|
Part 2
Following
a short break, during which the audience thinned to a mere packed house
and the lecture hall was allowed to air out somewhat, no doubt pleasing
the resident fire marshal, the session resumed in force, stripped down
and ready to tackle what most people were really waiting for: a series
of brain-expanding new approaches to game design.
As
it turned out, though each game was unique in its approach and
conclusion, most of the approaches followed a similar line of
reasoning: namely that the limits to the expressive potential of a
video game are not so much a factor of familiar design elements as they
are a factor of how those familiar elements are used.
Rain on Me
Jenova Chen and Kellee Santiago began with a discussion of Chen's master's thesis project, Flow – which might be described as a sort of multi-planar Shark! Shark!,
where the player, controlling a microscopic organism, can shift at will
to "deeper" or "shallower" levels of a pool of water. Players who want
a challenge can dive right down to the lower levels, while those who
want a more leisurely game can slowly peck their way down, completing
each level in turn.
Chen
explained the theory behind the game with a graph (one which would turn
up again, in almost the same form, later in the hour), the horizontal
labeled "challenge" and the vertical labeled "abilities". The idea is
that some games put the focus more on testing the player, while other
prefer to give the player lots of room to tinker about; similarly,
according to their various preferences and skill levels, different
players are oriented differently on the chart. The idea behind Flow was
that, unlike most games, which trace a linear path on the chart, Flow traced a sort of a web, allowing the player to branch left and right at will.
At that point Chen himself branched from the discussion, dismissing Flow
in favor of a more "important" subject: namely, his and Santiago's
recent (as of November 2005) project, the Independent Games Festival
2006 winner Cloud.
Cloud,
a game that involves the dreams of a child trapped in a hospital, was
born of an extensive period of introspection and analysis of recent
design trends. A slide depicted an outline of the US, with a few genres
printed in the center in a large, black typeface: "Adventure", "
Arcade", "Sports". The idea was, these were the major genres to come
about between 1970 and 1980.
A smattering of blue text appeared, to represent the next decade: "Platform", "Shooter", "RPG", "Puzzle", "Racing", "SimCity".
The next decade, "FPS", "RTS", "Stealth", "Fighting", and so on. Then
between 2000 and 2006, the fractionalization ceases. Instead, the new
entries (too small to read) are all listed between existing dots on the
map – representing the recent trend for games that, rather than explore
altogether new territory, attempt to blur the line between existing
genres or simply try to do everything at once.
Chen
then superimposed a set of qualities over the chart, as to how the
genres lump together: "Stimulating", "Empowering", "Addicting",
"Immersing", with the smaller satellites "Dramatic", "Comedic",
"Musical", "Curious", "Social", "Adorable", "Creative", and "Love"
drifting around the periphery. These are, purportedly, the themes that
current games tend to explore. Chen asked whether anything existed
outside of this map. He scrolled to the right and "discovered" Europe,
to some amusement from the audience.
Of
the given themes, the ones to which Chen ascribed the greatest
prominence are "Violent", "Addictive", "Stressful", and "Comedic"; to a
certain extent, he felt that these qualities describe, in varying
proportions, most video games to date. Chen felt he wanted to design a
game that was "completely the opposite" of these descriptions. He
wanted to inspire positive emotions in the player, instead of anxiety.
The image that came to mind was of a child, gazing into the sky,
peering at clouds and wondering. He showed an illustration of a girl
taking a picture of a cloud shaped like a rabbit.
Thus
came about the framework of a sickly boy, dreaming of flying through a
deep blue sky, gathering and reshaping (or "making friends with")
masses of cloud. Though the player can swoop around at will, moving too
quickly will cause any clouds gathered to break away from the player.
The idea is to encourage the player to take things slowly and relax.
One would think that swooping around in the air would actually be more
cathartic, and being forced to move slowly would be comparably
stressful. Within context, though, with the wistful visuals and score
composed by Vincent Diamante, it seems to work reasonably well.
