The team met to finalise our ideas so that the milestone presentation would have a solid direction and strong content. A team member rang Bolton Hospital to find out whether it was possible to one day head down there and take photographs for reference when designing the level. He was told to email the communications officer Heather Edwards at heather.edwards@rbh.nhs.uk. Although the team was pretty much set on using the Left4Dead version of Source, an issue came up when remembering that the player must stand and end the game in 'safe rooms'. This left some alternatives, such as importing L4D's meshes into the compatible version of Half-Life 2's version of Source, or simply designing the safe rooms to look like a normal hospital bedroom. Also the team must check to see if the waking up animation works in the L4D engine.
Another issue is that the meshes in Source are American, such as police cars and ambulances. The think aloud protocol was dropped as it would break too much immersion for the tester, and the team thought that in conjunction with questionnaires, galvanic skin responses and heart rates being measured, the tester would be swamped with tasks and lose focus. Recording the tester shall be kept, however the team is in favour of in-built webcams within the monitor so as to be inconspicuous until after the test when it is revealed to the subject. The galvanic skin responses and heart rate are being kept, however the galvanic skin response machine will require its own PC to function correctly. Recording the game footage of the subject should be done by Hammer's built in recording service.
The premise of in-game choices was discussed by the team, as it is difficult to make the player choose between certain options without them realising there are options to choose from. How can the team make them know certain actions such as locking doors and turning on lights will be possible without prompting them? The possibility of mentioning it once briefly on a control sheet before the test is the team's best solution to this so far. The team discussed whether it would be an issue having doors that can be locked and unlocked in-game, and how it could be achieved.
In terms of weapons and whether the subject should have them or not, the team discussed possible pro's and con's of this. Giving them a weapon will create the fear the danger as game's usually give player's weapons and power ups when danger is approaching. Having a weapon will also give a clear indication of when the subject is startled, if the team can make them fire at an enemy that isn't there, this will be very positive information. The possibility of still imagery being rated by testers is still on the cards, but is a level design issue more than anything. It would help with what kind of disturbing set pieces the team could include.
The idea of seperate scenarios was dropped in favour of the level being made twice but having differences in both. However the team did agree on having certain set pieces of objects that look out of place and maybe time the testers on how long they look at these set pieces and acknowledge/deal with them. The team needs some kind of method like this for determining how the subject rates these set pieces without breaking the immersion. Level pacing was discussed, and the aim for the team's level is to be completed within 15-20 minutes for a typical proper playthrough, as this is long enough for a player to get into and immersed within a game. Another device that will prove useful is the walking speed of the character, the team may legitimately be able to make the subject walk instead of run in the level due to injuries the character recieved hence why he is in hospital. The possibility to run could be allowed at certain sections such as activating events so that the team can later question why the subject ran.
Another issue that arose that could spoil immersion is the gender of the character. If a man is playing a woman character or vice versa, immersion may be diminished. The only visible feature that the subject could identify the character's sex is the hands, as they are always visible in first person shooters. The team discussed the possibility of making a 'Choose gender' option and then model female hands, or just wrap the hands up in bandages due to more wounds, making them indistinguishable in regards to gender. The team would need to do some remodelling or reskinning as the default character is Gordon Freeman in his instantly recognisable HEV suit.
Regarding NPC interaction scenarios, originally the team intended to have a completely empty hospital as this in itself would be odd as hospitals are never empty or shut. However the team discussed the possibility of having sound bites insinuating the presence of other people but making sure the player never see's any other NPC's, or having certain scripted events so that an NPC is visible further down a corridor and clearly runs off into a certain direction only for that area to be completely empty or blocked off when the player arrives there. A further idea was the presence of 1 constant character who appears from time to time but is crazy and doesn't make any sense, he may speak in riddles to make the player attempt to understand what he means when it could just be gibberish. Taking the notion even further, the player could be conditioned to chase after an NPC and then at the end find out it was themselves.
The idea of an antagonist was also brought up. In order for the player to feel paranoia, they might have to be aware of the consequences of certain dangers in order to fear the potential of its return. The team discussed the idea of an NPC shadow-trailing the player, but never actually able to witness him move. There would only be one real encounter with him where he reveals what he is capable of (e.g. stealing weapons, damaging the player, being immune himself etc.) in order to create the fear, and he would be accompanied by environment cues such as a certain audio theme for the player to associate that with him. This would create a Pavlovian conditioning on the player.
The basic geometry outline of the level was talked about, and the team thought it would be effective to make the level entirely linear but utilising smoke and mirrors to create a totally open surrounding and creating the illusion of a maze by messing with geometry so at certain times, passages and rooms may be blocked off and/or opened up. Another device the team could use if possible would be locking the player in place, although this may require a cinematic event which could break immersion. Further discussion brought up ideas such as having rooms that are upside down, with meshes on the ceiling, twisting corridors or corridors becoming slightly more narrow and seeing if the player notices, as it will be a secondary effect since the player's focus will normally lie elsewhere. This may begin to create a sense of claustrophobia. This style of geometry may apply to the side of the test which is meant to make the player doubt their own judgement. They will be unsure of their surroundings even though it will be a familiar place, and will wonder why they associate certain cues with the antagonist.
In terms of making the player fear the potential of a situation, the team discussed whether there should be a real threat within the level. The antagonist could fill this role by having one encounter/event that will create immediate fear, and then his existence will create the fear of violence within the player even if he isn't around. By utilising innate fears such as darkness, screams and sirens, the effect may be multiplied. There is even a reason to distort obvious sounds such as screams and sirens to make them sound weird and different.
Other ideas were brought up in a brainstorming session, such as having NPCs frozen in time in a certain room, having NPCs run away from the player, bluring NPC faces, or making them have no face at all, having an opening cutscene to the level that would explain the reason to fear the antagonist NPC etc. Essentially the team is trying to create and maintain a level of uncertainty and uneasyness so that the subject will hopefully be more susceptible to paranoia during the actual scripted events and in-game options. An older idea was remembered where an enemy could be scripted to die in one shot but others would require a full clip of ammo to die, creating a doubt of judgement in the player as to whether there's a specific procedure to killing enemies, however having enemies in the level would go against what the team is trying to do. It was dropped in favour of creating a maze-like environment to fulfill the role.
Other innate fears were brought up such as having warning signs, and distorted sirens and screams, and maybe having some of these attached to an NPC. The team addressed an issue that lecturer's had brought up as to whether the different triggers for inducing paranoia would compliment or cancel each other out. It is the team's opinion that that won't cancel each other out, however there is a issue in determining which trigger was more or less effective then the other. The target of subjects was also addressed and the team agreed on incorporating both gamers and non-gamers for a broader range of results. If the team just tested gamers, they may recognise certain events that were inspired by games/movies and lose immersion.
The questionnaires were briefly talked about, with the team acknowledging there would be at least two questionnaires, one before the test that would test the personality of the subject, and an evaluative questionnaire after the level. There may be room for more. Research will also be required on the creators of the questionnaires that Pam Ramsden will send the team, so that the team can see what else they have done and whether these questionnaires are effective or not. Ellis' ABC Model will be the main base of most of the scripted events such as bursting pipes, bottles smashing etc. The Evaluative Beliefs Scale was dropped in favour of the ABC Model however it may still have some use in the test, but this is undecided as of now.
After the team has decided upon all of this, a presentation for the dry-run of Milestone 1 was produced. It was presented to Claire and Amanda and the major concern they had was that the team still had not properly defined and conveyed their definition of paranoia. They suggested having a list of agreed triggers for inducing paranoia and then explaining the rationale behind them. They also thought that the safe version of the level should keep the triggers so that it would be a fair test. They felt we had pushed our activating events too far on the extreme side, and that the level would just be scary all the time. They also brought up the idea of allowing the player to be able to run only at activating events and seeing if they do, then asking why. The team must now take into account this feedback before the proper Milestone 1 presentation which will be on December 4th.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment