Part 3 of my research into environmental story telling. This week I'm looking at how the player might interpret your environment and what factors govern this. Player interpretation can be a benefit or a hazard to environmental story telling, its difficult to Gage how a person will react or what conclusions they will draw from your scene. Take the ending scene of inception. Everyone is present with same information during the course of the film, but people often draw different conclusions from this ending.
Fig[1]
While its true the ending was designed to be ambiguous this does pose a problem for designers on how their work will be viewed. Gestalts Law of Closure (Sincero, 2017) can explain why one person may look at the ending of inception and see a good ending, while conversely another may see a bad ending. People will inevitably fill in any gaps the designer leaves either with imagination or past experience or both. I need to bear this in mind when designing my environments, you can put an amazing amount of detail into an environment but that its still no grantee the player will see things the way you want them to, so what I decide to make and show the player will have to guide them in a way that is predictable.
Continued in part 4
Continued in part 4
Bibliography
Smith, Harvey and Matthias Worch. “What Happened Here? Environmental Storytelling”. Gdcvault.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 28 Nov. 2016.
Availble at: http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1012647/What-Happened-Here-Environmental
Image References
Fig[1]
http://dazedimg.dazedgroup.netdna-cdn.com/1200/0-0-1677-1118/azure/dazed-prod/1120/2/1122563.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment