Initial
Game Concept Game Exercise
Held at Futureworks on 8th January 2016
Aims
The second practical test of
the Suggested Game Elements was designed to focus on the following:
1.
How experienced
practitioners utilised and perceived the suggested game elements as key design
considerations for an Exploration Game. Specifically, participants were asked
to consider if the Suggested Game Elements are fit-for-purpose, and how
comprehensive they are.
2.
The order/ hierarchy
and interdependencies between game elements.
The practical test would
consist only of developers with experience in making games at
Industry-standard, and/or with a high level academic qualification in game
development (or related field of expertise).
Event Observations and
Analysis
Before the event, all of the
invited participants were sent a questionnaire to complete (Appendix A). Of the
five participants that were invited, two completed the questionnaire and
provided their responses. These can be found in Appendix items B and C
respectively.
The event itself took place
on 8th January 2016 at Futureworks: School of Media. In total, of
the five participants invited, four were able to attend. The event was
initially intended to last for, at least, a couple of hours. However, due to
other commitments held by the participants, the event lasted for one and a half
hours.
The participants were first
given the Suggested Game Element diagram to look at, and were briefed as to the
aims of the exercise. The participants were informed that they were to work as
a group, using the diagram, to come up with a basic game concept that they
believed fit the description of an Exploration game.
Firstly, the participants
discussed which game elements they should focus on first. It became evident
that there was some confusion over what was meant by the term “Open World”
despite the description provided. It was commented that a more accurate
description would be “Non-Linear World”. It was quickly decided that the
underlying story and game environment/world should be the starting point,
closely followed by defining the primary goal/objective for the primary
character / player (figure 1).
 |
Fig 1. The participants
deciding upon which Game Elements they should focus on first.
|
The group then proceeded to
form a basic story around the player character (i.e. who they were, why they
were in the game world/ what were they looking for, and what their motivation
was). This can be seen in figure 2 below:
 |
| Fig 2. An initial “who, what and why?” approach to the player character. |
The group then attempted to
narrow down and refine their ideas (figure 3):
 |
| Fig 3. The group’s ideas were refined into more specific details about the player character and their motivation. |
During this process, the
group’s ‘trail of thought’ was recorded:
Player character
-> Motivation (skeletal story structure) -> Means of obtaining objective
-> Where it takes place -> Fleshed
out underlying story -> NPCs -> Inventory / collectables / limited useable
items.
The group was then shown the
following diagram (figure 4) that was created in response to comments made by
Darlington and Morris in the questionnaires sent out before the event took
place (Appendix B and C). Specifically, Darlington suggested that more
clarification of the hierarchy between elements was
required.
 |
| Fig 4. Suggested Game Elements and the Interdependencies between them. |
It was explained to the
participants that Environment Hazards and NPC elements were considered
optional, as were the interdependencies highlighted by dashed lines. They were
then asked if they agreed with both the game elements that were included (core
and optional) and with the structure/hierarchy presented in the diagram. The
results of these questions proved extremely interesting: All of the
participants agreed that the core and optional elements were correct. However,
where the structure/hierarchy was concerned the responses were far more varied.
One participant stated that they would generally agree with the structure but
would not like to be restricted to following it exactly. Two of the
participants said they would follow a different structure, pointing to their
trail of thought during the exercise as a more likely structure. One
participant stated that they would not use the diagram as they already have set
beliefs of how they would create exploration games from prior experience. This
participant elaborated that they would take a more ‘loose’ approach and would
focus on core gameplay (mechanics and story first) and would design the other
elements simultaneously around these). This was partially demonstrated on the
following image (figure 5) that displays what the participants believed to be
the structure of the basic game concept they designed during the exercise. An
interesting comment was made by one of the participants who stated that they
believed a second core genre is needed first to help define the ‘core
framework’ of the game. They stated that this would consist of core gameplay
mechanics and an underlying story. To this the rest of the group agreed and
they suggested that the order of the game elements (and which optional elements
to include), rather than be fixed, would in fact change depending on the
secondary-core genre. They provided examples of a ‘Survival / Exploration’ game
or ‘Narrative / Exploration’ game, to highlight this point.
 |
| Fig 5. How the group visualised the structure and interdependencies of game elements within their initial concept. |
The group were finally asked
if they who they considered would be the best target audience for the Game
Elements hierarchy/structure. Unanimously, the participants believed that game
design students, or developers who have little to no experience developing
Exploration games would most benefit from using the diagram as a guide.
The results of this exercise
perhaps have profound consequences for the content and structure of the overall
Design Framework. Firstly, it may be that exploration alone cannot sit
independently as a ‘genre’; requiring an additional genre to help define and shape
the fundamental elements of the game’s design. Secondly, the results here would
suggest that there is no single structure/ hierarchy. While the elements and
interdependencies that have been included in the current model tend to be
accepted, the responses obtained within this exercise would suggest that the
structure itself would vary depending on whatever other ‘core-genre’ was
included within the game’s core design / vision.
Appendix
A. Shorrocks, J. (2015) Developer / Practitioner Questionnaire: Designing Games That Focus on Exploration as the Primary Theme
I am currently carrying out an
investigation into the suitability of a standardised design-framework for games
that use “Exploration” as a primary theme. The investigation has so far
considered developers’ opinions regarding Exploration as a primary theme, and
how they would approach this within their own practice. Additionally, the
investigation has also attempted to understand player engagement in exploring
virtual environments, and what factors (core gameplay mechanics, player-defined
goals and objectives etc.) most contribute to this engagement.
From the responses obtained by
developers and players alike, I have attempted to categorise and contextualise
core ‘game elements’ that are most crucial in providing a gameplay experience
where the exploration of virtual environments is both necessary and rewarding.
While the game elements are designed to act as a guide, I have purposely
written them so that they are not too specific in order to encourage and
promote creativity through interpretation. You can view these on the next page
(please see below).
I would be very grateful for
your thoughts on the ‘game elements’ I have suggested, and have composed a short
set of questions to gain your thoughts and opinions regarding them. Allow me to
thank you in advance for your time to complete your responses; your input is
invaluable to the research I am conducting and will help to shape the final
output.
For additional information
into the research I have been conducting, please visit http://joeshorrocks.blogspot.co.uk/.
Kind regards,
Joe Shorrocks
Please
answer the following questions, providing your reasons for each.
Q1. Do you
believe the game elements shown on the previous page are comprehensive? Are
there any additional elements you would include? Would you remove any of if the
existing elements?
Q2. Do you
believe the elements suggested would help guide developers to design a game
with exploration as a primary focus? (Here I am attempting to ascertain
whether the sub-text in each section is specific enough, too specific or not
specific enough).
Q3. Taking
the game elements into account, if you were tasked to design a game with
exploration as the primary focus, in which order would you
initially set out design each element, and why?
Q4. When
designing a game that focuses on exploration, who do you believe the game
elements would work best for as a design guide?
B. Darlington, J. (2015) Developer / Practitioner Questionnaire: Designing Games That Focus on Exploration as the Primary Theme
Q1. Do you
believe the game elements shown on the previous page are comprehensive? Are
there any additional elements you would include? Would you remove any of if the
existing elements?
After a thorough consideration of the
elements I feel that everything that could arise as part of a framework for
exploration games is accounted for here somewhere. However, the current
presentation of the elements does give – to me at least – a sense of something
missing. I think this may be due to some elements being much more connected to
each other than to other elements and perhaps the way in which they are grouped
together could be made more structured
in order to demonstrate this visually. For example, Open World, AI Opponents
and Enivronmental Hazards feel like one natural grouping (to do with core
gameplay mechanics), while Narrative and Goals section are also closely
related. Narrative and Open World, however, are also linked – and Objectives might
also group with Inventory… Either way, the particular arrangement of the
elements I think could be clearer (or at least more consciously ordered). The
elements themselves though seem thorough and exhaustive.
Q2. Do you
believe the elements suggested would help guide developers to design a game
with exploration as a primary focus? (Here I am attempting to ascertain
whether the sub-text in each section is specific enough, too specific or not
specific enough).
The ambiguity of the some of the descriptions
is a strength I feel. Where a tendency of some design guides / studies in
dealing with open worlds is to go for genre expectations (fantasy I guess being
the major one), there is something in these descriptions which is applicable
across genres and possibly even across gameplay styles.
Q3. Taking
the game elements into account, if you were tasked to design a game with
exploration as the primary focus, in which order would you
initially set out design each element, and why?
The order I would initially adopt is:
1) Underlying Narrative
2) Open World
3) Player-Defined Goals/Objectives
4) Inventory System
5) Environmental Hazards
6) AI Opponents
The reasoning behind this is that the
narrative for me defines the vision of the game overall. It may not be fully
fleshed out first but the core synopsis of the world and what is at stake in it
would drive the rest of the design process and provide a core for all members
of the design team to grasp onto when they’re struggling to conceptualise
subsequent elements. The open world design would emerge from this including
areas and sub-areas of interest (plus Ocarina of Time style separation of
thematic areas from each other, combat and non-combat areas with NPCs, etc).
