next »

[sebaslive]

Asking around I have a question for the devs when making games. How important is context in your game? Is this something you consider? Having this conversation with other developers it was discussed as the context in game is known as the story you build and the background of your game. So aside from how important it is what is a good principle to focus on when dealing with keeping your game in the right context?

Lastly, in traditional art Context is known as the history behind the work and usually in film it is known as the setting of the movie but this seems to be an important difference in game since usually story is usually known to be less important.

[Evan Balster]

You seem to be muddling historical context and narrative setting a little bit, which makes me confused as to what you're asking.

Setting is very important in my narrative game project, where I'm doing a great deal of worldbuilding.  The world I create governs the logic of the story that occurs within it, around which I've designed the game.  But it's entirely possible to do things in the opposite order.

[sebaslive]

Okay right, so the right context is built upon but how much of it should be established to the player? This is most likely subjective based purely on the genre but I suppose that for the benefit of the game it is important to maintain a sense of mystery even if the story is there. For example I believe that halo was much better when Master Chiefs identity was a mystery but through the next iterations the only way to progress in the story is to give the players what they want which is a background, ultimately leading to the story arc prelude and resolution. Would the halo series still be as popular if it still left some mystery so that the player would continue to personify master chief themselves...

So in this setting that you have established, how much of it is shown to the player and how much of it is left open to explore so that the exposition isn't forced on the player?

[Evan Balster]

Okay, so what you're asking is how much should I communicate about my setting and how?


THAT I have opinions on.  In fact, I have a document full of them.  I will give you the relevant ones...


"Part of the attraction of the L.R. is, I think, due to the glimpses of a large history in the background:
an attraction like that of viewing far off an unvisited island, or seeing the towers of a distant city gleaming in a sunlit mist.
To go there is to destroy the magic, unless new unattainable vistas are again revealed."
— J. R. R. Tolkien


Exploration's joy is the discovery of secrets.
It turns meaningless movement into a compelling mystery.

To rephrase: the optional is valued.  A choice to explore or witness richens the result.


Speak little, tell much.


My recommendation, as suggested by these remarks, is to leave a lot unsaid.  SHOW more than you tell, but make the player feel like they're only experiencing the tip of a very large iceberg.  Create a horizon, made of little hints and allusions to things you'll never fully describe.  Make the player feel like a small part of a big world.  And if you can manage it, put more details about that world in places the player never has to go.  Let them explore and discover; that's far more rewarding than forcing them to sit through explanations.

[sebaslive]

Thanks again Evan, great insight between both posts! I have played many games that could definitely use this recommendation.  "Make the player feel like a small part of a big world." which is a challenge in itself since the player is usually in control or in charge of saving it.

[Evan Balster]

since the player is usually in control or in charge of saving it.

It's pretty hard to make the player feel "small" in this sort of context.  Consider it the cost of writing an "epic" story.

[Ridley]

Most of making the world seem larger than it really is comes of a necessity for not having the resources to actually create a world that large. That seems obvious, but if you take a look at Elder Scrolls it's clear that a player can actually be a small part of a massive world, and all of the optional discovery enforces that. So if you can't create those expansive environments and bajillions of characters, what tools do you have to deliver that with?

I would say that this is where historical context and narrative setting become important to each other, which is probably why it was hard to focus on one or the other when looking at the problem as a whole. I feel like the most effective form of establishing setting without getting to see it, is to have it referenced in lore and texts that you can find throughout the game. Metroid Prime made me feel like I was part of a series of diverse ecosystems that formed a planet, which life had evolved on long before Samus stepped foot on it, with its own history to explore. The worst mistake a writer can make in this regard is creating a world that exists simply in relation to the player (unless there's some peculiar egotistical quirk that makes the world literally depend on him to exist)--the player should not be the focus of the setting, only party to it. Other characters, factions, lifeforms, or even forces of nature should have impacts on each other that don't necessarily have to include the protagonist.

So I think it's entirely possible to have an "epic" story with Big Damn Heroes and not lose that expansive setting. You just have to provide external focuses, conflicts that have been raging without your presence, relationships that have been established long before you arrived, etc. etc.

[Evan Balster]

For what it's worth, my use of "context" and its general meaning with regard to art is the real-world time and place in which the art originates.  The context of my work is 2013, with the work originating in Iowa and being targeted at a geographically nonspecific audience.

The setting is the fictional equivalent -- the time and space within which the story occurs.  Thus what you describe above is an aspect of setting, not context.

Just clarifying some semantics.  <_<

[Graham-]

Ridley said something about actually providing a large world for the player to live inside. Skyrim actually does not do this in the way you (Ridley) suggest, and the times it does do it - which is fairly often - is a mistake and a serious detriment to the player's enjoyment.

The player's imagination is very important. It is the most important thing in a game-player relationship. It is more important than your game, and anything you come up with. If there was 0 imagination - i.e. a rock - your game would be entirely, utterly, useless to it.

What does this have to do with context? You want to only include the parts you can present well. For example, if you can show a character depressed and have him provide exposition well, say about a problem with his girlfriend, then do that. If you are good at showing something show it.

If you are bad at showing relationships, or showing female characters, then you should not show them. Don't write a fight between mentioned boyfriend and girlfriend if you can't write it well.

What does this mean? Your player does an incredible job of "filling in the blanks." If you can show hints of a monster, and show each part well, and for you those pieces add up to an "idea" of a monster, then that's good! You should do that!

What you don't do is show bits that don't complement the "idea", that don't build it up. If you have done a good job of making a monster's face seem terrifying, without ever showing it - say by showing the audience the reactions of characters who interact with the monster - then you should never show that face if you can't make it as terrifying as it is in your - and the audience's - imagination. Don't show what the player already imagines better.

Every time you add something to provide "context" you build up an idea in the player's mind of what the "world is like." Whenever you add a new piece to that context you are doing two things:
  1. Removing qualities of your world from the player's mind.
  2. Adding qualities of your world to the player's mind.

What you want is to add more than you remove. The naive thing to think is that adding something is always better. Professional writers get this wrong all the time! Like a whole lot. It's embarrassing, really. You want to add more than you remove.

Sorry Ridley, I did not mean to pick on you. You still made a fair point. I'm quibbling over language.

Next question. What context should you provide?

Answer: that which enhances the "core" parts of your game.

Mario's story:
  . there is a very important goal (princess)
  . there is an obstacle (bowser)
  . both of these things are silly

Mario's environment:
  . monsters have simple personalities
  . monsters are silly - and sillier than princess/bowser
  . monsters move around and jump on things
  . Mario "dies" with his hands raised, rising up and falling from the scream, with disappointing but light music playing - that is also "fun"
  . Mario shoots up a cloud of dust when he turns

Mario's/Player's actions:
  . jumping around on things
  . being playful
  . not dying, because he needs to face the demon to save the princess.

The "context" of Mario says 3 main things:
  1. How the player should feel: free, fun.
  2. What the player's long-term goal should be: princess/bowser.
  3. What the player should do to reach it: run, jump, not die - but not feel bad about it.

Also note: the monsters' "personalities" reflect their behaviour in an understandable way, and thus how the player should deal with them.

[sebaslive]

What you want is to add more than you remove. The naive thing to think is that adding something is always better. Professional writers get this wrong all the time! Like a whole lot. It's embarrassing, really. You want to add more than you remove.

Did you mean the naive thing to think is that removing something is always better?

[Graham-]

Nope.

For example, writers may build an idea of a character with a lot of loyalty, then nibble away at that image by having that character do something "uncharacteristic" in order to be funny. Sitcoms do this a lot in their weak areas.

Another is "showing the monster." Spielberg refused to direct Jaws unless management agreed to let him keep the shark off screen for the first hour of film, because it was so staple to do otherwise at the time. The anticipation was more powerful when the audience's imagination was working in his favour.

From your example, adding details to Master Chief's life is possibly in this category - depends who you ask I guess.

[Evan Balster]

I found this in an old notebook of mine yesterday and it seems relevant:

To the Creator:

A man does not create something from nothing but, at minimum, almost-nothing.

The creativity of the human mind is born from its aptitude for filling gaps in information.

Such voids can be found or made easily, and filled effortlessly by the mechanism which constructs our world in dreams and reality.
The meager scope of our little Opus is laughable in comparison.

So it is the splendor of dreams are grown from the seeds of erring thought.
So it is making dreams willfully can be so difficult.

The unlearned story-teller sees the creation and conveyance of a complete world as his ultimate goal.
To communicate such a volume of information is beyond impossible.

Inevitably, and at best knowingly, a tale is the skeleton of its true self when told --
given flesh by the true maker of worlds, who is seated not in the creator but in the observer.
Thus the former should strive not for completion but integrity in the conveyance of the work.

Treat the act of creation not as one of fabrication but one of nurturing.
Plant the seed and tend its sprout as it grows.
The results may be unexpected, but do not fear this.

The bones of a man, given flesh, will at worst closely resemble a man.
They suffice to convey one existed.

More simply:  Draw the dots.  Let the player connect them.  The story they witness can be more than the one you tell.

[Graham-]

The story they witness is _always_ more than the one you can tell.

Your media product is a little nothing relative to the entirety of your audience's brains.

I like the idea of "seeds." In the story you create in your audience's minds, your direct contribution is a small fraction. Most of what's there is from them. You just provide momentum for them to craft something. Story telling is really a class in telling a single story to yourself. The audience is the real creator.

That's why what you do provide should be really well thought out, and the pieces should connect.

[Ridley]

Sorry Ridley, I did not mean to pick on you. You still made a fair point. I'm quibbling over language.

S'fine, that's what a discussion is. I wasn't actually referring to Skyrim, I never played more than an hour of it. I was mostly pulling from my experiences with Oblivion and Morrowind.

And I completely agree with your points about connecting dots and using inference instead of suffocating the player with lore--that's not what I was getting at. It's definitely true that too much world story is paralyzing--that's something the Elder Scrolls series seems to struggle with as well--and that you shouldn't rely on that method entirely to establish anything. Just that's it's helpful in giving your setting magnitude, to hint at a bigger picture. But the actual meaning and detail should be internally processed, especially in psychologically fueled experiences like horror games. This is Amnesia (
The Dark Descent)'s greatest strength: letting the player's imagination do the heavy lifting.

