Today we completed a brief series of game tests, in which we presented our current drafts of our games-in-progress for commentary and critique.
THE GAMES I PLAYED
Kristi's "Catch the Squirrels": The player attempts to collect all the squirrels in the play area by chasing after them (using the arrow keys). NPC assistance and points are slated to appear in the final version. Collection of the actual squirrels was not yet implemented so the game suffered from an incomplete mechanism. However, the concept and present materials alone show a great deal of potential.
Maxim's (Untitled) : The player controls a ninja (by means of an XBox controller) and attempts to make it to the other end of the room in the fastest time. The mechanism for control is smooth and extremely well-executed, but the actual game elements were not yet present. However, the varieties of gameplay possible with the movement mechanism alone are staggering and the designer shows clear sophistication in his approach thus far.
Angela's "Beard Snake" : This game is a Snake clone in which the main character is a bearded man, whose beard grows as he collects hair products. The mechanism is simple yet effective; however, the aesthetics and one minor glitch are the only detractions from the game itself, and with a fair amount of visual polish this game is poised to stand very well on its own.
THEIR RESPONSES TO MY GAME
As I feared in my previous post, the mechanism for "only collecting some" was not only present, but multiplied by the lack of clarity in what was being thrown at the player's character. The immediate reaction was that too many elements were present too early, the entire game was unclear, and— perhaps the part that took me by strongest surprise— the demographic was unclear. The mechanism (once explained) proved provocative and drew a smile or two, but the biggest complaint by far was that the game was largely unclear, particularly due to its visuals.
Worst of all, the game was not considered fun.
Of all the critiques this game could receive, this above all rings the loudest warning bell and suggests that immediate and drastic measures must be taken to alter my game. The priority of my game development approach is "fun first, all else later"; if the game is already not fun, I must do whatever is within my power to fix this.
IMMEDIATELY PLANNED CHANGES:
• Drastic graphical overhaul— the player is clear, the truck is pronounced, and the collision objects are clearly distinguishable as (un)desirable.
• Careful explanation of the mechanism— the game itself requires explanation. The process in which this is done so far is inadequate; a more thorough introduction is necessary and will thusly be implemented.
• Music and Sound: Currently the game lacks sufficient audio. I will personally develop a musical score for this game, and provide sufficient sound effects from libraries I've collected to give this game a lush soundworld.
• Port to Game Maker: Right now the draft of the game (currently untitled) is in a demo version of The Games Factory and is thus unplayble by anyone besides myself and other Clickteam product owners. A port to Game Maker should make it accessible and more sophisticated as a whole.
With sufficient time, I could see this game becoming a solid example of the basic mechanisms of Bullet Hell games neatly turned on its head. The question is, how much is sufficient?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
The Queen's Call: A mid-point Analysis
Part-way through the development of The Queen's Call (which is currently at a "just-playable" stage), we can already start to see the core elements peek through, in regard to what makes it a game, much less one worth playing or not.
The formal analysis of this game would conclude that it is a single-player real-time modern-day-themed loose sh'mup in which the player must dodge obstacles (most of them) within a given time period to win the game. The game's system is simple and singular— dodge the bad obstacles, collect a good obstacle maybe once every so often.
Initial Session reports may involve confusion about the gameplay— while the arrow keys are rather straightforward, the use of the "z" key is less frequently mentioned outside of the how-to, and is somewhat difficult to see in-game itself. The Red balls do not very accurately represent the kind of fuel (caffeine) the main character requires to continue, and seeing as red is often a color associated with avoidance as opposed to attraction, I could see several players being confused about their purpose in the game. While the mechanisms are present and, if understood, at least present a reasonable challenge to the player, their aesthetics and appearance leave much to be desired.
That said, a short revision of the aesthetics and the player experience should form a more compelling game in the near future— fortunately, now that the mechanisms and dynamics are established, the aesthetics may be revamped to improve the player experience.
The formal analysis of this game would conclude that it is a single-player real-time modern-day-themed loose sh'mup in which the player must dodge obstacles (most of them) within a given time period to win the game. The game's system is simple and singular— dodge the bad obstacles, collect a good obstacle maybe once every so often.
Initial Session reports may involve confusion about the gameplay— while the arrow keys are rather straightforward, the use of the "z" key is less frequently mentioned outside of the how-to, and is somewhat difficult to see in-game itself. The Red balls do not very accurately represent the kind of fuel (caffeine) the main character requires to continue, and seeing as red is often a color associated with avoidance as opposed to attraction, I could see several players being confused about their purpose in the game. While the mechanisms are present and, if understood, at least present a reasonable challenge to the player, their aesthetics and appearance leave much to be desired.
That said, a short revision of the aesthetics and the player experience should form a more compelling game in the near future— fortunately, now that the mechanisms and dynamics are established, the aesthetics may be revamped to improve the player experience.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
SESSION REPORT: Nethack
NAME: Nethack (Graphical/Windowed Version)
GESTALT: Reach the lower level of the dungeon, retrieve the Amulet, and return to the exit of the Dungeon without dying.
GAMEPLAY: Upon starting the application, the first prompt asks for the player's name. Upon providing a name, the next prompt offers the player to change their Role, Gender, Species or Alignment, or to randomize all four. Each of those character factors impact how the player experiences the dungeon into which they are next placed. Before beginning their journey, they're given a brief exposition as to their motivation and drive to seek out an Amulet of sorts, and suggested to begin their journey.
From here, players use a series of one-key commands to dispatch monsters, cure their ailments, equip and drop armor and weapons, and eventually venture down into the lower levels of the dungeon.
SESSION: I found myself frequently using the 'h' key to find the command(s) I wanted to use at the time, and remembering which ones were more frequently used proved to, even in later play attempts, be difficult. Nevertheless, after multiple attempts I did make it as far as the third level down, at which point I died of food poisoning. I found that the dry sense of humor in this game kept me chuckling pretty frequently~!
GESTALT: Reach the lower level of the dungeon, retrieve the Amulet, and return to the exit of the Dungeon without dying.
GAMEPLAY: Upon starting the application, the first prompt asks for the player's name. Upon providing a name, the next prompt offers the player to change their Role, Gender, Species or Alignment, or to randomize all four. Each of those character factors impact how the player experiences the dungeon into which they are next placed. Before beginning their journey, they're given a brief exposition as to their motivation and drive to seek out an Amulet of sorts, and suggested to begin their journey.
From here, players use a series of one-key commands to dispatch monsters, cure their ailments, equip and drop armor and weapons, and eventually venture down into the lower levels of the dungeon.
SESSION: I found myself frequently using the 'h' key to find the command(s) I wanted to use at the time, and remembering which ones were more frequently used proved to, even in later play attempts, be difficult. Nevertheless, after multiple attempts I did make it as far as the third level down, at which point I died of food poisoning. I found that the dry sense of humor in this game kept me chuckling pretty frequently~!
"A Theory of Fun", and what Fighting Words is about
Regarding a Theory of Fun... before I begin my assessment of the lesson of Chapter Four, I would like to temporarily praise the book itself for being a simple and accessible translation of difficult and abstract concepts. Games and fun are not nearly as easy to explain and express as they seem, and Koster's prose cleverly blends playful wording and simple visuals with a deep understanding of how fun works to create a narrative that resonates with even those only familiar with the end product of game development.
On the subject material itself, Chapter 4 suggests that because games are abstracted models of reality, they must present some sort of lesson or commentary on the world itself. It then explained the various lessons games tend to teach us about life— spatial reasoning, manipulation of power, aiming, timing, and the like— and how they're reinforced by other variations of that game genre. While I understand the message he means to convey, I question if the lessons of these games are being correctly interpreted. They seem to have an immediate clash with the popular ethics of society— peace, distribution of wealth, and diversity— and while they may ring true even in the here and now, the message of games seems to deviate from this new direction in which society seems to now face.
