Patterns Of Play

In this post, I will talk about “situations of play”, based on a paper by Georgia Leigh Mcgregor, a student from Sydney studying in the University of New South Wales, who like me is exploring the spatial implications of inhabiting a video game. I will discuss ideas and themes related to this post while covering my topic which explores the way we perceive video game environments in comparison to real world architecture in reference to our perception of time and the way social encounters affect and are affected by all this.

To play a game, you need some sort of contexts. These contexts have been fabricated and designed specifically to facilitate gameplay. This much has been made abundtley clear until now. Most game spaces are fictional; even if they happen in real places. Take for instance the landing of Omaha Beach in Medal of Honor and in reality. Both events are not exactly the same because in the game the developer needs to infuse a sense of fun that revolves around the rules of the game. Hence, the space itself will be different, even if it is reminiscent of the real place. However both events are real. The landing in Omaha Beach for the player is a real event, even though the world itself is not. The rules, the player is playing with are real as well, even if the virtual space itself is fictional. Hence all the engagements, interactions and encounters that are real are revolving around a space which is a work of fiction that is made to convince and appear as tangible as possible. In turn “Game space also feeds back into real space, where their intersection forms what can be termed as played space.” – Mcgregor.


Hence, the argument we have here is that game space, is indeed architectural. It is a space that facilitates events and behaviors much like real world architecture. The only difference is that the person inhabiting these virtual spaces are fictional characters which work as an extension of the user limited to specific behaviors that are fabricated and controlled by the developer.


These behaviors, according to Mcgregor form a list of “patterns” that use “architecture as a tool to unpack spatial conditions in video games.” She continues to explain the idea that game “space and architecture in reality express simple patterns of use that underlie a range of sophisticated activities that occur there.”- Mcgregor. It is no secret that in games our actions can be grouped into patterns, because they are so specific. They trigger the fundamental rules of the game because they are literally the buttons of the game; the things that make you “do” things. This engagement is basically an essential part of the “fun” in the game. What allows you to throw, kick, punch, run these are all the things that the player is playing with in order to enjoy. Hence, these rules are indeed patterns. The other argument that we have here is regarding the fundamental relationship between architecture in games and in real life… That in real life at some outlandish level, we are still limited to patterns because of the physical and mechanical behavior of our bodies. I outlined this difference in one of my pervious articles when I was comparing the spontaneous behaviors that architecture is trying to facilitate in reality and how in games it is more easily controlled through the implementations of controlling movement for the sake of play. We also saw in my interview with the Lead Level Designer from City Interactive how in making the game “sniper,” a lot of the environment was scripted in order to keep it alive. All the social engagements were a form of carefully outlined patterns of behavior that relate to the behavior of the player. Yet, the mere fact that architects try to predict movements and actions of users in buildings suggests that architects are aware of a pattern of use in reality at some level. “The activities of people in cities and buildings can be seen by patterns”-Robert Venturi.


Georgia brings up a children’s playground, which like games, tries to control the movement of the user in such a way as to infuse a sense of fun. Cedric Price’s Fun Palace, tried to do the same by giving the user absolute freedom into what he would hope would infuse a similar value he termed “delight.” Mcgregor argues that “A children’s playground is a spatial challenge; to negotiate their spaces is to go up, over, under and through extraordinary configurations of multi-colored components. A cricket pitch is a contested space on which a ritualized battle is played out, a competition that adheres to a set of special rules. A domestic house is a set of socially coherent nodes, where function is set out in familiar spatial arrangements of kitchen, bedroom and bathroom. To create or change a building is another form of activity”-Georgia. Hence it is clear that at some sophisticated level (in comparison to games) we are still using patterns when we use our spaces. A more direct example of patterns in spaces can be found in archetypal elements such as doors and windows that we open and close, even, periodically; when we leave for work/when we come back home. What I am interested is how these patterns may affect our perception of time. For instance a playground infuses fun which in turn, can create an environment where time seemingly “flies,” we have all experienced this! Or conversely waiting for ages in a doctor’s office which seems live forever. Breaking patterns, can be looked at as “special events” which create a sense of landing on time, in games I termed this as plot nuclei or the timeline effect. There is also control from external architecture; I mentioned the tall and narrow buildings clustered in Amsterdam, which make time seemingly move faster as you typically pass more houses walking down the street in comparison to other cities.


Now I have already mentioned a noteworthy author, Jespuur Juul, who in summary; claimed we as gamers occupy two types of space; or what Mcgregor labeled “game space and construct space.” This phenomenon is a clear example of how in turn we occupy two types of time; game time and real time. In games the world can revolve around a different clock than the one we are occupying in real life. This is one of the most fundamental examples of how time in games is controlled and how it in turn plays with our perception of time in games, and especially in the real world. Because playing a game and turning off your computer and returning to real life can often cause a sort of “awakening” to the gamer of how fast time moved in reality (it usually sucks).


I have outlined in one of my posts in the past how in the real world, this notion of the perception of time is indeed controlled in super-markets, in streets etc. But before I dig deeper I would like to establish that “game space is architectural in every sense of the word”- Mccgregor. Ernest Adams argues that game space is “imaginary space, it is necessarily constructed by human beings and therefore may be thought of as the product of architectural design processes” And indeed game worlds are spatial construct, made by distinct decisions that relate to contexts and the users themselves. Mccgregor has her take on this issue;


“Game space is a man-made construction, a built space often composed primarily of architectural elements. The architectural object can represent intangible concepts, operating as metaphor that contains and locates concepts in game space. As an integral part of game structure and organization, game space acts as a framework defining where we play and helping to configure gameplay.”


Therefore by extension, the developer has complete control over the way we perceive time in a game, in a sense even more so than reality, because in a game the developer has more direct control over what the player can physically do, where as in real world architecture behaviors can only be desired by the architect and rarely directly controlled.


More interesting, (and relating to my topic), Mcgregor continues, “architecture is about more than just building; it encompasses the activities that occur within them, including social interaction.” A notion I have been long exploring, the idea that architecture extends past its physical geometry and enables social interaction to occur. In game space, this is all directed towards gameplay. According to Alexander Galloway a professor of cultural and media at NYU, game spaces are held by a “cybernetic relationship between computer and hardware.” Mcgregor paraphrases “this relationship is manifest in gameplay in the action, reaction and interaction of player and game. Game space must be interpreted according to how it affects gameplay. The patterns of spatial use look at how game space and gameplay work together.” Thus it is seen how inherit in every game space is the gameplay, and by extension one cannot live without the other.


But to truly understand how social engagements occur in both game space and real space it is important to highlight the types of spaces that we find in games. The way these spaces have been defined was by relating them to real spaces.


