Game Talk: Encounter Pacing and Makeup

 

                Encounters are the staples of any form of storytelling, interactive or not. They are quite literally what happens, and a story without events probably doesn’t exist. That said, there are many ways that titles found in games have approached encounters, for better or worse. What counts as an encounter in gaming? They can run the gamut, but most revolve around combat, either set-piece and bespoke, or randomly generated in this current age of proc-gen design, which can allow for more dynamic encounters. Here we are going to look specifically at two examples of games that used the two methods above, and why they weren’t necessarily the best approaches for either design reasons, or by their nature.

                The first game we are looking at here is Dead Space 3, which released in 2013, and was developed by Visceral Studios (r.i.p.), and published by EA. Dead Space 3 comes at the end of a development arc which I often call the horror-to-action pipeline, most probably infamous for how Resident Evil games has done that particular song and dance several times in its series run. What I mean by that is when a horror title starts as somewhat a purist approach to horror, which I feel safe saying the first Dead Space was way back in 2008, then progression to more and more action sequences and play until it can only be described as horror by stretching of the word. So while Dead Space 3 is called a horror game, I would say that it is so only on paper. The biggest reason for this is the pacing of encounters, and how those encounters are interacted with. In the prologue and opening chapter, done away with is the atmospheric brooding industrial motif, and we are first introduced to the spacious Tau Volantis some several hundred years before the official start to the series. It is important to note the two largest design departures presented here; the fact our temporary character is given an actual weapon in the form of an assault rifle, and that the enemies we are encountering are not the famous traditional necromorphs that we have been seeing in the series; these ones are much more directly human in profile, and are armed with ice climbing axes. True, they divide in a somewhat pale imitation of the more traditional Divider enemy type, but a lot of the body horror is lost in the new design. These choices carry on into the first actual chapter of the game, with Isaac Clark being given a sub-machine gun by secondary protagonist John Carver, which goes along way to reinforcing the new encounter philosophy of the game, which culminates with Isaac fighting against human enemies for the first time directly in the series. Not humanoid enemies; human enemies. It is not just about the changes though. What I believe is the cardinal sin committed by Dead Space 3 is the pacing at which encounters are set. One of the cornerstones of Dead Space encounters are the quarantine scenes, where Isaac attempts to leave a space, when the compartment he is in locks down, becoming a large Doom-style monster closet, which can play a lot like a single-player version of a hoard mode in other games. After these encounters, in games past, there would be a space for the players (and Isaac) to catch their breath, figure out supplies, or otherwise engage in a non-combat section. Dead Space 3 frequently, if not nearly-always, puts combat encounters one after another, leaving little room for players to do any of the other activities mentioned. It almost feels like a new game master in a TTRPG sense, feeling non-confident that players will be interested in  anything other than combat because they themselves feel uncomfortable with the storytelling.

                Change is important in games and storytelling as an art; keeping things varied and interesting is key to maintaining audience interest. That said, change for change's sake is folly—what changes are made must be made while bearing in mind what kind of story is being told. In gameplay, the most common form is how encounters are interacted with. The change in interaction signaled by the swapping of the traditional weapons of the series, tools, to more conventional weaponry was carried on into the encounter design with a focus on repetitive action to little narrative effect.

                The second example presented here today is that of the 2011 hit, Elder Scrolls V; Skyrim, which has since been ported multiple times, re-released, and soon to be ported to rocks, toilets, and garbage disposals. Skyrim’s gameplays has been a foundation in the genre and field since it’s initial release over 12 years ago at the time of writing this, and for the most part, it is with good reason. The gameplay loop is largely satisfying, and there is generally a decent amount of incident. One of the few things that Skyrim does not do well, however, is encounters in its overworld. Rather than having entirely bespoke content, Skyrim has a lot of enemies that spawn in somewhat randomly when you are in a cell, and can change dependent on character level, world state, and so on. The most infamous of these is the dragon battles, which effectively are random boss battles, whether you want them or not. Say, you find yourself engaging in a group of bandits, and then a frost dragon descends from the heavens to tell you about his lord and savior, Jesus Christ Alduin, making the encounter maybe more memorable, but not for good reasons. Depending on build or level, this can present a real problem for the player. On the other end, you can have encounters daisy-chain on one another. One example I have personally is when a fight with some wolves led to being attacked by a group of vampires who so happened to be nearby, and then triggering a nearby bandit camp, which then were aggro’d upon by a passing giant, which all then began attacking me after a particularly ill-timed fireball. Again, memorable, but for reasons more frustrating than fun.

                The above scenarios are actually why I don’t use random-roll encounters in my TTRPG sessions, relying on more bespoke content for my players. Is it more work? Absolutely, but it also means that I don’t kill my players for no other reason than bad luck. Like the Dead Space 3 encounters, these can take the player out of the environment by having an uneven sense of pacing between encounters. Having enemies placed for no particular reason is effectively the same as having no reason for the enemies to be there in the first place.

                One game that has received plenty of praise for its encounter design, is Dark Souls, which also released in 2011, in what turned out to be an absolute banger year for games. Unlike the two above titles, Dark Souls had extraordinary care with both placement and pacing and encounters, but also with the make up of them. Enemies were placed in specific spots to great effect, either to show a particular mechanic, or to demonstrate a particular idea. The first area players typically encounter (unless they went down, in which case rest in peace) is the Undead Burg, which I consider a masterclass in how to ease players into a game space and world. The first few encounters, with basic hollow enemies, are straight forward puts; a group enemies, then a group of enemies with range support in the form of another fellow yeeting firebombs to hit you if you are to lackadaisical, and so on. The enemy types are the same for most of the zone, but the ways there are arranged, the topography, and weapons do wonders to both acclimate the player into what to somewhat expect, and being interesting encounters that require the players to stop and think about it for a moment. Just as crucially, there are sections that have no enemies, allowing the player to explore the space somewhat at their leisure. If they do want more enemies, they can rest at the bonfire, respawning the hollows that they killed. This is an excellent choice in that if you are wanting more or less combat, you have some control over that, and it isn’t left to random chance.

                Encounters are a critical part of game design, with both the placing and pacing of them determining progression, and how fun it may be to do so. It is critical to allow spaces to breathe between set-pieces, as to not overwhelm or overload players, but it is also just as important to think about what the make up o those encounters are; are the encounters appropriate to their zone and ecology? Were they placed with a sense of purpose? What does this encounter enforce or demonstrate? Is it interesting? These are all questions that should be asked when designing encounters, where in a table-top or video game setting.