Thursday, December 17, 2015

Coding "Choice"/Story Pt.2 Also Life Update

Quick life update
I'm happy to say that I now know my last semester went better then I felt it was going, not as well as I hoped but much better than it felt like at the time. Also I can officially announce that I have another job, soon as my two weeks goes through i'll be in a *fingers crossed* more manageable double employment position. So that's that.

Coding Divergent Stories Pt.2

So as we discussed last time the gameplay in itself is not only inseparable to the story but in it's range of possible actions effects the themeing beneath the games overall experience, I'd argue that every memorable game experience has an element of this modeled into it's design. Mario is played by avoiding and overcoming obstacles, the theme is overcoming adversity. The Stanley Parable's gameplay is interacting with and against the narrator, the theme is agency against predestination. First person games are played by a single point, a projected you, as interacting manipulating and surviving a projected other, and the themes in first person games are often man against the world or against the horrific unstoppable other. There's alot of interesting stuff that could be said about how the layout of interaction changes the tone of a game for the player, like the modes of interaction put the player in a different mind space, or encourage them to create a different narrative (look at me staying on topic). 

The apparent problem we were left with last time was how divergence allowed by interaction possibly undermines the narrative or theme of the game. And, at first I honestly didn't know how to answer this, but I think this wasn't so much an issue of the medium, but the manner that we think of story that lead us to the specific question. This is one of those problems every English major will encounter when writing essays. While themes and narrative are real things that do exist in stories, they are tangible to the reader and definite within a story, because after the piece of art is sent out in the world it's a finished work. But in another way it isn't, there is an intrinsic final part of art, that being the reception by the reader. Now, I'm not talking about the whole phenomena of a reader having to physical look at the words for the ideas those words mean to "re-create" the story before they can access it. No, what I mean is the themes are a thing that is received by a thinking feeling individual, and because of that what those themes end up meaning exactly is not set. Themes, while definitely inherent by the creators design. On purpose or not, they are in there. (I've written a paper about parental conventions of death and god as represented in Curious George episodes alone.)

What we're saying is that beneath the surface narrative texture, there are themes, ideas about stuff, which the audience will come and interact with to some degree. They might not know it but that episode about the Daleks and Oswin is an exploration of the themes of autonomy, of what constitutes human and self. Oswin figured she was sealed away from the nanobots that convert humans into the robot Dalek, a conversion that is a literal reconstitution of autonomy. The independent thinking human becomes a robot, a creature whose very name originates form slave, and is in it's nature one that follows it's programming, completely devoid of individual autonomy. Also there's a small element of Odysseus ship, the thought experiment of "How many parts do you have to replace on a thing before it becomes a new, different thing? Does it?"; Oswin made a small fantasy world inside her mind that she wasn't being converted into a Dalek by nanobots, but instead was sealed up in a crashed ship and was surviving and burning time before rescue, while her entire body was replaced there was supposedly this small element of will left that retained the part that made the mind of the converted Dalek still Oswin the human. And you can do this will all of media to better understand the anxieties behind the fictions and better understand the draw their audience has to them.

So What Does These Mean For Games?

Themes are not definite, notice the theme in the Odysseus's Ship story is a question, overarching narratives are not complete always complete thoughts. The best kind often aren't, because art that recognizes these big ideas and questions are not definite or answered yet, leave this element of ambiguity in the characters, this is where the story's human element is. Socrates famously said "Know Thyself", but he never meant that to directly mean "understand who you definitely are", he meant "know what you are not, in being definitely sure what you do not know, you can better seek knowledge". Really good stories, almost never explore their themes by directly answering questions, often they explore these questions by presenting what the situation is not. 

Are the Replicates who have differing "empathetic" responses then humans, not sentient? Well, they're not dumb, and what they feel can't be called insincere... Is that what sentience is?
Good questions raise further questions, and so the reader is unconsciously diving further and deeper into the fantasy.

I'd never say that stories always attempt to have an ambiguous ending, or even that only the good ones do, that'd be dumb. What I'm saying is that in every bit of fictions exploration of a theme, just that you can't spell it out for the reader without either being insulting or making the story sound contrived.

Contrived plots are the biggest problem for young writers. Contrived is when the story feels like a certain point is pushed onto the series of events, seemingly because the author wanted it. Why this is so noticeable, is because instead of the girl leaving the scum bag that sexually assaulted her in the dive in theater, instead of her not trusting him after he showed he doesn't understand the word no and manipulated her trust, instead of all that... after he wins the race she dresses up to get him all hot and bothered because that's what he wants and now she wants just what he wants. Because happy endings is how it should be. God I hate Grease. The arch of that film that had the most tension the moment most people remember and relate to as "thee" important part of Grease, is the race. Notice it's never a problem just that the hero wins at the end, it's a problem if this doesn't make any sense with the rest of the story, that's what contrived storytelling is.  

