-
Post-mortem
Our game was originally intended to be very similar to Chutes and Ladders in the way that it moved on the board due to the fact that most of the board was Chutes and Ladders. The game was, essentially, a race to collect a certain amount of points through landing on card spaces as well as landing on places with trophies to obtain more points. The game, in the very beginning processes, was originally intended to appease a younger crowd, but could, nonetheless, also be enjoyed by people of all ages.
Our game, though, changed drastically over time. It started out as a type of Chutes and Ladders, then turned into a form of advanced Battleship, then a game to battle for the safety of children with the functions of health, attack, and speed, and finally a race to lure and collect the most children while attempting to flee from the police, which is obviously a more adult concept, changing the type of audience we were trying to appeal to. Clearly, our design and concept are what truly set apart our game from the other teams.
The development team of our game consisted of myself and one other person. Neither of us had ever really created a board game of any sort in the past, so it was a new experience to the both of us. My partner was the instigator of our second design which set us on a much better foot than our first game design did, which led our game to coming to it’s true development.
As for actually developing the game, we really tried to stick with the concept that our assigned board pieces led us to. We had some large Sci-fi football players, some ships, and kid figurines. Our goal was to have the ships save the kids from the “bad” football players, but even though they were saving the kids with ships
What Went Right
1. The player feedback really led us to a unique game concept that we had actually tried to steer clear of. It almost seemed inevitable for our game to go the route it did. We wanted the players to act as the good guy in the game, but in the end, they suggested that we go the opposite direction and have them play as the “morally” wrong character in the game.
2. We were given a new group partner to assist us on the game after the break. She came at a good time because we were just started making a new game design to test and it was good to have a third persons feedback, especially since she had experience in making board games.
3. The board of the game turned out well. I was given a good deal of suggestions and great ideas from other classmates that were implemented rather successfully, in spite of the actual content of the game.
4. The Chance and Placement cards for the game were created very quickly. It was suggested that we make it like a little kids drawing on the front, which, in the end, went very well with the theme of the game.
5. We changed our style of play from battling to racing in the later stages of the game design. It was a good adjustment for setting our game function apart from the two other board games.
What Went Wrong
1. We lost a group member right away because they dropped out. It was a little more difficult to fine-tune many aspects of the game, since there was not an extra person to bounce ideas off of.
2. Our original game design was far too complex to be played enjoyably. There was little rhyme or reason to the point system that we had, and our randomized placement of characters took far too long.
3. The game changed a great deal due to the player feedback, which made it difficult to stay on schedule. Each time we changed it, we had to create a new rule set and test those rules and so, making it hard to fine-tune a single type of game.
4. The end state of our game was not very defined until our last week of designing. This made winning the game rather empty for the players, since the end was so abrupt.
5. Many of our versions of the game had a good deal of math in them for calculating damage and allocating points between various attributes. This did not go over well with the players because it made the game very slow and became rather confusing when trying to understand what affected what and what was to be subtracted from what.
In Conclusion
Through this, I have learned that it is important to not over-complicate a game’s rules. The simpler the rules are, the more understandable it is, which leads to a more enjoyable playing experience. Also, without a third party’s feedback, the game will go absolutely nowhere. Finding out what your audience likes in a game is absolutely necessary for creating a “quality” game.
-
Blog #6
These games were rather intriguing to read/play. I have never really played a game that explained games, but I feel that it was a very enjoyable way to learn about the many principles that a game consists of. For me, I am able to focus more on the subject that I am being informed of when playing video games because I am interacting with the teaching and am instantly putting it into effect by playing a game with those very principles that were just touched on, making it very easy to connect the dots and understand what is being presented to me.
As for not touching upon a specific principle of games, I cannot really think of anything right off hand. However, I am sure that there are some things that they did not bring to the attention of the player, but, similar to my current situation, I am guessing that those things did not cross their minds at the time.
Now, when thinking about which episode was the most effective, it is a little hard to pin just one, due to the fact that they all touched on something rather important at one point or another. If I had to choose an episode, though, I would have to say that Episode 2 was the most beneficial for me. The reason for this is that it touched upon a couple of subjects that a game truly requires to function well. First of all, it mentions “immediate feedback” from the game. A player cannot progress through a game if they are not, even remotely, informed of the fact that their actions produce a specific outcome. Also, Episode 2 talks about aspects such as having a goal for the player to strive for. There really is no point in playing if there is no goal to reach at the end of the game. On the other hand there are games that are open ended, and in this case, the players would then create their own personal goals within the game. Along with this is the idea of conflict, which causes the player to be motivated to reach their end goal. If the purpose of the game is to walk to the end of a road with no obstacles whatsoever, the finishing “victory” would be tremendously empty. The last principle that the player is informed of in Episode 2 is the concept of choice. This is stated in the aspect that games should not be too easy for the player to succeed at or to difficult for the player to ever accomplish. Thus, there should be the choice of a difficulty level. Given as an example in the episode, the player is able to eventually choose how many opponents they want to face as well as the winning score and how many of their color blocks would show up on the field. This is very essential to games so that the game is different every time. The player can, thus, test their abilities through this option.
The episode that seemed to be the least helpful was probably Episode 3. Episode 3 simply mentioned the two different ways in which a player could learn how to play the game, whether that be by reader the manual or by trial and error. In all honesty, either way is fine, and it is interesting to list the methods by which a player can learn to understand the mechanics of a certain game, but I do believe that there are better principles to speak about than whether a player would read a manual or not.
Episode 4, in my opinion, talked about more useful topics such as a players’ ability to choose different characters sometimes in order to strategize their game-play. Also, it mentioned the concept of player character relationships, which can really affect whether a person enjoys the game or not.
-
Blog #5
> Identify the embedded and emergent narrative
I decided to play the game Star Wars: Galactic Battle, which is basically Star Wars Battleship. The story which I was told at the beginning begins as follows… “A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away… There is a civil war taking placing between the Rebel Alliance and the Galactic Empire. They have fought many small battles but now the Rebels are making one final attack on the Imperial fleet. Now as for the story that was revealed to me, personally, while playing the game, I became the commander of the Rebel forces in a desperate attempt to attack the Galactic Empire. The battle was long and arduous. I was winning for a while, but then the opponent made a comeback. I lost all but one ship. Then I located their ships and beat the Imperial fleet.
> Discuss the narrative descriptors of the game
The setting of the game is in a galaxy far away, a long time ago. The purpose of this setting is to immerse the players into a world which, if they like Star Wars, they know quite well. The plot for this “chapter” of the Star Wars series makes perfect sense and is very well connected to the storyline within the actual movies. The Rebels are fighting to free themselves from the “tyranny” of the Galactic Empire, but are highly outnumbered by the massive Imperial fleet, which leads to a good form of conflict in the game. Now as for the role of characters within the game, there are really two characters and many sub-characters. The two main characters are clearly the Rebel Alliance and the Galactic Empire. However, each “character” has a set of “sub-characters” that they are to use on the actual board. These are the different sized ships that each player has at the beginning of battle. It is each player’s responsibility to create a strategic layout of their ships in order to confuse their opponent.
Moving on to the visual design of the game, I feel that the makers of the game did a fine job creating a setup that would cause the players to really get into the game. The ships that each player holds are uniquely designed for whichever side you are playing. If you play as the Rebels, you have your Star Cruiser, Rebel Transport vessel, and other smaller ships, whereas if you played as the Empire, you would be equipped with the Imperial and Victory Star Destroyers, as well as other small ships unique to the Empire. Also, the board has a nicely designed backdrop of a screenshot that was taken from a battle scene in the actual movie, which plunges the players’ pieces into the actual battle, leading to a more enjoyable experience, but to suck the players in even further, the game also has sounds where, depending on how well you or your opponent are doing, you can hear various pilots state their condition, hear explosions, or even hear how the emperor is detesting how well you are doing, in the case of the Rebels, of course. As for studying the title of the game, it could not be more direct or self-explanatory than what it is. The title is “Star Wars: Electronic Galactic Battle: The Electronic Space Combat Game. Clearly, the game is based on the Star Wars series, is an electronic game, takes place somewhere in space, and is a battle for the Galaxy. The title is a perfect description of what the objective within the game is. Finally, looking at the spatial construction of the game, it is a very logical setup for what the purpose of the game is. The horizontal platforms allow for good strategy and dispersion of the game pieces, as well as figuring out how much damage specific ships have received. The vertical board is an excellent design for creating the idea that the opposing groups do not actually know what strategies the other party is planning, which, essentially, is what creates the “play” in the game.
-
Blog #4
I had a great time playing these two games. This was a totally new style of game to me and it was a really enjoyable experience trying to understand how to play them. However, in spite of this, I enjoyed playing For a Change a great deal more. I do believe that it was the fact that, in For a Change, you are informed of all of the directions that you can and cannot go in. For some reason, I just could not very easily make my way around in Dead like Ants, hence, some slight frustration, which more than likely caused me to not have as pleasant of a play through as For a Change. Now one thing that intrigued me the most was just how immersed in For a Change’s world I became. It felt as though I could just whip out a picture of the entire landscape without giving it a second thought. It is things like this that truly make a game great. As for the least interesting aspect of the game, I could not really call it least interesting because everything about a type of game I have never played is interesting to me. I would, however, call it a least desirable aspect of the game. It is the fact that it is possible to reach a point of no return without even the slightest hint that you may be running into it without a specific item. I spent a rather good length of time attempting to search around the ocean as well as the upper portions of the cylinder and the High Wall. After a while, I just decided to restart and check a walkthrough when I got back to that point on my second play-through.
