Difference between revisions of "Own Agenda"
(→Examples) |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
=== Examples === | === Examples === | ||
The bots used in [[:Category:FPS Games|FPS Games]] such as [[Counter-Strike]] and the [[Left 4 Dead series]] can work towards completing the goals of the games the same way players can. While this can be seen that they do have their [[Own Agenda]], the characterization of people in those games in weak so this is a weak example. | The bots used in [[:Category:FPS Games|FPS Games]] such as [[Counter-Strike]] and the [[Left 4 Dead series]] can work towards completing the goals of the games the same way players can. While this can be seen that they do have their [[Own Agenda]], the characterization of people in those games in weak so this is a weak example. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The two main characters in [[Façade]], Trip and Grace, are algorithmic agents which by their large repertoire of actions and utterances can express their [[Own Agenda|Own Agendas]] in the interactive drama players can have with them. | ||
== Using the pattern == | == Using the pattern == | ||
Revision as of 21:19, 31 July 2014
The ability of agents to seem to strive towards personal goals.
Note: This pattern specifically discusses how agents can use their agency to work towards goals of their character. For this reason, the pattern does not have relations to narration patterns.
Contents
Examples
The bots used in FPS Games such as Counter-Strike and the Left 4 Dead series can work towards completing the goals of the games the same way players can. While this can be seen that they do have their Own Agenda, the characterization of people in those games in weak so this is a weak example.
The two main characters in Façade, Trip and Grace, are algorithmic agents which by their large repertoire of actions and utterances can express their Own Agendas in the interactive drama players can have with them.
Using the pattern
Own Agenda is a pattern to modify how Algorithmic Agents play their Characters, i.e. Non-Player Characters. Specifically, it relates to how they more clearly can express that they have and work towards the goals of the Characters.
Since Companions are Non-Player Characters that players are more likely to interact with in depth, in may be relevant in a design process to prioritize that these can express their Own Agenda before other [Non-Player Characters]] can do so.
Diegetic Aspects
Consequences
The expression of Own Agenda by Algorithmic Agents can provide Thematic Consistency in that Characters have emotional expressions related to their goals and actions. It can arguably also make them engage in Roleplaying but it may be difficult for players to notice the different between Characters doing things in a Game World and Algorithmic Agents enacting what these Characters are doing in that Game World. However, since the Algorithmic Agents can also be trying to reach player goals, the use of this pattern is a way to instantiate AI Players.
Potentially Conflicting With
Scripted Information Sequences in games that are also intended to have Replayability
Relations
Can Instantiate
Thematic Consistency, Roleplaying
with Algorithmic Agents
Can Modulate
Algorithmic Agents, Companions, Non-Player Characters
Can Be Instantiated By
-
Can Be Modulated By
-
Possible Closure Effects
-
Potentially Conflicting With
Scripted Information Sequences in games that are also intended to have Replayability
History
A rewrite of a pattern that was part of the original collection in the paper Gameplay Design Patterns for Believable Non-Player Characters[1].
References
- ↑ Lankoski, P. & Björk, S. (2007) Gameplay Design Patterns for Believable Non-Player Characters. Proceedings of DiGRA 2007.
