Difference between revisions of "Interruptibility"

From gdp3
Jump to: navigation, search
(Using the pattern)
(Using the pattern)
Line 24: Line 24:
  
 
== Using the pattern ==
 
== 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.
+
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. [[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.  
+
 
+
  
 +
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 Instantiate ===
 
=== Can Instantiate ===
Line 38: Line 36:
  
 
=== Can Be Instantiated By ===
 
=== Can Be Instantiated By ===
[[Asynchronous Games]],  
+
,  
 
[[Coupled Games]],  
 
[[Coupled Games]],  
 
[[Spawning]],  
 
[[Spawning]],  
[[Tick-Based Games]]
+
 
  
 
=== Diegetic Aspects ===
 
=== Diegetic Aspects ===

Revision as of 08:57, 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

Insectopia

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 Instantiate

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

Can Be Instantiated By

, Coupled Games, Spawning,


Diegetic Aspects

Interface Aspects

Narrative Aspects

Consequences

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

Relations

Can Instantiate

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

Can Modulate

-

Can Be Instantiated By

AI Players, Algorithmic Agents, Asynchronous Games, Coupled 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