Brenda on Perception of Meaningful Choice
by Jeff on Apr.21, 2008, under Agency Theory, Games / Design
Brenda has a post on perception of meaningful choice which is very good (all Brenda's posts are good, so if you're not subscribed to her blog, you should correct this error).
In my own little design theory world, I tie this concept very closely to agency theory, since I've believe that in digital games there is no *actual* choice and you can't *actually* affect the system. All choices have been coded and all possible outcomes have been accounted for because the rules are very strict, so instead we create the illusion of meaningful choice.
That's not to say there is no such thing as emergent gameplay. There are things designers can do to make the possibility space so large that there's no way all possibilities to get from point A to point B could have been predicted by the designers. Such designs usually follow strict willing suspension of freedom rules: a few rules that are very consistent that will have obvious outcomes, thus creating a system that gamers can experiment in. However, despite the possibility space inside point A and B, those points almost always fixed. That's not really a problem, of course, depending on what type of agency you like in your games, but it is an inevitable outcome of how digital games work.
Leave a Reply
Personal
April 22nd, 2008 on 11:23 am
What’s your opinion on the idea of a completely emergent game–one where a self-creating game builds itself out of the player’s actions? The idea’s been put forth my a friend of mine time and time again, and I think he’s getting around to try to program the complex algorithms that would go into building the universe.
While the rules of the game would still be preprogrammed and based on the code already set in stone to make the game run, the player would have a direct affect on the outcome of the game. I’ve begun to call this idea the “Creation Game”–a game that’s created as you play it. Not to be confused with Will Wright’s Creation/Simulation games.
The reason I think this is viable enough to classify as true free gameplay is because there’s sufficient rules to build the universe but none that limit a player’s creativity to create their own game experience. After all, in the real world we’re ruled by plenty of laws and regulations–like Gravity, for instance, which we really can’t avoid. But that doesn’t stop us from defining our own experience.
April 22nd, 2008 on 12:23 pm
Andres,
I’m not sure I’m understanding you completely. If you talk about a game where you can change the rules arbitrarily, then you’re talking about a game maker aren’t you, which is more of a tool than a game. You can make it a game if you want, I’m sure, but that gets into another issue.
If you’re talking about a game where rules change based on actions, then the initial rules need to be decided on, and then the way new rules are introduced is understood (see games like Fluxx). These games work usually because the types of rules you can introduce and the ending conditions are known by all players (so long as they’ve played the game before). By expanding the number of rules… things get complicated.
As for a player completely “defining his own experience”… that’s a bit over rated in my opinion. This idea that a player wants to control everything in a game at all times is ludicrous. Being the option to control everything tends to cause freedom paralysis, a state where a player has so much stuff available to him, he doesn’t know where to start. This happens at different levels at different times for all people, but it does happen. What you really need to find out is what types of affects does a player want to have on a system, and cater your rules so that they can obviously feel that affect when they take the proper action.
April 23rd, 2008 on 8:07 pm
Jeff,
Don’t know that I buy *no* choice in games. I get what you’re saying - it’s all known beforehand, every possibility. That’s true. Likewise, I’m going on vacation in the US this year. I wonder where I will choose to go?
Brenda