Futureworks Game
Jam: Exploration Game Design Framework
Event Review and Research
Outcomes Analysis: Design Practice: What are the
Implications of this Exercise on the Research Project?
Investigating
the emerging genre of video game experience currently known as an “Exploration”
game, with an aim to create a new fit-for-purpose Design Framework for
developers.
Event Review
The
Game Jam event was held at Futureworks School of Media in Manchester on
Saturday 25th and Sunday 26th April between 11am and 6pm
as scheduled (appendix 1). 15
participants attended and contributed to the event. The participants were
separated up into small teams consisting of between three and six members each
and participants with specialist skills (i.e. Programming and Audio) were
allowed to ‘float’ between teams to make up for any shortcomings. This, coupled
with tutor support, provided each team with the range of skills and knowledge
required to create a small prototype game, based on the genre and game elements
that were suggested.
Participants
who are currently undertaking a Diploma in Game Development were initially
introduced to a basic concept that was based on the suggested game elements (appendix
2). However, this concept was not well received, and ultimately all
participants chose the alternative approach in designing their own concepts
based on the suggested game elements.
 |
| The original basic concept provided to the Game Development Diploma participants was not well-received. |
Before
any development took place, participants were provided with a Welcome letter
(appendix 3), which defined the research being undertaken as well as
introducing them to the Suggested Game Elements. Participants were informed
that they should use these elements as a guide when designing their games, but
that they could also deviate from them if they thought it would benefit the
overall design. Participants were then provided with an initial questionnaire
based on the research being undertaken (appendix 4) before beginning the
development process.
An Analysis of the Initial
Questionnaire Responses
From
the responses obtained from the initial questionnaire (appendix 5), it was clear that all participants had
played games which they considered to be Exploration games. This was beneficial
as it allowed me to gauge their expectations and make comparisons to games they
were familiar with. In
regards to whether the participants believed the designers of those titles were
successful in what they were trying to achieve, most of the participants
believed they were. Participants stated that they believed the designers of
these titles wished to create a world in which was intriguing and somewhat
mysterious to the player; thus sparking the players’ sense of intrigue and
encouraging them to explore the game world. Certain participants believed that
the creative freedoms to manipulate the environment provides players with a
greater sense of personalisation, identity and ownership; this backs up my
findings within the research carried out so far. However, some participants
also noted that games that included large expansive environments could
sometimes feel overwhelming. Participants suggested that sparse content could
also be an issue with large scale open world environments. Other responses
indicated that certain exploration games employed mechanics that became repetitive
over time- although these responses did not specify which titles they were
referring to. This is an interesting point, and one that merits further
research. It could be suggested that by providing players with greater freedom
and power to manipulate the game environment, the means in which this can be
done should be carefully considered. Considerations should be given not just to
the boundaries of the game-world (and the limitations of players’ abilities
within it), but also to how players
go about manipulating the world. Examples here include the building mechanics
in games such as Minecraft (Mojang),
which force players to spend time mining and collecting resources, crafting
them and then using them to build structures. Further study should be given between
the sense of value through time invested in, in-game activities, to potential
laborious tasks. This echoes Jesse Schell’s comments in both his “Design
Outside the Box” DICE presentation (Schell, 2010) and his thoughts on the
relationship between work and play at DICE 2013.
The
participants were then asked what they believed to be the most important
aspects when designing an Exploration game. Here responses were more varied but
certain trends were able to be identified. Most participants believed that a
detailed open world was essential, whether this be in the form of multiple
collectable items, detailed environments, to a large number of side- quests
within an intricate background narrative / lore. Other responses included the
importance of allowing the player to figure out their own purpose within the
game-world, and, in multiplayer games, allowing the player to freely
communicate with other players and collaborate towards a common goal.
The
following question asked participants if they believed there are any
constraints when designing games within the Exploration genre. Again this drew
a range of different opinions, from those believed there are no fundamental
constraints to those who believed that the game-world should change with every
play-through. The reasoning behind this is to provide longevity to games that
rely on mystery and uniqueness to the game world. Interestingly, some of the
games I have analysed during the course of my research have implemented
procedurally generated worlds, to some degree or other, perhaps to specifically
tackle this issue (i.e. Sunless Sea
(Failbetter Games)). Other participants believed that the scale of the game-world
may also cause issues, again linking this to a sense of overwhelming the
player.
 |
| Sunless Sea by Failbetter Games uses a degree of procedural generation for it's environment. |
The
final question asked if the participants how important they believe traditional
design fundamentals, such as providing challenges to the player, are for an
experience that focuses on exploration. In addition, the participants were
asked if they believed there are any alternative approaches or goals that they
would present to the player instead. This question generated some interesting
responses, with most participants believing set challenges form an important
part of maintaining player engagement. The form of these challenges however,
differed across the range of responses that were submitted. Some participants
believed that the challenges presented should be story-based, providing further
context to the narrative and the role of the player. Other participants
believed that the only challenges that could realistically be presented are
that of environmental hazards and enemies to defeat. Interestingly, these are two
of the suggested game elements that are presented within the Design Framework.
One participant believed that while set-challenges are important, ‘good’ game
mechanics can provide means for a player to set their own challenges. Another
participant believed that challenges should not be immediately apparent and
that part of the ‘joy’ of exploration is allowing the player to discover
themselves what it is they want or need to achieve rather than having it
presented to them via the design or narrative. An interesting response to this
question was presented when a participant suggested that “presenting a world
rich enough for the player to explore and find meaning in could easily replace
traditional concepts”. This participant provided the game Proteus (Curve Studios) as an example.
Game Jam Observations
During
the Game Jam, I made several observations based upon the participants’ initial
reception to the theme and suggested game elements, how they planned their
designs based upon these, and how ultimately they approached the development of
their prototypes.
As
previously mentioned, the majority of participants did not well-receive the
initial basic concept provided to them by the Game Development Diploma tutors.
Interestingly, on the whole this is not because they did not like the concept,
but rather they believed it was too restrictive in terms of providing them with
creative freedom. Instead, all of the participants opted to create their own
concepts based on the suggested game elements.
Certain
students initially struggled to think of concepts that included all of the
elements, and became frustrated by this. However, with the help of the Game
Design Degree students (acting as design consultants) all of the teams
eventually came up with their own unique concepts. The scope of the concepts
was also an issue, given the amount of suggested game elements involved versus
the amount of development time available within the game jam. Despite
indications to the contrary, all of the participants felt compelled to include
all of the Suggested Game Elements in the concepts, which seemed to overwhelm
several of them. Another point of interest was that the participants chose to
use reference material from other popular Exploration titles such as Journey (ThatGameCompany) to inspire
their theme and art styles. It was clear that the participants felt safe to
emulate the look and feel of these titles as this is what they identified as
forming the expectations within the genre. In order to share ideas,
participants relied primarily on verbal communication rather than centralising
their ideas on a basic initial concept document or a simple GDD. When
questioned about this, one participant replied that they did not see the need
for such documentation, as they all knew the basic theme, art-style and game
mechanics and were using the Suggested Game Elements for consistency.
In
regards to the development process, the range of technical skills and design
knowledge within the group was evidently quite wide. This, coupled with the scope
of what each team was trying to achieve in the limited amount of time, had a
profound impact on the quality and level of completeness of the final
prototypes. Again, the assistance, guidance and technical competency of the
tutors, Degree students, and from the single Game Audio Diploma student, went
some way to negate the teams’ skill-gaps.
The final prototypes produced at the end of the game jam have been included within the appendix link (please see appendix link below).
 |
| Various teams at work at the Futureworks Game Jam |
Analysis of Post-Game Jam Reflective
Questionnaire Responses
Once
the game jam was completed, participants were asked to reflect on their
practice and the effectiveness of the Suggested Game Elements. The questionnaire
(appendix 6) first asked the participants if their perception of Exploration
games had changed now that they had worked on developing their own. Responses
indicate that for a slight majority, their perceptions had changed with
participants indicating that they now had a greater awareness of the various
game mechanics that encourage players to explore the game-world. Other comments
suggested that some participants now had a greater appreciation for the way
combinations of mechanics, narrative and an interactive environment worked
together to encourage certain player behaviours while still allowing for a
sense of freedom and self-direction.
The
participants were next asked what aspects of an Exploration define the genre.
Here the responses were more varied but certain trends did appear.
Specifically, most participants felt that an open world was crucial, but also
suggested that the world needed to be content-rich and allow for a good deal of
interaction. Participants believed that this approach was crucial to making the
world engaging and able to keep the player’s interest. Customisation of the
player character was also mentioned by one participant, stressing that a sense
of personalisation was important to them. Progressive goals was also identified
as an important aspect for the majority of participants, with one participant
stressing that allowing the player to progress at their own pace was one aspect
that set Exploration games apart from games in other genres. This factor is
interesting, as I believe it ties in with allowing the player a greater sense
of freedom over their own actions, and ultimately, their own successes or
failures within the context of the game. Forcing the player to act at a set
pace works well in games that strive to create a sense of tension, or allow the
designer a greater amount of control over in-game events. However, this
approach may also make the game-world feel less authentic and may remove the
sense of control and responsibility from the player. I believe this aspect is
one that merits further study, and may tie directly into the emotional
experience of the player.
