Level Design Workshop

Part 1: Emergence

Reminder Movies are structured into scenes Games are structured into experiences The experience fan is a single line for movies, but branches out for games: Not so much (Final Fantasy) A lot (Far Cry 2) Recall structure: Movies are scenes, games are experiences <Whiteboard>Structure fan – movie and games This is Final Fantasy (similar experience for everybody) This is Far Cry 2 (tons of connections)

Experience Fan We could draw different experience fans for enemy interaction and the environment Example: Dead Space is a wide fan for enemies, but very small for the space Players played encounters differently Players traversed rooms very similarly Different colors for enemies and for environment – both facilitate emergent gameplay Dead Space is an example where enemies are wide, but rooms was single

Emergence e⋅merge 1. to come forth into view or notice, as from concealment or obscurity: a ghost emerging from the grave; a ship emerging from the fog. 2. to rise or come forth from or as if from water or other liquid. 3. to come up or arise, as a question or difficulty. 4. to come into existence; develop. 5. to rise, as from an inferior or unfortunate state or condition. e⋅merge 1. to come forth into view or notice, as from concealment or obscurity: a ghost emerging from the grave; a ship emerging from the fog. 2. to rise or come forth from or as if from water or other liquid. 3. to come up or arise, as a question or difficulty. 4. to come into existence; develop. 5. to rise, as from an inferior or unfortunate state or condition.

Emergence Emergent gameplay arises unexpectantly from the interplay of different game systems. As an emergent system, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Emergent gameplay arises unexpectantly from the interplay of different game systems. As an emergent system, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

Systems Reminder We can measure the player's level of engagement by looking at how interconnected the game is Do we create meaningful play, or do we reach dead ends? We keep talking about “game systems” all the time. Let's recall the definition. When we talked about game systems, we said that we can measure a player's level of fun by looking at the interconnectedness of the game systems he is exposed to. Do we get meaningful play out of those systems, or do we reach dead ends?

Complexity What emerges from these interconnected game systems is complexity The whole is greater than the parts Designers might not even foresee every scenario emerging from the systems design What comes out of that is complexity. And we might not be able to foresee every connection as we design the game (the whole is greater than the sum of the parts). When does that happen? When a complexity barrier is crossed.

Complexity “Systems can reach a level of complexity where a'complexity barrier' is crossed. The systems that cross this barrier are complex systems and exhibit special behaviors.” (Rules of Play) Rules of Play “Systems can reach a level of complexity where a 'complexity barrier' is crossed. The systems that cross this barrier are complex systems and exhibit special behaviors.”

Complexity Example Also from Rules of Play: “In the study of planetary motion, systems with two planetary bodies (such as a star and a single planet orbiting it) can be mathematically articulated to precisely predict the motion of the two bodies in space. But once a third element is added to the system, gravity from each planetary body affects the other two, drastically complicating the mathematical factors determining their relative motion.” Here's a scientific example from Rules of Play: “In the study of planetary motion, systems with two planetary bodies (such as a star and a single planet orbiting it) can be mathematically articulated to precisely predict the motion of the two bodies in space. But once a third element is added to the system, gravity from each planetary body affects the other two, drastically complicating the mathematical factors determining their relative motion.”

Small change, big difference. In Other Words Small change, big difference. In other words: “small change, big difference”.

Examples Half-Life 2 Quake: Rocket jumping Doom 2: Archive creates invincible zombies But that's way too theoretical. You might even talked about this. This is an LD workshop, so let's hear some specific examples of unexpected gameplay emerging from the interplay of systems:   <HalfLife2> The structure fan of HL2 without explosive barrels might have looked like this: (one or two connections) With barrels, we don't just add one more connection. We add 5 or 10. Gameplay becomes more unpredictable, which might be seen as a problem. But on the big plus side, we create more and more interesting decisions. The player can find himself in the game as he explores the possibility space. Let me give you a couple more examples: Rocket Jumping in Quake. This was actually possible in Doom. A secret level could only be reached by catapulting yourself through a rocket. What nobody anticipated was rocketjumping in Quake. Some might argue it broke the game – this allowed the player to move through the world in ways the designer didn't anticipate. But this never broke the scripting of the levels. And it made possible speedruns. Interestingly enough: we reacted. Bbelief had a rocketjump protection. People disabled it. 2nd example: Doom's Archvile He's a pain in the ass – in the back, reviving dead guys There's a feature in Doom 2 where doors squish dead bodies. Cool! Reaction! But there's a bug: when the Archvile resurrected those guys, they were impervious to bullets! <Whiteboard> Archvile resurrects → Guys who can die/are dead ← By me shooting them Doors squish → guys who can die → gibbed body Archvile resurrects these guys → can't die People actually used this in addon levels. It doesn't end here, though Rocketlauncher can kill ppl → splash damage → kills undead zombies That's a great example of emergent gameplay. We'll use Doom 2 soon to look at Game Systems in more depth. Before we do, though, a few conclusions:

Conclusions This is why it's often a bad idea to write a highly detailed, fully fleshed out design doc How do we know that all systems are going to work? How do we anticipate all interrelations in theory? Rule: design each game system to have at least one interconnection. More might emerge during development. This is why it's often a bad idea to write a highly detailed, fully fleshed out design doc. How do we know that all systems are going to work? How do we anticipate all interrelations in theory? Rule: design each game system to have at least one interconnection. More might arrive during development.   For LDs, I call this “McGyvering”. Here's an example from Quake: Bbelief2008.

End