This is also somewhat tangential, but Paper Mario (N64) is my all-time favorite game, in part because of the huge amount of personality it conveys with understated characters and locations. Really enjoyable game, that. 

[Graham-]

The reason I was picking at it was because Elder Scrolls is a good example of worlds that are large but also small. Bethesda did a good job of providing a lot of things to explore, but also often forget 3 things well said is better than 6 moderately well said.

No matter how big your world is you should always consider the implications each element has on the "imaginary" world in the player's mind. The imaginary world should always be much larger than the provided one. Scaling is not an excuse to reject quality.

I know you weren't saying anything in conflict with that. Skyrim is just a subject I wanted to to stick to for a moment.

Would you mind giving an example from Paper Mario? I haven't played more than 5 minutes of that game.

[sebaslive]

This is interesting, having only played Oblivion and Morrowind I got a real kick from the guilds and all the little side missions I never expected. So I agree with Ridley on this because I usually felt as a weary traveler going from town to town and eavesdroping on the people of that town listening to their fears and myths that surround their village, which has nothing in common with the main quest. You can probably say its mostly rehashed material but in my opinion they tweaked it enough to make it a different experience each time.

Can you note on how Elders Scrolled missed the target on making things well said and also how they could have improved them so that it can be well said.

[Evan Balster]

I think the general sentiment was less content and more polish.  Consider the behavior of characters during dialogue in Oblivion -- there's a huge amount of dialogue in the game, complete with facial mocap, but there's a very muted quality to its emotiveness.  I blame this on the lack of full-body expressions -- something which would be difficult enough that they wouldn't have been able to fit nearly as much content in the game had they done it.

Have a look at this heart-wrenching scene -- two lovers who haven't seen one another in ten years, reunited due to the player's actions:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3tIyRDlKW8s#t=185s

Sure, it's a little emotional, but bear in mind this is among the most emotionally charged scenes in the whole game.  It feels a little half-assed, doesn't it?

[Graham-]

I don't "disagree" with Ridley. I think Elder Scrolls are interesting games. I have played a lot of Skyrim. I didn't play Oblivion because my PC couldn't run it. That was the only reason.

What I mean is, there is this implication in what he said that you can, as a "world creator," choose between a small well-made world that hints at a larger one, or just build a larger one. I am saying that it is fine to make a larger world, and for-sure scale quality back a little bit - volume does count for something. But scale will never make up for inconsistent elements. You always have to pay attention to the imaginary world and its relationship with the provided one.

What's interesting about successful games is that they do a lot of things well and always make a few big mistakes. Bethesda made a balanced world, with a variety of quests and people, locations that were varied, enough spells and monsters to keep you occupied, and items and equipment to loot for a long time. But the writing and setting - outside of aesthetics - was not as good as they are in some other games. The game is engaging because it does a lot of things well, and when a game does a lot of things well its mistakes won't bother you as much, but that doesn't mean those mistakes aren't there.

I think Elder Scrolls has a weakness in how its characters are written, and how their lives are implied through plot and setting. The games are a grab-bag of independently interesting people that are linked loosely by theme. There's little consistency in how they live. Their implied lives walk all over one another. I think if those games were only their characters they would bore you out of your mind. They don't bore you because their characters balance out the rest of their gameplay. A glass of water in the desert is a miracle, no matter how dirty it is. Though of course Elder Scrolls is an interesting desert to be in.

"Scale" isn't the reason we write consistent characters. If I see a person in a movie I don't need to know 50 things about him to be interested because one isn't enough. I need to relate to the one thing I do know, and the only way I can do that is if the natural implications that come with that thing are consistent with everything I know about the world I am investing in. Consistency, not scale, is important. That's what makes things seem "real."

I can't tell you about the personality of any character in Skyrim for more than a sentence or two, but I can talk about Luke Skywalker for pages. I can talk about Skywalker for longer than I can about all of the characters in Skyrim combined from memory. Why? Because Luke meant something to me because he made sense. Each detail in his character hinted at something I could relate to, and thus had personal meaning for me. It is that personal part you are trying in invoke in your writing. A million details your audience is apathetic towards is not better than 5 that they aren't.

The idea that a small set of details can create a large world is important because such a property is of details that make sense and are relatable. The "large world" is a test of quality writing. The same way you can see a whole world inside someone you love... you get the idea. Players love the "large world" because they are invested in what is given to them. Anything personal will seem large. Something large may not be personal. You can't substitute one for the other. Your goal is to make the player connect.

To relate this to a subject I have a personal interest in. When designers get into proc-gen and non-linear stories (like Mass Effect, and Skyrim) - something I have a lot of experience with - they always go for scale first. We need more choices, more characters, more consequences. No, you need better choices, better characters, better simulations. The reason they go down the wrong path instead of the right one is because "better characters" are harder to write. More is easy. Quality is hard, and scary if you aren't used to it.

[Evan Balster]

Good ramble, Graham.  <3

[Graham-]

Hahah, thanks man.