Mcgregor explores the first which she labels “screen mediated games.” These types of games are perhaps the most common, where an interface on a screen is interacted by the player through a set of controls accessed physically by the player, and through speakers and perhaps even a microphone aurally. The screen frames the interface and thus acts as the base of the game itself. Mcgregor explains; “Game space also extends beyond the screen in what Mike Jones calls the macro mise-en-scene [18], so that game space is framed within the screen by the virtual camera. The artificial world is contained and bordered, isolated from real space. Played on consoles, computers and handheld devices screen-mediated games are historically dominant and remain the prevalent form of spatial projection.” She continues “Despite its separateness, screen-mediated game space is dependent on the conventions of real space and our experiences in it. Taking Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s notion of embodiment, in which body image is task orientated and where spatiality relates to situation not position, Bernadette Flynn argues that players are conditioned by their bodily experiences in real space [10]. Movement and navigation in game space reflects their counterpart in reality. Game players inhabit game space in a subjective manner and bring to the game world their corporeal history. Spatial practice in games then becomes a cultural act. This suggests a way in which designers and players, through their unconscious familiarity with socially encoded environments, bring spatial and social practices to the game world.” Thus it is interesting to see how game space is clearly dependent on real space yet poses the illusion of independent. This may also help explain the way in which the perception of time in games may be completely mis-interpreted. Furthermore, it is interesting to see how players from different sides of the world inhabiting completely different spaces may interact socially on screen in the same space and feel completely convinced.


There are of course games which push the boundaries of framed space in screen mediated games physically into real space. These are labeled “pervasive games” where mobile technology maybe superimposed in the actual room in what Carsten Magerkurth calls “location aware games which regard the entire world, the architecture we live in, as a game board.” Mccgregor brings forth two examples of this sort of game


“Triangler (TNO 2007) is a collaborative outdoor mobile game using GPS systems where three teammates attempt to form equilateral triangles with their bodies in the environment, enclosing enemy players. Players negotiate real world hazards as they follow player positions on their mobiles, where game space shares a direct relationship to real space.


Another form of pervasive gaming that overlays game space onto real space are augmented reality games like Human Pacman (Cheok et al 2004) which places virtual items into the real world. Using wearable computers and head mounted displays Human Pacman superimposes game objects and game patterns onto a predefined area of urban space. Players see both the real environment and virtual cookies, collected by physically entering the space that appears to contain the object. Gameplay requires the player to act within the real world and game space corresponds dimensionally to real space.”


The last type of game Mccgregor brings forth is “Ubiquitous games” which literally recognize the edges and boundaries of the framed space as a concept in the real space. An example of this, is the tamaguchi, a simulation of a pet that lives inside the contained frame of the console, interacting with it and possessing the illusion through diverse scripted animations to the player that it is recognized by this pet. Mccgregor labels this phenomenon as embedding and explains “Embedded game space can also occur when virtual objects are used within a specially constructed play space. An augmented tabletop game that uses a physically modelled landscape in conjunction with virtual inhabitants embeds gameplay in a contrived reality. Game space is placed within an artificial real space.”


Whats interesting in embedding is that unlike the screen-mediated games, ubiquitous games are mostly real-time and physically interact with real world rules perhaps. Hence all the social interactions possess a more aware realization on behalf of the player as it is as if the characters (such as the tamaguchi) are actually occupying space in the real world. Mccgregor brings up an even more compelling example;


“Another example is Pixel Chicks (Mattel), whose advertorial catch cry is a 2D girl living in a 3D world. Here a pixelated digital character is displayed over a plastic molded house, projected above the furniture. The pixel chick sits, walks and interacts with the real space of her synthetic home. Artificial game space is given an artificial real space.”
It is no secret and I established this in my storyworlds article that games consistently borrow things from the real world and re-apply them in the game space. Some of these types of games even go as far to physically inhabit the real world as we have seen. And as far as patterns of spaces is concerned we may see that games are very often reusing and modeling patterns found in the way people inhabit real space in game space. ¬¬¬
Mccgregor puts these patterns into a list:


“The prevalent patterns of spatial use are:


• Challenge Space: where the environment directly challenges the player.


• Contested Space: where the environment is a setting for contests between entities.


• Nodal Space: where social patterns of spatial usage are imposed on the game environment to add structure and readability to the game.


•Codified Space: where elements of game space represent other non-spatial game components.


• Creation Space: where the player constructs all or part of game space as part of gameplay.


• Backdrops: where there is no direct interaction between the game space and the player.”


Whats similar between all these patterns is the desire of the player to defeat the foe by the application of the game rules. And these patterns that we see go to show that there is a “strong correlation between where we play and what we play”- Ulf Wilhelmsson. And even more so the environments control how the game can be played and how the rules applied, such as physical movement. That is also not to see the environments ability to enclose game space cannot be turned into something meaningful that evokes a strong ambiance and do not necessarily have to be static but can even be turned into backdrops of cities and dynamic environments.


Mccgregor points out that the patterns of special use in games, are not necessarily prescriptive however, just like in real architecture;


“Rules give the game a range of possibility of play, how players actually use that space can vary from what the designer anticipated. Just as real spaces can be used differently from their intended purpose; patterns of game space can change through emergent gameplay. In reality skateboarders turn the safety of the shopping center into a challenge space, in virtuality players of Battlefield 2 can ignore the fighting for the sheer spatial thrill of base jumping. The patterns of spatial use are not prescriptive.”


This all goes to show that designed spaces in games truly implies architecture in every sense of the word, and can truly evoke interesting social interaction in many shapes and forms. Time as a fundamental variable, also, in architecture can be controlled more directly in comparison to real life allowing for the game to become more immersive. But most importantly in regards to this post we have seen how Jespuur Jules notion of players inhabiting game space and real space as a fact rather than as a concept. That games have this interesting ability to influence real space beyond the screen, and that video games have the ability to really utilize space to infuse fun.

Interview with Mikolaj Pawlowski, City Interactive Lead Level Designer

City Interactive is another Polish company I had the opportunity to interview. They are very large, and focus on games ranging from flying games, to a very popular first person shooter called Sniper. They are about to release sniper 2… I had the opportunity to interview Nikoli Pablovski who worked with this company for many years and is their lead level designer.

So what is it that you do?


I am the lead level designer; I am managing a team of level designers, but we are also rather like scripters as level designers, we also focus on things like the visual design, but mostly we are making the script in the game; we are putting AI, any scripted action; explosives to be final to the game.


Ok, how would you design around the NPC in a game? I mean obviously you say you work with AI


And the design itself as well…


Yeah, well through making the level design, how would you make the characters and the level design work together? What are some of the things you consider?


It’s about the engine really, we need to make events, and connections between any logic; if the character comes from over here (points to a side) the character will make an animation like this… and if he is over here and the player is here he will behave like that….


So it is quiet cinematic?


