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.
_____

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.
_____