What do we mean when we talk about architecture in games? Why should an architect care about computer games? And what can a game designer take from architecture?

I really hate to ask this question, because its so broad and arbitrary and yes it is one of those questions that never ends! One of the first questions I was asked when studying architecture in the Savannah College of Art and Design as a newbie to the course was; “When does a cave become architecture?” our professor proceeded to question whether simply inhabiting the cave implies the cave is architecture, whether it needs to be deformed and to what extent? This proceeded to a never ending debate across three hour and half seminars that had to be forcefully stopped for the sake of progressing through the course; by the end we simply decided it was inconclusive, and even then a burning urge in every one of us felt there had to be some kind of conclusion.

Similarly this question popped in my mind when the head of the department of architecture Flora Samuel at the introductory meeting in first year here in Sheffield proclaimed that she and the other tutors “simply loved buildings.” A thought entered my head instantly which for some reason questioned “Do you mean buildings or do you mean architecture?” To me architecture is a phenomenon that much like any art, be it a martial art or a fine art;  extends further than simply being a theory to concern yourself with but also a way of thinking and being that extends into daily routine. I personally experienced the same trains of thought when composing music as to designing a school.  

 

In fact I argue that some of the best approaches to architecture are those that are least archetypal. Thinking always through walls and doors does not necessarily bring the best solutions to the table, as Cedric Price famously paraphrased in every possible manner. Brian Lawson, one of my lecturers from last year told us about how his good friend asked him to redesign his daughter’s bedroom because she listens to loud music to which Brian Lawson replied, “Why don’t you buy her a set of headphones” diffusing the problem at a significantly lower cost of time and money. The point I am trying to make is that although architecture deals with buildings and in some ways is defined as the art and science of designing buildings that does not mean that solutions have to be strict, they can be from anywhere to challenge spacial dilemmas. This much I am sure we all know! Are all aware of and simply are sick of hearing about…

But this brings me on to my main argument, that in a like manner, I argue that in some ways architecture in games considers aspects that real architecture often overlooks. I have just started, (I’m literally on the first page), reading a book called “Space, Time, Play” a spoof of “space, time, architecture”- by Seigfried Gedion. Except this book is written by about four dozen authors from both the game development and architecture industry. This five hundred paged book asks only two simple questions;  “Why should an architect care about computer games? And what can a game designer take from architecture?” We have examined Mcgregors paper “Situations of Play” in which she begs that architecture in games “is architecture in every definition of the word.”

This book I’m reading had some initial quotes I underlined in its introduction which I will put forth for this debate;

“Computer games are part and parcel of our present; both their audiovisual language and the interaction processes associated with them have worked their way into our everyday lives…”

I would like to add to this claim that computer games have really changed the way we communicate visual information, not just in our iPhones and power-point presentations but the way we conceptualize information as beings which also goes to affect the way we design especially in architecture. Think about all the forms of visual presentation that architects tend to use; in fact some game developers have found their way into the real estate industry offering clients first person walk through (such as this company http://real5d.com/). Furthermore ideas spawned from gaming which work around different sets of challenges, can induce ideas that would never otherwise be thought of in studio. This book reiterates this notion by saying that “the digital spaces so often frequented by gamers have changed and are changing our notion of space and time, just as film and television did in the 20^th century.” I think this basically sums up my point. 

“Games go even further; with the spread of the internet, online role playing games emerged that often have less to do with winning and losing and more to do with the cultivation of social communities and human networks that are actually extended into “real life”.

I experienced this phenomenon numerous times; twice in large scale both at the Battlenet Invational in Warsaw (where world famous players were competing for about 50,000 euros) surrounded by a crowd of cheering fans and also the DOTA competition in the Gamescom where prize money reached over a million euro for first place! and 150K for 8^th. I asked players round me who viewed this spectacle like as a sport (yes, its actually considered a sport! infact Starcraft II is the national sport of Korea) how they still enjoy games like world of warcraft to which I quote; “I like it because it is a social game where I can meet new people and make friends.” Hence the book is right when it continues to claim that “spaces of computer games range from two-dimensional representations of three dimensional spaces to complex constructions of social communities to new conceptions of, applications for and interactions between exsistent physical spaces.” It continues on the next page to put forth the idea that “communities emerging in games, after-all, constitute not only parallel cultures and economies, but also previews of the public spaces of the future.”

