I'm going to explore a concept I will call Persistent Timescale. This is not for any particular game design but more just a design concept in general. I'm really just looking to bounce ideas of people, get a bit of a discussion going and see what people think about this topic. I was watching some videos of a play-through of Resident Evil 2 and began thinking of the idea of time scale in games, that is to say whether or not the game events occur entirely in real-time or whether they include cuts ahead (or even back). Here are some FPS examples: you can play through Half-Life from start to finish and will never miss a thing that Gordon Freeman personally witnessed. You are present in every single moment of his life (save for a few instances where he loses consciousness for a while). Compare this to a Call of Duty game in which, between levels, the player is taken out of their character's shoes and returned in a new situation, probably on a different day, in a different place. This is the difference between a game with Persistent Timescale (HL) and one without (COD). My main interest here is how it can affect the player's perception of the game world. As I watched the events unfold in Resident Evil 2 I felt as if I was observing someone in real time on CCTV, following their every move in a constant, real situation. Of course, this might have been a fairly different response if I had actually been playing the game but I think the idea still remains. I think the whole issue relates to the player's concept of space and location as they are able to see the transitions between different places, rather than just jumping to somewhere else. I often find that when that new level loads on Call of Duty I have to spend a moment getting my bearings before I can press on. Is that one moment crucial for the extent to which the player remains immersed in the game world? Not only this, but I think Persistent Timescale allows the player to experience a greater sense of achievement as they progress through the game. Every yard they advance is directly linked to the next, allowing them to constantly be touching new ground and making progress. When I look back over the journey I have taken in Half-Life I can remember that I have walked 10km (for example) and I can see exactly where it has got me and what I faced along the way. In Call of Duty, well, I walked about 2km and then there was that bit where apparently I was in a helicopter for a while, but I didn't see any of that. Then I walked a bit more, and then I was controlling someone else in Russia! I find it very jarring and for a short while it really takes me out of the game. Thankfully it is only a short while, but I wonder how damaging it can sometimes be for the player's experience. How do you feel? I am also posting this on my blog: http://figpig.blogspot.com

I think a lot of persistent timescale has to do with the type of game being presented. When the game is mission- or level-based, it might be assumed that the events during hot-zone approach (before) and departure (after) are relatively (a) the same, and (b) boring. When a game is more of a linear story, there is typically more of a blurring of lines between where one "level" ends and the next level "starts". Finally, you have sandbox games, where there are no levels per se, and almost no transitional minutae that cause the player to wonder where the lost minutes went.

This is not to say that these transitions are the general rule, but rather a general approach; the more story-oriented, the less seemingly likely for the need to jump around in time.

Honestly, immersion is overrated. Playing through both Half-Life 1 and 2 it occurred to me a number of times that I was experiencing a moment of "stagecraft," by which I mean events that I knew existed completely outside of the framework of immersion. In HL1 the bit with the aircraft dropping troops repeatedly while I'm in an airshaft or conveniently finding turrets or barrels needed to kill enemies reminds me that I'm playing a game. Level loading itself is probably the biggest interrupt of all, and that happened frequently in both games, but it's not enough to take me out of it.

I actually think in terms of holding onto the concept of being in a concrete world the continuous time works against immersion. Without the long driving and boating stretches, I think I would have found HL2's world artificially small because I had to walk throughout it. I guess my experience is very different from yours, but when I load into an entirely different area it jibes with my sense of the world being large and filled with diversity of location.

Quote:

Original post by DarkHorizon Finally, you have sandbox games, where there are no levels per se, and almost no transitional minutae that cause the player to wonder where the lost minutes went. This is not to say that these transitions are the general rule, but rather a general approach; the more story-oriented, the less seemingly likely for the need to jump around in time.

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm curious-- wouldn't this restrict a game from depicting certain kinds of experiences? If you were journeying West in the shoes of an early American pioneer, for instance, you'd only be able to tell a part of the story, not the whole experience.

Quote:

Original post by DarkHorizon I think a lot of persistent timescale has to do with the type of game being presented. When the game is mission- or level-based, it might be assumed that the events during hot-zone approach (before) and departure (after) are relatively (a) the same, and (b) boring.

That's true and it does depend on the type of game, but I think that almost any game can be adapted to this type of narrative. You would not expect the 'in-between' parts to work in a game like Starcraft because the gameplay takes place on the battlefield, but in Starcraft 2 it looks like Blizzard really are filling in the gaps by allowing you to explore your command ship as the commander. Does this removal of the player from the core gameplay, essentially placing them in a mini-game in some aspects, detract from their experience or does it help to enrichen it?

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Quote: Original post by DarkHorizon Finally, you have sandbox games, where there are no levels per se, and almost no transitional minutae that cause the player to wonder where the lost minutes went. This is not to say that these transitions are the general rule, but rather a general approach; the more story-oriented, the less seemingly likely for the need to jump around in time. Not to hijack the thread, but I'm curious-- wouldn't this restrict a game from depicting certain kinds of experiences? If you were journeying West in the shoes of an early American pioneer, for instance, you'd only be able to tell a part of the story, not the whole experience.

I wouldn't say "restrict", but "cause", yes. Any game's focus is on a series of events (let's call them A and B). What happens between A and B (let's call it "stuff") depends on a number of factors, such as distance, time, people, conjunction of the moons, etc. If "stuff" is boring, then why bother presenting it to the player? If presenting "stuff" results in a greater story being told, then by all means tell it.

I don't think there is a set rule here; if a game doesn't have smooth transition between events A and B, then it's really up to the developer to decide whether he wants to make "stuff" interesting, or if he wants to skip "stuff" in the name of maintaining a certain level of gameplay fluidity. If that "stuff"-skippage results in a jarring experience for the player (e.g. the player, after finishing A, is unable to immediately understand what is going on and where he is), then you as the developer lose points for gameplay fluidity.

It's the same reason why, on television shows, you never see the characters do mundane "stuff" (e.g. go to the bathroom, eat, sleep, check out a library book, pay their taxes, etc), unless it provides a level of plot advancement. This "stuff" is usually boring, or typically generally unfit for public consumption. On the flip-side, it's also a good way to advance plot; nothing in a t.v. show or movie happens without a reason; if it is seemingly mundane but you are shown it (e.g. you are shown an off-duty detective buy a coffee and a newspaper at a news-stand), it probably isn't (e.g. later on in the show, the detective gets a hint from a story in the newspaper for a crime he's investigating). The same should hold true for any storytelling media, games included.

Quote:

Original post by CrowbarSka Does this removal of the player from the core gameplay, essentially placing them in a mini-game in some aspects, detract from their experience or does it help to enrichen it?

I'm really trying to figure this out myself. I see this gameplay popping up in a lot of different places, from the TV watching in GTA IV to the relationship building in Fable (I posted about this recently).

It's an attempt to answer something, but what I'm not sure. Your thread makes me wonder if, in fact, it's maybe continuity that's at issue.

If that's the case, I still think it's a bad idea. A game is going to be a game no matter how much stagecraft is put into it. If the attempt is for more life, it should be life minus all the boring bits.