 Insulting is when what was clearly conveyed, or at least could be understood by watching the scene is spelled out, the cop dramas that have each clue and what it could indicate getting described before the scene cuts.. yes that boring part, imagine those shows without the drama of who is sleeping with who or who showed up drunk, or whose terrified of their wife having a child in this rotten city. ect. There is the real meat of the narrative. The lesson is to not go 100% with the story, you decide how much you want your viewer to work to understand your story, but you never go 100%. If you do your fiction becomes a lazy read, the reader is left without the need to think about the character actions or make their own reading of intentions or emotions, and is left utterly distinguished from the fiction. Whatever percentage you make them work to fill out the rest of the story, "Who was right? Rorschach or Ozymandias?" whatever percentage that is is what invests them in your work.Think about what the characters and events are asking of the player while you create, but also recognize that this end result you're giving space for, you don't need to have control of that, you don't even need to have a definite version for yourself.

This is not just about giving space for the reader to work and invest and, well read, into your narrative. But this is about letting go of the idea that you need to control or even know what they are going to add to that space. And knowing this, approaching creating divergent stories changes. It's not so much, "how do I let them explore a story they''ll create and let them feel like they're the ones that created it while still designing a satisfying ending?" and suddenly the question is more, "how do I create tools that let them explore questions to their satisfaction?" The latter, is much easier to discuss. But again, it's late and I have quite a busy work weekend head of me and I think this is enough for one post. Goodnight, and thank you for reading.  

Friday, December 4, 2015

Tackling Logic, and the Challenge of coding in "choice"

How does Story relate to Coding?

For pretext first we should discuss Ludonarrative, or simple the narrative elements inherent in the mechanics of a game. It's been discussed before on this blog, but refresher is always good. In the manner that all mechanical actions possible to the player are framed within a narrative act, the play is the story. Interacting with a game, in itself, adds to the game's narrative. This is most easily recognizable when there are different manners in which a player can interact within the world. This can be something so simple as changing which class your character is, or having player action lead to different outcomes for the endgame scenario; to the more vague and small moments of,  did Peach or Bowser win at the flower cup, or did Mastercheif favor the pistol or battle-rifle while saving the earth.
The point being that the mechanics of a game and the narrative of a game are inherently intertwined and cannot be accurately discussed separately, this implications of this as this article will explore, is that if the ludonarrative or playstory (story that's within the actions allowed to the player) has a poor narrative it leads to unsatisfying gameplay.
This isn't limited to the previous discussion of having each action lead to the broader arch as previously discussed; actions not for the hallow sake of themselves but for the overarching theme of the narrative. the previous point is what leads to the distinction of the "annoying mini game" vs side quests or moments of interaction that seem integral to the feel of the game. While Wind Waker is a story about a young islander fighting off monsters in island castles and dungeons, you can't imagine it without being able to sailing between islands. The sailing is an integral part as it's part of exploration.

There's the pretext, this discussion will be about instance to instance puzzles, and the problematic narrative of "choice" existing in what is ultimately a deterministic world. As always, the really hard problems turned out to be philosophy ones; and as always, philosophy has the answer... kinda. 

First we'll discuss a number of approaches to the problem and then discus the divergent instances that compound what appears to be the essence of the problem/solution. 

Que Sera Sera

Determinism is the belief that nothing that happens in the world could in any scenario, not happen. That whatever sequence of events is inescapable and unavoidable. This situation mirrors the reality of created worlds. In any movie or book, the events of the story will unfold exactly as they have before and always will. Similarly in coded worlds, they are integrally tied to the succinct and defined moment of the creator. While in philosophy this challenges most notions of freewill or purpose, in games it's more so an underlying challenge of purpose, but more on that later. In created or coded worlds the experience of the viewer or participant mirrors what the Stoics termed Eternal Reoccurrence. That everything that will happen, not only will happen and is inescapable, but has likely already happened before this instance, and will happen again in the exact same way in the future. Unlike most they did not believe that the inability to change the future would undermined freedom or freewill, because the event and the will linked to the event are separate things. According to the Stoics, if I'm destined to take a nap or not before I go to work, does not have any bearing on if I have the will to take a nap. This is known as soft Determinism. We see this in games in that no matter how many times you play the game the same events will be triggered as they are coded, and after no number of playthroughs can you avoid the hardwired series of events. Of course, this doesn't necessarily undermined hos satisfying the gameplay is, there are plenty of instances of games where there is no way to vary from the set path and yet the game still feels satisfying. Possibly the most famous and revolutionary exploration of this, is of course, The Stanley Parable.

Or, for a more 'on the nose' experience... 

If you haven't yet, play the game.

  The Stanley Parable as it's central gameplay gimmick, is the narrator dictating your movements throughout the game. This is first dictating your movements before they are enacted, playing with the notion of linear progression where the player is completely passive and has their will aligned with whatever appears to be the narrative, but then.. as the level design subtly tempts the player to walk off the directed path or investigate other corners, the narrator dictates the players rebellion. The resulting back and forth, which is really something that has to be experienced, is an exploration of the player's limitation within a determined medium and the very game's limitations within presenting choice. The game is a tongue in cheek in tongue in cheek in-.. spiral into oblivion. Yet while it directly plays with the ideas of player choice, and possibly undermining player choice, at no point in-playing does that choice feel cheapened. Let that sink in, in a self-aware determined 
environment, that makes it's determined nature blatantly clear, at no point does the player feel their actions are pointless.. in a game about showing you how your actions don't lead to anything "special".     


All games have in a sense been tackling this problem, where what feels like a lack of player agency is in fact not conveying a sense of meaning behind actions. No player wants to do something "just because" they want to do it because of what it means in the game they're playing. The designer makes choices in gameplay valuable by making them meaningful within the context the game provides. When the choice is meaningful in terms of gameplay (powerup new ability) but not in terms of the story ( person dying = no change on the part of the player's mo) then we have that infamous diagnoses of Ludonarrative Dissonance, or in layman terms, "this part or acting in the game feels cheep, contrived, and just doesn't make sense"

 Divergent options that viably allow the game to be played differently allow the player to control, have a sense of agency with, and give meaning to the emergent narrative their participation in the game creates. It can be something so small as jumping on top of a koopa instead of jumping past or as complicated as using a +8 great sword with knockback and larger area of effect instead of a +9 dagger with higher dps. Choices become memorable when they stop being the automatic no-thinking-required kind, when they become personal. This is what creates memorable gameplay, this is what makes experiences that stick with us. This element of participation in the emergent narrative of games is what makes video games such a uniquely compelling and personal media to its fans. It's why people end up relating so personally to video games, because their actions and will become a part of the experience-

Gahhh, yeah okay.

So, in the most clear instance of this, we have divergent stories. 

Divergent stories as I'm referring to them are the kind where a primary aspect of the gameplay and theme of the game is a value on specific player choices. This covers everything from the recent AAA's exploration of dialogue options that lead to multiple endings or multiple romance options, to open worlds where there is no specific order to complete mission before the end game, to the choose your own adventure novels of yesteryear. All of these explore the same effect of divergent path in play. The challenge and deciding factor of this effect is its logical presentation within the context. The presentation of the divergent options must be logical, they must follow from the situation of the world as a both sound and necessity to the story as an overarching experience.To break this down to it's simplest components, in a choose your own adventure book, imagine how the writer would create the stream of events. After you've gone the route of the wizard, how would it feel to have the character bludgeon a guard to death rather than petrify him or shoot lightning bolts? No, a thief must be allowed to try to steal, a barbarian to fight, and a wizard to spellcast. There's a necessity for all player actions for the game to present some sort of foreshadowing, something that builds the internal logic that leads up to each moment of player action overcoming the obstacle. When there has been little to no buildup, either because the internal logic is just assumed and taken for granted or because the developers simply couldn't be bothered, we have coined the term "game logic" or more specifically within the point and click community "Sierra logic". There are plenty of fantastical scenarios that occur in games without the blink of an eye, this isn't because we rationally assume we could do the fantastic in real life, but because the game has presented the fantastic in slow building manner that allowed our suspension of disbelieve to keep up with the internal logic of the scene. I do not believe it makes any sense to be able to control my momentum mid-air during a jump, but when I experience this in a game and then experience being able to jump off a wall, the realization of wall jumping is natural. And overcoming that puzzle feels satisfying. 

The same way that building any rich internal lore for stories takes a slow and complex build of internal logic, the emergent story the player creates through actions takes a similarly slow and nuanced build. Without this built suspension of belief at worst case we end up with sierra logic where the game is almost unplayable or at best where what happens on screen doesn't translate to the player as actions that are there own. As game critic and internet personality Arin Hanson "Egoraptor" put in his video essay comparing Zelda titles

"A puzzle is something you have all the information for, the only thing standing between you and the solution is your own ability to put the pieces together in the right way, the satisfaction you attain from solving a puzzle is from the A-HA moment. When the pieces fit and you only have yourself to blame for it. If you're missing a piece, how are you suppose to get to a conclusion a solution?
The satisfaction doesn't come from the door opening, it comes from the puzzle itself...