This suggests a phenomenal implication of the importance of games in our everyday culture, and already I think the point I am trying to get across about why architects should care about games is becoming more valid. After all, architects continuously speculate and research human behavior in public scenarios. Architects rarley (or if ever) get a chance of knowing what people will do and how they will behave. In games where specific experiences are sought, are thus controlled and specifically engineered to fulfill specific needs. Architects, while aim to control what humans are doing, even if is the notion of freedom in a building, i.e Fun Palace, never truly know what people will do and that’s not to say that architects don’t try to aim to hit certain targets; in fact pretending to know and accurately speculating what people will do is certainly the main obstacle architects deal with when selling their ideas! In gaming, because this challenge is basically non-exsistant, the spacial challenge moves past knowing what people will do and onto enriching and enhancing the sensations people will experience doing what they are basicaly controled to do (with the illusion of free choice perhaps) more and more. Yes, its true “people can feel bad, regardless of where they are”-Rem Koolhaas (I think), but  in games this is not the case. Spaces in games truly have the ability of changing emotions and behaviors, by controlling even the actions of the players and those of the NPC’s, thus using people as an actual architectural tool.

This is a huge difference between the two that I have only begun to realize in this investigation. Before I did see basic differences routed in social interaction, but so far, only in spaces in games can real people like you and me be used as a tool that can be easily controlled to effect the spaces in relation to even our perception of time. The book sums this up in saying that “computer game players also experience physical space differently and thus uses it differently.” I must confess I believe this quote may also go towards the real space around a player, because players occupy two different spaces, real and virtual, as Jesper Juul pointed out in one of my previous articles. Furthermore! This also goes to show that players experience two different sets of time and events, something that spacially can become very interesting, especially in what we call in the industry “Ubiquitous games” where the game unfolds in real space, fulfilling “not only the utopian dreams of the situationists, but also the early 1990s computer science vision of magicisization of the world.” 

But games have the potential to push the boundaries of physical space even further. The book claims that “Here (referring to ubiquitous games), a new dimension of the notion and use of the city becomes conceivable, one which has the potential to permantley change the composition of future cities. What happens when the spaces and social interactions of computer games are superimposed over physical space? What new forms and control systems of city, architecture and landscape become possible?”

It continues later on to claim that “for the players of cities can affect the lived environment and its occupants just as the building of houses can. In this sense playing is a serious medium that will increasingly form part of the urban planner’s repertory and will open new prospects for participation. Play cannot replace seriousness, but it can help it along…”

Hence the point is, both creative realms of architecture and game development are really not mutually exclusive. In fact I firmly believe that those game designers who really push the notion of lived environments in games to even those who simply concern themselves with the actions and reactions of players relative to and in relation to an environment and all that concerns the environment including and not limited to how the player in the real-world environments will conceive and react to these virtual environments… aren’t they thinking in what we conceive as architectural thinking too? I will have to agree with one of my interviews on this one, “as far as I know, level designers are architects”-Bennemann.

Interview with CD Projekts' Nikolai Szwed and Pawel Panasiuk

The Witcher II is a very notable game, as it was made by a developer which prides itself in being a perfectionist. Also the environment in the game, to me, felt not only very pretty, but helped the story and the actions of the NPCs' and me as they player flow really well, which is hard to accomplish in modern day rpgs'... hence there was a real sense of good design in this game, so I was very fortunate to get a chance to speak to two members of the team. 

First of all, fantastic game, I’ve played it, it’s really good, and I think one of the things that made this game really good was you know they say this game is about 40 hours long, maybe 80 hours with extra content. To me, it felt like far longer, and I think its because when you think about what you’ve done, like your memories in the game, their just endless, there are so many events!

Nikolai: Yeah well the main path is about 20-30 hours long but to actually get all the content of the game you need to play it at least twice or at least three times because…

Pawel: the thing is that you have the second act, okay, it has two paths Roche and Iorveth and a not many people know that the Witcher 2 has 16 endings in total

Wow..

Pawel: in total, and those endings depend on what you do; the first act, second act and the third and so it has 16 endings in total and to really know every single path of the game you have to play it at least 16 times.

So maybe I should go back and haha

Nikolai: Yeah its like um, an example, you have the branches of the second act are very big, its like a completely different game, but then you have the prologue, and to play the prologue in four different ways, four different paths to go because you can either save Aryan and then find him in the execution room or save Aryan and find him beaten and taken out by the soldiers or kill Aryan and find his mother Louisa at the executioner or find his mother to Chillard the guardian ambassador. So to really have all the scenes and everything from the game its you have to play it even more then two times. There are of course very major decisions you are making, but also like in real life there are many minor decisions who have consequences later in the game.

Pawel: if you want to play it, you know, in a very detailed way I advise you to make you a note and write down your paths and decisions, then when you play it a second time recall your previous decisions and for the third time again different decisions.

So its really built on your actions and decisions…

Nikolai: Exactly! Even the side quests might be done in completely different way for example you can kill the troll or try to find his wife’s murderer or for example you can give someone out to the authorities or help her run away, so there are many paths…

I’m going to direct this conversation a bit, I’m actually an architecture student so I’m very interested and I think it was very well done in the Witcher II, the level design and by level design I do not only mean the actual geometry and forms but also the way you guys manage to tailor to the NPC’s and how you use the NPC’s to guide the player in certain directions. 

Nikolai: well we have actually received the European games award some days ago, on Saturday I think for the best game world, it was the “Best Game World’ award. So this is of course, the game world is obviously about the levels, and I happen to think the world is very beautiful, the forests and so on.. but there is also we are very strict when it comes to details, there are also people working in our office. I think one of our concept artists actually studied architecture. So for example the castles, the towns, everything, even the clothes of the people are not designed from nowhere! Of course there are variations of what the actual people were wearing back in the day. But many of those elements were actually taken from books, or from sources. So we try to draw inspirations, there is also this Slavic feel to it.

Yes! I felt that…

Nikolai: Exactly so we tried to create an immersive environment.

You know when I came to Warsaw after playing the game; I was actually looking out for things that may have influenced you guys in the office… 

Nikolai: Yes! Exactly, when you have for example “Flotsam” the port part, there is actually a port crane in the game, and I do not know if you are aware of the port city here in Poland, of Gdansk.

Gdansk! Of course…

Nikolai: Well when you see the port crane, its actually pretty much the same as the medieval crane in “Flotsam”

So actually for Polish players, there is actually some recognizable objects which is actually kind of desirable. I know that many people didn’t like fallout 3, but one of the reasons it was desirable was because people could recognize and relate to many of the landmarks found in Washington to people in the US. The could re-experience some of the monuments in a different light… 

Pawel: we were really strict about the level design, you know, even small blades of grass, bits of leaves, treas. And we get together and if somebody doesn’t like it, we redesign it until everybody is satisfied, that’s why the level design is really something different…

I noticed some very specific decisions in the level design, I noticed that in the town Square of Flotsam, you have three people which you’ve watched hang when you first enter the town, but the issue is, is that they are left there even after, for your duration in Flotsam with Crowes lingering about, it was a very dramatic scene. Based on the fact that I noticed some extreme detail in the game, and that the bodies stayed where they were, it was clear to me that leaving them was a conscious decision. It was a decision right? Because it affected the town square in a very dramatic way… there would be this buetifall weather, and taverns, homes and then those three bodies left there to rot outdoors… 

Nikolai: We wanted to show the world as it was perhaps in the past, how criminals would be punished or something, they were left for the town people to mind them and to be reminded of the penalties for breaking the law, this was also our decision to make it so.

This is a personal question for you guys, what do you make of good level design, what do you think, what do you get from this game, personally? 

Pawel: To me, you have to get as close as possible to reality, you know, our forest, to me personally. I really liked it, and when you enter it and when you enter you feel really, like, in a  forest.

Nikolai: I can also say, that to me, our levels are really one of the most stunning levels in games in history. As Pawel already said the forests, but also the lighting, which is a very important matter, how its used to draw you and lead you.

I noticed that there were many areas, that the level design uses that makes you really aware of it or look at different directions, or lead the player. 

Pawel: If you really want to appreciate the level design in our game, you have to really walk in those places a couple of times: in the evening, in the morning, during the day.

And that’s what was smart, as this game wasn’t a linear game, like in a fps shooter when you push on and push on, so I think it’s important to create levels that make you see new things to keep it interesting. 

