Form Follows Fun

I have continuously been highlighting some of the primary differences between architecture in games and in real life on my on-going quest to understand how social engagements are held between spacial situations in architecture in video games and reality.  So far I have noted down five primary areas where the two diverge and where the differences are made clearer. In summary I have these areas:

The first is perceived time, perceived time in real life architecture is something that can never be controlled directly but it can be distorted. I have mentioned several times about how in Amsterdam, time seems to flow faster in a typical street as you pass far more buildings (as they are narrow and tall). How a doctors waiting room can feel like forever to many of us and also how in the design of grocery stores, some designers are aware of this and use various techniques to control the way people perceive time to make them shop for longer. Consequently the diversion of playing a game in a different medium with rules and relationships to time affects the actual perception of time in the real world. Many gamers suffer from this, thinking they’ve only played for two hours when they’ve played for four. This also implies that perceived time in games as well as real architecture is used as a tool, or has the potential to be used as a tool, in order to target the users memory. This is done by designing moments that strike the user. This can become a very positive thing, as it directly affects the way the spaces are perceived. As we are all traveling through space with only two eyes, our impression of a space at the end of the day is built onto our memories. Controlling perceived time allows control over these memories that leave an impression on the user. In games I call these groups of memories, perceived events which in a way work as plot nuclei affecting the cognitive timeline of the game on our understanding of how long the game took. Similarly, we can relate this to landmarks in real architecture; journeys through a city are affected by landmarks which leave an impression distilled in our memories that work in the same way. 

This brings me onto my next point. Another look at time deals with the physical manner in which games are put into events. Physical time or “events” in a game are very specific things where spaces don’t age and are specific to the particular events that are taking place, which relates to the storyline. In games this can be done physically, in Prince of Persia sands of time, time is a tool used to win the game, as in Max Payne and Brink time is controlled by the player in order to tackle the obstacles more easily. 

               “Games are very often concerned with control, and in order to give it to their players, they need to make a very clear distinction between what is allowed and what is not. Space is defined as a place where the player can move or cannot, and the breaching of its rules is usually defined as a “bug” in a game, an error not foreseen by its programmers. Time is another defined entity. The rules that govern it dictate that it can be stopped; its possible to pause games or rewind them by saving and reloading. Max Payne also includes these genre-defining features of third person shooters, i.e the possibility to save and a strict control over the places that can and cannot be visited.” P. 71 space, time, play.

Spaces in games are tailored to be grouped into events (that effect our memories) closed of by loading intervals (or “memory gates”) which take loading time. In architecture time is very physical in a manner. The whole notion of “waste in Transit,” the fact that buildings uses change as we change as societies change. The notion that buildings fall apart and that spaces are never the same at any one moment. Or even the days, in which spaces are occupied, they are never the same in one hour as the next or at the same time as the next, because spaces in real life are affected by exterior contextual anomalies and variables of galactic proportions. This is a big challenge to architects because it also implies that much of the spaces made are speculative of the future. Time is of course one variable out of many uncontrollable elements architects have to take into account. This is no challenge in video games, as time is always in the presentence (even if the storyline brings the player back in time), the story itself must keep going for the game to end, and time is left to be played in the present moment (you can never play a game in the past or future of its coded contexts, that simply is physically impossible) but you can visit a building in the future and experience its change as a dependent on time.  

A video game takes place in two parallel spaces. To play a game you must occupy a real space as well as a virtual space. Jespuur Juul talks about this phenomenon in his novel (which for the time being I forget the name of, but it’s irrelevant for now J ). This has huge implications about the way the user perceives and engages real architecture as well as virtual architecture. The realization that you are in another world effects the way people behave in a game, and for some games such as Ubiquitous games which spill onto real space, this can become quite interesting, or as Mcggregor describes it; “A situationist dream come true!” The notion that dying in the virtual world is meaningless, allows people to behave in much braver more experimental ways in space. This is in fact, one of the reasons games are so fun to play! In real life, people are conscious across a wide array of variables; such as the taboo's and the social codes (no running around drunk, no yelling in the library, etc.). Thus the rules of social behavior are indeed different, and games can at best model those behaviors. This means that the social engagements that take place in games are designed as well. Designed social encounters implies that the NPC’s are scripted with an artificial intelligence, which also puts them in a position as an architectural tool in enhancing the spacial qualities of the “event,” in a game.

This notion of freedom of movement is another primary difference. The physical manner in which people behave in real architecture as oppose to architecture in games is nearly completely different. In games no movement is at all random. It maybe perceived as random, but in fact, it has been meticulously coded. Every jump and strafe, crouch and walk has been programmed by choice. This is because people who play games seek specific sensations and experiences which can be given. This also implies that spaces in games are not as much of a matter of speculation into people’s behavior as it is in real architecture. It is no secret, that an architect’s biggest challenge, the area on which ideas are made and sold is based around accurately predicting, promising and researching the ways people will engage with a building all the while not fully knowing for certain how people will behave in a building. This was the whole basis on which high-modernism was built, making flexible spaces where anything can happen, taking into account speculative future uses or a diverse range of activities. The problem with high-modernism is that in practice it never really suits any of those needs well as it isn't tailored to anything specific. In games, this is much less of a challenge, sought experiences and programmed movements for the players, allow the players to be more engaged and much more of an architectural tool then a nuisnence or a challenge. Also every space is made for the preent moment as we discussed as is thus potentially (if designed well) can acheive a standard of perfect tailorship to the actions and contexts of the game and narrative. Thus the challenge in developing spaces in games moves from dealing with speculating on how people will behave in a space, to fulfilling those experiences to the fullest. Where as in real architecture, it is the very physical spontaneous movements of people architects try to accommodate, “Naturel interaction, based on people’s spontaneous gestures, movements and behaviors is an essential requirement of intelligent spaces”-  Flavia Sparancino sensing places. 

This brings me on to the narrative. This can often be directly seen through any sort of engagement between the user and an object. This is made by the simple fact that in games all the characters are in fact fictional and used as architectural tools to expand on the game, where as in real life we see instances where the architect tries to engage the user directly with the architecture in a physical sense such as inside a museum, where art-piece and user are communicating on a more meta-physical level. Hence, by the simple fact that the narrative is recognized by designers as not strictly person-to-person I will expand this argument as such. In games social engagements are also often made as cinematic. They are often controlled, and are made to seem real by trying to encapsulate events through npc’s and direct the players’ actions through npcs. This engagement is literally core to the game as the way the player engages with the npcs’s is one of the strongest tools at a designers disposal to convince the player and make them feel like part of the games’ narrative, this yields a lot of fun. We are infact social creatures, and it is through social means that we enjoy living, ever since before we were strictly humans, but wondering apes. The need for sociality is embedded deep in our genes. That is not to say however that architects don’t expand on this. We have seen how in Peter Zumthors art museum, the subject of social interaction was the art piece, and it was displayed as such and differentiated from human-to-human social spaces. In architecture in real life, the narrative is often much more subtle, it is evident in historic buildings that have gone through changes in style (of life and art). In games, this kind of depth is cosmetic usually. Writing on the walls with messages, narrations by outside sources, radio signals and carefully planned objects that reveal a bit of the story. These are all controlled very directly. 

All this in summary is just me mentioning the five key areas; perceived time, physical time, dual space habitation, freedom of movement and narrative. I believe that these five key areas play an important role in the way social engagements are held between architecture in real life and in games. I realize I have not gone into depth in this article, but I will! Many of these claims can be backed up by some of my past articles and interviews, however! As long as I am convinced that what I am saying is true, I will continue to act critical of myself and continuously investigate these claims.