How Bulletstorm encourages effective flow.

When designing Bulletstorm (2011), People Can Fly applied a unique combination of emergent game play elements and progressive level design in an attempt to encourage maximum engagement with a majority of audiences. Through in depth examination of the Skillshot mechanical system within Bulletstorm in regards to reward systems and flow theory, the strengths of Bulletstorm’s design and how it differs from other similar games in terms of level design and theoretical engagement can be examined.

Due to the complex nature of video games, designers must balance complex rule based systems which allow emergent gameplay with natural, flowing experiences. These two elements are known as “emergence” and “progression” (Juul, 2002). Juul further defined emergence as relatively simple rules which allowed for a large number of variations and progression as sequentially ordered pre-designed challenges. By integrating both emergent and progressive features in game mechanics, Juul suggests that designers can more effectively create a balance between complexity and simplicity.

People Can Fly can be seen to use both emergence and progression within their design of Bulletstorm. While the overall level design is very progressively structured and similar to similar contemporary  franchises like Gears of War or Halo, the familiarity allows players quickly acclimate to the game world and serves to further highlight the games emergent “core combat loop” or Skillshot system (Chmielarz, 2010, 2011). The Skillshot system provides players with a small number of set tools to use, and rewards them for combining these tools in different and imaginative way. By rewarding players for trying different combinations, Bulletstorm also create a highly positive feedback loop within their game, but avoid any potential negative side effects as the Skillshot system does not directly affect the game’s progression and players will always receive at least a few points per enemy (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; LeBlanc, 1999).

In-game reward systems are an effective tool for motivating players within a game world and are, in many cases considered a necessary component for player enjoying, as without reward systems players don’t feel like they are accomplishing anything during play (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004). While there are many different methods of rewarding players, some of these systems can be broadly classified as glory, sustenance, access or facility. Glory systems reward players with points or trophies that generally have no direct effect on gameplay, sustenance rewards give players resources or items necessary to continue the game. While access rewards simply allow players to progress to new levels or areas and facility rewards allow the player to improve their character, usually by enhancing player abilities or by adding new skills (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Hallford & Hallford, 2001).

Though the research on reward systems focused mostly on role playing games, Bulletstorm’s Skillshot system can be seen to operate in a similar manner; as the system integrates multiple reward systems into its design. The Skillshot system most notably combines a glory reward system of scoring player’s for kills with aspects of sustenance and facility rewards by allowing players to unlock new weapons and to purchase ammo throughout the game by using there accumulated skill points. This use of score as a currency system is ultimately used to make the system more compelling, encouraging players to experiment with the systems and rewarding originality ensures that most players will experience at least a range of the different emergent elements.

This focus on engagement through an expansive reward system is ultimately a key component within Csíkszentmihályi’s flow theory when applied to video games. Simply put, flow is a mental state found in the correct balance between the level of difficulty in a task and the ability of the player (Csíkszentmihályi, 1996). By ensuring that a player is never so overwhelmed by a challenged, resulting in anxiety and frustration, or too skilled for the situation, designers can increase the appeal of their game. Rewards and feedback also form an important aspect of flow by allowing designers to expand the range in which players will experience the flow effect. If a player is feeling overwhelmed by the situation in game, by adding positive feedback, glory rewards or sustenance rewards designers will be able to offset negative emotions (Sun & Wang, 2011).

Bulletstorm’s Skillshot system design directly contributes to the flow of the game in this regard. By giving players more points for imaginative techniques and encouraging players to try new methods of defeating enemies, with the promise of more points for a new method than for repeating an old one, Bulletstorm makes it more difficult for the player to become too skilled and therefore bored of the game. Feedback within the game also forms an important part of the flow of Bulletstorm. The instantaneous scoring in Bulletstorm forms an instant feedback loop with the player by providing players with a score for each enemy; the player is less likely to find the engagement to challenging. Finally, the positive emotional affects of feedback (both accumulated feedback and instant) can serve to prevent players from losing interest in the game through both anxiety and boredom.

After examining the Skillshot system within Bulletstorm it is clear that combining emergent gameplay elements with progressive level design allows players to quickly accept and adapt to the game by providing a familiar environment to ground players while providing a large range of expansion for players to explore through the Skillshot system. This system, along with Bulletstorm’s unique combination of normal reward systems encourages flow within the game and provides an experience more likely to resonate with players. The Skillshot system therefore provides Bulletstorm with a point of difference from its rival combat based games, which mostly focus on progressive elements like large scale, set piece level design and “realistic” combat to express a narrative (Modern Warfare 3, 2011; Gears of War 3, 2011).

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

References:

Bleszinski, C. (2011). Gears of War 3 [Video Game]. Published:  Microsoft Games Studios.

Bracken, C. C., Jeffres, L. W. & Neuendorf, K. A. (2004). Criticism or Praise? The Impact of Verbal versus Text-Only Computer Feedback on Social Presence, Intrinsic Motivation, and Recall
CyberPsychology & Behavior.  No. 3: 349-357

Csíkszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, New York: Harper Perennial

Hallford N. & Hallford, J. (2001). Swords and Circuitry: A designer’s guide to computer role playing games. Roseville, CA: Prime Publishing.

Juul, J. (2002).  The Open and the Closed: Game of emergence and games of progression. In Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference Proceedings, edited by Frans Mäyrä, 323-329. Tampere: Tampere University Press, 2002. 

LeBlanc, M. (2004). Mechanics, Dynamics, Aesthetics: A Formal Approach to Game Design. Lecture at Northwestern University, April 2004. Available at:

http://algorithmancy.8kindsoffun.com/MDAnwu.ppt [July 13 2012]

People Can Fly (2011) Bulletstorm [Video Game]. Published: Electronic Arts

Salen, K. & Zimmerman, E. (2004) Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Sayed, R. & Chmielarz, A. (2010) Bulletstorm: An Exclusive Interview With Adrian Chmielarz Creative Director of People Can Fly [Online] Available http://gamingbolt.com/bulletstorm-an-exclusive-interview-with-adrian-chmielarz-creative-director-of-people-can-fly [July 13 2012]

Sun, H. & Wang, C. (2011). Game Reward Systems: Gaming Experiences and Social Meanings [Online] Available http://www.digra.org/dl/db/11310.20247.pdf [July 13th 2012]

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.