I had a chance to speak to Kay Bennemann, and although he is not a developer he seemed to be very involved in the game scene as he had some very insightful things to say and seemed to express great interest in my topic.
So you claim that Level design is basically architecture?
Yeah, in a way, it’s my perception because we would need to define first, what is architecture in and in games? Before I can actually say something meaningful…
Right…
Because the way I see it, somebody who builds a level; is an architect…
Right..
But this level doesn’t necessarily need to retain buildings or bridges…
Have you ever heard of a guy called Ernest Adams? He is this critique online and he talks a lot about this whole idea… He said that the role of architecture in games is purely cosmetic, everything that you see is a metaphor of a building; it’s a façade. This was back in 2002 and now we are in 2011, things are a little bit more different…
I meen, I heard the name of the guy, but I can’t say I know him or his work, I think he wrote some books on game design?
Yes, doesn’t matter, what I’m really looking at is the difference between architecture in reality and architecture in games… obviously in games, like you said, level design is architecture; you have the user and your building the space around the user and obviously there are different rules because in gaming everything is revolved around the gameplay
True
And in real life it can be anything, it can be political, where as in gaming even if it is has a political or a deep meaning, it’s just a façade and it’s aimed for gameplay… so there is a different kind of goal.
Right, I recall seeing some photos online of “Socialist” architecture, totally ugly buildings. But at the same time also statements; statements for strength for instance. There could be many statements that a building makes, maybe some are not intended. But in gaming...
Well I’ll give you some ideas to jump around, when we’re playing a game, and I’m specifically looking a first person shooters; where you actually get to be yourself (in a way) is that it revolves around the keyboard and mouse and some games don’t even let you jump, and therefore the game; the level design is made to revolve around the way the user interacts with the game. If you don’t get to jump there’s nothing to jump over…
I don’t know if this adds anything to the argument, but I think that in a game, a modern game, a game that has been produced in the last 10 years even, the whole experience is designed. Maybe one game is better at it than it than another game, but there are some particular games that I can think of, first person shooters for instance. Half-Life 2 is a good example where they designed the whole environment and they actually thought where the player would be looking; when he enters a new location, they also use visual clues such as lighting that would draw your attention.
And let’s not forget the NPC’s as well, the play a big role in making you look in certain directions…
True, so, sometimes I think it’s hard to generalize these things about games; so many game developers do it differently. I really know people who design the background of the game, with let’s say a city with no real design meaning applied to it. It’s more like “yeah we need this background,” and “ah, we wanted to make it look realistic…” and so it’s not as sophisticated. But at the same time another designer may say, “you know, on this building here, we need to place it 3cm more to the right because when the player comes into the hall and looks out the window and sees the building there” and for some reason this could be a visual clue that is pointing him towards another thing that you should pick up or whatever. So that of course is a sophisticated way. I’m not saying all games are necessarily designed this way or that every single location in the game is made this way. I actually do believe that many, many games use this, but they use this occasionally. Because when I play a game, I say I’m trying to find this place, sometimes I find this place only once, because what I’m doing most this time is playing. And so I believe, if it is really well made, then you don’t notice it.
And also what they do, I find, is when they make these things that make you look in certain directions, is that they are very memorable, and the more memorable moments you have in a game, the better the game tends to be…
That is true, that is true
And when you look back at all those memorable moments you create a sort of timeline, and you know how some games maybe last only five hours, but the more memorable moments you have; it feels like the game was longer,
True, true
and I don’t mean longer in a bad way, like in a doctor’s office…
haha
it changes your perception of time…
It’s true! I noticed another effect; games tend to be… they tend to get better, in your memory. I mean not the bad ones ofcourse, they are always bad, but the good ones, that really had some exceptional moments. This thing about memorable moments is true, its really true and I believe this is what game designers are looking for, they are trying to create these, one of a kind memorable moments. Maybe some of them try to be, it doesn’t matter, single-player or multi-player, but let’s say its multi-player where there is another player, and then you can always talk to the guy, you can say “remember back in the day, we played whatever, how great that was?”
Exactley!