I don't suppose, however, that my game is of any exception. My game, "Fighting Words", is essentially about manipulation and prior intelligence— those with large vocabularies will understand how to exploit gameplay in their favor without the use of event cards, but those without large vocabularies are still capable of manipulating the game to their own end. While I did not have a specific lesson in mind— other than, perhaps, to give thought to the extent of one's own vocabulary— I suppose what could be gained from the game in whole is that even if you lack one property required to 'get by' or succeed, that you may still have chances to do so, if you are willing to be prepared for an opportunity. Of course, circumstances beyond anyone's control will get in the way— Event cards such as "Spelling Bee Sting" take the opportunity away from all players participating— but ultimately the winner is not necessarily the one who has the most basic means of victory. Even without the same resources, a player still has a token amount of agency in their destinies.
...of course, that's quite a bit to say about a game that's quintessentially "Scrabble" meets "Uno" meets some sort of pranktster. But if I can't sell the larger points of my own games, perhaps they're not worth playing~!
On the subject material itself, Chapter 4 suggests that because games are abstracted models of reality, they must present some sort of lesson or commentary on the world itself. It then explained the various lessons games tend to teach us about life— spatial reasoning, manipulation of power, aiming, timing, and the like— and how they're reinforced by other variations of that game genre. While I understand the message he means to convey, I question if the lessons of these games are being correctly interpreted. They seem to have an immediate clash with the popular ethics of society— peace, distribution of wealth, and diversity— and while they may ring true even in the here and now, the message of games seems to deviate from this new direction in which society seems to now face.
I don't suppose, however, that my game is of any exception. My game, "Fighting Words", is essentially about manipulation and prior intelligence— those with large vocabularies will understand how to exploit gameplay in their favor without the use of event cards, but those without large vocabularies are still capable of manipulating the game to their own end. While I did not have a specific lesson in mind— other than, perhaps, to give thought to the extent of one's own vocabulary— I suppose what could be gained from the game in whole is that even if you lack one property required to 'get by' or succeed, that you may still have chances to do so, if you are willing to be prepared for an opportunity. Of course, circumstances beyond anyone's control will get in the way— Event cards such as "Spelling Bee Sting" take the opportunity away from all players participating— but ultimately the winner is not necessarily the one who has the most basic means of victory. Even without the same resources, a player still has a token amount of agency in their destinies.
...of course, that's quite a bit to say about a game that's quintessentially "Scrabble" meets "Uno" meets some sort of pranktster. But if I can't sell the larger points of my own games, perhaps they're not worth playing~!
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Current Rules to "Fighting Words"
FIGHTING WORDS
Basic Rules
GOAL:
Hold the most points at the end of the game (this is done by completing words).
THE "GIST":
Players take turns creating a word, one letter at a time, in the hopes that their card will finish a word found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. If they do finish the word, they get to take it and win a point (or more than one) for it.
RULES/INSTRUCTIONS:
• All players must start the game with 7 cards. The youngest player goes first (in the event of twins/two+ players sharing the exact same birthday, the players in question will resolve turn order with as many rounds of Rock, Paper Scissors as necessary. If any of the first 7 cards drawn contain event cards that require immediate play/use, shuffle those back into the draw pile and replace those cards.
• Play flows clockwise. A player may start his/her round by drawing a card from the Draw Pile. If a word has not been started, he/she may choose to play any letter from their hand they like. If a word has been started/is in progress, he/she may add their card at the front, back, or anywhere in the middle of the word in progress.
• If a player tries to play (or modify, with an Event card) a letter that does not contribute to a word found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, other players may choose at any time to challenge the card played. If the player who issues the challenge discovers that the word (with the letter played) would NEVER be found in the dictionary, the player who played that letter must discard that letter and their next turn is skipped. However, if the player issuing the challenge finds that the letter COULD be used to create a word found in the dictionary, the player issuing the challenge skips their next turn.
• If a player does not have any letters that will contribute to a word found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, they may choose to skip a turn by discarding any one of their existing cards (as long as the card count in their hand remains at 7). However, if none of the other players have a card that enables them to either add letters to the word in question or erase a letter on their turn (they all skip their turns as well), the entire word is discarded upon return to the first skipped player. (Note: An event card that forces a player to skip a turn does not count as a skipped turn for that player, and instead requires the player AFTER the first-skipping player to play a card before the word is discarded.)
