"But to the wizard's eye there was a faint change, just a hint of transparency, about him"
Today I'll present to you further philosophical thoughts in a very phenomological way (at least that's what I'm telling myself), which will get us closer to an overall understanding of games. Furthermore, my Overwatch mission design will find its continuation!
Meeting Reality
We usually refer to the classical five senses when we're thinking of perception in our everyday life. Most sciences add some other senses to them: Various body sensations like hunger, stitching in your chest, or some higher level senses of sociality, agency etc. However in our everyday life we're talking sometimes in a broader sense: I can also perceive contents in my psyche: my thoughts, feelings, motivations, plans, memories - to make it short: All conscious psychic contents of my self.
Here I'd like to think of perception as everything that a consciousness perceives, including outer reality by means of the senses and inner reality, which are body feels and psychic contents.
 |
| A high-level distinction of perceptions. |
As my little sketch remarks, reality to me is more than I perceive at a given time. This is simply based on my memories: There have been other phenomena that I experienced. A second note is about the blurriness of the categories I just introduced. We already have a hard time differentiating between e.g. moods in the psyche and feelings in the body. The inner/outer distinction however is relatively stable: The five senses are a quite robust categorization which is most likely in conflict with body feelings. We could arrange the categories on a line:
psychic - bodily - outer perceptions
This all is dangerously close to the mind-body problem, the question for the status of reality and all such things. Here, I am not interested in solving those problem correctly, I rather aim for a pragmatic theory that I can apply in practical contexts.
Before we can move on to games, here comes a strange thing: We are obviously not only able to perceive a part of reality, but we're also our acts are at that very same part. But can we not describe acts as mere perceptions aswell? No, because even if we're able perceive our acts, we are not able to distinguish between actor and observer: we're perceiving our psyche, body doing things, ever identifying as being them. It is the beauty of self-perception being at work here.
What I draw from this: We should action as a second mode of meeting reality next to perception. In either mode, were meeting that what we perceive as psyche, body, or perceived reality. It should be noted here, that we cannot act upon all things we perceive while the reverse is always the case.
On a side-note, in this whole discussion people with dissociative identity disorder are a philosophical interesting case. They prove that it is possible to have multiple perceivers sharing (more or less partly) one psyche, body and perception of outer reality. This raises further questions concerning the nature of perception as I described it - by which criterions is decided, whether a perception is attached to something or not? But this is a whole other topic and we, after all, are here to talk about game and quest design.
So, having such distinctions, how does it help with game and quest design?
Ways of Perception and Action in a Computer Game
If we know which perceivable inputs and causable outputs a human has when meeting a medium, then we can deduce the possibility space of design options for that medium. So let's think about the ways of perception and action that a computer game offer.
At this point one might think I'm finished after talking of the game in outer reality. But as I noted in post #02,
already the unplayed game might be partly existing in the player. For
computer games this may be true too: Think of an interpretation you
bring into the gameplay that isn't defined by the rules: In Tic-Tac-Toe,
for instance, you recognize adjacent colors as a cross without the
rules having to tell you that.
An in a played game body and psyche
are even more important: Your lung working faster in a horror game is
part of the played game as is your plan for attacking that monster.
Basic Perceptions and Actions
I will begin with the perceived outer reality, to which we have perception-access by (usually) five senses: Sight, sound, touch, smell, taste. A computer game usually offers audiovisual output via monitor and speakers on the basic level, though haptic output is also possible, if a controller is used. In addition, the game time is also provided - the output of a computer game changes, and we perceive this change (or the lack thereof). We have action-access mostly via our hands: Clicking and steering by using keyboard/mouse or controller (in most cases).
In the body domain I'll locate feelings from various parts of your body: back, heart, stomach, shoulders, chest etc. Borrowing from psychosomatics, you might associate certain feelings with certain parts of your body: hurting back and shoulders - heavy weight, hurting stomach - not taking enough for yourself, etc. A less controversial correlations might be tense muscles - tense situation. Body-actions that are not on its border are things like tensing up or taking a deep breath.
