Our Properties: Gamasutra GameCareerGuide IndieGames Indie Royale GDC IGF Game Developer Magazine GAO
My Message close
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
February 9, 2012
 
Road to the IGF: Alexander Bruce's Antichamber
 
What Nintendo's 2011 sales mean for Wii U, third parties [7]
 
Report: iPad 3 announcement expected in March
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
February 9, 2012
 
arrow Principles of an Indie Game Bottom Feeder [6]
 
arrow Postmortem: CyberConnect 2's Solatorobo: Red the Hunter [1]
 
arrow Jerked Around by the Magic Circle - Clearing the Air Ten Years Later [34]
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
February 9, 2012
 
High 5 Games
Senior Mathematician
 
High 5 Games
Mathematician
 
Toys for Bob / Activision
QA Tester - Temporary
 
Radical Entertainment / Activision
AI Programmer (Senior)
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
Senior On-line Programmer
 
Visual Concepts
Senior Producer, VC China (Shanghai)
spacer
Blogs

  Immersion Takes The Team
by Shelly Warmuth on 02/10/10 11:00:00 am   Featured Blogs
1 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
  Posted 02/10/10 11:00:00 am
 

Big DaddyWhat makes a game immersive?  I asked this question of the experts on Linked In several months ago.  In the meantime, I've been participating in the DP Challenge and find my own definition changing as I play.  As art and story become ever more important to games such as Bioshock 2, it may be time to explore the subject more deeply.

While most of us seem to agree that experience, world, addictive play, polished graphics, etc. are all essential elements of immersive play, Nancy Hoffman and Ian Shreiber pointed out that immersion could also simply be a flow state similar to the one players find themselves in during casual play, such as playing Tetris.  This is a good point.  In a flow state, the player becomes unaware of everything around them, immersing themselves in the experience of the game. Not only does everything else fall away, but the game becomes easier to play during this state.  Therefore, while most of us don't think of immersive play in casual games, it's important to explore the flow state as an immersive play device.  It would be interesting to see if we could take the flow state of a game, such as Tetris, and use it in the context of a larger and more complex game.  

Beyond flow, though, how can a game become truly immersive.  The one element designers can't control is fun.  Everyone defines fun differently, so what is immersive to one may be irritating to another.  And yet, fun must be an element of immersive play.  If a game is repetitive, irritating or grating in some way, it not only fails to be fun, it fails to be immersive.  What jars a player, jars them out of the experience.  The thing is, the game, as a whole, is the sum of it's parts and every part of the game is an important element of a truly immersive experience.  

The core of immersive play is the player experience.  The player must be made to feel a part of the world and environment they are playing.  They must care about their Player Character (PC).  The hero, then, must be empowered.  Anyone who has ever played a game in which the hero is the only one who doesn't know what's going on will recognize this argument.  The player walks around, scratching his head, and asking NPC's for information.  Somewhere along the line, they start to wonder if they were living in a cave somewhere.  Everyone seems to know what's going on except them. 

Amnesia is a horrible disease to give to your PC.  The player needs to become the PC.  By empowering the hero, we empower the player.  Make the player the smartest one on the team and the most able.  Assassin's Creed did this very well.  Altair is an accomplished assassin.  He's the best.  He commits a crime in the beginning which cripples his ability to do his job, giving the player time to catch up with the abilities of his PC while making it clear that those abilities are already present.  Bioshock tells someone else's story. 

In this way, although the player is in a completely unfamiliar environment, it is clear why they don't know what's going on.  In this case, the player is empowered because of the first-person viewpoint and because it's not their story.  The player is thus not treated as if they've lost their mind and they are free to explore and learn about the environment around them.  In both cases, the player and hero are empowered while not being expected to know how to do everything.  

It is essential to create a world that draws the player in, with places to explore, causing players to lose track of time and place.  Elements of play should never be jarring.  Assets should reasonably be expected to be where they're found.  If a player is able to climb over one wall, it is reasonable to expect that jumping over a shorter wall is equally do-able.

 Everything in Place

 

In Uncharted 2, explosions cause a wall to crumble before you, effectively blocking your path.  Paths are strewn with debris or overgrown with plant life and the player is easily aware of where they can and cannot go.  The obstacles appear to belong and the player is not jarred out of the experience by the inability to go down a hallway that is merely blackened. 

On the other hand, Final Fantasy XII puts barrels in the middle of a desert sandstorm.  Boxes and barrels occasionally seem copied and pasted merely to block the player's path.  They are unable to travel through grass without the use of a Chocobo.  That's worse than jarring; it's just lame. 