• If a player plays a letter card that completes an existing 4-letter word (or larger) found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, that player collects the word into a stack and earns one point. If the player completes a word that is 6+ letters long or longer, they gain one additional point for each letter more than 6. (For example: If a player completed the word "famished" they would gain one point for completing a word, plus two more points for an 8-letter word— 6 + 2.)
• If a player draws a card that requires immediate play, the player follows the instructions on the card as best as possible, then discards the card at the end of their turn.
• The game is over when the last card from the draw pile is drawn, or if a word is discarded three times in a row. If this happens, the player with the most points wins. In the event of two players with the same point count, the player with the most large words wins (for example: At game's end, two players have 4 points. One won "ball" (1), "mark" (1), "fish" (1) and "milk" (1); the other won "federal" (2), "twitch" (1) and "golf" (1). In this case the latter player wins because his words are larger with the same point count.) If two players have all the same letter-counts and points, the two may opt to break the tie in one of two ways:
•A coin toss
•"Wordblitz": The tied players continue play until a three-letter word can be created. The word can ONLY be three letters long; if a fourth letter is played the word must be discarded. The first player to complete a three-letter word wins the game.
EXISTING EVENT CARDS:
BACKSPACE: Kept until desired. Discards one of the existing letter-cards of the word-in-progress.
REVERSAL [Will change name later]: Played immediately upon being drawn. The player that draws this card does not play their turn (though it does not qualify as a "skipped" turn).
TIP OF MY TONGUE: Kept until desired. If another player completes a word, you may choose to steal the word and all its points for yourself. This card may only be played upon the completion of a word, in which case any player with this card may announce their use of it. In the event that two or more players attempt to play this card at once, the winner of a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors between the conflicting players wins, and the other players must discard their Tip Of My Tongue cards.
HOW DO YOU SAY...?: Played immediately upon being drawn. The player searches the draw pile for any letter card they like. If the letter card in question is no longer in the deck, they may steal it from another player (who replaces their card with a new one from the draw pile).
TRASH TALK: Played immediately upon being drawn. The player searches the discard pile for any letter card they like.
THAT'LL WORK: Played immediately upon being drawn. The player who plays this card immediately collects the word-in-progress and its points as if it were completed normally.
SPELLING BEE STING: Played immediately upon being drawn. All letters in the word-in-progress are discarded.
BACKSPACE: Kept until desired. The player using this card picks an existing letter card in the word in progress and discards it.
EDITOR: Kept until desired. The player using this card may move one letter card in the word-in-play to another part within or on the ends of the word.
Basic Rules
GOAL:
Hold the most points at the end of the game (this is done by completing words).
THE "GIST":
Players take turns creating a word, one letter at a time, in the hopes that their card will finish a word found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. If they do finish the word, they get to take it and win a point (or more than one) for it.
RULES/INSTRUCTIONS:
• All players must start the game with 7 cards. The youngest player goes first (in the event of twins/two+ players sharing the exact same birthday, the players in question will resolve turn order with as many rounds of Rock, Paper Scissors as necessary. If any of the first 7 cards drawn contain event cards that require immediate play/use, shuffle those back into the draw pile and replace those cards.
• Play flows clockwise. A player may start his/her round by drawing a card from the Draw Pile. If a word has not been started, he/she may choose to play any letter from their hand they like. If a word has been started/is in progress, he/she may add their card at the front, back, or anywhere in the middle of the word in progress.
• If a player tries to play (or modify, with an Event card) a letter that does not contribute to a word found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, other players may choose at any time to challenge the card played. If the player who issues the challenge discovers that the word (with the letter played) would NEVER be found in the dictionary, the player who played that letter must discard that letter and their next turn is skipped. However, if the player issuing the challenge finds that the letter COULD be used to create a word found in the dictionary, the player issuing the challenge skips their next turn.
• If a player does not have any letters that will contribute to a word found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, they may choose to skip a turn by discarding any one of their existing cards (as long as the card count in their hand remains at 7). However, if none of the other players have a card that enables them to either add letters to the word in question or erase a letter on their turn (they all skip their turns as well), the entire word is discarded upon return to the first skipped player. (Note: An event card that forces a player to skip a turn does not count as a skipped turn for that player, and instead requires the player AFTER the first-skipping player to play a card before the word is discarded.)
