Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
November 1, 2014
arrowPress Releases
November 1, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

Urgency in Video Games
by Altug Isigan on 08/16/11 02:27:00 am

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.



Urgency is a term that is being used in drama theory. It addresses the presence of a threat that inevitably comes at the protagonist and forces him into action. The protagonist is left with no other option than to deal with the problem because something valuable is at stake. For example in Terminator II: Judgement Day (James Cameron, 1992), young John Connor won’t get a rest until T-1000 is being defeated because T-1000 won’t stop until John Connor’s life is “terminated”.

As can be easily understood from this example, necessity is

1.) central to establishing conflict

2.) a primary source of character motivation

3.) a fundamental tie between conflict and character

Urgency must provide an answer for the following questions: Why can the protagonist not simply ignore the threat and walk away from it? Why is the action he takes the only possible and plausible action that can be taken?

If we provide no answers to these questions, the actions that are being carried out will feel "invented", that is, they will feel fake. We can conlude from this that urgency plays a key role in believability and immersion.

While the importance of urgency is so obvious, you will be surprised to find out how often stories suffer from a lack of urgency. And you will be even more surprised to find out how often games suffer from a lack of urgency.

(Inter-)Action out of Urgency

The fun and addictiveness of some of the best arcade games can be explained by the mastery of their designers in creating and maintaining urgency. Let’s look at a few examples:


The ghosts come at you and they won’t stop until you have eaten every single dot in the maze.



The centipede comes at you and it won’t stop until you have shot every single piece of it.



The ball chain keeps moving toward the evil mouth and it won’t stop until you have cleared every single ball in it.



The geometric shapes keep falling and they won’t stop until you have disposed enough of them by forming lines.


As can be seen from the examples, these games provide a clear answer to why the protagonist cannot simply ignore the threat and walk away from it. From the first second on, the threat directly comes at you and you are strongly motivated to take action.

There are many other ways to create urgency and if you look a bit more carefully at the games you love to play, you will be surprised of the many forms in which urgency can be created:


Pro Evolution Soccer

The opponent team keeps coming at your goal to score and they won’t stop until the match is over and you will concede if you don't defend yourself.



The competing nations will keep pushing your borders until history is over and you will be wiped out if you don’t make progress and defend yourself.


The Sims

The bills will keep coming at you and without accepting a job you will starve from hunger.


Sim City

The running costs of the city will drive you into bankruptcy if you don’t invest into your city to make it financially grow.

Reading these examples, you must have already noticed that in all your favorite games, a good degree of urgency is being present.

No Urgency = No Motivation

On the other hand, some games make us wonder why exactly we deal with the problem that is seemingly posed at us. We lack an explanation of what motivates us into the actions that are demanded of us; we find it difficult to understand why we do the things we are being asked to do. We feel that we or our protagonist could simply walk away and that there is no apparent force that would tie us to the developing events. Despite detailed characterization, extensive backstories, and long poetic dialogues, we feel that we actions we carry out are not grounded into something that has dramatic essence. This is so because of a lack of urgency.

In such games, it can be said that the game designers and writers put great effort into lower urgency and motivation is in place, it doesn’t really make sense to go into great detail in regard to characters, backstory or dialogue. After all, it’s not so much about who you are or were, but about what you’ll become in the face of urgency. Hence, putting a lot of effort into characterization and other lower level aspects of story will not be able to fill the gap that has been left open by a lack of urgency. After a while we will find no motivation to keep playing the game. We will feel like we are just dealing with satellites that miss a planet. The planet that's missing, that center of gravity, is urgency.

