ADDING REALISM TO ABSTRACT SIMULATION GAMES

(1)

ADDING REALISM TO ABSTRACT

SIMULATION GAMES

A study about mechanics in a virtual aquarium

Bachelor Degree Project in

Media Arts, Aesthetics and Narration

30 ECTS

Spring term 2020 Isabel Sunebäck

Supervisor: Lars Kristensen

Examiner: Lissa Holloway-Attaway

(2)

Abstract

Many simulation games feature realistic mechanics that are highly representational (Adams 2014, p. 37) and closely recreate real activities or processes. Simulation games where the player keep artificial pets in their own environment (e.g. virtual aquarium) often feature abstract mechanics (Adams 2014, p. 37). The question was how players would experience an abstract simulation game where players keep artificial pets (fish), with realistic mechanics that are more representational. A simple game prototype was created based on existing games within the abstract life-simulation genre, which respondents playtested for 15 minutes. Data was collected through a short survey prior to each playtest, and semi-structured interviews after respondents had tested the artefact. Results indicated (among other things) that it was possible to translate many affordances of real aquariums and fish into mechanics. Whether they were perceived or not depended on the personality of the respondent, and did not have any correlation between knowledge about fish or gaming habits.

Keywords: simulation, mechanics, affordances, realism, artificial pets

(3)

1 Introduction

Several books on game design that describe game genres mostly discuss vehicle simulations (e.g. truck or flight simulations), or construction and management simulations (CMS), where the player can build and manage a theme park or similar, usually within economic constraints (Adams 2014, p. 75-76). Many of these games have mechanics that are based on realism and are highly representational (Adams 2014, p. 37), they closely recreate the activities or processes they are based on. Some games, many within the sub genre of life simulation, fall closer to abstract and have mechanics that are simplified (p. 37). These abstract simulation games are often available to play through social media sites, or on mobile devices, and several have a similar theme (fish keeping).

A risk of having simplified mechanics is that they eventually can feel repetitive, tedious, and not be entertaining enough to continue playing (this is of course something that can occur with representational mechanics too). As a player with experience of keeping real fish, the question arose what would happen if realistic mechanics were introduced to an abstract simulation game with the same theme. This could potentially give the player more to do, and the question was if the virtual aquarium could offer similar affordances as a real one.

The aim of this study was to see how a player experienced an abstract simulation game with realistic mechanics. Due to the broad nature of the research question attention was paid to whether realistic mechanics offer similar affordances to the process that is simulated, if the player would be able to perceive these affordances, and if it would be a difference between players who had knowledge about fish and those who did not. A simple game prototype was created and playtested. This artefact had similar appearance and mechanics to existing games within the abstract life simulation genre, as well as mechanics based on affordances of real fish and aquariums.

(6)

2 Background

Before looking at what real aquariums and fish offer that could be translated into mechanics it was important to research what affordances are, which types of affordances exist, and how these can be discovered and realized within a game. Schells taxonomy (2008) was used to understand mechanics, the categories that they can be divided into and how they work. This is followed by a look at the MDA framework (Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics) that can be used as a tool when designing games, by looking at game design from the perspective of both the game designer and the player (Hunicke, LeBlanc and Zubek 2004). Since the definition of game genres can vary between literature, Internet, distribution sites etc. it was also important to define the meaning of simulation games used for this research.

2.1 What are affordances?

The term affordance was created as an attempt to explain the “values” or “meaning” of things; “The affordances of the environments are what it offers animals, what it provides or furnishes, for good or ill.” (Gibson 1977, pp. 67-68). In The Theory of Affordances (1977) Gibson describes in depth what surfaces, substances and objects affords. Surfaces, depending on their layout and solidity, afford different kinds of locomotion. A flat, hard surface can afford walking or sitting on, water affords swimming, and an upward hill affords climbing.

Substances can afford ingestion, manipulation and, depending on the solidity, manufacture.

Objects, depending on the size and weight, can afford manipulation or tool using. A stone afford lifting, carrying and throwing (et al. 1977 pp. 68-75).

The affordance of something is relative to the observer and can vary between both species and development (Gibson & Pick 2000, p. 16). Grass affords feeding for an adult horse but not for a foal, water affords breathing for a fish but affords drowning for a human. The affordance is always there whether an animal or human is there to perceive it, and does not change if the need of the observer changes (Gibson 1977, p. p.78); water affords drinking whether the animal or human is thirsty or not. Gibson summarizes this with “The object offers what it does because it is what it is.” (1977, p. 78).

Among affordances of the environment, the ones provided by other animals and humans are described as the richest and most elaborate (1977, p. 75):

“These are, of course, detached objects with topologically closed surfaces but they change the shape of their surfaces while yet retaining the same fundamental shape. They move from place to place, changing the postures of their bodies, ingesting and emitting certain substances, and doing all this spontaneously, initiating their own movements, which is to say that their movements are animate. These bodies are subject to the laws of mechanics and yet not subject to the laws of mechanics… When touched they touch back, when struck they strike back, in short they interact with the observer and with one another. Behaviour affords behaviour…”

Gibson 1977, pp. 75-76

Siamese fighting fish, or Betta fish, (Betta splendens) is an aggressive species of fish. If they are kept solitary their behaviour is often relaxed, but housed with other individuals of their

(7)

fighting behaviour. A male housed with a female could under the right conditions afford sexual behaviour (1977, p. 76).

2.1.1 Games and affordances

Linderoth (2013) takes an ecological approach where he uses the concept of affordances, together with the theory of perception and actions to discuss games and game-play. It is important not only to learn to utilize affordances, but also “learn to discover them by cultivating our perception… “. This ability is called perceptual learning (2013, p. 5).

“The ecological approach... rejects the existence of mental schemata and the computer metaphor of an information-processing mind. Instead, a basic assumption of this theory is that learning and perception constitute a process of differentiating and making distinctions… we make sense of the world by becoming attuned to our environment, being able to make finer distinctions”

Linderoth 2013, p. 5

Perception is the process by which we perceive the environment (and its affordances), while actions refer to how we engage with parts of our environment: objects, events, places, animals, and other humans. Actions can be exploratory, taken to acquire knowledge about the affordances of a specific situation, or performatory, realizing the affordances that have already been discovered (2013, p. 5). Although performatory actions depend on knowledge that already has been acquired, they can sometimes lead to new knowledge that the player can act on (Gibson & Pick 2000, p. 21).