No, no, no, not always. You can have an AI like, actually I don’t know, to be honest there is no AI in any game, all of them are scripted, so it actually depends how you call it… so you need to design how they will behave on different events, so you need to prepare them for bullet rain, sounds near their head, footsteps, or any other ideas… how they will behave, so wright a script in our case allows the AI to start to work. We are putting as well for example, cooperative animations, other stuff like random behaviors, random animations aligned with random locations and objectives, or for things like ladders and gameplay elements that you need to figure out… Heavy machine gun stands and most the elements that the game allows you to use.


Yeah, and what do you think a good level design can achieve? What are the main criteria’s and things you try to do when you make a level? Like the aspirations or things you want to get at when you design a level?


To me, honestly, the battlefield… a “real” battlefield, it’s kind of tricky when you have lots of AI’s and they need to behave properly with each other. Some are friendly, some are hostile, and they are not supposed to take you, as the player, as the main target always. This is the basic problem with all of the games really, that the player is the main object to shoot at for the AI’s but still to have a “real” battlefield, you need to have the soldiers choosing their targets properly, “this is a hostile so I need to shoot him first!” or “this is a player, why to shoot him? He is a hostile like the others… he is not closer so I nead to shoot the closer guy…” But still the main problem with games is that they are starting to be shorter, and easier. I am a hardcore gamer so it’s starting to be annoying really…


Out of curiosity are you approaching this as more of a sandbox approach where you have an open level, or is it more linear and scripted, or somewhere in between?


Something in between, some of the elements are sandbox, others are more linear… You know you need to have what we call the “logic gates” to close the environment, to reload it from the memory of the console, so that it can be better graphics and that kind of thing. You need to put those logic gates when you need to wait for a guy or you need to be there and then you will have a cooperative animation, and that you cannot go back, just because of the performance.


Yeah, I find that in sniper, because it’s a sniping game. The level design is quite different because the terrains are so vast.


This is the biggest issue, probably, there are no other games, like that and the biggest issue is that you need to have life in this area also where the enemy is. Normally, its quiet easy, you just run and gun, with close combat, the guys can be dumb, really, they just need to shoot. But in the big distances you need to script them or make them behave properly for a much more…


Large environment…


Yeah, large environment and still they need to do something… until you shoot! So, it’s a challenge, really… because they need to repair a car or something, they need to do something in the environments, they need to live in those areas as you are watching them.


And I guess in this game this is important, because you can revisit the same spaces quite often that you can walk backwards and forwards in the same space, so you want to keep it alive. It’s not like in Doom, where you just keep going and keep going, here you can go back…


Yeah, you can revisit everything so…


It has to be kept alive


Yeah, this is the biggest challenge…

Gamescom...

Being the generally awesome adventurer that I am, I decided to travel onwards from Warsaw to Cologne with a dea friend (who also happens to write games) and speak to some of the people which design those very gameswe so love.   

Interview with Tim Willits, Creative Director and co-owner of id software

id software need no introduction. Being at the Gamescom I had the opportunity to get an early look and play their all new game "Rage"  in assosciation with Bethesda which also exhibited some major new titles such as the Eldar Scrolls V and Prey 2. So this was clearly a good opportunity to get some insight into their view of my topic. I have to admit, level design has always been a strange thing in Bethesda’s games, because they literally create worlds with many cities that you can revisit, and that are very non-linear: meaning the player can wonder around relatively freely in comparison to other first person games. In Bethesda's worlds there are many specific micro environments that revolve around specific missions… (Like in caves and castles). I have always been a fan of the aesthetic quality of their level designs but never truly of the actual geometric makeup, because I often found that it didn’t carry so much suspense and was generally generic in terms of gameplay quality. Just like in architecture, a game needs to follow a sense of function, in games this is aimed to achieve fun. Now, id have basically invented the genre of first person shooters starting with Wolfenstein and releasing very popular titles such as the Quake Series and the Doom series. I found that their level design is not only historically significant and highly influential but usually very playful and straightforward. So getting an early look, playing this not-yet-released hybrid company game and speaking to somebody who specializes in level design from the dawn of first person shooters was a real treat. If you google Tim Willits, you will find him all over the internet, and find that he worked on basically every Quake game, Ultimate Doom, and Doom 3.

source

So what to you is the difference between architecture in reality and architecture in games?

So to me students of architecture, what I found, focus on the functionality and how practical a space is which doesn’t necessarily work well in game design. But, students of architecture can focus on making composition pieces, facades; they can construct the framework of a level. Then once that framework is established than you can put on your level design hat and focus on the gameplay space, because things in games aren’t necessarily realistic but their much more fun…

They are made for gameplay rather than function…

Yes, you know like architecture books that I have and that the designers have at work, we use those to copy styles, to get ideas, that sets the framework but you don’t want to get too hung up on realistic architectural design because then your game space will not be as fun as it can be…

I would just like to add, I was looking at a blog online and part of the reason people really loved fallout 3, was because some of the spaces people encountered re-interpreted the way they perceived those spaces, like a pile of junk could be a home to vicious raiders. That was quiet interesting, I mean; I don’t know if you wanna…


Em, yes, um…


It’s the whole idea of reinterpretation, also some of the buildings, you know.. in Washington, some of the reason players, especially in the US, I would say more so, than Europe liked it, was because they could recognize many of those buildings


Yes, and they liked to explore them and see what happens


It was like completely re-interpreted! It was like a new way of re-exploring those environments…


So again, I would as an architectural student, again, would always keep that level designer hat on, when developing your space


Right


Yes


So what do you think is the main kind of attribute of a level designer, what is the main thing level designers focus on…


Fun.


Fun?


Fun, that is the key, trust me, you know I’ve made, a lot of levels, all the way from Quake 1, and you know: good flow, good design. Maps either have like a theme, maps either have like a visual setting or maps have some kind of a gameplay mechanism.


Okay…


You know, figure out what you want to do, figure out what you want to accomplish in the map, build to that and then use your architectural studies too make it look pretty, because if you can make it look pretty and you get people’s attention they will “accept” where they are and the experience will be more rewarding for them.


And last question, what do you think the role of the NPC’s are in the environment?


Oh they help create setting, story, they drive the action they make you feel like there are other things in the world, make you feel like a part of a larger story, that you are a key character in this larger story, you know that you are not just the “lone gunman…”

Battlenet European Invational

Over the weekend, the biggest names in geekage from all across the world got together to compete for more than 50,000$ playing Starcraft 2 on Saturday, and World of Warcraft on Sunday for the equivalent prize money. This event happens once a year and funny enough this year it came to Warsaw, Poland, so I said, "Why not, go there get some interviews, talk to some geeks." 

Well, arriving at the location, it was a giant huge mall in the center of Warsaw, I went to the information; they had no idea what event I was talking about. I walked everywhere, in and out of the mall, a good hour or two, nothing!