“and we killed the boss!” or whatever it is, and now I’ve noticed that this is something to do with your memory or your perception. These outstanding moments in your memory; they get even more outstanding the longer they are away… and then when you look at the very good games, like 20 years after they were released, whatever you played them on the Commodore 64, that’s a long time ago! You probably weren’t even born.. and you played the “Bards Tale,” and it was the most amazing RPG! It was the pinnacle and when you look at it now, you would it’s a joke.
We were talking about this, actually, Val (my friend), we were talking about fallout 2… and some of the reasons that, that was good, as a game, was because the limitation in graphics forced you to use your imagination…
That’s true, Ooooo, it’s a huge subject I’m having, a lot of modern games don’t let you use your imagination, they take everything away from you!
Val: that’s actually interesting because I was arguing the opposite when we were talking about this
The opposite?
Val: Because, Raz actually had an interview with, what was his name again?
Did you hear about this new game coming out, “Hard Reset”
Yeah, eh, must be somebody from Eastern Europe?
It’s a Polish company, flyingwildhog
Val: The guy argued that fallout 3 was worse than fallout 2 because it didn’t have that element that allows you to use your imagination.
The whole environment was very ambient and forced you to kind of create…
In fallout 2 you meen?
Yeah…
Val: my argument is that I think, that when we think that new games are so much more advanced and that don’t allow you to use your imagination. I think that’s actually a mistake, because fallout 3, as was established in that interview has pretty awful graphics; especially for its time.
Number 3?
Val: Yeah
But the reason people really liked it, and this is from blogs online where users were arguing about this, is the fact that it reinterpreted the way people perceived spaces, like a pile of junk could be a home to a raider. Also a lot of the areas were very recognizable, all the monuments in Washington and then they kind of just reinterpreted that so that people could connect to it because they knew those buildings but it changed their perception of how this whole space, could be or used…
Maybe, you could also say this might have a cultural implication, because I’ve never been to Washington, I might know some of these places from photos or TV, but they are not recognizable to me, so I had queit an issue with navigation
Right!
And I found it hard to navigate because I always thought because to me everything looked the same, brownish brown, and then some brown (pointing in various directions)
Haha that’s probably also the level designs fault
Brown here, brown there…
So your not a fan either?
Yeah
A lot of people weren’t, suprisingly, but in the US it was a big hit and I guess that’s because, you know, people could relate to it.
I wouldn’t say I didn’t like it, perhaps maybe I expected more from it, and perhaps this goes back to the memory thing. The problem with fallout 3, and this is a particular problem; the issue was that there wasn’t a fallout for years and years and years, basically the license was dead, it’s like you know fallout wasn’t a big seller, fallout 1 and 2, they sold ok… and they were very niche, you know they were super hardcore and so nobody expected a new fallout, and suddenly they renewed the license and there was a new fallout. Then ofcourse, “nerd rage,” everybody said
Val: “Oblivion with guns!”
“Obvlion with guns! Its going to be shit,” and then it turned out to be very sarcastic, very brutal, okay you couldn’t shoot people in the nuts, I miss that, but everything else was basically there, so it checked all the boxes…
And I’d like to mention something very interesting, in terms of the navigation, and to me, a lot of that was, that I blame the NPC’s in the game, because a lot of the time, they just stand there, they don’t do anything, they have no soul and they just stand there. And you look now, did you see the battlefield 3 trailer?
No…
That’s okay, but the point is, in the game the NPC’s play a major role of leading the player, of making you look in certain directions, kind of like in Half Life, with what’s her name? “Alex”
Yeah
Val: yeah
Her role, and I saw an interview where Gabe Newell talked about her as a tool for the developer to use to make the player look in certain directions and to lead the player, because your never lost in that game, you never backtrack, you always know where you’re going and I think the NPC’s have a lot to do with that.
