游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

举例阐述以游戏玩法操纵故事情节的方式

发布时间:2012-06-05 16:30:44 Tags:,,,,,,

作者:Altug Isigan

引言

我将在本文解释游戏玩法与故事诠释之间的关系,将通过呈现玩家一方的情景支持以及游戏作为一个不断发展的故事是如何诠释这些事件而进行阐述。换句话说,也就是我将在此展现游戏互动与故事发展之间的密切关系。

最近,越来越多人认为游戏玩法和故事不能区分开来。而我认为游戏作为一种故事体,其结构单位在某种程度上是通过游戏玩法(或者是玩家输入内容)演变而来。而游戏中的冲突架构将创造出许多有趣的挑战,即受玩家驱动的行动和受AI驱动的事件将相互对峙。我将列举出三款非常成功的游戏,它们都是有赖于受玩家驱动的行动以及受AI驱动的事件间的不同组合体,这些游戏分别是《模拟人生》,《暗黑破坏神》以及《极品飞车》。

我并不喜欢骰子游戏中不协调(或共鸣)的故事设置,因为我认为这是一种区分游戏玩法与故事理念的想法。在我看来,它们却是两种不可分割的元素:每个游戏玩法同时也等同于游戏AI所生成的故事。认为故事围绕游戏玩法发展的理念便是违反了游戏玩法同时也是一种叙述体这一事实。故事并不只是一个过场动画或对话,移动着角色而前行也可以说是一个故事。

一些基本要素——故事层面和事件层面

Roland Barthes(游戏邦注:法国文学批评家,文学家,社会学家,哲学家和符号学家)和美国学者Seymour Chatman都认为故事能够基于四种相互联系且具有等级结构的层面进行分析。让我们先看看如下图表:

narrative-layers(from gamasutra)

narrative-layers(from gamasutra)

处于最底端的便是事件层面:事件是指一系列基于逻辑而相互连接的行动,或者那些能够触发,维持或停止所谓事件的意外事件。

而事件上方的层面则包含能够触发,维持或停止所谓事件的代理人。

故事层面则包含各种从属于媒体的讲故事方法和技巧,即通过这一层面我们便能够将事件和代理人呈现在观众面前。

最后,故事情境层面中存在着能够帮助观众理解故事的线索。

因为我们只打算在本文讨论事件层面,所以我们必须直接切入主题。首先仔细浏览下面的图表:

events-layer(from gamasutra)

events-layer(from gamasutra)

就像我们在图表中看到的,事件拥有两大元素:代理和必要性。代理能够帮助我们区分行动与事件,而事件通常都包含这两者的结合。举个简单的例子来说:当我射击某人时,这便是一种动作,然而当我遭到射击时,这便算是一种意外事件。

而必要性则能够告诉我们事件在情节中拥有何种地位。如果我们可以轻松地跳过或忽视事件而不会影响故事的发展(因为不一致性或故事的不完整性),那这种事件便叫做“卫星”。而当核心从故事中移除时,故事逻辑就会出现漏洞。在许多游戏中,核心都是围绕着玩家的输入内容而形成,也就是特定的玩家输入内容能够保持故事的有序发展。除此之外,许多游戏还在过场动画或对话中突出了一些不是很重要的故事内容,从而导致玩家能够轻松地略过它们——因为这么做并不会影响故事的完整性。

这些理念能够帮助我们更好地进行分析,除此之外我还将介绍其它同样非常有效的理念。

序列,核心功能和概括词

根据法国数学家Cl. Bremond的观点,我们可以将事件序列作为一个基础的结构单元。序列可被定义为一整排符合逻辑联系的行动和意外事件——不只是存在于连续的关系中,同时也会发生在间接的关系中。而我们可以将构成这些序列的行动和意外事件称为核心功能。

序列也的确适合于这一命名,所以我们便能够基于一些所谓的概括词总结出一个序列。

sequences-and-core-functions(from gamasutra)副本

sequences-and-core-functions(from gamasutra)

