Character-Driven Game Design

Aalto University Publication Series of the School of Art and Design A 101 www.taik.fi/bookshop © Petri Lankoski Graphic design: Petri Lankoski Screenshots by the author. The Lies and Seductions cast drawing by Niklas Gustafsson, reproduced with permis- sion. CD cover by Niklas Gustafsson. Product or corporate names are used only for identifica- tion and explanation without intent to infrindge trade- marks. ISBN 978-952-60-0002-2 (print) ISBN 978-952-60-0004-6 (pdf) ISSN 0782-1832 Printed at WS Bookwell Ltd. Jyväskylä 2010 To Stella and Emma, two players of games Contents List of PubLications 9 acknowLedgements 10 introduction 11 Characters as Facilitators of the Playing Experience? 12 The Context of This Study 13 Game Design 14 Game Research 15 Cognitive Sciences and Film Studies drawing on Cognitive Sciences 16 Dramatic Writing for Theatre and Film 17 Goals 18 Methods 18 Qualitative Analysis 19 Gameplay Design Patterns 19 Structure of This Thesis 20 game characters 21 Understanding Other People 21 Mimicry and Empathy 22 Person Schema 22 Player Characters 23 game and gamePLay design 29 Game Design Approaches 29 Game Design and Character Design 30 Missing Link: From Character Design to Gameplay Design 33 character engagement and game design 35 Characters in Computer Games: Toward Understanding Interpretation and Design 35 Player Character Engagement in Computer Games 35 Gameplay Design Patterns for Believable Non-Player Characters 36 Gameplay Design Patterns for Social Networks and Conflicts 37 Lies and Seductions 38 Character-Driven Game Design: Characters, Conflict, and Gameplay 38 concLusions 41 Characters and the Playing Experience 41 Game and Character Design 44 Concluding Remarks 46 references 47 aPPendix 1: research materiaL 57 aPPendix 2: gamePLay design Patterns 61 Actions Have Social Consequences 61 Character Defining Actions 62 Detective Structure 63 Enforced Character Behavior 64 Faction 64 Information Passing 65 Internal Conflict 66 Internal Rivalry 67 Loyalty 67 Melodramatic Structure 68 Outcast 69 Player-Designed Character 70 Social Gatekeeper 70 Social Maintenance 71 Social Norms 71 Traitor 72 Trait Regulated Behavior 73 References 74 aPPendix 3: Lies and seductions credits 75 articLes Article 1 76 Article 2 92 Article 3 116 Article 4 132 Article 5 156 Article 6 162 abstract 182 Lies and seductions (dvd / downLoad: www.Liesandseductions.com) List of PubLiCations This thesis consists of following publications: 1. LANKOSKI, P., HELIÖ, S. & EKMAN, I., 2003. Characters in Computer Games: Toward Understanding Interpretation and Design. In: Level Up, DiGRA 2003 Conference Proceedings, 4–6 November, 2003, pp. CD-Rom. 2. LANKOSKI, P., Forthcoming. Player Character Engagement in Computer Games. Games and Culture. 3. LANKOSKI, P. and BJÖRK, S., 2007. Gameplay Design Patterns for Believable Non-Player Characters. In: Situated Play, DiGRA 2007 Conference Proceedings, September 24–28, pp. 416–423. 4. LANKOSKI, P. and BJÖRK, S., 2007. Gameplay Design Patterns for Social Networks and Conflicts. In: GDTW 2007 Proceedings, November 2007, pp. 76–85. 5. LANKOSKI, P. and HORTTANA, T., 2008. Lies and Seductions. In: U. SPIERLING and N. SZILAS, eds. Interactive Storytelling, 2008, Springer pp. 44–47. 6. LANKOSKI, P. and BJÖRK, S., 2008. Character-Driven Gameplay Design: Characters, Conflict, and Gameplay. In: GDTW 2008 Proceedings, 2008, pp. 59–66. aCknowLedgements I am grateful for the support and critiques I have received from my supervisors Staffan Björk and Aki Järvinen. I am indebted to all who have commented on this manuscript and on my research in various stages, and for their valuable insights: Bernard Perron, Katherine Isbister, Inger Ekman, Mariana Salgado, Tommi A. Pasanen, Philip Dean, and Lily Díaz-Kommonen as well as all those who have offered their insight at various seminars and conferences. I am indebted to Markus Montola, Frans Mäyrä, and Olli Sotamaa for discussions that have helped me refine my thinking. The practical part of this study, the Lies and Seductions game, would not have been possible without Tommi Horttana, Niklas Gustafsson, Kimmo Karvinen, Raisa Omaheimo, Mike Pohjola, Reettakaisa Neittaanmäki, Linda Kronman, Anne Parkkali, Jari Suominen, and Josie vd Stel. Last but not least, I like to thank my family and relatives for their support throughout my research. Helsinki, Finland January, 2010 IntroductIon To explain my interest in game characters and character-driven game design, I need to look at my past. When I discovered computer games, they captured my attention. It is hard to say, retrospectively, why exactly those early games, such as the Lunar Lander (Atari, 1979) and the Radar Rat Race (Commodore Electronics, 1981), were so fascinating. However, I still remember clearly that exploring the worlds of the text-based ad- venture game of The Hobbit (Beam Software, 1982) or the labyrinths of the Rogue (Toy et al., 1988) and the Atic Attac (Stamper, Stamper, 1983) were