At the same time, I would like to add that in Half Life 2, you cannot get lost… because the space that you are moving in is so limited, and if I remember the game they do a pretty good job of faking a real environment. So you might walk down the street and it looks like there is ten different streets that you could take, you know… but they would all end up in a dead end after five meters. Then they use visual clues to totally point you in a certain direction where you are supposed to go, I think what you’re getting from it is like a subconscious perception of a “real” city, even though it is not there… and so of course they also use NPC’s to move you in the certain direction or that you look in a certain direction, but I think they were only tools. They were tools just like the environmental things that they did; they were tools to give the player a sense of direction. I really believe it not necessarily in a well-designed game, but a consciously designed game where every single element has a function and even if its I don’t know; trash on the table, it is there for a reason.
Yeah…
Left4dead is a good example, I read about it, and Left4dead uses a lot of storytelling, but there is no introduction to the game, there is no storyteller, there are no large texts to read or what you typically get in most games…
Makes you want to play even more as they have to pull it off in the actual gameplay,
Yes, exactly, I think they call this visual storytelling, so you typically come across spots of places with left behind messages for their significant others or friends like for instance a piece of paper stuck to a wall that says “James, I cannot wait any longer I am going to the hospital, love you, goodbye,” and of course it’s not the real story that’s been told their but it’s something that gives you a perception of a world with depth. Those things were happening in this world before you were there… so the world becomes more solid.
Val: and then of course you always have the kind of dichotomy between telling a story and letting people create stories, when some games focus on more than others…
I personally think that games are performative, so there are people who look at games from a text analyzing way, games as texts… that’s basically literature science. But I find that too static, also many games, like quake have no story! You run around and shoot people, end of story. But in reality, Quake can be a very interesting story, but it is a story that you develop through your performance; to what you do in the game. So it might be just you, learning the greatest weapon, and its totally hard, you spend weeks on it and finally you master it. Later you remember yourself doing that, the greatest multiplayer match you ever had in Quake, and its just so awesome because in this very moment some guy tried to grab the extra damage or whatever and he didn’t reach it and whatever…
Yeah
This could be stupid stories, like a book about that might be odd, but in your mind it is something like a sequence of exciting events that happened and that is not necessarily a story you want to put in a book but it’s still something you created to your performer. So without you performing, the game is nothing. It would stand still, it’s dead.
Yeah, in a way, it’s my perception because we would need to define first, what is architecture in and in games? Before I can actually say something meaningful…
Right…
Because the way I see it, somebody who builds a level; is an architect…
Right..
But this level doesn’t necessarily need to retain buildings or bridges…
Have you ever heard of a guy called Ernest Adams? He is this critique online and he talks a lot about this whole idea… He said that the role of architecture in games is purely cosmetic, everything that you see is a metaphor of a building; it’s a façade. This was back in 2002 and now we are in 2011, things are a little bit more different…
I meen, I heard the name of the guy, but I can’t say I know him or his work, I think he wrote some books on game design?
Yes, doesn’t matter, what I’m really looking at is the difference between architecture in reality and architecture in games… obviously in games, like you said, level design is architecture; you have the user and your building the space around the user and obviously there are different rules because in gaming everything is revolved around the gameplay
True
And in real life it can be anything, it can be political, where as in gaming even if it is has a political or a deep meaning, it’s just a façade and it’s aimed for gameplay… so there is a different kind of goal.
Right, I recall seeing some photos online of “Socialist” architecture, totally ugly buildings. But at the same time also statements; statements for strength for instance. There could be many statements that a building makes, maybe some are not intended. But in gaming...
Well I’ll give you some ideas to jump around, when we’re playing a game, and I’m specifically looking a first person shooters; where you actually get to be yourself (in a way) is that it revolves around the keyboard and mouse and some games don’t even let you jump, and therefore the game; the level design is made to revolve around the way the user interacts with the game. If you don’t get to jump there’s nothing to jump over…
I don’t know if this adds anything to the argument, but I think that in a game, a modern game, a game that has been produced in the last 10 years even, the whole experience is designed. Maybe one game is better at it than it than another game, but there are some particular games that I can think of, first person shooters for instance. Half-Life 2 is a good example where they designed the whole environment and they actually thought where the player would be looking; when he enters a new location, they also use visual clues such as lighting that would draw your attention.
