Difference between revisions of "Diegetic Consistency"

From gdp3
Jump to: navigation, search
 
(76 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
[[Category:Platonic Patterns]]
+
[[Category:Aesthetic Patterns]]
 
[[Category:Patterns]]
 
[[Category:Patterns]]
 
[[Category:Diegetic Patterns]]
 
[[Category:Diegetic Patterns]]
−
[[Category:Needs work]]
 
 
[[Category:Needs revision]]
 
[[Category:Needs revision]]
 
[[Category:Needs examples]]
 
[[Category:Needs examples]]
 
[[Category:Needs references]]
 
[[Category:Needs references]]
 +
[[Category:Consistency Patterns]]
 
[[Category:Patterns created on the Wiki]]
 
[[Category:Patterns created on the Wiki]]
−
[[Category:Stub]]
+
''Depictions of game worlds that only contains the visual elements that are diegetically present.''
−
''That the depiction of a game world only contain elements that are diegetically present in them.''
+
  
−
For a game to be consistent means, first, that there are no contradictions or irregularities in the functioning of the game. For example, if the player can blow up a crate, the player should also be able to blow up all other similar crates. Another, more fundamental, layer of consistency concerns the degree to which our intuitive and natural ways of being in the real world are transformed into the metaphors used in the game itself. This means that all games have an internal logic that mimics reality or at least relates to how we understand reality through categories and relations.
+
Diegesis is the presentation of the elements in a game world. However, games may need to provide more information due to their systems containing more information than just the game worlds and when this occurs designers may need to question the value of having [[Diegetic Consistency]] or showing this information within the reference system of the game world.
−
 
+
−
This pattern is a still a stub.
+
  
 
=== Examples ===
 
=== Examples ===
−
Example: The Sims, one of the most popular computer games ever, takes some of the features of suburban life and blends them into a consistent totality. The play experience is intuitive, seamless, and fluid. This is partly because of a great user interface but also because the Consistent Reality Logic of The Sims is extremely well constructed. Even though the player actions do not always have a direct counterpart in the real world, the consequences are life-like and consistent.
+
[[:Category:Tabletop Roleplaying Games|Tabletop Roleplaying Games]] such as [[Call of Cthulhu]], [[Storytelling System]], and [[Hârnmaster]] can have [[Diegetic Consistency]] relatively easy since it is the game masters and players themselves that describe the world. Challenges to upholding this consistency can come when system terms (such as ''hit points'', ''character levels'', ''skill levels'', etc.) are mixed into the descriptions or when disagreements arise on what is actually part of the game world or not, or what actions are possible to do or not.
 +
 
 +
[[Diegetic Consistency]] is striven for in many [[:Category:Live Action Roleplaying Games|Live Action Roleplaying Games]] given both the effort to produce the artifacts and props used in these and the effort in enacting bodily the characters and actions of these game (for several days in some case). Examples of [[:Category:Live Action Roleplaying Games|LARPs]] that put especial focus on this, that can be said to aim at a "360 illusion"<ref name="360i"/>, include [[1942 – Noen å stole på]] and [[Trenne Byar]]. The related category of [[:Category:Alternate Reality Games|Alternate Reality Games]], e.g. [[Prosopopeia]] and [[Conspiracy for Good]] also have this type of design aim.
  
 +
[[Left 4 Dead 2]] has a realism mode which increases the difficulty of the game by making the game have more [[Diegetic Consistency]]; this is achieved by removing nearly all of the glowing outlines that help players locate other players and important game items even through walls.
  
 
== Using the pattern ==
 
== Using the pattern ==
−
possibly incompatible with [[Multiplayer Games]]
+
While an obvious requirement for having [[Diegetic Consistency]] is that the design elements that represent [[Game Worlds]], e.g. [[Tiles]], do not break the diegesis and theme, a more common problem with making [[Diegetic Consistency]] possible is to avoid [[Non-Diegetic Features]] such as [[Extra-Game Consequences]], [[Extra-Game Information]], [[Extra-Game Input]], [[Geospatial Game Widgets]] (including [[Check Points]], [[Ghosts]], [[Reward Widgets]]), and [[Tooltips]]. [[HUD Interfaces]] may be necessary to avoid as well, since they are not thematically consistent with all themes and are [[Non-Diegetic Features]] if an assumption existing that everything shown on a display should be presented the [[Game Worlds]]. [[Power-Ups]] share similar problems but mainly since they so clearly affect gameplay. [[Game State Indicators]], e.g. [[Lives]] and [[Scores]], do not have to be presented within [[Game Worlds]] but having them in any form may start making players perceive ''other'' game elements more from the perspective of a game system than a diegetic setting. For this reason, [[Game State Overviews]] in general work against [[Diegetic Consistency]]. Related to this is having to do sequences of actions repeatedly, e.g. due to [[Setback Penalties]]; this may not make diegetic sense. A second requirement is to not make to strong use of [[Diegetically Outstanding Features]] since they may be experienced as not being diegetic. [[Feelies]] can be seen as an exception to this claim, they provide physical [[Props]] that are [[Diegetically Outstanding Features]] but can even so expand the [[Diegetic Consistency]] beyond a game's primary medium.
  
−
Using the pattern
+
[[Diegetic Consistency]] can be easy to maintain during gameplay if [[Dedicated Game Facilitators]] are used to present [[Game Worlds]]. This cannot be guaranteed in [[Self-Facilitated Games]] but a solution, which puts the responsibility on somebody else, is to assign the task of portray [[Game Worlds]] to [[Game Masters]]. While [[Enactment]] can create [[Diegetic Consistency]] since players can perform the expected actions, games using this pattern also create the requirement that ''all'' players should do so; this is even more the case for [[Physical Enactment]].
  
−
A Consistent Reality Logic in a game almost always creates a stronger sense of Immersion even without having realistic audiovisual representations of the game elements. Concentrating on Consistent Reality Logic on the expense of the graphical outlook of the Game World may promote Cognitive Immersion instead of Emotional Immersion, and may be more suitable for a particular game design. For example, it is doubtful that the experience of playing computer Chess would benefit from photorealistic and animated movement of the pieces; the outcome would probably be negative regarding gameplay. A sign of Consistent Reality Logic that is combined with Emotional Immersion in games is when players can have Identification with their Enemies.
+
One part of designing for [[Diegetic Consistency]] is to make communication into [[Diegetic Communication]], at least the communication that is in the diegesis. Related to this is the issue of [[Non-Diegetic Communication]]: these may disrupt [[Diegetic Consistency]] but the risk of this may be mitigated by [[Game Masters]] or by introducing [[Communication Channels]], especially in the form of [[Chat Channels]] or [[Emotes]]. Other options for avoiding [[Non-Diegetic Communication]] include providing [[Prompting Techniques]] so players can communicate intentions about starting and stopping [[Scenes]] through diegetically consistent actions. [[Substitute Actions]] is a technique to let players allegorically perform actions that would not be permissible otherwise and can thereby support [[Diegetic Consistency]] to a certain degree. [[Meta-Postures]] do the same thing but by introducing gestures or postures; these may not be consistency with the diegesis but can still make the break less obvious unless they are used to often. One form of [[Non-Diegetic Communication]] is [[Reflective Communication]] between players, so games with the design goal of [[Diegetic Consistency]] may be more difficult to create if they are to have [[Reflective Communication]] also.
  
−
Consistent Reality Logic also helps players get started. If the actions, events, rules, and especially the Penalties of the game are intuitive and have Predictable Consequences, i. e., they resemble the basic notions of how the reality works, it is much easier to learn the controls and the rules of the game, thus supporting Smooth Learning Curves and Predictable Consequences. This, of course, does not mean that the game should simulate the reality as accurately as possible; on the contrary, games are caricatures of reality, and as such, it is in most cases detrimental to the whole gameplay to make the simulation too real.
+
While [[Transport Routes]] can provide [[Diegetic Consistency]] by making it possible to access areas that should be able to access diegetically, one of the problems with providing [[Diegetic Consistency]] in [[Game Worlds]] or [[Levels]] is related to size since thematically these should often be larger than is practically possible to design and implement. One solution, which risks breaking [[Thematic Consistency]] instead, is to make use of [[Inaccessible Areas]] and [[Invisible Walls]] since these can allow games to present an [[Illusion of Open Space]] and thereby larger [[Game Worlds]] than are actually possible to visit. The use of [[Levels]] can be used separately or together with these since the [[Levels]] can by having different themes and styles imply that not only intermediate areas exist but also others not yet seen. [[Warp Zones]] can be used to provide [[Diegetic Consistency]] when [[Game Worlds]] do not have the same spatial characteristics as the medium in which they are presented in (a common example, found for example in the [[Civilization_(video_game)_series|Civilization]] and [[Hearts of Iron series]], is to show spheres such as the Earth on 2-dimensional surfaces such as computer screens). However, they may also break [[Diegetic Consistency]] if the zones themselves are not part of the [[Game Worlds]] or if they point of other areas that are not part of the [[Game Worlds]].  
  
