Mazes

Mazes in their multiple forms, simplistic or complex, are often implemented into the level and structure design of most modern video games.
Mazes as a whole are divided into two categories: Unicursal and Multicursal.
Unicursal having only one path from start to end.
Multicursal having many branching and twisting paths that may or may not lead to the destination.
The word labyrinth is derived from the Latin and Greek words for buildings with intricate passages. In this respect labyrinths are primarily unicursal. They may twist and turn multiple times but there is only one path.
Maze on the other hand is derived from the Middle English term for delusion or delirium. Examples of this are hedge mazes that have branching paths, dead ends and possible multiple paths to completion.

The idea of mazes can be applied in multiple ways to games, in more than one respect. In terms of narrative a game could be multicursal but the mechanics could be unicursal or any combination of the two. By the very definition of the medium however games must be in some respect multicursal because as soon as the player is given the opportunity to interact or not interact immediately creates a branching path, as is the nature of any interactivity.

The Stanley Parable is a game that explores the idea of choice in a narrative in a very unique way. The player is given directions by a narrator to follow a specific path at specific times. However the player at any point can choose to ignore these suggestions and do as they please often changing the narrative as a result. The entire game is themed around how a players action often oppose the games narrative and as such is multicursal in both narrative and mechanics.

Portal on the other hand is almost entirely unicursal. Except when it is not. For each puzzle there is only one solution, only one way from start to finish and one overriding narrative. The puzzles themselves may be difficult often without clear solutions but that does not make them multicursal. However within many of the levels there Doug Ratman's hidden chambers which offer no clues or ways to solve levels, merely add extra narrative depth and place doubt in the players mind as to gLaDoS's true intentions.

Bioshock Infinite is overall unicursal as befitting the games narrative and theme. The whole game is a critique of how games are in a constant spiral of repetition and differing variables. Variables in this case being aesthetic in this sense. The game often offers multicursal mechanics to the player which in fact amount to nothing, exercising the point of how choice can often be an illusion, especially in this narrative.

The levels in DOOM 2016 are an excellent example of multicursal design in both layout and gameplay. While there is a clear start and finish, in between you have large, expansive levels with both objectives and enemies littered around it. Corridors branch off into different passages and lead out into spacious combat areas, all interconnecting to each other, making the player explore the entirety of the level to uncover its hidden secrets. The majority of DOOM's levels have objectives that can be completed in any order which could be considered a multicursal approach to objective design.

Seminar Task

“One of the most common misconceptions about videogames is that they are an interactive medium. By this, I do not mean to draw attention to the problematic and ideologically charged notion of "interactivity" (see Aarseth, 1997 for example) or even to the difficulty in conceiving videogames as a medium as Friedman (forthcoming) has noted. Rather, the misconception reveals a more fundamental misunderstanding of videogames and the experience of play. Quite simply, videogames are not interactive, or even ergodic. While they may contain interactive or ergodic elements, it is a mistake to consider that they present only one type of experience and foster only one type of engagement. Videogames present highly structured and, importantly, highly segmented experiences. Play sequences, from where the idea of the interactivity or ergodicity of videogames derives, are framed and punctuated by movie sequences, map screens, score or lap-time feedback screens and so on.

Moreover, by examining the contexts in which videogames are actually used, it is possible to suggest that play need not be simply equated with control or active input. The pleasures of videogames are frequently enjoyed by those that commonsense might encourage us to consider as non-players – "onlookers" that exert no direct control via the game controls. In this article, I want to suggest that videogame players need not actually touch a joypad, mouse or keyboard and that our definition needs to accommodate these non-controlling roles. The pleasure of videogame play does not simply flow through the lead of a joystick.

