Narratives Are from Venus

Transcription

Mec h a n ic s
A r e f r o m Ma r s ,
Narratives
Are from Venus
Toby Hazes
Game Design and Development
Supervisor: Jeroen van Mastrigt
2008/2009
Mechanics are from Mars, Narratives are from Venus – Toby Hazes, 2009
Abstract
What is the difference between the mechanic-driven and the narrative-driven design approaches?
What is the difference between mechanic-driven and narrative-driven games? What is the
difference between mechanic-driven and narrative-driven play?
There are two different kinds of players, Melvin and Vorthos, who want two different experiences
out of games. Melvin plays for the mechanics, the abstract gameplay, whereas Vorthos plays for
the narrative, the suspension of disbelief.
There are two different kinds of games, Castles and Temples. Castles are games that cater to
Melvin, that are focused on the mechanics, on providing flow. Temples are games that cater to
Vorthos, focused on the narrative, providing immersion.
There are two different kinds of design approaches, Bottom-Up and Top-Down. The Bottom-Up
approach builds Castles, where the representation serves to reinforce the rules. The Top-Down
approach builds Temples, where the rules serve to reinforce the representation.
The table below shows a number of contrasts that are used to highlight the difference between the
approaches throughout the chapters. These give a global overview of what mechanic-driven and
narrative-driven stand for and what is covered in this thesis.
Mechanic-Driven
Narrative-Driven
Melvin
Vorthos
Bottom-Up
Top-Down
Castle
Temple
Function
Flavor
Rules
Representation
Agon, Alea
Mimesis, Ilinx
Analysis
Synthesis
Parts as Pieces of the Whole
Whole as Sum of the Parts
Structure
Mood
Left
Right
Science
Religion
Flow
Immersion
Medium as End
Medium as Means
Features
Content
V (vase)
Δ (chandelier)
Pong
Zork
Action
Adventure
Hollandia is my Graduation Project where we used both approaches. This has produced a
balanced Action-Adventure and has helped us make choices in the design process.
2 / 48
Introduction
Siddhartha Gautama was born a prince, destined to live a luxurious life, able to get anything he
desired. However, he felt material wealth was not the ultimate goal of life. His father, wishing for
him to become a great king, did not want him to experience anything other than wealth and joy and
shielded him from any form of human suffering. But a the age of 29, when he left his palace to
meet his subjects, he encountered, in this order, an old man, a diseased man and a dead man.
Shocked by these revelations, Siddhartha left the palace to come to terms with his own mortality.
Seeking to overcome old age, illness and death, he chose to live the life of an ascetic, pursuing
enlightenment through almost total deprivation of worldly goods. After nearly collapsing from
starvation, he began to reconsider this path. He accepted some rice and milk from a village girl,
and snuggled himself comfortably in the shadow of the Bodhi tree. After 49 days of meditation, he
became the Buddha, the enlightened one. He had found the Middle Way.1
The Middle Way is a path of non-extremism. Siddhartha experienced the extremes of selfindulgence and self-mortification and in the end chose a healthy middle way between them. I like to
walk a middle way in my life too. It's why I like Siddhartha's story. It's why I appreciate the
philosophy of Yin Yang. It's why I was born in early October, just so I would be born under the Libra
constellation. It's why this is my supportive narrative.
When talking about the extremes in games, I'm talking about mechanic-driven games and
narrative-driven games. Mechanic-driven games are constructed from interesting mechanics. They
are played because of the interesting choices granted by the combination of those mechanics.
Meaningful play comes from the mechanics creating interesting gameplay. Some examples would
be Tetris2, Mario3 and Pong4. Narrative-driven games on the other hand, are constructed by
translating narrative into mechanics, played because of the narrative formed by these mechanics.
Meaningful play comes from the mechanics creating interesting narrative. Examples of these kind
of games would be Fable5, Dungeons & Dragons6 and Zork7.
It's pretty simple on the surface. There are different kinds of players looking for different kinds of
games. There are different kinds of ways to construct said games. Do I believe there is a golden
path, this Middle Way that all games should take? Absolutely not! The examples mentioned above
are loved by players worldwide exactly because they are extremes. But that doesn't mean we as
designers can't enlighten ourselves by learning, understanding these extremes. And that, is not so
simple.
There is a struggle, or better put, a misunderstanding between these two extremes. I experience it
everywhere. During a debate in a college class. In a game forum topic. During a lecture at a game
conference. When creating games with other designers and developers. There is a friction created
by these different drives. Designers might be at cross-purposes, without even realizing it. Take the
concept of “meaningful play” mentioned before, where two different definitions of it were given. Two
designers may be having a discussion (or worse, an argument) about meaningful play, while
talking about different things entirely without ever realizing it!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Paraphrased version of Gautama Buddha's early life
Tetris, Alexey Pajitnov, 1985
Donkey Kong, Nintendo, 1981
Pong, Atari, 1972
Fable, Lionhead Studios, 2004
Dungeons & Dragons, Tactical Studies Rules, 1974
Zork I, Infocom, 1980
3 / 48
This misunderstanding is why I've named this supportive narrative Mechanics Are from Mars,
Narratives Are from Venus. I see some striking resemblances between the way this supportive
narrative has enhanced my design skills and the way a book like Why Men don't Listen and
Women can't read Maps (Pease & Pease, 1999) has improved my social skills. Being able to
understand how both (the archetypal) male and female work8, made me more conscious of how I
work myself and gave me a better understanding of the differences between the workings.
In the same way, understanding how both the mechanic-driven design approach and the narrativedriven design approach work, and understanding the differences between the two, can make you
more conscious of your own design process. Designers might have wholly different mental models,
different approaches when it comes to the art of game design. Intuitively, they understand their
own process. But to advance as a designer, it's necessary to truly understand your own design
process, the way you make design decisions. Or as the writers of a very influential model, treated
later in this supportive narrative, have written:
It is often said that there is one single word that ties both ends of the process of designing a
game, being its cause and consequence. That word is "fun". But just how is it possible to create
fun? What drives the creative force inside game designers and developers to define, specify and
ultimately implement concepts that are entertaining by nature? Such a process is called Game
Design Cognition, and it is absolutely necessary to understand and improve it if we want to evolve
as an industry that creates fun out of thin air.9 (Lopes and Kuhnen, 2007)
The goal of this supportive narrative is to indeed understand and improve this Game Design
Cognition, specifically related to the mechanic-driven and narrative-driven design approaches. In
order to accomplish this, however, we need to be no fish.
We don't know who discovered water, but we know it wasn't the fish. (Marshall McLuhan,
no date)
As designers, we are fish swimming in our own design processes. We have to step out of them for
a while to truly grasp them. Both approaches need to be analyzed and compared, to truly
understand their inner workings. This leads to the main question of this supportive narrative.
The Question
What are the differences between the mechanic-driven design approach and the narrativedriven design approach?
Being able to answer this question means being able to truly understand both design approaches.
The gains are twofold. First, it enables you to advance your own design process, by being able to
be more aware of your design processes, being able to make more informed and deliberate design
decisions. Second, it gives you a better understanding how other designers work, how they value
things. Next time I hear somebody say spiele uber alles10 in a discussion, I can put it in the correct
context, instead of arguing it blindly.
To answer the question, there are a number of related questions that need to be answered first.
What is the mechanic-driven design approach? What is the narrative-driven design approach?
8 One of the most important lessons of the book is that the way we work is not necessarily defined by
gender, but by the way our brains are hardwired. Whether you behave more in the archetypical male or
female way is not defined by your sex.
9 The word “fun” should be replaced with “meaningful play” while “entertaining” should be replaced with just
“meaningful”.
10 Opinion: Spiele Uber Alles, Gamasutra, 2009
4 / 48
These questions need to be answered before being able to define the differences between them.
Of equal importance is defining the subject matter of the subject matter: games! What are
mechanic-driven games? What are narrative-driven games? What are the differences between
mechanic-driven games and narrative-driven games? These are the questions that need to be
answered in this supportive narrative.
Research Methodology
In order to answer these questions, my research methodology included desk research and
experiments.
Desk research might sound a bit dull, but it is incredibly important. Many great theories and models
have been published by other designers, either in books or online. Some of them have greatly
influenced me as a designer far before I started with this supportive narrative, and just as much
have helped shape and define it. Instead of trying to invent the wheel over and over again, I'll refer
to them as much as possible.
Next to that, desk research can be done without a desk too! I've went to many events where game
development was discussed, such as the Nederlandse Game Dagen (NLGD) festival, the Free
Gaming Business event and the Screen/Play Symposium11. And every time I heard designers at
such a site argue or complain about the other side that just didn't get it, it gave me more
confirmation, more confidence, that this supportive narrative is really, well, meaningful.
Experiments would be putting the theory and models of this supportive narrative in practice. One
such example would be my graduation project (see below). Another would be the Narrative Game
Design seminar I gave, together with fellow students12, at the Hogeschool voor de Kunsten Utrecht
(HKU), where I introduced the attendees of the seminar to a number of theories and models used
in this supportive narrative.
Chapter Layout
In the Preface I will define the terms used in this thesis, and also expand further upon what this
thesis is and isn't.
In Mechanic-driven and Narrative-driven Play I will examine one of the pivotal models that
helped shape this thesis, the Melvin and Vorthos model. I will look at players and the act of playing
from a mechanic-driven and narrative-driven perspective.
Mechanic-driven and Narrative-driven Games then is about the difference in the games
themselves.
When both Play and Games are discussion, I have the foundation to discuss the design process in
Mechanic-driven and Narrative-driven Design Approaches, where I will also examine the other
pivotal model, the Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches.
The Temple and Castle chapter that follows describes the model I developed, that could be used
for Mechanic-driven and Narrative-driven games, to bridge the gap between Play and Design
Approaches and combine the models into a single entity.
The last chapter, Graduation Project Hollandia examines how the design approaches have been
applied to this project and what aspects of it went right and wrong.
11 Part of the Imagine: 25th Amsterdam Fantastic Film Festival
12 Jeroen Stout and Thomas Papa, both graduating in 2009
5 / 48
Graduation Project
So why does this supportive narrative needs Hollandia, and why does Hollandia needs this
supportive narrative? The answer lies in the very nature of the project, of the game. Hollandia will
be an action-adventure.
Just think about this. Why would one of the most popular13 genres have a name that's still
composed of two other genres? The action-adventure genre has outlived and outgrown both the
original action and adventure genres, which are far more like niche genres nowadays. Many bigbudget, next-gen, system-seller games fall somewhere in the action-adventure genre, yet still it
doesn't have its own name! This shows that maybe there are core differences between the action
and adventure concept, differences between mechanics and narrative.
This shows that perhaps, for this action-adventure project, for Hollandia, we will need to find our
golden path. We might need to balance between the extremes of the mechanic-driven design
approach and the narrative-driven design approach. Will we, as designers, be enlightened enough
to find this Middle Way?
13 The highest ranking game of all time, according to Metacritic and Gamerankings, is still The Legend of
Zelda: Orarina of Time, with an average of 99, an Action-Adventure game.