−
Common ways Consistent Reality Logic is challenged include: any kind of Extra-Game Information; the use of Lives, Rewards, or Ability Losses not motivated by what caused them within the Game World; Spawning, as this has few plausible real world explanations; and Easter Eggs, which provide Extra-Game Consequences or Games within Games. Clues, Indirect Information, and Game Pauses that are not designed in such way that they function within the Alternative Reality of the game also negatively affect Consistent Reality Logic.
+
While [[Diegetic Consistency]] is primarily about removing the presence of [[Non-Diegetic Features]], not all parts of [[Game Worlds]] should actually be directly perceivable. This fact makes the use of [[Abstract Player Constructs]], [[Characters]], and [[Inventories]] help maintain [[Diegetic Consistency]]. "Sticky" [[Switches]] are related to this since they provide diegetic ways of showing states that otherwise should be hidden to maintain [[Diegetic Consistency]].
  
−
One of the problems with providing [[Diegetic Consistency]] in [[Game Worlds]] or [[Levels]] is related to size since thematically these should often be larger than is practically possible to design and implement. One solution, which risks breaking [[Thematic Consistency]] instead is to make use of [[Invisible Walls]].
+
All [[Multiplayer Games]] can offer challenges to [[Diegetic Consistency]] because of [[Early Leaving Players]], but this becomes especially likely when they have [[Interruptibility]] or [[Drop-In/Drop-Out]] gameplay and the same applies to games with [[Seamful Gameplay]]. In these cases the diegesis may need to be able to explain quick removals and/or returns of [[Characters]], [[Units]], etc. under players' control. Similar problems exist in games with [[Entitled Players]] since here the players themselves may disrupt the [[Diegetic Consistency]] through how they use their abilities.
  
−
=== Diegetic Aspects ===
+
All games that have [[Dialogues]] need to consider the [[Diegetic Consistency]] in these as well if the game as a whole is supposed to have [[Diegetic Consistency]].
  
−
=== Interface Aspects ===
+
[[Phasing]] is a pattern which by its definition breaks [[Diegetic Consistency]] but does so between players, i.e. individual players do not experience an inconsistency but may notice inconsistencies between their own diegesis and others if the player compare their gameplay experiences.
  
−
=== Narrative Aspects ===
+
[[Diegetic Consistency]] and [[Role Fulfillment]] can create each other. This since a presented [[Diegetic Consistency]] suggests [[Role Fulfillment]] goals to players in not breaking this consistency, and part of having [[Role Fulfillment]] experiences may be based on upholding this consistency.
  
−
== Consequences ==
+
While considering [[Diegetic Consistency]], it may be worthwhile to also consider [[Thematic Consistency|Thematic]] and [[Temporal Consistency]] since these also relate to the aesthetic experiences games can provide. It may for example be more important that the diegetic elements that exist in [[Game Worlds]] behave thematically consistent to each other than that everything in the game environment is diegetically present. One area where [[Diegetic Consistency]] and [[Thematic Consistency]] affect each other is creation of game objects in large worlds; the common diegetic requirement of game worlds be large creates thematic requirements of populating [[Game Worlds]] with many game objects.
−
Having [[Diegetic Consistency]] is a requirement to be able to have [[Thematic Consistency]] since any [[Non-Diegetic Features]] automatically also break a theme in the presentation of [[Game Worlds]] or [[Levels]].
+
  
 +
=== Diegetic Aspects ===
 +
[[Diegetic Consistency]] is a completely diegetic pattern.
  
−
The primary design challenge with creating Consistent Reality Logic is how to limit the Game World. The most common ways are to partition the Game World into Levels, to use Inaccessible Areas, and to make the world appear infinite in size by making movement off an "edge" of the Game World cause game elements to enter from the "other edge." Invisible Walls can serve the same purpose but are harder to explain within an Alternative Reality. The choice of how to limit the Game World through Consistent Reality Logic can be used to modulate how easy or difficult Game World Navigation is.
+
=== Interface Aspects ===
 +
The choice of [[Focus Loci]] easily affects [[Diegetic Consistency]] - [[Avatars]] and [[Units]] can may maintain it while [[God Fingers]] break them. Controllable [[Cameras]] ''can'' break [[Diegetic Consistency]] even it they cannot be seen (an exception to this is found in [[Super Mario 64]] where the player's camera is diegetically presented and carried by the character ''Lakitu'') since moving into corner etc. can make the presence of these non-diegetic entities noticeable. Similarly, being able to invoke [[Game Pauses]] work against [[Diegetic Consistency]] when they make players enter [[Secondary Interface Screens]] (any [[Secondary Interface Screens]] can have problems with [[Diegetic Consistency]] as they often provide [[Non-Diegetic Features]]).
  
