Sunday, 10 January 2016

Initial Game Concept Game Exercise: Event Review and Analysis

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment