لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Simulation in Context
Historical wargaming provides a terrific context for better understanding issues of representation and simulation because the premise of the genre is that a game accurately depicts a real-world historical referent. Most kinds of games do not have such an orthodox view of how accurately they simulate "reality." However, a related set of issues has increasingly come to prominence within digital games. Exactly how does a computer or video game procedurally represents its subject? At stake are the same core concerns we explored in historical wargames: how it is that a game simulation can create mean- ingful play.The steadily increasing power of computer technology to simulate and manage complex systems has opened up new possibilities for game design in the digital realm. Incredibly detailed simulations of light, sound, physics, agent behavior, and other phenomena are becoming commonplace within games. Many recent writings from digital game designers focus on this feature of digital media and suggest strategies for game designers to use in their work. Let's compare three such examples:
In Swords & Circuitry, Hallford and Hallford discuss simulation design in games using the example of a grenade destroying a door. One approach to simulating this effect would be to specify the relationship between each grenade and each door in the game. In this case, every possible instance of a grenade effect in the game would have to be explicitly spelled out in the program. In contrast, in a more flexible system, grenades would belong to a general category of objects that cause damage, and doors would larger system of the game? Is the simulation creating a coher-belong to a general category of objects that break when ent representation? Are the outcomes of the player's choices they receive damage. Hallford and Hallford strongly prefer meaningful? As play unfolds moment by moment, the total this latter approach to simulation design.[10]
In Game Design: Theory and Practice, Richard Rouse III dis cusses a related set of ideas through the example of a dungeon puzzle, in which players open a secret door by dropping objects on a pressure plate trigger. One design approach would be to hard-code relationships between every object and the pressure plate, so that objects defined as "heavy" trigger the plate. Rouse advocates the creation of a generalized weight system instead, in which every object in the game has a numeric weight rating; if the weight value of the objects on the pressure plate reaches a certain number, the plate is triggered.[11]
In "The Future of Game Design," Harvey Smith shows a similar preference in an example involving bird behavior. Bird behavior could be modeled so that when a player moves within a certain radius of a simulated bird, the bird flies into the air. However, Smith would rather see a more detailed simulation in which the bird's behavior could be triggered by the perception of light, sound, motion, or other modeled stimuli that would be more tightly integrated into the system of the game as a whole.[12]
All three of these examples make a similar point: there is a difference between a simple, case-based structure for a simulation and a more complex generalized structure that relies on integrated, systemic relationships. Although both approaches create procedural representations, the authors show a clear preference for one approach over the other. In their work, they cite a number of reasons why a generalized strategy is better for designing simulations:
It decreases work time: When a game system is large, generalized systems allow for much more flexible design. In the grenade example, specifying every possible interaction between every possible weapon and every possible object in the game would be a major programming task. Making adjustments to these relationships once they are established (such as reverse-engineering metal doors to be immune to grenade damage) means going back into the code and modifying every affected instance. By creating classes of objects as Hallford and Hallford suggest, categories of objects can be moved in and out of different effect classes, so that game designers can quickly try out different combinations of relationships in the game.
It increases emergence: More flexible game simulations lead to a greater degree of emergence in the game as a whole. In Smith's example, having a more detailed behavioral simulation for the birds creates more varied roles for the birds to play in the game. If the birds react to sound and not just to proximity, a game moment in which gunshots ring out and the flock of birds dramatically takes to the sky becomes possible. This is not necessarily something designed directly into the game, but it is an emergent effect of the simple rules governing bird behavior. With more detailed simulations, the space of possibility is enlarged and complexified.
It increases play options: More generalized simulation systems give players more choices and more ways to solve problems. In Rouse's example of the dungeon pressure plate, a player that had no object to drop might create a magical snowstorm that created enough weight on the floor to affect the plate. Idiosyncratic play styles are encouraged, rewarding players for exploring the increased space of possibility. This leads to more distinct styles of play and more avenues for meaning. If a group of Smith's birds were present in a deathmatch game, for example, a smart player might strategically position himself, fire a shot to scatter the flock, and then use the motion of the birds as visual cover for an assault on the enemy.
[10]Hallford and Hallford, Swords and Circuitry, p. 170–171 [11]Richard Rouse III, Game Design: Theory and Practice (Plano, TX: Word-ware Publishing, 2001), p. 122-123.[12]Harvey Smith, "The Future of Game Design"