Finally when I was on the verge of giving up hope, I spotted a geeky looking kid and said, "he'll know!" He was vicously testing out a golden permanent marker on the back of a piece of paper, (probably for some autographs). I told him "Do you know anything about the Starcraft 2 event thats happening?" he told me to follow him, we went to the top of the mall where a giant futuristic semi-circular glossy frame punched into the wall with neon letters about 3 meters high that said "BATTLENET INVATIONAL" I couldn't help but awe at the site of the room inside, the event itself was spectacular, the posters, the artwork, made me realize how wonderful the life of hardcore geeks must be. 

But as far as interviews went, it was a bit harder then I anticipated. No other game company has a fan base as geeky and loving as Blizzard, who have the ability to make games so addicting players dedicate their livelihoods to those games. Yes, these players make money, they are considered celebrities in the geekworld and everybody (except me) knew them... They do this for a living competing against one and another, with cool names such as "Thorzain" or the "Drunken Terran". Anyways, I thought I'd make the most out of this event and get some words from the developers.

However, just asking for an interview with one of the developers was a real pain, "we get hundreds of these requests a day" the press coordinator told me after I spent about an hour just trying to get in touch with him. He gave me his card, shook my hand and told me to drop him an email, maybe I'll get a reply, maybe I won’t. He said if you wait till the games are over you maybe able to exchange words with one of the players, maybe...

Another lady working for Blizzard told me, "look, if your doing research you really should talk to the players, their super friendly and will gladly talk to you." Well, I decided I wasn't going to wait till 11PM after the games were over to talk to them, because I HAD A LIFE, I barged my way to the back found myself in the spotlight. I jumped at the opportunity to talk to what looked like the dorkiest kid there with logos of various computer companies. "Are you a player?" He looked at me like I should know him, I told him the research I was doing, that I wasn't from the press and that I just needed five minutes of his time when he can. No words, I told I am just researching about architecture in games to which he replied "I don't know what you meen about architecture in games," and walked off. To be honest I may have gotten a different reply from a world of warcraft geek, because being a starcraft 2 player which is really a strategy game, or maybe the word "architecture," was too not fun sounding, whatever it was, he wasn't very social towards me. Nonetheless, I was so furious at his remark, all the while thinking, "What does he meen, what do I meen Architecture in games?" I was also furious at the difficulty of getting one opinion from anybody there that I decided to sit back and review the spectacle from an anthropological stand. After all I was researching FPS and this whole event was really not a FPS event, so what the hell!

Anyhow, it was reviewing the reaction of the audience, the faces of the players when winning and the adrenaline, that I realized that this was indeed an amazing event. These players were merely tapping some keyboard buttons and clicking the mouse and making amazing things happen virtually. This was the modern day version of gladiators. Players killing themselves virtually, losing, winning the awe, the spectacle, the dedication of the fans to sit their for hours upon hours.  

A famous historian wrote on an article here in Poland, that "History is about people and places, not dates of victories and defeats," -Woloszanksi. 

And indeed Woloszanksi couldn't be more correct, this was all about these players and the places there were in, both in the real world and in the virtual world. They were making very spacial decisions inside the game, (like in any game) but what was speciel her was how their decisions extended past the screen spacially and reached to the crowd that would be cheering for the virtual choices these players were making at such a massive scale. This was proper social engagement, virtually, realistically, in every possible way. These virtual environments allowed such a social manifestation to arupt around me that I was very glad, that at the end of the day, I really got out what I neaded by just sitting and watching and talking to geeks around me. This wasn't a FPS and so it wasn't directly relevent to my research in terms of game typology. However what this did show me was the ability a game has to extend and to reach out in the spacial environments, from virtual to real. This was the carrear of these players, they spend most their lives occupying a world that is fictional (in their heads) and turning into money in the real world. These people are immersed in another world, and we, in this world are following their actions. This is a whole new level of social interaction. Players around me who I spoke to and I asked "Why do you love world of warcraft so much?" Replied, "becuase its so social! and the worlds are so creative..." These players are willing to dedicate their lives to these worlds, and I bet, if they could, they would jump right into the wolrd in their screens without looking back... 

Anyways! I plan on getting more interviews, and I recently found a essay by an Australian architecture student specifically about architecture in games that I will talk about in the posts to come!

Below my friend print-screened me from a live stream of the event online. I'm inside that circle....

Interview with Maciek Matusik content artist and story developer for Flyingwildhogs

Meeting this guy for the first time was quiet something, when he told me to look for a big guy in a military uniform, I knew already that I was interviewing a veteran of the gaming industry. Maciek worked in many companies, in big titles like, "Sniper," now him and his company "Flyingwildhog," are releasing their first game ever "Hard Reset" a FPS which I am sure will be a big deal! Below, is a teaser trailer, below that, a link to the game trailer (for some odd reason it won't insert), and below that the interview!

Gameplay Trailer

Interview with Maciej, developer from FlyingWildHog

In 2002 a noteworthy architecture critic said the role of architecture in games is simply cosmetic, I believe quite a bit has happened over the past decade, what in your opinion is the role of architecture in games today, and where will you think it will head?

Depends on what you do really, if you create a sci-fi world your inspirations are various, like you can create something from scratch or you could get inspired by something from the real world which helps you gather good references to create and recreate items for the games world. It varies on the kind of game, really... and what the player does... for example between rpg's or first person shooters.

Well in rpgs it’s different, because you can revisit the same environment where as in fps that never really happens, you never really revisit the same spaces, I mean sometimes you do....

Well sometimes you do

But it’s usually different, I mean the game has a timeline right?

Yeah

You need to progress the story right?

Yeah

If you go back to the same space its never really going to be the same, its going to be different

mostly, yes

And sometimes it’s used differently…

Yes, yes, yes, in FPS you usually push on, but you can sometimes go back

Well, if your lost or something or you can’t find your way…

No, no it could be a planned event, like retreat or something like that, we call this mechanism the script, like when you press the trigger something begins to work in the space

Right…

And then the game orders you to retreat for instance, then you come back to the same space and something entirely new happens… the other thing is that walking forwards and backwards in the same level allows you to create longer gameplay; I mean the game feels longer.

What do you think the major considerations of level designer are when designing a game?

It depends on the firm first of all, we make something we call a maquette which is a simplified environment, like simple blocks, cones. Let’s say we get a draft of a level and then we think how to create interesting gameplay, where to place events and how to lead a player through the environment. Sometimes we create ideas like collapsing buildings, we call this a special event.

In short and briefly what captivates you in a good game? What does it do? How do games become addictive?

First of all, I am interested in stories, it’s very important to me; I am not a typical player. Some players just push on, shoot targets; push on, shoot targets that is how it scrambles in their case. To me personally, I like to question why I am here? what am I doing? what are my orders? who are my enemies? and such things… So the story is very important to me, personally….

Why are first person shooters such a big deal? Why do people enjoy them?

