GAME JOBS
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
August 1, 2013
 
Wargaming.net
Marketing Coordinator
 
Zindagi Games
Junior Software Engineer
 
2K China
Creative Director of Mobile Game Development for...
 
NetherRealm Studios
Senior Designer - Mobile
 
Robot Entertainment
Visual FX Artist
 
Robot Entertainment
3D Character Artist
spacer
Blogs

  Giving Up Control to Grow as Gamers
by Ben Serviss on 07/30/13 09:10:00 am   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs
9 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
The following blog was, unless otherwise noted, independently written by a member of Gamasutra's game development community. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gamasutra or its parent company.

Want to write your own blog post on Gamasutra? It's easy! Click here to get started. Your post could be featured on Gamasutra's home page, right alongside our award-winning articles and news stories.
 
This article originally appeared on dashjump.com.

Heavy Rain
In Heavy Rain, players were faced with scenarios they were frequently unprepared for.

Every video game you’ve ever played is about control. If something is even to qualify as a video game as opposed to machinima or animation, there needs to be at least one player, and there needs to be an input mechanism in order to enact agency. In other words, a controller.

But it goes further than just semantics – in order to pass a challenge, to progress to the next level or to master a game, you must demonstrate control over your surroundings. Defeat the boss. Complete the level. Solve the puzzle. Should you fail to control the scenario asked of you, the challenge is reset and you must try again until you dominate the problem with a solution.

 Yet in life, we don?t always have control.Yet in life, we don’t always have control. For the perennially anxious and the control freaks, the benefits of maturity and knowing when to acknowledge when things are beyond our means to control them are critical parts of becoming a well-rounded adult. Games certainly have the power to alter troublesome habits, yet games that aim for a more sophisticated consumer tend to gloss over the massive amount of potential to tap into this rite of passage. Instead, for the most part, would-be ‘mature’ titles ignore these opportunities, preferring to play it safe, passing up chances to give us potentially life-changing lessons.

You are punished for losing control in almost every video game you have ever played. Isn’t that interesting?

Pick Any Card (Until You Pick the Right One)

For players, tight controls are always something to be desired, and on a functional level, controls need to be responsive in order to actually play the thing.

However, an interesting thing happens when you compare video games to board and tabletop games. In these types of games, you can constantly find yourself losing control as you’re beset by competing players or environmental obstacles.

Players struck by bad luck, poor strategy or a group of more experienced competitors can quickly find themselves at the mercy of more dominant players – though if the game is well designed, they’ll always have some kind of hope for the tables to turn. For these games, a lack of control isn’t a win/lose condition, but a gradient of experience that changes throughout the course of the game.

Whereas in most video games, these dynamics are usually distilled to a curt summation of whether the player has met the requirements to control a scenario or not. Even in games that incorporate more vague decisions, like traditional RPGs or more action-oriented narrative games like Mass Effect, these more open-ended choices lie outside the context of the main gameplay.

In other words, no matter how you choose to handle a particular dialog sequence, you still have to win all of your battles or your party dies and you have to reload a saved game. The player must be in control in order to play the game as intended.

Heavy Rain Robbery
Heavy Rain is a notable exception to the trend, allowing players’ decisions to stick with them even if they were ‘wrong.’

Press X to Pull Yourself Together

Rare instances where the player’s control over his character is not guaranteed are worth investigating.

Condemned 2: Bloodshot attempted an interesting wrinkle to this effect. Your character starts the game as a disgraced FBI agent and alcoholic, and as you play, the screen goes blurry and your aim deteriorates unless you drink alcohol pickups to restore your vision. It’s a novel twist, but with only a simple tie-in to the mechanics, the meaning behind it quickly dissipates.

Indie game designer Lars Doucet set out to create this exact kind of experiment with his prototype for Tourette’s Quest, a Zelda-style roguelike where your character experiences Tourette’s symptoms beyond the player’s control. How you choose to handle them – avoiding combat, attempting to suppress oncoming tics – adds another dynamic to what could very well stand in for a typical game experience.

The Walking Dead does an admirable job of playing with the traditional idea of player control. In the game’s chaotic zombie apocalypse setting, while you frequently talk with characters central to the story, you rarely have true control over a situation since characters may react in surprising ways depending on how you interacted with them earlier. Through Telltale’s masterful scripting and mechanics, the game’s world and characters seem to act on their own accord, taking cues from your actions.

