Diegetic Consistency

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.

This pattern is a still a stub.

Examples

LARPs

360 illusion

Using the pattern

Non-Diegetic Features

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 that that everything in the game environment is diegetically present.

The main requirement for making Diegetic Consistency possible is to avoid Non-Diegetic Features such as Geospatial Game Widgets. 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. Game State Indicators 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. A second requirement is to not make to strong use of Diegetically Outstanding Features since they may be experienced as not being diegetic. Given the right content in this way, 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.

Warp Zones can break Diegetic Constistency 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.

possibly incompatible with Multiplayer Games

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.

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.

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.

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 larger Game Worlds than are actually possible to visit.

Out of Character Conversations

Communication Channels

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Relations

Multiplayer Games Detective Structure Extra-Game Consequences Power-Ups Single-Player Games Grind Achievements Minigames Evolving Rule Sets Non-Player Help Construction Cooldown

Asymmetric Starting Conditions Loot Sets

Can Instantiate

Thematic Consistency

Can Modulate

Game Worlds, Levels

Can Be Instantiated By

Abstract Player Constructs, Characters, Dedicated Game Facilitators, Game Masters, Inaccessible Areas, Inventories, Invisible Walls

Can Be Modulated By

-

Possible Closure Effects

-

Potentially Conflicting With

Diegetically Outstanding Features, Geospatial Game Widgets, HUD Interfaces, Non-Diegetic Features, Self-Facilitated Games, Warp Zones

History

A rewrite of the pattern Consistent Reality Logic that was part of the original collection in the book Patterns in Game Design.