Some will say that games are different in that regard since they use reward systems to motivate the player. However, phenomena like grinding tell us that reward systems may at times fall so far apart from necessity that the player may even forget what motivated her into the repeated action. When players complain about "pointless action" it is often because of a lack of urgency [1]. (I’ve been dealing with the relation between motivation and reward systems in an earlier article that you can read here)

Outer and Inner Motivation

Urgency is a strong element of motivation, but in games it is also a great way to create identification and characterization. While in non-interactive narratives some effort will go into creating a tie between the protagonist and the spectator (=identification), video games have the chance to go for direct address: Before you even realize it, you *are* identified with the protagonist and start shooting at the threat that comes at you. On the other hand, half of what you need to know about your role (=characterization) is already told/revealed to you by the actions you necessarily take in order to survive... And surprisingly often, the other half doesn’t really matter [2] .

But how come seo?

The phenomenon of the sufficiency of outer (=physical) action to create basic dramatic tension has been explained in drama theory by the distinction between two types of motivation:

1.) Outer motivation: The inevitable physical challenge that forces the protagonist into action.

2.) Inner motivation: The psychological aspects of dealing with the challenge.

Drama theory says that narratives can live without presenting any information on inner motivation (which may make them feel shallow though) but that they cannot live without outer motivation. In other words, narratives will always be centered around what characters do, but they may not necessarily expose what the things those characters did mean to them [3] . A lot of games simply leave the latter part to be filled in by the player. Besides, action too, "tells"; it is the core of narrative.


Thanks for reading!


[1] Another question that may be raised here is whether examples of gamification care enough about urgency. Just because it is "gamified" doesn't make actions fun or more interesting. Most often gamification assumes that framing actions with additional rules and reward structures makes it more desirable to carry out said actions. However, if the applied frame lacks urgency, the gamification of actions will remain pointless, and the attempt to gamify the action will leave a shallow taste.

[2] Many gamers, game designers and game researchers have a limited conception of the term "story". They would often say that "story doesn't matter in games", thereby not being aware that the part of gameplay they deem disposable (the "story" parts) are related to inner motivation. In reality, what they call "gameplay", the action, is the outer motivation part of story.

[3] This explains why so many gamers, game designers and game researchers believe that games can go without "story". Especially formal games can be regarded as almost pure outer motivation stories, but in the register of the gaming world, the term gameplay is being popular, which, undeservedly, comes at the expense of the term story.

Related Jobs

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute — Troy, New York, United States

Assistant Professor in Music and Media
The College of New Jersey
The College of New Jersey — Ewing, New Jersey, United States

Assistant Professor - Interactive Multi Media - Tenure Track
Next Games
Next Games — Helsinki, Finland

Senior Level Designer
Magic Leap, Inc.
Magic Leap, Inc. — Wellington, New Zealand

Level Designer


Darren Tomlyn
profile image
'Necessity' in games exists for one reason - competition. Competition and structure (created rules/environment), combined, form the application of what the word game represents - and as such exist solely to enable and support the actual behaviour the word game itself represents an application OF.

But without being consistent with the actual behaviour such elements are applied to both enable and/or promote, we run into problems.

So, unfortunately, we currently have two problems related to this:

1) Competition in all of its forms and existence, is not fully recognised and understood, and games are not always recognised as being competitive activities because of this.

2) The behaviour the word game represents an application of, is not fully recognised or understood, either in isolation, or in relation to many other activities - (puzzles, competitions etc.).

Because of this, games, (especially computer (not video!) games), are either not being made consistently AS games at this time, or they're not being made to their full potential, AS games.

Competition is there to form most, or even all, of WHY a game is played. The rules are HOW, the setting is where/when, and the behaviour of the player(s) is WHAT.

NONE of these elements is about narrative - (story telling).

The cause of the problems found in 2&3 is that they're based on an inconsistent definition of the word story itself - yes the dictionaries etc. are wrong - (words used as a thing, (in this case, an intangible thing, a form or arrangement of information), have no place being described/defined by or as any behaviour represented by words used in combination, UNLESS they are themselves derived from/related to such words in the first place, which the word story is NOT). (Narrative is derived from narrate and so is consistent with such a concept).

Story n. A form or arrangement of information about a series of events, either real or imaginary, (created and stored inside (a person's) memory).

