Introduction
This post aims to be a deeper look at an earlier rant
about meaning, narrative (plot) and gameplay. After considering
feedback and thinking about it some more I would now like to write a
more constructive text.
In this post I will outline some steps and ways
of thinking that I think are needed in order to achieve deeper and more
varied meaning in games. "Deeper meaning" is of course a highly
subjective thing, but what I mean is simply games where the core is not
just about a gameplay mechanic, showing entertaining gore or similar.
Instead, the focus should be on exploring something other than pure
"fun".
Meaning should come first
Instead
of starting out with a gameplay mechanic, one should find some other
kind of meaning to have at the core. Note, that "meaning" does not have
to be something hard to understand or extremely profound. "The joys of
snowboarding" is one kind of meaning and "What is it like to be
homeless?" is another. Note the difference in meanings here, one is
pretty mainstream while the other is not. Also note that I would
consider both of these meanings "deep" as they do not concentrate on
the gameplay directly.
I think having this kind of meaning can
be crucial in order to create a good work, and many (all?) great films
and books are based around it. For example, take books like Animal Farm and Grapes of Wrath,
both of which are very compelling stories and also have a strong
meanings. The meaning that lie at the core of these works is what is
essential though and not the plot.
Grapes of Wrath tries to describe
the problems poor farmers had when they where forced to move to
California. Animal Farm is at one level about corruption in governments
after revolutions and at another a fairly accurate description of the
Russian revolution. The important thing is that the plots are not what
is essential in these books. Instead the plots are merely vessels in
order to bring forward the meaning and have been written to do so in
the most effective manner. Without the strong meaning at the core, the
novels would have never been written. The engaging stories has grown
directly from their respective meanings.
It is worth noting that
just because a meaning lies at the core, a game does not have to turn
out different from how they normally are today. For example, the "The
joys of snowboarding" could be made into an ordinary game like SSX or something more experimental like Stoked Rider
(that does not contain goals, scores, etc). What is essential though is
that the meaning is never sacrificed for other features. If a score is
added to the "joys of snowboarding" game then it should increase the
meaning and if doesn't, it should be discarded! Ignoring this cause
problems in many games, some of which have been discussed here.
Fun does not need to be in focus
When
designing a way to bring forward the meaning, one should use all tricks
that are available to the medium and not feel forced that everything
must be fun gameplay mechanics. Focusing on having some kind of
entertaining activity at the core of the game tend to take away the
meaning and instead let the mechanic take over. A recent example of
this would be combat and upgrading in Dead Space that takes away quite
bit of the Alien/Event Horizon-like atmosphere ( which I assume is what
the designers where after).
When designing our upcoming game Amnesia we
first focused on having a core gameplay which the rest of the game
could be built upon. However, every type of gameplay we tried out
weakened our core meaning of creating a scary and disturbing
atmosphere. It was not until we just let go of the concept that
something "fun" needs to lie at the core that we really felt the
project coming together.
It's not all about events
What
drives the meaning in books like Animal Farm is basically a string of
plot events. This is because linear media, like books and movies, are
pretty much all about plots and therefore events is the most common way
to bring forward a meaning. However, this is not true for games, where
we have interactivity, non-linearity and generated content to work with
as well!
I think many game designers look too much at books and
films, and mimics their ways of communicating a message. Instead I
think that one way to move forward is to look at the meaning and then
figure out the best way to convey it. (Of course this also means that
one must have a meaning from the start...)
Consider portraying a
dangerous neighborhood. In a linear media a character might be mugged
when walking in the area, and in that way conveying that it is a bad
place by using a plot event. In a game this could be done through
interaction instead. For instance, NPC:s can give more hostile answers
to questions asked, showing certain objects will make people stare with
greedy eyes, etc. These kinds of interactions all enhance the meaning
that is portrayed and makes the mugging event irrelevant.
What I
wanted to show with the previous example is that instead of a scripted
event, interaction with the world can provide the same kind of meaning.
It is also worth pointing out that some games (Fallout comes
into mind) already use this method, but I would like to see used more
often. Also, it is very important to be aware of this possibility and
not just assume that an event is important for the story. There are
bound to be many plot events in a story that could be changed this way.
One should not focus on having everything as interactivity though; the
method to be used should always be the one which best conveys the
intended meaning.
