Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Game Design’

The debate around Quick Time Events as an action control mechanism has reared up again with the release of Quantic Dream’s Heavy Rain for the Playstation 3 which uses the scheme as it primary interface system. In a nutshell, instead of providing a static mapping of controls to actions, where the [X] button is always Use, the [Right Trigger] is always Run, and so on, the Quick Time Events (QTE) scheme dynamically maps controls to contextual actions and prompts the player to use the required controls right as they’re needed. With most game control schemes the player has access to a discrete set of actions that they can perform at any time (or nearly any time) just by executing the correct button/trigger sequence. In a QTE system a particular action cannot be performed until the player is prompted to perform the action, and then success or failure is judged by the timing of the execution of the controls. (It should be pointed out that Heavy Rain designer David Cage literally called bullshit on the game having QTEs.)

What makes a Quick Time Event a QTE is the timing. One control or multiple controls in sequence or simultaneously, has to be executed in the time allotted. For example, after opening a door the player is shown a bomb about to detonate on the far side. The player receives another QTE control prompt to dive to the side and if that control isn’t executed in a second or two the bomb explodes and the player-character is caught in the blast. If he does execute it, the character dodges aside. The game’s difficulty is managed by changing the timing or the number of commands that must be executed in sequence or simultaneously.

With a traditional game control scheme the player uses the pre-determined control for moving or jumping out of the way. With a QTE scheme that player uses the control indicated right then for getting clear. Similar actions usually have the same control requirement, so the player can often anticipate what control he’s going to be prompted for, but sometimes it’s not what is expected. For example, the action prompt might be to close the door, rather than dive out of the way, and that would require a different control execution than what is normally used for diving out of the way. Player freedom is actually very limited since at any given QTE prompt there is only one, occasionally two, things that the player is allowed to do. For players who are used to traditional control schemes that allow him to chose from the actions available to him (Run, Shoot, Punch, Heal, etc.) to resolve an action scene this feels very limiting. This is an important point in that most game control schemes are tactical control schemes and are built to give the player optimal movement/combat control over a scene in accordance with the game mechanics. These kinds of control schemes are associated with action and shooter games where that kind of tactical move and shoot gameplay is king.

(As a brief aside, some more traditional presentations subtly incorporate the equivalent of QTEs without most people even realizing it. For example, Batman: Arkham Asylum visually prompts the player as to  which opponent is going to attack next, thereby allowing the player the opportunity to react by hitting the right control to block the incoming attack. The game doesn’t flash a controller symbol on screen, but it is effectively the same thing.)

An argument often heard against QTE schemes is that player is basically playing Simon, or Guitar Hero or Dance Dance Revolution just without the musical beats, but I think a better way to look at QTEs is as action scene choreography. QTEs allow action sequences to be much more cinematic and really the entire experience to be much more like playing a movie than playing a traditional action shooter. This may or may not be your thing, but it is just as valid a form of presentation as a tactical combat simulator, except that it places the emphasis on dramatic beats rather than tactical prowess. It also allows a greater, more dramatic, control of the pacing of an action sequence. It also creates a dramatic imperative:  Once the QTE sequence of the fight starts, unless it prompts him with the option to get out of the fight, he’s in it until the end. No matter what the player may want to do he is forced to guide his character through the fight until he either wins or loses. He is dramatically committed to the fight…or whatever sequence he is attempting to complete. And with a well-constructed QTE sequence that experience should be tight, taught, and dramatically compelling since the designers and artists are in absolute control.

A game like Heavy Rain isn’t interested in tactical control, but rather narrative flow, and in this case the flow is like a fast moving roller-coaster – once it gets going, there’s no getting off. . The fight with the thug is important, and momentarily thrilling, but narratively what’s more important isn’t how you defeated the thug – which fist punched the thug where – but why you did it and what happens after you do… or don’t.

Read Full Post »

The second submission has the really long title of  “Plot and Purpose: the Non-Existent Conflict Between Agency and Authorship in Game Stories“, which though accurate is a mouth full. My guess is if the lecture submission is accepted it will be shortened.  Here’s the submission:

Plot and Purpose: the Non-Existent Conflict Between Agency and Authorship in Game Stories

Exercise:
Choose an action verb, past tense. [VERB]
Choose a game character sounding name. [CHARACTER]
Select a noun that is a familial or personal relationship [RELATIONSHIP]

“Hello. My name is [CHARACTER]. You [VERB] my [RELATIONSHIP]. Prepare to die.”