上图呈现的是一个名为“打电话”的简短序列。这一序列包含了三个核心功能,即从最初开始,持续并最终结束事件。

基于这种方法,我们便可以为游戏中的任何事件创建模型(游戏邦注:不论这些事件是“深层次”还是复杂的)。在下面的例子中我们将看到一个被细分为行动和意外事件的核心功能。

sub-sequences(from gamasutra)

sub-sequences(from gamasutra)

换句话说,我们也可以看到一些从属于更高层面的事件序列的复杂序列。在下面的例子中我们可以看到“打电话”是更高层面的序列“抢劫银行”的组成部分。

core-to-core(from gamaustra)

core-to-core(from gamaustra)

从中我们便可以推断出设计/撰写一个序列是一种抽象并精确的工作,它们将能够详尽地呈现出任何事件,包括事件中的每一个核心功能。因此在游戏设计中,设计师应该选择更高层面的抽象内容,而略过他们所创造的特定事件的核心功能。

这主要取决于类型范式和“用户友好性”。例如在许多第一人称射击游戏中,玩家必须在伏击期间执行许多核心功能,但是设计师却会忽略一些特定的核心功能,如打开健康包,往自己的身体里注射药物等。因为这是一个精确且抽象的过程,所以这同时也具有现实性。

我们同时也会注意到这是关于节奏和韵律的过程:如何以及何时忽略了若干核心功能将影响着我们在经历事件的过程中所执行的移动次数。游戏设计师总是通过自动设置特定的核心功能而解决这些问题,即让玩家能够摆脱那些将阻碍他们游戏行动的事物。

以下是《模拟人生》的“提升”事件的序列结构和层级:

sims-promotion(from gamaustra)

sims-promotion(from gamaustra)

就像我们所看到的,《模拟人生》中的提升事件要求玩家必须完成两类序列:获得技能和交到朋友。为了能够简要说明这一过程,我细分了获得技能这一序列。从中我们可以看到“练习演讲”,“阅读书籍,”“解决问题,”这些内容。当我们明确了其中一个序列时,我们将发现这些序列中还包含了若干等待完善的核心功能。当我们完成了这些核心功能,结果便能够影响着上述的层面,并且除了能够完成这些序列,我们同时也能够获得一个技能点去触发这一提升事件。

风险区域

Cl. Bremond问自己,什么力量能让故事摆脱了“早产”的下场。换句话说,也就是为何故事中的角色总是会选择做一些能够推动故事发展的事。为了能够更好地理解这一问题,Bremond深入分析了各种故事,进而明确了逻辑循环以及可能导致“早产”结果的决策节点。以下模式便是这种逻辑循环的高层面抽象模式。

bremond-circuit(from gamasutra)

bremond-circuit(from gamasutra)

在每一个决策节点中角色都有可能做出错误的选择:角色可能只是不能顺利完成任务,或者他将不再专注于那些即将发生的事件。如此游戏的故事便可能走上“早产”的危险,所以Bremond便将故事逻辑循环中的每个决策点称为“风险区域”。

但是在绝大多数故事中,这只是一种潜在的风险,因为作者总会确保角色能够选择那些对故事进展有帮助的选项,并让角色的选择能够显得更加自然,就像他们只是在执行一些逻辑上的任务罢了。作者正是通过这种方法让角色处在能够推动故事发展的立场上。而这种作者的技能也正是创造出所谓的“命运的错觉”的技能。

如果牵扯到游戏,事情又是怎样的呢?在游戏中,潜在的风险将会转变成实际的风险,因为不管游戏设计师还是故事设计师如何努力设置必要性,玩家最终都会将故事带向“早产”的结局:也就是玩家将只是“尝试一些不同的事物”,或他们的技能不够成熟从而导致反复栽倒在同一个决策节点上。如此便导致游戏设计师和故事设计师很难去维持玩家的前进方向。就像以下的图表所示,在典型的RPG游戏中,当每一次玩家遭遇敌人时都会导致事件发展的停止。例如,如果《暗黑破坏神》拥有一个非常困难的难度设置,玩家可能就不会想去挖掘游戏中可怕的秘密。

areas-of-risk(from gamasutra)

areas-of-risk(from gamasutra)

游戏中所存在的实际风险将推动着设计师引进更多独特的方法:额外的生命以及保存点便是两种常用于阻止“早产”结果的方法,并且能够帮助玩家更好地走完全部的故事。而这同时也引出了其它方法,如实时难度调整等。所有的这些方法将帮助玩家有效地战胜那些会导致其失败或走向“早产”结果的核心功能和序列。

案例

在下面所列举出的案例中,我将尝试着提出以下问题:

我们该如何基于核心功能去构造问题中的序列?

它们将如何与其它序列联系在一起?

如何将玩家牵涉进序列节点中?

故事节点中的风险领域是什么?玩家需要围绕着这些风险领域做出何种选择(如果有的话)?

我们将从三款游戏中找出答案:《模拟人生》,《暗黑破坏神》以及《极品飞车》。

《模拟人生》——烹饪序列

《模拟人生》是一款受AI驱动且基于意外事件的游戏。也就是事件序列将排除玩家的干涉而完整地呈现出来。一般情况下,AI将分配给任何闲置的角色一个序列,而角色也将执行该序列中所包含的核心功能。

此时的玩家将能够重写AI的决策,并分配角色到其它序列中,而不再是由AI强迫他们去执行任务。除此之外,玩家也能够基于序列所包含的任何核心功能而随时终止持续的序列。尽管如此,游戏玩法仍是在操纵着意外事件而不是执行行动。玩家使用情境支持的过程并不能作为游戏中的一种行动,这更像是共同拟定与AI一致或矛盾的事件序列的行为。

通过操纵意外事件,玩家便能够致力于他自己所知道的特定目标——但是游戏中的角色却不能够这么做。这便是游戏中的紧张感的主要来源:游戏中的角色始终活在当下,甚至不知道玩家所设定的职业目标是什么。如果玩家不加以干涉,游戏中的角色可能会一直啃着零食并做各种愚蠢的事情而度日,并最终用光了所有积蓄而死亡。

因为玩家有能力终止持续的事件序列,所以我们也难以忽视“早产”结局的风险。但是,不但玩家能够终止持续事件,甚至AI本身也能够这么做。例如游戏中的角色能够进入任何内容或特定的核心功能而触发意外事件,并因此推动他们去分配各种新任务。

the-sims(from gamasutra)

the-sims(from gamasutra)

例如核心功能“烹饪”将引起一个新的序列,即“房子里着火”,而一旦这个序列发生时,游戏中的角色将快速执行“灭火”,“呼叫消防局”或“惊慌地到处乱窜”等序列。

当玩家成功地度过所有风险区域时,这一序列便能够到达一个自然的结果,而角色便能够将自己烹饪的菜肴端上桌。随后游戏中的角色便会进入闲置期,而AI或角色便会为他分配新的序列。

《暗黑破坏神》——清除关卡

就意义而言,《暗黑破坏神》不同于《模拟人生》,因为如果游戏中出现了任何意外事件,它便会基于受玩家驱动的角色行动而发生变化。也就是如果玩家并不移动他的角色,那么游戏中的一切也都将静止不动。只有玩家移动着着角色前进,他才能够进入触发领域,并引起受AI驱动的意外事件的发生:在《暗黑破坏神》中,受AI驱动的事件将最先基于敌人的进攻而出现,并紧接着以战利品掉落的模式再次出现。

敌人发动进攻的同时也算是游戏中的主要风险领域,因为玩家的失败不仅会导致持续事件的终止,同时也意味着整体游戏的终止。而游戏所突出的保存选项则让玩家能够在这种“早产”的结局下更快复苏。

diablo1(from gamasutra)

diablo1(from gamasutra)