Lose Yourself

But what if someone took this idea a step further? What if there was a game where the player’s character himself was paying attention to what the player was doing with him? What if when you did typically playful game actions – jumping or rolling incessantly, running in circles, punching and kicking walls just for fun – the player character was horrified at what you were making him do?

Say you went around jumping off ledges, as is common in third-person action games. What if this gradually hurt your character’s knees, making him more hesitant to jump when you pressed the button?

Battlefield
What if the player's decisions had potentially traumatic effects on their character?

Or how about a strategy game where you play as a commander and you make a wrong decision that gets two of your battleships destroyed. What if your character was haunted by his bad call? What if his sense of guilt affected his judgment enough to cloud his future decisions, making normally distinct unit UI designations seem almost identical to the player?

Or a game where you play as a support character for an AI-controlled protagonist, and you’re tasked with helping them reach their goals and supporting their decisions?

Or a game where you play as an elderly person and your body doesn’t obey you as effectively as you’d like, and only by telling stories from your past to young people can your younger self be summoned as a playable character to accomplish your goals – yet it all relies on the young person paying attention to the story to sustain itself?

Let Go to Continue

The concept of control, of losing it and accepting the loss of it when there is truly no other action to take is an important life skill worthy of exploration in games. The power of agency that this medium offers makes so many potential experiences possible that just couldn’t exist in traditional non-interactive media.

Yet in recent years, our experiments have gotten bolder. The success of Heavy Rain against formidable odds validates the idea that gamers want more evocative experiences that play to more adult sensibilities.

The advent of the Oculus Rift may very well usher in a sub-genre of ‘observer games’ that play up the aspect of watching, of just being in a different kind of space, without having to exert the kind of exacting control over their surroundings and player characters that we’ve come to expect from decades of genre conventions.

Imagine that – a game that you play just by being.

And it all starts with putting the controller down.

Ben Serviss is a freelance game designer working in commercial, social, educational and indie games. Follow him on Twitter at @benserviss.

 
 
Comments

Lars Doucet
profile image
Super cool article!

For my part, the biggest challenge in designing games like this is that games can be instantly reset or save-scummed, so you have to establish a sort of "contract" with the player, where you give them some reason to keep playing despite having made a "mistake" or not being 100% in control.

The Roguelike model is one way to deal with this - quit now and you lose everything! So you better keep on going. Another way is just leaving it up to the player to voluntarily not do that sort of thing.

Do you have any ideas for dealing with this issue?

Ben Serviss
profile image
Thanks! I'd say the first part is just proper education. In the first part of the game, have players make what would otherwise be a 'mistake' in a common game and keep showing them that in this game, doing something like that leads to more interesting decisions instead of a wall - in other words, it isn't grounds for a reboot. Dishonored was terrible in this respect for me, every time I blinked off a ledge because the cursor juuust didn't line up right I instantly reloaded.

Another idea would be to make these mistakes recoverable. In my playthrough of Dishonored, whenever I accidentally engaged an enemy it prompted such a fierce retaliation that I would either always get killed or have to kill way more enemies than I wanted to for the ending I was going for.

Compare that to Metal Gear or the early Tenchu games, where getting caught certainly brought you trouble - but trouble that you could always recover from. In this sense, making 'mistakes' part of the fun instead of a punishment did wonders for maintaining the integrity of the playthrough.

So I'd say communication (teaching that 'mistakes' are OK in this game) and using more mechanics in lieu of punishments when the player messes up are good ways to prevent the exit/reload cycle from taking over.

Robert Marney
profile image
The more draconian method of dealing with this issue is to remove reset/reload capabilities from your game entirely, going to a checkpoint system or a semi-continuous autosave. The Souls games, for instance, have a similar incentive structure to Roguelikes but an opposite save paradigm: quit now and nothing will change, so you might as well keep on going.

Darren Tomlyn
profile image
There's a difference between writing a story, and being told a story - games are DEFINED as and by the former, not the latter - (or at least they should be (and hopefully will be once I've finally finished with everything I've started with atm..))

With that in mind - there's therefore a difference between writing a story and INTERACTING with a story being told. This, atm, is NOT fully recognised and understood, which is a problem. (Puzzles are about the latter, especially those we create.) Any time the written story is replaced with a story being told, it ceases to be a game, if only for a moment.

