The Pause Project partnership Game Proposal Document


Notes on Game Play Mechanics



Download 113.72 Kb.
Page3/6
Date29.01.2017
Size113.72 Kb.
#12754
1   2   3   4   5   6

Notes on Game Play Mechanics


  1. The Single Player Mode will make up the bulk of the product deliverable, facilitating the playback of content authored via the developed games editor.

  2. It is envisaged at this stage of development that Machinima mode will be the primary form of product development that will have to be optimised in order to comply with project resource limitations.

It is envisaged that machinima could be used in the following methods:


  • to provide closure to a scenario, taking the actions of the player/s during the game session and showing possible results of these actions.




  • pre-defined learning objects, in which the machinima is viewed and the content reflected upon.




  • as a conduit for encouraging user created content, where players create short machinima episodes to reflect real situations which they have encountered. However this option is highly unlikely and is suggested to be detailed as a potential future development.



  1. Multiplayer shall be developed to facilitate the capability for two users to log into a common virtual space and undertake the project described conflicting roles (e.g. Interviewer and interviewee, Migrant and Job Centre staff etc).



    1. Primarily this capability will be developed to facilitate usage within a common environment such as a training session and or mediated learning environment so that application can be conducted as part of a mediated session.

    2. As a secondary development this capability could be expanded to facilitate usage in an isolated usage context (e.g. separate locations via internet).

Division of the potential multiplayer deliverable aspect of the project is a direct reflection of both potential usage limitations (e.g. institutional security restrictions) and available project resource. Provision should be gifted for future expansion of the developed product to reflect the secondary deliverable.

It should be noted that in order to facilitate this capability it is likely that the defined environmental usage contexts (e.g. libraries and or educational centres/ institutions) will likely need to facilitate any multiplayer connectivity via the derestriction of firewall/ports etc.

Suggested method for the implementation of this product functionality is the use of UDP for computer to computer and/or mobile (potentially) communication.

Suggestion has been made by the project consortium that the multiplayer aspect of the project deliverable should facilitate co-operative play:



a pre-defined number of players work together to solve a common problem while resolving conflicts which are thrown up by the interaction of the individual game aims (see below). Gameplay is simultaneous. Scoring and journaling are implemented at both the individual and team levels.

Whilst co-operative play is an excellent idea that would probably have the greatest impact in the context of the software objectives it would also be the most expensive in terms of development and/or project resource.


Potential Game Play Schematics

Dual Simulation Experience


Suggestion has been made by the project partner consortium that the developed software enables a user to experience a defined scenario from multiple perspectives as described and/or divided by the primary user role i.e. in the context of the Job Centre scenario roles could be that of either a migrant/refugee and also a member of Job Centre staff.

This would allow both sides of the target demographic divides to experience the same scenario from each perspective, thus providing insight and or experience of the opposing party viewpoint and or feelings surrounding the defined scenario i.e. job interview and/or meeting etc.


Interactive Exploratory Simulation


Development of an exploratory environment that would allow the player to interact in a manner akin to that of real world interaction scenarios would allow the user to experience potential events that could occur in the real world context thus equipping and/or preparing them for such experiences.

The undertaking of these scenarios in a manner that facilitates reflection of their interpretation via both sides of the demographic divide could act to inform the participant as to the nature of attitude and/or opposed activity during these scenarios.


Potential Game Dialogue Systems


The Investigation if potential games dialogue systems has identified several potential methods for facilitating dialogue interaction as used in contemporary game play.

In summary these are:



  • Non-Branching Dialogue

  • Branching Dialogue

  • Hub-and-Spokes Dialogue

  • Parser-Driven Dialogues

  • Systemic Interactions

More information in reflection of and a full breakdown of the potential dialogue systems can be found at the following URL:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3719/defining_dialogue_systems.php

Investigation of the schemas in reflection of the data collated via WP2/3 suggests that the development of a Hub-and-Spokes system could be used to great effect to facilitate the application of a Social Learning Model for the change of attitudes.

The Hub and Spoke Dialogue System


The following except details from the aforementioned source details definition of the Hub-and-Spokes Dialogue system:

Hub-and-Spokes Dialogue creates a very different conversation flow compared to basic Branching Dialogue. The player listens to the NPC's lines and then chooses their response from the main "hub" of the conversation.

After hearing the NPC's response, the player either returns to the main hub, from which they can ask the same question again or inquire about another topic, or enters a deeper hub with more options to choose from.

The player can typically always find their way back to any hub by navigating through their responses, and thus can explore the dialogue in any order they wish. In this manner, a player can exhaust a conversation by trying every possible option at their disposal (with no penalty), and the interaction only ends when the player chooses the "goodbye" option.

Rationale for Hub and Spoke – Social Learning Theory


Robert Bandura in the late 1970’s articulated the concept of Social Learning Theory (SLT) as a method in which individuals learn from one another in the context of a social situation via use of observation. Bandura’s theory indicates the effectiveness of human social models in influencing another to change behaviours, beliefs or attitudes, as well as social and cognitive functioning.

Through processes such as observation, vicarious experience (experience gained by observing another) and social interaction, one can acquire the behaviours or expertise mediated through a human social model. Social learning theory is based on the premise that observation and imitation by an individual leads to learned behaviour.

