Difference between revisions of "Interruptibility"

Revision as of 09:05, 21 August 2012

Game structures that allow players to interrupt their gameplay without disrupting the gameplay for others.

This pattern is a still a stub.

Examples

Fallout series

Europa Universalis series Hearts of Iron series

FarmVille Zombie Lane

Games based upon players' proximity to locations or other players, e.g. Geocaching and Insectopia, are built upon short bursts of player action injected into other activities. From the perspective of playing the game, the games support Interruptibility since players are not required to do actions at any give point of time.

Using the pattern

There are two aspects regarding the use of Interruptibility in games. One relates to making it possible to interrupt one's gameplay without ruining the game instances, the other relates to making it possible to interrupt gameplay without suffering negative consequences. Game Pauses and support for Save-Load Cycles help pausing game instances so they can be resumed later, while Asynchronous Games are based upon not requiring all players to be active at the same time and thereby make it easy (or necessary) for individual players to take breaks in the gameplay.

Issues when Interruptibility is possible but causes negative consequences occur when the game state should continues to update. This most obviously can occur in Multiplayer Games since other players may not want to experience Downtime, but games with Persistent Game Worlds can have this regardless if any other players have ongoing play sessions. No-Ops let players take breaks even if they can be affected by game events and the gameplay can become unbalance for other players, and Tick-Based Games can enforce No-Ops for players who have not provided new gameplay actions before the tick occurs. Drop-In/Drop-Out designs avoid that the pausing player has negative consequences but other players can still experience imbalances - Algorithmic Agents and AI Players can avoid this by filling in for the players that have left.

Can Be Instantiated By

Spawning,

Diegetic Aspects

Interruptibility may cause issues with Diegetic Consistency since the removal of a player's Character may be difficult to explain in diegetic terms.

Interface Aspects

Games supporting Interruptibility may need to provide Game Lobbies to help players know if other players have interrupted their gameplay, and to let returning players be aware of the current game state.

Consequences

As mentioned above, providing Interruptibility for one player may cause Downtime for others unless mitigated by Drop-In/Drop-Out mechanics.

Can Instantiate

Interruptibility

Freedom of Choice, Minimalized Social Weight, Pervasive Gameplay, Tradeoffs, Ubiquitous Gameplay

Relations

Diegetic Consistency

Can Instantiate

Downtime, Freedom of Choice, Minimalized Social Weight, Pervasive Gameplay, Tradeoffs, Ubiquitous Gameplay

Can Modulate

Game Lobbies

Can Be Instantiated By

AI Players, Algorithmic Agents, Asynchronous Games, Drop-In/Drop-Out, Game Pauses, No-Ops, Spawning, Tick-Based Games

Can Be Modulated By

-

Possible Closure Effects

-

Potentially Conflicting With

Multiplayer Games, Persistent Game Worlds

History

Updated version of the pattern Interruptibility first described in the report Game Design Patterns for Mobile Games^[1].

References

1. ↑ Davidsson, O., Peitz, J. & Björk, S. (2004). Game Design Patterns for Mobile Games. Project report to Nokia Research Center, Finland.

Acknowledgements

Johan Peitz