Tuesday 12 October 2010
Board game development
Today I made changes to my game. I wanted mainly to tidy up the game board, as it was rather cluttered. I also wanted to simplify the rules as when I initially designed it I kept adding new elements and it got quite confusing. I re-wrote the rules more clearly and re-designed the bored and cards which helped to give the game a clearer look. However when playing the game, it was a bit boring. The idea in my game is for one player to be designated as the chaser, and the other players have to 'race to the finish' without being eliminated by the chaser by losing all their three lives. The chaser uses a 4 sided die while the other players use a regular die. I think the game is over complicated, and the chaser is considerably under powered. For example when the game was played the chaser only managed to take one life from the other players, (each player starts with three). I think I would rather abandon this concept than continue to refine the design.
Sunday 10 October 2010
Agon, Alea, Ilinx & Mimicry
Agon: competition
Alea: chance/randomness
Ilinx: movement
Mimicry: simulation, make-believe, role-play
Example 1: Rage; a card game based upon the common whist card game played with a standard pack of playing cards. Rage adds two extra suits (red, orange, yellow, purple, green, blue) and to simplify things further suits range from 0 to 15, special cards are also included to alter play. The game conforms to both Agon, as there is compitition between the players, and Alea in the dealing of the cards.
Example 2: Halo Reach
Halo conforms to Agon as there is competition in the campaign, defeating the enemies, and also online defeating other players. Halo also offers Mimicry, as you play as an elite spartan (soldier) through a story that prequels the orginal Halo game (the ending connects the two very well). I think if the online multiplayer aspect of the game is also considered, the game could be said to feature Alea, as the other players actions cannot be predicted.
I think these terms are very useful in creating a games vocabulary, for analysing games. I think Mimicry is the most useful of the four terms as its meaning is immediately apparent. The other terms will need to be incorporated into my vocabulary for games analysis and used over time.
Alea: chance/randomness
Ilinx: movement
Mimicry: simulation, make-believe, role-play
Example 1: Rage; a card game based upon the common whist card game played with a standard pack of playing cards. Rage adds two extra suits (red, orange, yellow, purple, green, blue) and to simplify things further suits range from 0 to 15, special cards are also included to alter play. The game conforms to both Agon, as there is compitition between the players, and Alea in the dealing of the cards.
Example 2: Halo Reach
Halo conforms to Agon as there is competition in the campaign, defeating the enemies, and also online defeating other players. Halo also offers Mimicry, as you play as an elite spartan (soldier) through a story that prequels the orginal Halo game (the ending connects the two very well). I think if the online multiplayer aspect of the game is also considered, the game could be said to feature Alea, as the other players actions cannot be predicted.
I think these terms are very useful in creating a games vocabulary, for analysing games. I think Mimicry is the most useful of the four terms as its meaning is immediately apparent. The other terms will need to be incorporated into my vocabulary for games analysis and used over time.
Paidea & Ludus
Paidea: Effectively, "play" for pleasure
Ludus: more constrained by rules, with a clear outcome (eg "winning")
Example 1: Grand Theft Auto IV ( although all apply IV is the one I am most familiar with)
GTA is a strong example of a game that offers both paidea and ludus. Although the player is required to complete missions to progress through the game, the player can also roam free in the city, doing as they please, although the different islands are unreachable by road vehicles until the player has progressed enough (through the missions) to unlock the seperate islands. The locking of islands is another form of Ludus along with the rules of the missions, for example when on a driving mission and you manage to destroy the car you are required to drive, you fail the mission. I think the Plaidea in this game gives the game a much longer life span.
Example 2: Left 4 Dead 2 (both apply again)
Left 4 Dead shows a very clear example of a game that offers Ludus. the objective of the game is to get from the starting point (safe room) to the end, by battling through hords of zombies using various weapons, reaching the end completes that particular mission. The game has a very linear structure, with the constricted maps and objectives guiding you through the map with pre-determined zombie filled areas along the route, until the next safe room is reached.
Ludus: more constrained by rules, with a clear outcome (eg "winning")
Example 1: Grand Theft Auto IV ( although all apply IV is the one I am most familiar with)
GTA is a strong example of a game that offers both paidea and ludus. Although the player is required to complete missions to progress through the game, the player can also roam free in the city, doing as they please, although the different islands are unreachable by road vehicles until the player has progressed enough (through the missions) to unlock the seperate islands. The locking of islands is another form of Ludus along with the rules of the missions, for example when on a driving mission and you manage to destroy the car you are required to drive, you fail the mission. I think the Plaidea in this game gives the game a much longer life span.
