Gamespace Plaay & Architecture in Videoogames Georgia Leigh McGregor Doctor of Philosophy School of Media Arts, University of New South Wales 2009 ii Abstract Videogames are created for play. In videogames play takes place in an artificially constructed environment – in gamespace. Gameplay occurs in gamespace. To understand videogames, it is essential to understand how their spaces are implicated in play. This thesis asks what are the relationships between play and space in videogames? This thesis examines the relationships between space and play by looking at how architecture is constructed in gamespace and by looking at gamespace as an architectonic construct. In short, this thesis examines the architecture in and of gamespace. The relationships between space and play in videogames are examined by looking at the structure of gamespace, by looking at the differences between real space and gamespace and by analysing architectural and spatial functionality. This thesis discovers a series of important relationships between space and play, arguing that gamespace is used to create, manipulate and control gameplay, while gameplay dictates and influences the construction of gamespace. Particular forms of play call for particular constructions of gamespace. Particular types of gamespace construct play in particular ways. This thesis identifies a number of ways in which gamespace is configured for play. Finally this thesis operates as a conceptual framework for understanding gamespace and architecture in videogames. iii Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements v Statement of Originality vi Copyright & Authenticity Statement vii Introduction 1 Vitruvius Didn’t Play Videogames Chapter 1 Units of Gamespace 14 Understanding Videogame Structure 1.1 Space & Actions 15 1.2 Landscape as Architecture 25 1.3 Stratified Approaches 28 1.4 Qualities of Gamespace 34 1.5 Players & Spatial Practices 42 1.6 Units of Gamespace 45 1.7 A Spatial Heart of Gameness 54 Chapter 2 Dissociation & Reconstitution 56 The Construction of Gamespace 2.1 Sensory Dissociation 57 2.2 Material Dissociation 71 2.3 Reconstituting Function 81 2.4 Reconstituting & Reinventing Space 92 2.5 Reconstituting Architectural Form 102 2.6 Dissociation & Reconstitution 106 Chapter 3 Spaces and Objects 110 Representation & Abstraction in Gamespace 3.1 Representation, Abstraction, Simulation & Transformation 111 3.2 Spaces & Objects 126 3.3 Experiential Space & Symbolic Space 136 3.4 Presence & Gamespace 148 3.5 Modes of Gamespace 151 iv Chapter 4 Situations of Play 153 Patterns of Spatial Use 4.1 Patterns in Gamespace 154 4.2 Challenge Space 158 4.3 Contested Space 163 4.4 Nodal Space 168 4.5 Codified Space 174 4.6 Creation Space 180 4.7 Backdrops 186 4.8 Spatial Patterns in Use 189 4.9 Patterns of Spatial Use 196 Chapter 5 Terra Ludus, Terra Paidia & Terra Prefab 199 Spatialisation of Play 5.1 Virtual Worlds 200 5.2 Social Space 209 5.3 Paidia and Ludus in Virtual Worlds 221 5.4 Terra Paidia, Terra Ludus 224 5.5 Terra Prefab 234 5.6 Spatialisation of Play 238 Conclusion 242 If Vitruvius had a X-Box Bibliography 250 List of Games 269 List of Figures 272 Appendix 1 Experiential & Symbolic Space 275 Appendix 2 Experiential & Symbolic Space by Genre 280 Appendix 3 Patterns of Spatial Use 285 Appendix 4 Patterns of Spatial Use by Genre 292 Appendix 5 Terra Ludus, Terra Paidia & Terra Prefab 299 v Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following: Professor Ross Harley, my thesis supervisor for his patience, wit and humour, and for never letting me whinge. My previous supervisor, Professor James Donald, for encouraging my initial ideas. John Phillips for ceaseless wielding of the red pen in the cause of grammatical erudition. The Australian Government for my Australian Postgraduate Award, at least some of my tertiary education was free. My parents, John and Joan McGregor, who listened nonplussed to me reading aloud all my chapters and who supported me throughout the course of this thesis. My partner, David Griffiths, for believing I can do anything. And finally thanks to my daughter Jessica, who had to share the computer with me. vi Originality Statement ‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.’ Signed …………………………………………….............. Date vii Copyright Statement ‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.' Signed ……………………………………………........................... Date ……………………………………………........................... Authenticity Statement ‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the conversion to digital format.’ Signed ……………………………………………........................... Date ……………………………………………........................... Vitruvius Didn’t Play Videogames Introduction As an architecture student playing videogames I often pondered the difference between what I was taught at university and what I was experiencing in the games. At the university we were taught of Vitruvius, whose work De architectura from around 15BC remains the only surviving major Roman treatise on architecture1. In a pithy aphorism that has echoed through the ages and is still taught at university today, Vitruvius asserted that architecture should exhibit the three qualities of firmitas, utilitas and venustas2. In short, architecture should be structurally sound, functional and beautiful3. Yet the buildings I encountered in videogames appeared to be illogical, unsound, unusable, and at times downright impossible. Architecture in videogames varied from the bizarre to the banal, from the passé to trite cliché. To examine videogames with the same critical eye as was encouraged in my architecture degree was to invite failure. Why? Because Vitruvius didn’t play videogames. Vitruvius didn’t play videogames, while none of the architects teaching my course had more than a rudimentary knowledge of what games were about. As such many architects tend to dismiss videogame architecture as puerile, anachronistic and a waste of time. Curiously enough it is Vitruvius who gives us a clue as to why we can’t consider architecture in videogames in the same light as buildings in physical 1 De architectura is also known as the Ten Books on Architecture. 2 The Latin text reads “Haec autem ita fieri debent ut habeatur ratio firmitatis utilitatis venustatis” (Vitruvius Pollio, Marcus. de Architectura. Latin text on Bill Thayer’s Website. Latin text from the Teubner Edition by Valentin Rose, 1899. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/ Vitruvius/1*.html. Accessed 15th October 2008). 3 For the purposes of this thesis ‘structurally sound’, ‘functional’ and ‘beautiful’ are useful translations of Vitruvius’ maxim, though the exact nomenclature and meaning of Vitruvius’ statement can be endlessly debated. Most online translators of Latin to English return strength or firmness for firmitas, usefulness or utility for utilitas, and beauty and attractiveness for venustas. The Morris Hicky Morgan translation reads architecture “must be built with due reference to durability, convenience and beauty” (Vitruvius. "The Ten Books on Architecture". Trans. Morris Hicky Morgan. New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1960, p.17). Sir Henry Wotton’s 1624 translation of firmness, commodity and delight is also widely quoted (Wotton, Sir Henry. The Elements of Architecture: A Facsimile Reprint of the First Edition (London, 1624). Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1968, p.1). Vitruvius Didn’t Play Videogames 2 space. Three things can be inferred from Vitruvius’ statement – a building should stand up, it should be useful and it should look good while doing so. Leaving aside the contentious issue of beauty4, Vitruvius asks us to consider architecture in the light of how it is made and what it does. To understand architecture in videogames one must first understand its function and construction. Videogames are created for gameplay – the sum total of game and play5.