−
When dealing with the Consistent Reality Logic of the game, two levels of consistency have to be considered: the level of logical contradictions and irregularities between the game elements in the game and the level of how the Game World reflects the real world. The second layer is defined by carefully making the actions and their consequences and the game events consistent with both the internal logic of the game and, to some extent, with the fundamental features of the real world. As previously mentioned, this does not necessarily mean that they should simulate their real-word counterparts, but there should be some resemblance to how we as human beings act and perceive the world. For example, even though Tetris is an abstract game, the basic actions and events have their counterparts in real life. Moving and rotating objects---in this case, the falling blocks---are very fundamental actions in the real world. Changes in the game can nearly always be explained by real world equivalents: introduction of new game elements can be explained by Construction, and New Abilities can be explained through Tools or Character Development. Other changes such as Ultra-Powerful Events can be explained through Storytelling or unfolding of the Narrative Structure without breaking the reality logic, but such changes may require Downtime for players during the explanation.
+
[[Diegetic Consistency]] can be difficult to [[Player/Character Awareness Consistency]] since the latter may require or be most easily supported by [[Non-Diegetic Features]].
  
−
The first layer of consistency, not having logical contradictions or irregularities in the game, is somewhat easier to deal with. When the basic actions, events, and game elements have been designed for a game, it is just a matter of going through these and checking that there are no outright contradictions in their behavior. For example, if some of the items can be picked up, it makes sense to make all items portable or to otherwise indicate clearly the difference between static and moveable items. Alternative Reality can also be used to mold the elements and actions according to the theme of the game.
+
=== Narrative Aspects ===
 +
Due to the [[Freedom of Choice]] they give players, the possibility for them to engage in [[Enactment]], [[Roleplaying]], and [[Storytelling]] can make [[Diegetic Consistency]] break if non-diegetic elements are introduced; this is often mainly a potential problem in [[Multiplayer Games]]. In some games, this can be countered by letting players participate in [[Workshopping]] technique before the game proper begins. As a more subtle issue, generic or repeated actions can be spotted by players as design elements more concerned with gameplay structures or game states, so modifying [[Agents]] so their action are [[Context Dependent Reactions]] can be necessary to maintain [[Diegetic Consistency]] over time.
 +
 +
== Consequences ==
 +
Having or not having [[Diegetic Consistency]] quite naturally affects how players perceive [[Game Worlds]] and [[Levels]]. Having [[Diegetic Consistency]] is a requirement to be able to have [[Thematic Consistency]] since any [[Non-Diegetic Features]] automatically also break a theme in the presentation of [[Game Worlds]] or [[Levels]].
 +
Even if both [[Chat Channels|Chat]] and [[Communication Channels]] may be motivated by [[Thematic Consistency]] ([[Characters]] should be able to talk to each other), the presentations of messages may disrupt the [[Diegetic Consistency]].
  
−
The choice of Focus Loci easily affects the Consistent Reality Logic: Avatars and Units may maintain it while a controllable Camera or aGod's Finger likely damages it.
+
Since [[Live Action Roleplaying]] often tried to create complete and plausible physical environments in which gameplay can take place (especially in the Nordic tradition of [[:Category:Live Action Roleplaying Games|LARPs]], [[Diegetic Consistency]] is often more important to these game than other to the point that the pattern modulate the possibilities of the [[Live Action Roleplaying]]. For games with [[Alternate Reality Gameplay]], this is more or less a requirement since breakdowns in the diegesis reveal the game as a game; this is complicated by the fact that the game diegesis needs to be able to fit into the real world.
  