This again would help establish the context for the rest of the design work.
Goals and Objectives would emerge from combination of world and narrative, the
inventory system from the Goals (as accumulation of items would no doubt be
part of rewarding the successes of the player and unlocking extra areas by
overcoming hazards – which leads to…). Environmental Hazards would follow from
inventory and AI from environmental design (and the constraints that would
represent for AI functionality in movement and combat/communication). With any
good design process each element would feedback to each previous one, but
that’s the general approach I’d take.
Q4. When
designing a game that focuses on exploration, who do you believe the game
elements would work best for as a design guide?
As a design guide I’m guessing that the head
of production would find it most useful, although in a small design team that
would be lead developer or whoever is responsible for overseeing the direction
of the overall team. I would expect something such as this would be most useful
in the overall conception of the game and setting out some initial design
overview documents. Encountering this type of macro-level design guide during
an ongoing design process would probably either conform the current process or
else be too late for any changes on that scale to be made. Each company and
each project is different however, so these kinds of speculations might prove
totally wrong.
C. Morris, S. (2015) Developer / Practitioner Questionnaire: Designing Games That Focus on Exploration as the Primary Theme
Q1. Do you
believe the game elements shown on the previous page are comprehensive? Are
there any additional elements you would include? Would you remove any of if the
existing elements?
I believe the elements to be comprehensive.
Although I believe an exploration game can exist without an inventory system or
AI, the framework allows for the facilitation of such a game.
Q2. Do you
believe the elements suggested would help guide developers to design a game
with exploration as a primary focus? (Here I am attempting to ascertain
whether the sub-text in each section is specific enough, too specific or not
specific enough).
The elements are very clear and would provide
good discussion points during the initial conception and throughout the
development process.
Q3. Taking
the game elements into account, if you were tasked to design a game with
exploration as the primary focus, in which order would you initially set
out design each element, and why?
1.
Underlying Narrative
2.
Open World
3.
Player-defined goals/objectives
4.
Environmental Hazards
5.
AI Enemies
6.
Inventory System
If designing an exploration game, my primary
focus would be ensuring there was a cohesive underlying narrative the player can unravel and drive them to
discover more about the environment they have been introduced to. The open world would then be designed
around the narrative to encourage the player to explore all tangents of the
storyline. I would still have a core narrative but with optional depth rewarding
those who take the time to explore beyond the initial requirements (thus
leading into the player-defined goals).
With the above three elements in place, I
would introduce further conflict into the game world via the environmental hazards to further ground
the player immersion as well as provide a gating system to encourage
travel/exploration.
As initially mentioned, the final two
elements are not completely necessary as good exploration games can exist
without either inventory or AI but I would place AI enemies next to provide additional conflict and player drama.
The inventory system is an odd one –
depending on the context, I would either place it higher up or last. I could
use it either as:
·
a system of driving the player forward and achieve goals via a direct
challenge (pick up 100 skulls = achievement/craftable shelter) or indirectly
(finding crowbar means I can open more things)
·
or dispense with it altogether and focus purely on the narrative.
Q4. When designing
a game that focuses on exploration, do you believe the game elements would work
best only as a guide to student/new developers, or would they also help
existing developers to focus on specific design areas?
I believe the system would
work for all areas however with some caveats. It’s a great resource for
students/new developers as it establishes a strong foundation from which all
aspects of an exploration game can be considered and developed from. In regards
to existing developers, it may be more applicable to those who haven’t tackled
exploration games in the past as it, again, provides a good framework to work
within.
For those who have worked
in this field, it may give additional aspects they haven’t considered but they
would likely have a system in place already. That being said, any good designer
would still utilize the framework as an opportunity to expand their knowledge
and provide additional value to the game.
Fig 1. Shorrocks, J. (2016) The participants deciding upon which Game Elements they should focus on first. 8 January 2016.
Fig 2. Shorrocks, J. (2016) An initial “who, what and why?” approach to the player character. 8 January 2016.
Fig 3. Shorrocks, J. (2016) The group’s ideas were refined into more specific details about the player character and their motivation. 8 January 2016.
Fig 4. Shorrocks, J. (2016) Suggested Game Elements and the Interdependencies between them. 8 January 2016.
Fig 5. Shorrocks, J. (2016) How the group visualised the structure and interdependencies of game elements within their initial concept. January 2016.