With that also in mind, telling a story to enable a story to be written, or carefully used to promote such a written story, is fine, as well as in reaction to such a story (then can then be used to further enable or promote the written story).

The main thing is that it's used in reaction or to enable or promote (in a limited manner) a written story.

If an activity does not involved a written story on behalf of those taking part, (the players), it's not a game.

Luciano Lombardi
profile image
Great article

Maria Jayne
profile image
I think the biggest thing holding back the "you failed; retry" issue is that it is much cheaper in manpower and money to force the player to retry an event than program in a fail state outcome for every action within the game. The minimum branching possibilities would be twofold and if they affect the outcome significantly you may end up in a situation where players would rather replay the scene until they get outcome "success" anyway, completely removing half of the effort you put into the games design.

Even so, there are decisions and actions which take place in games such as Dishonored and The Witcher 2 which affect the progression of the story and never mention to you how until it is beyond your control. We're slowly getting there but until we have achieved our obsessions with looking photo realistic, the vast majority of spending won't be on things that can't be marketed as easily as "mor graffax"

Lincoln Thurber
profile image
One game that does not get a lot of credit for reducing "fail states" while still having the possiblity of failure in some situations is Tomb Raider (1997). What most people remember is falling on spikes or rolled over by rocks, but many of the puzzles in the game had you fall into water, slide down a hidden ramp, or somehow tumble into a spot where you lived. Then you had to climb up again, but you didn't fail. Some of the routes of the game could only be solved by just throwing yourself off a cliff, but if you did it wrong you just landed in water.

Some games need to have fail states (Super Meat Boy), but most do not need as many as they have or the true purpose of the game needs to be examined for why the fail state is there. Some games could benefit from branching stories that account for failure, but the branches need not be overly complex or extended.

Bart Stewart
profile image
Excellent, thoughtful piece.

First, a personal tic: I really, really dislike the term "save-scumming" and the attitude behind it that players who prefer to have control over game state are somehow defective.

It bears repeating that being able to preserve state matters greatly to Explorer gamers. Without that tool allowing creative ideas to be tried out, exploratory play is made a lot more risky. Taking away the ability to save and reload penalizes exploration as a valid way of having fun instead of supporting it.

I agree with the general position that limiting the player's ability to reset from decisions is something a designer/developer should be able to do. What I'm saying is that -- like other design choices -- taking agency away from the player ought to depend on context.

I think a more thoughtful solution than just "let them eat checkpoints" is to consider failure and success in terms of scope: specifically, tactical and strategic scope. Tactical decisions are the mechanical actions a player takes that have immediate consequences; strategic play is about the deep choices, the hard choices you need to stop to think and feel about, whose consequences emerge over time.

For the vast majority of games that want to tell a story (or allow emergent stories), I don't believe there is any positive value in preventing players from tactical reloading from save points of their choosing. Unless it's a purely mechanical game, preventing players from using short-term tactical reloading to deal with fast-twitch muscle challenges does absolutely nothing whatsoever to make the high-level game -- the long-term challenges related to human thoughts and feelings -- more enjoyable.

Let players have short-term save/reload to get through the tactical stuff, but defer the consequences of deep strategic decisions. If I decide to let that bandit live, show me the results of that choice later, when I'm likely to have saved so many times that I simply won't want to load a much earlier game (and play through all the intervening tactical content again in this pass) to try to get a different result.

In this way, it's still possible to assert designer control over success and failure and the proper rewards and penalties for those outcomes. Separating story-related choices and their consequences over time means you can, if you decide it's appropriate, give players failure states (as well as just *different* results) for the more interesting play choices they make, while not penalizing their desire to explore local areas and systems.

Applying this tactical/strategic distinction does mean that exploration-minded players who want to see how a big decision might have played out differently will need to start a new game. I suggest that's not a bug, it's a feature: it's called replayability. ;)

TL;DR: Taking away save/reload for dealing with tactical failure is needlessly punitive, especially for Explorer gamers. Separating strategic choices over time from their consequences allows interesting, non-game-ending failures to become part of the overall story of a game.

Mathieu Halley
profile image
One barrier to letting/forcing the player to give up control is the player's expectation that control of a situation is the only way forward. I suspect that an important first step to getting the player to accept a lack of control would be to get them to accept in-action.


none
 
Comment:
 




 
UBM Tech