Gameplay Design Patterns for Believable Non-Player Characters

Petri Lankoski
Media Lab
University of Art and Design Helsinki

Staffan Björk
Interaction Design Collegium
Computer Science and Engineering
Chalmers University of Technology and Göteborg University

Situated Play, Proceedings of DiGRA 2007 Conference
(c) 2007 Authors & Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA). Personal and educational classroom use of this paper is allowed, commercial use requires specific permission from the author.
Definitive version is be available in conference proceedings and http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/07315.46085.pdf

ABSTRACT
Descriptions of humans require several qualities for people to experience them as believable: human body; self-awareness, intentional states, and self impelled actions; expression of emotions; ability to use natural language; and persistent traits. Based on these we analyze non-player character Claudette Perrick in The Elders Scroll IV: Oblivion to detect how these qualities can be created in the interactive environment of a game. We derive the gameplay design patterns Awareness of Surrounding, Visual Body Damage, Dissectible Bodies, Initiative, Own Agenda, Sense of Self, Emotional Attachment, Contextual Conversational Responses, and Goal-Driven Personal Development, which point to design choices that can be made when designing believable non-player characters in games.
Author Keywords
Gameplay design patterns, non-player character, game design, The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Continue reading “Gameplay Design Patterns for Believable Non-Player Characters”

Canis Canem Edit, More Reflections

I completed the game yesterday and I the game managed to keep me engaged throughout whole game (my first impressions on the game is in old post). Canis Canem Edit uses fundamentally the same game mechanics and system as GTAs. I do not find GTAs very entertaining while Canis managed to do the magic. While in Canis Canem Edit there are some frustrating moments when change in camera and controls directions makes thing really tricky mission are more varied and balanced (for my skills) than in GTAs. Moreover, I find the theme of Canis Canem Edit more attractive than GTAs’. Specially, sarcasm and irony in Canis Canem Edit mostly works; character stereotypes, at the best, are a part of a joke.

A small disappointment to me was to notice that most of actions do not not influence how NPCs react to Jimmy; only the missions change respect values and behaviors (this said, flirting and giving gifts will have an effect to some NPCs, but not all, I think).

Are Games Expression or Art?

I watched document Sex and the Silverscreen that was about the history of film expression, censorship and presentation of sex in film. Quotes and anecdotes from 10’s to 40’s sounded very familiar: they were similar to arguments that games are not a form expression and arguments for censoring games. US supreme court rule 1915 that games are not a form of expression similar to literature or newspapers. An argument supporting this conclusion, among others, was:

Are moving pictures within the principle, as it is contended they are? They, indeed, may be mediums of thought, but so are many things. So is the theater, the circus, and all other shows and spectacles, and their performances may be thus brought by the like reasoning under the same immunity from repression or supervision as the public press,-made the same agencies of civil liberty. (Mutual Film Corp v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 1915)

So, film would not be protected by freedom of speech and publication in Ohio or elsewhere in US as it is not expression or art; film more like circus and spectacles. Roger Ebert’s recent argument why games are not art seem to be based to similar logic:

I know it by the definition of the vast majority of games. They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in “Myst,” and (3) player control of the outcome. I don’t think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports. (Games vs. Art: Ebert vs. Barker, 2007)

So, games are not art as they are have more in common with sports than, e.g., film.

US supreme court decided that film must be censored and as, among other things, “they may be used for evil, and against that possibility the statute was enacted” (Mutual Film Corp v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 1915). Isn’t this basically the same claim than, e.g., ”[Rule of Rose] features children and perverse, violent and sadistic images that are harmful to human dignity” (B6‑0023/2007)?

Are games in the same situation that movies were over 60 years ago¹ or are my analogies bad?

Notes

1. In 1952 US supreme court countered the 1915 decision and argued:

It cannot be doubted that motion pictures are a significant medium for the communication of ideas. They may affect public attitudes and behavior in a variety of ways, ranging from direct espousal of a political or social doctrine to the subtle shaping of thought which characterizes all artistic expression. (Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 1952)

Manhunt 2 and BBFC: Prejudice or Not?

Keith Stuart (Guardian Games Blog) discuss on Manhunt 2 ban in England in Manhunt 2 ‘ban’ – it’s good, but is it right? He raises a question whether games are judged in same standards as film. He points to BBCF report, which, quoting Stuart, “suggested that watching violence on TV could be more upsetting than playing violent video games” (Stuart, see also BBCF report, p. 13). This point can used as argument for why game violence is more dangerous than film violence, but as the report states that “[m]ost gamers concentrate on their own survival rather than on the damage they inflict on others” (BBCF report, p. 12), the argument (as supporting that game violence is more dangerous than film violence) is not well grounded, at least based on research in BBCF report.

As Stuart argues, it seems that there are different standards to film and games (and literature).

“Rule of Rose” or Should There Be a Ban for Fairy Tales?

There is a worrying proposal at EU parliament:

Motion for a European Parliament resolution on a ban on the sale and distribution in Europe of the video game ‘Rule of Rose’ and the creation of a European Observatory on childhood and minors (B6‑0023/2007).

While I share the concern for children and minors, it seems that motion is attack against the game Rule of Rose in a disguise of protecting children and minors. However, is the assertion made in motion (“[Rule of Rose] features children and perverse, violent and sadistic images that are harmful to human dignity”) really grounded?

I haven’t played the game, but based on review at Game Spot the assertion seems not to be very insightful. Greg Kasavin writes:

The gameplay itself simply involves making Jennifer run around collecting things, avoiding enemies, and occasionally solving puzzles. When you’ve got Brown the dog with you, which is most of the time, you can use him to help lead you around. (Kasavin, 2006.)

Rule of Rose earns points for broaching some subject matter that’s fairly bold for gaming, and while a game with such an unsettling subject shouldn’t necessarily be fun in the purest sense, it also shouldn’t be boring. (Kasavin, 2006.)

According to the review, the game contains cinematics that might be the source of worry. If the context of the game is described fairly then, for example, Grimm’s version of Cinderella, Lolita by Nabrokov, and whole production of de Sade should also be banned by the same logics behind the motion.

It seems that I should play the game to make my own judgment. Unfortunately, the game is described to be boring.