And let’s not forget the NPC’s as well, the play a big role in making you look in certain directions…
True, so, sometimes I think it’s hard to generalize these things about games; so many game developers do it differently. I really know people who design the background of the game, with let’s say a city with no real design meaning applied to it. It’s more like “yeah we need this background,” and “ah, we wanted to make it look realistic…” and so it’s not as sophisticated. But at the same time another designer may say, “you know, on this building here, we need to place it 3cm more to the right because when the player comes into the hall and looks out the window and sees the building there” and for some reason this could be a visual clue that is pointing him towards another thing that you should pick up or whatever. So that of course is a sophisticated way. I’m not saying all games are necessarily designed this way or that every single location in the game is made this way. I actually do believe that many, many games use this, but they use this occasionally. Because when I play a game, I say I’m trying to find this place, sometimes I find this place only once, because what I’m doing most this time is playing. And so I believe, if it is really well made, then you don’t notice it.
And also what they do, I find, is when they make these things that make you look in certain directions, is that they are very memorable, and the more memorable moments you have in a game, the better the game tends to be…
That is true, that is true
And when you look back at all those memorable moments you create a sort of timeline, and you know how some games maybe last only five hours, but the more memorable moments you have; it feels like the game was longer,
True, true
and I don’t mean longer in a bad way, like in a doctor’s office…
haha
it changes your perception of time…
It’s true! I noticed another effect; games tend to be… they tend to get better, in your memory. I mean not the bad ones ofcourse, they are always bad, but the good ones, that really had some exceptional moments. This thing about memorable moments is true, its really true and I believe this is what game designers are looking for, they are trying to create these, one of a kind memorable moments. Maybe some of them try to be, it doesn’t matter, single-player or multi-player, but let’s say its multi-player where there is another player, and then you can always talk to the guy, you can say “remember back in the day, we played whatever, how great that was?”
Exactley!
“and we killed the boss!” or whatever it is, and now I’ve noticed that this is something to do with your memory or your perception. These outstanding moments in your memory; they get even more outstanding the longer they are away… and then when you look at the very good games, like 20 years after they were released, whatever you played them on the Commodore 64, that’s a long time ago! You probably weren’t even born.. and you played the “Bards Tale,” and it was the most amazing RPG! It was the pinnacle and when you look at it now, you would it’s a joke.
We were talking about this, actually, Val (my friend), we were talking about fallout 2… and some of the reasons that, that was good, as a game, was because the limitation in graphics forced you to use your imagination…
That’s true, Ooooo, it’s a huge subject I’m having, a lot of modern games don’t let you use your imagination, they take everything away from you!
Val: that’s actually interesting because I was arguing the opposite when we were talking about this
The opposite?
Val: Because, Raz actually had an interview with, what was his name again?
Did you hear about this new game coming out, “Hard Reset”
Yeah, eh, must be somebody from Eastern Europe?
It’s a Polish company, flyingwildhog
Val: The guy argued that fallout 3 was worse than fallout 2 because it didn’t have that element that allows you to use your imagination.
The whole environment was very ambient and forced you to kind of create…
In fallout 2 you meen?
Yeah…
Val: my argument is that I think, that when we think that new games are so much more advanced and that don’t allow you to use your imagination. I think that’s actually a mistake, because fallout 3, as was established in that interview has pretty awful graphics; especially for its time.
Number 3?
Val: Yeah
But the reason people really liked it, and this is from blogs online where users were arguing about this, is the fact that it reinterpreted the way people perceived spaces, like a pile of junk could be a home to a raider. Also a lot of the areas were very recognizable, all the monuments in Washington and then they kind of just reinterpreted that so that people could connect to it because they knew those buildings but it changed their perception of how this whole space, could be or used…
Maybe, you could also say this might have a cultural implication, because I’ve never been to Washington, I might know some of these places from photos or TV, but they are not recognizable to me, so I had queit an issue with navigation
Right!
And I found it hard to navigate because I always thought because to me everything looked the same, brownish brown, and then some brown (pointing in various directions)
Haha that’s probably also the level designs fault
Brown here, brown there…
So your not a fan either?
