correct me if i misunderstand.....to summarize what your saying you want to see the mood caused by the architecture in the game and the enviroment, etc. If this is so I believe the landscape, layout of buildings, design of buildings, sky, all of these things that the player sees add to immersion and if this is what you are looking into I believe 100% that Architecture design is closely related to game immersion and how well a game will function

I really think good themed architecture can heavily influence how you feel about a particular world - for instance Stormwind in WoW gives a real powerful feel putting you in a castle era mindset, Ironforge is epic in open space and massive statues giving you the impression that you are in somewhere powerful and important. However I feel they lost this from the Horde perspective with Undercity being an atrociously designed and confusing city (although I guess the architecture still fitted the theme somewhat) and Orgrimmar certainly giving the orc stronghold feel although with the compromise that it felt closed in/cramped unlike Ironforge. Then again it was probably more practical.

I think in games architecture provides a means to establish a theme and response from the player allowing for a truly engrossing experience. However sometimes architecture is more pratically designed from a gameplay experience to the detriment of realism although again taking Ironforge as an example this is designed to clearly set a theme and player response even if it means players have to travel much further to do anything.

Sorry this was so WoW based but it was the only game that came to my mind as a popular one involving architecture.

Are you talking about comparing the design process applied to architecture with game design, or, are you talking about architectural design inside games? Your post is a little ambiguous.

Hi,

Yes i agree with 'Sneftel' that there is definately a balancing act involved in level design. Although i am interested in the creation of architecture, it must not be a primary focus and distract from the gameplay, but add as 'Adriac' stated to the overall immersion and interaction of the gameplay.

Another factor which people have noted is the incoherance of realism, this disconnection between the real-world and game environment is very important. There is no point in creating a well constucted, working architectural model of a building, but more to create a building that looks like it works in the players eyes.

Are games simply constructed of signs and symbols, which relate to real life but do not fully simulate, to give a platform for play?

With this in mind, is the environments within games simply a device for the narratives of gameplay, and a means of storytelling?

Looking back at the signs and symbols contained within cities, how do they navigate the player?

How does the player remember and familiarise themselves with their surroundings, to know where certain buildings can be located. Obviously the on screen map aids navigation, but through recognising and mapping all the landmarks, cross roads, bridges etc, the player can create their own identity and get to really know and understand their environment.

Does this not make a better gameplay? Giving the player a sense of satisfaction? And is it not fun just getting to know your environment.

so without looking at iconic features within certain places, is a good model for a city not one which evokes an atmosphere in which we want to explore and inhabit, and act like tourists searching for the novelty and authenticity?

Quote:

Are games simply constructed of signs and symbols, which relate to real life but do not fully simulate, to give a platform for play? With this in mind, is the environments within games simply a device for the narratives of gameplay, and a means of storytelling?

Everything in the environment drives the gameplay forward in some way. Either by providing direct gameplay, push the story forward, or simply add a little immersion. If content in the game doesn't improve the players experience, it's time wasted that could have been spent creating content that does.

Quote:

so without looking at iconic features within certain places, is a good model for a city not one which evokes an atmosphere in which we want to explore and inhabit, and act like tourists searching for the novelty and authenticity?

that all depends on what you need the city to acheive in the game, and how the player can express themselves while in the city.

Sneftel had a great point in an earlier post, that the definition of a 'good' virtual city depends on what use it has in game, or in other words how it will be used to drive the narrative of the gameplay. Taking his example from Second City, where the gameplay is social interaction, a large bustling city to hang out in makes perfect sense, and would be a 'good' virtual city. But that same city stuck into a linear FPS is just a lot of wasted content.

As mentioned before the player only uses two of their senses in gameplay, sight and sound.

So how does the game designer exploit these sences to give the player a fully phenomenological experience. ie how can they make the player awaken all the senses?

Is it important to use senses to make the player feel totally immersed in the gameplay?

Or do designers rely on other methods, such as the narratives to interact with the player?

[Edited by - LeanneT on November 23, 2006 12:53:34 PM]

I was reading an article on environmental storytelling and how it is similar to game design in learning how "to draw audiences into imagined worlds and making them want to stay" Do you guys think that it is a valid comparison?

What methods do you think are important in creating a fully immersive environment, one which tells a story or doesnt? One which is based around familiarity? One in which you can explore?

