the relevence of social encounters and time in the architecture of fast paced first person shooters

10 years ago I would not of been able to write about this topic, architecture in games played what Ernest Adams in one of my previous articles called simply ‘a cosmetic role’ where in order to be convinced; buildings had to simply look ‘good’ and look ‘right,’ ‘realistic’ if you will. It seems that today, players have become more needy and in order to be convinced demand more than just realism through cosmetics. Today you will hear most people say, 'graphics are nice, but I prefer the gameplay itself.' To truly experience the spacial environment, to experience the smaller streets from the larger roads, the high ceilings, the dramatic lighting, we need to see the interactions of people through these spaces. How the dramatic lighting silhouettes running soldiers, how a market is felt through its people, who may barter, laugh, and interact with their spacial environments, that is how we are convinced today; to the point that there maybe a very good reason for the absence of people that supports the gameplay, not a reason that has to do with the computers strength to handle such a simulation. We are beginning to take ‘good graphics’ for granted, and demand more from the spaces than ever before, and in a years’ time, it would be more than ever once more. These ‘social encounters’ are felt through friend and foe alike, and play an unmistakable important role in enhancing and understanding the feeling the developer wanted to impose on the space.



Time is another major area of importance in video game. In my previous post I outlined the phenomenon of ‘waste in transit’:  the idea that buildings in the real world, may or may not take into account the unpredictable uses of the future, sometimes they even emphasize the uses of the past. Where as in games all of these may be mimicked, and in actuality the spaces in the architecture of games are designed for the presentence. Therefore ‘Waste in transit’ does not exist in fast paced first-person shooters (FPS’s), every single space is designed for an ‘event’ that supports the gameplay. Social encounters are affected by those ‘events’ and in turn affect the ‘events’ themselves. The two are not mutually exclusive, on the contrary in modern games, are very dependent of one another. Without the consideration of the ‘event’ the environment would be random, and would in some ways seem immature of the game, likewise without the social encounters to support the ‘event’ there would be nothing to play, and the realism would be gone, a player may get bored very quickly; for we are social creatures. Gaming is a realm built for those who are curious about spatial environments whether they realize it or not, the adventure and the progression is all built through spaces built around ‘events’ that progress through social encounters, without all these you may as well bang your head against a wall.


So what is the difference between game architecture and real architecture? The difference is the reason for the architecture; in games it is to support the gameplay and in turn the gameplay is the one constraint for the developer. In real architecture, it is made to support anything, and anything is the constraint. But the one thing that I find that truly highlights the difference is indeed, time itself. This can be seen through the social encounters themselves, which may be very intense, very exaggerated in order to progress the storyline. This progression makes the game move forward, the social encounters make the ‘timeline’ if you will in nearly every good paced FPS I have ever played. The social ecnounters are therefore the brain and the heart of these ‘events.’ It is seen through the freedom of the spaces and how they are built to direct you in the ‘right way’ to experience more and more ‘events.’ You will never really re-visit the same spaces, and if you do they are often different, for example either more destroyed, are experienced at a different time of day, or are simply seen from above while in a helicopter or space-ship. The point is that time is a key factor, because it goes to show how the game really does revolve around ‘events’ and  that the social encounters make these ‘events’ take place, otherwise they are just a pointless frozen moments in time that have no soul or reason to be. All this is not the same in real architecture; 'events' in real architecture do not imply the same thing, because you can revisit a building at any point in time, at any day and it will be there for you to experiance (without getting too technical), granted that it may never be truly the same as the day before (and not that you may even notice that considerably). Also buildings will age, unless you live infront of it for a good decade you will probably not notice the change. Social encounters will probably be more subtle, and will not be cinematics built to infuse a very specific 'event.' In games everything is very destined in the environments, where as in reality, its not (I am an atheist), everything that happens is queit random and not neccessarily planned as exstensivley by a higher power (the developer, or in real life e.g god). Ok, enough babbling...


I bring to the table an example which illustrates all that I have said, the new trailer to Battlefield 3, watch this trailer and see that everything is about ‘events’ and that the social encounters make the game alive and take place.