a new look

I have talked substantially over the past month and a half about the way in which social engagements in architecture in real life and in gaming is controlled, often by altering the perception of time for the user. We have seen how this control is done through clustering time into events and emphasizing these events so that they are memorable for the user. Likewise in architecture I have shown how by differentiating types of spaces in regard to the kind of engagement that is happening through the architectural language, meaningful and memorable spaces are created, and thus are also clustered into events in retrospective memory.

Games often use a kind of language as well in spaces, these can make the events seem unique, and therefore memorable. This whole phenomenon is very subtle and often not spoken of, but it is no secret and every good fps does differentiate between the events so that the game has a clear progression and that the movement through the spaces (levels) etc. is clear and the feeling of progress more satisfying.

I recently found a blog online where players were discussing the game “Fallout 3” by Bethesda Studios, there seemed to be a clear reference to the architecture in the game as they were discussing the overall experience.

Andrew B said “Playing the new fallout game has altered my perception of inhabitable spaces. A pile of junk could be home to vicious raiders.”

To which Cacapis replied “Haa! I'm an old time fan of fallout. It's really cool to see their interpretation of the post apocalyptic Washington and the way each significant structure has been appropriated. The Jefferson and Lincoln memorials, the pentagon, etc etc. I really hope there's a fallout 4.

I think some games really make you experience some form of architecture in a new way. In the end each type of play has maps modeled to suit their needs. For instance a map that's useful for a single player mission in an FPS is not quite suitable for a deathmatch.
I think that games just started to make a very rich experience in an architecture that has its own particular set of rules completely different from reality.”

It seems that a key theme here was that the game architecture in Fallout reinterpreted real architecture, through the alteration of iconic buildings and spaces that the players could relate to and by doing this changed the perception the players had with familiar spaces. This phenomenon was undoubtley well taken by the players and hence was clearly memorable. I mentioned in the beginning of this post how this control is done by emphasizing the events. In this case an emphasis was done by clearly tapping into the users existing memory of iconic buildings and emphasizing those spaces by creating a dramatic change to those buildings so that they are still recognizable, but in a way new and intriguing.


Obviously this is just one very specific device to emphasizing events, but like in any good game, the level design is made to support the gameplay, and fallout is a game which focuses on the post-apocalyptic future of Washington. That also implies that all the buildings were made to stage interesting and dynamic social engagements that revolve around that theme. As I mentioned in my previous post, and as Cacapis seemed to spot as well; by creating environments that are facilitative of the gameplay, it serves to host a completely different set of rules than reality. This is important, because here is the major difference between architecture in reality and in games in regard to the way both treat social engagements through events.


I will now introduce an extreme example to highlight what I have said. Take for instance the Nazi book burning memorial in Berlin. Here is a space that requires a very specific engagement between the user and the environment, a very direct way that has also carries symbolic and cultural significance. During the Nazi regime, many books were burned at this site in 1933; an artist interpretation was to create a little glass window on the spot where the users would have to kneel down to look through the hole.


 
Through the hole was a monochromatic space with empty bookcases symbolizing the “event” that happened many years ago. The kneeling down aspect of the place on behalf of the user, forces the user to pay respect to the tragic event. This space carries with it a very serious message; it commemorates an event that happened many years ago hence it is also very historical.


The actual movement of the users with the mechanics of space; the kneeling down and the observation is also significant in this space when we contrast movement capability in games. In gaming there is a different set of rules that revolve around the player in relation to the keyboard and mouse that is fabricated intentionally to limit movement capability and target specific actions that revolve around the gameplay, any action or movement in a game is no surprise, nor spontaneous, it is carefully mapped out and specified for the gameplay. In contrast, the specific movement of kneeling down in this space is borderline coincidental, it is created only physiologically targeting curiosity, and is actually signified by the fact that out of all the spontaneous movements and actions we may find between users in reality it succeeds in luring people to create one unified movement, the kneeling down. Thus the movement in this space is special because it is specific, where as in gaming, movements would perhaps be more special if they succeeded in being more spontaneous in relation to spaces.


Furthermore although both types of spaces are made to be memorable; the memorial, as a work of art, challenges the user on several levels that are much broader and complex, tapping into the culture and commemorating history. Where as in gaming the spaces have a very direct and subjective role as they revolve around a more targeted set of rules; rules that apply to only the gameplay. Any real depth, message and motive in most all commercial fps is directed towards play and thus the environments are treated as such, were as in this memorial, it is anything but that. Therefore the social engagement between the users of this space is rooted in respect to the tragic event, the kneeling down is also highly symbolic of that respect. Hence this space carries with it symbolism, cultural significance and respect. Although games may pose such a facade, they are still games, and therefore will aim to fulfill needs rooted in play.


Most importantly and perhaps the largest difference can be found in time. This space is timeless, it can be revisited over and over again and it will always remain the same, because it represents a single event that happened in the past. In a game, the game must eventually end, the interaction with the environments are grouped into singular events that are only there to progress the storyline. Therefore, the pages must keep turning and the spaces represent events that are of the presentence even if they pose a historical facade.


It is important to highlight this major difference, because it is these set of rules that define the way social encounters in spaces are experienced in the "event."

events that are not memorable

I have some spare time and I figured one way to emphasize the importance of "events" in games, especially in regards to the social engagement would be to present a bad game. I have already shown some good games lately so it would be easy to compare.


In games such as DeadSpace one can easily spot the unity between the main character, the enemies and the environment through the aesthetic, that’s not bad of course. The problem is that it just doesn't, change, ever, it applies to every environment you are in. So the game feels like the waiting room in a doctor’s office, it just drags on forever!

image taken from source

The ribbed style is articulated in every environment, in every enemy and is constantly seen on your main character. It’s used to impose a vulnerable feeling the player has on his main character that can easily be torn apart like “spare-ribs.” But it’s used EVERYWHERE! And therefore gets quiet boring. The game does not differentiate between one spaces or another in a meaningful way, your horizon of expectancies is always correct, because you are always in the same type of environment fighting the same type of enemy and therefore the entire game is just one very long event. There is little to no progression.


What’s nice to see is when specific character matches their specific environments; this in turn creates specific events that are much more memorable. Dead Space just seems like one big blur of constant gore and death, and doesn’t create a clear timeline in the player’s head of how long the game took.

Representing Artificiality through the medium; is it deliberate and desirable?

A couple of notes: I have been very busy since my last post as I am now in Warsaw. However while I was here I have managed to secure an Interview with CDprojekt (makers of Witcher II & Baldurs Gate) in September, a solo game developer through a guy at work sometime hopefully next week and I am still waiting to hear back from City Interactive (sniper Ghost Warrior & Combat Wings) and Peoplecanfly an Epic Games Studio (Painkiller, Gears of war & Bulletstorm), hopefully more will follow when I return to the Netherlands. So those are all things to look forward to this holiday, got myself a recording device thingamajig and will post it online as soon as it happens! 

Last post I was left with an interesting question from Mark; "do games as a medium employ the deliberately artificiality of representation that one finds in film, or do they tend toward a kind of realism?" And although I already had a reply for about two weeks, I didn't post it yet, don’t ask why it’s just one of those things...

I’m afraid this question is a bit narrow in that there are certain things it doesn’t consider. It suggests that games have to make a choice between being deliberately artificial, like the developer purposefully wants you to think everything is fake! OR that the developer wants you to think everything is real! The truth in this case is somewhere in the middle. Now player’s maybe playing games, but they’re not all dumb and they know, that what their playing isn’t real, that does not mean they don’t want to be convinced! Now there are hundreds of ways to convince the player, and I do not know all of them. But one thing that is certain, is that it’s not all graphics, and that it certainly has a lot to do with the social interactions, I talked about this in detail in "the relevance of social encounters and time in architecture of fast paced first person shooters.”  

