Part 1, Putting into play - A model of causal cognition on game design.

This post originates from the site Narrative Construction and is part of more than a one-year-long project which goal is to explain from a cognitive and narrative perspective the mind and hands-on approach to the design of an engaging and dynamic game system. With help from cognition-based models, the focus is on the opportunity to explore how our thinking, learning, emotions work when setting out from scratch towards the desired goal.

The title “Putting into play” is inspired by the term mise-en-scene, which means, “putting into the scene” (or “put on stage”). The term had its origin in theater and was later picked up by film scholars to have a way of referring to the practice of directing, planning and controlling the elements for the desired effect on a stage or in a frame of a film. Since the term isn´t established in games but where the concept could provide an overlook of the stylistic elements that are to be organized and arranged in the creation of a form; my intention is not to put a new term into play. What I will “put into play” are the thoughts that precede the choice of elements that are to become the parts of the desired form of an engaging and dynamic game system.

A shift in approach

This isn´t the first time I´m propelling thoughts as a means to show how the initial thoughts matter to the construction of a concept. But what differs “Putting into play” from the former twenty-four posts, where I have used propellors, radiators, grandmothers, contract killers, Cinderella´s shoe, and even Walter White´s underwear as a means to describe the narrative from a cognitive perspective in construction of an experience, is that I will, from now, leave the old analogies. The cause is due to a 7-grade model of causal thinking (Gärdenfors, Lombard, 2017) that explains how our thinking and understanding works, or as to be more precise, it shows what is going on "inside our heads", which make us act and react. So from now on, due to the shift in approach:

If you would like hands-on advice regarding game-specific elements associated with the narrative (according to how the roles and responsibilities are currently sectioned on an organizational level in the industry) on writing plot summaries, quests, narrative branched choices and conversations systems, I recommend reading the writer and narrative designer Alexander Freed´s blog (here) (or on Gamsutra here). 

Putting a thought into play

To explain what I mean by putting a thought into play, and how the initial thought matters to what is to become a game, I will take an example from an interview with the writer Dan Houser from 2010 (link to the interview is here), when he describes the initial thoughts that preceded the making of the Wild West open-world game Red Dead Redemption (2010), developed by Rockstar Studios.

”The core idea of the game – to make a fast-paced shooting game with the sensibilities of a fighting game – was very interesting and was done really well… But we love open-world games, and in finishing Red Dead Revolver, we also fell in love with the Wild West. The main thing we wanted to keep and expand upon from Red Dead Revolver was the core sensibilities of the gunplay, which we all really loved. The rest, we wanted to start over and make a game that was vast and epic in scope.”

Since Red Dead Redemption 2 has recently been released, one can see how the initial thoughts that were put into play eight years ago have evolved. From the old concept Red Dead Revolver from 2004, with gunplay as its core mechanic, the thoughts to make a game “that was vast and epic in scope” has reached a new level. What this means is that Houser and his team have given the “open-world game” “vast and epic in scope” a new meaning. And for you who haven´t played the games the new meaning that has been given to the second game was not only to make the world map bigger. What the team did was to move into the details of the game by letting their thoughts give depth to as many objects as possible, giving each a unique mechanic, which created an even more dynamic world compared to the first that met a new “epic in scope.”

                                              Red Dead Redemption 2, Rockstar Games

The 7-grade model of causal thinking

To understand how our thinking works when taking off from a thought towards the desired outcome, I´m going to take help from the 7-grade model of reasoning, which is based on the evolution of causal cognition, and where causal cognition is described by Gärdenfors and Lombard (2017):

"(…) a) to predict outcomes based on observations, b) to affect and control events in the world around us, and c) ultimately, to predict causes from effects, even if the causes are not perceivable."

Since the grades in the model distinguish with an increased level of how the causal thinking of the human work (our thinking), and where the first grades only involve the perception of agency. Unless we don´t want to explore the agency from Dan Houser´s motor commands when pressing the key that makes the computer start, I will jump the 1^st grade and give you a glimpse of the 2^nd, before we are moving on to the more intriguing grades.