The psychic domain encompasses, roughly speaking, cognitive and emotional contents/processes. On the emotional side we have (again, roughly speaking) moods and emotions while on the cognitive side there are things like thoughts/images/sounds, informations, meanings, goals, causalities, subjective time.
More Complex Ways of meeting Computer Games
Some "basic" channels of perception/action were actually already not-atomic: A meaning, for instance, always needs a sign, whose meaning it is. We can easily imagine more complex abstractions, combinations and extensions of those basic perceptions and actions. I am sure the following list is incomplete, but I think it gives some interesting insights:
If we arrange notes over time, then we get noises, melodies, songs, soundtracks. The audio-time category thus is a quite important one. Even more important to computer games seems to be the spatial way of perceiving: The colors on the 2D-screen are interpreted as 3D-world. If we add time then we gain the movement of birds on our screen, flowing rivers or a dangling door. Audio-time and room-time together make up all of the output that most computer game softwares give to us - the game reality(ies) (or game program output).
Moving from outer reality to inner I realize that there is nothing I could say about body perceptions. Studying this would be interesting, especially regarding factors like feeling comfortable, having eaten/drunk enough, being fit, etc.
Gameplay could be defined as the combination of game program output and input (which is the player's performance). The perceived game system might be the mental model of possible player/machine actions, their objects and logical relations. A mental model is network-like collections of meanings. On mental models also the narration is based: An unveiling/producing/sorting of informations recognized in the game world and informations produced by player input to that world. Gameplay and narration typically serve as source for motivational forces, through e.g. narrative drives (helping that NPC) or gameplay goals (mastering that level). To all these things emotions can be attached. We might like a certain weapon's sound especially, we might get involved in an NPCs problems and a narration can feel like an emotional journey, maybe including katharsis.
 |
| Saruman has complex access to distant (timely and spatial) things by means of his eyes (input) being directed (output) at his palantír and bending his will towards the desired thing (output). |
Perceptions and actions at body and psyche were harder for me to describe, since I'm neither a biologist nor does psychology have a unified model of the brain. So I will leave it at an attempt here.
SummaryBelow you'll find a table sums up my thoughts:
 |
| Ways of meeting a computer game. |
We now have talked about ways of meeting computer games, an interesting thing indeed, since it lays out before us the ways on which we can design games. Furthermore it allows us to locate quests more precisely when talking about games.
Here is my current quest-definition:
A quest is a series of connected events and goals, where subsequent event(s)/goal(s) are only revealed, when previous goal(s) have been reached or some event has happened.
Simply by looking up words from this definition it can be seen that quests are one of the more complex contents that can be found in computer games. According to the same measure quests are most connected with gameplay, game system, narration and motivational system.
As a final note: The pacing of a computer game could be defined as the arrangement of structure on any way of perceiving that game in relation to another way. Examples would be "involvement per progress", "narration per spatial unit", "feeling per audio second" or "input per game time".
With these interesting thoughts I'd like to finish the theoretical part.
Further Reading / Inspiration
https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/author/KatarinaGyllenback/932286/
The second of these two major motivators for continuing to think about the nature of pacing. This post, indeed, has its origin in a search for a definition of that word.
An "Overwatch" Quest
Now, where were we? A multiplayer narrative mission for Overwatch. It plays on the map "Eichenwalde" where four players will control Bastion, Torbjörn, Reinhardt and Brigitte, respectively. Behold the following table:
 |
| Character-centric narrative description. |
- Torbjörn, Reinhardt talking about "the old days", Brigitte making teasing comments
- Bastion recognizing something from the war days, Torbjörn translating, the humans discussing about it
- Overwatch Coordinator stating next goal, conversation about tactics among humans
- follow-up comments
- reactions to events in the world
These dialogue events need to be structured and specified further. Since the dialogues will mostly happen alongside progression on the map, here is an (unfinished) sketch of how it could play out:
 |
| A sketched mission design. |
- Cutscene: Team is in "Brauerei Mittagskrug", the enemies in Eichenwalde know of their presence and prepared their defences. A portable electronic bomb has been dropped in the main square, it has to be captured and escorted into the fortress were the enemy's digital infrastructure is located. A barricade blocks the main road, the Overwatch Coordinator advises to take the right exit towards the "Zauberflöte".
