09.09.2014 Views

Character Driven Game Design

Character Driven Game Design

Character Driven Game Design

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

166<br />

<strong>Character</strong>-<strong>Driven</strong> <strong>Game</strong> <strong>Design</strong><br />

Outcast or preventing access of resources of the Faction.<br />

In Egri’s model, the conflict arises from the characters that are in opposition.<br />

Their goals are incompatible, and the characters are not willing<br />

to give up their goals. The conflict in the game requires, then, that<br />

the NPCs have their Own Agenda (see, Lankoski and Björk [20]), that<br />

the actions of a NPC are driven by its goals. It some cases, NPCs need<br />

to have Goal-<strong>Driven</strong> Personal Development (see, Lankoski and Björk [20]),<br />

that they can update their goals when existing goals are completed or<br />

blocked.<br />

A believable NPC does have Emotional Attachment (see, Lankoski<br />

and Björk [20]) which means that the character expresses emotional relation<br />

to specific type of game phenomenon such as affection, anger, or<br />

fear toward other characters or events. The reactions of the believable<br />

NPC are also context depended, which leads to the pattern Context Dependent<br />

Reactions (see, Lankoski and Björk [21]). This means that, for example,<br />

if the NPC gets angry it might not start a fight if a police is near<br />

by. Moreover, each character, as argued by Egri [9], reacts to events in<br />

its personal way. This can be described by a new pattern Trait Regulated<br />

Behavior, meaning that the character dimensions regulate and modify<br />

the behavior.<br />

<strong>Character</strong> Engagement<br />

In what follows we discuss about a model of character engagement<br />

proposed by Murray Smith [37], which has been used as a base to design<br />

model. The model has been refined to be suitable for games [18].<br />

While we present the engagement model, we also link it to games and<br />

gameplay using examples of various games.<br />

Recognition<br />

Following Murray Smith [37], we use the term recognition to refer to<br />

process of constructing character. Recognition depends on features such<br />

as: perceivable traits of the character (body, face, voice); descriptions of<br />

the character (e.g., name, title, profession); actions of the character; and<br />

reactions of other character toward the given character.<br />

In case of NPCs, game designers can control all above-mentioned<br />

aspects, including actions, of the character. However, PCs in games differ<br />

from the NPCs in an important way: a player always (in some extent)<br />

controls a PC. Therefore, and somewhat paradoxically the PC as<br />

character is seen irrelevant to gameplay and the player (e.g., Aarseth<br />

[1]), since, as argument goes, different presentation of the character<br />

does not make one play differently. However, character is more than<br />

presentation, as Lankoski, Ekman, and Heliö [22] argue. They propose<br />

that the recognition of a PC can be guided, in a large extent, by regulating<br />

players’ actions, and offer the following palette:

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!