Character Driven Game Design

2. Game Characters 23
can fly, and lays eggs. In addition, the entity can be considered as a bird
even if it cannot fly if it shares other features that are typical of birds.
(Kunda, 1999, pp. 25–52.) 2
Murray Smith (1995) proposes that the person schema includes following
expectations:
——
a discrete human body (each human has a different body that is
continuous through time and space, two bodies cannot inhabit
the same space);
——
perceptual activity and self-awareness;
——
intentional action (actions are goal-driven and self initiated);
——
emotions;
——
the ability to use and understand language;
——
persistent traits (Smith, 1995, pp. 20–31). 3
An entity is categorized as a human agent if its features are close enough
to the expected features. The entity does not need to have all the listed
features to be considered as an agent (e.g., a comatose patient, a ghost,
or Mickey Mouse can be categorized as human agents). People expect a
character to have a body unless this expectation is contested explicitly
(e.g., a ghost). Culturally specific expectations add to the expectations
of the person schema. (Smith, 1995, pp. 20–31.)
According to Murray Smith (1995, p. 114), the construction of a person
or character rests on perceived traits of the agent such as its face,
voice, body, actions (including what is said), as well as what is told
about the person or character. Significantly, each person has habitual
ways of behavior and judgment (Gallagher, 2005).
2 There are other
theories explaining
concepts, such as
concepts that are
theory based or
are based on associative
networks
(Kunda, 1999).
Paula Niedhental et
al. (2005) propose
that concepts are
based on our motor
capabilities, and
George Lakoff
and Mark Johnson
(1999) argue that
concepts are based
on bodily metaphors.
From the
design perspective,
the implications are
very similar.
3 See also Charles
Tailor (1985) discussion
on an agent
and person.
Player Characters
These theories reviewed above can explain the players’ reactions to the
NPCs (c.f., Lankoski, 2007), but are they applicable to PCs? Can a PC
have its own personality and habitual behavior when a player controls
the PC? Gonzalo Frasca argues that the PC is merely a cursor, something
that is be moved in the game world and used to initiate actions:
While videogame characters do have certain particular
traits, it is hard to argue that they have a personality. The
more freedom the player is given, the less personality the
character will have. It just becomes a “cursor” for the player’s
actions. (Frasca, 2001.)
While Frasca’s argument “[t]he more freedom the player is given, the
less personality the character will have” is correct, he seems to ignore
the fact that a game system limits and affords choices. For example,
Grant Tavinor acknowledges that games always limit player choices:
What guides the action in videogames are [...] material
possibilities for interaction and objectives that must be