Because your able to be fully immersed in a completely new environment that your able to explore…, it never gets old because you get to be somebody new...

It used to be that good graphics were the big thing, now I hear people saying good graphics are nice but they prefer the gameplay… What do you think constitutes good gameplay?

Well I think we may establish this as a rule, that people are generally attracted to good gameplay and for me the social interaction and the shooting is very key. Games should be fun and convincing; sometimes it’s done through the AI. That’s not to say that graphics aren’t important, it takes a team with a lot of skill to create convincing graphics. But at the end of the day you need a good story, good gameplay, interesting environments, events, people…

Have you seen the new Battlefield 3 trailer by any chance?

Yeah

Have you seen the way the characters lead you through the environment, there’s a lot of interaction…

Well yes, actually that’s an entirely different approach from our work, "Hard Reset", take a look, its built on a lot of visual impact; it’s an entirely different world, a cyber-punk world, where we make entirely different weapons, equipment and building environments, it’s a recreation so we have the privelage to create a new world work, with new rules and such, I’m the story designer, but I also create weapons and textures for the game…

So your inspirations do they come from the real world?

Sometimes, yes…

Is it just inspirational, or is there certain things you’re trying to trigger in the player?

Trigger?

Ok, let me give you an example, do you know fallout?

(tilts his head back and makes a wild eyed expression signaling, “obviously”)

Obviously

Very good game

Ok, some players online were talking about it and what they were interested in was how you that game re-interpreted the way they can perceive the environment, like a pile of junk can be a home for a vicious raider. Or just take you know..

Eh are we talking fallout 1, 2 or 3?

Three, sorry

Ah, that’s not fallout…

Fair enough we'll get back to that, but what I am interested in, actually, is the way they used recognizable buildings from Washington to trigger memories and that’s what kept players really interested in that area, I don’t know it’s just a strategy....

Perhaps for you as citizens

Haha, fair enough…

I think the graphics in fallout 3 was lousy

That’s true it sucked…

A big one

But it was fun?

Naaah, look, in fallout 1 and 2

I never played it so, I was eager to buy it on steam but…

You should, it’s a fucking milestone

Really?

It was brilliant, because the limits of the graphics forced you to use your imagination, you saw a simplified world, but in your head it was real!

Wow

And that was a major impact...

And how do you think they achieved that?

Through creating an inspiring story and world, it was this holistic design, it was a retro future. At first glance, the world is quiet strange and after a while it grabs you.

Right, I guess its like a story, you know, they say “let the reader use their imagination…” they kind of give you a hint, and then you actually get even more into it…

Yes, it works like that, I believe…

To me a good game leaves me with memories after I am done playing, how do you think this may be achieved in general? What makes moments, and events memorable?

Once again, creating very characteristic locations, characters and events… and if something unusual happens and I don’t know, like the dragon, for example, from the Witcher 2; huge bitch dragon trying to eat you up in a confined space, you’re going to remember that battle because the character and the environment was challenging.

Do you know Half life 2?

Yes

A lot of people really like the moment when they were playing with Dog…

Yes, yes, yes very good animation.

And the reason some people liked that was because it was very memorable, because yes, it was a very specific environment it was like a junkyard and that kind of matched Dog’s style, so it was an immediate aesthetic kind of unity but at the same time there was that animation and that interaction…

That and another cool thing in this particular scene was a robot behaving like an animal.

Right

It looked it like a robot but it moved more organic.

What experience do games have over in spaces that real world architecture does not? Why do people want to experience games?

Because in games they experience things that are entirely different in real life, for example in games you shoot people, seldom, rather. I mean I shoot people in real life, but its an airsoft game, similar experience... but you don’t KILL people.

A lot of people think that anything is possible in games? However would you say there are things games cannot achieve that real architecture can, or is this really the case?

Well, no, For example in our game we have the core, it’s a 5km high building with pillars and hangers and its like you know, insane, I don’t think our technology in real life can build things such thing now. On the other hand, in games you’re limited by the computers power, number of triangles, but that too gets better over time. So kind of like the real world, games are also always pushing limits. But at the end of the day games are built to support gameplay... thats a different approach then environments in real life...

What do you think the key elements are in making an environment convincing? Even if it’s very stylized or artistic, how do you make the player forget where he is and sink into the game?

First of all you have to synergize, if you take a level, and you take it apart, explode it, take the single assets they should match together, if they don’t match, they’re worth fuck all. If a game doesn’t follow its own rules it doesnt sell, it needs consistency. And the other thing that is very important is the overall quality of the assets themselves, if their visually attractive, if they work, then great!

One of the things I am specifically researching is time, the way it is used and distorted in games (specifically first person shooters) into what we call events. In reality where we may experience spaces that never really change over time, or spaces that feel like forever (e.g doctor’s office), in games this notion of our perception of time has the ability to be controlled very specifically. How would you say level design plays into that? And how would you say it controls this whole notion of distorting time…

They have full control over it, if the events are challenging, if you have to save and load often, it feels longer. An overall trend for the hardcore players, weekend players and monthly players is that if the game is challenging and the events are powerful it will be memorable; if not, even the hardcore player will forget those moments. Also if it’s not tactile, if it’s not unique its worth nothing, becuase it won't stick….

What are the primary roles of the NPC’s in games? What do you think the NPCS add to the game that goes beyond the dialogue?

Very hard question, because there is not a straightforward answer. But I think the best thing that you can achieve between you and none player characters is interaction! And most games, NPC’s are still dumb they are just following you. You know if you’re looking at your teammates, (the people that back you up), sometimes they’re just not doing anything… and I draw a conclusion that they are not necessary. You need the interaction!

To what extent would you say the level design is affected by the NPCs movements/actions and also specifically to the players interaction with the NPC?

In battlefield 3 there was a clear implication, when they crawl; you crawl, the impact is huge. It’s like in the real world; If your being shot at and the guy in front of you gets shot, you hit the deck. I know this from real experience. It’s something like instinct, so the way the NPCs behave in that game draws on your instinct and that also makes the environment more memorable because you as the player are interacting with the NPC and there is a relationship to the world that goes beyond dialogue. And the game draws at your instincts to use the environment to crawl if you’re visible, to use the walls the barriers to protect you. And when the NPCs begin to convince you it works like the real world, when they look in a direction, shoot in a direction it makes you want to do the same and then you start to consider them as real people, you are convinced.

One of the major differences I find between architecture in reality and in games is the way the player interacts with the environment physically. In half life for example they put a lot of effort into the bounce-back of the crowbar to give the player a “feeler” into the game, this was quiet a big deal at the time; but at the end of the day we are limited to mouse and keyboard? Would you say games aim at limiting the interaction of the player with the environment? Expanding it? Controlling it? (Some games don’t even allow you to jump)…

First of all we are not limited to mouse and keyboard. You have certain controllers like something that looks like a gun, you have the wii which recognizes certain movements, and the Microsoft connect, this gives the player the opportunity to interact with the environment directly, damage the environment. There is actual physics involved, things bounce, things move, things break, things weigh, this gives you a much more realistic experience…

I am going to play devil’s advocate for a second, because at the end of the day, games also have a story that they need to follow and things that they need to do, let’s assume we have the tech. to let the player do anything they want, do you think it may damage the story? Get in the way? You want to control it as well no?