 
== Relations ==
 
== Relations ==
−
[[Alarms]]
 
−
[[Roleplaying]]
 
−
[[Dedicated Game Facilitators]]
 
−
[[Player/Character Skill Composites]]
 
−
[[Exaggerated Perception of Influence]]
 
−
[[Agents]]
 
−
[[Avatars]]
 
−
[[Units]]
 
−
[[Open Destiny]]
 
−
[[Algorithmic Agents]]
 
−
[[Mules]]
 
−
[[Private Game Spaces]]
 
−
[[Gameplay Statistics]]
 
−
[[Levels]]
 
−
[[Non-Player Characters]]
 
−
[[Characters]]
 
−
[[Game State Indicators]]
 
−
[[Stimulated Planning]]
 
−
[[Enemies]]
 
−
[[Extra Chances]]
 
−
[[Diegetically Outstanding Features]]
 
−
[[Freedom of Choice]]
 
−
[[Optional Rules]]
 
−
[[Multiplayer Games]]
 
−
[[Late Arriving Players]]
 
−
[[Quick Travel]]
 
−
[[Companions]]
 
−
[[Actions Have Diegetically Social Consequences]]
 
−
[[Detective Structure]]
 
−
[[Enforced Agent Behavior]]
 
−
[[Extra-Game Consequences]]
 
−
[[Gossip]]
 
−
[[Power-Ups]]
 
−
[[Single-Player Games]]
 
−
[[Grind Achievements]]
 
−
[[Game Worlds]]
 
−
[[Minigames]]
 
−
[[Evolving Rule Sets]]
 
−
[[Game Masters]]
 
−
[[Persistent Game Worlds]]
 
−
[[Massively Multiplayer Online Games]]
 
−
[[Non-Player Help]]
 
−
[[Construction]]
 
−
[[Safe Havens]]
 
−
[[Cooldown]]
 
−
[[Alien Space Bats]]
 
−
[[Big Dumb Objects]]
 
−
[[Geospatial Game Widgets]]
 
−
[[Environmental Effects]]
 
−
[[Asymmetric Starting Conditions]]
 
−
[[Loot]]
 
−
[[Sets]]
 
−
[[Props]]
 
−
[[Warp Zones]]
 
−
[[Landmarks]]
 
−
[[Tools]]
 
−
[[Crafting]]
 
−
[[Inventories]]
 
−
[[Destructible Objects]]
 
−
[[Diegetically Tangible Game Items]]
 
−
[[Abstract Player Constructs]]
 
−
[[Territories]]
 
−
[[Character Development]]
 
−
 
 
=== Can Instantiate ===
 
=== Can Instantiate ===
 +
[[Alternate Reality Gameplay]],
 +
[[Role Fulfillment]],
 
[[Thematic Consistency]]
 
[[Thematic Consistency]]
−
 
−
==== with ... ====
 
  
 
=== Can Modulate ===
 
=== Can Modulate ===
 +
[[Game Worlds]],
 +
[[Levels]],
 +
[[Live Action Roleplaying]]
  
 
=== Can Be Instantiated By ===
 
=== Can Be Instantiated By ===
−
[[Invisible Walls]]
+
[[Avatars]],
 +
[[Abstract Player Constructs]],
 +
[[Characters]],
 +
[[Chat Channels]],
 +
[[Communication Channels]],
 +
[[Context Dependent Reactions]],
 +
[[Dedicated Game Facilitators]],
 +
[[Diegetic Communication]],
 +
[[Enactment]],
 +
[[Feelies]],
 +
[[Game Masters]],
 +
[[Inaccessible Areas]],
 +
[[Inventories]],
 +
[[Illusion of Open Space]],
 +
[[Invisible Walls]],
 +
[[Levels]],
 +
[[Meta-Postures]],
 +
[[Physical Enactment]],
 +
[[Prompting Techniques]],
 +
[[Role Fulfillment]],
 +
[[Substitute Actions]],
 +
[[Switches]],
 +
[[Tiles]],
 +
[[Transport Routes]],
 +
[[Units]],
 +
[[Warp Zones]],
 +
[[Workshopping]]
  