One example of exploratory actions that a player can perform in games are actions such as moving the in-game camera, which can reveal enemies, other players, objects that can be manipulated or interacted with, or revealing new areas of the game. The player can choose to act on the affordances that are revealed by doing performatory actions such as attacking enemies, or other players if it is a multiplayer shooter game (Linderoth 2013 p. 7). Many of the actions a player can perform have transformative aspects; they can change things so that new affordances appear. “Taking cover and positioning the avatar in multiplayer shooters is also about changing what affordances the situation has for the acting player and the other players” (2013, p. 7). Linderoth summarizes all of this with; “To engage in game-play is to perceive, act on, and transform the affordances that are related to a game system or to other players in a game.” (2013, p. 8).

2.2 A game consists of mechanics

Schell has proposed a taxonomy for game mechanics with six main categories: space, objects (attributes and states), actions, rules, skill and chance (2008, pp. 130-170). Depending on the type of game, many of these mechanics are used to varying extent, and some may even be excluded entirely.

Space can be defined as the various places that exist within a game and how these relate to each other (2008, p. 130). The modelling of the game space can vary; some spaces are abstract and exist entirely in the players mind, e.g. the information and answer to a question (2008, p. 134). Another type of space is continuous two-dimensional spaces that have a fixed length and width, and objects or characters can move around freely (2008, p. 133).

(8)

Objects are anything that can be seen or manipulated within a game and generally has one or more attributes (not to be confused with affordances). Attributes are information about objects, which can be static (the maximum size of an object) or have a current state (the current size of an object). Schell state that not all state changes are necessary to communicate to the player; “A good rule of thumb is that if two objects behave the same way, they should look the same. If they behave differently, they should look different.” (2008, p.

136).

Actions can be divided into two types. Operative actions are the type of actions that a player can take, e.g. moving or jumping with their character in a game. Resultant actions can be described as the way a player is using operative actions to achieve a goal, e.g. jumping to avoid getting hit by an opponent or to reach a better vantage point. This type of action often emerge naturally as the game is played (2008, pp. 140-141).

Rules are important because they define what the player can and cannot do. As Schell puts it;

“They define the space, the objects, the actions, the consequences of the actions, the constraints on the actions…in other words, they make possible all the game mechanics…and add the crucial thing that makes a game a game – goals.”

Schell 2011, p. 144

These rules can be divided into many categories such as operant (how a player can move or what they can do) and behavioural rules (how a player should act or interact with their opponent or teammates) (2008, pp. 145-146). Note that behavioural rules are not featured in the artefact. It is important that the rules of a game are clearly stated so the player understand what they are supposed to do, and that they feel that they can achieve the goal.

Schell describes skill as a mechanic that shifts focus onto the players (2008, p. 150). If the skill of a player is a good match to the difficulty of the game they are likely to feel enjoyment and experience flow (Csikszentmihalyi 2008, p. 72). If the skill of the player is too high the player will not feel challenged and likely get bored, if their skill is too low they are likely to feel anxiety (figure 1). To get back into the flow channel the player would either need to practice and raise their skill level, or lower the difficulty of the game (Schell 2008, p. 74).

(9)

Schell also divides skill into three main categories, physical (strength, dexterity), mental (memory, puzzle-solving) and social skills (reading an opponent, communicating with teammates) (Schell 2008, p. 151). Many games require a blend of different types of skills from the player (2008, p. 151).

Chance adds uncertainty to a game, which means that the player can be surprised, and is tied to the interactions of the other mechanics (2008, p. 153). When discussing chance Schell also talks about probability, and gives several examples of mathematical equations that can be used, but these are not relevant to this research and will therefore not be included here.

2.3 The MDA framework

The MDA (Mechanics-Dynamics-Aesthetics) framework was created in an attempt to better describe and understand the different components of game design (Hunicke, LeBlanc and Zubek 2004). The framework encourages the designer to look at game design both from perspective as the designer, but also from the perspective of the player, to be able to “observe how even small changes in one layer an cascade into others.” (Hunicke et. al. 2004).

Aesthetics is described as the desirable emotional responses evoked in the player. Instead of using vague words such as “fun” to describe the aesthetics the framework proposes a taxonomy (table 1), which is described by Brusk as “a vocabulary for talking about what type of player experience the game (intends to) offer” (2015, p. 48).

Table 1 Aesthetics

1. Sensation: Game as sense-pleasure 2. Fantasy: Game as make-believe 3. Narrative: Game as drama

4. Challenge: Game as obstacle course 5. Fellowship: Game as social framework 6. Discovery: Game as uncharted territory 7. Expression: Game as self-discovery 8. Submission: Game as pastime

Dynamic describe the behaviour of the mechanics based on the input of the player. “playing a game can be thought of as a form of communication between a player and a game system;

the player performs an action and the system responds to that action according to a set of rules.” (Brusk 2015, p. 48)

Mechanics: actions, behaviours and control mechanisms, are the rules of the game (Hunicke et. al. 2004), and determine how the game responds to particular actions (Brusk 2015, p. 48).

2.4 Defining simulation games

Game genres refer to the type of challenges that a game offers, independently of the content or setting (Adams 2014, p.67). This categorization used to be stricter with early games that ran on limited hardware, which could only offer one type of gameplay, but games released today often don’t belong to one genre. Instead it can be useful to divide games into smaller groups, or subgenres, to better understand what the gameplay will be like (2014, pp. 67-68).

(10)

The simulation genre is characterized by games that simulate, or recreate, real activities or processes (NEXT Generation 1996). Games within the genre often have core mechanics based on realism and are highly representational, but there are also many simulation games with mechanics that are simplified and fall closer to abstract (Adams 2014, p. 37). Many vehicle simulation games are representational. Games like Forza Motorsport 7 (Turn 10 Studios 2017) or Euro Truck Simulator 2 (SCS Software 2012) have photorealistic 3D graphics and feature real car models and brands. In Euro Truck Simulator (SCS Software 2012) players deliver cargo and drive on real road networks in Europe. Additionally players need to (depending on their settings) use blinkers, various types of lights, mirrors, shift gears etc. while driving, and even need to take the weight of the cargo into account when breaking.

