Limitations of Decision Making Models Within Current Video Game Theory

Dear Esther (thechineseroom, 2012) is a first person adventure game which lacks the many of the traditional conventions of other video games. The game has no traditional enemy to fight, challenges to complete or puzzles to solve and instead focuses on delivering an epistolary narrative to the player via voice over as they move through an abandoned island. Therefore, analysis of the first situation presented by the game through combination of the decision making model designed by Vorderer, Hartmann & Klimmt (2003), which has been designed to gauge player enjoyment through choice presented by competitive and challenging situations, in combination with Freud’s theory of The Psyche (1923), can be used to determine the limit of the effectiveness of the Vorderer et al model as an analytic tool.

The Vorderer et al model (figure 1) allows for the analysis of specific choices in video games by examining the situation which led to that choice. First all the possibilities to act which the player has within the rules of the game are determined. Then the specific necessity to act present in the situation is determined. The player then attempts to resolve the necessity to act by applying some of the possibilities to act which results in an outcome affecting the enjoyment felt by the player in that situation and affects the subsequent situations for that game.

Figure 1: Visual representation of the Vorderer, Hartmann and Klimmt model for decision making in games

Figure 2: Freud’s model
of the human psyche
(McMillan, 2010).

Freud’s theory on The Psyche posits that the human mind is comprised of three separate elements, the Id, Super Ego and Ego (figure 2). According to Freud’s theory, the Id is the oldest and most primitive part of the mind. The id contains the selfish desires within the subconscious and is represented as impulses for immediate gratification of those desires. The Ego is often described as the rational part of the mind and the portion of the mind which provides an individual’s sense of self. The ego is also the part of the mind which controls the id by deciding when and how the desires of the id can be met. The Super Ego is in many ways the opposite of the id, it represents the internalized ideals and rules of a person’s parents or society and can be thought of as a person’s conscience. In this respect the super ego monitors the ego and exhorts pressure on the individual to behave in a socially acceptable way, even if such action would be against the individuals own selfish urges (Rennison, 2001).

While the Vorderer et al model was initially designed to show the correlation between the amount of conflict or completion compelling a player to act in a situation and the enjoyment which results from said conflict (Vorderer et al, 2003). By combining the model with Freud’s theory on the human psyche we can develop a deeper understanding of the player’s decision making process by showing how player’s ego determines the best cause of action from desires of both super ego and id, in combination with the necessity to act  (figure 3).

Figure 3: Vorderer et al model combined with Freud’s theory on the psyche.
In this example, a situation within the game Ikaruga is the subject. 

At the very start of Dear Esther, players find themselves standing on a stone boat ramp looking along the coast of an island; a blinking red signal tower can be seen in the distance. Upon turning; an abandoned lighthouse can be seen at the top of the ramp. As the game begins the narrator tells the player of being washed ashore in “one last shipwreck”, where he presumably landed on this island, through a monologue addressed to a character named Esther. While it is not clear if the player is the narrator or Esther, this speech marks the player’s first situation of the game. As per the Vorderer et al model, the player has several possibilities to act which appeal to ether the super ego and/or id.

To the id the possibilities to act are to ether turn and walk into the ocean as the id has no interest in the short amount of story so far presented by the game. This cause of action may kill the player or break the game however, which would entertain the id immediately. The id would ultimately see quitting the game as an acceptable possibility to act as it currently is not interested in narrative of Dear Esther.

The super ego wants to explore the island as it has already begun to empathize with the narrator and wants to know more about what’s happening to him. Because of this it sees the possibilities to act as ether exploring the light house at the top of the ramp, or taking one of two paths towards the distant signal tower (and only visible sign of life).

While there is no conflict, clear objective or apparent danger in this situation the abrupt end to the opening narration provides the specific necessity to act detailed in the Vorderer et al model as the lack of information compels the player to try and discover more of the plot. The necessity to act forces the player to choose a way to resolve the lack of information from the options presented by the id and super ego. As the ego also remembers the past situations of other adventure games, the ego decides to continue playing in general and to explore the lighthouse in particular as the ego knows most adventure games will have something important in a landmark like a lighthouse. This choice results in the player exploring the light house, upon entering which they are rewarded by the game with a second monologue which furthers the plot of the game.

From this analysis of this initial situation within Dear Esther, it can now been seen that while the Vorderer et al model was not designed to apply to the situations present within a non-conventional game, deeper analysis of the situation through combination with Freud’s theory on the psyche allowed for the same analysis enjoyment from choice in Dear Esther as in the initial example of Quake (a very conventional game) detailed by Vorderer et al (2003). This case study therefore supports the use this toolset in the psychological analysis of games.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References:

Banks, C. (2009). Sense / Image / Challenge. [Online] Available http://senseimaginechallenge.blogspot.com.au/2010/04/klimmt-and-vorderer-freud-and-maslow.html [October 12th 2012].