6 / 48
Index
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................................................2
INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................3
The Question...............................................................................................................................................................4
Research Methodology...............................................................................................................................................5
Chapter Layout............................................................................................................................................................5
Graduation Project.....................................................................................................................................................6
INDEX......................................................................................................................................................................7
PREFACE...................................................................................................................................................................9
TERMS & DEFINITIONS...........................................................................................................................................................9
Game...........................................................................................................................................................................9
Narrative ....................................................................................................................................................................9
Mechanic..................................................................................................................................................................10
Fun ...........................................................................................................................................................................10
Mechanic Designer...................................................................................................................................................10
Narrative Designer....................................................................................................................................................11
WHAT THIS THESIS IS NOT ....................................................................................................................................................11
This is not the ludology versus narratology debate. ................................................................................................11
This is not a how to guide for narrative in games....................................................................................................12
This is not a Golden Path..........................................................................................................................................12
WHAT THIS THESIS IS............................................................................................................................................................12
This is a Golden Map.................................................................................................................................................12
CASE STUDIES...................................................................................................................................................................12
Magic the Gathering.................................................................................................................................................12
MECHANIC-DRIVEN AND NARRATIVE-DRIVEN PLAY.................................................................................................14
MELVIN & VORTHOS MODEL.................................................................................................................................................14
MELVIN, THE MECHANIC-DRIVEN PLAYER......................................................................................................................................14
Melvin's Purpose.......................................................................................................................................................15
VORTHOS, THE NARRATIVE-DRIVEN PLAYER....................................................................................................................................16
Vorthos' Purpose.......................................................................................................................................................18
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MELVIN AND VORTHOS..............................................................................................................................19
MECHANIC-DRIVEN AND NARRATIVE-DRIVEN GAMES.............................................................................................22
MECHANIC-DRIVEN GAMES.....................................................................................................................................................22
Purpose of mechanic-driven games..........................................................................................................................24
NARRATIVE-DRIVEN GAMES.....................................................................................................................................................24
Purpose of narrative-driven games..........................................................................................................................26
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MECHANIC-DRIVEN AND NARRATIVE-DRIVEN GAMES...............................................................................................27
MECHANIC-DRIVEN AND NARRATIVE-DRIVEN DESIGN APPROACHES.......................................................................28
TOP-DOWN AND BOTTOM-UP APPROACHES................................................................................................................................28
Concept.....................................................................................................................................................................29
Context......................................................................................................................................................................29
Core...........................................................................................................................................................................29
Content.....................................................................................................................................................................30
Features....................................................................................................................................................................30
Verbs.........................................................................................................................................................................30
7 / 48
BOTTOM-UP APPROACH.......................................................................................................................................................31
TOP-DOWN APPROACH........................................................................................................................................................32
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TOP-DOWN AND BOTTOM-UP.....................................................................................................................33
TEMPLE AND CASTLE..............................................................................................................................................35
CASTLE...........................................................................................................................................................................36
TEMPLE...........................................................................................................................................................................37
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CASTLE AND TEMPLE.................................................................................................................................38
GRADUATION PROJECT HOLLANDIA........................................................................................................................39
MECHANIC-DRIVEN APPROACH.................................................................................................................................................39
NARRATIVE-DRIVEN APPROACH.................................................................................................................................................41
WHAT WENT RIGHT.............................................................................................................................................................42
WHAT WENT WRONG...........................................................................................................................................................43
CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................................................44
CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................................................45
SOURCES................................................................................................................................................................47
8 / 48
Preface
Terms & Definitions
Game
There have been many definitions for game over the years, from Caillois' “activity which is […]
voluntary […] uncertain, unproductive, governed by rules, make-believe” to Salen & Zimmerman's
“a game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in
a quantifiable outcome.” I prefer the definition from Sid Meier. According to him, a game is:
“a series of meaningful choices.”
Short, simple, but full of pragmatic wisdom. While it doesn't say what are not games14, it does say
what games are. Thereby it accomplishes two things:
−
−
it doesn't boycott border cases for not qualifying exactly as a game. This boycotting might
be desirable from a theoretical standpoint, for design itself it might needlessly restrict
thoughts.
It also includes a value judgment, namely that the choices must be meaningful. This makes
it necessary to answer the question when choices are meaningful exactly. And that, as this
whole thesis is about, can differ between players, and thus differ between games.
This last point also explains why I have separate chapters for play and games before I talk about
the design process. One can't simply look at the meaningful choices from the perspective of the
game, from the perspective of the formal rule system. The play, the player, must be taken into
account as well. Take a pure game of change for example, like the lottery. Seen from the game
rules, it has no meaningful choices. You pick some random numbers and some random numbers
win. However, seen from the perspective of the player, choosing the numbers to play with can in
fact be quite a meaningful choice. The meaningful play of the lottery can't be explained formal the
perspective of the formal game rules, and neither can mechanic-driven and narrative-driven play.
Narrative
The traditional definition of Narrative and Story15 is:
“description of a sequence of events.”
When it comes to narrative in games, this sequence is either traditional as in linear games, or more
emergent as in open-world games. In the not so traditional examples, narrative is used not so
much in the traditional sense of narrative, but more as the indicator for narrative potential. The
narrative aspect of an emergent game system is the potential the abstract mechanics and agents
of the system have to form emergent narratives.
14 Is life a game? According to this definition, it would be. But then again, “Life's a game” hasn't been
Nintendo's slogan for years for nothing!
15 Story can be used in the same way as Narrative. Both are different from Plot, however. "The king died
and then the queen" is a story. "The king died and then the queen died of grief" is a plot.
9 / 48
Mechanic
According to Wikipedia, a Game Mechanic is:
“a construct of rules intended to produce an enjoyable game or gameplay.”
As this definition is already tailored for games, there's little else to say. The term mechanics is
used, in this thesis, to talk about the abstract rules of a game.
Fun
A hotly-debated topic, and one of great significance to my thesis. The pivotal question that is asked
about every game is “is the game fun?”. Many designers have showed their discontent with the
term. Like Koster in A Theory of Fun for Game Design:
“When we speak of enjoyment, we actually mean a constellation of different feelings.
Having a nice dinner out can be fun. Riding a roller coaster can be fun. Trying on new clothes can
be fun. Winning at table tennis can be fun. Watching your hated high school rival trip and fall in a
puddle of mud can be fun. Lumping all of these under “fun” is a rather horribly vague use of the
term.” (Koster, 2004)
As one of the most quintessential terms in the field of game design, 'fun' is actually quite ill-defined;
it is vague, it is narrow and broad at the same time. Other terms that are used to better describe
the global concept of 'fun' are:
−
−
Fulfilling
Meaningful
Instead of asking “is it fun?”, the question should be “is it meaningful?” or “is it fulfilling?”.
Mechanic Designer
Just as with fun, Koster thinks the term Game Designer is rather vague. In A Theory of Fun for
Game Design he says:
“We could probably use new terminology for games. Often in large projects, we make the
distinction between game system designers, content designers, the lead designer or creative
director, writers, level designers, world builders, and who knows what else. If we consider games
to be solely the design of the formal abstract systems, then only the system designer is properly a
game designer. If we come up with a new term for the formal core of games [...] then we’d give this
person a title derived from that term instead.” (Koster 2004)
For the clarity of this thesis, I propose the term Mechanic Designer for Koster's 'proper game
designer'. A Mechanic Designer is a mechanic-driven game designer, which follows Koster's view
exactly, as he has a mechanic-driven approach.
A Mechanic Designer is a Game Designer concerned with ludemes.
“Game designer Ben Cousins calls these “ludemes,” the basic units of gameplay.” (Koster
2004)
10 / 48
Narrative Designer
Opposed to the Mechanic Designer is then the Narrative Designer, a narrative-driven game
designer. According to wikipedia:
“While the strict definition may vary from production to production, the core of this role is to
bring narratological meaning to interactive experiences.”
The term Narrative Designers hasn't been fixed into stone yet. Sometimes it's meaning shifts more
towards a writer, sometimes more towards a designer. For the purpose of this thesis, it will be the
second.
A Narrative Designer is a Game Designer concerned with narremes.
“a narrative designer, working in a interactive medium, seeks to craft systems which deliver
narremes.” (Dinehart, 2009)
“Narreme is the basic unit of narrative structure. [...] The narreme is to narratology what the
morpheme is to morphology and the phoneme to phonology. The narreme, however, has yet to be
persuasively defined in practice.” (Wikipedia, no date)
What this Thesis is Not
This is not the ludology versus narratology debate.
“[The debate] has been called the ludology vs. narratology debates. The narratological view
is that games should be understood as novel forms of narrative and can thus be studied using
theories of narrative (Murray, 1997; Atkins, 2003). The ludological position is that games should be
understood on their own terms. Ludologists have proposed that the study of games should
concern the analysis of the abstract and formal systems they describe. In other words, the focus of
game studies should be on the rules of a game, not on the representational elements which are
only incidental (Aarseth, 2001; Eskelinen, 2001; Eskelinen, 2004).” (Wikipedia, no date)
This thesis in fact proposes that both ludology and narratology are right and wrong. The issue this
thesis has with both views is the word 'should'. If replaced with 'could', it's more in line with this
thesis:
Games could be understood as novel forms of narrative and could thus be studied using theories
of narrative.
Games could concern the analysis of the abstract and formal systems they describe. In other
words, the focus of game studies could be on the rules of a game, not on the representational
elements which can be only incidental.
The crux of this thesis is that games can be played for different reasons and designed in different
ways. This means they can be studied from different angles too.
11 / 48
This is not a how to guide for narrative in games
One of the premises of this thesis is that it can be desirable to have narrative in games. This thesis
doesn't concern itself however with the next step, the practical application; how narrative could or
should be implemented in a game.
The advantages and disadvantages of cutscenes versus uninterrupted gameplay, pre-scripted
versus emergent narrative, linear versus open-world games. These are all subjects that do not
have a place in this thesis. For the purpose of this thesis, it doesn't matter which would be the
better way to put narrative into games, just that it is desirable to do so.
This is not a Golden Path
This thesis does not propose an ideal path, which all games should follow. In fact, the central
statement is that such an ideal path could never exist, because different players seek different
experiences, thus different designers should walk different paths to create different products.
What this thesis is
This is a Golden Map
Instead of the golden path, this thesis shows a map of different paths, and shows when and why
they are viable.
Many times in the game development process, designers will be stuck, lost, not agreeing on which
way to go. You might say turn right, while someone else wants to turn left. Before being able to
make an informed decision, you better be aware of where you actually want to end up, where you
want to go. And more importantly, you want to know where others want to end up, so you better
understand their reasoning for wanting to go the opposite way. The problem with many design
decisions is that both turning left and turning right are valid paths, but ultimately lead to different
places, to different designs.
This thesis is there to provide you a map, to make you less lost in the jungle out there that is game
development.
Case Studies
Magic the Gathering
In this thesis, I will use the collectible card game Magic the
Gathering a lot. I will shortly explain why I feel it is such a exemplary
case study. Both the structure of the game and the raw time it has
been around have made this game into an excellent experimental
pool.
As a card game, Magic consists of many individual, autonomous
pieces, the cards. A a player, you choose yourself which cards you
find interesting, with which cards you want to play. Every year,
hundreds of new cards get designed and released. This means that
Magic can easily cater to different kinds of audiences. There just has
to be a subset of cards that appeals to a certain kind of player. As
the Wikipedia article about Magic states:
12 / 48
Role-players were enthusiastic early fans of Magic, but the game achieved much wider
popularity among strategy gamers. (Wikipedia, no date)
Next to that, the game has been around for more than 15 years. Combined with the previous fact
that the game gets hundreds of new cards each year, its designers have had a lot of time and
feedback to build up experience and knowledge about its design process.
The diverse-player pool, including both mechanic-driven and narrative-driven players, and the
amount of development experience the designers have been able to accumulate are the two
reasons Magic the Gathering is so fruitful an example.