Abstract simulation games still recreate real activities or processes but these mechanics are simplified, often the point of only requiring the player to click with the mouse button (or tap with a finger on mobile devices) to perform actions. Happy Aquarium (Crowdstar 2009) is a fish-simulation game where the player keeps fish in aquariums where the player can buy and sell fish, decorate their aquarium and play mini-games. To use tools (e.g. brush to clean, food bottle to feed fish) the player must simply click the icon on the bottom menu, and then click on the aquarium. A common denominator of abstract simulation games is that they are often available to play on the Internet through sites like Facebook or on mobile devices, while more representational simulation games are played on pc or console.

2.4.1 Life simulation games

Rollings and Adams describe artificial life games as a branch of computer research that

“involves modelling biological processes, often to simulate the life cycles of living things.”

(2003, p. 477). A subgenre of artificial life games is artificial pets, “simulated animals that live on your computer, either in an environment on their own or on your desktop” (2003, p.

478). Previous games with artificial pets have featured both real and made up animals that, depending on the device it is played on, have been more or less complex in their behaviours and needs.

The definition of abstract life-simulation games used in this research is: simulation games with simplified mechanics, where the player keeps artificial pets that live in their own environment. Since the artefact is based on existing games within this genre the pets used are fish that live in aquariums. While existing games has become more complex throughout the years (introducing options to buy equipment or sick fish requiring medicine) many of these mechanics are still simplified and have the potential to be developed further. The behaviour of the fish is also simplified, they are happy when they have been fed and the aquarium is clean, and sad if they are hungry and/or the aquarium is filthy. The player can also buy plants and decorations that they can move around to their liking.

The mechanics of the artefact (see part 4) was partially based on games that fit into the abstract life simulation genre, and mechanics that these games have in common with each other: e.g. feeding, cleaning, breeding, decorating the aquarium and more. The difference between the artefact and existing games is that these mechanics were developed further to be more realistic, and additional mechanics were based on affordances of real fish and aquariums.

(11)

3 Problem

The idea behind this project originated from experience playing an abstract game within the sub genre of life simulation. Based on Gibsons theory, affordances are what the environment offer the player (1977, pp. 67-68), who can gain knowledge about these through exploratory actions and act on these with perfomatory actions (Linderoth 2013, p. 5). The type of game that inspired the research (see part 4.1) had simplified mechanics, and although some affordances of the game resembled those of a real aquarium they were also simplified. These games are often easy to learn, with most exploratory actions performed as the player follows a tutorial that begins automatically the first time the game is played.

Gameplay included the ability to purchase fish and decorations (using either the earned game currency or premium currency), which they could place in their aquariums. By gathering experience and levelling up the player gained access to new species of fish and decorations. To gain experience and earn currency the player could complete tasks such as feed the fish, clean aquariums, gain achievements, breed and sell fish etc. Among these tasks only feeding and cleaning was mandatory and if not completed mechanics like breeding would be locked.

The problem with this game, and similar games within the sub genre, is that as the player progress in the game the time between rewards (new animals and objects) increases, as well as the cost. Additionally the mechanics, e.g. the tasks, that the player need to performs to progress in the game risk becoming repetitive, tedious and no longer entertaining enough for casual players to continue playing.

Adding mechanics based on realism could potentially give the player a wider variety of tasks to perform. The question is if mechanics based on realism offer similar affordances to the process that is simulated (in this case an aquarium)? Would the player be able to perceive these affordances? And would it be a difference between players who have knowledge about keeping fish in aquariums, to those who do not?

Question: How does the player experience an abstract simulation game with realistic mechanics?

3.1 Artefact

As previously discussed (part 2.3) mechanics are the actions, behaviours and control mechanisms that determine how the game responds to particular actions (Hunicke et. al.

2004, Brusk p. 48). Although some mechanics have visual representation within the game, e.g. the space where the game takes place or the attribute of an object such as colour, many mechanics are intangible. The player may interact with these mechanics in a way that they go unnoticed by the player.

To study realistic mechanics in an abstract simulation game a simple 2D game prototype was created that could be playtested. The artefact was initially supposed to have two versions that both could be playtested and compared to each other: one with realistic mechanics and one with abstract mechanics similar to existing games within the genre. However this had to be cut early on due to the deadline and only one artefact was created. This was followed up by semi-structured interviews with questions designed to gather information to answer the

(12)

research question, while allowing room for spontaneous discussion that could possibly provide interesting insight to the research (Østbye & Helge 2003, p. 103).

The deadline of the project and a limited knowledge of programming proved to be problems when working with the artefact. To solve the issue with limited knowledge another student at the University of Skövde wrote the code, and did so based on strict instructions about which mechanics to implement and how they should work when the game is played. Despite the limited time it was important that the finished artefact had enough content and mechanics that it would be playable for the duration of the playtesting and give the player enough to do to provide data during the subsequent interview.

The general design of the artefact, both visuals and mechanics, was based on existing games within the life simulation genre and with a similar theme (fish-keeping and aquariums). The benefits of a 2D game set in an aquarium is that a limited amount of graphics were needed to create an artefact that could appear more polished than a similar game with a different theme. Compare a fish themed game with a dog themed game. A fish moving in a 2D aquarium could use a single static sprite and still move somewhat believably to the player. If a dog in a similar 2D game used a single sprite when in motion it would be less believable than the fish, since the static legs of the dog sprite would look less natural compared to the static fins of the fish.

The prototype was created in GameMaker Studio 2 (YoYo Games 2017), a game engine for creating and developing 2D games. When a game developer creates a new project they need to choose between two different options that mainly affect how programming and importing assets are approached. These options are called Game Maker Language (GML) and Drag and Drop (DnD). Drag and Drop is described on their website as a way to create games without needing knowledge about programming. But since a student with previous experience of working with GML programmed the artefact, this method was used to allow for more control when writing code and scripts. The version of the game engine that was used did not include the option to export the artefact so it could be played on a mobile device, which is why the final artefact is playable only on PC.

All graphics for the artefact were painted using both Photoshop CC (Adobe 2017) and Clip Studio Paint (Celsys 2016) since certain tools behave differently in each program. Sketches, layer effects and colour adjustments were mostly done in Photoshop CC (Adobe 2017), while blocking in the silhouettes and painting was done in Clip Studio Paint (Celsys 2016). All of this was done using a Bamboo Fun medium (Wacom 2011) graphic tablet. While both art programs have tools to create animations they were only used for painting static sprites due to the time limit of the project.

3.2 Method

Both qualitative and quantitative methods where used to gather information for the research, with emphasis on the qualitative methods. Initially both playtesting and interviews for the Swedish respondents was intended to be held in person, but due to Covid-19 everything was moved online. The survey was created using Google forms and respondents received links to Google drive where they could download the artefact. The playtesting and semi-structured interviews were done using Zoom or Discord.

(13)

The goal of the survey was to gather easily comparable data such as age, gender, gaming habits, and prior knowledge about fish or fish keeping. This information was interesting since it allowed for quick comparisons between different demographics, and if knowledge about fish keeping seemed to have any correlation to how respondents played the game or perceived mechanics and affordances.

Although qualitative interview methods can be demanding to prepare, realize, and process, a semi-structured interview was chosen as method due to the flexibility when choosing follow- up questions (Østbye & Helge 2003, pp. 101-103). The interview had 13 questions that were prepared and defined beforehand to ensure that enough pertinent information would be gathered, while allowing for spontaneous discussion that could possibly provide interesting insight to the research (2003, p. 103).

Respondents were encouraged to tell what they were thinking when they playtested the artefact. This made it possible to get insight into their thought process during the playtest.

and later when reviewing the recordings after the interviews had ended. Both their voices and the computer screen were recorded. This allowed for the possibility to discover actions that the respondents may have done without consciously thinking about, or that they may not have remembered to mention during the interview.

3.2.1 Target group

The target group of the respondents that participated in this research was people above 18 years that could be divided into gamers and non-gamers, as well as people with and without prior experience or knowledge about fish keeping. Game students from the University of Skövde, and game developers, were excluded from the target group since they often pay more attention to how games are built and designed. Although it may be of interest to include this demographic if any further research is done, it was of more interest for the research to see how people without this knowledge responded to realistic mechanics in an abstract simulation game.

The target number of respondents was 10-12 people, with 50% being gamers, 50% non- gamers, 50% with knowledge about fish, and 50% without. 8 respondents participated in the study. 7 were recruited through social media (acquaintances) and 1 person was asked if they wanted to participate after a chance meeting.

(14)

4 Progression of the artefact

While the work process for the graphics of the artefact (see 4.3.7) was relatively linear, the process when working on the mechanic was more disorganized. The mechanics were not conceptualized or implemented in a certain order, and some of the more complex mechanics were sometimes discussed back and forth with the programmer. These discussions were important to ensure that there were no confusion on how the mechanics were intended to work, and were also helpful to solve minor problems that occurred. The language used in the artefact was English, since it was known beforehand that all respondents spoke this as their first or second language. This saved time since it would otherwise had been necessary to implement a way to switch languages in the artefact, something that would have required both more code and sprites to be created.

4.1 Existing games within the genre

Although all of the following games fall under the definition of abstract life simulation created for this research they are not equally abstract. The mechanics of the artefact were either based on mechanics in these games but developed further, or are similar by coincidence. Mechanics that were not featured in any of these games were based on affordances of real aquariums. Not all games are available to play today.

Figure 2 Aquarium with real species in Happy Aquarium

Happy Aquarium (Crowdstar 2009) was available to play through Facebook in a cartoony 2D graphic style. The player started playing with a 50-gallon aquarium that could hold 10 fish, and could buy larger aquariums as they progressed through the game (up to 125 gallon with 40 fish). To gain experience and earn treasure the player could feed fish, clean the aquarium, play mini games, sell fish, collect daily treasure and more. Fish that were starving or kept in a dirty aquarium would become sick and stop growing (if they were not fully adult), but not be able to die. Adult fish could not be bred until they were fed again and the aquarium cleaned. Players could decorate their aquariums with props, coral, plants, wallpapers and gravel. The game featured many real species of fish (and other animal

(15)

groups) as well as made up species (e.g. birthstone themed fish). There were no limits to which species could be kept together as long as the player had space in their aquarium.

Figure 3 Freshwater aquarium in Fish Farm 3.

Fish Farm 3 (BitBros Inc. 2017) is available to play through Facebook and mobile devices.

The game features photorealistic 3D graphics with a side view and top view (when decorating) available of the aquarium. The player begins with a freshwater aquarium that can hold 10 fish, and can buy larger and other types (freshwater, saltwater, jellyfish- and ocean aquarium) as they progress through the game. The player can buy, raise, breed and sell fish to gain experience and earn currency. It is also possible to play mini games to get free fish once a day. To care for, and be able to breed adult fish, the player need to feed them once every 12 hours and change water once a week, otherwise the fish will get sick and require medicine to be healthy again. The game also features a health value mechanic that can be increased by buying filters or certain decorations. If the health value becomes negative the fish will slowly get sick even if they are fed and the water is clean. Players can decorate their aquariums with objects, plants, coral, stones and wood. The game features real species of fish, jellyfish and whales, although some fish can be crossbred. Certain species had to be kept in suitable aquariums, e.g. whales in ocean aquariums.

Figure 4 Aquarium with common fish in Fish Tycoon 2

Fish Tycoon 2 (Last Day of Work 2018) was originally available to play on mobile devices but is also available to play on PC and Mac since May 2018. The game features semi realistic

(16)

2D graphics. The player begins with one aquarium that can hold up to 21 fish, and a shop aquarium where they can put fish they wish to sell. Additional aquariums can be bought as the player progress, each with a limit of 21 fish. The player can earn currency by breeding fish and selling in the shop aquarium, and can buy decorations to decorate their aquariums. The game features imaginary species of fish that can be crossbred to discover new species, and divide these into three categories: common, uncommon and rare. Common fish are hardy and easy for the player to raise and keep, while rare fish require that the player has bought equipment (aeration system, temperature regulator, power filter) to keep them alive. It is also possible to invest in various types of research to make it easier to keep rare fish alive.