It's daunting, it's interesting, it engages you, and it's really easy to understand, and because of all this it's satisfying..."

Having all the information in this sense leads to the logistics problem of what amounts to the design equivalent of foreshadowing. Which, might sound impossible. How can a story in an emergent narrative seemingly foreshadow the end at the beginning when the end hasn't been "created" yet? Well, because it's already determined. Back a the example of the choose your own adventure, the key feature is that the story starts out extremely vague, which is perfect for establishing the first Blue Moon, the thing which is unbelievable but form which the player has their first step  into simultaneously believing, building, and being part of a fantastical world. the one crazy thing which all internal logic stems from. my personal favorite from fiction. 

In The Stanley Parable the game regularly plays with what is assumed to be a "reset" state, commenting on the last play through or braking the forth wall mentioning how everything will start over again and again until the player does as the narrator wants. It strings together what would otherwise appear to be alternate endings, separate stories, into a single cohesive narrative. What appears to be an impossible number of divergent paths all basically leading to the same "ending". How is this accomplished? This write up took much longer than I wished and I still have to get some sleep in before work. We'll take a closer look at different instances of gameplay that handle divergent paths next time. Until then; feel free to write about your favorite game that has alternate endings, romance, or dialogue options and why you like it or think it works in the comments. 

Thursday, October 22, 2015

progress/personal update

I don't know why precisely, but I feel compelled to write one of those updates that happens for regular blogs. I don't expect it to have the same effect, I mean, those are active social spaces where this is more a passing space. Like an empty billboard on a country highway that the occasional commuter glances at in case of a new advertisement. So I will keep it brief.

So, for those curious souls, I am still alive. I am still "working" on my game. More so I'm working on my two jobs and majors, but I break out the scribbles on the algorithm every now and again. Don't do anything with them to be honest, but I look at them. My efforts are in my grades and fixing my financial setting, I have plans to help finagle that where I'll possibly only need one job. But the logistics are still out on that one. I'm crossing my fingers that it'll work out and I'll be financed to extend my education and better round the knowledge set I want, first for my field... and, well second for this unhealthy game design addiction I have. But in the short term I've made some investments in classes for my other addiction hobby that could potentially provide another avenue of return.

For theatrical effect I'll leave that secondary hobby a mystery until I can get a nice collection of photos to display my work. But to give an idea of this as compared to game production, where I've been working on my production knowledge and skill set since I was 18 and didn't get so much as a potentially paying gig until I was 20 (which ultimately fell through); I started this hobby about a year ago and was offered payment for my (absolutely awful) work within two days. I have yet to sell a piece, but that's only because I first refused to sell a piece when I wasn't sure of it's quality, and in another instance when there was a disagreement over pricing and interest broke down. It's like many specialized art fields, where interest is primarily from novelty and less occasionally from an understanding/appreciation of the skill set. Requests come easy without understanding of the cost or man-hours, and the serious requests take networking and years of experience to build. The potential for (relatively) quick return is there, but the potential for fair return is few and far between for people new to the scene.(and no I'm not talking about porn) And that is why the classes, first to expand my skill set and clean up the quality of my work and secondly to provide some qualifications for the self-taught image my work comes with.  

So that is the production side of things. Stressed and crowded but promising.
A short digression; on a personal level, I want to say that the position I'm in, despite all obstacles, is better then it's been in longer then I care to admit. For all the possible setbacks and work on my plate, I'm still feeling ready to take on the world, and I look forward to the coming year and all it's challenges and lessons. 

Monday, March 16, 2015

Epoche Dev log: 3 The mess before the storm

It has been a while since I've put anything up on my ambitious first game Epoche, the idea of the project being to create a murder mystery where you a detective upon finding a murdered person in your train car must discover who among-st the other handful of passengers committed the act. Those of you who have found the other Epoche blog posts first might remember the brainstormed write up that included things like hunger or intoxication meters along with a diplomatic mechanic where your player must argue their case against the suspect otherwise be accused of being the murder themselves and loosing the suspect in the process, and a bunch of other fun but silly ideas that were bouncing around in the first stages to solidify what the game would be. Well I'm here to say that a good chunk of whatever you first dream a game to be or include, will not make it to the finished product, or even past the halfway point, this is not necessarily a bad thing, this is the sign of a refined design. No design of anything that functions well comes fully formed from that creative brainstorm, none. The most valuable asset to a designer and storytellers in general is the learned ability to distill and refine down the material to it's essentials while maintaining and subsequently enhancing the fundamental experience. Or, as I've heard it better stated in The Elements of Style.