Next,
the participants were asked if the Suggested Game Elements they were provided
were useful when designing their Exploration game prototypes. This question
provided a wide range of results. From those participants who responded, seven
participants believed the Suggested Game Elements supported their design and
provided guidance; three believed they did not and were too restrictive in
terms of creative freedom within their designs. In addition to this, some
participants suggested that there were too many suggested elements and this
made the possible designs too rigid. From the remaining two participants who
completed the questionnaire, these did not provide a specific response to this
question. These responses, coupled with my own observations, suggest that the
way the Design Framework is presented to developers may be essential to how it
is received, and ultimately utilised. It is apparent, that it is important to
stress that the Framework and the Suggested Game Elements within, should not be
portrayed as a set of compulsory constraints that must be followed.
Furthermore, it also raises the underlying question as to whether such a Design
Model is practical within a ‘real-life’ design and development environment.
In
order to assist in any potential changes to the Design Framework, participants
were asked if they had any recommendations to either the Suggested Game
Elements or the way in which they were presented. The answers to this question was
enlightening: Most of the participants found that the game elements were useful
for initial concept work, but that if followed too literally they constrained
and limited their creativity. This is interesting because it somewhat
contradicts comments made by Arthur Parsons during my earlier research: “knowing where your boundaries are makes design easier because you are less
likely to lose direction” (Parsons, 2013). However, a
possible explanation for the participants’ response to this could be found in
the following question which asked if they would make any specific changes should
they carry out a similar project in the future. To this, almost all of the
participants said that they did not have enough time to fully explore the
recommended game elements to a level they were happy with. It could be,
therefore, that with more time, the participants would have embraced and pushed
the boundaries of the suggested game elements. This, in turn would have
provided them with a greater amount of creative freedom and may have inspired
more innovative designs. These in turn, would likely have pushed the boundaries
of the genre itself. Further study is required to fully test this theory but I
believe this is an encouraging development.
Implications Towards Future
Practice and Research
Upon reflection, I believe this exercise has provided me with evidence that there is
scope and demand for this type of design framework – at least, within the
Exploration genre. In this regard, my findings would suggest that standard
practice would benefit from such a structured approach, although I believe more
refinement is needed to make this a fully-viable development aid.
In
order to further test the theories that have come about from carrying out this
Game Jam, it would be practical to attempt to carry out the exercise again but allowing
for more development time. Ideally, if time permitted, it would be enlightening
to test the Design Framework on the development of a fully-scoped game. It
would also be beneficial to allow more experienced developers to attempt to
create a prototype in order to gauge if developer experience is a factor in the
effectiveness and usefulness of such a Design Framework. This, coupled with the
User Guide I created earlier in the project, would help to ascertain if this
type of approach to game development practice is more beneficial as educational
material for students and graduates, or if it is universally beneficial for all
developers within the Industry.
Another
consideration that did not feature in the Game Jam was the order and priority
of design and development for each of the game elements that were suggested.
For example, should the environment be designed first and then the game
mechanics, or should the game mechanics directly influence the design of the
environment? It is highly probable that the order in which game elements are
designed and developed will have a significant outcome on the overall design of
the game. It could be argued that a specific order is not required, and
attempting to standardise this would further restrict creativity within design.
Again, this is something that merits further consideration as the project
develops.
References
Curve
Studios (2013). Proteus [Video
game]. London: Curve Studios
Failbetter Games (2015). Sunless Sea [Video game]. Greenwich : Failbetter Games.
Mojang (2009). Minecraft [Video game]. Stockholm : Microsoft
Mojang (2009). Minecraft [Video game]. Stockholm : Microsoft.
Parsons,
Arthur (2013) Video Lecture at UCLan, Recorded 8th February 2013
Schell, J., 2010. Design Outside the Box. Las
Vegas, DICE.
Schell,
J., 2013. The Secret Mechanisms. Las Vegas: DICE.
ThatGameCompany (2012). Journey [Video game]. Los Angeles. CA.: Sony Computer
Entertainment
Appendix
Please click on the following DropBox link for all appendix items:
No comments:
Post a Comment