Fish can lose health if the environment is unsuitable (the aquarium lack proper equipment), they are under- or overfed, sick, etc. and can die unless the player uses an item to boost their health. The player can pause the game between playing to avoid the loss of fish.

Mechanics that these games have in common with each other are feeding, cleaning, breeding, the ability to buy multiple aquariums, growth, health/illness, selling fish, and the ability for players to decorate their aquariums. Of these mechanics only the ability to buy multiple aquariums and breeding was cut from the artefact, and this only because of the time limit.

Similar to Fish Tycoon 2 (2018) the artefact also features equipment (pump with filter and heater), however this similarity was coincidental as these mechanics were included based on real aquariums prior to the game being used as an example for the abstract life simulation genre.

4.2 Translating affordances to mechanics

Apart from including mechanics from existing games it was important to look at what real aquariums afford and see which affordances could be pertinent to translate into mechanics.

The affordances are different for the fish and the human, and can be both positive and negative (Gibson 1977, pp. 71, 78). It is important to acknowledge that affordances can vary between aquariums depending on their set-up and how they are maintained. The following tables contain both positive and negative affordances and what they are afforded by.

Table 2 Affordances to the fish

Type Positive Negative

Water Locomotion, breathing, warmth Poisoning, hypothermia, illness, stress Plants Feeding, resting, hiding, enrichment

Decorations Resting, hiding, enrichment

Sand Resting, feeding, enrichment Feeding, illness

Fish Social, sexual, Social, aggression

Table 3 Affordances to the human

Type Positive

Plants Carrying, manipulating, throwing Decorations Carrying, manipulating, throwing Fish Social, enrichment

(17)

Most affordances perceived by the fish have the potential to be translated into game mechanics; some already have been in existing games (e.g. the mechanics summarized at the end of part 4.1, p. 12). Some affordances perceived by the human have also been implemented in existing games; players can buy plants and decorations for their plants and move them around to their liking. When translating affordances to mechanics they often need to be simplified since many, especially behavioural, affordances are complex (e.g. when fish react to or interact with the environment or other fish). The difference between the artefact and existing games is that many mechanics they have in common were developed further when implemented in the artefact. E.g. instead of the aquarium getting filthy after a set amount of time the number of fish, plants and presence/absence of filter affect how long it takes for the aquarium to get filthy (see part 4.3.2). Of the affordances in Table 2 (p. 12) only four were excluded from the fish of the artefact: resting, hiding, enrichment and sexual.

These were mainly excluded due to the limited time that could be spent working on the artefact since they would have required a lot of additional coding as well as more and complex sprites. The affordances in Table 3 that were brought into the artefact were the ability to carry and manipulate plants and objects. Decorating is something that can be a big part of gameplay in existing games, as well as something that people who own real aquariums can spend a lot of time on if they desire. Since the fish of the artefact were designed to behave similar to their real life counterparts it is possible that some of the respondents could experience enrichment or social affordances to some degree.

Initially it seemed like games within the abstract life simulation genre lacked permanent consequences to negative affordances entirely. In Happy Aquarium (Crowdstar 2009) fish became unhappy if not fed or if the aquarium is filthy, but never die. In Fish Farm 3 (BitBros Inc. 2017) negative consequences are pushed slightly further and fish can become sick, and will stay so until treated with medicine. While negative affordances were in place some mechanics (e.g. breeding) would become unavailable to the player, and subsequently available again when the negative affordances were removed. Of the games within the genre Fish Tycoon 2 (Last Day of Work 2018) was the most realistic in terms of negative affordances. If the player fail to provide proper equipment (depending on the needs of the fish), overfeed, underfeed, or fail to treat sick fish, they will die. Fish dying could potentially have been an issue if players started playing less regularly, or stopped entirely for a period of time, and returned to find all their fish dead. To solve this problem Fish Tycoon 2 (Last Day of Work 2018) included the option for players to manually pause the games in the settings to stop time from passing when not actively playing the game.

Although the artefact also has a death mechanic this did not cause any issues like the one speculated above. Since the artefact was created with the purpose of answering the research question, and was only tested once by each respondent, it was not possible to save the game or for time to pass when not actively played. If the artefact had been developed further or a finished game it might have required a solution similar to Fish Tycoon 2 (Last Day of Work 2018).

(18)

4.3 Mechanics of the artefact

As discussed in part 4.1 the mechanics that were implemented in the artefact were based on mechanics in existing games within the abstract life simulation genre, as well as affordances of real fish and aquarium. When working with these mechanics it was important to consider them both from the perspective as game designer and player, following the MDA framework (Hunicke, LeBlanc and Zubek 2004). This was to ensure that the mechanics that were implemented had the desired effects, since a poorly designed artefact could lead to distorted results. The desired aesthetics of the artefact was that respondents would perceive it as a game belonging to the same genre as existing abstract life-simulation games (but with realistic mechanics), and that the aquarium and fish would feel similar to their real life counterparts.

Before instructions were handed over to the programmer on which mechanics to implement and how they should work, it was important to prioritize those that were most important both to the research and to have playable artefact. Several mechanics were cut due to the time limit since they would have been too complex to code (and/or needed too many sprites) within the deadline. Others were not necessary (e.g. experience, economy) since respondents only playtested the artefact once and had limited time when doing so. Some mechanics that were implemented could potentially be developed further if the artefact was made into a finished game, either for future research or entertainment (see part 7.3).

The following pages describe the mechanics that were implemented in the artefact, thoughts behind some that were excluded, and the graphics that were created. The hopes when designing these mechanics were that respondents would view the artefact as a game within the life simulation genre, with mechanics that were dynamic and felt realistic.

4.3.1 Aquarium

The aquarium is the space where all of the gameplay takes place, and is a continuous two- dimensional space that has a fixed length and width (Schell 2011, p. 133). Any fish put in the aquarium can move around freely in both the X and Y-axis. The artefact feature an aquarium that represents the dimensions of 81 x 36 x 50 cm (125 litres) and the adult fish are to scale.

The sole indicator of aquarium sizes in existing games is a limit to the number of fish that can be kept in an aquarium. This limit cannot be exceeded and before the player buys more fish they need to buy a larger aquarium with a higher limit, or sell some of the fish they already have. Like a real aquarium the artefact does not have a set limit to the number of the fish that the player can own. The player can buy as many fish as they want but the number and species of fish affects other mechanics in the game e.g. waste (see part 4.3.4) and social (see part 4.3.7.1). This allows further room for experimentation depending on the playstyle of the respondents.