打开库存或者玩家决定使用传送器去购买/出售物品,或者与市民展开对话等情境都可能导致持续事件的暂停。然而这些却都不属于实际的风险领域,更应该说游戏的中断,因为当玩家关闭了库存或再次回到城中,他将能够继续面对之前所处理的核心功能。

而当玩家最终到达关卡出口时,关卡才算真正走到终点。

《极品飞车》——赛车序列

《极品飞车》既包含了《模拟人生》的受AI驱动的意外事件,也包含了《暗黑破坏神》的受玩家驱动的行动:为了能够赢得最终的胜利,玩家将驾驶一辆汽车与若干受AI驱动的对手进行抗衡。就像在《模拟人生》中那样,玩家并不能真正操纵AI驱动的意外事件,因为作为游戏角色他同时也是赛车中的组成部分,而并非能够从游戏外部操纵着持续事件的角色。同时他也不能终止AI驱动的意外事件,他只能够靠扮演游戏内部角色去执行动作而延迟事件的发生。

玩家在游戏中的目标是基于较高层面的精确度而成功操纵若干核心功能。的确,玩家的行动要求他们必须每分每秒地输入内容。尽管在《暗黑破坏神》中亦是如此,但是这却与《模拟人生》中的设置截然不同,在《模拟人生》中玩家必须花大量的时间去观察意外事件,而不是时时刻刻去执行这些事件。在《模拟人生》中,如果事件的发展不如玩家所愿,他们也就只能出面干涉。但是在《暗黑破坏神》和《极品飞车》中,为了达到自己所预期的结果,玩家就必须努力去操纵游戏中的角色行动。

need-for-speed(from gamaustra)

need-for-speed(from gamaustra)

从风险区域来看,《极品飞车》看起来好像很脆弱,因为玩家可能在每个核心功能中遭遇失败——难以满足有效的赛车要求。弯曲,坡道,静态对象以及交通都能够帮助玩家有效地操纵核心功能。而如果玩家遭遇不幸或落在其他选手之后,游戏将转变成追赶模式让玩家始终保持着对胜利的幻想。因此在这款游戏中玩家总是能够坚持走到最后。而拖曳模式却是个例外,即在这一模式下玩家便会在游戏早期遭遇到所谓的“早产”结果。但是玩家也能够通过选择重新开始赛车而克服这一问题。当玩家的赛车到达终点线时这一赛车序列便顺利终结。

即时操纵游戏内部受玩家驱动的角色提高了对玩家控制技能的要求。尽管在《模拟人生》中,玩家可能会将视线从屏幕上转开几秒,但是在《暗黑破坏神》和《极品飞车》中却不会出现这样的情况,因为一不留神玩家便会错失一个核心功能而对自己的游戏发展造成难以弥补的后果——在《模拟人生》中,玩家更有可能背离自己的想法而创造出意想不到的好结果。

总结

我通过此文解释了一种重要的游戏功能,即通过执行动作而操纵事件层面,以及如何操纵意外事件而获得一个有意义的事件序列。相对于传统故事,电子游戏中的风险区域并不是潜在风险,而是实际的风险,并且游戏设计师也找到了各种独特的方式以解决故事“早产”问题。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Narrative Articulation Through Gameplay

by Altug Isigan

Introduction

In this blog post I will focus on the relationship between gameplay and narrative articulation. In particular I will try to show how the use of affordances on the player’s side is connected to the ways in which the events in a game are articulated as an unfolding story. In other words, I try to show how interaction and story progression go hand in hand.

Recently more and more people have started to write about how gameplay and narrative cannot be separated. My contribution is into that direction. I perceive games as narratives whose structural units are partly generated through gameplay (or player input). The way in which the conflict is constructed may result in many interesting challenges in which player-driven actions and AI-driven happenings are put against each other. I will illustrate this point by looking at three very succussful games of the past of which all rely on different types of combinations between player-driven action and AI-driven happenings: The Sims, Diablo, and Need for Speed.