The illustrations and descriptions that will be shown are from the post: “A short guide to the 7-grade model” (link to post) that due to the origin of our thinking started long before the Computer Age, which explains the theme, and where the headers defining the grades are from the publication Tracking the evolution of causal cognition in humans (Gärdenfors, Lombard, 2017). As I have reserved the right as an artist to see how the model can illuminate the intuitive thinking in the making of games, in the case of research I refer to read the publication, which links can be found at the end of the post.

Grade 2: Cued dyadic-causal understanding

”This grade involves two individuals who take turns in performing a similar action. (…) I understand that your action causes an effect because it gives the same result as my action.”

                                                                                                       (Gärdenfors, Lombard, 2017, p. 3)

If we return to Dan Houser, the 2^nd grade would be as if Houser from seeing a colleague pressing the key on the computer would learn, in the same way as the cavemen learn from each other cracking eggs, how to start a computer.

If knowing that our will to understand is constantly on, which cognitively make us perceive what others do related to our own action. An example of a game where the 2^nd grade of reasoning is involved is the online game Journey, by thatgamecompany, where a player can come to another player´s help as to show how to do things, and where to go. From the understanding and learning the player can then transfer what has been learned to another player, who, in turn, pass it on to another player, and so on (which can explain why we like to learn together with others).

                                   Journey, thatgamecompany, Sony Computer Entertainment

From the exchange of thoughts from seeing and learning we can notice how the core cognitive activities depicted in the 2^nd grade also depict the core mechanic of collaboration in Journey – which is making the cognitive vehicle of causation intertwine with the rules, behaviors, and goals of a mechanic.

Grade 3: Conspecific mindreading

Since the 7-grade model of reasoning is focused on describing the human thinking, it is also through the 3^rd grade one can discern from the results of archeological excavations of Stone Age weapons how the human thinking and understanding has evolved. Though it is easy to be deceived by today´s advanced technology compared to the spears and bows that our ancestors created, it is in the 3^rd grade things are getting really interesting. This is when the term mindreading (from the theory of mind) comes into play, and where we can notice how our reasoning of today has many common denominators with our ancestors.

What mindreading refers to is how we understand someone else´s thoughts, and where the 3^rd grade depict how we understand someone else´s desires, intentions, and beliefs to be similar to our own, which we infer to be an explanation to someone else´s actions or behavior. As mindreading is not about being accurate when we are coming to an inference about someone else´s thoughts and actions, the fact that we read others' minds is what counts. For a narrative constructor, this is also what you let the characters do in, for example, a film to create surprises and misunderstandings. But when it comes to games, you have to move the perspective as a constructor as to think that it is the player who is doing the mindreading of the objects and elements that you decide to become the parts of the form, which makes the player act and react on when playing. In this way, the 3^rd grade is very helpful as to understand how the mindreading works when it comes to understanding how attention, emotions, desire, intentions, and beliefs of others affect us (see the series Narrative bridging on testing an experience on Gamasutra or at the site Narrative construction).

In the same way, as a narrative constructor is letting the perceiver mindreading elements and objects to attend and act upon unexpected things, surprises from reading each other’s minds can also be the cause of misunderstandings in real life. As when inferences turn out to not make sense with another´s person´s desires, intentions, and beliefs, it can be really tricky to even know when working in a large team that a misunderstanding has occurred when most of the things happen inside our heads. As it can be hard to walk around asking everyone “do we understand each other?” we have invented strategies to avoid misunderstandings to occur by, for example, hiring people with the “right” experiences and knowledge. Another strategy is to organize and sectioning the responsibilities so that people know what to do, and through diligent documentation ensure that the communication works. Nevertheless, misunderstandings and conflicts occur. But from the aspect of how the human mindreading works,