…

Last year, at the UK’s first academic videogames conference, I took the opportunity to present a deliberately provocative paper that suggested that when playing videogames, appearances do not matter. Subsequently, I have tried this idea on groups of undergraduate media students and they, like many of the delegates at GameCultures, look at me as if I’ve gone completely mad. Why expend so much effort on lavish visuals, CGI intros, cut-scenes, graphics engines, texturing systems, lighting models and so on, if these things aren’t important? Videogames and systems are sold on the basis of their graphical prowess. Before long, in grappling with the apparent idiocy of such a blinkered view, discussion turns to the L-word… Lara. Can you seriously expect me to believe that if Lara Croft looked like Vibri from Vib Ribbon that Tomb Raider would have sold so well? Well no, I’m not quite saying that. In fact, in terms of the way the game sells or rather, has been sold, I’m not saying that at all. When I say that appearances don’t matter, I am certainly not talking about advertising and marketing games. What I am saying is that the pleasures of videogame play are not principally visual, but rather are kinaesthetic. In this way, the appearance of Lara or Vibri is not crucial to the primary-player during play. The way it feels to be in the Tomb Raider or Vib Ribbon gameworld is, however, of paramount importance. Many a great game has poor visuals – an entire generation of players grew up with blips of light, @ signs and even text-only games – but there are few good game [sic] with bad controls. Few good games feel bad. What I am suggesting is that, by better understanding the particular types of engagement that occur between players and on-screen characters during play, we may begin to arrive at a point where we don’t have to think about Lara in playable game sequences in terms of representation – we don’t have to think about her in terms of representational traits and appearance – we don’t even have to think about "her" at all.”

James Newman, ‘The Myth of the Ergodic Videogame: Some thoughts on player-character relationships in videogames,’ Game Studies 2:1 (2002) [Full Article: http://www.gamestudies.org/0102/newman/]

1. What does the author think games are for, or how they function?

In the extract the author talks of how lavish visuals are irrelevant and entirely separate to the core game mechanics and that what a character looks like is actually superfluous to the gameplay. In the authors opinion, good games that stand the test of time are ones with fun mechanics and solid, responsive controls, it doesn't matter how flashy it may look or how much detail is in the environment because the core gameplay loop(sequence) would be the same without all the expensive graphics.

2.Why do you think they claim this?

Because to a point the author is right, many games can be as fun as they are now even with considerably worse/better graphics. Look at counterstrike for instance; by and large Counterstrike:Global Offensive plays the same as it predecessors mostly due to the audience enjoying the core gameplay of the series so much they dare not change it. In fact this is very much the same for most long standing franchises like Call Of Duty, Halo and Assassin's Creed.

3.Who might think differently and why?

I for one disagree with the author and probably a lot of other gamers who enjoy modern games. It is important to note that this an extract from 2002, a time when gaming technology was greatly inferior to what we have now. At this time it was incredibly taxing to put true detail into a game environment and therefore would not be at the focus of most video games. While level design may still effectively be the same, it is still essentially arranging gray blocks around for the player to traverse, level design alone cannot convey tone or atmosphere which depending on the game can be very significant if not vital.

4.How persuasive do you find the authors argument

In some aspects of the authors argument I do agree that visuals can be completely superfluous and to an extent unnecessary. If you were to render a chess board and all the pieces in a modern game engine it would not change how people play chess. However given the increasingly broad spectrum in what can be considered gaming this argument is too specific to apply to how games function as a whole. Games like the Metro series, Bioshock, Dead Space and numerous others owe a lot of their appeal to their aesthetics and visuals because they use it to deliver tone, atmosphere and information. What the author is implying is that behind the facade of graphical fidelity and detail games are nothing more than multiple sequences that loop and converge to give the illusion of interaction in a fictional world. This in my opinion is the exact opposite of how people should view games both playing and making them. People are so quick to forget that ideas are not exclusive. If you were to break down a thousand games into their core mechanics and sequences you would see that they are all very similar despite how different in tone they may seem.

What is the difference between a Bioshock game and a Call of Duty game if, at their core, all you do is walk around and shoot enemies. By the authors logic this makes these games very similar but nothing could be further from the truth. Bioshock's world is represented its contemplative steampunk aesthetic that tells the tale of how a utopian city built upon the foundation of free-market capitalism was brought to ruin by the hunger of the many and the greed of the few. Call of Duty is about soldiers shooting people.