 
=== Can Be Modulated By ===
 
=== Can Be Modulated By ===
 +
-
  
 
=== Possible Closure Effects ===
 
=== Possible Closure Effects ===
 +
-
  
 
=== Potentially Conflicting With ===
 
=== Potentially Conflicting With ===
 +
[[Cameras]],
 +
[[Chat Channels]],
 +
[[Check Points]],
 +
[[Communication Channels]],
 +
[[Diegetically Outstanding Features]],
 +
[[Early Leaving Players]],
 +
[[Emotes]],
 +
[[Enactment]],
 +
[[Entitled Players]],
 +
[[Extra-Game Consequences]], 
 +
[[Extra-Game Information]],
 +
[[Extra-Game Input]],
 +
[[Game State Indicators]],
 +
[[Game State Overviews]],
 +
[[Geospatial Game Widgets]],
 +
[[Ghosts]],
 +
[[God Fingers]],
 +
[[HUD Interfaces]],
 +
[[Non-Diegetic Features]],
 +
[[Lives]],
 +
[[Meta-Postures]],
 +
[[Non-Diegetic Communication]],
 +
[[Phasing]],
 +
[[Player/Character Awareness Consistency]],
 +
[[Power-Ups]],
 +
[[Reflective Communication]],
 +
[[Reward Widgets]],
 +
[[Roleplaying]],
 +
[[Scores]],
 +
[[Seamful Gameplay]],
 +
[[Secondary Interface Screens]],
 +
[[Self-Facilitated Games]],
 +
[[Setback Penalties]],
 +
[[Storytelling]],
 +
[[Tooltips]],
 +
[[Warp Zones]]
 +
 +
[[Interruptibility]] or [[Drop-In/Drop-Out]] in [[Multiplayer Games]]
 +
 +
Games with [[Game Pauses]] and [[Secondary Interface Screens]]
  
 
== History ==
 
== History ==
−
A rewrite of the pattern ''Consistent Reality Logic'' that was part of the original collection in the book ''Patterns in Game Design''<ref name="Bjork & Holopainen 2004"/>.
+
A rewrite of the pattern ''Consistent Reality Logic'' that was part of the original collection in the book ''Patterns in Game Design''<ref name="Bjork & Holopainen 2004"/>. Significant parts of the original pattern is however now part of the pattern [[Thematic Consistency]].
  
 
== References ==
 
== References ==
 
<references>
 
<references>
 
<ref name="Bjork & Holopainen 2004">Björk, S. & Holopainen, J. (2004) ''Patterns in Game Design''. Charles River Media. ISBN1-58450-354-8.</ref>
 
<ref name="Bjork & Holopainen 2004">Björk, S. & Holopainen, J. (2004) ''Patterns in Game Design''. Charles River Media. ISBN1-58450-354-8.</ref>
 +
<ref name="360i">Waern, A., Montola, M. & Stenros, J. (2009). ''The three-sixty illusion: designing for immersion in pervasive games''. Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '09).</ref>
 
</references>
 
</references>

Latest revision as of 09:05, 8 April 2022

Depictions of game worlds that only contains the visual elements that are diegetically present.

Diegesis is the presentation of the elements in a game world. However, games may need to provide more information due to their systems containing more information than just the game worlds and when this occurs designers may need to question the value of having Diegetic Consistency or showing this information within the reference system of the game world.

Examples

Tabletop Roleplaying Games such as Call of Cthulhu, Storytelling System, and Hârnmaster can have Diegetic Consistency relatively easy since it is the game masters and players themselves that describe the world. Challenges to upholding this consistency can come when system terms (such as hit points, character levels, skill levels, etc.) are mixed into the descriptions or when disagreements arise on what is actually part of the game world or not, or what actions are possible to do or not.

Diegetic Consistency is striven for in many Live Action Roleplaying Games given both the effort to produce the artifacts and props used in these and the effort in enacting bodily the characters and actions of these game (for several days in some case). Examples of LARPs that put especial focus on this, that can be said to aim at a "360 illusion"[1], include 1942 – Noen å stole på and Trenne Byar. The related category of Alternate Reality Games, e.g. Prosopopeia and Conspiracy for Good also have this type of design aim.

Left 4 Dead 2 has a realism mode which increases the difficulty of the game by making the game have more Diegetic Consistency; this is achieved by removing nearly all of the glowing outlines that help players locate other players and important game items even through walls.

Using the pattern

While an obvious requirement for having Diegetic Consistency is that the design elements that represent Game Worlds, e.g. Tiles, do not break the diegesis and theme, a more common problem with making Diegetic Consistency possible is to avoid Non-Diegetic Features such as Extra-Game Consequences, Extra-Game Information, Extra-Game Input, Geospatial Game Widgets (including Check Points, Ghosts, Reward Widgets), and Tooltips. HUD Interfaces may be necessary to avoid as well, since they are not thematically consistent with all themes and are Non-Diegetic Features if an assumption existing that everything shown on a display should be presented the Game Worlds. Power-Ups share similar problems but mainly since they so clearly affect gameplay. Game State Indicators, e.g. Lives and Scores, do not have to be presented within Game Worlds but having them in any form may start making players perceive other game elements more from the perspective of a game system than a diegetic setting. For this reason, Game State Overviews in general work against Diegetic Consistency. Related to this is having to do sequences of actions repeatedly, e.g. due to Setback Penalties; this may not make diegetic sense. A second requirement is to not make to strong use of Diegetically Outstanding Features since they may be experienced as not being diegetic. Feelies can be seen as an exception to this claim, they provide physical Props that are Diegetically Outstanding Features but can even so expand the Diegetic Consistency beyond a game's primary medium.