Yeah
A lot of people weren’t, suprisingly, but in the US it was a big hit and I guess that’s because, you know, people could relate to it.
I wouldn’t say I didn’t like it, perhaps maybe I expected more from it, and perhaps this goes back to the memory thing. The problem with fallout 3, and this is a particular problem; the issue was that there wasn’t a fallout for years and years and years, basically the license was dead, it’s like you know fallout wasn’t a big seller, fallout 1 and 2, they sold ok… and they were very niche, you know they were super hardcore and so nobody expected a new fallout, and suddenly they renewed the license and there was a new fallout. Then ofcourse, “nerd rage,” everybody said
Val: “Oblivion with guns!”
“Obvlion with guns! Its going to be shit,” and then it turned out to be very sarcastic, very brutal, okay you couldn’t shoot people in the nuts, I miss that, but everything else was basically there, so it checked all the boxes…
And I’d like to mention something very interesting, in terms of the navigation, and to me, a lot of that was, that I blame the NPC’s in the game, because a lot of the time, they just stand there, they don’t do anything, they have no soul and they just stand there. And you look now, did you see the battlefield 3 trailer?
No…
That’s okay, but the point is, in the game the NPC’s play a major role of leading the player, of making you look in certain directions, kind of like in Half Life, with what’s her name? “Alex”
Yeah
Val: yeah
Her role, and I saw an interview where Gabe Newell talked about her as a tool for the developer to use to make the player look in certain directions and to lead the player, because your never lost in that game, you never backtrack, you always know where you’re going and I think the NPC’s have a lot to do with that.
At the same time, I would like to add that in Half Life 2, you cannot get lost… because the space that you are moving in is so limited, and if I remember the game they do a pretty good job of faking a real environment. So you might walk down the street and it looks like there is ten different streets that you could take, you know… but they would all end up in a dead end after five meters. Then they use visual clues to totally point you in a certain direction where you are supposed to go, I think what you’re getting from it is like a subconscious perception of a “real” city, even though it is not there… and so of course they also use NPC’s to move you in the certain direction or that you look in a certain direction, but I think they were only tools. They were tools just like the environmental things that they did; they were tools to give the player a sense of direction. I really believe it not necessarily in a well-designed game, but a consciously designed game where every single element has a function and even if its I don’t know; trash on the table, it is there for a reason.
Yeah…
Left4dead is a good example, I read about it, and Left4dead uses a lot of storytelling, but there is no introduction to the game, there is no storyteller, there are no large texts to read or what you typically get in most games…
Makes you want to play even more as they have to pull it off in the actual gameplay,
Yes, exactly, I think they call this visual storytelling, so you typically come across spots of places with left behind messages for their significant others or friends like for instance a piece of paper stuck to a wall that says “James, I cannot wait any longer I am going to the hospital, love you, goodbye,” and of course it’s not the real story that’s been told their but it’s something that gives you a perception of a world with depth. Those things were happening in this world before you were there… so the world becomes more solid.
Val: and then of course you always have the kind of dichotomy between telling a story and letting people create stories, when some games focus on more than others…
I personally think that games are performative, so there are people who look at games from a text analyzing way, games as texts… that’s basically literature science. But I find that too static, also many games, like quake have no story! You run around and shoot people, end of story. But in reality, Quake can be a very interesting story, but it is a story that you develop through your performance; to what you do in the game. So it might be just you, learning the greatest weapon, and its totally hard, you spend weeks on it and finally you master it. Later you remember yourself doing that, the greatest multiplayer match you ever had in Quake, and its just so awesome because in this very moment some guy tried to grab the extra damage or whatever and he didn’t reach it and whatever…
Yeah
This could be stupid stories, like a book about that might be odd, but in your mind it is something like a sequence of exciting events that happened and that is not necessarily a story you want to put in a book but it’s still something you created to your performer. So without you performing, the game is nothing. It would stand still, it’s dead.
Thank you for sharing useful and Informative Post!!! Keep it up
ReplyDeleteOnline Addicting Games