Nikolai: well, actually as you know, Witcher II isn’t a sandbox game, we have our levels which are queit big but are not as big as other rpgs’ or sandbox rpgs, but it allowed us to as you said focus on details and that all the elements that are in the levels have a real purpose. Even the example of the forest when you approach various ruins you can see that there are some signals that you are going the right way, various relics that are reminiscent of where you are heading. And many of these points of interest are also playing an important role in the plot and allow the player to go to the direction where we want them to go. 

Val: I was curious in the first level when you are playing during the siege, that was quiet contentious with reviewers, that it didn’t guide you enough, there wasn’t enough of a tutorial. And I felt that now you’ve announced that you’re adding a new tutorial. Do you know what decisions lead to first of all to having such a kind of throwing people in the deep end approach and now you are sort of going back and..

Nikolai: well first of all, the Witcher II is not an easy game, this is a very challenging game and it is also not so obvious today because a lot of developers are working to make games; easier and easier… and more accesiable. So we have made a more hardcore approach maybe, this was our decision but at the same time we were conscious that some players got lost a little bit, because the Witcher II is also a game that not everybody plays for fighting. The story is the most important thing and there were also some feedback that the fighting in the first part was too difficult for them, because it also is always a complex game.  So in this presentation actually we were also listening to the feedback of some of our players and that’s why we also decided to redesign the tutorial to help some existing players but also for new players who buy the game (for xbox and pc).  So that’s what lead to the decision and ofcourse this tutorial will be free because we also feel that this is our policy towards old players and new players alike. 

Val: are you redoing the current introduction sequence or are you adding a new tutorial before it?

Nikolai: I would not like to comment about this at this time, but you will find out in about a month… 

Going back quickly, last question; into the level design. To what extent to you think the enemies play a role in the actual level? I noticed that some were very specific like the dragon and the tower…

Pawel: Well not many people consciously realize this, but there are some different monsters, and different approach of monsters and different numbers of monsters and different points of the day. So there are some more monsters during night then during day. There are more Elven soldiers in the Urveth side attacking you during the day, and there will be fewer at night. But there will be more Nekers during night for example… 

Nikolai: Exactly, the question is to make the world believable, and its in making the NPC’s behave and have a real seeming purpose in the world that makes this. Many of the people living in the worlds communities have a schedule, they wake up and go fishing, I don’t know, the butcher cuts the meat and so on, this is the same case with the monsters. The forest as a level, doesn’t just act as a place for the spawning point of endless monsters. Again in the example of the first act where you have for example some quest where yuou have some quest to get rid of some monsters, and actually when you do that the monsters don’t spawn as often as they do when you first get into the levels. We also have some instances where monsters fight against each other because it’s not like every monster is against the main player. 

This makes you feel like the environment is more real… and revolves around with/without you… 

Nikolai: Exactly, exactly and as Pawel said, monsters who appear only at night like Drowners or only at day like Nekkers, are also a very important in the world.

But at the end of the day, this is all about gameplay and I felt like the levels were very specifically designed to accommodate an arena vs a certrain type of enemy. Like the… (I do a motion with my hand)

Nikolai: The Kyran? 

Yes that one is a good example!

Nikolai: Ofcourse as in every game we had some speciel enemies, like the dragon, the Kyran or the Drog. So ofcourse in such cases you also design the levels, to accomdaate the level to the monsters… because some of those scenes were also scripted, like the run from the dragon, you have the roofs over your head, to protect you from the fire. So in such situations its very clear how the NPC and the level work together and ofcourse to the story. 

These specifc levels are very important aren’t they? Because they give you a feeling of time. They give you a plot point in the game, which you know you’ve progressed…

Nikolai: Yes! Exactly, exactly… because they are some points in the game where you can move freely do some side quests so on, but sooner or later, you will return to the main plot. The decisions, you will see, the players make through the game have a reflections in the levels themselves. For example in act I when you decide to help Roche, there is a big feast with the soldiers in Flotsam. But when you decide to help Ioverth, the humans living in Flotsam will attack the non-humans there, and there will be a big pogrom. 

So it makes the environment much more real as it is reflected by your actions, physically… so its not that the levels are only built physically round the player but they are also malleable in a way and...

Nikolai: changing based on the decisions… this was also very important to us!

Makes you feel like you’re actually in the game….

Nikolai: So all those elements, the monsters, attention to detail, lighting, changing environments based on the decisions makes our world really believable and I think the “European Games Award” was rightly won for our hard work.