Space in Games - TTLG Forums

Shakey-Lo on 26/10/2008 at 09:18

Hi all,

I'm writing a uni essay on the implementation of space in games. Not space as in "outer space" but basically the x, y and z axes. The idea is that space is what makes video games unique as a medium. Some would say interactivity, which is also true, but really that is a byproduct from having a space to explore and while some games are more or less 'interactive' than others, every game ever made has some form of limited space.

I'm particularly interested in games that have constructed space in a way that can't be achieved in real life, or have used space for thematic effect. For example, you might be running towards an object and the more you run towards it, the further away it becomes. Or a room that becomes smaller as the protagonist grows claustrophobic, that sort of thing. An interesting concept that came up was that as a game's laws of physics and space must be programmed in from scratch anyway, they need not stick to real-world rules.

Psychonauts might be an example, where space is used to represent states of mind, such as the twisting, impossible gravity of the Milkman's mind. Portal would not be an example, as although that plays with space it is still a three-dimensional space and every attempt is made to make it appear as though it could happen in our real space.

I basically feel that space is gaming's "medium specificity" and not enough games are exploiting this in interesting ways.

So any examples you can think of or any thoughts on the topic would be interesting to hear :thumb:

WingedKagouti on 26/10/2008 at 09:37

Quote Posted by Shakey-Lo

Hi all,

I'm writing a uni essay on the implementation of space in games. Not space as in "outer space" but basically the x, y and z axes. The idea is that three-dimensional space is what makes video games unique as a medium.

I think you'll find just as many (or more) 2D games as 3D games unique when compared to other media. And I doubt you'll find any spatial effect in a game that hasn't also been used in a movie.

Computer games are unique because they combine several elements, among them the ability to fake a 3D experience in a 2D medium through visual tricks and interactivity.

Yakoob on 26/10/2008 at 09:41

While I do agree that there is a lot of flexibility and use of space in games, I don't think its a defining feature. You can have just as much molding of space in movies and cartoons, if not more.

Also, 2D space is just as viable to games as is 3D. And what about games without clearly defined space (text / adventure / puzzle / casual /etc)?

Shakey-Lo on 26/10/2008 at 09:54

Sorry, forget I said three-dimensional. I misspoke. Any form of space is ok.
Text games still have you manoeuvring through space, they just have a different way of representing it.

Movies use conventions to create the illusion of a space. Particularly in older films, all you have is two walls, and behind the camera stand the director and so on, but you don't see them in the film because different sets and shots are combined through trickery to fool you into accepting it as a space. One theorist gave the example of Rick's diner in Casablanca. If you actually look at each shot and map it out, the space does not make sense. There is no actual continuous space of "Rick's Diner".

In games there is always a definite, continuous space - and it is an actual (if virtual) space rather than an illusion of space that has been constructed.

Think of the difference between reading a description of a room, and actually being in the room. A book will describe a room, and you get a sense of the space, but actually being in the room gives you space to manoeuvre yourself and hard limits (the walls). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map-territory_relation) The map is not the territory.

I can't really go through all the theory here but what I have read all stacks up in my opinion.

edit: here's another example - say you want to accurately recreate the timeline of Pearl Harbour. The best way to do this is in film, because film proceeds at a constant rate from start to finish, so you can time events exactly. You could not accurately (and completely) recreate the space of Pearl Harbour in film, because there will always be parts you can't see, and things will be hidden from view in particular camera angles, and so on - and there is the inescapable element of time in film, meaning any representation of space will be subjective as to when you show things and what order etc. To accurately recreate the space of Pearl Harbour the best way to do it would be to create a virtualisation in a game engine. You can then recreate it as objectively as possible and it will be an accurate recreation of that space. You could not however accurately recreate the timeline of Pearl Harbour in a game because of player agency. You give the player control over a character and the exact events can never be guaranteed to take place at the right time.

Fingernail on 26/10/2008 at 09:58

I dunno, couldn't this be problematic?

Such as why can't film (since it is also displayed on screens) explore similar concepts of distorting space? After all, all we're doing is representing something on a screen.

And is a text adventure then not a game under your definition? Otherwise surely a novel could also describe non-physical or super-physical spaces (which one could, so to speak, explore in the mind)?

You could say that the interactivity means that exploring space is the main end of a game, which is not true of a film or novel, because of course one can only experience an idea of space in those mediums from the perspectives (let's say) that the author or director has chosen.

However, that's still also true of games when you consider such phenomena as locked camera positions, invisible walls, and linear map design (or what the text of the text adventure is, and who wrote it). Essentially all there is is an illusion of exploration since you can only explore what has been designated explorable.

Just mulling over what comes to mind. How do you account for text adventures, though?

EDIT: OK, you beat me to it.

Nonetheless, I still find it a rather artificial distinction between "virtual" space and any other sort of space represented on a screen. It's no more real than a film. You could bring up hundreds of examples of space in games "not making sense" as Casablanca or other films. Duke Nukem, for instance, relied on the illusion of "going upstairs" because the engine doesn't support stacking one floor above another.

Quote:

and it is an actual (if virtual) space rather than an illusion of space that has been constructed.

You see, it's this bit because I find myself saying, "no, it's exactly an illusion of space that has been constructed, and nothing more."

nicked on 26/10/2008 at 10:38

Interesting subject, although potentially flawed as others have pointed out. Try Prey for some laws-of-physics redefining. That plays with gravity and sense of scale in unique ways.

Fingernail on 26/10/2008 at 10:43

Quote Posted by Shakey-Lo

edit: here's another example - say you want to accurately recreate the timeline of Pearl Harbour. The best way to do this is in film, because film proceeds at a constant rate from start to finish, so you can time events exactly. You could not accurately (and completely) recreate the space of Pearl Harbour in film, because there will always be parts you can't see, and things will be hidden from view in particular camera angles, and so on - and there is the inescapable element of time in film, meaning any representation of space will be subjective as to when you show things and what order etc. To accurately recreate the space of Pearl Harbour the best way to do it would be to create a virtualisation in a game engine. You can then recreate it as objectively as possible and it will be an accurate recreation of that space. You could not however accurately recreate the timeline of Pearl Harbour in a game because of player agency. You give the player control over a character and the exact events can never be guaranteed to take place at the right time.

What seperates architectural visualisations from games? Probably more spatially interactive than most games in that you could fly around in all three dimensions, at any given velocity, and through walls.

As WingedKabouti says, and I mostly agree with, there isn't a single thing that computer games do that doesn't exist elsewhere, it's the combination that gives them meaning. It's not pure, it's like opera - a mix of theatre, sometimes dance, and music.

Shakey-Lo on 26/10/2008 at 11:22

Quote Posted by Fingernail

What seperates architectural visualisations from games?

Nothing* - it's the same medium. Just like Schindler's List and a Microsoft corporate training video are the same medium and use the same conventions.

*at least, nothing that is particularly relevant to this discussion

In your Duke Nukem example there is still a sensible diegetic space of a building that has two floors, and you go up the stairs from one floor to another. The point is that in Casablanca there is no actual diegetic space of Rick's Diner. You could not walk through Rick's Diner if it were a real place. You could walk through the town in Duke Nukem - because you do in the game.

Films (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=stan+brakhage) don't need a diegetic space (that is, a space 'within' the text) in order to operate as films. Games do. Whether it's Pacman, Deus Ex, or Zork, all games have you the audience manoeuvring through or manipulating a space, and that space is limited. (Game theorists all agree that one thing you need to have a 'game' is limits)

I can see why this is problematic, and I guess I'm a bit all over the place in this thread and not explaining myself very well, but like I say it makes sense to me, I guess it's just hard to explain without actually writing an essay or going through the big arse theoretical articles I've had to read.

To me it seems a clear cut distinction that in games (or 'computer simulations' or whatever general term you want to give the medium) the audience actually manoeuvres through or manipulates a clearly defined space while in other media they are only given a description of a vaguely defined space, if that. I guess it helps that I am also a film student so I have studied a good amount of film theory.

If anyone is particularly interested, I've uploaded relevant materials I've written thus far for the unit (I previously did a speech on the same subject). It's rough notes I worked off so it may be hard to follow but you'll get the gist of where I'm coming from and it has some good quotes from academics. (http://rapidshare.com/files/157672270/space.rar.html) here is the link.

and here are some other links for the really keen which I got from the uni (these are not specifically on my argument, just background info on space theory in games):

the lecture slides:
(http://lms.sca.ecu.edu.au/units/GDT2104/lectures/gdt2104week7lecture.pdf)
(not sure if this link will work for you guys, if not let me know)

and two theory articles:
(http://journal.fibreculture.org/issue8/issue8_walther.html) (haven't read this one, seems only tangentially related but illustrates well the relationship between real space and games)
(http://www.duke.edu/~tlove/civ.htm)

I don't want to bog this down too much with theory though so general discussion is still welcome!

I should probably be spending the time I've spent on this thread on my actual uni work though :joke:

If any of you guys have Far Cry, check out these two mods:
(http://mavros.canalblog.com/archives/2008/05/12/9152438.html)
(http://mavros.canalblog.com/archives/2008/05/12/9153227.html)
They are not really games, but spaces for you to explore. They were what made me realise that as an artform, this medium is all about the construction of space. They would not work in any other medium.

To Kagouti below me - the fact that invisible walls are used to create the illusion of more space than there is doesn't change the fact that there is space between those walls for you to move around in. In films there is no space except for that which is constructed through illusion. Think of it - if you're in a game like Half Life 2 or Bioshock looking out past the invisible walls at the whale swimming past, you're watching a film. You can't move around in that space, you can't interact with it. The gameplay, on the other hand, takes place in the actual space that exists between the invisible walls. In films there is no such space for you to move around in. You are just watching. If you like, the cinema screen is an invisible wall that exists between the space of the real world and the illusory space of the film.

WingedKagouti on 26/10/2008 at 11:26

Quote Posted by Shakey-Lo

Movies use conventions to create the illusion of a space.

The same as games. Invisible walls, inconveniently locked doors, broken bridges, the inability to jump over a 5 inch curb and so on. The set pieces of the computer game. All of them help create the illusion that there's more than just the places the creator wants you to go to.

Of course, when you elaborate on what you call "space" I hear "location" instead.

And if you want movies that play with space/locations like some games do, try the horror and action genres instead.

Fingernail on 26/10/2008 at 11:54

Quote Posted by Shakey-Lo

They are not really games, but spaces for you to explore. They were what made me realise that as an artform, this medium is all about the construction of space. They would not work in any other medium.

You see, to me this isn't the end of the story at all. Or at least, it's as bold as saying "films are about making the most beautiful sequence of images". Yes, there's certainly imagery in every film, but not every film exists for that purpose.

I accept that computer simulations are a way of presenting a sort of virtual sculpture or "installation art", even: physical ideas in a virtual "space".

In fact, isn't virtual installation art what you're getting at?