I do not support views of ludo-narrative dissonance (or resonance) because I believe that these views rely on a notion of harmony that sees gameplay and narratives as two different tracks. To me they aren’t separate: Every instance of gameplay *is* at the same time a narrative value equal to those generated by the game’s AI. Views that see narrative as something wrapped around gameplay miss the point that every instance of gameplay is at the same time a narrative unit. Narrative is not just cutscenes or dialogues. Moving an avatar around is narrative too.

Some Basics – Narrative Layers and the Events Layer

The works of Roland Barthes and Seymour Chatman have shown that a narrative can be analysed on the basis of four interconnected and hierarchically structured layers. Have a look at the diagram below:

At the bottom we see the events layer: An event is a sequence of logically connected actions or happenings that initiate, continue or terminate said event.

The actants layer above the events layer contains the agents that initiate, continue or terminate said events.

The narration or storytelling layer consists of the various medium-dependent storytelling methods and techniques through which said events and agents are represented and displayed to an audience.

Finally the narrative situation layer contains the clues that signal to the audience to perceive and consume a narrative as such.

Since my examination in this article only focuses on the events layer, I want to go quickly over to that topic. Have a look at the diagram below:

As can be seen in the diagram, an event has two aspects: agency and necessity. Agency helps us to distinguish between actions and happenings. An event often consists of a combination of both. To give a simple example: When I shoot at someone, it is an action, whereas when I’m being shot at, it qualifies as a happening.

Necessity on the other hand tells us how central an event is to the plot. If an event can be skipped or omitted without making the story collapse due to inconsistencies or story holes, then we call such an event a sattelite. A kernel on the other hand will always open a hole in the story logic when removed from the narrative. In many games kernels are built around player input, that is, a certain type of player input is required to keep the story progressing. On the other hand many games feature the less important parts of the story in cutscenes or dialogues, which allows us to skip them easily, because missing them out does not create holes in the story.

These concepts provide us already with some good tools for analyses, but I will now introduce to you a few more concepts of which I think they are of good use.

Sequences, Core Functions and Cover Words

Following the French narratologist Cl. Bremond, we can call the basic structural units of an event sequences. A sequence can be defined as a row of chrono-logically connected actions and happenings that do not only stand in a sequential but consequential relationship. The actions and happenings that make up such a sequence are called core functions.

Sequences always lend themselves to naming, so it is possible to summarize a sequence with so called cover words.

The diagram above shows a short sequence named with the cover word “phone call”. The sequence consists of three core functions of which one initiates, one continues, and one terminates the event.

By using this approach, we may model any event in a game, no matter how “deep” or complex it is. In the example below for instance, we see that one of the core functions can be divided into further actions and happenings.

On the other hand, it is also possible to see how a complete sequence is subordinated to a higher level sequence of events. In the example below, we see that “phone call” is a sequence that is part of the higher level sequence “bank robbery”.

We can conclude from this that designing/writing a sequence is a matter of abstraction and fidelity. Some games will maintain a high level of fidelity, and they will therefore model and represent an event in great detail, including almost every core function into the representation of the event; whereas in other games, designers will opt for higher levels of abstraction, omitting some of the core functions as they model a certain event.

It depends a lot on genre conventions and “user-friendliness”. For example in a lot of First Person Shooters, players must perform many of the core functions that would take place during an ambush, but the designer would omit certain core functions such as opening a pack of health, injecting the medicine in it into the body etc. Since the matter is about fidelity and abstraction, it could be also seen as a matter of realism.

We can also easily see that this is a matter related to pacing and rhythm: What and when we omit a number of core functions has an impact on the number of moves that must be carried out during an event. This, on the other hand, may be crucial in avoiding instances of micro-management. Game designers solve such issues often by automating certain core functions, allowing the player not to be bothered with things that would slow down what is central to the action.