The player cannot buy additional aquariums or choose the size of the aquarium in the artefact since this had to be cut due to the time limitations. It had been desirable to implement this in the artefact since real fish require different aquarium sizes depending on their species and age. If the player could have chosen the size of the aquarium it would have allowed them to experiment with the species and number of fish in the aquarium. It is also a mechanic present in all of the games discussed (see part 4.1) with potential to develop further.

(19)

4.3.2 Water quality and filter

Unlike existing games where water becomes dirty after a period of time, requiring the player to clean it at least once a week (often more), the artefact has a more dynamic waste mechanic. The aquarium is clean at the beginning of the game; equipment (filter), fish and plants will affect the water quality of the artefact to simulate the nitrous cycle where waste products is transformed to nitrate (Ekström 2013, p. 12).

Fish are programmed to add a value representing waste that varies depending on the age and species of the fish. This means that the number, age and species can affect the rate of which waste increases. To counteract the effect of the waste produced by fish the player can buy a pump with filter from the equipment tab of the shop. The filter is turned off by default when first bought, but can be toggled on by right clicking with the mouse button to reveal a menu containing the on/off button (similar/identical to the heater). The filter mechanic could have been developed further so that the player would need to clean it, or discard it and buy a new one after a period of time. This is however something that is rarely done in a real aquarium (depending on the type of filter of course), and was therefore not prioritized. If the artefact had been a full game and the more complex filter mechanic implemented it would be affected by other mechanics; it would counteract the waste produced by fish, but the time taken before it would need to be cleaned or exchanged would vary depending on the fish and plants in the aquarium.

Plants can also be used to counteract the waste produced by fish since they subtract the value of waste slightly, but not to the same extent as the filter. This means that the aquarium can get filthy at different rates depending on the actions of the player (e.g. what fish they buy and how they decorate the aquarium). It also means that the player may not even need a filter or even clean the aquarium if they have enough plants and keep a low number of fish or smaller species.

The game visually communicates to the player by using sprites when the waste reaches a certain value where it is considered filthy. These sprites can be divided into two categories:

algae and water. The opacity of both sprites will slowly increase as long as the player does not take any actions to clean the aquarium (figure 6). The water sprite will return to 0%

opacity when the player cleans the aquarium using the water change button at the bottom of the screen (figure 5). If the algae sprite is less than 100% at this point it will either stay at the current opacity until the water gets filthy enough for the opacity to start increasing again, or until the player uses the algae scrape to remove it. If the water is filthy for a prolonged time the fish will get sick and (if the player remains inactive) can die, similar to Fish Tycoon 2 (Last Day of Work 2018) and Fish Farm 3 (BitBros Inc. 2017) although the latter did not seem to have a death mechanic.

(20)

Figure 5 Clean aquarium with healthy fish.

Figure 6 Aquarium with visible algae and filthy water. All red-mouth tetras floating at the top of the aquarium have died from the poor conditions.

4.3.3 Temperature

Although the temperature is not unique for the artefact the mechanic differs from Fish Tycoon 2 (Last Day of Work 2018) by the ability to control the temperature of the aquarium.

The temperature is set to 15°C by default, which is too low for most species of fish. To control the temperature the player can buy a heater from the equipment tab of the shop. It will be turned off by default when bought, but the player can turn it on by right clicking the heater with the mouse button and toggle the on/off button, then set the desired temperature (see appendix A). When the heater is turned on it will automatically be set at 18°C (its lowest setting), and can be raised to 34°C at most (max setting). If the heater is turned off again the temperature will slowly return to its default value at 15°C. If the player wish to see the temperature at all times without right clicking the heater they can buy a thermometer in the shop. The thermometer will automatically be placed on the right side of the aquarium and will display the current temperature.

4.3.4 Feeding

Food can be bought in the food tab of the shop. To feed fish the player must access the food

(21)

where the player can select the type of food they want to give depending on the dietary need of the fish. After selecting the type of food the mouse cursor will be replaced by a food container (varying in appearance depending on the type of food), and the player can left click the mouse button to drop it into the aquarium.

There are 4 types of fish food available in the game: flakes, Betta pellets, algae tablets and bloodworms. All fish pages in the shop included short information about their diet (e.g if they are omnivorous or carnivorous), and the food pages contained short descriptions that slightly hinted which type of fish they could be fed to. If fish are fed the wrong type of food for a longer period of time, whether intentionally or not, they will loose a little health each time and eventually get sick. When food was dropped into the aquarium it would either float (flakes) or sink (Betta pellets, algae tablets and bloodworms). The number of food that was dropped into the aquarium, when the player clicked on the left mouse button, was slightly randomized in all cases apart from the algae tablets. Due to their size, compared to the other types of food, a single algae tablet would be dropped every time the player left clicked.

When fish are hungry they will be attracted to the food that is closest to them, meaning that if the player had more than one fish they could not control which fish ate what food when providing different types of food at the same time. The only exception to this is the algae tablets that (due to issues that arose when coding) sink to the bottom before fish could eat them. If fish are provided more food than they need the excess food will stay in the aquarium between 90-120 seconds, or until the player clean the water with the water change button.

4.3.5 Plants and decorations

The player can buy plants and stones to decorate their aquarium, and there are 4 types of each. These can be moved in both the X and Y-axis by holding down the left mouse button on the sprite. If the sprite is moved higher than the sand on the bottom of the aquarium it will fall down to the sand when the button is released. Right clicking with the mouse button on a plant or decoration will reveal a menu that allow the player to increase and decrease the size of the sprite, and flip it horizontally. This gives the player more options when decorating their aquarium despite the limited number of plants and decorations (see figure 7 and 8).

This mechanic was designed almost like a combination of the object mechanics in two of the existing games by coincidence. In Fish Tycoon 2 (Last Day of Work 2018) players can tap on each decoration and choose between sizes small, medium and large. In Fish Farm 3 (BitBros Inc. 2017) players can rotate 3D decorations in all directions.

(22)

Figure 7 An aquarium with plants and decorations in varying sizes.

Figure 8 An aquarium with plants and decorations of default sizes.