As an added bonus, the game got a major overhaul this year. It moved somewhat from a
mechanic-driven focus to a more narrative-driven focus. From the article Flavor Driven from the
official Magic the Gathering site comes this piece:
“Magic itself began as a hugely top-down exercise; Richard
Garfield did a huge amount of top-down design in Alpha. What does a
Basilisk do in fantasy literature? It kills you by fixing you with its deadly
gaze—so Thicket Basilisk has a deathtouch-like ability. What does a ballof-fire spell do? It deals tons of fire damage to everything within its area of
effect—so Fireball is an X spell that can be spread out over multiple
targets. Magic's first set is littered with flavorful, top-down examples like
this. Rukh Egg cracks into a gigantic birdie. Hurricane whacks creatures
that fly high up in the air. Illusionary Mask hides a creature's identity.
Pestilence dies out when there's no more creatures to sicken. Shivan
Dragon breathes fire. Sengir Vampire grows more powerful as he drinks
the blood of his victims. The Terror spell doesn't work on Skeletons or
Golems. War Mammoth tramples. I don't have Richard here to interview,
but I'm sure he'd say that in tons of cases, he started with an in-flavor
creature or spell idea first, then tried to implement the feel of that concept
in the rules.
The vision of Aaron Forsythe, director of Magic R&D, is that Magic 2010
represent, in part, a return to this kind of design. Many of its new cards
were designed top-down to represent concepts familiar to fantasy fans,
and the payoff is that the game (and especially the core set) fulfills those
fantasy expectations. You've seen Silence, Wall of Frost, and Capricious
Efreet in his feature article, right? Just from the names, you get an
expectation of what they might do—and you're right. Top-down design is a
powerful tool for making the game comprehensible, engaging,
memorable, and fun—an excellent way to be introduced to the game.”
(MagicTheGathering.com, 2009)
13 / 48
Mechanic-driven and Narrative-driven Play
Melvin & Vorthos Model
The Melvin and Vorthos model has been developed by Mark Rosewater, the Head Designer of
Magic the Gathering. He developed it to get a better understanding of the game's players.
“I actually took several years to slowly work through the different factors I was noticing in
how players reacted to the game and how they wrote and spoke about it.” (Rosewater 2007a)
Melvin and Vorthos are the names of two different kind of players. These player profiles allowed
Rosewater to better understand the players and their needs and wishes. Profiling these different
kind of players, naming them, also allowed him to discuss these differences with other designers.
In the end, it allowed Magic’s designers to better cater to the players, to make better cards, to be
better designers.
Melvin is the mechanic-driven player, whereas Vorthos is a narrative-driven player. These two
profiles are the extremes. Most players will fall somewhere in between, but will still gravitate more
towards one end than the other.
Melvin, the mechanic-driven player
Melvin is the mechanic-driven player. He likes
rules, he likes structure. He plays for challenge, for
the gameplay. Too further introduce him, I’ll
highlight a few quotes from a number of articles
Mark Rosewater published:
“Melvin is pushed towards the things that
have the strongest structure and functionality”.
(Rosewater 2007a)
“Melvin enjoys comprehending the
underlying structure. Melvin wants to understand how something is put together and then admire
the craftsmanship of the interdependencies.” (Rosewater 2007a)
“When Melvin evaluates something, once again like a Magic card, he tends to break things
down into its components and then studies each part. He intellectually dissects whatever it is he is
analyzing.” (Rosewater 2007a)
“When Melvin looks at a [Magic the Gathering] card, he is seeing how efficient the design
is. Is the card as clean and elegant as possible? Does it accomplish its task in the simplest and
most direct manner? Does it work within the structures Magic has created for itself? Do the rules
work? Does it fit properly in the color pie? Did the designer find ways to interconnect the pieces in
a way that elevates what the card is capable of doing?” (Rosewater 2007b)
There are some key recurring words here. Melvin is about structure, about mechanics, about
functionality.
14 / 48
The best way to understand Magic’s Melvin is to take a magic card and examine it with Melvin's
eyes! One example Mark Rosewater uses is the card Firemax Kavu from the Time Spiral
expansion. I will explain the process in great detail, so there should be no knowledge of the game
itself needed.
A card like this is exciting to Melvin because he enjoys
watching how all the pieces can be skillfully woven together.
(Rosewater 2007a)
Melvin looks first and foremost not at the name or the art of
the card, but at the numbers. What the card does within the
game rules, it's functionality.
It is a red-colored creature with a power/toughness of 4/2 and
three abilities in its textbox. The first is echo, meaning you
have to repay his cost the turn after you've played it or else it’s
destroyed. The second says that it can deal 2 damage to a
creature when you play it. The third says that it can deal 4
damage to a creature when it is destroyed.
Melvin admires this because it gives him interesting gameplay
options when he plays this card. Meaningful choices.
- He can play it, let it deal 2 damage to another creature and next turn pay the echo cost to
have a 4/2 creature to use.
- He can also choose to play it, let it deal 2 damage to another creature and next turn not pay
the echo; meaning it is destroyed and he can deal 4 damage to another creature.
- Or, he can choose to play it and let it deal 2 damage to itself (as it is a creature itself too).
Since it has a toughness of 2, the 2 damage is lethal which means it is destroyed right
away, allowing him to deal 4 damage to another creature right away.
This card creates a lot of interesting gameplay options because these abilities go well together. Not
to mention the elegance of its numbers. It has a power/toughness of 4/2 and it's abilities deal 4 and
2 damage. Both are also 6 combined, which is the same number as the cost to play it (in the
upper-right corner, 5 plus one red symbol) and the cost to pay for his echo ability.
Melvin likes the Firemaw Kavu card because it resonates with him, it gives him interesting
mechanics and abilities to fiddle with.
Melvin's Purpose
Melvin is a solid basis for the mechanic-driven player. Notice also how the name Melvin somewhat
resembles the word mechanic; they both start with a ‘me’ intonation and end with an ‘I’ vowel. It
sounds mechanic-y! Thus, from now on, whenever I'm talking about a mechanic-driven player, I
can just call him Melvin.
The Melvin profile describes the mechanic-driven player in some quintessential keywords, giving a
first grasp, a good sense of Melvin’s direction. But to get to the essence of a mechanic-driven
player, the question that must be asked is:
What is the purpose of a Melvin? What does he want? Why does he play? What does he desire to
achieve or attain?
The answer would be that Melvin is kind of the purist gamer. He plays games for the parts that
15 / 48
make up the game’s core, the mechanics. He is interested in challenges or in just playing around.
Either way, it’s about the gameplay that a game structure offers. He plays because he gets fun out
of the meaningful play the gameplay offers. In Koster's Theory of Fun, this is what Koster defines
as fun:
“Fun is the act of mastering a problem mentally.” (Koster 2004)
Another way to look at Melvin's play is to look at the Four Types of Play from Man, Play and
Games. Melvin is all about Agon (competition) and Alea (chance) games. Agon and Alea games
are pure games in the sense that they have a structure, rules, and the purpose stays within that
structure. These games have a purpose of winning, of mastery, just as Koster describes Fun.
To wrap it all up, Melvin is the purist gamer. This purity makes it somewhat hard to describe it in
other words, as the concepts that have the strongest link with Melvin are terms that apply to games
in general. Gameplay might be the best word to link to Melvin, as it so easily relates to other words.
The 'game' part connects to words such as mechanics, structure, rules and function. The 'play' part
to words such as Agon, challenge, problem-solving and mental-mastery. Note that this definitely
doesn’t mean Vorthos isn’t concerned with gameplay. But as Melvin is the purist gamer, gameplay
has extra depth for him. It’s his purpose.
Vorthos, the narrative-driven player
In the mechanic-driven players subchapters, I’ve
outline the profile of Melvin. At the other end of the
spectrum, there’s Vorthos. He is the narrativedriven player. When he plays, he plays makebelieve. What follows are a few important quotes
from Mark Rosewater's articles.
When Vorthos evaluates something, in this
case a Magic card, he isn't isolating any piece.
Rather he is judging based on how every piece
interacts with one another. Yes, the mechanic
matters, but in conjunction with what the spell
represents. Yes, the art is important, but as how it relates to the whole of the card. The Magic
cards that make Vorthos the happiest are the ones that "feel" right. These are the ones where the
pieces come together to create something organic and whole, where all the pieces of the card
combine in harmony to create something greater than the sum of its parts. (Rosewater 2007a)
Unlike Melvin [...] Vorthos is not looking at the tightness of the mechanics. Vorthos looks at
the cards as a holistic whole. To make Vorthos happy, all the pieces of the card have to be working
together to create an overall sense of what the card is. (Rosewater 2007b)
Judgment comes not from evaluation of components but rather from an overall feel of all
those components together. (Rosewater 2007a)
What a card is. What a card represents. What the components of a card form when brought
together.
16 / 48
Again, let's look at an actual Magic Card for clarification. One
example Mark Rosewater uses a lot is the card Frozen Solid
from the Scourge and Coldsnap expansions.
Before we start with Vorthos, let's first examine it with the
eyes of Melvin, which we have done before. Let’s go straight
away to the function of the card.
It's a blue-colored enchantment with once again 3 abilities in
its textbox. The first says enchant creature, meaning that
when you play this card, you choose a creature to enchant
with this card. The second says the creature you’ve chosen
will not be usable every turn (as cards are by default within
the Magic rules). Instead, if you use the creature once, it will
remain unusable until this enchantment gets removed. The
third ability says that once the enchanted creature receives
any damage (from a Firemaw Kavu, for example), it will be
destroyed right away (even if the creature has higher
toughness).
Melvin sees nothing but an ugly card. First of all, why is a blue-colored card able to destroy
creatures, and why does it concerns itself with damage? Within the Magic the Gathering card
game, there are 5 colors of cards and each has its own strengths and specialties within gameplay.
Destroy effects are the trademark of the black color and damage is a red-colored thing. This blue
card has no reason to have such abilities. Even worse, the abilities do not exactly work together
smoothly. In essence, the second and third ability both have the same effect; getting rid of a
creature. If it's out of use, then it doesn't matter if it's destroyed or not, and if it gets destroyed it
doesn't matter if it was out of use. Melvin would prefer a more effective, more interesting card.
But for Vorthos, this card is wildly interesting! Let's look at it from his vantage point. The card is
called Frozen Solid. In the art we see a warrior being, well, frozen solid. It's a card that enchants a
creature. This card represents casting an enchantment to freeze someone!
What is the effect of freezing something? First of all, it will be in standstill, won't be able to move,
and that's exactly what the second ability of the card is conveying. (Using a creature can be seen
as moving it; unable to use it makes it unmovable.) Next to that, frozen objects are very fragile;
drop it and it'll shatter in many pieces. This is represented by the third ability; no matter how
powerful a creature is, if it's frozen any damage could break it.
Part of the flavor of the color blue is that it’s the master of the elements Water and Air. This means
that it makes perfect sense that blue gets the ability to freeze stuff. For a Vorthos, this explains why
a blue card can have these abilities.
Vorthos likes this card because it resonates with him, because it really captures the essence of
“freezing something”.16
16 I tested this during the Narrative Game Design seminar I gave. The majority of students did not know how
the Magic game worked. I showed them the Frozen Solid card and asked them what it means to be frozen.
Inability to move and fragileness were the first things called. Conversely, when I showed Firemaw Kavu and
asked what a creature with a fire breathing ability would do, the answers were less spot-on. As it was able to
spew fire, it was able to inflict repeatable damage, and it would be ranged damage. Not bad, as his abilities
to do 2 and 4 damage once are in fact ranged (they can hit any creature on the field) and are repeated in the
sense that it deals damage more than once, but the abilities didn't exactly capture the spirit of “creature able
to spit fire out of his maw”. This explains why Vorthos is less attracted to this card.