Briscoe, R. & thechineseroom. (2012). Dear Esther. [Video Game]. Published by Steam.

Freud, S. (1923). The Ego and the Id. London: The Hogarth Press Ltd.

McMillan, L. (2010). Id, Ego and Superego ‘Iceberg’. (see, fig 1)

Rennison, N. (2001). Sigmund Freud and Psychoanalysis. Harpenden: Pocket Esentials.

Vorderer, P., Hartmann, T., & Klimmt, C. (2003) Explaining the enjoyment of playing video games: the role of competition. In D. Marinelli (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2^nd International Conference on Entertainment Computing (ICEC 2003), Pittsburgh, New York: ACM.

Analysis of Agency within The Walking Dead Video Game

Through use of the problem solving model presented in Kristine Jorgensen’s paper on the link between problem solving within video games and the inherent effect on player agency which arises from those choices (2003), a methodological framework which allows for the analysis of agency within a given scenario of a game can be created. Using this framework to analysis a single scenario within Episode One of The Walking Dead Game (Telltale, 2012) will allow both the effectiveness of the agency within the scene and the overall usefulness of the methodology to be assessed.

Within video games, agency is generally considered as any type of action taken by the player which results in direct change on a situation within the game which continues the narrative (Murray, 1997), or simply as the “power to progress the course of action in a game” (Jorgensen, 2003). As playing a computer game can be considered a series of problems which the player must solve, most action taken by the player would be considered an agency action. Espen Aaresth labeled these problems as “aporia”, a roadblock in the game which requires the player to solve a specific problem to continue, while the solution to the problem is termed an “epiphany”; as it represents a sudden realization by the player allowing them to solve the aporia. Aaresth also states that when confronted with an aporia, players will usually develop a hypothesis as to what the epiphany could be from previous, similar aporia which they have already encountered and solved.

Jorgensen’s model of problem solving combines the concept of aporia and epiphany along with the concept of agency to create a general model for problem solving. This model is divided into three phases which progress to ether an epiphany which solves the problem, or failure. The first phase Jorgensen terms “comprehend the aporia”; this is when the player encounters an aporia and must seek to understand the problem. This is a mental step where the player prepares for action. The second phase is when the player must develop a strategy to reach the epiphany, which Jorgensen theorizes players will form subconsciously through the manifestation of past experiences in similar aporia they have already encountered. The third phase is when the player takes intentional action. This is the stage where the player applies the strategy from the second phase and attempts to solve the aporia. Finally, the strategy will ether solves the aporia through an epiphany and progression of the game or will lead to failure which will normally result in the player returning to phase one.

Throughout The Walking dead, players are presented with an interactive narrative in which they can control the actions of Lee Everett. The narrative is often presented to the player through different choices the player can make to solve a problem or simply respond to an in-game characters question. Within Episode One of the Walking Dead, the player is tasked with the rescue of another character that is trapped in a motel room. Once the player reaches the character, the game reveals the character to be a young girl. The girl informs you that she has been bitten and will soon become a zombie, then asks the player to “lend” her their gun. The game then gives you a very limited time to choose what to do. As this scenario visually presents players with different options and the narrative as a whole is based around player choice to solve specific problems, analysis through Jorgensen’s model is highly appropriate.

In the first phase of the problem solving model, the player must correctly understand the aporia presented; that the girl they have just rescued will shortly die and she is asking for your gun in order to kill herself. Once realized, the player enters the second phase and must chose a strategy they hope will lead to epiphany. Instead of subconsciously creating a plan however, The Walking Dead presents the player with three options; ether give the girl the gun, refuse to give her the gun or do nothing and allow the other characters to resolve the situation without input from the player. The player will then enter the third phase by choosing one of the options. Any of the three options will progress the game, however all three will lead to a different continuation.

While this scenario can be analyzed with the Jorgensen model, the game gives the player choices on screen to select as their response. This means that instead of subconsciously choosing their plan, players can consciously judge which plan is most likely to deliver the best continuation of the game instead. Additionally, as players are given set choices, most players would assume that any option they select would be correct and so the second phase does not operate as intended by Jorgensen. Finally, while player action is required to continue the game, the option to do nothing will result in the game progressing without your input. This is a valid solution which must be done consciously by the player but may not fall under the tradition definition of an agency action.

Through analysis of a scenario within The Walking Dead using the Jorgensen model, we can conclude that while not ideal, the model shows that the player must execute an agency action in order to reach an epiphany which resolves the aporia presented. This example also allows problems in both the scenario and model to be seen. In order to improve the scenario in The Walking Dead, developing an alternative method of choice which would allow the player to organically choose a response to the aporia while still maintaining the sense of urgency and branching narrative options, would allow for a greater sense of agency as the player would be free to try their own subconsciously realized solutions. This example also suggests that the Jorgensen model can be further developed to allow for less traditional games situations such as branching game narratives in which there are several different “correct” outcomes which lead to progression of the game.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aarseth, Espen (1999). Aporia and  Epiphany in  Doom  and  The Speaking Clock. The Temporality of Ergodic  Art, in Cyberspace Textuality. Computer  Technology  and Literary  Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on Actions and Events. Clarendon Press: Oxford.