- Goal: Reach the electronic bomb.
Dialog: After cutscene. Reinhardt makes comment upon Bastion being part of this mission -> small conversation - Dialog: Vista towards Stuttgart reached. Bastion remembers the city.
- Dialog: First bottleneck reached. Torbjörn: Let's eliminate those enemies in front of the bakery!
Goal (optional): Eliminate the enemies in front of the bakery. - Dialog: Bakery-enemies eliminated. Reinhardt: Comment on the lovely "Brötchen" of this bakery.
- Dialog: Bomb reached. Brigitte: They sealed the gate! Overwatch Coordination: Search the three enemy groups.
Goal: Search the three enemy groups for informations unlocking the gate. - Dialog: Enemies at the "Jagdhütte" eliminated. Bastion communicates something melancholic about animals being hunted in the forest. Reinhardt praises the valiance of the hunters of old. Torbjörn agrees, but not enthusiastically. Brigitte looks with wonder upon Bastion.
- Dialog: The last of the three enemy groups was eliminated. Brigitte: Hopeful, to the gate! Torbjörn makes comment upon the craft of the nearby clock-maker. Reinhardt agrees.
Goal: Excort the digital bomb into the castle. - Cutscene/Dialog: The bomb is behind the gate. A sniper appears. Torbjörn makes a grim comment.
Goal: Eliminate the sniper. - Cutscene/Dialog: The armory is reached. Brigitte tells of a memory. Another sniper appears. Torbjörn makes a grimmer comment.
Goal: Eliminate the sniper. - Dialog: Inside the castle. Reinhardt: Ahh! The halls of my fathers! That I have to reclaim them from them, of whom one is beneath us. Brigitte and Torbjörn rebuke him.
- Dialog: Throne hall in sight. The remnants of Balderich and the throne are gone. Reinhardt and Brigitte react terrified.
- Fight until timer is full (maybe 2min.): Bomb arrived at destination. A lot of enemies appeat. Reinhardt rages.
- Cutscene: Bastion found the remnants. Reinhardt recollects. The enemy's digital infrastructure is destroyed. The mission is successfull.
With some iterations, this could probably be turned into quite a nice mission. But I will leave this design here, and move on.
Ideas for Feedback
What are other ways of perceiving computer games? How do they fit into/build on the here defined ways?
What else could happen in the castle during my Overwatch mission?
Conclusion
Time flies when you are having fun.
"'Still that must be expected,' said Gandalf to himself."
Again, I want to remind myself, that I set out with the intent to do quest design. For a quick moment, the thought of giving in, submitting to my ever-lasting stream of theoretical thought, was present. But, knowing very well the purpose of this project, I choose to, again, to use the power of rational decision - I keep striving for the practical.
Maybe I should try to not build a major part of a theory that is very interesting to me bottom up in the next article. We'll see.
In my analysis of the ways in which we meet computer games some bigger implications of previous definitions show. I declared that parts of the player are part of the game, but that means, that the player is also part of the medium. Now this is an interesting thought! In playing computer games - in fact, in many media, the player not only experiences designer content, but also parts of himself. Consuming media is - in many cases - self-perception aswell.
In my Overwatch mission this shows, for instance, in the decision whether the optional enemy group is fought instantly or later on when it becomes mandatory. It also shows in the understanding of the characters that are present here. Varying on the degree of previous Overwatch lore consumption, knowledge about Reinhardt and Co. might differ greatly and thus what is said here in dialogues might be understood in different ways too.
We have come to an end, again. Luckily, every ending is a new beginning.
I hope you have a good time!
No comments:
Post a Comment