• If a player plays a letter card that completes an existing 4-letter word (or larger) found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, that player collects the word into a stack and earns one point. If the player completes a word that is 6+ letters long or longer, they gain one additional point for each letter more than 6. (For example: If a player completed the word "famished" they would gain one point for completing a word, plus two more points for an 8-letter word— 6 + 2.)
• If a player draws a card that requires immediate play, the player follows the instructions on the card as best as possible, then discards the card at the end of their turn.
• The game is over when the last card from the draw pile is drawn, or if a word is discarded three times in a row. If this happens, the player with the most points wins. In the event of two players with the same point count, the player with the most large words wins (for example: At game's end, two players have 4 points. One won "ball" (1), "mark" (1), "fish" (1) and "milk" (1); the other won "federal" (2), "twitch" (1) and "golf" (1). In this case the latter player wins because his words are larger with the same point count.) If two players have all the same letter-counts and points, the two may opt to break the tie in one of two ways:
•A coin toss
•"Wordblitz": The tied players continue play until a three-letter word can be created. The word can ONLY be three letters long; if a fourth letter is played the word must be discarded. The first player to complete a three-letter word wins the game.
EXISTING EVENT CARDS:
BACKSPACE: Kept until desired. Discards one of the existing letter-cards of the word-in-progress.
REVERSAL [Will change name later]: Played immediately upon being drawn. The player that draws this card does not play their turn (though it does not qualify as a "skipped" turn).
TIP OF MY TONGUE: Kept until desired. If another player completes a word, you may choose to steal the word and all its points for yourself. This card may only be played upon the completion of a word, in which case any player with this card may announce their use of it. In the event that two or more players attempt to play this card at once, the winner of a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors between the conflicting players wins, and the other players must discard their Tip Of My Tongue cards.
HOW DO YOU SAY...?: Played immediately upon being drawn. The player searches the draw pile for any letter card they like. If the letter card in question is no longer in the deck, they may steal it from another player (who replaces their card with a new one from the draw pile).
TRASH TALK: Played immediately upon being drawn. The player searches the discard pile for any letter card they like.
THAT'LL WORK: Played immediately upon being drawn. The player who plays this card immediately collects the word-in-progress and its points as if it were completed normally.
SPELLING BEE STING: Played immediately upon being drawn. All letters in the word-in-progress are discarded.
BACKSPACE: Kept until desired. The player using this card picks an existing letter card in the word in progress and discards it.
EDITOR: Kept until desired. The player using this card may move one letter card in the word-in-play to another part within or on the ends of the word.
SESSION REPORT: Tempest "No Peek" Poker
NAME: Tempest Poker (alternatively, Tempest "No-Peek" Poker)
GESTALT: Players attempt to make the best 5-card poker hand as various face-cards modify gameplay as translated from Shakespeare's "The Tempest".
GAMEPLAY: Each player is dealt two "hold" cards, face-down. In the "regular" (non-"No-Peek") variation, players are allowed to see what their hold cards are. Additionally, they are dealt one card face-up on the beginning of their turn. If one of the prescribed cards is dealt, it modifies play according to that card's assigned character. (For instance, the King of Spades represents Alonso, the King of Naples... in which case you "send adrift" your two hold cards to the left. The complete list is on DC's blog, http://www.dcspensley.com/art104/ ). Play continues with modifications to the table's poker-hands until each one has a grand total of 7 cards each, from which they derive their best 5-card poker hand.
SESSION: After a brief reading of the prescribed cards, DC dealt our first hand. Each player had a couple of wild-cards to their hand at the time, but Brian Tamayo managed to bet heavily and take the hand. In the second round, he once again attempted to bet big before we could even get our fourth card, effectively flushing DC and myself out of play.
FEEDBACK: This game most DEFINITELY requires a list of the cards and how they modify play (or, better, the modifiers attached to the cards themselves); while the game is informed by The Tempest, those who have not read/seen it will experience great difficulty remembering which card is which character or which modifier. Otherwise it's a literate and interesting twist on "Hold 'Em" Poker.