One of many examples of the artificality we find in movies; a good example is Sin City, is how the visual style of the movie is clearly not in par with reality. This makes the movie more interesting, because its something different, and more; if its used well, i.e in par with the storyline it has the ability of convincing the viewer that things do make sense, nothing contradicts. So the artificiality maybe labled “artificial” because its obviously not real, but what may keep it interesting, and real to the movie is that the medium used to employ this style follows through with it and uses it effectively in relation to the messages and contexts of whats happening inside the medium, in essence that nothing appears random... (i.e its designed well)...

In games, its very common to see the phenomena of altering the behavior of NPCS in relation to the environment and gameplay and vice versa, so they do not have freedom of thought and are clearly artifical. This is done, because the developers don’t really have a choice if they want to make a good game. Everything in games is done to support the gameplay, if this artificiality does not support the gameplay, the game is bad, and not true. So in this case, if we assume the NPCS were real, were exactley as intelligent as real humans and had freedom of thought, they may just walk of and do random things in the game world and the last thing they may do is support the gameplay. Therefore in actuality the way the characters coincedentally do things that are just so conveniant for the player is aritifical, but if the developers find a way to make these occurances seem very logical or perfectley likley in the world that is the game world, the player is convinced and this artificallity seems appropriate.

Sometimes, and this can be seen in terrible fantasy games; the artifical world the developers created condraticts itself. This can create a feeling like the world falls beneath your feet and nothing makes sense, because given that this aritficallity is aritifical in the first place (meaning it is not like on Earth, fair enough) but if it doesn’t even follow through in the games world, that certainly screems in your face; “IM FAKE!”. Therefore their neads to be unity. Obviously in games a common version of artificallity, would be that things are too coincidental and too perfect, for instance that Dog would fit so perfectly into his environment, it’s a bit surreal, but it seems wonderful and memorable, and that too convinces the player. 

So In the other sense of the notion of “artificiality” The NPCs’ are programmed to simulate realism (that is a realism of the game world), so they are artificial in every sense as a simulation. Some games cover there NPCS in masks. They give the NPCS the role of a robot or hologram for instance, which would in any case have an AI and is programmed to behave in certain ways, and that by definition “tends to realism” as you said. The reason the NPCS are often unified to the gaming environments is to convince you that they belong, that they are unique to the world your in… that they fit the contexts, the story and everything that goes with it, to convince the player that the environment he/she is in is developed! Especially in fast paced FPS where you only play for a couple of hours and first impressions are very important to help the player differentiate character roles, backgrounds etc. 

Now the importance of being convinced cannot be emphasized enough to clear up the fact that artificiality is ok, if things are interesting enough/developed enough... I have yet not talked about the most important thing, the rules of the game...

A)   Just like in movies, books and anything worth reading or seeing, games have to be worth playing, they have to be extraordinary so by obviously in some sense they are not realistic and often games will make that very clear through art styles etc, but that isn’t the important realism we are talking about I take it...

B)    Just like in shows like House or the A-Team we measure the level of success of the characters based on the challenges they solved.

C)    The level of achievement of solving these challenges in our minds is benchmarked around the rules of the movie, in House it is science, in A-Team it is justice.

D)   In games, there will also be a set of unchangeable rules the player has to cope with while dealing with challenges, (some simple ones are your health, ammo, your special abilities if any, the environment itself (if its underwater, in space)) if they work solidly and well they convince the player that things work. If things are at odds they player may feel like the rules of physics went out of control and that the world is falling apart and things just generally suck!

E)    Once the player is convinced, the game seems to be realistic, regardless of how artsy, violent, or stylized the game is.

F)    NPCS  are there to enhance this realism because you can relate to them, and the more (like you)they are in the game to convince you, the better, especially if they do a good job in teaching you how to engage with the worlds "rules."

G)   But most importantly everything in the game is to support the gameplay, if anything gets in the way it doesn’t seem realistic, because by definition, the realism is benchmarked on the games world, not our own world. So logically, characters have to look like their environments, and this artificiality we talked about, seems strangely enough, realistic if anything!

I found online an article by a designer; Jespur Juul who wrote a book "Half-Real" which deals exactley with this whole phenomena, here is what he had to say:

"The Half-Real of the title refers to the fact that video games are two rather different things at the same time: video games are real in that they are made of real rules that players actually interact with; that winning or losing a game is a real event. However, when winning a game by slaying a dragon, the dragon is not a real dragon, but a fictional one. To play a video game is therefore to interact with real rules while imagining a fictional world and a video game is a set of rules as well a fictional world." -Jespur Juul

Jespur here clarifies some of the juxtapositions players are experiencing in games; giving us another look at the whole argument about intentional artficiality. So to answer the question, the act of artificially connecting the NPCS to their environments is deliberate, but is also what convinces you of how they connect to the storyline, this is what makes the game realistic (to itself) and by connection it’s what makes it realistic to you at the end of the day.In movies where you are distanced, this artificiality is clearer, but in games, where you literally take the reins, this artificiality of extraordinary characters that perfectly match their environments becomes your reality, and seems, real!



However, one thing that movies accomplish that games have a very hard time accomplishing is tradgedy. This whole notion was taken from Jespur Juul's research into the two: Martin Nerurkar an architect/game critic who attended one of Jespur's lectures had this to say:

"Here Jesper took a closer look at the elements that make up a tragedy and why it’s so difficult to recreate that in games. His theory is that this lies within the paradox of failure. Usually, when we as players succeed in some task within the game, we are happy, as is the protagonist. Likewise, when we fail we are frustrated and suffer, as does our protagonist. In Tragedy however we need to delight at the failure and misfortune of the protagonist. Our long-term aesthetic desire for a well-rounded story has to overcome our short-term desire for the protagonist to succeed, something that’s quite strong in video games."

We have seen how games can be artifial, but intentionally, but in a way thats convincing, and how they place the player in an extraordinary position by creating a list of rules that are in fact real, but take place in  another reality. And how their are yet certain things games can do that movies cannot, and vice versa...

The Encounter

This is going to be a very odd blog, but I have come to a revelation and have a burning urge to put finger to keyboard so to speak. 

Following Gabe's interview and watching this thirty minute video (thanks again Mark) about the implications of games in our world I have come to a very important realization about the role of the social encounter in games as oppose to real architecture. 

I couldn't attach the video: here is the SOURCE

It seems that the social encounter in a fast paced FPS is simply like another architectural device, like a column or a window to an architect, if you will. This is because the developer has complete control over what the NPC's can say or will do through programmable AI's and cinematics. Notice the way Gabe describes Alex in Half Life 2 as a method that they used to impose emotions and indications to the player regarding the plot and what the player must do. Hence the social encounters in games are like another a architectural device in the environment that holds the player by the hand and points him in the "right direction." All the actions of the NPC's are no mystery to the developer, and the environment is built hand in hand with the social encounters.

Consequently in real architecture, the social encounters are the big mystery, they are things that we predict and built round in hope that we will hit the nail on the head. Many architects simply distance themsleves from the social encounters and take a position of a facilitator. Price once said that "you can feel bad in a building regardless of how good it is." This is very true!

However this is all regarding the NPCS in games and second party people you may interact with in real life. How about YOU as the user....

In gaming, their is a little gap of uncertainty, because the player is indead human, and humans are very spontanous. However where as in real life you are only limited by the freedom of your limbs, in games you are limited to the keyboard and mouse giving you the illusion of being completley free.  And the movements themselves in games are again, programmed to allow you to behave in a way the game wants you to behave. The keybaord functions are like another set of "rules," to engage with the environment the developer was so nice to setup for you. Gabe talked about the reason the crowbar became such a big deal in half life; how the crowbar acted as a type of feeler around the environment to get a touch on relationships and distances. How bullet holes were far, but the crowbar was an upfront tool for the engagement with the environment and how they worked really hard to get the subtleties of the "bounce-off" of the crowbar mechanically "correct." So in a way as in the developers percepective the crowbar played the same role as the NPC, just another device to allow the player to engage the world he/she was cast in.

In real life, architects have to work around the complete spontanous behaviour of people, and things that could happen in certain unpredicatable situations (i.e a fire and how people would circulate in that instance).

Another major difference is the physcological impliations of being in a game. Being inside a game, you are a bigger risk taker, you observe the environment in a very different way. You may try to jump of a cliff to get to the other side more readily for instnace because you know that if you "die" you can always load back.... In reality that is not the case, hence the physcological implications for the user in the gaming environment is a bit more exciting. (this is all stuff I realized from the "SOURCE" by the way)

But going back to what I was saying  about social interactions again. If you recall my last post, I questions where to draw the line about the social interactions themselves. Do they have to be with two real people. Is one real person and an artpeice a social engagement? I talked about Zumthor and the way he diffrenciated spaces in regard to human/human vs. human/artpeice. An art peice is an indead an inanimate object, but in a way so are NPC's they are simply animated inamnimate objects that give the illustion of a social engagement, (I am not talking about multiplayer for the purpose of this research).  So I suppose what I am truly interested in is the general differences in games as oppose to real life by which the developer or the architect allows the real life HUMAN user to explore a series of "events" through engagements. Because if the interaction with an NPC can be labled a social engagement, then in a way (and by abstraction) so should the visual conversation one has with an art peice in a musuem, the NPC is afterall indead a work of art.... (food for thought) or to the developer another tool to create a relationship in between the user and the world.

Glad I got that down, finally, I can rest....

Words from the Developers

Below: So far I have said quiet a bit, constantly highlighting the differences and similarities about how time in architecture in real life and in video game are captured through social interactions. I also recently showed a video from Half-Life 2 that provided some evidence of this, in playing with Dog. However I thought it would be a good idea to provide an interview with Half Life 2 creator Gabe Newell, who talks about his experience in writing the Half Life trilogy. Gabe says many things about writing games, and a lot of them clarify many of the claims I have made throughout the research I conducted so far.

Capturing the "Event"

The "event" in gaming is a cluster of time, intentionally captured and categorized by the developer to infuse a meaningful instance around a social encounter. To the player the event is often pre-ordained upon entering a new environment, for example upon entering a large open space; the player may expect a difficult encounter with the enemy. A good "event" is often memorable and in my experience; the more dynamic the social encounter is, the more memorable it tends to be. For example playing with Dog in Half life 2 (released in 2004), was really positively reviewed for that exact reason;

This instance illustrates as well how a certain event maybe pre-ordained around a space. In this case this large open space facilitated the event of playing with Dog. This "event" is indeed a cluster of time; the playing with dog, and is memorable because players find a kinship and bond with the character Dog in the game. It also bridges the two halves of the story, hence serves as a plot nuclei in the development of the story. Hence the ‘event’ revolves around a social encounter which helps making the event not only memorable but as piece of storyline that makes the game progress.

In architecture in real life, it is indeed possible, even commendable to consider those small instances, and make them memorable for the user. One architect I have to bring forth to illustrate this is Gorden Matta-Clark, who was  “more concerned in voids, gaps, spaces, abandoned and underdeveloped places, for example, places where you stop to tie your laces and places that have a disruption of your daily movements.” (Mannino 2006) To Matta-Clark, the "disruption in daily movements" was in itself the "event," the memorable moment that gave him a sense of perhaps touch on time throughout his daily activities. Also, this goes to show how even the spaces we perceive to be the most insignificant, or unusual, can be considered and exploited to create a memorable "event" in a space. Taking this further in my research-interest, I argue that indeed an "event" is what gives people a sense of pleasure in an environment. And to highlight the difference between architecture in real life and in games, is that they don't only revolve around the type of "events" you find but also around the way they usually capture social encounters.


The difference of course between "events" in fast paced FPS and in reality, as I have outlined in past articles, is that in reality these spaces can often be revisited over and over again without a the likelihood of a significant change in the ambiance of the space. Where as in these fast paced FPS, if they are re-visited (which they really never are) they will be in a very different light, as in games, everything is made to support the gameplay. Hence, time itself serves as the difference between the type of events that happen in life or in games.