When thinking about the sentence “a tree moving in the wind” and a drawing of a tree moving in the wind, the noticeable difference is that, in my mind, the “tree moving in the wind” gives the feeling of movement; movement which can be seen in time. On the other hand, a drawing of a tree moving in the wind gives the idea of perceived motion, but due to the fact that “drawing…” is placed in the sentence, one would realize that a drawing does not actually move, and is also a flat image of something. It is rather difficult to pin one of these sentences to specifically Interactive Fiction or conventional video games because, in a sense, when playing an Interactive Fiction, the only thing keeping that tree from being flat or in actual motion is your imagination. It all depends on how the player sees, or reads the sentence. As I said before, I became quite immersed in the world of For a Change, and everything to me, was in motion. I could see in my head the movement of the shadows on the walls in the cave, as well as the cube crashing when you threw the rock in the model. To me it was very realistic, but to others, depending on how they perceived the world, the world could have been a flat picture, with no motion whatsoever. Now as for thinking about conventional video games, they can look very realistic and appear to have things in motion, but what are video games actually? They are a series of pictures that flash rapidly to create a sense of motion, thus making conventional video games just a load of flat drawings on a TV screen or monitor.
The thing that is so unique about this characteristic is that it is all up to the players to define what they see in a game, whether it be an Interactive Fiction or a conventional video game. The players mind is what makes those games a “reality” to them or simply a fast-paced sequence of images flashing before there eyes.
When contemplating similarities between the games Today I Die and For a Change/Dead like Ants, the ones that come to mind are the fact that they each utilize the understanding of words and how they work together in order for the player to truly finish the game. In Today I Die, the player must understand how to properly use adjectives and verbs within a sentence’s structure, and For a Change and Dead like Ants cause the players to test various wordings of phrases in order to accomplish specific tasks. Also, in all of the games there really is no way to fail. True, one may get a different ending if certain things are not accomplished throughout the play-through, but it does not necessarily mean that they lost. They just did not experience other possibilities that could have taken place in the game. For instance you are just left to wander the new found location in For a Change if you end up at the end without a certain thing. These games, overall, though, are actually very much alike, aside from the fact that Today I Die is actually seen on screen whereas the worlds in For a Change and Dead like Ants are held within the very words of the stories.
-
Blog #3
I actually really enjoyed playing the game. At first I was very unsure as to what to do at the beginning, but then after some exploration, I began to grasp what the concept behind the game was. I love the fact that the creator really focused on the use of grammar to make ones way through the game. It was a very refreshing approach to creating the interaction in the game. I found it very intriguing that there was no way of losing in the game. It completely adjusted my way of thinking about what aspects compose a game. In reflecting back on our game made in class, I have come to realize just exactly how much it helps for the players to be able to have options and a greater sense of control over what happens in the game, instead of all of the aspects being randomized.
In Chris Donlan’s essay, he nicely states that rather than games focusing on single words, such as Scribblenaughts, and games that require whole sentence commands to play the game, Today I Die is played through the use of understanding the meanings of specific “nouns, verbs and clauses”. This is what is so intriguing. Depending on what words you use and what order they are in, the world around the player will change completely.
As for Corvus Elrod’s essay, he states that many people have problems with the mechanics of the game. Some of the issues that were stated are that you are not informed if you did something wrong or that you did not actually do what is needed to progress in the story. Also, some others criticisms stated that a “game over” screen would have been beneficial so that you would know if you were not meeting the proper object, and also that hints after a “game over” screen would have been a good idea to implement. Now, Elrod has a very intriguing solution to this situation. He says “Don’t read it like a game, play it like a poem”. The reason for saying this is that it really isn’t your average game it is the exploration process of understanding the meaning of the world that the poem places the player into. Elrod states that if you simply read a poem, and quit, would you fail? According to Elrod, it simply means “you simply experience it at a different level than someone who more fully explored the imager and meaning”.
Now, pertaining to whether this is still a game or not, Elrod states that it is still a game, but rather than having a way of losing the game, he says that Benmergui makes games that are meant for exploring and understanding the meanings of. They still have “a bounded space intended for play”, thus making it a game.
As was stated earlier, Elrod says that the game is, in actuality, a poem. I actually do agree with this idea. In a sense you are actually exploring the meaning of the various stanzas of the poem and you are being immersed in the very world of the poem. As for the mechanics of the game, I did not see two specific ones that he stated, but to my knowledge, the two main mechanics of the game are the fact that it is text based and that you are still able to interact with the characters in the game.