This is what the word story is USED as representing. The parentheses are necessary, since, although that is the only place such a thing can exist in isolation (which is how the word is used, and so must be defined), such a thing can be referenced to exist elsewhere and in different forms, so is not always consistent with the meaning of the word based on its context, (i.e. in relation to other words).

The word story and the word tell are treated independently by the language, and have no place in defining each other.

Narrate v. To tell a story/tell the story of

Games have no need for narrative. Why? Because the behaviour the word game represents an application OF, can be described in relation to the word story in a different manner:

Games are about people WRITING (their own) stories, (in a structured, competitive environment).

The written story and competition of a game therefore combine to create what you call 'necessity'.

Puzzles, however, can also include necessity, as can competitions. Why? Because they can/do also use competition to promote certain behaviour from people.

Puzzles are about interacting with a story being told, either created for such a purpose or to solve a problem. In this case we're trying to gain an outcome/solution in spite of whoever created it - (indirect competition). Competitions can be about either writing a story or interacting with a story being told in order to be told a particular story, either in spite of, or at the expense of, someone or something else - the only element which may differ between a competition and a game is a judges opinion of such behaviour.

If ANY behaviour is not necessary - a necessity - in order to compete in any such activity, then it has no place in its definition - it's not part of it being a game/puzzle/competition etc..

So all these activities are therefore about using competition, (directly or indirectly trying to gain an outcome/goal in spite of, or at the expense of, someone or something else), to enable certain behaviour from certain people - (and not always the competitors - sometimes merely the 'judges' etc.).

This of course brings us round to 'gamification' since that is EXACTLY what it is about - using competition to enable and promote certain behaviour from other people, in various ways, whether they like it or not, even if they don't know about it/realise it, understand it or even AGREE to it, often regardless of any such 'structure or rules' too. (See: War on Terror).

For this reason, the term 'gamification' - (as an application of 'game' theory) - is a complete misnomer. But then people have been using the word game in such a manner to enable and promote other behaviour for a while - (see the 'gaming/gambling' industry) - even though it's no longer consistent with what the word game represents based on how its used today, (and has been used for a couple of centuries at least).

Alexei Andreev
profile image
Can you think of some well known games that don't have this "necessity"? I am thinking flOw.

Altug Isigan
profile image
This is a good point.

Of course there are many stories whose plot structures do not follow the Aristotelean tradition. This article assumes that you want to solve design problems in a project that approaches the end product from the traditional perspective in dramaturgy. But there are other traditions of course, some of them strictly being against Aristotelean notions (such as Bertold Brecht's Epic Theater, for example).

I think one of the first ludologists to make use of the Brechtian notions was Gonzalo Frasca. While I think that his game [i]September 12[/i] possesses a stronger degree of necessity, [i]Madrid[/i], on the other hand is highly thematic, positioning necessity outside of the game universe, at the level of the individual ethical responsibility of its players. The classical tradition would consider this rather as a mistake, btw.

There are more and more developers that want to do different things with games. On purpose or not, this means that there are more and more game developers that put a distance between themselves and notions of classic drama. I think [i]Flow[/i] is a good example of dramatically lesser "structured" gameplay (which doesn't mean that there is no narrativity in that game). Other examples would be the games of Daniel Benmergui, a game designer who won an award at the IGF last year. Tale of Tales' games can be given as other examples ([i]The Path[/i] etc).

Personally I deal with this stuff for two reasons:

1. I believe that video games possess narrativity and I am convinced that ludology as an interdisciplinary but independent research area will benefit from making use of the analytical tools of drama theory and narratology. It will help ludology to mature, and to develop more instrumental concepts. Hence my indivdual goal is to show that game researchers, game developers and gamers should not be afraid of terms such as story or narrative. I have no faith in the usefulness of drawing bold lines between "game" and "narrative".

2. I see my struggle to capture the narrative aspect of games as a way to create an understanding of how game devs can get away from traditional storytelling methods. We need to understand how games make use of the concepts of the Aristotelean tradition in order to create the tools and concepts that can go for the exploration of new types of narration in games.