Another architect which comes to mind is Peter Zumthor, who in some of his works, really seemed to consider the “event” in order to support the buildings’ functionality. “When I concentrate on a specific site or place for which I am going to design a building, when I try to plumb its depths, its form, its history, and its sensuous qualities, images of other places start to invade this process of precise observation: images of places I know and that once impressed me, images of ordinary or special places, places that I carry with me as inner visions of specific moods and qualities; images of architectural situations, which emanate from the world of art, or films, theater or literature.” – (Zumthor) This goes to show Zumthors’ concern for creating “events” or as he phrased it “architectural situations” through his encounter with meaningful memories, gave him an urge to  install them in the buildings he was working on.
 

One example that exemplifies what Peter Zumthor is trying to achieve in creating spaces in which memorable “events” occur can be seen in his Museum of Modern Art in Cologne through his use of transition through materiality. 

from top to bottom

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIVU0U-Ft3KXw7fRxuNhqamq2jpSJeZzvOceGeVH6lriDxNaNSQYKCJRQTXuM8C-Hid6nu7G3mMgt7Ygvkt20MXB8xTBhmr7SqbqFiuOVwbTL-SBVzLkFGPgzrObfGtQ8-Jv6KKpHJ5kkI/s320/Zumthor+Bregenz+Kunsthaus+Austria.jpg

http://archidose.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html

Nearly all the gallery in the museum, as dynamic transitional spaces, were very ordinary in alabaster white, as to exhibit the work in its own natural beauty thus leaving a space that is completely used to outline the artwork. Hence, in a way this illustrates how the social encounter inside the space is between the user and the artwork itself, whether this would be labeled "social" is perhaps debatable, but Zumthor seemed to design with an understanding into the type of interactions that were happening in mind. For instance, in rooms which have services and more human social encounters that take place (e.g café or even the cloakroom) these rooms are punched into the spaces with a beautiful wooden frame like the framing of the paintings on the wall feeling warm and static inside. Simply entering the spaces makes you feel like you are walking into a painting. Thus Zumthor, clearly differentiates the types of spaces in regard to the type of social interaction that is involved.


Zumthor was always big on materiality, and the human interaction with the tangible. In this case the change in material creates an effect that makes the spaces such as where hang your coat in memorable, and installs “events” in peoples’ minds that elevate the value of the environments within the museum, making the building as a whole a very positive series of spaces to inhabit. This is seen in this case, by specifically creating a difference in the language of architecture revolving around the type of encounters that are taking place; i.e human, or art-piece. Again, not all these interactions are "social," and Zumthor seems to highlight these differences through the materials.


To be frank, this phenomenon is not that unheard of. In video games, the aesthetics of the environment are often made as well to revolve around the social encounters very specifically. In the example of, playing with Dog, above, the environment was very trashy matching the aesthetics of Dogs appearance which was very make-shift. Often game-developers create an environment that unifies the social encounter with the other party in some way or another. In a like manner, Zumthor was unifying the spaces with the other party as well, the very white and bright gallery spaces to outline the artwork with which the user would be interacting and the very wooden cozy service rooms, where the users would be static and interacting with each other. All these interactions are hence perceived as individual events with which the encounter, is the main subject of concern for the designer.


Thus it seems that architecture as well as games can try to capture events in memorable ways often through the use of outlining a social encounter. Consequently, as I have said several times in the past posts; as social creatures, it seems that social encounters create plot points in the environment that give a sense of time in a space. In games, this creates the timeline of a storyline, a sense of time that we perceive that gives us a mental image of how long the game took. In architecture in reality, time can also be mentally controlled, through the use of creating these “events” through architectural language. In the case of the museum, creating spaces where social encounters occur, in a certain warm way (the texture of the wood) facilities a positive feeling around the environment and enhances the appreciation of the space. If this appreciation is "good enough," the instances will turn into memories in our minds, that will be grouped as "events" (as memories often are)...