4.3.6 Fish

Due to the complex nature of behaviour the mechanics and dynamics of the fish were carefully chosen. They needed to be simple enough that they could be coded before the deadline of the project, and respond to the players’ actions and their environment in a way that felt as realistic as possible. To make the following parts easier to read fish mechanics have been divided into three sub headers.

4.3.6.1 General mechanics

There are four species of fish (see appendix A) in the artefact and each has environmental and social needs (see part 4.3.6.2) based on their real life counterpart. The needs are correct temperature, being fed and with correct type of food, clean water and correct social environment. If these needs are met the fish will thrive and grow, if not they get sick and eventually die unless the player takes action.

When buying fish they will automatically appear in the aquarium. Newly bought fish begin at 50% of their adult size and the growth speed depend on the size of the species, e.g. larger species take longer time to grow than smaller. If environmental needs remain unfulfilled for a period of time the fish will stop growing, if the player later fulfils the needs the growth will

(23)

different sprites for the male and female, and with Bettas some mechanics have different values between the sexes.

The fish are programmed to move in both the X and Y-axis. The head of the sprite is always pointed in the direction of the movement to make it look natural. If the fish moves in the X and Y-axis at the same time the angle of the sprite will be tilted. When the fish changes direction from left to right, or the opposite, the game engine flips the sprite horizontally. The movement of the fish is randomized by using a timer that can be anything between 3 to 10,3 seconds. Each time it reaches 0 the direction and speed of the movement is randomized. To add further realism to the fish their movements are restricted to invisible hit boxes of various sizes depending on the species. Boxes can cover the top, middle, bottom or the whole of the aquarium. Restricting the area where fish can move may not be obvious to casual players that have no experience with real fish. It could however attract the attention of players with knowledge of fish if they see species that typically inhabit certain levels of the aquarium do the same in the artefact.

4.3.6.2 Social mechanics

Fish of the artefact have three types of social mechanics that decide how each species reacts to the presence or absence of other individuals of its species. Schooling fish are social and need a certain number of individuals of their own species in the same aquarium. Neutral fish do not react to the present or absence of other individuals. The single solitary fish of the artefact does not only react negatively to the presence of other individuals of the same species. Housing certain species together, or multiple individuals of solitary fish, can trigger the aggression mechanic. The fish are programmed with a timer that goes off every 5 seconds, each time it reaches 0 the fish have a 50% chance to attack any target individuals (of either the same or another species) within a certain range. When an aggressive fish attacks another individual it will slightly decrease its health, or kill the target individual if its health is low enough.

The breeding mechanic had to be cut due to the time limit of the project. If it had been included in the artefact it would have required the needs of the fish to be fulfilled for a certain amount of time before becoming available to the player, and subsequently become unavailable again if needs remained unfulfilled long enough for negative effects to take place (similar to existing games). This mechanic has the potential to be complex and give the player more to do, add an additional challenge to the game, and also be rewarding. To breed fish the player would need at least one male and female (depending on species) and these could either be moved to a separate aquarium or remain in the one they are currently housed in. To make the breeding realistic fish could lay eggs in the same way their real life counterpart would (e.g. Bettas would create a bubble nest). Moving the fish to a separate aquarium could make it easier to breed them and increase the success rate off eggs hatching and fry surviving (by avoiding predation of other fish). Fish could also be programmed to have a small but random chance at laying eggs on their own if the player fulfils their needs for a prolonged period of time.

4.3.6.3 Health, illness and death

All fish were given a value for their health, which varied depending on the species and age of the individual. This value will slowly decrease if the need of the fish is not met, e.g. it is hungry, the water is filthy, and/or if it is attacked. If the fish is exposed to multiple negative effects they will stack and the health decreases at a higher rate. If the needs are met again,

(24)

(e.g. the fish is fed) the value will slowly increase until it reaches its original value. However if needs remain unfulfilled the value will continue to decrease until it reaches 0 and the fish dies.

Figure 9 Original sprite to the left in comparison to a desaturated sprite to the right.

If the health value of the fish is low enough to be considered unhealthy (<80%) it is visually communicated to the player by replacing the original, colourful, sprite with a desaturated sprite (figure 9). If the negative effects are removed and the value reaches >80% the desaturated sprite will be replaced by the original sprite. To simulate the difference between hardy and sensitive species each species had a different health value (can be compared to Fish Tycoon 2 (Last Day of Work 2018) where rare fish are more difficult to keep alive compared to common). If fish are exposed to negative effects sensitive fish have a higher risk of dying and do so more quickly than hardier species.

While the death mechanic is not unique to the artefact it was added based on real affordances after receiving feedback that the (now) older iteration of the artefact could be more realistic. This hopefully adds another challenge to the player and gives more variety to the aesthetics (MDA) of the artefact, making the fish feel even more real. Since respondents only playtested the artefact once for a limited time the fish were not coded to be able die of old age. This could potentially have been introduced if the artefact was developed further, or if respondents had been able to play the artefact several times or during a longer session.

4.3.7 Graphics of the artefact

Since most of the time working on the artefact was spent figuring out which affordances could be translated to mechanics and how these would work it was important to be efficient when working on the graphics. The sprites of the artefact needed to look good enough that they would not distract from the mechanics, and take as little time as possible to paint.

Sprites were painted in a semi realistic style in hopes that they would compliment the realistic mechanics, and saturated colours reference the colour schemes of existing games within the abstract life simulation genre.

To save time several steps that are otherwise common when creating graphics or art for games were cut. Researching graphic styles and creating style guides is usually an important process, especially when several artists are working together and all sprites must be coherent. However since one person created the graphics of the artefact this step could be cut. Instead the first step was to find suitable photo references of fish, plants and objects so

(25)

they could be portrayed accurately enough that they would not break the immersion of a player with knowledge about these.

Figure 10 Rough sketch, silhouette and rendered sprite of the Betta fish.

