Emotional Synchronization : A Trickle Down Design Pillar

In an article titled 'Designing Game Narrative', Terence Lee speaks quite disparagingly about story in Tomb Raider, and indeed most modern game narrative. It is ironic then to hear Jonathan Hamel, Tomb Raider Lead Systems Designer, discuss at GDC 2013 how emotional synchronization between the player and Lara was in fact the primary design goal for the multi-million dollar project. Furthermore he goes on to generalize that creating ludo-narrative resonance is a usable yardstick to evaluate how meaningful gameplay feels to the player. He even states the science behind this phenomenon. In a nutshell, Princeton reviewers found that in MRI scans with storytellers and listeners that have matching neural patterns as the story is being told, the odds of accurate recall in the listener greatly improves.

Nevertheless, this blog is not intended to dwell on the high level. Instead, I'd like to describe one development pillar in terms of how Hamel breaks down emotional synchronization as a goal into systems design. Additionally, I'd also like to evaluate my experience of playing the game compares to Hamel's claims. Broadly Hamel describes three systems categories for Tomb Raider.

DESPERATE COMBAT

TALK - The initial plan for Tomb Raider was to have a primarily ranged vs melee combat system, as in most previous games from the franchise.

However, the emotional goal for combat system was to feel engaged in a desperate struggle for survival. A melee vs ranged combat system entails a lot of backing away from incoming enemies. Not a very compelling system for players to feel engaged in a desperate struggle. Instead a ranged to ranged system was far more compelling way to elicit this emotional synchronization. This change in battle style caused the team to reevaluate fundamental thematic elements. Enemy types shifted from zombies to human squads in order to better fit ranged to ranged combat.

This then necessitated fluid cover systems, patrol type squad behavior etc. The design of the cover system itself was further influenced by emotional synchronization. In order to capitalize on player perception of Lara as a nimble agile character, the cover system was made non-sticky, which means she would automatically enter and exit cover without the  requirement of a button press.

ANALYSIS- The game does have both elements of charging and ranged enemies, with the balance working nicely for the most part. Charging enemies definitely do force the player backwards, however the effect is not necessarily as Hamel describes it. There is a sense of desperation involved trying to align the reticle and fire as the enemy charges in. There's also a element of decision making involved in when to stop aiming and instead use the roll away option. Once the roll is completed, there's also an element of desperation involved in trying to reorient and initiate fire before the enemy starts charging again.

It's also worth pointing out that this creates an unrealistic AI system that is perfectly justified due to the fact that it creates emotional synchronization. It's completely unrealistic for an enemy such as a wolf to charge, attack once and then back away simply to redo the process. Another thing worth pointing out is that charging enemies causes the player to switch weapons in order to quickly incapacitate the incoming enemy.

The drawback of the cover system is that it allows the player to camp and take out enemies from afar. Hamel describes the introduction of a melee system and enemies throwing explosives in order to mitigate this effect. However, neither of these systems really achieve their goal. this is probably a case of data balance, level design and incompatible health systems not doing enough with the created systems. Explosives don't obliterate cover points; they simply invalidate them for a given duration of time. Additionally, Lara doesn't take any damage while rolling creating a simple dominant strategy to roll from cover to cover. To cap things off, the health system is not HP based, it is regenerative (like Uncharted). This makes it easy to hold your weapon out and wait for a hiding enemy to enter range even at the cost of getting hit. If desperate combat was the goal it seems like a HP system (like The Last of Us) would have suited the system better.

In conclusion, it's worth reminding ourselves that this entire analysis trickles down from and supports the goal of maintaining synchronization between the character and player. Pretty neat huh?!

Designing a New Dice Game - Snatch the Match

SNATCH THE MATCH - STARTING RULESET

• The game is played with 4 dice and two players or more. Note that the game is most engaging with 4 players.
• One player is also designated to track score through pen and paper. As each player scores during his/her turn, write down the cumulative score, not just the score for that turn. This will make it easier for the players to track their progress.
• Phase 1 (First turn) : Video Link to Demonstration
  

