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.