All sprites were digitally painted in Photoshop CC (Adobe 2017) and Clip Studio Paint (Celsys 2016) to utilize the strengths of each program, and the process was broken down into three steps: rough sketch, silhouette and rendering. The fish sprites were drawn in a neutral pose so they would look as good as possible from every angle and regardless of how quickly the fish moved when the artefact was played. Originally only 5 sprites were created for the fish (one for each species and both genders of Betta fish) but colour variations were later added to the Betta fish and Fantail Goldfish, since these species often come in many colours and it gave more variety to the player. Creating these colour variations did not delay the progress of the artefact since they were mostly done using layer effects to change the hue and saturation of the fish. It was important that the plants and rocks that respondents could buy to decorate their aquarium looked good regardless of size, where they were placed in the aquarium, or whether they were flipped or not. This resulted in silhouettes that generally could fit within a square or rectangle, with no odd leaves or shapes sticking out.

Exporting the sprites in the correct format and importing them into the game engine took a lot of time. To make the process as efficient as possible most of the sprites were finished before they were exported and imported en masse.

4.3.7.1 Designing the user interface

Due to the limited time that respondents had when playtesting the artefact it was important that menus were intuitive and easy to navigate. A poorly designed menu would not only waste playtime, but could also distract the participants from the mechanics when playing the game. Most menu buttons were placed at the bottom of the aquarium, and the sprites of the buttons were shaped as objects symbolising the mechanic they would activate (Figure 11).

Figure 11 Menu buttons from left to right: food, algae scrape, mood, water change, edit mode (affects what the player can right click), store.

Menu buttons for managing fish, equipment and plants were hidden at default to avoid visual clutter. To interact with these objects the player needed to right click with the mouse button, and depending on the object different menu buttons would appear (see appendix A).

To hide the menu the player could either click anywhere in the aquarium or on another

(26)

object. To interact with plants or decorations the player could click and hold the left mouse button to move the object in the X or Y-axis, or right click with the mouse to make the object menu appear to interact with it further. All menus for fish, plants and equipment included a

“sell” button so the player could remove them if they were no longer desired, or accidentally bought. If the player bought a lot of plants, fish and/or decorations it could sometimes be difficult to right click on the correct sprite. To solve this problem the edit buttons were added, which the player can toggle to control which object they can right click.

4.3.8 Summary of mechanics

The finished artefact was a playable fish simulation game with semi-realistic 2D graphics.

Although the artefact is very polished for a simple game demo the hopes were that the graphics would complement the realistic mechanics, and be recognizable for respondents who had played games within the abstract life simulation genre. Of the mechanics that were originally meant to be included only two were cut entirely, and this during the early stages of the artefact. The first mechanic to be cut was an economy mechanic that would have had no real function apart from making the artefact seem more complex to the player. Respondents would have spent currency when buying fish etc. and earned money when selling them, but would started playing with a high enough sum that they would not easily run out.

The artefact had a couple of bugs that appeared both prior to- and during playtesting. A known bug was that fish would sometimes get stuck in place while repeatedly changing direction (up and down or left to right) when being fed. Despite the programmer spending some time on trying to solve it he did not find the cause to this bug. Since it was not game breaking and could resolve itself fairly quickly it was left in the artefact. Other bugs appeared during playtesting; the first respondent who participated could not buy the thermometer, but this proved to be easy to solve and none of the other respondents encountered this bug. The final two respondents encountered a bug where fish would freeze completely (even when not being fed) and sometimes stay frozen for several minutes. It seemed like this bug could have been related to the aggression mechanic since most of the fish that froze were Bettas, but it was never troubleshot since the last to playtesting sessions were held after each other.

(27)

5 Implementation

5.1 Pilot Study

Zoom and discord meetings with respondents were planned to be held a week after the artefact was supposed to be finished, but due to delays the artefact was completed a couple of days prior to the meeting with the first respondent. Since the programmer agreed to participate in the pilot study, and knew how the artefact worked and would behaved when played, the pilot study could be held despite the artefact not being finished.

5.2 Progression

The main focus of the pilot study was to ensure that the survey- and interview questions were well formulated and would result in pertinent data that could answer the research question. The original interview questions were the following:

1. What are your thoughts about the game?

2. What did you like about the game?

3. What did you dislike bout the game?

4. Did you notice any similarities to real aquariums and fish?

5. Were there any differences between real aquariums and fish that stood out to you?

6. What are your thoughts about this game in comparison to other fish-simulation games (or similar games)?

7. Did you play the game according to how you perceived it should be played, or did you test the boundaries of what you could or couldn’t do within the game?

8. Did you feel like you had enough to do when playing the games for 15 minutes?

9. Did you consider the game as realistic, unrealistic or something in-between?

Why?

10. Is there something you would want added or removed to the game if you got to play it again (apart from more species of fish, plants and objects)? Why?

11. How would you describe this game if you told a friend about it?

12. Could you imagine playing this game again if it was a fully developed game?

Why/why not?

13. Would you recommend this game to others if it were a full game? Why/why not?

These questions were based on the research question and discussion questions in part 3, and were also designed to complement each other. The pilot test showed that overall these questions were well designed and the biggest changes that were made were to question 2, 3, 6 and 10. Since question 1 ask what the respondents thoughts are about the artefact, question 2 and 3 were only asked as follow up questions if respondents had not already mentioned what they liked or disliked about the artefact. Question 10 was divided into two questions:

one that asked if there is anything respondents want removed to the artefact, and if there is anything they want added to the artefact. This division was done since it seemed like it could be difficult to remember the whole question (the programmer had to be reminded what the question was during the pilot study). Since question 6 asked respondents what they thought about the artefact in comparison to other fish-simulation games, and it was probable that not all respondents had played any games within the genre, it was given an alternative question that could be asked to those who had not played fish-simulation games. Apart from these

(28)

changes some of the questions were moved around to give the interview better flow. The questions were also translated to Swedish. The final interview questions can be found in appendix C.

Minor revisions were also made to the survey after the pilot study. The questions asking whether respondents had played fish-simulation games before, and which games they had played, were combined into one multiple-choice question. This question gave respondents the option to choose “No”, and add other games if they had played any that were not listed among the options. A statement about Betta fish (see part 6.1.1.1) was also added as a way to whether respondents had knowledge about fish even if they had never owned fish, or if those who had experience with fish may have outdated knowledge. This is of course something that is difficult to tell from a single survey question alone, but could potentially give further insight to how respondents react when playing the artefact and their replies to the interview questions.

ADDING REALISM TO ABSTRACT SIMULATION GAMES