|
[How can incorporating real-world behavior change the fundamental play of games? The developers behind games that delve into this question, such as The Sims 3, SpyParty, and Facade, answer this question.]
Playing is behaving. From childhood experimentation and role-play to the competitive simulations of adults, it's impossible to separate even the most abstract forms of play from human expression. Yet video game design is dominated by the perceived need for win conditions.
If an interaction can't be parsed into passing or failing it can't be counted as fun. Without the threat of failure there is no fun. Yet, it's not victory that drives the invented play of kids on a playground, nor friends laughing over an inside joke.
Video games built around behavior aren't often given the same attention more competitively oriented games are, but they're no less important a part of the industry.
Games like The Sims 3, Heavy Rain, Nintendogs, Façade, Animal Crossing, and Harvest Moon are all made for the pleasures of expression. These are games played for their creative experiences more than their victory conditions.
Recent years have seen a wall built up to separate hardcore and casual games. It's an arbitrary distinction used to diminish games a person doesn't like by shoving them into a category defined by non-seriousness. A truer way of looking at video games is on a spectrum defined on one end by competitive games and on the other by purely expressive ones.
There are many subtle shades in between -- Mass Effect's conversation system, Call of Duty 4's nuke sequence, Spore's creature creator, Nintendogs' loyal competitions. Indeed, as with earlier media, the most impressive works often blur distinctions between genre and find ways to join seemingly opposite ideas.
There has been much inquiry into objective design, competitive incentive, and metering the rate of achievement, yet thinking about non-competitive ways of creating expression is a blindspot for many in the video game industry. What follows, then, is a survey of how and why expressive behavior can be used in game design, both as a means to a competitive end and a playful end unto itself.
A Sweeping Surprise
"When you're making the base game, you're trying to capture the essence of everyday life in a way that will appeal to nearly everyone," Charles London, creative director of EA's The Sims Studio, told me.
"Basic things, like sleeping, eating, being romantic, or watching TV, are very high on the list; without those, there's really no core to 'everyday life' around which to wrap more exotic content."
The Sims series is the alpha and omega of non-competitive games. You can't beat a Sims game, but you can spend hundreds of hours experimenting with its web of interrelated behaviors. The reward for playing comes from small surprises and moments of simpatico rather than increasing difficulty curves.
"We rarely design activities or interactions for our Sims without having an overarching theme, like seasonal winter snow play, or going out to nightclubs and restaurants, or learning to be a firefighter," London said.
"Once we've identified the activities that are core to making the theme believable, the constituent behaviors come into pretty sharp relief. The idea is to make them as modular as possible, so that the player has as many chances to be surprised by what happens as we can give them."
The Sims' use of indirect control is crucial to its mix of familiar action and unexpected results. It allows the player to plan sequential events instead of focusing on repetitive action. Because the player can't immediately affect the action they are also more vulnerable to surprise; they become implicated spectators instead of direct actors.
"We have a tradition of breaking up interactions by subject matter and by object," London said. "In the core game cycle, you are using the money your Sims made to purchase new objects that improve their lives. This means it's really at the object level that you are giving commands. Having a 'Clean the house' button really doesn't bring home the feeling that there's a new object for your Sim to use, such as the TV."
"That said, some objects have a higher granularity of control than others. You want to feel like you are telling a Sim to do a specific thing, but not so minutely that you are the Sim. For example, you tell a Sim to prepare breakfast by choosing waffles. But you don't actually control their whisking the batter. Neither do you say 'Eat', as that robs the player of the specifics of storytelling, the center of our game. It's a granularity that we're been refining on a case-by-case basis since we started this business."
|
I think we are mixing concepts here: the opposite of rule-enforced, goal-driven experience in games (ludus) is rule-blending, goal-absent experience of play (paideia). That's the real continuum in games. Ludus games can be competitive or cooperative, depending on their goals and rule set. I'm afraid that "pure expression" is just a fuzzy term that do not help much tearing down the wall between "what's done" and "what have to be done". If we are all talking about creating games with emotions, maybe we should take a closer look at Lazzaro's four keys to more emotions without story. That certainly is a good place to start.
But while it's clear that the author thinks that more of this kind of gameplay should happen, I'm not sure the case was made for the conclusion that it *will* happen. If the money people (as a group spanning the game development industry) don't clearly see a lot of consumers demanding more expressive play along with rules-based play, then there's not much reason to expect games will move in that direction... and those consumers who'd enjoy expressive play are, I think, avoiding computer games because they're perceived as being violent and rules-driven.
I agree that it would be good to have more expressivity in some games. But where is the incentive to make such games?
P.S.
Since we're talking about something that doesn't fully exist yet, I think widespread agreement on terminology and examples will only occur after the fact--so, no worries on the first point.