Winning is not everything
All
ancient games like go and backgammon are at the core about one thing:
winning. This is something that seem to have followed ever since and
most games rely on some mechanic where the player either succeeds or
fails. While it suits some types of games, it can devastate the
experience in others and it also sets up a sort of barrier on who can
play the game. Many games effectively say: "Either you complete this
task or you won't proceed!". There seems to be some kind of common
knowledge that this type of mechanic is a must in order for a creation
to be called a game and if the player cannot loose the game is
pointless.
I believe it is time to stop thinking in terms of
"beating a game" and instead focus creating an experience for the
player. For example, I have discussed chase sequences in a previous post
and the main problems with these is that they loose their impact when
replayed. There is a very simple solution to this problem: make sure
they are only played once! I think it is possible to still create
tension even if it is predetermined whether the protagonist dies or
not. It is all about immersing oneself and it works great for films and
books.
Another way is to continue the game regardless if the player
wins or looses, changing the game accordingly. Both of these methods
are implemented in Heavy Rain and while I have not tried the game, reviews
seem to show that it works quite well. Also note that it is possible to
fool the player into believing that there are grave consequences if
failing in certain sequences. As long as there is some rare occasions
where it really does matter, the player will never be sure if the
current situation is "for real" or not. This approach makes it easier
for the designer as large amounts of narrative permutations does need
to be supported.
This thinking can be applied to just about any
sequence that is supposed to have tension. Every time "game over" is
shown immersion is broken and the player is pulled out of the game
world. One can give the experience more flow by skipping the old notion
of "trial and error" and instead make sure that the game always
progresses. At the same time the game is made accessible to more people
and not just hard-core gamers.
As a final note on the "win or
loose" topic I want to add that this is of course not true for every
type of game. But I do think that designers should carefully consider
if a trial and error mechanic is really needed and if it might not be
for the best to skip it.
Existing for existence itself
The
interactions performed in games are almost always connected to some
kind of gameplay mechanic. Often just about all the actions available
in a game are relevant to the core rule system and actions are not
often present only because of their intrinsic value. I think this is
something that needs change and would like to show why by considering
how graphics has evolved in games.
In the first games, all graphics had some kind of relevance to the gameplay (e.g. Pong).
However, as technology advanced graphics where added just to enhance
atmosphere and for the viewing pleasure of the player. Today very
little of a game's graphics are there strictly for gameplay and are
mostly there to make the game attractive. The same has not been true
for interaction and there has been very little improvement. Often when
more "superfluous" interactions have been added, they have still gotten
some kind of gameplay connection (like eating various food items in System Shock 2).
Notable exceptions are for instance Max Payne where sinks, driers, etc can be turned on in a public toilet. Another examples is Half-life 2
where many of the objects have physical properties, allowing
interaction, but no relevance to the gameplay. While these interactions
add a lot to immersion they are pretty simple and I think more complex
actions could and should be added.
Consider a game where a male
protagonist has a child following him and certain actions can make the
child sad or happy. The mood of the child has no impact on the
gameplay, but would just be a mean for the player to connect to the
father-child relationship. Some might argue that adding some gameplay
relevance would make the impact of a happy/sad child stronger, but I
think this is false.
First of all, gameplay comes with balancing issues
and instead of focusing on making the child believable and on creating
a certain experience, one might end up focusing on making it all work
gameplay wise instead - in the end decreasing the impact. Secondly,
adding a gameplay mechanic easily make the player focus on the
underlying rules instead of evoking feelings. Because of this, only
having the happy/sad boy interaction for its own sake can make it a
more emotional experience.
Just as adding nice graphics, for no
other reason than their beauty, can make a game more compelling and
attract more people, adding gameplay wise "meaningless" interactions
could help make the game medium reach new places.
End notes
I
do not want to stop games from being made as they are now. Neither do I
want all future games to have deep meanings. However, I would like to
see games that take the medium to new places and explore deeper
subjects . I would like to see games that can provoke deep thought and
feel as something other than "pure entertainment". As I mentioned in the earlier post on
this subject, the current state of games, where the core experience is
almost always be about hero induced genocide, is just sad. There needs
to be some change to this or else a lot of potential will go to waste!