thrilling experiences. I programmed and published my first sim- ple computer game in the early 1980s. It was written for the ZX Spec- trum, and published as a source code listing in the computer magazine. Around that time I also discovered tabletop role-playing games. Play- ing, writing adventures, and game mastering stole my attention from the design of computer games, because the role-playing games at best could offer a wide fictional world to explore and characters to interact that had no par within the computer games of that time. In the mid 1990s I discovered live-action role-playing games. During that time I wrote and organized several character-driven intrigue heavy games. I was excited that I could successfully weave love triangles, jealousy, and friendship in those games. At that time, I was working at the University of Tampere in a research project and that brought me back to computer game design. I was a lead designer for The Footprints of Power (Lankoski et al., 2003) (the game explored integrating dramatic narrative and game) and The Songs of North (Lankoski et al., 2004/2005) (which explored possibilities of location-aware multiplayer games) games. After a long exposure with different role-playing games, I considered game characters as the weak point of single-player computer games. It seemed that the possibilities of character-driven conflict, co-operation between characters, or compassion toward characters were not used. However, games such as Thief II: The Metal Age (Looking Glass Studios, 2000) and Ico (Sony Computer Entertainment, 2002) flashed the enor- mous possibilities of computer games. Thief II presented a multifaceted anti-hero player character mainly through the gameplay. Ico refined co- operation between the player character and a non-player character as an important feature of the gameplay. I published the paper Approaches to Computer Game Design: Characters and Conflict (Lankoski, Heliö, 2002) that lead me to explore further game characters. The paper proposed 12 CharaCter-Driven Game DesiGn that character motivations could be used to guide gameplay and ar- gued that there is an analogy between character-driven story writing (Berman, 1997; Egri, 1960) and character-driven game design as a tool for designing well motivated conflicts. (Lankoski, Heliö, 2002.) How- ever, I was lacking tools to discuss the relations between gameplay, game system, and characters in detail. At that time, I also started to look analytically at the design of role-playing games. Some of the results are published in Character Design Fundamentals for Role-Playing Games (Lankoski, 2004). This paper was my first attempt to use a cognitive emotion theory to explain the importance of goals in the playing experience in order to explain some links between the game design and the playing experience. This research does not take into account the systemic features of computer games, and thus is only partly applicable to computer games. characters as FacIlItators oF the PlayIng exPerIence? My earlier work (Lankoski, Heliö, 2002; Lankoski, 2004) was based on the assumption that game characters are important for the playing experience. However, some theorists have been critical toward the idea that computer game characters have more than a functional role (Aarseth, 2004; Eskelinen, 2004; Frasca, 2004). For example, Espen Aarseth claims that the representation of a character he controls is irrelevant, because the appearance of the character does not make him play differently. He states “When I play, I don’t even see her [Lara Croft’s] body, but see through it and past it” (Aarseth, 2004). However, it is common to find game reviews as follows: Character development is important for any game, but the emotional investment in Uncharted’s three heroes is strong. Nathan’s “everyman” look might not appeal to some at first glance, but his character is likeable and sym- pathetic, again thanks in part to the great cast of voice ac- tors. By the end of the game, you genuinely care for him and want to see him succeed. Likewise, Elena is a great cohort. She’s never an annoying damsel in distress, and like Nathan, you’re concerned for her by the end of the 1 See also, game. (McGarvey, 2007.)1 Gerstmann (2003), There is an interesting tension between the above-cited critic and theo- Hurme (2008), Puha (2004), rists. Why does this disagreement exist? The reason, I propose, is that Puha (2008) and reactions to characters are relatively automatic and subconscious (e.g., Salminen (2008). Morrison, Ziemke, 2005), and the approaches used by Aarseth, Eske- linen, and Frasca might not be adequate to discriminate all the nuances of a play experience. While one can be aware of one’s own emotional state, in many cases, according to Damasio (2005, pp. 187–196), emo- tions influence experience and behavior without one being consciously aware of it. In addition, one’s preferences and skills are likely to have some role in the kind of games one likes.

Load more