I gotta say have zero interest in an OC game. But behaviour can be a meta game in almost anything you you're doing. When playing in lan or split screen, behaviour and words take an important place in playing games. Even that awful 12-old boy saying bullshit in your favourite online shooter is part of the game, since you have to deal with it, and it's a pretty sandbox task.
Poker is a Behaviour Game.
Ok, brainstorming: "Make a Behaviour Game in your workplace today, how will you do it?"
(See it's already a game with a goal, I just put you in a game with a task and sandbox solving.)
1) The game: take some object for totem, call it "ball".
2) Put it in a visible place in one side of your workplace, call it "kickstart".
3) Define a place on the opposite side to be the "goal".
4) The objective to score is simple as you can imagine: take the ball to the goal.
5) Decide a prize, something like "the others pay your lunch today" is a good start.
6) The game is free-for-all: you get the ball to the goal, you win the prize.
Then let's make things interesting:
7) You can use whatever means to take the ball to the goal.
8) If anybody in the game sees you touching the ball, the person says "Catchu Stealin", then:
8.1) you're out of the game in direct way, you can try stealing again and can't catch directly.
8.2) ball resets to kickstart point (but the ball could "misteriously move", and not be reset).
9) Think about whatever thing to say when you successfully steal, to reclaim the prize.
10) You can use whatever means to take the ball to the goal.
11) You can use whatever means to take the ball to the goal... It's called sandbox.
Also, please let "Behaviour Game" die in a fire. If it doesn't die, beat it with a club.
If I was trying to accomplish anything writing it 7AM, and it needed to be wrote in technical terms, since I noticed you like things to be technical, it would be: What all these writings are trying to peak in, that "deep new age of gaming with feeling" thing, are things not so far away from reality and from curent games as many think, it's already present in most games, just isn't the focus. See: "Suddenly a mundane action became a dramatic one with competitive context."
With an exemple that anything social must be social to work. People won't suddenly start playing games if we manage to make more emotional goal-less experiences. Anything like that in AI would sound no-life in all ways, something people avoid for childish sake of fear of appearing childish.
Your Sandbox, Kickstart, whatchamacallit game was extremely enjoyable. Did it at work today and we all had a blast made the day go by very quickly thanks for the game.
Who won and what? ^^
No. Anything that makes you think, even if it's not the right solution, makes you think about the right solution or improvement. These articles have this importance, their wire new dots toward new options. Roads are as important as their destiny.
I would like to see Spy Party move towards a more neutral goal as well. In the current game, there is a win or lose situation. But I would like to see a wider variety in the emotions of characters in the game. Currently, it seems that Spy Party rewards humans for acting like NPCs, as opposed to making the NPCs act more like humans.
One of my favorites is Batman Returns for the SNES.
You're just beating up clowns, but you have a lot of tools to do so; throw them into a wall, throw them into a glass wall, watch it shatter.
Gameplay wise some of it's a tad superfluous but the point becomes clear when you're 8 years old and playing it in a group with other 8 year olds; you can do fancy things and everyone goes "ooh" and "aah" and "holy crap". It's self expression and it's fun with an audience.
Self expression in computer game products is found all throughout the industry and history of it, at least since the SNES era, but it's not something a lot of people think about unless they're going all-out and making Mario Paint.
It's definitely something to be explored further.
Naturally sandboxes lend themselves well to this kind of play, where I can switch from "playing around" to "Playing the Game" at will, and as I think Yahtzee mentions in one of his reviews, playing around is a lot more fun when you are supposed to be Playing the Game.
Some examples my friends and I have enjoyed. For hours.
Pile Up (Crackdown, GTA): assemble as large a pile of cars at an intersection as the game will allow. Don't let them out of your sight as they tend to vanish. Finish with explosives.
Free Ride (many): hop on to an NPC's car, fire gun to cause panic, stay on as long as possible. Or just tag along for the ride.
Nudge The Policeman (GTA): repeatedly drive a car into a policeman as slowly as possible so as to avoid getting a wanted star, until the car is parked entirely on the prone law enforcement official. Get out and walk off.
Mountain Run (GTA: SA): From the start of the game, get to the top of the mountain on the forbidden island to where the plane is, dodging the cops. Fly around as long as possible.
Wheee Splash (Crackdown): Wait on the bend of a motorway on a bridge. Pop tyres on fast cars, try to get them to career off the road into the sea.
etc. I can see how this isn't feasible for a lot of game types (TDM), but maybe more scope for allowing players to invent their own games is a way forward. I don't see a mutually-exclusive dichotomy.
From the Crackdown 2 dev diaries, giving the players tools to go nuts and make their own fun was a goal, but IMO it seemed to be lacking in the directed-gameplay elements that made it actually fun to go nuts. Maybe it's the sense of mischeif, or not playing by the designed rules, that makes it fun. Like a good hack.