Object semantics

This past couple of weeks, I’ve created a few maps continuing the idea of object semantics, and using that to guide players to different places. I’ve attempted this in a couple of different ways. The first map uses the same idea as the statue level, placing certain items that are semantically tided to the objective in order to guide them in the right direction. The second map uses the entire aesthetic of the level to communicate the goal to the player. I haven’t had anyone play that level yet, but I have had people play the first map.

In the level, players start off in a house with pictures of lighthouses on the wall.

There goal is to go to this lighthouse and pick up a crowbar, which they then use to gain access to a mine with a waterfall beside it.

The level is made up of a tight path, with a junction in the middle splitting the level off into two paths, one leading to the lighthouse and the other to the mine.

The path leading to the lighthouse is marked with deck chairs with a stripy pattern, and the path to the mine marked with a river.

I essentially want to see if the pictures at the start influence where the player wants to go, and if the objects they encounter successfully communicate where they think they are.

I made a variant of the map which switches the pictures of the lighthouse at the beginning with pictures of the mine, to check if the pictures are an influence.

I’ve had one player play the first version and another play the other. The tests were successful in that both players went where I thought they would go, however the reasons for them to go there weren’t what I expected.

The first player looked at the pictures of the lighthouses, and tried to interact with them by pressing E. When they went outside they had a look at the electrical box outside and pressed E against that as well.

When they came to the junction they went down the path to the lighthouse, and went inside it. Inside the lighthouse I tried to influence the player to think about the mine by placing rocks, gems and pictures of it inside.

They pressed E against the pictures like before, as well as pressing it against the rocks and the gems. When I asked the player about way they were doing this, they said that they didn’t know. It would seem like they are trying to interact with the world in a similar way that they would in real life, but it could just be that they are testing the waters to see what this particular game worlds rules are. However, it that was true, then why would the same player try to interact with both these pictures and the one’s in the house at the start. Why would they think the outcome was going to be different?

As an aside; it seems that the attitude of non-game players in these 3d environments in one of ‘I wonder if…’, where they try and see if things in the game world match that with reality. I’ve noticed that the non-game players I’ve tested with are naturally curious about what they can and can’t do, and also want to explore as much as they can in these mechanically blank game worlds.

Back to the test level. After the player collected the crowbar, they then went back to the junction, went down to the mine and went through it successfully. At the end of the level, I had a scripting trigger which would exit the level after the player went a certain distance into the mine. However, when the player saw the total blackness after they had removed the planks, they thought that nothing was there, and walked away from it. This was something that came up in semester 1, where some players of the dark and light town level didn’t go into the dark not necessarily because they were afraid, but because they didn’t think it was significant. Essentially it was a blank area.

When I asked the player about why they decided to go down the deck chair path, they said that it looked more interesting. They also said that it looked like there might be people there, like that direction lead to activity. This is something that came up before with the Sand level. A couple of players were drawn to the structures at the beginning, mentioning that they were because it looked like ‘civilisation’ was there. Maybe there is a natural tendency for people to be drawn to social situations, and these instances are tapping into that instinct.

The second player played the version of the map with the mine pictures at the start.

This player played the game in the same way, pressing E next to the paintings and the rocks, and investigating around the outside of the house. When they came to the junction, they chose the path down to the mine. When I asked about it, they said that they knew that the lighthouse was going to have something interesting, so they were going to the boring parts first just in case they missed anything. It should be noted that this player had more experience with video games than the previous player. Also, in this version of the map, the player could see the lighthouse from the start point and the junction, whereas in the previous level they couldn’t.

The idea of guiding players with interestingness is a cool idea. But it has the same problems as using the something like light and darkness; different people are going the find different things interesting. For instance, the first player found the chairs and the prospect of other people to be interesting, and the second player though that the lighthouse was the interesting thing.

A behaviour I’ve noticed quite a lot amongst players is how they progress through the environment ‘room by room’. They notice how the environment is structured and go into smaller, less significant looking areas first, before committing to what looks like the ‘main’ path. From this current test, it looks like it might be something exclusive to more experienced players. I’m going to do a smaller level which looks into this, seeing if the introduction of rules will change non-gamers behaviour to this ‘room by room’ pregression.

My next step is to get more playtesters on this level and others, mainly a version where the player has lighthouse pictures at the beginning and can see the lighthouse as well.

One of the big issues I’ve had this semester is not being able to get playtesters who are inexperienced in games, to the point where I’m getting worried about the state of this MA. I’ve got a plan to place posters around UCLan, and set up appointments with non-players who find them. I’ve got a few more idea for some new tests which shouldn’t take long to create. This should reinvigorate this MA.