Finding the underlining theme of your game and removing all parts that do not add to the players experience of that will make for that more cohesive game-feel that every design aims for. Easier said than done as that entitles understanding your piece from both a critical and creative perspective, knowing both how and what the game does as it does, something that comes out of years of experience... So don't make my mistake of waiting until your twenties to finally sitting down and working on your game, start now, start small, start making games. 

Start with pen and paper.

Here we see the start of a pen and paper version of the game. The layout of the five npc's and their interaction cards are formatted and started. As well as a brief write up on how they interact over to the side, and how the tier system of interaction works within each murder. This is how you should start every game. Why? Because you need a physical representation to start really thinking about what all the numbers and mechanics will mean for you on the computer. Had I started just building I'd have a few months of broken code and if it worked in any semblance an unbalanced game by now. On paper when you're deciding how to do a thing and you write it down you don't feel bad about crumpling up that paper and starting over if you don't really like it, but when you've just made those assets or coded that function, or put together that level, you are more likely to let it slide even when you're not happy with it. You just are. You're more likely to tell yourself you'll get back to it later and that this is just the first draft and you can always come back once the game is done, which is more or less true don't get me wrong: but after the game is done you are more likely to not come back and not revise anything you don't need to. 
This isn't coming from personal experience but from every designer or producer I've ever herd interviewed they've always said that no game comes out exactly what the designer wanted, none, they always wanted extra time to come back and tweak or even redo entire levels that they didn't have the time or energy after completing the game to come back to. The amount of time and energy you save when putting hours in finalizing that design before creation rather than redoing build after build, is immeasurable. I say this as someone whose always burnt out of steam after jumping into a project without fully designing it, I convinced myself I have a general idea and a mechanic, but then after I get the mechanic or more often then not I don't get the mechanic working, I don't care. I realize my design was a slap dash toss together of chocolate and peanut butter mechanics that don't lead anywhere and I don't think it's an interesting game, because it's not a game, at that point it's a tech-demo at best. It'd be like randomly throwing foods in a blender, you might accidentally come across a recipe for something, but you've more likely just created nutrition barf that could have been food, there needs to be a plan going into the kitchen or you're not really making anything; you're just playing with the food. When you start with a basic recipe though, you have something in mind, you know how to start, you know what you need, and you save yourself hours upon hours of being in a position of not knowing if your food might kill someone or not. Plus, after you know what you are doing, and you've tweaked it into something you really want to actually create... you've found your path and you're more energized to do it, two of the most valuable positions to be in for a creator. I've worked out the majority of what I need about the mechanics and how the game is/work so I can make good with my attempt to code the first prototype, and while it feels like half the battle is done and everything could literally just fall into place over the next month or so, I don't feel tired with this project at all. I know I don't have every obstacle accounted for in that notebook of scribbles and lines connecting dots and numbers, but I know that I have a solid footing, and I know where the problems will come up and have some ideas of how to remedy them. That is an immeasurable advantage that current me has over the me that first started this project. 


This is the sketch in class I made when I figured out the games name and premise, a moment of, YES I NEED TO MAKE THAT.

I keep this old (what the game box art might look like) sketch with me and everything because I want to remember exactly what that dream image was like and how it felt when the idea for this game popped into my head. There were five different art-styles fighting in my minds eye and at least three different color pallets I've seen in other games, plus a ridiculous number of supposedly connected and dramatically important mechanics I wanted to put into the game at that point, but underneath all of this competing forms of expression the game idea was trying to make one experience the main point, a game that made the player second guess themselves. That sounds really weird, actually kinda lame out loud, but that's what I want to do. I want to make a hard boiled mystery game that keeps the player guessing, not just until the plot twist or even until the end of their first play-through (don't know if I could write something that good) but throughout the whole game, every time they play it. Like with Agatha Christie's 'And Then There Were None if you refuse to read the epilogue and you simply sit there, reading the book over and over again trying to figure out who was committing all of those murders. Like how in games like Dragon Age or any of the other games where dialogue is interactive and meaningful, where that feeling of importance and connection to the characters matters; what if you could make a game where you're judgement of the characters always matters? I wanted to remember how much that feeling excited me to start this, that little idea is what I'm going to hold onto throughout this project. Well see how it comes out.