To give an example of sequence structure and hierarchy from a game, let’s have a look at the “promotion” event in The Sims:

As you can see, the promotion event in The Sims requires players to complete two types of sequences: Gain Skill, and Make Friends. For brevity purposes I have only modeled the Gain Skill aspect in more detail. There are a number of subsequences such as “practice speech”, “read book”, and “work out” under the “gain skill” sequence. When we pick one of these sunsequences, we see that they consist of a number of core functions that need to be completed. Once the required core functions are completed, the result may have an impact on the layers above, not only finishing the sequence, but gaining a skill point that may trigger promotion.

The Areas of Risk

Cl. Bremond asked himself what it is that saves narratives from premature endings. In other words, why would characters in a story always chose to do what contributes to story progression? To understand the issue better, Bremond analysed a number of narratives in order to make visible the logical circuits that are at the same time the decision nodes that may result in a premature ending if the character choses to do the “wrong” thing. The model below is a high level abstraction of such a logical circuit.

At every decision node there is the chance that the character makes the wrong choice: The character may simply fail to complete the task, or he may decide to no longer maintain interest into the unfolding events. Because of the risk of the story coming to a premature ending, Bremond calls every decision node in the logical circuitry of a narrative the “areas of risk”.

However, in most narratives this is only a potential risk, because the author makes sure that the character chooses what is good for story progression, and the makes the character’s choices look natural, as if they were the only logical thing to do. The author would set up the forces around the character in such a way that necessity would force the character into adopting the stance that makes the story progress. This authorial skill is the ability to create what is being called “the illusion of fate”.

What happens when it comes to games? In games, the potential risk turns into a real risk, because no matter how hard the game designer or narrative designer tries to set up necessity, the player may still do something that bring the story to a premature ending: Players may simply “try something different”, or their skills may be insufficient, making them fail at the same decision node over and over again. This makes it harder for game designers and narrative designers to keep players “on track”. As the diagram below shows, in a typical RPG game, every encounter with the enemy might be the node that brings the progress of the events to an halt. For example if Diablo would have had extremely hard difficulty settings, no player would have made it so far as to find out about Diablo’s terrible secret.

The real risk in games resulted in the introduction of a number of methods that are unique to video games: Extra lives and save points for example, are two very commonly used methods to prevent premature endings and help the player to see out the end of the story. But it also resulted in the development of other approaches such as real-time difficulty adjustment. These all aid the player in surpassing certain core functions and sequences that would otherwise eliminate him and bring the events to a premature ending.

Sample Cases

In the sample cases I examine below, I try to answer the following questions:

How have the sequences in question been constructed in terms of core functions?

How do they relate to other sequences?

How are players involved in the articulation of the sequences in question?

What are the areas of risk during narrative articulation, and what options does the player have to go around them, if any?

I’m having a look at three games: The Sims, Diablo, and Need for Speed.

The Sims – Cooking Sequence

The Sims is primarily an AI-driven happenings-based game. With that I mean that a sequence of events would unfold regardless of whether the player interferes or not. Typically, the AI would assign a sequence to any of the idle characters, and the character would simply perform the core functions of which the sequence consists.

However players are given the chance to overwrite the AI’s decisions and assign characters to other sequences than the one that the AI wanted them to carry out. Also, a player can terminate an ongoing sequence at any time, at any of the core functions that the sequence consists of. Still gameplay can be seen as the manipulation of happenings rather than the performance of actions. The player’s use of affordances does not manifest as an action in the game, but is rather an act of co-writing a sequence of events in co-operation or in conflict with the AI.

Through the manipulation of happenings, the player aims to meet certain goals of which only he is aware, but the in-game characters aren’t. This is a major source of tension in the game: The in-game characters live for the moment, and don’t seem to be aware of the career goals posed at the player. If a player doesn’t interfere, the in-game characters would eat snacks all the time, do other silly things, until they run out of money and eventually die.

Due to the player’s ability to terminate an ongoing sequence of events, there is always the risk of premature endings. But it is not only the player who can bring an end to ongoing events, but also the AI itself. For example in-game characters may get into each others way, or certain core functions may trigger surprise events that cause in-game characters to be assigned to new tasks.

For example the core function “cook” may cause a new sequence “fire in the house”, and once this sequence is initiated, the in-game characters would carry out sequences like “extinguish fire”, “call fire department”, or “run around in panic”.

The sequence comes to a natural end when all of the areas of risk have been passed through successfully, and the character serves the food on the table. After that, the in-game character would step over into idle mood, and soon either the AI or the player would assign him to a news sequence.

Diablo – Cleaning a Level

Diablo is already different from The Sims in the sense that it depends on the actions of a player-driven character if there will be any happenings at all. As long as the player doesn’t move his avatar around, everything stands still. Only if the player moves his avatar around will he tap into trigger areas that cause AI-driven happenings to take place: In the case of Diablo, the AI-driven happenings come first in the form of enemy attacks, and then in the form of loot dropping.

Enemy attacks are at the same time the main areas of risk in the game since defeat would not only bring to an end the ongoing event, but the game as a whole. The game features saving options to allow the player to go around such premature endings.

Other situations that bring the ongoing event to a halt are the opening of the inventory, or when the player decides to use a teleporter to go up to the down to buy/sell things or to enter dialogues with the townspeople. However, these are not really areas of risk, but rather breaks, because once the player closes his inventory or returns back from town, he continues from the core function he was last dealing with.

A level comes to a natural end when the player reaches the level’s exit.

Need for Speed – Racing Sequence

Need for Speed combines both The Sims’ AI-driven happenings and Diablo’s player-driven actions: The player drives a car against a number of AI-driven opponents in order to win the race. He cannot really manipulate AI-driven happenings as it is the case in the The Sims, because as a character he is part of the race and not really someone who manipulates ongoing events from an “outsider” position. He cannot terminate AI-driven happenings, but only delay them by performing his own actions as an in-game character.

A different aspect from Diablo is that the AI-driven happenings do not require to be triggered by player actions. The opponents would race towards the finish line whether the player acts or not. Therefore we can basically say that Need for Speed is a game in which player-driven in-game character actions take place against a backdrop of AI-driven happenings performed by other in-game characters.

The player’s goal is to successfully articulate a number of core functions with a high level of fidelity. Indeed, player actions require the player to give input on a second-to-second basis. While this is true for Diablo as well, it can be said that it is different from The Sims where the player spent a great deal of time watching the happenings unfold rather than performing them on a second-to-second basis. In The Sims, the player only interferes if happenings unfold in a way he didn’t desire. In Diablo and Need for Speed, it is the player who must articulate in-game character actions in order to achieve the results he desires.

In terms of the areas of risk, Need for Speed seems to be very vulnerable because the player may fail at every core function that the efficient driving of the car requires. Curves, ramps, static objects, and traffic are major treats to the player’s successful articulation of core functions. However, if the player is unlucky and falls behind, the game would switch to a catch-up mode that keeps the player in the game and maintains the illusion of winnability. Therefore it happens rather rarely that the player doesn’t see out the end of the game. One exception here may be the Drag mode in which mistakes may cause premature endings at very early stages of the rage. The player would overcome this problem by selecting to restart the race. A racing sequence comes to a natural ending when the player’s car reaches the finish line.

Moment-to-moment articulation of player-driven in-game character action increases the demand for control. While in The Sims the player may lift his eyes from the screen for a few seconds, this is not really possible in Diablo and Need for Speed, because missing out a core function almost always causes trouble, whereas in The Sims, the player seems to have more chances to make good things that didn’t went the way he wanted.

Summary

I tried to show in this blog that one of the main functions of gameplay is the articulation of the events layer through the performance of actions and the manipulation of happenings that collapse into a meaningful sequence of events. I pointed out that in contrast to traditional narratives, the areas of risk in video games are not potential but real risks, and that game designers found unique ways to overcome the risk of premature endings.(source:GAMASUTRA)


上一篇:

下一篇: