Design Journal
Several years ago, I started writing a series of design journals. This writing, which totals almost 600 pages over four volumes, comprises a wide range of topics including design theory, level concepts, post-postmortems, calligraphic & linguistic studies, folk songs, and game development records. These writings were never intended to be anything more than personal notes and are written in a "non-standard" form of English calligraphy that draws from Scots leid, early-modern and middle English, as well as personal conventions. Recently, I was encouraged to post selections from these texts. I have provided transcriptions with editing for clarity.
Transcription
Jan 29, 2014
I tested shadow tag with the new death feedback yesterday. When the player dies, his character launches into the air like a rocket. Players responded to this with glee, they thought it was absurdly hilarious. The feedback’s comedic element is theatric and engages players in a way I simply haven’t considered. It occurs to me now that feedback which not only informs the player, but [also] evokes an emotional response, is powerfully engaging.
For feedback to trigger such a response I surmise that players must recognize its implications: how it affects them for better or worse. This ties into the principle of anticipation as Ellinger proposed it, that is, players must see a pattern, and are engaged by the prediction and ensuing fulfillment of said pattern.
I propose that implications, circumstance, and likelihood all affect the player’s response to feedback. Implications, which can be positive, negative, or neutral, define the feedback’s meaning to the player. Circumstance, which can be favorable, impartial, or unfavorable, is the sum of the factors which aid or hamper the player’s progression towards his goal. Likelihood, which can be probable, routine, improbable, and unforeseeable, is the player’s expectation that a give situation, affirmed by specific feedback, will arise. I call the affectation of player response to feedback “framing.”
Before proceeding, it is crucial to discern the framing of feedback, whose elements we defined and will expound, from its presentation. Presentation encompasses the features of the feedback as a self-contained experience: its visual, aural, tactile, iconographic, and thematic elements. Framing encompasses the elements external to the feedback that affect the player’s reaction.
Presentation influences framing; however, framing does not influence presentation. Presentation is fixed by the designer, while framing is colored by the player’s understanding of the situation and the feedback’s implications. Presentation is the player’s first and most critical encounter with feedback as it communicates immediate implications or “state.” First and foremost, presentation must clearly communicate a meaningful state. These immediate implications must be understood [before players can] see the long-term implications in the context of framing. Thus, if the presentation of feedback misdirects or confuses the player, it will cause [them] to see false long-term implications or prevent them from moving beyond short-term implications. Given framing’s dependence on presentation, we will, unless specifically stated, assume that framing as discussed henceforth relies on clearly presented feedback.
Now that we have discerned framing from presentation and [established] the relationship between them, we will show how framing affects a player’s reaction to feedback. Let us start with an example. Picture a man on an island who sees a ship on the horizon. How does the man react? The feedback is presented in the form of the ship, but framing is absent so we don’t know how the man will react. With the elements of framing we can reason through his reaction given information about his circumstances, the implications he perceives upon seeing the ship, and the perceived likelihood of said event transpiring.
Circumstances gauge the player’s mindset when the feedback is presented. For feedback to affect players experientially or emotionally, it must alter their circumstances. Change warrants reaction, sameness does not. The greater the change, the stronger the reaction, akin to a man pushed off balance. The implications of a given feedback determine the nature and gravity of the change in circumstance. The implication, being positive, neutral, or negative, matches the player’s likely response. The likely response is then amplified or dampened by the likelihood of the feedback. The less likely an outcome is perceived to be, the stronger the reaction when it occurs.
I tested shadow tag with the new death feedback yesterday. When the player dies, his character launches into the air like a rocket. Players responded to this with glee, they thought it was absurdly hilarious. The feedback’s comedic element is theatric and engages players in a way I simply haven’t considered. It occurs to me now that feedback which not only informs the player, but [also] evokes an emotional response, is powerfully engaging.
For feedback to trigger such a response I surmise that players must recognize its implications: how it affects them for better or worse. This ties into the principle of anticipation as Ellinger proposed it, that is, players must see a pattern, and are engaged by the prediction and ensuing fulfillment of said pattern.
I propose that implications, circumstance, and likelihood all affect the player’s response to feedback. Implications, which can be positive, negative, or neutral, define the feedback’s meaning to the player. Circumstance, which can be favorable, impartial, or unfavorable, is the sum of the factors which aid or hamper the player’s progression towards his goal. Likelihood, which can be probable, routine, improbable, and unforeseeable, is the player’s expectation that a give situation, affirmed by specific feedback, will arise. I call the affectation of player response to feedback “framing.”
Before proceeding, it is crucial to discern the framing of feedback, whose elements we defined and will expound, from its presentation. Presentation encompasses the features of the feedback as a self-contained experience: its visual, aural, tactile, iconographic, and thematic elements. Framing encompasses the elements external to the feedback that affect the player’s reaction.
Presentation influences framing; however, framing does not influence presentation. Presentation is fixed by the designer, while framing is colored by the player’s understanding of the situation and the feedback’s implications. Presentation is the player’s first and most critical encounter with feedback as it communicates immediate implications or “state.” First and foremost, presentation must clearly communicate a meaningful state. These immediate implications must be understood [before players can] see the long-term implications in the context of framing. Thus, if the presentation of feedback misdirects or confuses the player, it will cause [them] to see false long-term implications or prevent them from moving beyond short-term implications. Given framing’s dependence on presentation, we will, unless specifically stated, assume that framing as discussed henceforth relies on clearly presented feedback.
Now that we have discerned framing from presentation and [established] the relationship between them, we will show how framing affects a player’s reaction to feedback. Let us start with an example. Picture a man on an island who sees a ship on the horizon. How does the man react? The feedback is presented in the form of the ship, but framing is absent so we don’t know how the man will react. With the elements of framing we can reason through his reaction given information about his circumstances, the implications he perceives upon seeing the ship, and the perceived likelihood of said event transpiring.
Circumstances gauge the player’s mindset when the feedback is presented. For feedback to affect players experientially or emotionally, it must alter their circumstances. Change warrants reaction, sameness does not. The greater the change, the stronger the reaction, akin to a man pushed off balance. The implications of a given feedback determine the nature and gravity of the change in circumstance. The implication, being positive, neutral, or negative, matches the player’s likely response. The likely response is then amplified or dampened by the likelihood of the feedback. The less likely an outcome is perceived to be, the stronger the reaction when it occurs.
