Games are about the exploration of space. In both the physical sense of exploring a world, and in the abstract sense of exploring the space of possibility of a game, the range of mechanics available and their relationships with each other.
Within this overall game world there are two types of territory. The first type is the most common, this is functional territory; the location in the game that must exist in order for the game to progress. The second type of territory is found less often, in some games it doesn’t exist. This is logical territory; areas that do no necessarily have a specific function but that exists simply because it makes sense that they should, it is logical that such spaces exist.
Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is made up almost exclusively of functional territory. No matter where you go there is always something happening, some purpose to the location, a function to perform. You are funneled from through functional territory with little scope for exploration beyond a limited number of rooms outside the critical path.
Thief: The Dark Project on the other hand is a title predominately made up of logical territory. There are some locations that must be visited, but these are few; the starting point of the level, and any the location of mission critical objects or characters. Levels in The Dark Project are build to represent real, or at least plausible locations, they are castles with kitchens, bedrooms and bathrooms, some of which may contain loot to steal or non-player characters to interact with but very few of which are critical to completion of the game.
"I once caught a Burrick this small!"
Logical territory in the physical game world is there to encourage exploration, they do not serve a purpose in terms of completing the game but can be used to provide context for the game world and it’s characters. Consider the many mise-en-scène moments in BioShock they generally don’t occur in areas you are required to visit but in areas off the beaten track, areas who existence nevertheless make sense in the context of the world, storage closets, public toilets.
Function and Logical territory also exists in the abstract world of game mechanics. Function territory in this sense is the game mechanics that are required to actually play the game on a basic level. Logical territory is those mechanics that are secondary to the core gameplay; they exist to serve verisimilitude or player self expression, or are derived from logical interactions of functional mechanics; they are not vital to the completion of the game.
Quake 3 Arena is a game whose mechanics are full of functional territory. Movement controls are limited to those that have a direct impact on the game and each weapon has only one function. The exception to this being the ability to Rocket or Grenade Jump (Using the concussive force from an explosion to increase your natural jumping height.) This is a logical mechanic, not in the sense that it actually makes any rational sense in terms of actual explosions, but in that it is a mechanic developed from the logical mechanics of “Rockets cause Explosions”, and “Explosions impact movement forces upon Player Characters”.
Again The Dark Project is an example of a game that makes heavy use of logical territory in it’s game mechanics. The mechanics of movement, use of the bow, and basic interaction with objects in the world all exist in the functional territory of the game. Without such basic skills it would be impossible to progress. Beyond these functional mechanics there are a range of mechanics that exist because they make sense in terms of the world fiction (Lockpicking) or because they are based off logical interactions between other mechanics in the world (Water Arrows used to clean blood stains off the floor).
The extent to which games make use of logical territory is an indication of the extent to which the games allow for emergent gameplay. Gameplay that exists not because of it’s function because it is a logical extension of preexisting mechanics in the game world.
Each game has a different distribution of functional territory to logical territory, and sometimes this distribution can change over time. Locations that initially only existed to serve the game fiction can later take on specific purposes in the game. This can be seen in Far Cry 2 where the numerous towns and buildings throughout the world can switch between logical and functional territory depending on the current mission.
A focus on functional territory, in both the physical and abstract game worlds, leads to titles that are often described as “linear”. There is little room for exploration of any kind. However such titles are often far more focused. When each location mechanic is included for a specific reason they can be tuned to provide desired emotional and psychological response; the intense action of Modern Warfare or the skill focused purity of a Quake 3 Arena deathmatch game.
A focus on logical territory leads to more “open-world” or “free-form” titles where there is a lot of scope for exploration and player expression. The more logical territory that exists the more redundancy is present and thus the more likely you are to have a different exploratory experience to somebody else. The downside of such titles is that often they can’t provide the specific level of emotional of psychological impact that more prescribed functional territory can. The very fact players can “take them or leave them” means designers have little control of the exact circumstances by which you encounter and explore this logical territory.
Tags: BioShock, Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Far Cry 2, Game Criticism, Game Design, Game Theory, Level Design, Quake III Arena, Thief: The Dark Project
November 7, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Interesting post, Justin. As I was reading it I tried to figure out which kind of games I like more, but I’m not sure if I’ve decided. I think for me it depends more on the level of detail. I’m not a fan of space that isn’t “functional” in some way, so an empty storage closet, for example, is frustrating, but if it has something of interest inside, like a diary or note scrawled on the wall, that’s great.
So I guess I’m not a fan of logic for logic’s sake, and would prefer all logical space to be functional as well. I’m not impressed by a bathroom in a game without function because if it wasn’t there, I wouldn’t be thinking, “Where do these guys go to the bathroom?”
November 7, 2008 at 6:13 pm
S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Shadow Of Chernobyl is a good example of a game with a lot of logical territory, there are entire buildings that really serve no function. Because of that though you often never know what to expect and so can be kept constantly on edge, as the purpose of a location (Functional or Logical) will often be unknown. The pace of such games is generally slower and more explorative. They can feel like a sprawling novel full of sub plots and bit part characters.
More linear games are over more immediately engaging as everything is right there and you are constantly being entertained. I’ll can sit down with Heavenly Sword, or such, and blitz through it nonstop as the pace is so much faster and more filmatic.
All the games I’ve brought up I’ve really enjoyed though at different times and for different reasons.
I find myself drawn to different games at different times, I’ll often sink hours into titles with a greater focus on logical territory such as Shadow of Chernobyl or Far Cry 2 because there is so much scope for self expression.
November 7, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I’m finding this an aspect I love of Fallout 3, but which I did not initially embrace. There are spots you can go to for which you may not yet have a quest, or never will, but which are fun to explore nonetheless. These entire areas are optional, some not even offering a large enough reward for the time expenditure, but I find myself enthralled with these spaces nonetheless.
I suppose unlike Travis, I enjoy these spaces much more versus the more linear driven, go here, do that, then go here, do this, and have no room for exploration motifs.
November 7, 2008 at 7:43 pm
In line with Travis’ comment, game spaces that have been created without any functional use are also drains on game dev resources. If they have logical use that can then serve functional use (via emergent gameplay), they can be useful, but a row of empty lockers all carefully modeled with no actual use or storytelling function is just a waste of dev time, money and data footprint.
November 8, 2008 at 2:20 am
Instancing can cut down on a number of the development costs associated with repeated assets, You only need to create a single locker model and resuse it.
Shadow of Chernobyl is a good example of a game that does include rows of empty lockers, and networks of entirely empty rooms. The lost in functionality is, I feel, made up for in the increase in atmosphere.
November 8, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Interesting post. I agree, with COD4 you’re always busy with some task. No need to really go out & explore I guess.
November 9, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Very interesting post. I stumbled upon your blog through Corvus (how else?!) and intend to now keep reading it.
I found an intriguing statement by Martin Hollis in regards to GoldenEye on this very issue of necessary/functionless space: “There are rooms with no direct relevance to the level. There are multiple routes across the level. This is an anti-game design approach, frankly. It is inefficient because much of the level is unnecessary to the gameplay. But it contributes to a greater sense of freedom, and also realism.” I blogged about this in regards to the game space of the game, but I think it has an interesting relevance to this conversation. I find myself agreeing with Hollis, and those in this discussion who have suggested that non-functional spaces lend much to atmosphere. Really, then, these spaces are in fact functional: they are atmospheric spaces.
March 12, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I found that the games that fall on my nerves are games that are mostly functional and then have some territory that I guess are meant to be “logical” but fail at it by being so damned uninteresting. I think that happens when a game fails to build an interesting story with a living breathing world. I have those corridor shooters with empty rooms blocked by a desk as an example. The designers decide to put “logical” rooms to recreate some kind of envrionment, but as they’re not “functional” they just put some half-assed excuse for you to not go in there (“sorry, you’re a Navy Seal but a card box is blocking your way so you can’t go in”).
COD4 succeeds in its level design and world creation because there’s always something to do and the pace is so damn perfect. Plus the environments are original (Pripyat) and the storytelling and the incredibly goodvoice acting supports the whole thing. Plus you have instances like the choppe or the plane that adds variety to all that.
December 19, 2009 at 2:19 am
In narratology, the distinction you draw is know as the distinction between functions and “completants”. At it’s core a narrative structure is something that can be stretched and shrinked alike. You can shrink it by only using the functions. You can stretch it (endlessly) by filling the “space” between two functions with as many fillers you like.
You describe the logical space as something that does not really carry further the plot, but rather is about describing characters etc in a broader sense. Again that is what narratology says about completants or fillers: That these are not about the core functions (action that move forward the plot), but that they give us a broader picture about those who carry out those act.
A game/story would collapse if you remove a function, because the gap that the removal of the function creates makes it impossible to maintain the narrative logic that is needed for a meaningful experience. This is not the case for fillers/completants (what you call logical space). The plot would continue to be what it is if we remove them, but we probably wouldn’t know so much about the characters etc as we would have known if we would have kept the fillers.
December 19, 2009 at 10:57 am
@altugi: I can’t say I’m too surprised to find I’ve been thinking about ideas that others have already examined.
Could you point me to some articles on narratology that detail this concept? I’d appreciate seeing how others have already approached the topic.
December 19, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t mean to say you’re just re-discovering the wheel. I wanted to say that similar concepts have been developed in narratology and that it might be worth to look into those as well. Just for the sake of maintaining multiple perspectives or maybe as a way to refine and downsize the vocabulary of game studies.
I like your article a lot and it is valuable to me especially because it allows me to re-establish a connection between games (game studies) and the n-words
(narrative, narratology).
As for books and articles:
Seymour Chatman’s “Story and Discourse” is a very useful source that summarizes narratology very well. The part that explains “functional” vs “logical space” (to use your terminology) is somewhere at the beginnings where he discusses story “cores” and “sattelites”. He also refers to earlier works of Russian Formalists like Tomashevski and then to the works of Tzvetan Todorov, who speaks of “motifs associé” and “motifs libre”. Roland Barthes maintains the distinction between “noyau” and “catalyse”.
Roland Barthes has an article called “Introduction to the structural analyses of narratives” (it’s a bit old, 1966, but it lays the foundation). The second chapter that deals with “functions”, and proposes a total of four categories in regard to functions and fillers (it defines two subcategories for each). I think you would love to read and discover that article. It would help you a lot to expand your notions of functional/logical space and delve deeper into how it all works in games.
Btw, you can find these Barthian categories being re-used in Chatman’s book. The illustration at the end which depicts the “narration process”, presents cores, fillers and their subcategories as part of the “telling” of a story.
I hope that was helpful!