Diegetic Consistency can be easy to maintain during gameplay if Dedicated Game Facilitators are used to present Game Worlds. This cannot be guaranteed in Self-Facilitated Games but a solution, which puts the responsibility on somebody else, is to assign the task of portray Game Worlds to Game Masters. While Enactment can create Diegetic Consistency since players can perform the expected actions, games using this pattern also create the requirement that all players should do so; this is even more the case for Physical Enactment.

One part of designing for Diegetic Consistency is to make communication into Diegetic Communication, at least the communication that is in the diegesis. Related to this is the issue of Non-Diegetic Communication: these may disrupt Diegetic Consistency but the risk of this may be mitigated by Game Masters or by introducing Communication Channels, especially in the form of Chat Channels or Emotes. Other options for avoiding Non-Diegetic Communication include providing Prompting Techniques so players can communicate intentions about starting and stopping Scenes through diegetically consistent actions. Substitute Actions is a technique to let players allegorically perform actions that would not be permissible otherwise and can thereby support Diegetic Consistency to a certain degree. Meta-Postures do the same thing but by introducing gestures or postures; these may not be consistency with the diegesis but can still make the break less obvious unless they are used to often. One form of Non-Diegetic Communication is Reflective Communication between players, so games with the design goal of Diegetic Consistency may be more difficult to create if they are to have Reflective Communication also.

While Transport Routes can provide Diegetic Consistency by making it possible to access areas that should be able to access diegetically, one of the problems with providing Diegetic Consistency in Game Worlds or Levels is related to size since thematically these should often be larger than is practically possible to design and implement. One solution, which risks breaking Thematic Consistency instead, is to make use of Inaccessible Areas and Invisible Walls since these can allow games to present an Illusion of Open Space and thereby larger Game Worlds than are actually possible to visit. The use of Levels can be used separately or together with these since the Levels can by having different themes and styles imply that not only intermediate areas exist but also others not yet seen. Warp Zones can be used to provide Diegetic Consistency when Game Worlds do not have the same spatial characteristics as the medium in which they are presented in (a common example, found for example in the Civilization and Hearts of Iron series, is to show spheres such as the Earth on 2-dimensional surfaces such as computer screens). However, they may also break Diegetic Consistency if the zones themselves are not part of the Game Worlds or if they point of other areas that are not part of the Game Worlds.

While Diegetic Consistency is primarily about removing the presence of Non-Diegetic Features, not all parts of Game Worlds should actually be directly perceivable. This fact makes the use of Abstract Player Constructs, Characters, and Inventories help maintain Diegetic Consistency. "Sticky" Switches are related to this since they provide diegetic ways of showing states that otherwise should be hidden to maintain Diegetic Consistency.

All Multiplayer Games can offer challenges to Diegetic Consistency because of Early Leaving Players, but this becomes especially likely when they have Interruptibility or Drop-In/Drop-Out gameplay and the same applies to games with Seamful Gameplay. In these cases the diegesis may need to be able to explain quick removals and/or returns of Characters, Units, etc. under players' control. Similar problems exist in games with Entitled Players since here the players themselves may disrupt the Diegetic Consistency through how they use their abilities.

All games that have Dialogues need to consider the Diegetic Consistency in these as well if the game as a whole is supposed to have Diegetic Consistency.

Phasing is a pattern which by its definition breaks Diegetic Consistency but does so between players, i.e. individual players do not experience an inconsistency but may notice inconsistencies between their own diegesis and others if the player compare their gameplay experiences.

Diegetic Consistency and Role Fulfillment can create each other. This since a presented Diegetic Consistency suggests Role Fulfillment goals to players in not breaking this consistency, and part of having Role Fulfillment experiences may be based on upholding this consistency.

While considering Diegetic Consistency, it may be worthwhile to also consider Thematic and Temporal Consistency since these also relate to the aesthetic experiences games can provide. It may for example be more important that the diegetic elements that exist in Game Worlds behave thematically consistent to each other than that everything in the game environment is diegetically present. One area where Diegetic Consistency and Thematic Consistency affect each other is creation of game objects in large worlds; the common diegetic requirement of game worlds be large creates thematic requirements of populating Game Worlds with many game objects.