Example 2: Left 4 Dead 2 (both apply again)
Left 4 Dead shows a very clear example of a game that offers Ludus. the objective of the game is to get from the starting point (safe room) to the end, by battling through hords of zombies using various weapons, reaching the end completes that particular mission. The game has a very linear structure, with the constricted maps and objectives guiding you through the map with pre-determined zombie filled areas along the route, until the next safe room is reached.
Tuesday 5 October 2010
Critical Breakdown of BBC Bitesize KS1 game: Shape Lab
Interaction - A game needs interaction otherwise its not a game, its a puzzle. The players interactions should alter the state of the game.
This game has very basic interaction, the player only has a choice of three shapes and choosing them has very little impact on the state of the game. I think the game lacks interaction, especially in the way there is no feedback on why a chosen shape is incorrect or correct.
Goals - One or more goals are required within the game to give the player something meaningful to achieve, otherwise it becomes meaningless and the player loses motivation to play.
The goal in this game is quite clear; to choose the correct shape, according to the question. Another goal is to complete the five questions and to see the completed creation made by 'Pablo' .
Struggle - Without struggle the game will lack a sense of accomplishment. Too much struggle and the game becomes frustrating but too little and it becomes dull.
The struggle in the game is very limited, since there is no way to fully lose the game. The only struggle created by choosing an incorrect shape is that the game is prolonged.
Game Structure - A structure is required to influence and guide the players within the game.
The game structure in this game is again very simple the correct shapes must be chosen for the game to progress, the structure gives very little feedback to the players, to influence them. feedback which it does give is an animation, which may be entertaining, but doesn't provide any real form of influences to the players choices.
Endogenous Meaning - Objects within the game only retain there meaning within the structure of the game, when they are removed from the game they have no real value. Endogenous meaning helps keep the game fictional.
The game does provide some educational value which can be taken from the game and used in the real world, although accomplishments within the game remain endogenous.
Evaluation of the game
Overall the game is very simple, which is acceptable as it is aimed as an educational game for young children, however I feel that the educational value is lacking, as the game does not tell the player why they are correct or why they are incorrect or doesn't provide any way of influencing the player to make the correct decisions. I think the game is quite poor in educational value because of the lack of teaching in it. I think that the design of the game could be improved to by adding more of a teaching element. To make the game more interactive and give the player reason and motivation to play it would help to keep the player entertained.
This game has very basic interaction, the player only has a choice of three shapes and choosing them has very little impact on the state of the game. I think the game lacks interaction, especially in the way there is no feedback on why a chosen shape is incorrect or correct.
Goals - One or more goals are required within the game to give the player something meaningful to achieve, otherwise it becomes meaningless and the player loses motivation to play.
The goal in this game is quite clear; to choose the correct shape, according to the question. Another goal is to complete the five questions and to see the completed creation made by 'Pablo' .
Struggle - Without struggle the game will lack a sense of accomplishment. Too much struggle and the game becomes frustrating but too little and it becomes dull.
The struggle in the game is very limited, since there is no way to fully lose the game. The only struggle created by choosing an incorrect shape is that the game is prolonged.
Game Structure - A structure is required to influence and guide the players within the game.
The game structure in this game is again very simple the correct shapes must be chosen for the game to progress, the structure gives very little feedback to the players, to influence them. feedback which it does give is an animation, which may be entertaining, but doesn't provide any real form of influences to the players choices.
Endogenous Meaning - Objects within the game only retain there meaning within the structure of the game, when they are removed from the game they have no real value. Endogenous meaning helps keep the game fictional.
The game does provide some educational value which can be taken from the game and used in the real world, although accomplishments within the game remain endogenous.
Evaluation of the game
Overall the game is very simple, which is acceptable as it is aimed as an educational game for young children, however I feel that the educational value is lacking, as the game does not tell the player why they are correct or why they are incorrect or doesn't provide any way of influencing the player to make the correct decisions. I think the game is quite poor in educational value because of the lack of teaching in it. I think that the design of the game could be improved to by adding more of a teaching element. To make the game more interactive and give the player reason and motivation to play it would help to keep the player entertained.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)