Likewise, elements and assets must be consistent.  If a player is given the ability to climb walls, a wall that is unclimbable should look very different than one that is.  We should never leave our players asking themselves why they could do it earlier and can't now.  This  both knocks the player out of the player experience because of a jarring environmental element and it takes the empowerment from the hero. 

Taking this further, the story must be consistent, engrossing, unpredictable and completely integrated into the play experience.  It is important that all of the elements fit together in a believable way.  Surprises should be logical.  A lore-keeper is an invaluable member of the team in any large franchise, but just as important on a smaller scale in any story-driven game.  There should be at least one person on the team able to identify the relationship tree, the key elements of the story and how the puzzle all fits together. 

If the game is not linear, it becomes even more important that someone is tracking how the pieces fit together so that no element spoils another or fails at any point to fit the information the player has already received.  Story-driven games are a relatively young aspect of play.  It seems that some games tack play onto story or that story is tacked onto play instead of total integration of both story and play.  

Therefore, it's important that the writer, as the lore-keeper, is kept an essential part of the core design team from beginning to end. The story must also be integrated in such a way that it is told through the environment and play mechanic and not through movies tucked into, and ceasing, the play experience.  We don't sit idle and watch our lives on a screen.  That's called dreaming.  We are active participants in our own lives.  Likewise, an immersed player doesn't want to watch the life of his PC, he wants to live it. 

Again, Bioshock offers a perfect example of integrated story and play.  The Environmental elementmain character, you, is thrust into an unfamiliar environment with Atlas in your ear telling you the story from his point of view.  Meanwhile, you explore your surroundings and everything in the environment, from the graffiti on the walls to the debris around you, gives you a better feel for what happened in Rapture.  The story is not told in movies, but in environment, sound, play, and the viewpoint of another.  It is utterly integrated into the play experience.

Finally, it would seem to go without saying, that the technical details must be polished and bug-free.  Art is a fundamental item, and yet, different styles create different feels.  A game such as SSX may use a cartoony style to create a more fun feel where more realistic graphics, such as those used in the Madden franchise, allow the player to feel more like they are playing the game. 

On the other hand, if realistic graphics clash with basic mechanics, the player will be bounced out of the experience.  Controls must be intuitive and seamless so that, over time, the player doesn't have to think about which button to push or to feel that the character should have done what the player instructed him to do.  Again, this goes to empowering the player.  The immersed player IS the PC, therefore, when he says jump, the PC's only job is to say "how high?", although, not literally, and not into the middle of a wall. 

Voice acting needs to be consistent with character expectations, while ambient sounds must be reduced in an expected way to allow the player to hear instructions and story.  The musical score should fit the game and not loop in such a way that it becomes irritating.  Likewise, repeating the same bark, such as "Use your slime tether", to an irritated player is not helpful.  The localization team makes sure that no element of the game creates a cultural response that stands out against the intended play experience.

Writing this now seems a little scholastic.  The information here seems obvious.  Every member of the development team from the designer to the QA intern is an essential part of an integrated, immersive game experience.  Every element of play including art, story, musical score, sound effects, voice acting, and programming, work together to create a unified experience that is bug-free and seamless. 

Gameplay is addictive.  The player is an essential part of the story which is a compelling part of whole new world.  We know all this.  So, why is it so hard to do?  Is it simply too expensive or are we rushing too much to create the next big thing?

 
 
Comments

Bob dillan
profile image
Games are about experiences, and hacking the human mind. I do not believe "Fun" is subjective, since people REALLY dislike or like certain game mechanics and those neurological mechanisms have objective correlates. Take diablo for instance, it's a pretty love it or hate it game. I prefer Diablo to Baldur's gate while some players may prefer Baldurs gate to diablo, yet diablo sold crazy numbers compared to baldur's, where as baldur's gate kinds of gamers are often highly fragmented and often times hate action games or hack n slash RPG's, these "non action gamers" as I like to call them, don't like DOING things, rather they are more passive in their game playing like experiencing movies - the movie gamers are people you have to be weary of when designing a games core mechanics, games have been dumbed down to cater to those who have no action skills (I will NOT refer to it as "twitch" since MARIO and all the classics were ALL twitch/action in some regrd) and it can really hurt gaming.

The reason for this is, some gamers are better then other gamers in terms of game design when thinking of designing a game (i.e. hacking the human mind). IMHO there is an "ideal gamer" who has a wide aspect neurology and so he has a wide variety of gaming tastes and can distill the gestalt of what he and OTHER PEOPLE find fun about a game.