Jorgensen, K. (2003). Problem Solving: The Essence of Player Action in Computer Games. [Online] Available http://www.digra.org/dl/db/05150.49599.pdf [November 16^th 2012]

Jørgensen, Kristine (2003). Aporia &  Epiphany in Context: Computer  Game Agency in Baldur’s Gate II & Heroes of Might & Magic IV. [Online] Available http://www.ub.uib.no/elpub/2003/h/705002/Hovedoppgave.pdf [November 16^th 2012]

Murray, Janet (1997).  Hamlet on  the Holodeck. The  Future of  Narrative in Cyberspace. New York: The  Free Press

Telltale Games (2012). The Walking Dead: Episode 1. California: Telltale Games.

What is a Game Designer?

Whenever I tell someone I'm a game designer, or that I'm studying game design I always seem to encounter a strange reply. I find that once I say the words “Game Designer” people will respond with a comment about programming as a career, or an amazing idea for an App or game they've come up with.

Of cause, there’s nothing wrong with these types of responses, the person I'm speaking to is interested in what I'm doing, but it does show us something else; that most people don’t really know what a game designer does.

The common opinion seems to oscillate between thinking of game designers as just programmers for games, or as an idea generating machine that comes up with a cool story and then grabs a bunch of programmers and artists to make that idea happen.

Unfortunately neither of these descriptions comes close to what game designers actually do; though if someone wants to employ me to shout ideas at them and then get paid please get in touch ASAP.

What does a game designer actually do then?

The most succinct description I've heard and found to be true in my experience is that a game designer crafts the experience of a game. That at its most basic, the role of the game designer is to create the internal systems, mechanics and spaces of a game so that they will do what they’re meant to do when a player experiences them.

A fairly simple explanation, but creating an experience is not as easy as you might think.

It doesn't mean just saying that you want to make a scary game. It means that if you want something to scare the player you need to know how to scare them and when. You need to create everything in the game towards that end. From the lights, to the enemies, to the player’s tools, to what every room the player enters looks like and sounds like.

To put it another way, lets apply the role of a game designer into the role of a film production:

A game designer is the director, but they also write the screen play, they’re also the casting agent, the set designer, the camera man and the editor.

And if you’re in a small game development team then you can also be the storyboard artists, the set builders, the audio engineers and producer and even the actors.

So really it’s a complicated job with long hours and a lot of difficult work, but at the end of the day it’s a hugely rewarding career.

An Introduction - Let's Talk About Feelings

Have you ever read a book series that was so well written, engrossing and amazing that when you finished it you felt like you couldn't move?

You just had to sit there for awhile while your mind felt both startlingly empty and intensely full, with what you'd just witnessed on the pages in front of you washing over you again and again and again.

At the same time you became aware of the world around you again, after what seemed like a really long time, and you were unable to understand how the world continued to spin onward and function around you the same way it always had. Because for you this intense and wonderful journey had just come to an end and your brain wasn't sure yet if you were still the same person who'd started that book, or if you were someone else now. 

An all new you who's been transformed through a book, and the experiences you witnessed within its world, so that now you'll live your life looking at the world in a slightly different way.

...

So have you experienced this? Of cause you have, I'd say almost everyone who's read Harry Potter to the end would have experienced this to some degree or another at least.

Perhaps the more important question though, is what does any of this has to do with Game Design? 

In my opinion; everything.

This feeling is maybe the most important part of all creative works; Books, Films, TV shows and Games. It matters because it's this feeling that gives a creative work a clear signifier of worth. You can point to this feeling and say: "that book/TV show/Movie/Game changed my entire world, thats why it was important".

Or put another way, I think its what makes something into art. 

This feeling we all experience is the reason I know video games matter and why Video Games can be art. Because the feeling you had when you finished the last Harry Potter can be, and is, caused by games too.

Not all games, not even most games can make you feel like this. 

But some games can. 

Games like Spec Ops: The Line, the Mass Effect series, The Last of Us, The Walking Dead and the Bioshock series all have that spark that makes you feel like everything has changed just a little bit once its over. All from merely pressing buttons and twiddling little sticks for hours.

This feeling is why I'm a Game Designer. Its why I'm going to throw years into something that takes you a few hours to play. Its what makes me want to make games. 
Because I want to tell stories that you don't just read or watch but that you actively experience and interact with in a way only games can allow.

Because I want to put that spark into a game and then to see that game change someone's entire world.