I am getting so bogged down by theories and just want some advice!

"One game that is in development, Crackdown, is going down this route. Their city is fully immersive with every element within it able to be used, you can pick up anything of the street and use it as a weapon, and every building can be entered. This type of game, to me is fasinating, and it will be really interesting to see how it works. Is this however too much? Overkill for the player, or will the player take time out of missions to explore and 'live' within thier city?
"


Ive been considering this kind of game for a long time. We are at a point with the available technology to do the physics and interactions of objects and have 'workable' props and scenery. Unfortunately the scheme will break down when it comes to interactions with active objects that are supposed to simulate people.
The AI needed to do that is a ways off and the lack will be glaring (when compared to the improved detail level of the props). The complexity of human interactions is too rich and intricate and our brains are too well trained in expectations of the 'right' behavior.

Smaller simulations where players make up the 'human' component might be possible, but a 'City' is just too large to fillout the population with players
(as well as the problem of getting players to act out mundane roles properly).
Similarly a cityscape is a large setting which requires simulation at an extended distance (and requires the computer processing capacity to represent).

It doesnt mean that we cant still move in that direction, and present aspects of a richer world. The interactive props/scenery will be a vast improvement of the current level of games and allow players to be more expressive and employ more imagination.


I would expect skeletons of social systems to be the first steps that games will move thru. Even if they are simplified, they will give players a sense that the world is more than the cardboard cutouts and choreographed scenes prevalent in todays games. It will be good to see behavior patterns that simulate a working society/economy and which react to a larger situational 'picture' of the world and make sense and fit.





BTW, If you havent taken a look at Second Life , its worth a look (its free).
It strikes me (even with the extra player created assets) as a virtual desert
-- pretty but dismally underpopulated and sterile. I had more of a sense of player interaction and community in 2D(Isometric) MMORPG games like Ultima Online. It can serve as an example of early (faltering steps) for the direction you are talking of. (They DO have very interesting expressions of architectural design....)


http://secondlife.com/whatis/

Yes i have checked out second life before and it is crazy, i was more interested in focusing on console based games, but it is fasinating to see such a large community.

Quote:

Original post by LeanneT Aspects I am discusing include phenomenology (how people feel within spaces) simulation, landmarks and planning of the city, the notion of navigation and familiarity and how these relate to the player. How do these enhance the game play? What aspects do environment artist consider in creating an environment?

Just a few random thoughts...

On a technological level, complexity is an issue - architectural styles may have to be simplified in order for game performance to be kept within reasonable bounds. As well as meaning less detail in general, it can also mean there's a tendency to reduce the number of curved surfaces. Obviously this means that some historical architectural styles are less efficient to represent in computer games than others. And as has been already mentioned, you often don't want to see too many buildings on screen at once, so they may be deliberately positioned in such a way that occludes other buildings.

In terms of gameplay, game designers often try to lay out a city in a way that minimises the player's travel distance. eg. They may place the shops all in one area and near a city gate, so that a player returning from the wilderness does not have to travel for 2 minutes across town to sell treasure. Obviously virtual cities have an advantage over real cities in that they can be constructed instantaneously and holistically, rather than growing organically.

A lot of the need for signs or landmarks is removed by the ability to arbitrarily inform the player of which suburb they are currently in, and the presence of in-game maps. Combined with the benefits (for the developer) of cloning pre-fabricated buildings, this can often lead to repetitive looking environments.

Regarding navigation, many computer games employ a compass system and therefore it is easier to refer to features if they are aligned with one of the cardinal directions. Hence you may often find that the entries to the city are to the north, south, east, or west, and in accordance with the 'minimum wasted travel time' idea mentioned above, key buildings may often be located close to one of these gates, or located centrally if all entrances are of equal importance.

In older online text games, it was quite common to build the main city centred on a crossroads where two long roads meet. Due to navigation taking place explicitly via the "N/S/E/W" commands, it was easier to move in straight lines than round corners, leading to the designers preferring the two road system so that players can get into, out of, and through the town efficiently.

Metaphor seems common too. Oblivion uses distinct architectural styles in each of its cities, partly just to distinguish between the different areas, but also to evoke comparisons with the real-world analog.

You may find this link slightly interesting, for example: Morrowind Architecture (Wikipedia)
And hopefully you've seen the work of this person already:
Pascal Mueller's documents