17 / 48
Vorthos' Purpose
Just as with Melvin as the mechanic-driven player, Vorthos is a solid place to start with the
definition of the narrative-driven player. Note also how Vorthos sounds a bit like ‘flavor’, as they
both have a 'f'/'v' beginning and an 'or' intonation. But to really get through to the essence again, I’ll
be looking at my beloved purpose once more.
So what does Vorthos want? What driven a narrative-driven player? What constitutes fulfilling,
meaningful play for him?
Vorthos is looking for suspension of disbelief.17 He is playing make-belief. He wants to pretend the
artificial reality, the game world, is real and alive. He is looking for strong representation, for flavor,
for things that have narrative meaning. A Vorthos lives by the creed:
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then I can believe it is a
duck.18
This can be seen with the Magic the Gathering example of the Frozen Solid card. Vorthos finds it
fulfilling to play this card because it allows him to pretend he is actually freezing something. All
parts of the card, the name, the art, the abilities, the context within the rules of the game, work
towards this goal.
If Melvin is about Agon and Alea games, Vorthos is definitely about Mimesis (make-belief) and Ilinx
(vertigo) games. Vorthos plays a game as a portal, a step, to experience something else, just like
Mimesis and Ilinx games.
Whereas Melvin as a purist gamer is concerned about the core aspect of games, the mechanics,
the gameplay, Vorthos is concerned about something higher. Something that can't be pinpointed to
a certain element or attribute of a game. It is the sum of the parts. It is the representation, the
flavor, the Mimesis. It is the Spirit Capture, the old superstitious belief of 19th century native
Americans that one’s spirit was captured in a photograph when one was taken. It is the narrative.
17 Concept coined by Samual Coleridge.
18 Wordplay on the popular ‘Duck Test’: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck,
then it probably is a duck.
18 / 48
Differences between Melvin and Vorthos
In this chapter I will bundle all previous defining characteristics of the Melvin and Vorthos profiles.
We will clearly see the differences between the two, and we’ll start to get a more concrete sense
how that impacts design.
Once again I must stress that these two profiles are the absolute extremes. This makes it easier to
compare them, but when applied to actual people, it won’t be so black & white. Most people are
somewhere between the two extremes. More so, you can play one game with Melvin motivations
while being a Vorthos when playing another. And as we have seen with Magic the Gathering most
clearly, the same game can be played in wildly different manners.
Now onto the list that highlights the differences between Melvin and Vorthos. This list is by no
means exhaustive; there are so many aspects to look at, where differences can be found, that this
would be a lifetime study. Here, I will just list the most important ones. At the end of this chapter, all
these concepts will be neatly organized in a summarizing table.
Mechanics versus Narrative
It only suits that I either begin or end with this one. Since there is another I'd like to end with, I'll
start with this one. Melvin’s purpose lies within the mechanics, Vorthos’ purpose within the
narrative. It's the reason they play, it's their drive. For Melvin meaningful play is constructed of the
gameplay the mechanics offer, for Vorthos meaningful play comes from the experience the
narrative offers. Melvin is looking for function, Vorthos is looking for flavor...
Flavor versus Function
This is basically the same contrast, just with different words. Mechanics and narrative are the
words that are the least ambiguous, but this one has is charms because it alliterates. These are
also the words that Magic’s designers use. It is important to note the usage of the word Flavor and
not the word Form. Form, like mechanics, is just a component of a game. Flavor, like Narrative,
Representation and Spirit Capture denotes the make-belief part of a game that is not so much a
component, but something that emerges from those components.
Rules versus Representation
Yet another catchy alliteration that I use to say the exact same thing. I especially like the word
‘representation’ , as in theory it is less ambiguous than flavor or even narrative. It is quite unwieldy
in practice however.
Agon & Alea versus Mimesis and Ilinx
Melvin is attracted to Agon and Alea games, whereas Vorthos is attracted to Mimesis and Ilinx
games.
Goal & Means
Now we have arrived at the pivotal difference between Melvin and Vorthos. Rules versus
representation. Flavor versus function. Mechanics versus narrative. These contrasts show the
different concepts that apply to Melvin and Vorthos, but they do not show the relation between
these concepts within such a profile. This contrast has no versus in its title. This one is about the
means and the goal. This one is the culminations of all earlier contrasts.
For a Vorthos, the mechanics serve to reinforce the narrative.
For Vorthos, the narrative is the goal, and the mechanics are one of the means to get there. As we
have seen with our card Frozen Solid, the mechanics are used to convey the “freezing something”
19 / 48
narrative substance. It is the representation that really matters for a Vorthos, and the rules are
there to enable that.
For a Melvin, the narrative serves to reinforce the mechanics.
For Melvin, the mechanics are the goal, and the narrative is one of the means to enhance this
experience. From a Melvin's point of view, the narrative must be functional, it must smoothen the
otherwise abstract mechanical gameplay. Look at Ralph Koster’s view on the narrative of chess for
example:
The dressing in tremendously important. It’s very likely that chess would not have its longterm appeal if the pieces all represented different kinds of snot. (Koster 2004)
Representation follows the rules. We have these abstract mechanics and now we can choose the
optimal way to represent it. Maybe as knights and kings, maybe as snot.
In later chapters, when I really get in-depth into the design approaches, we'll see that this contrast,
this difference in the relation between mechanics and narrative for Melvin and Vorthos, will
influence the design process second to none.
Analysis versus Synthesis
Vorthos is performing synthesis; constructing a narrative out of a number of components. Melvin is
busy with analysis; he is looking at the mechanics of the game, and how they connect with each
other.
Parts versus Whole
This is something Mark Rosewater touches upon in his articles about Melvin and Vorthos.
Vorthos enjoys seeing the whole as the sum of the parts. Melvin likes seeing the individuals
as pieces of the whole. (Rosewater 2007a)
Vorthos is looking for the narrative, the Spirit Capture, that is a sum of all the pieces. Melvin
analyzes the components, and looks how they interact with each other. The best example would be
the Firemaw Kavu card, where Melvin’s enjoyment comes from looking at the interconnectivity
between the mechanics of the card.
Structure versus Mood
Another aspect Mark Rosewater touches upon and one that has been raised in the previous two
contrasts, is the aspect of connecting.
[…] aesthetics, the science of beauty, shows us that humans by natures crave having
things interconnect. The difference is that Vorthos prefers his connections to be of mood and tone
rather than a structure of interdependency and logic. He wants things to belong to one another, not
because there is an obvious direct link but rather because the items in question feel right together.
(Rosewater 2007a)
Left versus Right
Left brain versus the right brain. An interesting topic, but out of the scope of this supportive
narrative. Might be something to look into.
Action versus Adventure
This is the one to bring up the rear. Melvin is looking for action, for a challenge or just for play, for
mastery of a problem. Vorthos is looking for an adventure, for make-belief, for narrative. This
20 / 48
certainly won't be the last time I will touch upon the Action and Adventure terms!
The table below contains the keywords of the above contrasts, highlighting the most important
differences between Melvin and Vorthos.
Melvin
Vorthos
Mechanics
Narrative
Function
Flavor
Rules
Representation
Agon, Alea
Mimesis, Ilinx
Goal: mechanics, function, rules
Goal: narrative, flavor, representation
Analysis
Synthesis
Structure
Mood
Left
Right
Action
Adventure
21 / 48
Mechanic-driven and Narrative-driven Games
In the previous chapter about mechanic-driven and narrative-driven play, I have concluded that
there are two kinds of players, Melvin and Vorthos, who crave two different experiences, who have
two different notions of the term 'meaningful play'.
In this chapter I will look at the games themselves and examine how they could cater more to one
audience or another. Mechanic-driven and narrative-driven games would be
the two extremes of a spectrum on which all games can be placed.
Mechanic-driven games
At one end of the spectrum, there are mechanic-driven games. To see the
most obvious difference between the extremes, one can look at the earliest
digital games. From The Ultimate Guide to Video Game Writing and Design:
“Hardware was so limited that story either took center stage (textbased games) or was relegated to the back seat (arcade games).” (Dille &
Zuur Platten, 2008)
Arcade games are on the mechanic extreme of the spectrum. Tennis for
Two19, Spacewar20, Pong21, Space Invaders22, Asteroids23, these early games
were all about the mechanics. That they were all about tennis or space was
not so much because that was the desired narrative context everybody
wanted, but because it was a fitting context for the game mechanics. Melvin
was very happy with these games, Vorthos not so much.
It must not be forgotten that this also was caused by their medium, their
environment. They were an evolution of the non-digital arcade games, meant
to give you quick entertainment, meant to absorb your quarters. It had to be
all about a core mechanic that was easy to learn and hard to master.
Another good example from earlier times
would be the Mario character from Super
Mario Bros.
“With limited pixels and colors, the
games' programmers could not animate
Mario's movement without making his
arms "disappear". Making his shirt a solid color and giving him
overalls fixed this. They also did not have the space to give
him a mouth or ears, and they could not animate hair, which
resulted in Mario getting a moustache, sideburns, and a cap to
bypass these problems.” (Wikipedia, no date)
The entire representation, who Mario is, came from technological restraints. The game required an
avatar that was about that much pixels in height and width, and Mario was created to fill those
19
20
21
22
23
Tennis for Two, 1958
Spacewar, 1961
Pong, 1972
Space Invaders, 1978
Asteroids, 1979
22 / 48
requirements. The representation serves the rules.
Another way the representation can serve the rules,
is to be used as an excuse.
“Doom & Quake were built barely as excuses
for the brutal, over-the-top shooting gameplay that
Carmack and Romero had devised.” (Lopes &
Kuhnen, 2007)
These early examples make it very clear that for
these games, the gameplay, the mechanics, came
first, and the narrative would be added on top of that
to give the player context.
For Mechanic-Driven games, the representation serves to reinforce the rules.
It can be compared to certain genres of movies, like the action genre24. For such movies, the story
is just a means, a vehicle, to get the characters in the right situations for the action scenes where
its all about. The narrative is clearly just a wrapper to serve the mechanics in a right way.
These days the lines are not so clear. Many games fall somewhere in between. This is partly
because the graphics keep improving and improving. In the beginning, games like Pong and Mario
had no choice but to focus on the mechanics entirely. These days many mechanic-driven games
get a much nicer narrative wrapper, but that is still what it is in the end, a wrapper.
Once again, Mario is a good example. This time Super Mario
Galaxy:
“This game is wholeheartedly a game, and doesn't shy
away from it -- more, it embraces it. In the first level of
[Ratchet & Clank:] Future, Ratchet may traverse an amazing
futuristic city. Mario traverses challenges -- nothing more,
nothing less.” (Gamasutra, 2007)
Portal is another example, one with a very nice wrapper. It has
been lauded often for its narrative. But that narrative was in the
end just a very nice wrapper for the core gameplay where it was
all about. As Jeremy Bernstein said at the Game Design
Workshop on the Festival of Games 2009:
“You've played Portal, you loved the story. But that's not
why you played the game. You played because of the core
mechanics.”
Many games that fall between the extremes can be played by
both kind of players. Magic the Gathering can be played by both Melvin and Vorthos. And while
Portal is a Melvin game at heart, it can be enjoyed by Vorthos too.
24 Pornographic movies are an even better example. But hey, who reads footnotes anyway?
23 / 48
But it are not these middle way games that are of interest in this
chapter, because they do not clearly define the extremes. A good
recent genre that's very mechanic-driven most of the time would
be physics games and DIY25 games, such as Line Rider26 and
Little Big Planet27.
Purpose of mechanic-driven games
Immersion is often cited as the highest goal of a game. If the game offers
you immersion, it has succeeded. The problem with the term immersion
is the same as with the term fun, it is so horribly broad and vague. You
can be immersed in the story of Final Fantasy VII28 or in a game of Tetris.
Melvin's immersions differs from Vorthos' immersion.
Versus
Martin Nerurkar offers a distinction between the two in his Gamasutra feature blog:
“There is the story based immersion into the narrative, plot and setting.
And there is flow, the immersion into the game mechanics.” (Nerurkar, 2009)
Koster agrees with the word flow to describe Melvin's type of immersion in Rules of Play:
“So how does it feel? Well, the moment a lot of players like to cite is “being in the zone.” If
you get academic about it, you might reference Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of “flow.” “ (Koster,
2004)
The purpose of a mechanic-driven game is to provide Melvin what he seeks, to provide
Flow.
Narrative-driven games
At the other extreme of the spectrum, there are narrative-driven games. Once again, to see this
extreme cleary, we start by looking at the earliest digital games.
“Hardware was so limited that story either took center stage (text-based games) or was
relegated to the back seat (arcade games).” (Dille & Zuur Platten, 2008)
The old text adventures are extreme narrative-driven games. Seen from a mechanical view, they
are but puzzles with word input. It is not so much the act of playing these games in the abstract
that is fulfilling. It is the meaning that these words have, the representation, the narrative, that
gives a meaning too to playing these games. This is where the meaningful play comes from in
25
26
27
28
Do It Yourself
Line Rider, 2006
Little Big Planet, 2008
Final Fantasy VII, 1997
24 / 48
these games.
Adventure29, Dungeon30, DND31 & Zork32 are examples of early
text adventure games. It is important to note that their existence
is made possible by them being computer games and not arcade
games, like the earlier mechanic-driven games were. Being
computer games, they could serve a different purpose than
needing to absorb your quarters.
These games were not about tennis or space. These were
adventures. Most were inspired by Dungeons & Dragons, the
grandfather of narrative-driven gaming. For these games, it were
not the rules themselves that were so exiting. It was the narrative
that emerged out of these rules. It was the make-believe, the
mimicry, the suspension of disbelief that Vorthos seeks, that
these games offered.
Another fine example is looking at the items that were included in
Super Mario Bros and The Legend of Zelda. Mario had a mushroom
that made him bigger and a flower that allowed him to shoot balls of
fire. Link had bombs that allowed him to place bombs and a bow and
arrows that allowed him to shoot arrows. In Mario, once again, it's
about the rules. In Zelda, it's the representation that defines those
rules.
Versus
For Narrative-driven games, the rules serve to reinforce the representation
Just as Vorthos isn't a purist gamer, a narrative-driven game isn't a 'pure' game, in the sense that
in the abstract, text adventures are no fun. It is the narrative that is added to these mechanics that
makes them fun. The game is used not as a goal in itself, but as a medium. Whether it's writing,
telecommunications or games, storytellers will finds ways to use that medium to express. Another
vivid example can be seen in the invention of the Theme Park out of the Amusement Park
“Another piece of evolution fell into place when Walt Disney came along and did an
amazing thing with storytelling: he created the theme park. Think about the word theme. It is a
classic component of writing. And here was a man applying it to roller-coasters. At Disneyland, you
could physically experience the fictional worlds that previously existed only in TV and the movies.
The Matterhorn ride was easier than mountain climbing and safer than tobogganing, while offering
a fantasy version of these things. You could become an adventurer with little personal risk. The
29
30
31
32
Adventure, 1975, first text adventure
Dungeon, 1975, first role-playing game
DND, 1975, other first role-playing game
Zork, 1977
25 / 48
goal of the Jungle Cruise or Pirates of the Caribbean was to re-create the fictional experience
created within Disney’s entertainment properties and not the real experience of going to Africa or
meeting actual pirates. It is, and was, fiction about fiction. No scurvy here, matey.” (Dille & Zuur
Platten, 2008)
Another example that stands in bright contrast with the mechanic-driven example of Mario comes
from a lesser known game Karateka from roughly the same
era.
“I hoped to achieve the lifelike feeling of Choplifter but
with characters the size of Swashbuckler’s.” (Mechner, The
Ultimate History of Video Games, 2002)
It shows the Vorthosian drive to put the focus of the game on
the lifelike feeling, instead of on the highest playability per se.
While it has been stated that many games fall more between
the extremes these days, there are still some extreme
examples of Vorthosian game. The RPG genre for example,
or the evolution of the text adventure, the Point&Click
Adventure. Another striking example would be the Japanese
Visual Novel and Dating Sim genres.
Purpose of narrative-driven games
Whereas mechanic-driven games cater to Melvin's version of
flow, narrative-driven games cater to Vorthos.
“There is the story based immersion into the narrative, plot and setting.
And there is flow, the immersion into the game mechanics.” (Nerurkar, 2009)
The purpose of a narrative-driven game is to provide Vorthos what he seeks, to provide
Immersion.
26 / 48
Differences between mechanic-driven and narrative-driven games
This list has a lot of overlap with the list of differences between mechanic-driven players and
narrative-driven players. The most interesting differences are the additions to that list.
Mechanics versus Narrative
Function versus Flavor
Rules versus Representation
These are all contrast that show the difference in focus between these two kinds of games. If we
look at the early arcade games, they were all about the mechanics, the function, the rules. They
wanted to hook you with their gameplay. That they all had a tennis or space flavor didn't matter,
because that's not where the focus of the game lay. On the other hand, the old text adventures
were all about the narrative, the flavor, the representation, what they described.
Flow versus Immersion
The purpose of these games. A mechanic-driven game actually strives to achieve a different goal
than a narrative-driven game. Again, this is why they are fundamentally different. A narrative-driven
game could simply be able to offer more to a Vorthos because its content is tuned towards it. This
is why we need different games.
Medium as Goal versus Medium as Means
This contrast signifies an important difference in how the different kind of games actually look at
themselves, look at the game medium. Mechanic-driven games are the pure games that look
within the medium to exploit its fullest potential. Narrative-driven games use the game only as a
medium. Thus, narrative-driven games are inclined to look outside of it too. This is why many of
such games also feature non-game, non-interactive elements such as cutscenes, texts and
traditional storytelling.
Pong versus Zork
Pong is a classic example of an extreme mechanic-driven game while Zork is a classic example of
an extreme narrative-driven game.
Action versus Adventure
The first arcade games were pure action games. The first text adventures were pure adventures.
The very one was even called Adventure.
Mechanic-driven Games
Narrative-driven Games
Mechanics
Narrative
Function
Flavor
Rules
Representation
Flow
Immersion
Medium as Goal
Medium as Means
Pong
Zork
Action
Adventure
27 / 48
Mechanic-driven and Narrative-driven Design Approaches
In the previous chapters, I have concluded that there are different players, Melvin and Vorthos,
who play for different experiences, and that there are different games that cater to one or the other
specifically.
This chapter will then look at the design process. How does the design for a narrative-driven game
intended for Vorthos differ from a mechanic-driven game intended for Melvin?
This is where my second pivotal model is discussed. The first was the Melvin and Vorthos model
that I used to define narrative-driven players and mechanic-driven players. Here I will use another
model to help define the narrative-driven design approach and the mechanic-driven design
approach: the top-down and bottom-up model.
Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches
The following model has been coined by Gilliard Lopes and Rafael Kuhnen in a Gamasutra feature
article. The following graphic shows their breakdown of the game design cognitive process.
To fully understand the Top-Down and Bottom-Up processes, I will first expand on the 5 layers they
use in their breakdown.
28 / 48
Concept
“A couple of phrases that describe the game's style, general
setting, and sometimes the main plot motivation, as well as the types of
characters and interactions involved. Game concepts are generally
short, but they serve as the ultimate definition of the game, something
that the developers should keep in mind at all times to make sure that
they are really making the game they were supposed to.” (Lopes &
Kuhnen, 2007)
Lopes and Kuhnen use the word concept to describe the most global description of the game. In
principle this concept could be not a game at all. The concept could also describe a book, a
painting or a movie.
Context
“the story, circumstances and motivation presented to the player.
[..] It is expected that every choice the player makes in a game is a
meaningful one […] The context should be the guide to these choices”
(Lopes & Kuhnen, 2007)
The context is where the narrative heart beats most strongly. This layer
contains the representation of the game, the flavor. Whether this layer
takes center stage in a narrative-driven game, or is simply used to reinforce the rules of a
mechanic-driven game, depends on the design process.
Core
The Core consists actually of two layers, Content and Features. They
are lumped together because it depends on the approach which of the
two is actually higher than the other.
“The most important distinction between the top-down and
bottom-up cognition processes [...] is exemplified in the relation between
content and features with regard to the other layers. If we work down
from the top, we can see features as an abstraction of content in order to create the desired game
mechanics; on the other hand, if we go up from the bottom, we can see content as an abstraction
of features to create the desired game context. Therefore, it is impossible to tell which of these two
layers is more abstract than the other. That is the main reason why we choose to consider these
two layers as an unified component of the architecture.” (Lopes & Kuhnen, 2007)
What these two layers, Content and Features, have in common, is that they represent the concrete
product, the 'content' of the game (and its features). Concept and Context are abstract ideas that
are materialized only in a game's Content. In the same way, Verbs and Mechanics are ideas or
pieces of code that only are used if they are included in the Features of the game.
29 / 48
Content
“Contents of a game are basically what players see and most
often can touch inside the game space. The player's avatar itself is
game content, together with any other characters, weapons, items,
scenario objects, etc. that are there for the player to interact with, using
the game system. We can think of content as the concretization of the
game from the perspective of the player.” (Lopes & Kuhnen, 2007)
Features
“Features, on the other hand, are the mid-level description of
gameplay, often represented as use cases (“squad control”, ”vehicle
riding”) and broad system descriptions (“price fluctuation”, “real-time
cloth physics”), which comprise the different ways in which the player
can touch the game or be touched by it. They also define the nature of
the player's interaction, in terms of the feedback perceived by the player
from his actions in the game world (“destructible environments”,
“believable emotional NPCs”).” (Lopes & Kuhnen, 2007)
Mechanics
If the Context layer is home to the narrative, then the Mechanics layer is
home to the mechanics. These are the rules of the game, the
possibilities that exist within the system.
“The mechanics of a game are the “brain” of a game's design.
Whenever the player wishes to perform an action, he must invoke one of
the available verbs in the given game state (more on this in the next
section). Then his input is processed internally by a set or rules and an
output is given (hopefully being what the player had intended to do). Game mechanics must be
designed to be the gears that spin under the hood; all the player must do is step on the gas and
feel the car moving. He does not need to understand how the engine works to be able to drive.”
(Lopes & Kuhnen, 2007)
Verbs
“This layer consists of the actions that will be performed by the
player during the game. These actions mean the desire of the player
being enforced upon the game as low-level micro-decisions that will use
the mechanics layer to run the player through his game experience.
Some of these verbs might be “shoot”, “jump”, “brake”, or even “change
camera perspective”, “craft an item” and “move units”.” (Lopes &
Kuhnen, 2007)
This is an explanation of the different layers of a game that Lopes and Kuhnen use for their game
design approaches.
30 / 48
Bottom-Up Approach
The Bottom-Up Approach starts at the bottom, the verbs and mechanics,
and works its way up from there. This approach starts with abstract
gameplay, the verbs and mechanics, and then layer an appropriate
context on top of that.
As has been said in the description of the Core, the biggest difference
between the Bottom-Up and Top-Down approaches is the relation
between the Features and the Content. In the Bottom-Up approach, the content and the context is
created to match the features and mechanics of the game. And this is exactly why this approach is
used so much for mechanic-driven games.