Building games is not about "immersion", building games is about hacking the players neurology, and giving the audience an amazing experience while building a interface and game mechanic that is deep and satisfying to the core but accessable enough to those less skilled, if you go all the way into making movie games - night trap, sewer shark, in the SEGACD days, I fear for games if they go back to being more passive cinematic's fests. It's one thing I've learned over the years as I watched the game industry have no clue why it was succeeding or failing. Financial success != good game design, games can sell for many reasons that have no bearing on good game design, you can make a steaming pile of gaming crap in certain markets (specficially first person shooters) and it can sell it because that market is so easy to please and will just keep buying your fancy graphics that you can gain a big head over nothing.

Games are ultimately about experiences, the problem is many "great games" today are lauded with great reviews or scores but this blurs the fact that many of those best games had serious luls and boring parts in them. For instance I always make it a point to play a game more then once and to come back to the game a few years after the fact to see what I think of the game a few years after. Often times my rating of the game plummets somewhat as it's flaws are more apparent then when the game was released and most of it's fanfare was based on novelty and not long lasting gameplay (i.e. tetris).

People can play tetris over and over again and get fun out of it, but many of todays games you CANNOT replay without wanting to die by your own hand (haha), and many games that are addictive are not fun (World of warcraft), making a lot of money and recognizing fun are two different things. There was a lot in WoW that was permanently broken or removed after years of advancements (like town portal whenever you want in RPG's), in WoW you get a mount and a cooldown... bad game design all around there.

I think a game designer should split game design into four categories on why you can succeed (financially) when making a game and fail game design at the same time, these four categories are:

-There is novelty (shiny graphics, story, voice overs, animation, art, etc)
-There is core gameplay rules (i.e. the hard stuff, rpg systems, loot, highly abstract, etc).
-There is action (hack n slash, moving and positioning blocks in tetris, shooting and moving in fps games).
-There is presentation (3rd person, first person, isometric, etc)

If your game cannot cut out Novelty and survive it's highly likely the game is not fun by itself and merely stands on it's novelty (Compare a game lime Mass effect 1 to say a game like tetris).

I really can't stand replaying Mass effect 1 for instance because the action and goals are spaced too far apart in time (a lot of wasted travelling, time wasting), and so there is too much time between events, goals and actions, especially when exploring planets. When replaying games I get great game design ideas like - why didn't mass effect 1 allow you to drop (warp) the mako to specific waypoints on the map thereby cutting down on a lot of boring travel time? The finding resource mechanic by driving around was one of the most boring parts of the game, they should have just had the resources on the map automatically mapped because your ship already scanned the planet. Not to mention the lackluster side missions and sidequests on those planets. Mass effect 2 fixed a lot of what was broken in mass effect 1, but it cut a lot of what could have been made a lot better - the landing on other planets and driving around was cool but suffered from poor level design direction.

Some games are one shot novelty wonders and cannot be replayed without major pain, many of todays games fall in this category - the fundamental game itself is NOT fun if you stripped away the fancy graphics and were left with just the core gameplay. In the earlier periods like the 80's and early 90's a lot of game developers were forced to "find the fun" because the didn't have a huge amounts of money to spend on realistic movie like art, voice actors, etc.

The problem is that you can succeed in games by going the "movie path" or the "game path", a game like borderlands for instance - is a totally gamers game, it feels like it was designed from someone who grew up in the Super Nintedo to PS1 era before games became too much about graphics and flash, where you had just absolutely garbage graphics (many PS1 games were just god awful looking in hindsight).

Despite the fact that borderlands does the first person shooter thing to appeal to the widest market, you can tell the game was made by gamers, that's what a good game designers should shoot for - taking the best of what was learned in previous games and combine the best elements and lessons learned into new games.

Originality is over-rated, you should use your knowledge of human psychology to hack peoples minds to give them good experiences, almost all movies have the same or similar stories, tropes, etc, and even many cliche movies do fine financially, it's execution and knowing what works that matters in the end.


none
 
Comment:
 




 
UBM Techweb
Game Network
Game Developers Conference | GDC Europe | GDC Online | GDC China | Gamasutra | Game Developer Magazine | Game Advertising Online
Game Career Guide | Independent Games Festival | Indie Royale | IndieGames

Other UBM TechWeb Networks
Business Technology | Business Technology Events | Telecommunications & Communications Providers

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Contact Us | Copyright © UBM TechWeb, All Rights Reserved.