But what is the question? Well, “What is the question?” in this case actually IS the question. The answers will come easily, once I find the right question. My second project this semester is to submit a “post-graduate dissertation” about a topic of significance to my chosen field. The traditional expectation is for this project to take the form of a long-winded written essay, but students in practice focused courses are sometimes encouraged to approach the submission requirements of this module from an “alternative” perspective. Most recently, an MA student from Games Design provided her dissertation as a playable level in which you had to engage in dialogue with characters in order to hear her discussion of the subject matter. As you can imagine, this totally stumped most academic assessors, and left them scratching their bald spots in technophobic confusion.
Answer me these Questions 3: Dissertation Dilemma
Believe me, I had intended to be just as unique, imaginative and deliberately awkward when I came to tackle to task. But alas I have more responsibilities now. Working 4 days a week at TT Fusion and only scraping one contact day at Uni a week, it seems like it may be wiser for me to just stick to the dry written word like “the man” wants. As this blog attests, I can write 1000 words in my sleep. I write 3000 word articles about Games Design for fun. I just need to decide on a suitably juicy, pretentiously academic topic for this particular “article”.. frame that topic in the form of a question.. apply a brew alongside relaxing jazz fusion (rjd2 should suffice).. and I'm golden. And so, after a quick run down memory lane at Too Long Didn't Read, I have narrowed myself down to 3 main dissertation topic ideas.
Question#1: Is the industry's newfound focus on big-budget cinematic staging causing a decline in good solid “mechanical” games design?
Topic: Blockbuster V Mechanical Design
I find it strange that no-one has yet called particular attention to this increasingly pervasive and potentially dangerous trend. More and more, the medium is shifting to focus on superficial “wow-moments” to grab and hold the attention of audiences. These moments range from contextual actions and “Quick-time-events” to set pieces and flashy backdrops; providing gamers with pre-choreographed superlative one-shot experiences that live outside the core-gameplay. These moments are deliberately there to distract players, to keep the gameplay fresher longer without providing actual technical depth or advancing the game mechanically. Look no further than Uncharted 2: At first glance the best game of it's release year.. yet it doesn't even have that defining “hook” that good games design should demand. The gameplay is solid, but completely borrowed and mediocre. All these “tricks” are one-shot one-time-wonder surprises; superficial frills. And worst of all, completely linear; it's MOVIE design, players “watch” these events, they don't participate.. and without interaction, videogames will lose what it is to BE a videogame.
Unfortunately, “oi, stop that” isn't good enough an answer. Block-buster presentation and “wow-moments” are not without their advantages.. Because they are completely pre-choreographed animations/events, the author has complete control over how they play out, allowing them to maximize impact and quality. Because they are contained and separate from gameplay, they can do things the normal gameplay cannot, providing infinite possibilities for variety. Uncharted 2 was a BLAST to play, and I loved it. The real question, is how do we find a balance? Can deep, rewarding design play out on a block-buster canvas? Surely we want the best of both worlds?
Question#2: How can interaction be used to strengthen emotional and psychological connection to a narrative or experience?
Topic: Emotion and Immersion in Games
This is a pretty common talking-point around the global water-cooler. I'd be using this question to explore how the interactive aspect of videogames is both beneficial and detrimental to how the audience views, interacts and connects with the setting and characters within a story. I think that while the lack of “real people” (even actors) provides an almost immediate disconnect for many; being personally responsible for your choices within the game world gifts this medium the potential to become a unique and extremely potent method of story-telling. It's more complicated than making a movie or writing a book though.. because the topic bleeds into another major talking-point; That of linear choreographed design versus open-ended sandbox play. The more freedom you give the player, the less control you have over their experience, and the less able you are to ensure that experience is rewarding. How much control do you sacrifice? It's about creating an illusion. The illusion of freedom.
When it comes to developing connection and making emotional impact, I already have what I believe is a sturdy hypothesis to use as a starting point. I believe that gameplay value breeds narrative value. If a character or aspect of the game world has a meaningful affect on the players actual skills, health, or ability to progress, the player will immediately begin to recognize them as valuable in a larger sense, and there will be a much greater sense of loss and anxiety if those characters/aspects are threatened. I've covered this theory previously, during my “Companionship” research. A powerful example of this in my eyes is the Companion Cube from Portal. An inanimate object without personality or opinion, it's vital role in the games next few puzzles built up a bizarre and obscure, yet powerful, bond. So much so, that there is a tangible pull of regret (for most gamers. With hearts.) when you have to destroy “it” to progress. This doubles as an example of how responsibility strengthens the connection. The knowledge that what happened was your doing, the result of your actions. This is something movies can never provide. See: Heavy Rain, Mass Effect 2.
Question#3: Is a “Game Over” and “Return to Checkpoint?” really the best way to punish players for failure?
Topic: Death and Failure States
This topic is arguably not as strong and broad as the first two, but it's one that I have been itching to address for a while now. Generally when a gamer fails, they are punished by being thrown back to a previous point of the game. They then have to replay back to where-ever they were to try again. This is a punishment. A punishment for not being good enough at a method of entertainment. But, without that known consequence, players wouldn't fear failure, it would break almost all “feedback loops” within the games design. It's essential gamers care if they are about to die, as that's part of the game, part of the experience, and necessary for immersion. The reason this method is so ingrained is obvious. But are there alternatives?
Straight-up answer is yes. Just not any truly good ones, yet. Various games have dabbled with creative and abstract alternatives to the soul-crushing darkness of the “Game Over” screen. Fable 2 is probably the most vocal attempt at addressing the issue. It's PR mentioned a “choice”. You could slip back to the last checkpoint as is traditional, or respawn in the spot that you died for the price of some experience orbs and a disfiguring scar somewhere on your body. Too Human trades off by forcing you to watch a ridiculously frustrating “resurrection” animation, that seems to last 100 hours by the 2nd time you see it. Heavy Rain has the most potent answer of all. If you die, you are dead. That character's story ends in that moment. Obviously all games can't do that. Most games can't. It's all related to death and consequence. Failure states. The balance between punishment and frustration, challenge and entertainment, a question I have been dying to answer. Sorry.
Conclusion:
Before finishing this blog post, I had all but decided on Question#2 as my topic. However in the final typing, Question#1 has become a contender again. It would appear that I'm still somewhat torn on the subject... Regardless, any one of these written sections above can likely serve as the basis of my first vital submission: the “Dissertation Synopsis”. I shall ponder this decision further, and reveal my choice in my next post. Until then, thanks for reading!
-Steve
Answer me these Questions 3: Dissertation Dilemma
Believe me, I had intended to be just as unique, imaginative and deliberately awkward when I came to tackle to task. But alas I have more responsibilities now. Working 4 days a week at TT Fusion and only scraping one contact day at Uni a week, it seems like it may be wiser for me to just stick to the dry written word like “the man” wants. As this blog attests, I can write 1000 words in my sleep. I write 3000 word articles about Games Design for fun. I just need to decide on a suitably juicy, pretentiously academic topic for this particular “article”.. frame that topic in the form of a question.. apply a brew alongside relaxing jazz fusion (rjd2 should suffice).. and I'm golden. And so, after a quick run down memory lane at Too Long Didn't Read, I have narrowed myself down to 3 main dissertation topic ideas.
Question#1: Is the industry's newfound focus on big-budget cinematic staging causing a decline in good solid “mechanical” games design?
Topic: Blockbuster V Mechanical Design
I find it strange that no-one has yet called particular attention to this increasingly pervasive and potentially dangerous trend. More and more, the medium is shifting to focus on superficial “wow-moments” to grab and hold the attention of audiences. These moments range from contextual actions and “Quick-time-events” to set pieces and flashy backdrops; providing gamers with pre-choreographed superlative one-shot experiences that live outside the core-gameplay. These moments are deliberately there to distract players, to keep the gameplay fresher longer without providing actual technical depth or advancing the game mechanically. Look no further than Uncharted 2: At first glance the best game of it's release year.. yet it doesn't even have that defining “hook” that good games design should demand. The gameplay is solid, but completely borrowed and mediocre. All these “tricks” are one-shot one-time-wonder surprises; superficial frills. And worst of all, completely linear; it's MOVIE design, players “watch” these events, they don't participate.. and without interaction, videogames will lose what it is to BE a videogame.
Unfortunately, “oi, stop that” isn't good enough an answer. Block-buster presentation and “wow-moments” are not without their advantages.. Because they are completely pre-choreographed animations/events, the author has complete control over how they play out, allowing them to maximize impact and quality. Because they are contained and separate from gameplay, they can do things the normal gameplay cannot, providing infinite possibilities for variety. Uncharted 2 was a BLAST to play, and I loved it. The real question, is how do we find a balance? Can deep, rewarding design play out on a block-buster canvas? Surely we want the best of both worlds?Question#2: How can interaction be used to strengthen emotional and psychological connection to a narrative or experience?
Topic: Emotion and Immersion in Games
This is a pretty common talking-point around the global water-cooler. I'd be using this question to explore how the interactive aspect of videogames is both beneficial and detrimental to how the audience views, interacts and connects with the setting and characters within a story. I think that while the lack of “real people” (even actors) provides an almost immediate disconnect for many; being personally responsible for your choices within the game world gifts this medium the potential to become a unique and extremely potent method of story-telling. It's more complicated than making a movie or writing a book though.. because the topic bleeds into another major talking-point; That of linear choreographed design versus open-ended sandbox play. The more freedom you give the player, the less control you have over their experience, and the less able you are to ensure that experience is rewarding. How much control do you sacrifice? It's about creating an illusion. The illusion of freedom.
When it comes to developing connection and making emotional impact, I already have what I believe is a sturdy hypothesis to use as a starting point. I believe that gameplay value breeds narrative value. If a character or aspect of the game world has a meaningful affect on the players actual skills, health, or ability to progress, the player will immediately begin to recognize them as valuable in a larger sense, and there will be a much greater sense of loss and anxiety if those characters/aspects are threatened. I've covered this theory previously, during my “Companionship” research. A powerful example of this in my eyes is the Companion Cube from Portal. An inanimate object without personality or opinion, it's vital role in the games next few puzzles built up a bizarre and obscure, yet powerful, bond. So much so, that there is a tangible pull of regret (for most gamers. With hearts.) when you have to destroy “it” to progress. This doubles as an example of how responsibility strengthens the connection. The knowledge that what happened was your doing, the result of your actions. This is something movies can never provide. See: Heavy Rain, Mass Effect 2.Question#3: Is a “Game Over” and “Return to Checkpoint?” really the best way to punish players for failure?
Topic: Death and Failure States
This topic is arguably not as strong and broad as the first two, but it's one that I have been itching to address for a while now. Generally when a gamer fails, they are punished by being thrown back to a previous point of the game. They then have to replay back to where-ever they were to try again. This is a punishment. A punishment for not being good enough at a method of entertainment. But, without that known consequence, players wouldn't fear failure, it would break almost all “feedback loops” within the games design. It's essential gamers care if they are about to die, as that's part of the game, part of the experience, and necessary for immersion. The reason this method is so ingrained is obvious. But are there alternatives?
Straight-up answer is yes. Just not any truly good ones, yet. Various games have dabbled with creative and abstract alternatives to the soul-crushing darkness of the “Game Over” screen. Fable 2 is probably the most vocal attempt at addressing the issue. It's PR mentioned a “choice”. You could slip back to the last checkpoint as is traditional, or respawn in the spot that you died for the price of some experience orbs and a disfiguring scar somewhere on your body. Too Human trades off by forcing you to watch a ridiculously frustrating “resurrection” animation, that seems to last 100 hours by the 2nd time you see it. Heavy Rain has the most potent answer of all. If you die, you are dead. That character's story ends in that moment. Obviously all games can't do that. Most games can't. It's all related to death and consequence. Failure states. The balance between punishment and frustration, challenge and entertainment, a question I have been dying to answer. Sorry.Conclusion:
Before finishing this blog post, I had all but decided on Question#2 as my topic. However in the final typing, Question#1 has become a contender again. It would appear that I'm still somewhat torn on the subject... Regardless, any one of these written sections above can likely serve as the basis of my first vital submission: the “Dissertation Synopsis”. I shall ponder this decision further, and reveal my choice in my next post. Until then, thanks for reading!
-Steve
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Just tell me I'm great. I get a kick out of that.