Guidelines for Sound Design in Computer Games - Game Sound Technology and Player Interaction: Concepts and Developments - page 368

is not supposed to happen before those ideas are
set. Both the selection of the elements and the
setting of the ideas that will explore them will
profit from a tight process of decision-making
along the progression which, in turn, ought to
be carried out from the very early phases of the
overall design process.
Also important to notice is that it is not about
selecting sounds. It is about selecting game ele-
ments, taking into account how they will supply
the sonic properties that are required to accomplish
some design aspect. This distinction is absolutely
fundamental. Unless that is kept in mind, then
energies will be spent on enlarging the mistake of
not using sound but covering with sound. Actu-
ally, using sound to wrap the elements in a game
is not an error per se.
Metaphorically speaking, we do prefer our
gifts when they come in a nice wrapping paper.
Still, that nice paper can be discounted and dis-
connected from the gift itself: Even if we opt to
keep the paper, the gift and the paper will still be
independent entities, not contributing to the oth-
ers accomplishments but being in their separate
existences.
The attentive selection of interaction elements,
prizing rich sonic expression, expands the space
of possibilities in design time. This will allow ful-
filling the intentionality of the soundscape whilst
maintaining contextual consistency. Also, it should
be easier to provide a good auditory perception
of the environment if objects in it are identifiable
or provide context through their sonic properties.
Choosing and combining acoustic protagonists
may be thought of as the construction of a dia-
lect, specific to the project and which will allow
supporting its communication model. This calls
for a creative effort of collecting and combining
possibilities. Still, it is useful to be attentive to
some opportunities. One is that elements may
have different states of sonic expression: roughly,
the sound emitted while in customary or natural
conditions and the sound emitted when the ele-
ment is “activated”. In some cases, more states,

or even variation in a continuum, may be identi-
fied. For example: a squeaky rubber duck has no
sonic expression when left alone but possesses a
very well known sonic identity when squeezed;
conversely, a cicada has a customary expression
that ceases when disturbed; a waterfall seems to
have the same characteristic sound both on its
own and when someone bathes in it; and, a flock
of pigeons also emits sound in both situations but
these are very distinct (mating and feeding versus
alarm and flapping wings). In another vein, if we
need a game character to drive fast through the
rush-hour traffic, we might consider including a
car horn and choose carefully its sound (accord-
ing to Guideline 3 below). So, there are countless
possibilities to explore, depending on what is
intended to be communicated.
Although some acoustic elements may be
added-or patched-along the project, without
overall disturbance, others imply strategic deci-
sions and consequently need to be analyzed in the
early stages of design. In the latter case, above,
resorting to a siren of some emergency vehicle
service would imply the necessity to fit such
decision in the design options: even considering
it would be plausible in the scenario, it might be
inappropriate if too many other design decisions
had been taken.
Finally, a related challenge is to reunite ele-
ments, which are coherent among themselves,
within the whole project. For instance, unless
premeditated, dinosaur roars and bottle pops,
would not be compatible, although each one would
possibly be associated to ideas that we might need
to combine (let's say, angst and repose). The issue
is compatibility, not verisimilitude: we are happy
to hear the bad guys' spaceship exploding in the
void, although we know that would be impossible
(The Curious Team, 1999).