Congratulations, you’re written the premise of too many action-driven computer games.

Seriously, though, many recent top-tier games have fortunately moved beyond this structure. Entire discussions could be based on the meaning and execution of each portion of that sentence: The player/character, the inciting action, the emotional stake in the story, and so on. Instead, this presentation looks at the last part – “Prepare to die.” – the Desired Resolution – which is the Character’s response to the Inciting Action and how that’s crafted in a game story.

The Desired Resolution is what the Character wants… but it isn’t what the Character does. In order to achieve the Desired Resolution, the Character follows a Course of Action that brings about the ultimate outcome. This Course of Action is what the player/character can do within the structure, or allowances, of the game, which is the simplest expression of Agency, created by the “author” for the player to experience. Authorship doesn’t conflict with Agency – it enables it.

This presentation talks about defying the traditional story creation paradigm of conceiving of, and then plotting, the story from the beginning, through the middle, to the end. Once the writer has fleshed out the main plot – the primary Course of Action – that’s when they think about the alternatives… but look at the words used: Primary. Main. It establishes the desired set of events and it’s very hard to weave in alternatives. For telling interactive stories – game stories – don’t start from the beginning –start from the end. Construct possibilities based on desired outcomes.

Since there is no right plot thread or Course of Action, this presentation talks about determining what elements of the Desired Resolution are variables, affected by choice (Agency) – As obvious examples, is death required for the antagonist’s downfall? Does an ally change sides due to the character’s actions? And so on. Decide what the states for these narrative variables are and then devise what Courses of Action can affect these states.  Once all these options are defined – within the constraints and allowances of gameplay and content creation –weave them together into the web of all of the possible Courses of Action leading to the Desired Resolution. Authorship enables Agency.

Attendees of this lecture will be exposed to not only theoretical talk about Agency and Authorship, and the false conflict between them in game and interactive stories, but also practical considerations and possible solutions to enabling and expanding Agency in game stories. What kinds of narrative variables are practical to work with? How do we deal with the constraints of content creation? How are gameplay and Agency interrelated, but not the same? Some answers to the big question of “Yes, that’s all well and good, but how do we do this?” will be presented.

(c)2009 Tom Dowd. All Rights Reserved.

Read Full Post »

I’ve sent in two submissions for GDC 2010, one is a lecture and the other is a roundtable. I’ll be taking time to jabber about each on this site, but for the moment, here’s the information on the first, a roundtable submission:

Designing Gatsby

Designers, and critics, of narrative-driven computer games speak often of a desire to find deeper meaning in game stories and plots. Is it possible, or do the constraints of the medium prevent the inclusion of more so-called literary qualities in game stories? Thus far, the narrative structure of games has relied more on film than anything else, but should it? Should, instead, we be looking at novels and short stories for inspiration? Using the “Great American Novel” – The Great Gatsby – as a lens, jumping-off point, and crucible, this roundtable discusses how more literary concepts related to character, setting, perspective, drama or melodrama, structure, and so on can be applied to games and interactive narrative. All of this must also be looked at on the context of the reality that, at this time, games replicate physical action better than anything else. Are deeper meanings, complex literary elements, and action-driven plots incompatible, or is there some chance for synthesis of these ideas? And lastly, even with all these literary buzzwords and high-art talk, how do we actually do these things?

Running multiple times across the Game Developers Conference, this roundtable provides a great opportunity to dig deep into a handful of ideas, or broad spectrum of topics, depending on the make-up and inclinations of the attendees. The intention of the roundtable is to not only discuss these ideas on a theoretical level, but to also address practical considerations in presentation and execution. “Yes, but how do we *do* that?” is expected to be an often-asked question at the roundtables.

As with most roundtables, the takeaway here is food for thought and the opportunity to push boundaries and exchange ideas. Are we looking at the wrong paradigm for game structure? Can we weave deeper meaning into our run-and-gun content? Should we? With luck, these discussions will inform future game development decisions, or at the very least provide some fodder for the next round of beers.

——————–

Middle October is when the submittors find out if they’ve made it to Round Two.

(c)2009 Tom Dowd. All Rights Reserved.

Read Full Post »