I think that it can, yes, because the main topic, the main importance of the game, is to force the player to do what he wants to do, if you give him the opportunity to do anything, giving him a free hand entirely, creating such a game would be extremely complicated because you choose to make a game, you choose what to show, what to buy….

Also, if we just make it like real life, it won’t beas fun, obviously. There is a reason you play a game and it’s because of specific experiences…

Yes, many things of games are simply fake… for example, environments, buildings, sometimes if you see a front wall of the building, bricks, whatever, its just a plain surface, they is nothing in it. If you gave the player the opportunity to move inside every building, you will need to create the buildings' interior, so you would have to re-create the whole world and having no choice in what to create and what not to create, it would be extremely complicated and this would be a huge bitch to pull off.

Jespur Jull another game critic pointed out something very interesting: I will read you what he said, he was reffering to a book he was writing called “Half-real”

"The Half-Real of the title refers to the fact that video games are two rather different things at the same time: video games are real in that they are made of real rules that players actually interact with; that winning or losing a game is a real event. However, when winning a game by slaying a dragon, the dragon is not a real dragon, but a fictional one. To play a video game is therefore to interact with real rules while imagining a fictional world and a video game is a set of rules as well a fictional world." -Jespur Juul

Would you agree with what he said?

Yes, but to me this begs the question of mental stability, if your imagination is very vivid, and very strong and you consider things that are in the game, real, it’s your problem, but it’s a problem… You should always be able to tell the difference between the real world and the fictional world, otherwise…

You go off shooting people…

Yeah, I actually experienced that once, I don’t mean shooting people, buut I was playing fallout 2, I was playing 22 hours or so, without eating sleeping and my friend called me and said “hey come over…”

Was that the last time you heard of that friend?

Haha, no anyways I got dressed, I went to the tram station, I grabbed my smoke and then I realized I didn’t take a lighter. So I looked around, I saw a lady, I came over and said, in English (because the game was in English) “Excuse me, have you got a lighter?” and then I slapped myself, in my head, I mean, and I asked her again in Polish, and she gave me a lighter, I lit my cigarette, and then! I was at the very edge, the very edge of asking her “tell me about this place?” which is a standard dialogue in fallout…

You know what! I’m sure this has happened to me, I’m very oblivious, I also, I used to play doom, my mom couldn’t get me off the computer! Thats a funny thing actually I learned most my English from playing games, maybe that’s why your English is so good as well! Just a thought!

Yeah, you know I actually passed my English exam during my university career quoting fallouts intro., the lady asked us to sit down and talk about a book, then I realized I didn’t aaand I started to think what to do, and I told her the book I am going to talk about was fallout, she asked what is that book about, and I answered, “The book is about war, war never changes…” and I quoted the whole intro and I passed…

Hey if it works it works right! I’m sure she like started crying, that’s amazing, anyways! Moving on, Basically I was just curious, because I have a blog and some guy posted on it this link and I’ll send it to you, my friend thinks its fake, anyways! Its these guys and they have this technology that turns polygons into atoms..

Atoms

Atoms yes,

Well I’m not very technical

No that’s fine! and apparently they can put an unlimited number of them, and it looks real, there’s no triangular surfaces everything is as it should be… So you can actually

Yeaaah I heard about it

And then this other guy online thought it was fake

Noo its not

Unlimited though?

No, I wouldn’t say unlimited buut.. almost

Like you can run it? It will run fine?

Yeah, I think so, you see the real issue is that’s its not standard, you see industry uses standard, if something is not standard

Everyone will attack it or?

Everyone will attack it and its not very usable, because its not standard

Well apparently it works with 3ds max, but anyways I’ll send it to you because I have your email.. but my question, my point! Again one off those general cheesy questions but I nead your quotes, your opinion, What is the implication of upgrading my computer for a game? As computers get stronger, graphics improve our ability to do everything expands, what do you see happening in the future? Will games become more grounded and strive to be closer to reality? What will we see happening? What kind of spaces will I be able to experience?

It depends on many many factors, the first thing is optimization, a good should be optimized, sometimes you see a game that doesn’t look good and it crashes. You have a slideshow instead of full movement, but I don’t think there’s any limit, it will develop, there is no end of this. Geometries in games that are heavier, and they will be heavier, the interaction will become bigger and bigger, worlds, textures bigger and bigger, I don’t think there’s an end...

 
Well let’s say, hypothetically we reach a point where we re-model our entire Earth, every detail, every molecule, would games basically still be the same? How will the experience in a space change?

By all means no, I said I wouldn’t put my name on the thought that anything is possible, but let me think…

Well games still have to have rules as well, they still have to limit things they do...

Open world game, entirely free choices, as I said before, it would be a bitch to pull off, I meen production and the other thing is that game wouldn’t be so interesting

It wouldn’t would it?

Like in case of sims, it’s a lame game

I know its fun for a week, Funny enough it was made to simulate people in spaces, it was made for architectural purposes as a tool…

Really? What?

Yes it was made to be a simulation, to see how people behave, but back then they didn’t have such good AI so they just turned it into a game, I mean you can see that in sims, if there is a plate on the floor, they can’t walk over it, they don’t know how… well in sims2 they can but you still see that their like getting ready, bracing themselves to walk over the plate, its hilarious...

I just don’t get how this game is so popular, you take a dump, you get ready, you go shopping and that’s it! Nothing really happens

You know what! Your absolutely right, I get sims, I play it for about a week, but you know what takes it away from me! The fact that I have to control the sim, I just like building the house and watching things happen in it, that’s whats fun, but controlling when the guy goes to sleep, that’s boring! I have to confess, when I was a little boy I used to play with Barbie doll houses…

Same here

Really?

Yeah

I used to have fun organizing the furniture, I used to love all that stuff and that’s what sims was for me,

Arranging space

now I have to make sure this guy doesn’t starve to death, its as if I am avoiding the special events

If anything I have more fun making sure he does die

I like killing them! It’s a bit more entertaining, not because I am some sadistic maniac, and that’s certainly how the game makes you feel if you do, its because nothing happens! Ever!

Yes, its because the main value of the game is to be someone you are not, somewhere unique, you take your full armor and your giant sword and you slay a dragon…

Yes, and that’s why a real game exactly like real life would be shit, although I have to tell you and this is actually quiet an interesting thought, I’ve always wanted and I’ve never bothered to make this, but when I was in school or you know I live in a town outside of Amsterdam, its called Amstelveen, I would love to play a game that’s inside my town, simply because I could recognize things you know?

Yeah..

You know it’s the same thing, and I was talking about fallout 3, and I know you said you didn’t like it, well one of the reasons people liked that game, was because for people who have been to Washington and have seen those things, and then they re-exerpience those in a different way, to them that’s like great!

I think the game in post-apocalyptic would be interesting, I think so yeah, I know… Although it wasn’t a good game,

I think, because the NPC’s were just so plain, so boring,

they did not interact with you, I did not like the game…

By the way, whats your opinion of Minecraft!?

(He’s about to laugh)

Oh! C’mon! Seriously? What’s your opinion?

Its an entirely differnet approach…

I know right!

It looks abysmal

It looks like shit!

It looks like shit, but at the same time somehow cool, I’ve never played it but I’ve seen my friends spending hours, because in the office we play often, because of the production now, but I think its because of the feeling

The environments are so cozy and you can really interact with friends, and build together

Yeah and I think that’s why it works well despite the graphics

You know and this was what I was trying to bring up, I think there was a moment and It may have been 3-4 years ago where graphics was really the big deal, I feel like now, I mean its more, I mean you see things like Minecraft…

Yeah

And graphics, don’t get me wrong are still important, but instead of being like 30% important its more like 20%, people are more convinced by like, well the NPC’s, I mean we’ve both seen battlefield 3,

Yeah it’s because it’s like getting back to the important roots, we’ve done this, our game is hardcore, old-school shooter, we actually don’t allow jump, we don’t have crouch

Yeah! That’s what I am saying your controlling the… Why didn’t you allow jump or crouch!? That’s what I ment your controlling the way the user interacts with the environment…

Because it was necessary, because our levels were designed in the way that allowed you to really immerse in the gameplay and really focus on your goals, buut if you see a huge obstacle, you can shoot it and it explodes….

Sounds a bit like doom?

Yes, it’s a nostalgia game

Doom damaged my brain, I think, I used to dream about it… I used to dream I was in doom and I would wake up like o shit,

Yeah same here, and actually my fiancé played medal of honour

That was a good game

Yeah, and the scene of landing on Omaha Beach, crouching behind cover, behind obstacles behind heavy fire, mortars firing, everything happening at the same time, and she finished this level and we went to bed and I was reading, she went asleap. Then she started to crouch, sleeping, behind me, she started to crouch behind me…

That’s so funny!

And I was like, what the hell are you doing? And she answered, “they are shooting at me.”

Wooow, that’s crazy,

Yeah some games, just really stick with you

Memorable

Yea

(end of interview from here)

storyworlds: from movies to games to real life and the other way round

On one of my previous articles I discussed the difference between movies and games in regards to the environment. I was particularly interested in the notion of whether the artificiallity we sometimes find in movies is intentional in games. I felt that, the article response was a bit weak becuase the nature of the topic was very ambigous and broad.

However, today I am taking a slightly different look at the two, specifically how games are made of movies, and how that may change the story or alter the perception of the story. I will base this off one of the blogs I am following online SOURCE by Martin Nerurkar and try to weave in ideas that regard social interactions in the encapsulation of the "event." This article was a reaction to a very major multimedia expo that is currently happening in San Fransisco involving major industry leaders from movie and game studios. They are all focusing on what we call "narrative design," or in other words "story worlds."

In the article, a speaker by the name of Marie-Laure Ryan listed themes that constitute narrative-design, they were as follows;


-An inventory of existents


-A space with certain geographic features


-Physical laws


-Social laws and values


-Events. A history of changes that happen in the narrative


-Mental events

Most of these I have already mentioned and covered, but it is important for the sake of establishing conections within gaming and films to re-annalyze some of these themes. You will notice that in this list, there is a clear notion of the importance of time, ("events"), rules as was mentioned in the last article "physical laws," and "inventory of exsistents" social importance e.g encounters (social was and values) and the users interaction with all this "mental events." Basically my entire investigation narrowed down into a list! From here I am going to wing it...

One of the key ideas that the article seemed to moniter was the "story", that much like vernacular design, some stories have developed and manifested further through the transition of media. I will bring to light a personal example: Alice in Wonderland. Now I have actually just recently finished reading this insanley popular book because it came free with my android tablet (so I was kind of forced to read it, being a fan of adventure and strange new environments). It was from the very begining chapters that I began to understand how some of the themes I was exploring, particulary memorable moments in architecture that revolved around social encounters, helped in making this story exactley the brilliant story that it was.

It it also wasn't as if the author, who wrote this amazing novel in the late 19th century didn't realize the importance of that as well, in fact it was perhaps one of the major notions of this novel. Take the first page, where Alice is sitting on a green pasture;

"once or twice she had peeped into the book her sister was reading, but it had no pictures or
conversations in it, 'and what is the use of a book,' thought Alice 'without pictures or conversation?'"

This basically goes to show the authors argument, that a good story, like a good game, or like a good movie, or like a good book (in this case) should have some level of social interaction to be appeasing to us (as social creatures). Following this, Alice falls into her epic adventure where she meets the strangest creatures and has the strangest arguments in the stragents environments that are broken up into what seems like a million individual events that keeps me turning the pages and keeps me reading more and more. Thus, it is clear to me now how relevent this novel is in my investigation, becuase it argues and abides by all the arguments and notions I brought forth; that a good game should be memorable, it should instill events in our brain, and meaningful social encounters in quality environments.

Reading the article the writer mentions a person named Jason who narrowed down narrative design into two familiar strategies, expansionst and the other "fold in on itself to provide denser information about the character themselves, to help viewers get into their heads." We are comapring Lost to Breaking Bad....

"The former is expansionist, where the transmedial material expands on the world an adds new histories, characters and events. The Breaking Bad material on the other hand aims to “fold in on itself” to provide denser information about the character themselves, to help viewers get into their heads."

Now it is clear to me that The Adventours of Alice in Wonderland were clearly expansionist, just think about what we started with (basically just Alice and a rabbit) and what we ended with... also, I am not bringing forth Alice in Wonderland as an example simply because it abides by the key notions I have mentioned about characters and events. The point is,  the book itself has turned into numerous movies, games, in fact as we speak a new game "Alice" is comming out soon as well, for a second time. So what this allows me to investigate is how the experience of the story changes between media.... (which is really is a new thought for me altogether).

image taken from source

Have you ever heard the saying, "let the readers use their imaginations;" What do you visualize when you read a book? What do you realize when you see the movie of the book? What do you come to think of playing the game of the movie of the book or vice versa? Specifically how do you re-exerpience the environment, the social engagement around the environment and how does the environment seem to re-inform the social engagement and your whole notion of time? This is clearly "a developing storyworld"...
In the article sourced above,  "Jason also noted that there are three different kinds of tie-in games to movies and TV shows:

1) Exploratory: These games allow you to explore the fictional storyworld yourself.
2) Imitational: Games that allow you to “try on the skin” of the story characters. These often fail because the expected drama from TV and Movies is missing.
3) Narratively: Games that try to retell the story of the movie in the game. This is almost never done for TV shows. Here the approach is usually to have the game be “one extraordinary episode”.