If this style were implemented into our own game, it would be very strange. In all honestly, I don’t think the text-based system would work. If we really did use that system, it would make for a much more complex game than it is right now. However, perhaps the use of text could be a nice new way of addressing some random aspects of the game play. As for being able to interact with the characters, that could create a very enjoyable aspect in the game so you could thwart other player’s actions. In the long run, affecting the game in such a manner could be enjoyable, or it could have some strange outcomes.
-
Blog Response #2
1. Currently, our game is capable of supporting up to five players at a time. It does not matter if there is an even amount of players or not because the game is currently a free-for-all system. As long as there are at least two players, the game can be played. This can also go in accordance with people entering and leaving a game session. If a player leaves mid game, it will have no affect on the game whatsoever, aside from clearing the board of that person’s game piece. Entering mid game, on the other hand, does have an affect. Now, it does not affect the existing players when a new player enters. It just affects the new player. If a new player decides to join the game they would be lacking points in comparison to existing players, so they would be at a great disadvantage.
As for various player structures, one that could be considered is a 2 teams of 2 system. This system would allow the teammates to converse with one another in order to strategize to gain more points in order to obtain a speedier victory. In this case, there would need to be an even number of players otherwise it would be very unfair to the team with fewer players. One other idea, however not an extreme change to the player structure, would be simply to limit it to a one on one game, instead of having the possibility of up to five players at a time. With five players at a time, people can tend to lose track of which piece is theirs and it can easily clutter the board.
2. As our game stands now, the relationship between the players is every man for himself, due to the individual player aspect. A contrasting style of game play would be to have a team based system, where groups of people are able to conspire against others to obtain more points faster. Now, if the game was to become a team-based type of game, the amount of players would, without a doubt, have to be even. If there was any sort of differentiation in number, the team with fewer players would not be able to win, chance aside. The team-based game style would probably cause the game to be more enjoyable, overall. I find it more enjoyable to work as a team so that more in-depth strategizing is a possibility. The team-based system, as stated earlier, would give teams a chance to figure out proper routes to obtain more points on the board in a faster manner. As for our current “free-for-all” structure, the main way it affects the game is that it causes it to last much longer because it takes each person a larger amount of time to obtain the necessary amount of points to win opposed to two people working together.
One pro to our game is that the players are not restricted to a back and forth motion while reaching the top. They have the option of dropping down in floors to obtain more points that were passed up on their first pass of that row. This allows for a bit of strategizing. However, this is not really enough to spark a player’s interest. They should be able to control more aspects of the game that will help them along. A con to our game is that there is almost too much randomization. The main thing that sticks out is rolling the die to place the positive and negative point pieces on the board before the game is even played. This is a very time consuming aspect that is rather unnecessary. Another issue that should be worked out is the chance that a player would obtain points from the set of animal cards that they can randomly select from. They should at least be able to obtain some points no matter what so that they still want to try to obtain the cards in the first place.
-
Reading Assignment 1
Game Definition:
The definitions listed that I tend to agree with the most are those of David Parlett, Clark C. Abt, and Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman. First of all, I agree with all of them in that all games have a set of rules that a player cannot dismiss in order to play the game properly. One thing that I like about Salen and Zimmerman’s definition, though, is that they state the fact that, due to these sets of rules, the concept of “winning” and “losing” comes into existence. Clearly, if there are objectives and one does not meet the specific criteria to fulfill that objective, they would have, supposedly, “lost”.
One definition that does not quite correspond with what I believe is that of Chris Crawford. This is in response to his views on the “safety” issue. In his definition, sports are no longer games. I would possibly agree with it more if it stated that video games, a different type of game, are safer than the “games” that they actually represent in reality. To me, it would have made a difference if he had stated that sports are games, but due to the fact that he didn’t, I disagree.
Similarities:
Some similarities that are found throughout the definitions are that all games seem to have some form of rule system. Also, games are clearly an “artificial conflict” that does not have any type of affect on actual life.
Fuzzy Category:
One fuzzy category that intrigues me is the “Choose-your-own-adventure books”. I would possibly categorize these under games. First of all, these books have a certain amount of interaction to them. This is seen through the idea of the user being able to choose which course of action they want to take. They have the choice to follow a variety of story paths, none which are forced upon them. Another aspect that can place these under the definition of games is that they almost have a set of rules. The reason I am saying this is that when one chooses a story path, they are given objectives, (ex. Turn to page 15 for this path) to guide them through the story, and, in order to find out the other stories, they must fulfill different objectives, or turn to different pages. For these reasons, I would probably place them as a type of game.
-
First Post
Hey guys!
My name is Leighton. This is my first post as an introduction to our class. I, of course, am a gamer as I’m sure all of you are as well. Some of my favorite games are Final Fantasy, Soul Calibur, Tekken, the Tales series, Kingdom Hearts, Xenogears and Xenosaga, Chrono Trigger, Otogi, and a great deal more, simply to give you a taste of what kind of games I prefer. Well, that is that. Now, it is time to work!