As has been stated in the chapter about Mechanic-Driven games, in those games the
representation serves to reinforce the rules. This is exactly how the Bottom-Up approach works,
the context is created to match the mechanics.
“Bottom-up game design cognition can be seen, in some sense, as the process of finding
excuses to successfully apply a particularly fun gameplay verb or mechanic, complementing it with
the appropriate setting, content and story. And if we look at some of the most well-known game
developers in the industry, we will find out that such process is used more often than not. Take, for
instance, id Software's highly-praised series Doom and Quake. As David Kushner's excellent
testimony in “Masters of Doom” tells us, these games were built barely as excuses for the brutal,
over-the-top shooting gameplay that Carmack and Romero had devised.” (Lopes & Kuhnen, 2007)
Another striking example comes from another extremely mechanic-driven game, Mario. In another
Gamasutra feature, the following was said about the development of Mario 64:
“Before any of the levels had been created
Mr. Miyamoto had Mario running around and picking
up objects in a small ‘garden’ which he uses in all his
games to test gameplay elements. “A lot of the
animation was actually in there before any of the
game” explains Goddard. “The Mario that he had
running around basically looked the same as he did
in the final version. Mario’s movement is based on
good physics, but you have bits on top that you plug
in so you can do things you shouldn’t be able to do.
They spent a lot of time working on the swimming,
it’s harder than running to get the feeling right, they
didn’t want you to avoid the water, the wanted to make it an advantage and fun to dive in.” (Giles
Goddard, Gamasutra, 2007)
The Bottom-Up approach is very much a mechanic-driven approach. The representation serves to
reinforce the rules. The flavor comes after the function, the narrative is build to support the
mechanics.
31 / 48
Top-Down Approach
With the Top-Down approach, it's the other way around. It starts with a
concept or a context, the narrative, and then works its ways down to find
the desired mechanics and verbs that fit this concept.
The relation between Content and Features here is the other way
around. The features are created to properly represent the desired
content. The rules serve to reinforce the representation, as has been
stated in the Narrative-driven games chapter. This is why the Top-Down process is a Narrativedriven process. It starts out with the flavor, the representation, and then tries to find the function,
the rules, that express this flavor.
“When working down from the top, the game designer usually exercises his analytical skills,
i.e. his capacity of breaking a broader concept into smaller parts that are representative of the
whole. For example, when trying to transform a game concept into its context, a designer must
further unfold the concept to answer questions like “where and when does the game take place?”
and “which characters or entities are involved, and in which circumstances?”. Finding out which
are the right questions is often trickier than finding the right answers to them.” (Lopes & Kuhnen,
2007)
The biggest pitfall of the Top-Down approach is that a narrative-driven game is not a pure game, as
stated in Narrative-driven Games. Whereas a Bottom-Up designed game is firmly “a series of
meaningful choices”, as the starting point of the Bottom-Up approach is something fulfilling, for a
narrative-driven game, the meaningful, fulfilling33 aspect is not a given.
“As said before, concept and context do not necessarily involve interaction or
entertainment, which are major features of any game. Thus, one of the main challenges of the topdown approach is that this process often requires that the game designer introduces fun elements
into concepts that are not necessarily entertaining by themselves, or at least not as much as a
game should be. For example, a game concept derived from a very serious book must still turn out
to be a fun experience.” (Lopes & Kuhnen, 2007)
33 Remember, these are the two words used to replace 'Fun'
32 / 48
Differences between Top-Down and Bottom-Up
In the list of differences between the approaches, we find a lot of similar differences from the
earlier differences between mechanic-driven and narrative-driven play, and the differences
between mechanic-driven and narrative-driven games.
Verbs & Mechanics versus Concept & Context
The first difference is the starting point. As discussed, the Bottom-Up approach starts with a
mechanic or verb and then works its way up. The Top-Down approach starts with a concept or
context and then works its way down.
Mechanic-Driven Game versus Narrative-Driven Game
The second difference is the route they take; the one up, the other down. This has to do with their
goals. The Bottom-Up approach wants a Mechanic-Driven game, thus goes up to find the
representation that reinforces its rules. The Top-Down approach wants a Narrative-Driven game,
thus goes down to find the rules that reinforce its representation.
Content versus Features
As has been stated before, in a Bottom-Up process the Features dictate the Content, whereas in a
Top-Down process the Content dictates the Features.
Synthesis versus Analysis
Now this is a funny one. In the list of differences between mechanic-driven play and narrativedriven play, we find Synthesis on the narrative, Vorthos side and Analysis on the mechanic, Melvin
side. Here it is the other way around. As has been quoted before:
“When working down from the top, the game designer usually exercises his analytical skills,
i.e. his capacity of breaking a broader concept into smaller parts that are representative of the
whole.” (Lopes & Kuhnen, 2007)
The other way around, the Top-Down designer actually uses synthesis to create a context, a
representation, to go with his abstract mechanics!
This might sound weird, but it is actually in line with everything the game designer does. He's
always busy to do the opposite of the player. The player needs to advance, the designer needs to
place obstacles. The player needs to stay alive, the designer needs to incorporate ways to die. And
in a mechanic-driven game, for the player to use their analytical skills, the designer needs to use
his synthetic skills to create the proper context.
? versus Fulfilling Play
As seen with the Top-Down Approach, this process has a pitfall in that it still needs to get to the
essence of the medium game, which reside at the bottom. A Top-Down approach needs to
introduce fulfilling play in the game during the journey, whereas a Bottom-Up approach actually
starts with fulfilling play.
Because a mechanic-driven game is more of a pure game, the Bottom-Up approach does not have
such a weakness. It might still be lacking however. Mechanic-driven games have their narrative,
their representation, their context, as a layer on top of the rules. In principle, the theme or setting
can be exchanged for any other. This makes the narrative lacking, without any substance, which is
the reason those narrative-driven players actually flock to those Top-Down designed games. It's a
lack, but not really a weakness, because the intended audience, mechanic-driven players care less
about this.
33 / 48
V versus Δ
Now this one is very important for understanding the designs of the different approaches.
Bottom-Up designs a V. It starts out with one solid idea at the bottom, and then works it way up,
expanding the concept. It's designed as a vase, to stand, to lean on that solid mechanic at the
bottom. In fact, any addition to a Bottom-Up game has to relate directly to this point of origin, this
mechanic at the bottom.
Top-Down, on the other hand, designs a Δ. It starts out with the overarching concept, and then
works it way down, making the concept more concrete by adding the desired features and
mechanics. It's designed as a chandelier, to hang from the top, as that is the point of origin. It's
supposed to be suspended. Suspension of Disbelief. Every addition to a Top-Down game has to be
related to this point of origin, this concept at the top.
And this is the big problem when the approaches collide. A mechanic-driven designer will treat the
chandelier as a vase, putting it on the ground. He sees it crumble, fall over, and doesn't like its
design But the bottom of a Δ is not designed to be the sturdy part. Yes, it seems messy, but only if
you don't see the top, the narrative concept, that ties it all together.
On the other hand, a narrative-driven designer will treat the vase as a chandelier, trying to suspend
it. But a V doesn't have a strong top, it's not designer to be suspended. Vorthos might not be able
to find Suspension of Disbelief in a V.34
Bottom-Up
Top-Down
Start: Mechanics, Verbs
Start: Narrative, Context, Concept
Mechanic-Driven Game
Narrative-Driven Game
Features dictate Content
Content dictates Features
Synthesis
Analysis
Pitfall: -
Pitfall: Fulfilling play
V (vase)
Δ (chandelier)
34 This V and Ʌ analogy came to me during my graduation project, when there was an argument between
mechanic-driven and narrative-driven designers. Being able to visually explain your thought process with
your arms, making V and Ʌ shapes, made discussing so much easier.
34 / 48
Temple and Castle
I've had 3 main chapters so far, and two pivotal models. For the discussion about mechanic-driven
and narrative-driven play I had the Melvin and Vorthos model. For the mechanic-driven and
narrative-driven design approaches I had the Top-Down and Bottom-Up model. The chapter about
mechanic-driven and narrative-driven games lacked such a model however.
I started to develop my own Temple and Castle model before I started with this thesis, after I read
the Melvin & Vorthos model and the Top-Down & Bottom-Up model. But it's only after writing this
thesis that I discovered why I developed it, what I felt was missing. It was the game. What the
design works on. What the players play. The missing link between the two.
Castle & Temple is a model to describe mechanic-driven games and narrative-driven games just as
Melvin & Vorthos is a model to describe mechanic-driven players and narrative-driven players, and
Bottom-Up & Top-Down is a model to describe the mechanic-driven design approach and the
narrative-driven design approach.
I will first show an old model that is used a lot when teaching about game design. Jeremy
Bernstein used it for his Game Design Workshop on the Festival of Games 2009.
Crust
Graphics
Audio
Story
Core
Gameplay
At first sight, it’s a pretty solid model that shows the relation between the Core and the Crust of a
game. However, while this model can suit Melvinesque games, it doesn’t apply to Vorthosian
games. Usually the teachers of this model are Bottom-Up designers themselves, and in fact
teaching Bottom-Up design. But for the grander scope of this thesis, that’s not enough. That’s why
I propose to replace it with two other models. Castle and Temple.
35 / 48
Castle
Bottom-Up
Castle is the mechanic-driven games model. It combines the Bottom-Up design approach with
Melvin’s purpose.
Melvin’s Castle
Crust
Graphics
Audio
Story
Core
Gameplay
Elements
A castle consists of:
- A solid wall (the Core of a game)
- Towers build on top of that (the Crust of the game)
Purpose
The relation between the elements of a castle can be found when knowing its purpose. The
purpose of a castle is to keep outsiders out. Which element of a castle achieves this purpose? The
solid walls. The key factor is Structure. The walls must be structural solid. The towers are there
only for supportive functions, like being able to detect enemies from a far distance.
The same can be said about a Melvinesque game. The purpose of such a game, is providing the
player Flow. The Core of the game achieves this purpose. The Crust is there only for support,
providing the proper context.
Essence
What is the essence of a Castle? Once again, the answer lies in its walls. A castle consisting of
only walls can still function like a Castle, it can still keep the enemy out. Once again we can say the
same about games. The essence of a mechanic-driven game lies in its mechanics, its gameplay.
When we look again at the quote about Super Mario Galaxy, we see that this game is actually
proud to be a solid Castle and not afraid to show it. Mario doesn’t need any fancy towers as
decoration.
“This game is wholeheartedly a game, and doesn't shy away from it -- more, it embraces it. In the
first level of [Ratchet & Clank:] Future, Ratchet may traverse an amazing futuristic city. Mario
traverses challenges -- nothing more, nothing less.” (Gamasutra, 2007)
36 / 48
Temple
Top-Down
Temple is the narrative-driven games model. It combines the Top-Down design approach with
Vorthos’ purpose.
Crust
Graphics
Audio
Story
Core
Gameplay
Vorthos’ Temple
Elements
A Temple consists of:
- A roof, the Tympanum (the Crust of a game)
- The supporting columns (the Core of a game)
Purpose
What is the purpose of a Temple? It is build for the Gods. It's to honor a supernatural being, maybe
to come into contact with it. But when is this achieved? When can we say that a Temple is
connected to a higher presence? This can't be reasoned. This can only be believed. It's about
entered another state of mind, a kind of immersion. The keyword here is mood.
Once again, the same can be said about a narrative-driven game. The game, like the Temple, is
only a means, a portal, to suspend your disbelief and come in contact with something fleeting, in
the case of a game the narrative.
Essence
But then, what is the most important element of a Temple? This too, can't be pinpointed. Without
the roof, the inside is just as mystic as the outside, so you'll lose the immersion. Without the
columns, the Tympanum won't be suspended, so you'll lose the suspension of belief.