Diegetic Aspects

Diegetic Consistency is a completely diegetic pattern.

Interface Aspects

The choice of Focus Loci easily affects Diegetic Consistency - Avatars and Units can may maintain it while God Fingers break them. Controllable Cameras can break Diegetic Consistency even it they cannot be seen (an exception to this is found in Super Mario 64 where the player's camera is diegetically presented and carried by the character Lakitu) since moving into corner etc. can make the presence of these non-diegetic entities noticeable. Similarly, being able to invoke Game Pauses work against Diegetic Consistency when they make players enter Secondary Interface Screens (any Secondary Interface Screens can have problems with Diegetic Consistency as they often provide Non-Diegetic Features).

Diegetic Consistency can be difficult to Player/Character Awareness Consistency since the latter may require or be most easily supported by Non-Diegetic Features.

Narrative Aspects

Due to the Freedom of Choice they give players, the possibility for them to engage in Enactment, Roleplaying, and Storytelling can make Diegetic Consistency break if non-diegetic elements are introduced; this is often mainly a potential problem in Multiplayer Games. In some games, this can be countered by letting players participate in Workshopping technique before the game proper begins. As a more subtle issue, generic or repeated actions can be spotted by players as design elements more concerned with gameplay structures or game states, so modifying Agents so their action are Context Dependent Reactions can be necessary to maintain Diegetic Consistency over time.

Consequences

Having or not having Diegetic Consistency quite naturally affects how players perceive Game Worlds and Levels. Having Diegetic Consistency is a requirement to be able to have Thematic Consistency since any Non-Diegetic Features automatically also break a theme in the presentation of Game Worlds or Levels. Even if both Chat and Communication Channels may be motivated by Thematic Consistency (Characters should be able to talk to each other), the presentations of messages may disrupt the Diegetic Consistency.

Since Live Action Roleplaying often tried to create complete and plausible physical environments in which gameplay can take place (especially in the Nordic tradition of LARPs, Diegetic Consistency is often more important to these game than other to the point that the pattern modulate the possibilities of the Live Action Roleplaying. For games with Alternate Reality Gameplay, this is more or less a requirement since breakdowns in the diegesis reveal the game as a game; this is complicated by the fact that the game diegesis needs to be able to fit into the real world.

Relations

Can Instantiate

Alternate Reality Gameplay, Role Fulfillment, Thematic Consistency

Can Modulate

Game Worlds, Levels, Live Action Roleplaying

Can Be Instantiated By

Avatars, Abstract Player Constructs, Characters, Chat Channels, Communication Channels, Context Dependent Reactions, Dedicated Game Facilitators, Diegetic Communication, Enactment, Feelies, Game Masters, Inaccessible Areas, Inventories, Illusion of Open Space, Invisible Walls, Levels, Meta-Postures, Physical Enactment, Prompting Techniques, Role Fulfillment, Substitute Actions, Switches, Tiles, Transport Routes, Units, Warp Zones, Workshopping

Can Be Modulated By

-

Possible Closure Effects

-

Potentially Conflicting With

Cameras, Chat Channels, Check Points, Communication Channels, Diegetically Outstanding Features, Early Leaving Players, Emotes, Enactment, Entitled Players, Extra-Game Consequences, Extra-Game Information, Extra-Game Input, Game State Indicators, Game State Overviews, Geospatial Game Widgets, Ghosts, God Fingers, HUD Interfaces, Non-Diegetic Features, Lives, Meta-Postures, Non-Diegetic Communication, Phasing, Player/Character Awareness Consistency, Power-Ups, Reflective Communication, Reward Widgets, Roleplaying, Scores, Seamful Gameplay, Secondary Interface Screens, Self-Facilitated Games, Setback Penalties, Storytelling, Tooltips, Warp Zones

Interruptibility or Drop-In/Drop-Out in Multiplayer Games

Games with Game Pauses and Secondary Interface Screens

History

A rewrite of the pattern Consistent Reality Logic that was part of the original collection in the book Patterns in Game Design[2]. Significant parts of the original pattern is however now part of the pattern Thematic Consistency.

References

  1. ↑ Waern, A., Montola, M. & Stenros, J. (2009). The three-sixty illusion: designing for immersion in pervasive games. Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '09).
  2. ↑ Björk, S. & Holopainen, J. (2004) Patterns in Game Design. Charles River Media. ISBN1-58450-354-8.
Retrieved from "http://virt10.itu.chalmers.se/index.php?title=Diegetic_Consistency&oldid=27163"