• Players start by tossing the dice and catching them on the back of their palms.
• They then flip the dice they caught back in the air and catch them in their palms.
• They place the caught die on the floor and multiply the numbers for their score.
• Phase 2 : In subsequent turns, players roll all 4 dice.
• If all 4 dice are even, then we have a ‘match’
• When a match occurs based on any player’s roll, all players must snatch the dice!
• Players multiply the numbers on the dice they successfully snatched and add them to their score.
• All players who caught at least one dice now go back to Phase 1.
• If all 4 dice are odd, then the added score of all 4 dice is subtracted from player score!
• If 2 or 3 out of 4 dice are either odd or even then: Video Link to Demonstration

• Player picks one die from the larger category, i,e, odd or even.
• With his finger he flicks the die such that it hits another die of the same category.
• The two numbers are added for the score.
• After the first contact, if either die hits the other number in the category, then the score is multiplied by that number.
• If any die hits the die from the other category then the score is 0.

PROBABILITY ANALYSIS

• Probability of getting 2 out of 4 odd or even numbers :
• 1(2^4) * 4C2 = ⅜
• Thrice every two rounds for 4 players
• Probability of getting 3 out of 4 odd or even numbers :
• 1(2^4) * 4C1 = ¼
• Once every round for 4 players
• Probability of getting all odd or even numbers :
• 1 / 2^4 = 1/16
• Once every 4 rounds for a team of 4

GENERAL THOUGHTS

• The game is definitely better suited to a younger demographic, probably in the age group of 10 - 15, primarily because fine motor skills are still developing but not yet undeveloped at this age.
• The engagement factor in the physical elements of the game would probably be higher at a younger age as well.
• I’m unsure on whether the game needs a theme. I don’t think it would any particular value to the mechanics.
• The selection of 4 dice for the game draws from the game it was inspired by. When I considered changing the number of die, I realized that 4 is sort of a magic number for this game to work. It provides the perfect set of probability as well as symmetry.

PLAYTEST ANALYSIS AND CHANGES - ITERATION 1
Players - Group of 4 CMU friends (no affiliation to games and not avid gamers)

Date - Saturday 09:00pm, 4th February

• Observation - The probability of an all even is too low. One of the key elements of engagement here is the ‘match’ element of the game and it is too infrequent.
  Change - A match is triggered when all even or all odd occurs. Therefore no subtraction of score occurs.
  

PLAYTEST ANALYSIS AND CHANGES - ITERATION 2

Players - Roommate

Date - Sunday 12:00pm, 5th February

• Observation - The stakes of a turn are not high enough, i.e. players are not rewarded for a good performance in their turn.
  Change - A player’s turn continues until a mistake is made or a match occurs.
• Observation - Players tend to reach for a match even when it hasn’t occurred.
  Change - If a player falsely reacts to a match, then he loses one turn.

PLAYTEST ANALYSIS AND CHANGES - ITERATION 3

Players - Game Design Group (4 ETC students)

Date - Sunday 07:00pm, 5th February

• Observation - The game needs an end state! In my haste to ‘test the toy first’ I neglected the fact that players need an end state to track progress. The objective of the game is probably as important an engagement factor as the mechanics.
  Change - First player to 100 points wins. This also means we need to cap the multiplication rewards. In any stage no more than the scores of 2 dice may be multiplied.

PLAYTEST ANALYSIS AND CHANGES - ITERATION 4

Players - Jing Shu

Date - Tuesday 03:00pm, 7th February

• Observation - A player’s turn could drag on endlessly. Additionally, once a player gets ahead in the game, it’s very difficult to catch upto him/her.
  Change - When a player successfully executes a turn, he has a choice on whether to play again or pass. If he loses his next turn, he forfeits all points earned in that turn.
  
  The hope here is that players will determine whether to pass or risk another turn, based on the state of the game, i.e. whether they are lagging behind or whether they are close to the finish line. It is worth pointing out that this is rule has the potential to greatly impact player mindset and the genesis of the rule came from the game’s objective, not it’s mechanic. This further underscores my belief that while it is important to ‘test the toy’ first, considering the mechanics in relation with the end goal is also important.

PLAYTEST ANALYSIS AND CHANGES - ITERATION 5

Players - Group of 4 CMU friends (no affiliation to games and not avid gamers)

Date - Wednesday 07:00pm, 8th February

• Observation - After testing now with quite a few players, it is apparent that there is a clear disparity between players who have a certain degree of fine motor skill and those who don’t. The latter group disengages because it takes too long to clear Stage 1, i.e., throwing and catching the dice.
  Change - Players may choose to pass Stage 1 and directly proceed to rolling the dice. However, players who do so forfeit the ability to snatch other player’s matches.

PLAYTEST ANALYSIS AND CHANGES - ITERATION 6

Players - Roommate

Date - Thursday 09:00pm, 9th February

• Observation - The game lacks an equalizing mechanic. Once a player gets ahead, there isn’t much holding him/her back.
  Change - 100 must be reached by an exact number, unless they cross the number through a snatch. Hopefully this will cause players to pay careful attention to what dice they are choosing to shoot and then even more carefully for a match. The goal with this rule was to emphasize the role of the match as well as create an equalizer.

PLAYTEST ANALYSIS AND CHANGES - ITERATION 7

Players - Just myself

Date - Friday 09:00pm, 10th February

• Observation - The game has too many rules. It is unnecessary to differentiate between two odd/even and three odd/even numbers.
  Change - Remove multiplication bonus for three odd/even numbers. It’s overly complicated for no real reason. This leaves us with only two cases for each roll - match (multiplicative score) and no match (additive score).
• Observation - The equalizing mechanism is not sufficient or particularly engaging. Moreover, the equalizing is independent of the performance of other players.
  Change - When a snatch occurs, players can choose to either add to their score or subtract from an opponent’s. This not only emphasizes the snatching, but also allows the players to equalize by a combination of skill and chance.

PLAYTEST ANALYSIS AND CHANGES - ITERATION 8

Players - Game Design Group

Date - Sunday 07:00pm, 12th February

• Observation - The ending is boring. As in all games that impose the ‘must reach final destination with an exact number’ rule, it’s not particularly fun sitting around waiting for a needed configuration.
  Change - Player moves backwards based on the exceeded score. For example, if the player is at 94 and the score is 8, then his score becomes 98 (94 + 8 = 102 - 100 = 98). This also means that the player’s turn continues until he misses, thereby giving him a stake in the end state based on skill.
• Observation - Game win condition is slightly unclear. Suppose a player snatches successfully and his score crosses 100. Does he win even if other players have snatched and choose to subtract the player’s score instead of adding to their own?
  Change - The player wins only if his score exceeds 100 after all deductions. This makes the snatch important and adds an element of randomness to the snatch win condition. For example, if a player is at 95 and he successfully snatches 2 dice, while both the other players snatch one each. The odds of his multiplied dice - added score of other player’s dice is still heavily chance driven.

FINAL RULESET

• The game is played with 4 dice and two players or more. Note that the game is most engaging with 4 players.
• One player is also designated to track score through pen and paper. As each player scores during his/her turn, write down the cumulative score, not just the score for that turn. This will make it easier for the players to track their progress.
• Phase 1 (First turn) : Video Link to Demonstration
  

• Players start by tossing the dice and catching them on the back of their palms.
• They then flip the dice they caught back in the air and catch them in their palms.
• They place the caught die on the floor and multiply the numbers for their score.
• Phase 2 : In subsequent turns, players roll all 4 dice.
• If all 4 dice are even or odd, then we have a ‘match’
• When a match occurs based on any player’s roll, all players must snatch the dice!
• Players multiply the numbers on the dice they successfully snatched and add them to their score.
• All players now go back to Phase 1.
• If there is no match : Video Link to Demonstration

• Player picks one die from the larger category, i,e, odd or even.
• With his finger he flicks the die such that it hits another die of the same category.
• The two numbers are added for the score.
• If any die hits the die from the other category then the score is 0.
• Player may choose to continue playing and add their score. However, if they miss or a match occurs their score for the entire round is 0.

WIN STATE

• 100 must be reached by an exact number, unless they cross the number through a snatch.
• Player moves backwards based on the exceeded score. For example, if the player is at 94 and the score is 8, then his score becomes 98 (94 + 8 = 102 - 100 = 98).
• The player wins only if his score exceeds 100 after all deductions.

Reinventing Hopscotch

PROS

1. Portability - The assembly process for the game is light, eliminating one entry barrier.
2. Player Restriction - Any number of players can play.
3. Balance Mechanic - The physicality of jumping and balancing is inherently fun.
4. Interest Moments - There are moments in the game such as the player picking up the object that are interest spike moments.

PROBLEMS TO SOLVE

1. Environment - While the tools needed to setup the game are simple, the game still needs a moderate amount of physical space that needs to be suitable for jumping.
2. Wait Time - The more the number of players, the more the wait time.
3. Lack of Meaningful Choice - The player has no choice on the number he is throwing his object onto. This also means that the game sequence is the same every turn.
4. Lack of Randomness - Regardless of player action, all eight numbers must be hit. There is no way to bypass one number through either chance or skill.
5. Limited Balance Mechanic - The manner of balancing stays constant throughout.
6. Lack of Interest Curve - Apart from throwing to a farther distance, the interest curve of the game stays flat throughout.
7. Lack of an Equalizing Mechanic - Players don’t really have the ability to recover from a poor start.
8. Player Interaction - Even though the game is technically a competitive game, in reality they are only competing against themselves.

NEW VERSIONS OF HOPSCOTCH

A) Word Association

• This game requires two or more players with a moderator.
• When one player is taking their turn, other players may NOT observe.
• Player is free to throw his rock onto any number during his turn.
• Player must associate the number he threw the rock onto, with a word.
• When he reaches the number he must say the word out loud.
• The process repeats with each player taking turns. Each player must call out the correct word associated with each number.
• The moderator tracks the correct association but does not call out whether a player was right or wrong in the sequence he called out.
• All regular hopscotch rules apply.
• The first player who gets the entire sequence correctly wins the game.

B) Odd or Even

• This game requires two or more players with a moderator.
• Each player picks either odd or even.
• Players take turns playing. Each turn the player either throws their rock or hops one slot.
• Players may throw the rock on any number.
• When the player reaches their rock, they may pick up the rock only if the sum of the two numbers fits the category of their selection. i.e. odd or even.
• If it does match the category, the number is marked as collected. The player then throws the rock either in front or behind them.
• If it does not, then they may choose to either reverse direction or proceed. In either case, players may not reverse direction until the end of the line is reached.
• The moderator tracks each player’s collected numbers.
• All regular hopscotch rules apply.
• First player to collect all numbers wins.

C) Move It

• This game requires two or more players with a moderator.
• Players take turns playing. Each turn the player either throws their rock or hops one slot.
• Players may throw the rock on any number.
• When the player reaches their rock, that number is marked as collected.
• The other player hops forwards or backwards by the number of spots just reached. Note that the decision is the other players.
• If the player reaches the end, he turns around and proceeds in the opposite direction.
• The moderator tracks the numbers collected by each player.
• The first player to collect all numbers wins.

PLAYTEST AND ANALYSIS : WORD ASSOCIATION

Issues identified during the first playtest were as follows :

• The manner in which players were primed before the experience matters tremendously.
• In my quest to identify whether the central mechanic of association was fun and whether I had a ruleset without loopholes, I failed to enforce the original rules of hopscotch, i.e. hopping and landing correctly etc.
• This was to my detriment as hopping while recalling was more engaging.
• The ruleset had several holes in it:
• What word should the player call out when both their feet land simultaneously two numbers?
• What happens the rock lands on a number with an existing word association?
• When the player lands on a number without an existing association, should he stay silent or call out the numbe?
• The thought process behind the moderator NOT calling out whether a player was right or wrong in the sequence he called out was to maintain a sense of mystery of what might be the incorrect association.
• However, it became apparent that this was frustrating players as there was no feedback of their success during the game.

The solutions and results of the second playtest were as follows :

• Original hopscotch rules were enforced more strictly. Player turns were disqualified when their feet landed on the lines.
• To further reinforce the tension of recalling and hopping an additional rule was introduced - The player may not linger on a given box for more than 3 seconds.
• The moderator called out success or false for every player turn to ensure feedback throughout the game.
• The hole in the ruleset was filled as follows :

• Players may call out the word associated with either number when their feet land on two numbers.
• For example, when the player lands on 3 and 4, he may call out the word associated with either number.
• This simplified the game and provided more leeway to the player.
• When the rock falls on a word with an existing association, the player must replace the association.
• This rule added depth to the game in keeping the players on their toes and not getting too familiar with the sequence of words.
• At first I had players remain silent when they land on a number without an existing association.
• However, this escalated difficulty in a manner that was frustrating to overcome as players now had to count the tapping of feet as well as pay attention to words called.
• So instead, I reverted to player calling out the number when it was not yet associated with the word.