Research in this area indicates that, indeed, human social models can be effective in influencing another to change behaviours, beliefs or attitudes, as well as social and cognitive functioning (e.g. Gredler). Further research such as that conducted by Baylor (2010) has provided evidence that humans can be socially influenced by automated anthropomorphic agents (avatars) just as they would be by human social models.

the theory seeks to explain learning in a naturalistic setting as opposed to laboratory or contrived setting and takes into account that learners can abstract a range of information from the behaviours of others and that learners can then make decisions about which behaviours to adopt and which to ignore or not adopt.

Bandura himself notes that learners may acquire internal codes of behaviour that they “may or may not” perform later based on the observation.

Learning is defined as the acquisition of symbolic representations in the form of verbal or visual codes that serve as guidelines for future behaviour. In other words, learners observe others, figure out what works or not and then behave in a similar situation based on those internally formed guidelines.

In social-cognitive theory, the essential components of learning are:


  • Behavioural model

  • Reinforcement of the model

  • Learner’s cognitive processing of the modelled behaviours

The learner witnesses the behaviour occurring, and witnesses the behaviour being reinforced and then develops internal guidelines based on their interpretation of the correct or desired behaviours.

The assumptions that support the principles of social-cognitive theory are:



  • The learner’s cognitive process and decision making are important factors in learning.

  • The three way interaction among environment, personal factors and behaviour is responsible for learning

  • Outcomes of learning are codes of behaviour.

To teach using the model, the components of instruction would be to:

  • Identify the appropriate behaviours to be held up as the model.

  • Establish the functional value of the behaviours.

  • Guide the learner’s internal processing to establish the behaviours within the learner.

Potential Implementation of Hub and Spoke – Mass Effect Style Paraphrasing


Investigation of Hub-and-Spoke systems has identified potential for a system be developed that reflects the implementation of that found in the Bioware Mass Effect trilogy.

The aforementioned url source also details in reflection of Hub-and-Spoke:



Most conversations in Mass Effect and other BioWare titles take this form, with occasional basic Branching Dialogue implemented when the player has to make an important decision that may affect quest outcomes or the NPC's disposition towards the player.

Hub-and-Spokes Dialogue gives the player more freedom and control over conversation and often allows them to interrogate NPCs to find out every last piece of information about them. However, this method of dialogue tends to create conversations strongly divorced from reality.

The NPC usually has infinite patience for the player's strange inquisitions, and every dialogue plays out like an interrogation as the player keeps pressing the NPC for info. Furthermore, the player hears a lot of the same lines over and over as he navigates between hubs, potentially breaking immersion.

As can be seen however there are limitations to this system and suggestion is made to modify the core construct of the method to account for the described issues.

Implementation of the system in conjunction with an Intelligent Agent (IA) could provide one potential means of combating artefacts such as linearity and/or abstraction.

However it is envisaged that a blend of IA and HAS would facilitate more than adequate realism and non-linear interaction with none player characters. Both systems could be used to impart information together and/or individually dependant on simulation context e.g.



In the scenarios where IA is not used conversation would be developed to utilise a branching dialogue with avenues triggered via consequence.

The advantage of the paraphrasing system is that within a game-play context the player is constantly required to think about their response and reflect on previous responses and/or provided information.

For example http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Dialogue describes the paraphrasing interaction as follows:

The conversation wheel was designed to be intuitive. The left side of the wheel is normally reserved for options that will continue the conversation in depth including Charm and Intimidate options (see below); occasionally an "Investigate" option is given in the middle, which allows Shepard to ask about multiple topics.

The right side of the wheel is divided into three sections, and tends to move the conversation towards quicker completion. Paragon responses, generally more selfless or cooperative, are on the top segment, the middle segment presents a more neutral option, and Renegade responses, often more aggressive and hostile, are on the bottom segment.

Characters can also be influenced by the use of Charm or Intimidate. In the conversation wheel, Charm responses are blue while Intimidate responses are red. Use of those skills is affected by Commander Shepard's morality; if insufficient ranks in Charm or Intimidate have been unlocked, the options are greyed out. The harder a character is to persuade, the more ranks in the respective skills are needed.

Dialogue choices impact how others react to Shepard, the rewards for completing quests, possible discounts from merchants, romance paths and, most importantly, the commander's morality. It is also possible to defuse tense situations without violence, or actually provoke it.

It should be noted that due to the large amount of gameplay changes in Mass Effect 2, the reworked skill system no longer has Charm or Intimidate as trainable skills. Instead, your ranks in Charm/Intimidate are now tied to your morality level, gauged by how high you’re Paragon and Renegade scores are. Whether or not you can use a particular Charm or Intimidate option is based on how many of the available Paragon or Renegade points you've earned up to that point in the game, rather than the raw values. This is why sometimes Charm or Intimidate options can be used with less of the meter filled in one play through, but the next play through the same options are grayed out, but more of the meter is filled.

Presentation of the content in this manner can be seen to embed the content within a game-play context removing the static fixed presentation of content from which many serious games suffer.

Capability is also gifted to surprise the player with seemingly innocent response that can also have negative consequence, thus subtly and/or severely demonstrating the positive and negative effects of simple but sometimes poignant response.

[…]



Download 113.72 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page