Chen calls Cloud a "whole new land of emotional content in games". Whether that is so or not (it feels reminiscent of both Katamari Damacy and Trace Memory),
it seems to have struck a chord with a large base of people, around the
world. Fans have translated the game into several languages, and the
initial flood of interest crashed the game's first distribution server.
Jenova
Chen concluded that there is plenty of unexplored emotional territory
that only video games can explore, just waiting for the discovery – and
he urged developers to put in the minimal effort to seek it out. "If
six people can do it, the word 'risk' isn't even appropriate."
Transcendental Hopping
Jonathan Blow followed the bluster of Cloud
with a somewhat more understated demonstration. He showed what appeared
to be a humble-looking 2D platformer, that at a glance could well have
been designed in Mark Overman's Game Maker, and mumbled a few things about time manipulation. He referenced Prince of Persia: Sands of Time and Blinx: The Timesweeper,
calling them relatively traditional in application. The player can only
go back so far, and only under certain circumstances, making the time
element sort of a gimmick. Blow wondered what would happen if the
player were able to "undo" however many mistakes he pleased. What would
that mean for design? Could it even work? If so, how?
Blow played a little of his game, which he referred to as Braid;
he trotted around a level with his character until he ran into an
enemy. With a deadpan "oops", Blow suddenly rewound the game, causing
the dead character to fall back onto the screen, un-die, and run
several steps backward. Blow said something about transcending death,
and how that seemed kind of poignant somehow, then intentionally missed
a jump from one high platform to another, that would have been
irritating to have climbed back to. Before the character even hit the
ground, Blow again rewound the game, placing the character back on the
first platform, ready to try that jump again.
At
this point there was clearly something unusual and a bit mind-warping
about the game. The issue, as Blow had it, was to explore "where that
goes, in terms of design". It was obvious he couldn't just make a
normal platformer, as he had originally planned; the time mechanic
would undermine anything that makes a platforming game interesting. So
instead, he chose to explore the time mechanic.
He
tried playing with the rules a little, to see what would happen. He
figured that some objects – say, ones that give off green sparks –
could be unaffected by time, opening the door for some gameplay
mechanics. Blow demonstrated a level with a green, sparking key at the
bottom of a deep pit. The player jumps in and grabs the key, then of
course is unable to jump out again. Simple solution: rewind the game to
before you jumped in – except when you do so, the key remains in your
character's hand. Now we're getting somewhere.
Blow
created several other worlds, with their own unusual rules of time. In
one level, time isn't linear. When you rewind and then take a different
path, the original history still exists in an alternate dimension –
again offering some unique concepts to explore (for designer and player
alike). In yet another level, time is moving backwards. As the game
goes on, the rules get weirder and weirder, building on what the player
has already explored, constantly forcing the player to reevaluate the
reality of the gameworld. There are some concepts that Blow tried, and
abandoned – like prediction (fast-forwarding into what hasn't happened
yet), a turn-based system, and a form of "3D extrusion" into the future
or past. All involved either technical or logistical problems that Blow
deemed insoluble.
As
Blow fiddled with the time concept, he realized he had a tool for a far
more challenging game than he had intended – and in ways he had not
anticipated. "A lot of things in games now are only interesting because
they're hard," he commented. His experiments had pretty much
illustrated that idea; take away the threat of impending death or
time-wasting failure, and there's not a lot of driving force left. In
undermining that whole mechanism, he was forced to find meaning
elsewhere – to ask questions like: "what if the past [instead of the
future] were indeterminate?" and then to go ahead and test it out.
By
expressing these ideas through what ended up more of a puzzle game, he
hoped to expand the player's mind somewhat. To that end, Blow made sure
no two puzzles use the same concept for their solution – so there's no
mindlessly plugging in the same solution over and over; rather, the
player will be constantly building on an accrued knowledge and
experience base, and therefore "always be doing something interesting".
And if the player is stumped, which is altogether likely, that's okay.