The same can be said about narrative-driven games. As we've seen with the Top-Down approach,
the Δ shape, It's essence lies in the Concept, something more or less ungraspable, that's created
out of the sum of the parts.
37 / 48
Differences between Castle and Temple
To once again highlight the differences, I will repeat some of the earlier made differences in the
chapters about the differences between Melvin and Vorthos, and the differences between BottomUp and Top-Down. The differences highlighted here are the ones best suited for the architecture
analogy.
Remember, this Temple & Castle model is supposed to be used as the model for mechanic-driven
and narrative-driven games, bridging the gap between play and design approach.
Function versus Flavor
This one is about the purpose of the buildings. A Castle has a functional purpose, it's supposed to
keep outsiders out. A Temple has a flavorful purpose. It's supposed to immerse you into belief.
From a functional point of view, a Temple is not well-build. In the same way will a Melvin look at a
narrative-driven game and find it not well-build. But that's because a Temple's purpose is simply
not confined by the building itself. A Temple is not a 'pure' architectural building in this sense.
V versus Δ
This one is about which elements are essential and which are supportive. A Castle is build in a V
way. It starts with the essential part, the core, the wall, and towers can be placed on top of that.
These towers are more or less interchangeable, depending on the needs of the Castle. In the
same way, the representation of a mechanic-driven game is more or less interchangeable. A
Temple is build in a Δ way. It starts with a concept. To which God is the Temple devoted? Once you
know that, you can shape the Tympanum to represent this God (create the Content to convey the
desired Concept and Context) and work out which columns best suspend the Temple (which
mechanics reinforce the representation).
Structure versus Mood
When building a Castle, you'll have to think about Structure. The end result has to be solid,
unbreakable, structural perfect, that's all that counts. A Temple has to be solid too, but that's not the
essential part. A Temple has to bring you in the right state of belief. When building a Temple, you'll
have to think about its Mood.
Science versus Religion
Building Castles is about Science. It's about inventing ways to build thicker walls, higher walls.
When somebody else invents gunpowder, you better be prepared. Building Temples is about
Religion. It's about finding ways to get in contact with the Higher Powers, how they can be
expressed.
Castle
Temple
Function
Flavor
V (vase)
Δ (chandelier)
Structure
Mood
Science
Religion
38 / 48
Graduation Project Hollandia
“Hollandia is a 2D sidescrolling action-adventure, set in Dutch history and folklore!”
(Hollandiagame.com, no date)
This chapter is about my graduation project, Hollandia, and how the discussed Temple & Castle
design approaches have been used. So why is Hollandia such a fruitful project for these
approaches? Because, as stated in the introduction, it's an action-adventure game. That means its
both a Castle and a Temple game. It also means both the Top-Down and Bottom-Up approaches
can be, and have to be followed, to get Hollandia where we want it to be.
Next to that, I was only the Narrative Designer on this project, which means I concerned myself
mostly with building Temples. Another team member, Maxine van Tongeren, was the Game
Designer, or rather Mechanic Designer35, on the project. She was the one building the Castle. With
the different approaches observable between team members, and not only within the inner design
process of one person, it is easier to notice and reflect on the differences.
The fact that both design approaches would play a huge role in the project was founded right in the
very beginning, when we as a team made a list of expectations, things we wanted out of the
project, things we wanted the game to be, the place we wanted to end up. Among those
expectations, there were these two:
− Narrative Immersion: world presents itself as real, world takes itself serious.
− Gameplay must be stand alone: should be fun without the decoration
Both can be seen as the thread of the project, the ultimate guide, where we want the game to end
up. The first is a narrative-driven goal, the second a mechanic-driven one. Many times, a design
decision forced us to value one of the two higher than the other. But because they both stood next
to each other instead of the one dictating the other, as with more extreme Temples or Castles,It
wasn't always very easy to decide which way to go.
Mechanic-driven approach
Gameplay development
The gameplay development process on the grandest scale was very much bottom-up, in the sense
that it started out small and kept expanding on that, as a Vase, as a V. First the core mechanics
were designed (the verbs) and later the game
rules (the mechanics) and the obstacles (the
features) were developed to build upon those
core mechanics.
Spinning Top Behavior
The spinning top started out as a top-down idea
and for some time we wanted to translate the
real-world Spinning Top Experience into the
game. However, at some point we found that the
top-down concept of the spinning top just wasn't
fulfilling36, it had no flow. Thus, we switched to a
35 She actually coined at a certain point that the term Game Designer was not entirely right for what she was
actually doing. This was without me saying anything about the term Mechanic Designer. It shows that
there really is a basis for using more specific designer titles.
36 This is one example where I might've liked to use the word fun, because that would've been more to the
39 / 48
bottom-up approach to alter the behavior of the spinning top. It returns to you, like a boomerang
and it stays with you when you walk, as in a soccer game37. These mechanics were included not
because they fitted into the concept of playing with a spinning top, but because they improved the
actual gameplay.
The same with the rooting mechanic, where the top digs itself into the ground to rise up again in
front of you. The inclusion of this move was because of gameplay reasons, we didn't want the
player to be separated from the top in impossible situations. The best narrative concept to
represent a top warping from a place back to you was, we decided, to make it go underground.
This hooked in with the narrative flavor that the top was the heart of a tree, so that we could call it
rooting. This flavor was created using synthesis for a mechanic we wanted implemented, a very
Castle process.
Obstacles
Most enemies and environmental objects were designed in both ways, both as Castles and as
Temples, meeting each other halfway. While their graphical representation was a top-down
process, their behavior and inclusion was mostly bottom-up.
The White Wieves are an example of a completely bottom-up inclusion. At a late point in
development, we found that we needed some aerial enemies to diversify the gameplay. The White
Wieves were quickly included in the game to fit
this hole in the Castle, not because we wanted
to include them for narrative reasons.
The endboss is another example. We wanted to
have an endboss, a huge creature. How this
boss fitted into the story was of later concern.
The Boss Maiden was indeed backwards
engineered into the story.
Second playable character cut
In the beginning we had plans for two playable characters, but it turned out this would
be a lot of work. From a Temple point of view, a second character could add a lot to the
game, because it can have its own personality, background and environment. A
second playable character can strengthen the top of the Δ. But from a Castle point of
view, if the moveset wouldn't differ enough from the first, having a second character
would be pointless. Adding stuff to the top of a V doesn't accomplish anything if it
doesn't strengthen its bottom. The Castle argument won out in the end.
Dying
Dying is a weird part of games, from a narrative point of view. Some games, like the
Prince of Persia38 games, incorporate it into the narrative, but most games pretend it
never happened and warp you back to the last save point. We too have chosen
ultimately for this heads-in-the-sand approach, meaning the game system around dying and
respawning could be entirely designed in a bottom-up manner.
point; playing with the top-down designed spinning top just wasn't fun.
37 In fact, this mechanic was called voetballen (soccer) in development
38 Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, 2003
40 / 48
Narrative-driven approach
Plot development
The gameplay development was a small-to-big
process, the plot development was big-tosmall. The story started out very big and
throughout the development cuts kept being
made into it. As a true top-down process, it
started with the highest concept, “a game
inspired by the Netherlands” then worked its
way down to context (time era somewhere
around the Golden Age, but incorporating fairy tales and certain aspects from later, but
preindustrial, times) and to content (characters and enemies). A true Δ, although it is interesting to
note that it was the context, and not the concept, that was the solid starting point.
Spinning Top concept
As has been stated before, the idea of using a spinning top
started out as a top-down concept. Later on it became decidedly
bottom-up.
Obstacles
As stated before, most enemies were designed in both ways
and met up in the middle. Usually the top-down approach
started. Most enemies were designed and included in the game
before their behavior, their gameplay value, was assessed. This
includes the Moss Maidens, the Schimmelpennicks and the
Kieviets. They were included for their narrative value first. Their
gameplay was built later to support their narrative weight.
Items
This one was blatantly top-down! Throughout the process, we
always wanted items to have a place in the game, so that we could
include typical Dutch food. Whatever their gameplay usage would be was
completely unimportant. In the end we decided to make them simple
health-restoring items. Just like the spinning top behavior and the
endboss have backwards-engineered narrative (representation reinforcing
the rules), so do many enemies and the items have backwardsengineered gameplay (rules reinforcing the representation).
HUD
Because we were aiming for a painting look, we didn't want to have any visible HUD elements on
the screen. From a usability-standpoint, a gameplay-standpoint, there is no reason do to so. But it
was our Temple drive that made us want this.
Scenario
What places you would visit in what order, what enemies you would encounter and what kind of
quests you were given were all directed by the plot, not by the gameplay needs. Moss Maidens
only appeared in the forest because they are supposed to be there, not because their gameplay
behavior dictated the player would encounter them later in the game.
Some parts of the scenario were top-down designed to match inspirational stories. In the real-world
story about the Moss Maidens for example, the Moss Maidens guide a human to a talking oak in
41 / 48
the forest. The game tries to simulate this with the limited resources it has. The Moss Maidens in
the game only have attack behavior, so their guidance actually comes from their spawning
positions. This is an example of a top-down process that uses bottom-up designed features
halfway instead of being top-down all the way.
Graphical Focus
Because Narrative Immersion was one of our
key wishes, we decided to spend a lot of time
on the graphical representation. Would this
project be only about a bottom-up designed
game, this focus on the graphical aspect
would not be justified.
Level structure
In the beginning we only had a onedimensional way of traversing the levels,
going from left to right, or right to left. We found that this didn't gave us the living world we wanted
for our Narrative Immersion, so we pushed hard to get exits to the back and to the front into the
game. While this adds absolutely nothing to the core gameplay, and thus makes no sense from a
bottom-up perspective, it was extremely important for the Temple. This was a striking example
where an added feature made no sense to a V structure, but was right at home in a Δ structure.
What went right
The middle way
I believe we did a decent job finding the right balance,
finding a golden path. Both Castle Hollandia and
Temple Hollandia are products that have autonomy,
that can hold their ground. It can stand on the ground
and it can be suspended in the air. Of course,
because it is a hybrid, the Castle is not as strong as a
pure Castle Hollandia could be, and the Temple is not as sacred as the purest of Temples devoted
to Hollandia, but this is the very nature of the hybrid action-adventure genre. So there is an overall
sense of accomplishment.
Know what to defend, know what to let go
This is one of the most important and one of the hardest lessons to learn. You have to be able to
be detached from your work, you have you be able to let it go, but at the same time you have to
put your heart and soul into it to make it something worthwhile. Thanks to understanding these
approaches, I was far better capable of judging the value of certain decisions. It's why I defended
the level structure when a Castle designer burned it down. It's why I had relatively less trouble
when the second playable was cut39. It all depends on your ability as a designer to step out of your
own shoes at certain times, to sometimes be able to let go of your tunnel vision to see the broader
map.
39 Okay, I still had a lot of trouble, as Kortjakje, the second playable character, was secretly my darling
42 / 48
What went wrong
Action-Adventure elements in a onedimensional game
When designing the game, we drew a lot of
inspiration from action-adventures, like Zelda,
and platformers. However, it was only later that
we found out our game had a fundamental
difference. It had only 1 gameplay dimension!
Other 2D games either had a top-down
perspective40 or were more like platformers.
Those games all had 2 dimensions to work with. Many puzzle and discovery elements we wanted
simply didn't work in our 1 dimensional game. Our top-down wishes about how to present the world
to the player blocked the development of the bottom-up gameplay we aimed for. As of now, the
gameplay is somewhere between the Hack & Slash and Platformer genres. We have no definite
answer yet where we want it to go.
HUD? Inventory? Menu?
A design dilemma where it took a long time to find a satisfying balance, was the question about
how to incorporate your stats in the game, like how much money and what items you were
carrying. We didn't want a visible HUD. It could still be a HUD, but only visible when pressing a
certain button. Or it could be in a menu, that paused your game at the same time. We only had the
resources to do one. The Castle supporters rooted for the first, as this wouldn't disrupt the flow of
the gameplay. The Temple acolytes wanted the second, as this allowed accompanying text with the
items, to explain what “rookworst” and “stroopwafel” actually were.
Because we weren't able to find a middle way, this was a vivid example where the different
approaches really collided. Both had trouble giving in, as both saw the other as a downgrade. From
the description of the issue in their arguments, one could see clearly the mechanic-driven and
narrative-driven ideals that drove the designers. One remarked about the inventory that it was “a
feedback on your status” whereas another called it “the contents of your bag”.
No director
While most of the time we were able to figure out together, as a team, where we wanted to go,
sometimes this didn't work out. And this is where I really missed the role of the director, someone
who, as the word implies, knows the direction where to go. A Golden Map is worthless if you can't
agree about the direction, the place you want to end up.
This might be the greatest weakness of this thesis up to this point. Sometimes the problem is
properly identified, as with the previous HUD dilemma, but the model can't provide a solution
because it is stuck. If there are two different designers who want to end up in two different places,
there is simply no right or wrong to point out on the map. Both decisions are equally valid, although
leading down completely different paths.
Spinning Top flavor
One of the most asked questions when we showed the game was “why a spinning top?”. This is
because it was out of sync with the top-down concept of the game. When it was first conceived, we
had multiple playable characters with multiple weapons, which didn't play a central role. The
spinning top was just one of them. The bottom-up mechanic design process took the spinning top
however, and gave it a central role. The context has not been able to synthesize it into the whole
as of yet.
40 Not to be confused with the top-down design approach, of course!
43 / 48
Loss of top-down designed gameplay
Because the plot started out way too long, some top-down
designed gameplay elements simply got lost in the cuts.
One example is Reynaert's personality. In the real-world
story he constantly tricks others by making them do things
that have grave consequences. We wanted to incorporate
this into the game by making him a sort of anti-quest giver.
He would tell you what to do next, as in any other game,
but more often than not this would lead you into trouble.
Another example are the enemies. While they started out as top-down designs, we didn't have the
time to design them top-down all the way. The Schimmelpennicks for example have a whole lore
around their hoarding of coins, so we wanted them to steal money from the player. The Moss
Maidens were said to be bound to trees, so we wanted to do more with that. We simply didn't get
to it. Now they are just generic enemies, with simple the representation of Schims and Maidens,
but no rules that reinforce it. That is bad, unfinished Temple design.
Loss of bottom-up designed gameplay
At the same time, it was bad for the mechanics designer that the enemies had been designed
already in a top-down fashion. Instead of being able to design the enemies from scratch to build
upon the solid core mechanics, as it should be when building a V, there was already established
content.
'Game' a bad word
For a long time, we wanted the game to not look and feel like one. “It's too gamy” was a negative
reaction on an idea. There is no problem with this point of view when building a hardcore Temple,
but in the end, we encountered the classical problem with top-down concepts.
“One of the main challenges of the top-down approach is that this process often requires
that the game designer introduces fun elements into concepts that are not necessarily entertaining
by themselves, or at least not as much as a game should be.” (Lopes & Kuhnen, 2007)
To shift some more to the Temple approach, we had to make the game more gamy in the end.
Conclusion
All in all, I believe Hollandia turned out pretty balanced, which was our goal when making an
action-adventure and also the goal of this thesis. Mistakes were still made, weaknesses were
exposed, but the thesis provided what it was supposed to provide. A map for the game design
process and an understanding about how different designers choose to navigate it.
The biggest strength of this thesis was the ability to correctly identify the problems underlying the
problems, the reason behind the reason. Arguments were about concrete design decisions such as
obstacles or the HUD, but the underlying motivation for such arguments came from a higher level,
an argument about the role such obstacles or HUD actually was supposed to fulfill in the game.
This thesis helped to unearth those underlying assumptions and notions.
The biggest weakness would be that the thesis can only shed light on such notions and
arguments, it can't solve it. It's all fine to say that both left and right are valid design decisions to
take, but will lead you to different places, East and West, but if the designers can't agree on what
their destination should be, there is still no answer.
44 / 48
Conclusion
What is the difference between the mechanic-driven and the narrative-driven design approaches?
What is the difference between mechanic-driven and narrative-driven games? What is the
difference between mechanic-driven and narrative-driven play? The table below expands on all
those differences.
Mechanic-Driven
Narrative-Driven
Melvin
Vorthos
Melvin is the mechanic-driven player, who plays Vorthos is the narrative-driven player, who plays
for the abstract gameplay
for the suspension of disbelief
Bottom-Up
Bottom-Up is the mechanic-driven design
approach, where the representation reinforces
the rules
Top-Down
Top-Down is the narrative-driven design
approach, where the rules reinforce the
representation
Castle
Castle is the mechanic-driven game, build with
a focus on mechanics and flow
Temple
Temple is the narrative-driven game, build with
a focus on narrative and immersion
Function
Function is a word that serves the same
purpose as mechanics
Flavor
Flavor is a word that serves the same purpose
as narrative
Rules
Rules is a word that serves the same purpose
as mechanics
Representation
Representation is a word that serves the same
purpose as narrative
Agon, Alea
Melvin's play is comparable with Agon and Alea,
where the purpose lies within the game rules
themselves
Mimesis, Ilinx
Vorthos' play is comparable with Mimesis and
Ilinx, where the purpose lies on something
higher than the components of the game
Analysis
When Melvin plays, he is using his analytical
skills. He is analyzing the whole, trying to find
out the game rules so he can beat it, so he can
master the challenge
Synthesis
When Vorthos plays, he is using his synthetic
skills. He suspended in disbelief, open for all
components of the game to create a narrative
out of the parts
Synthesis
Ironically, the Bottom-Up process uses
synthesis to create a fitting representation for
the desired rules
Analysis
Ironically, the Top-Down process uses analysis
to break down the concept into smaller units, to
find the fitting rules to go with the desired
representation
Melvin admires how each piece is a part of the
system, how each piece works individually
within the whole
Vorthos admires how all the pieces together
create something higher, something bigger,
something that isn't graspable.
Structure
Connections have to make structural sense.
When looking at the abstract gameplay,
mechanics have to fit together because of their
function
Mood
Connection have to make tonal sense. When
looking at the whole, the representation,
mechanics have to fit together because of their
flavor
45 / 48
Left
Melvin likes to exercise his left brain
Right
Vorthos likes to exercise his right brain
Science
Building a functional Temple has to do with
science
Religion
Building a mythical Temple has to do with
religion
Flow
A Castle game is all about the Flow, Melvin's
kind of immersion, as in being in the flow of
Tetris
Immersion
A Temple game is all about the Immersion, the
suspension of disbelief, as in being immersed in
Final Fantasy VII
Medium as End
Medium as Means
A Castle game is a pure game, concerning itself A Temple game is an impure game, which uses
with the game alone. Its purpose lies within the
the game only as its means, its medium. The
game structure
purpose is somewhere beyond the game
Features
In the Bottom-Up process, the features are
developed first, and then the content and
context is created to match these features
Content
In the Top-Down process, the content is
contrived first, and then the features and
mechanics are sought to best represent this
content
V (vase)
The Bottom-Up approach works like a vase, a V
shape. It starts with a core mechanic, and
everything else that is added builds upon that,
relates to that
Δ (chandelier)
The Top-Down approach works like a
chandelier, a Δ shape. It starts with a high
concept, and everything else that is added
hangs tied together by that concept, relates to
that
Pong
The classic Castle
Zork
The classic Temple
Action
The action genre is an example of an extreme
Melvinesque Castle genre, where it's all about
the mechanics
Adventure
The adventure genre is an example of an
extreme Vorthosian Temple genre, where it's all
about the narrative
The biggest difference between the approaches is what they wish to build and thus what they value
highest and how they build towards that.
The Bottom-Up mechanic-driven approach wants to build a castle, where the mechanics come first
and are reinforced by the narrative.
The Top-Down narrative-driven approach wants to build a temple, where the narrative comes first
and is reinforced by the mechanics.
As designers who are often compared with architects, to plot the right path, we have to ask
ourselves...
What do we want to build?
46 / 48
Sources
Alexander, L. et al, 21 December 2007. Gamasutra's Top 10 Games Of The Year. Gamasutra.
Available from http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=16729 [Accessed
12 August 2009].
Bateman, C. et al, 2006. Game Writing: Narrative Skills for Videogames. Charles River Media.
Beyer, D., 17 June 2009. Flavor Driven. Savor the Flavor. Available from
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/stf/43 [Accessed 12
August 2009].
Caillois, R., 1961. Man, Play and Games. The Free Press of Glencoe.
Dille, F. and Platten, J. Z., 2008. The Ultimate Guide to Videogame Writing and Design. Lone
Eagle.
Dinehart, S., 1 February 2009. Defining Interactive Narrative Design 1. The Narrative Design
Exploratorium. Available from http://www.narrativedesign.org/2009/02/defining-interactivenarrative.html [Accessed 12 August 2009].
Mawhorter, J., 14 Mai 2009. Putting the Cut in Cutscene. Gamasutra. Available from
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JohnMawhorter/20090514/1381/Putting_The_Cut_In_Cut
scene.php [Accessed 12 August 2009].
Kent, S., 2002. The Ultimate History of Video Games. Prima Publishing.
Koster, R., 2004. A Theory of Fun for Game Design. Paraglyph Press.
Lopes, G. and Kuhnen, R., 14 November 2007. Game Design Cognition: The Bottom-Up And TopDown Approaches. Gamasutra. Available from
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2129/game_design_cognition_the_.php [Accessed
27 May 2009].
Nagle, K., 15 June 2009. Convertible Design. MagictheGathering.com. Available from
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/43 [Accessed 12
August 2009].
Nerurkar, M., 05 May 2009. Immersion vs. Flow?. Gamasutra. Available from
http://gamearch.com/2009/05/05/immersion-vs-flow/ [Accessed 27 May 2009].
Pease, A. and Pease, B., 1999, Why Men don't Listen and Women can't read Maps. Broadway.
Rosewater, M., 07 May 2007. Melvin and Vorthos. Making Magic. Available from:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr278 [Accessed 27
May 2009].
Rosewater, M., 21 May 2007. Design Language. Making Magic. Available from:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr280 [Accessed 27
May 2009].
47 / 48
Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E., 2003. Rules of Play. MIT Press.
Sheffield, B., 6 April 2009. Opinion: Spiele Uber Alles. Gamasutra. Available from
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=22711 [Accessed 27 May 2009].
Swink, S., 23 November 2007. Game Feel: The Secret Ingredient. Gamasutra. Available from
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2322/game_feel_the_secret_ingredient.php
[Accessed 12 August 2009].
48 / 48

Narratives Are from Venus

Transcription

Similar documents

1 Announcement - Institute of Mechanics

My Best Moment Four Personal Narratives

Digital Transformations - Species of Memory: Rhetoric, Art, Pedagogy

Presentation 2

Classifieds - Shepherd Express

by Gerard P. Kuiper June 28, 1969 Hypotheses on the composition

2012 MI newsletter

Walking, Autobiography, Memory Objects Hyperlinked

Sohad.Body mechanics, moving, positioning