In other words their are certain techniques games use to tie into movies. And its not as if movies don't use games... take Tomb Raider for instant, the whole story could of been arguabley redfined once Angelina Jolie came forth as the leading actress, and various set designers strived to accomdate the script, her acting etc.
 and the faithfulness to the game, (it wasn't very faithful)...

Another great example (I could go on...) is H.P lovecrafts Cthulhu monster that reappeared in various forms of media (probabley most recently in Southpark)...

Now this is all very interesting but then we come to think of it... don't video games essentially, and I am speaking very macrospocially here, always borrow and reinterpret things that already exsist! Isn't that what its all about! People say that "anything is possible in games," but that anything is always taken from somewhere. I suppose, one thing I've learned from reading Alice in Wonderland and just generally playing good games, is that good games have the ability to take everyday exerpiences and exaggurate them and alter them to the point that they leave you with something memorable but convince you that they made perfect sense and that for that time that it took you to play you were in that other reality that was worth being in. It goes without saying that the ability for games to give you that exerpience is something that is clearly a difference to the experience of real architecture, otherwise why would computer games be so popular? Its funny to think however, that in a way real architecture strives to achieve the impossible level of brilliance found in games, but games strive to achieve the level of realism and clarity found in real architecture. I think that in the future we will see this relationship more clearly, especially as games continue to become more prominent in society....

a new look

I have talked substantially over the past month and a half about the way in which social engagements in architecture in real life and in gaming is controlled, often by altering the perception of time for the user. We have seen how this control is done through clustering time into events and emphasizing these events so that they are memorable for the user. Likewise in architecture I have shown how by differentiating types of spaces in regard to the kind of engagement that is happening through the architectural language, meaningful and memorable spaces are created, and thus are also clustered into events in retrospective memory.

Games often use a kind of language as well in spaces, these can make the events seem unique, and therefore memorable. This whole phenomenon is very subtle and often not spoken of, but it is no secret and every good fps does differentiate between the events so that the game has a clear progression and that the movement through the spaces (levels) etc. is clear and the feeling of progress more satisfying.

I recently found a blog online where players were discussing the game “Fallout 3” by Bethesda Studios, there seemed to be a clear reference to the architecture in the game as they were discussing the overall experience.

Andrew B said “Playing the new fallout game has altered my perception of inhabitable spaces. A pile of junk could be home to vicious raiders.”

To which Cacapis replied “Haa! I'm an old time fan of fallout. It's really cool to see their interpretation of the post apocalyptic Washington and the way each significant structure has been appropriated. The Jefferson and Lincoln memorials, the pentagon, etc etc. I really hope there's a fallout 4.

I think some games really make you experience some form of architecture in a new way. In the end each type of play has maps modeled to suit their needs. For instance a map that's useful for a single player mission in an FPS is not quite suitable for a deathmatch.
I think that games just started to make a very rich experience in an architecture that has its own particular set of rules completely different from reality.”

It seems that a key theme here was that the game architecture in Fallout reinterpreted real architecture, through the alteration of iconic buildings and spaces that the players could relate to and by doing this changed the perception the players had with familiar spaces. This phenomenon was undoubtley well taken by the players and hence was clearly memorable. I mentioned in the beginning of this post how this control is done by emphasizing the events. In this case an emphasis was done by clearly tapping into the users existing memory of iconic buildings and emphasizing those spaces by creating a dramatic change to those buildings so that they are still recognizable, but in a way new and intriguing.


Obviously this is just one very specific device to emphasizing events, but like in any good game, the level design is made to support the gameplay, and fallout is a game which focuses on the post-apocalyptic future of Washington. That also implies that all the buildings were made to stage interesting and dynamic social engagements that revolve around that theme. As I mentioned in my previous post, and as Cacapis seemed to spot as well; by creating environments that are facilitative of the gameplay, it serves to host a completely different set of rules than reality. This is important, because here is the major difference between architecture in reality and in games in regard to the way both treat social engagements through events.


I will now introduce an extreme example to highlight what I have said. Take for instance the Nazi book burning memorial in Berlin. Here is a space that requires a very specific engagement between the user and the environment, a very direct way that has also carries symbolic and cultural significance. During the Nazi regime, many books were burned at this site in 1933; an artist interpretation was to create a little glass window on the spot where the users would have to kneel down to look through the hole.


 
Through the hole was a monochromatic space with empty bookcases symbolizing the “event” that happened many years ago. The kneeling down aspect of the place on behalf of the user, forces the user to pay respect to the tragic event. This space carries with it a very serious message; it commemorates an event that happened many years ago hence it is also very historical.


The actual movement of the users with the mechanics of space; the kneeling down and the observation is also significant in this space when we contrast movement capability in games. In gaming there is a different set of rules that revolve around the player in relation to the keyboard and mouse that is fabricated intentionally to limit movement capability and target specific actions that revolve around the gameplay, any action or movement in a game is no surprise, nor spontaneous, it is carefully mapped out and specified for the gameplay. In contrast, the specific movement of kneeling down in this space is borderline coincidental, it is created only physiologically targeting curiosity, and is actually signified by the fact that out of all the spontaneous movements and actions we may find between users in reality it succeeds in luring people to create one unified movement, the kneeling down. Thus the movement in this space is special because it is specific, where as in gaming, movements would perhaps be more special if they succeeded in being more spontaneous in relation to spaces.


Furthermore although both types of spaces are made to be memorable; the memorial, as a work of art, challenges the user on several levels that are much broader and complex, tapping into the culture and commemorating history. Where as in gaming the spaces have a very direct and subjective role as they revolve around a more targeted set of rules; rules that apply to only the gameplay. Any real depth, message and motive in most all commercial fps is directed towards play and thus the environments are treated as such, were as in this memorial, it is anything but that. Therefore the social engagement between the users of this space is rooted in respect to the tragic event, the kneeling down is also highly symbolic of that respect. Hence this space carries with it symbolism, cultural significance and respect. Although games may pose such a facade, they are still games, and therefore will aim to fulfill needs rooted in play.


Most importantly and perhaps the largest difference can be found in time. This space is timeless, it can be revisited over and over again and it will always remain the same, because it represents a single event that happened in the past. In a game, the game must eventually end, the interaction with the environments are grouped into singular events that are only there to progress the storyline. Therefore, the pages must keep turning and the spaces represent events that are of the presentence even if they pose a historical facade.


It is important to highlight this major difference, because it is these set of rules that define the way social encounters in spaces are experienced in the "event."