The game is largely nonlinear, so the player can usually just walk past
a tricky part and think about something else for a while. There are
also the occasional and rare items to collect, just to give the player
a tangible reward every now and then.
What Blow says he's really looking for in a video game is enlightenment – which he thinks Braid
has achieved pretty well. And curiously, he notes, "a lot of this stuff
wouldn't work in 3D". The value of 2D worlds is in the simplicity and
abstraction of their model, which makes exploring complex logistical
ideas (especially ones that play with some of the fundamental
assumptions about game design) much easier, clearer, and more effective
than would be feasible in 3D space.
We Built This Shooter On Rock and Roll
Every Extend
is a doujin (or amateur freeware) shooter of sorts, that has become
popular enough for Tetsuya Mizuguchi's Q Entertainment to pick up on it
and ready the game for an official PSP release later this year. The
point of Every Extend is to fly into a mass of enemies and blow
up, so as to create the biggest combo possible. If the combo is big
enough, the player is granted another "extend" or "life", to use in
attempting an even higher score (in attempt earn another life, so as to
keep playing) – so it's not a shooter as such; more of a weird
deconstruction of the genre.
Inspired
by the game's unusual design, Jonathan Mak decided to make his own,
only loosely similar game. Mak showed the game to an acquaintance, who
suggested Mak add more variety. After some more experimentation, and
playing a pile of other shooters for further ideas, Mak hit upon the
idea of making a "shooter album". He would write a certain number of
interrelated shooters, based on different concepts, and make a kind of
a compilation out of them.
This
idea further evolved when he related each shooter to an original piece
of music. Eventually what he wound up with was a single shooter that
evolves in time with its soundtrack. Each level would be based on the
underlying song structure (for instance, an AABA structure for enemy
patterns); each level would be a single "track", and would last however
long the song lasted; each level would introduce new concepts (some
influenced by sources as disparate as the Hayao Miyazaki animated movie
Porco Rosso), that would both be unified with the other levels and be totally separate – much as with a rock album.
Mak
seemed nervous about how original his work really was. He philosophized
that perhaps no art is really original. At least in terms of creating
new ideas from whole cloth, "maybe being artistic doesn't have anything
to do with being innovative," Mak suggested. Instead, perhaps the way
of art is to appropriate what already exists and put it through your
own filter so as to create new meaning.
Gesture Me This
As
the time for departure loomed, John Edwards, Justin Kim squeezed in a
quick, final presentation that only overflowed the session by about
fifteen minutes. They discussed the history behind and general
mechanics of their "overhead adventure" game, Ocular Ink.
A year ago, the duo were responsible for a bloody little game called Mutton Mayhem!,
which proved to be a good deal less accessible than planned. Although
hardcore games were thrilled with the presentation (a slide appeared at
this point, emblazoned with the word "w00t!"), the controls scared off
everyone else they showed it to.
Revisiting and revising that chart from the Flow
presentation, Edwards and Kim changed the vertical to "power" and the
horizontal to "intuitiveness"; overall, the principle is the same. The
"power" axis was illustrated with a picture of a gamer wearing a shirt
with the word "1337" written on it; the "intuitiveness" axis was
explained with a frumpy grandmother. Thus, hardcore gamers like control
schemes with a great deal of precision – no matter how arbitrary they
are – and casual gamers prefer schemes that make sense, regardless of
how simplified they are. A third dimension, time, was briefly
referenced: most control schemes get easier to manage as the player
attunes to them.
After
experimenting for a while, the pair of them realized that a mouse
gesture system potentially offered a good deal of each axis; mouse
motions can have a great degree of "physical onomatopoeia", or direct
metaphor for the actions bound to them, and they also provide pinpoint
accuracy. There are some problems to deal with on the technical end,
like the potential for latency between input and reaction. Still, the
point was there.
And
with that, the session was officially over time. Demos were made
available to all attendees, if they chose to stick around and fiddle
with them. Otherwise, all that really remained was the applause.
_____________________________________________________
|