GESTALT: Players attempt to make the best 5-card poker hand as various face-cards modify gameplay as translated from Shakespeare's "The Tempest".
GAMEPLAY: Each player is dealt two "hold" cards, face-down. In the "regular" (non-"No-Peek") variation, players are allowed to see what their hold cards are. Additionally, they are dealt one card face-up on the beginning of their turn. If one of the prescribed cards is dealt, it modifies play according to that card's assigned character. (For instance, the King of Spades represents Alonso, the King of Naples... in which case you "send adrift" your two hold cards to the left. The complete list is on DC's blog, http://www.dcspensley.com/art104/ ). Play continues with modifications to the table's poker-hands until each one has a grand total of 7 cards each, from which they derive their best 5-card poker hand.
SESSION: After a brief reading of the prescribed cards, DC dealt our first hand. Each player had a couple of wild-cards to their hand at the time, but Brian Tamayo managed to bet heavily and take the hand. In the second round, he once again attempted to bet big before we could even get our fourth card, effectively flushing DC and myself out of play.
FEEDBACK: This game most DEFINITELY requires a list of the cards and how they modify play (or, better, the modifiers attached to the cards themselves); while the game is informed by The Tempest, those who have not read/seen it will experience great difficulty remembering which card is which character or which modifier. Otherwise it's a literate and interesting twist on "Hold 'Em" Poker.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
SESSION REPORT: "Facial Recognition"
NAME: "Facial Recognition"
GESTALT: Played much like Apples to Apples, except instead of relating nouns (red cards) to adjectives (green cards), they relate nouns to facial expressions and emotions. The player with the most Face-cards by the time all players have run out of object-cards wins the game.
GAMEPLAY: Each player has 5 cards with the names of items, topics or internet domains on them. The first player flips over a Face card, and the other players try to play an object card that would make the person judging the card make that face or express the depicted emotion. The player with the Face card then reads the cards the other players used, and picks the one that most accurately would drive them to make that face. The one who played the winning object card gets to keep the Face card as a point. This cycle moves to the first player's left, and this second player starts the cycle anew. The game is over when the last Object cards have been played, and the player with the most Face cards wins.
SESSION: Much of our time was spent commenting on the choice of object cards (largely internet-culture influenced) and the cleverly-drawn Face cards. If memory serves me correctly Jordan won the game with 5 Face cards, though we were all rather satisfied with the game's sense of humor.
(Recommendations/suggestions for the game: Assuming the intention is reaching a larger audience, I suggest that the creator adds more "traditional" objects and faces, so that players without an understanding of internet subcultures can still understand and play accordingly. Additionally, if ever released, this game could benefit from expansion packs with specific themes, much like Fluxx. Lastly, the game would benefit from an additional mechanism that distances it from Apples to Apples, as the game is, currently, merely a re-skin of the former.)
GESTALT: Played much like Apples to Apples, except instead of relating nouns (red cards) to adjectives (green cards), they relate nouns to facial expressions and emotions. The player with the most Face-cards by the time all players have run out of object-cards wins the game.
GAMEPLAY: Each player has 5 cards with the names of items, topics or internet domains on them. The first player flips over a Face card, and the other players try to play an object card that would make the person judging the card make that face or express the depicted emotion. The player with the Face card then reads the cards the other players used, and picks the one that most accurately would drive them to make that face. The one who played the winning object card gets to keep the Face card as a point. This cycle moves to the first player's left, and this second player starts the cycle anew. The game is over when the last Object cards have been played, and the player with the most Face cards wins.
SESSION: Much of our time was spent commenting on the choice of object cards (largely internet-culture influenced) and the cleverly-drawn Face cards. If memory serves me correctly Jordan won the game with 5 Face cards, though we were all rather satisfied with the game's sense of humor.
(Recommendations/suggestions for the game: Assuming the intention is reaching a larger audience, I suggest that the creator adds more "traditional" objects and faces, so that players without an understanding of internet subcultures can still understand and play accordingly. Additionally, if ever released, this game could benefit from expansion packs with specific themes, much like Fluxx. Lastly, the game would benefit from an additional mechanism that distances it from Apples to Apples, as the game is, currently, merely a re-skin of the former.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)