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
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....
I'm glad the onthemedia.org link was helpful!
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to compare the NPC characters in games with the element of unpredictability and chance inherent in architecture. There are certainly architects who have specifically addressed the need for buildings to be adaptable to change over time; and, some program types like the art museum require a high level of adaptability. The NPC goes beyond adaptability, though, by allowing the designer to specify behaviors associated with the unpredictable, chance encounters that take place in a space. To my mind this is something quite new -
Mark
Its something I always somehow realized but never really put my finger on; that the NPC weren't just characters in a games plonked in for the hell of it, nor are they just an indication of scale in a game; there a very specific tool used to enhance the environment and I suppose this became more evident to me as games developed. Afterall one of the biggest things that makes games real is how dynamic the characters seem to behave in relationship to their sorroundings (just like in real life), good games take advantage of that notion and use the NPC to react to the environment in very specific ways that directly inform the gameplay, that at times seem amazingly coincedental, making it very lifelike (often these are just cinematics) and are just another powerful tool that allows the player to be convinced. In a way its the NPCS (as indicators) that behave like the kings servents holding the sign "Laugh" to the audiance (that is the player) to hint at, or engage with in certain ways. These may seem like social engagements, but in actuality that maybe debatable, depending on what your definition of social is... Sims just introduced something interesting in the sims games that I noticed; after the player customizes the look and clothes of the sim before starting the game, the player is also forced to choose positive and negative traits about the sims personality that affects how the sims in the game will interact with other fellow sims. This gives the player some reigns on the "social engagements" the sims will undertake, or the way they will behave to even! (get this) the style of the home itself...
ReplyDelete