thought of referring to prompts in the storytelling techniques chapter. And surely I would have addressed the prompts issue in many other chapters. Is this multi-functionality a property of prompts or is it the result of the different contexts in which they are utilized?

It seems to me that many prompts function as informative elements of the game, helping us in our orientation and revealing us the some of the parametres of the game. For instance, they ask us to use a input device assigned to a function... like in our above example "press 'b' to build a city". The prompt informs us on or teaches us about how to build a city. Hence we can conclude that prompts have a informative function.(We can regard them also as paradigmatic, as they reveal the elements in the list of the game's possibles.)

But then there is another prompt: Build more cities! You should build more cities to grow your civilization. This prompt does not inform us about a function. It intoduces an aim, points at or suggests a goal. This time the syntagmatic character seems to be stronger, since it asks us to utilize the city building option in a sequential, meaningful way. It is also a warning about -if we borrow a term from Fernand Braudel- the "big grammar" of the game: The limitations that game physics pose upon us and the trends that the inhabitants of the game domain are forced into due to the the long term effects of game dynamics.

A few turns later we face another prompt: to choose the first from a variety of research topics. This prompt faces us with a decision... and that is a dramatic situation. Just having chosen, now the city asks us what to produce next: a prompt for decision again.

We can say that many of the prompts are shapers of meaningful action (gameplay) as step by step, they show us how the world works (how our interaction with the game materializes in the game's domain). The way things materialize also gains meaning during the process. It appears that what materializes in the game world has also a value within the context of the game (game-defined value as well as player-defined value, and of course, how they translate into each other).


Luring the Player into Play

Prompts are also important in the early of the game. The prompts at the start of Civilization seem to have some important functions that can be compared with those techniques applied in the introduction act of a screenplay: They capture our attention and immediately lure us into the conflict. They confront us in the first seconds with the game dynamics that will challenge us all along the game. If there wouldn't be a prompt, the risk would be that we walk around aimlessly on the map, missing the game, finding no meaning/value for our acts, not understanding the reasons and goals we are here for. We would seek for information on what our goal is, how the world we are in functions and how we can influence it and its outcomes. A bad designed interface would leave us stunned, us not being able to really initiate the game, although the game seems to have started and we expect to find processes of interaction (mutual influencing) as well as feedback about this interaction. So using a prompt in such a situation can be a clever design decision: The first few seconds in which the player decides to continue or not, are not wasted, they are effectively used to get the player into the game. They are used to get him influencing and reward him with feedback: A city appears on the map, then the city screen opens. Actually the game world starts to opens itself.


Establishing a Player Vocabulary

We can say that prompts follows common wisdom: A game is best learned by playing it, not by listening to explanations about it beforehand. When we play board or card games it happens very often that the more experienced player suggests just to start to play and adds "you will understand when we progress into the game". We learn the rules, the properties of the game world and the funtions of game elements when the time comes to apply them or when we are subject to them. In other words, we get the answers to "what's next?" and "how?" when we need them. (Or from the POV of the designer: when the game seems to need them to influence the player.)

(A note on influencing: Influencing does not necessarily mean that an action or the dynamic of the game changes the game world in a recognizable way. It can be also mental, e.g. changing the idea of the player about himself or her status in the game.)


The Timing of Exposure

But getting something when we need it, raises another issue: that of timing. This leads us to a simple rule in screenwriting: The best moment to reveal an information is the moment where the spectator asks for it. Only then the information will be absorbed "naturally". The best informations are those that doesn't make us feel like we are informed. Bad timing causes suspicion or worse, it pulls us out of immersion. The flow seems to be interrupted or it feels like the game needs reference to the outside world to explain itself or make itself work. All this casts doubts on the realism and believability of the game.

In screenwriting, two techniques regarding the timing of exposure are very often mentioned: Of one -giving information exactly at the moment in which the spectator begs for it- we talked already. The other one is to reveal information within a dramatic context where we are focused on the plot/event and do not realize that we are also receiving information about the how's and why's of the game. The first time our city is attacked, could be an example: It is a dramatic moment, raising tension. But Voila!: we have learned another fact about the game without really noticing: That our cities can be subject to attack... and simple reasoning might carry us even a step further: Expecting that we might attack cities, too. We try it of course!

Civilization is in many regards very good in timing since it almost never allows us to think "what's next?" or "how?". This is partly a result of the way in which the mechanism of the game works: New features are triggered or revealed in a back-to-back fashion: A finished research means, a new research theme has to be chosen. A finished building in the city means, a new unit has to be chosen. There is no pause inbetween. It is rather necessity than calculated timing that confronts us with new prompts... but it works particularly well. It puts us into the "next" before we can even ask for it and tells us "how" by pointing at the action/function that we might employ. The game takes the initiative and guides us all along the game. In bad designed games however, you would ask yourself questions like "what's next?" and "how?" very often. Worse games would even lack the answers to these questions...


The Presence of the Designer?

Admiring Sid Meier's skills, I faced a merely philosophical problem. It is only in this first prompt (press "b" to build a city) that it seems like someone outside of the game world speaks to us. Who is it who asks us to build a city? Is it a narrator? Is it the game? Or is it the designer of the game who otherwise shows so much effort to erase the traces of his presence in/behind the game? It's the designer who seems to ask us to play the game. But asking the player to play, is to tell her that you need her to make the game work: You refer to the outside world. You speak about what you should not speak.

Image from the Apolyton Forums


What this article useful? Do you remember games with outstanding uses of prompts? Leave a comment and share with us.
_____