Assignment 2

The idea of a massively multiplayer social game is an interesting one however when thinking along that lines, I bump in various issues that could possibly hinder such a game. Here's just some mental vomit as I go along my train of thought...

1) It will be very troublesome to organize. Will people really go through all that trouble just to play such a game? What if it is a fun and well thought out game? Will there be motivation to play the game? We could offer a prize to the winner but would that defeat the purpose of the game?

2) Can we compare it to MMORPGs? The main difference between MMORPGs and real life massively multiplayer games is that MMORPGs are very accessible and convenient to play. The player just needs a copy of the game and a computer. Is the key to try to make the game as accessible as possible then?

3) What allows MMORPGs to run smoothly is an efficient framework that goes on behind the scenes. What resources will be require to manage a massively multiplayer social game?

4) How do we possibly playtest a massively multiplayer social game with the resources that we have at our disposal now?

5) How long should the game last? If the game only lasts a short while, will it be a waste of such an elaborate organization?

I'll really need to think about all this if I want to pursue this game direction.


Some possible massively multiplayer social game concepts I can think of could possibly include:

1) a blown up version of tag where each person has a target to "kill". The thing is that he doesn't know who his target so he has use various means to hunt his target down.

2) two factions of people who do not know who their allies or enemies are but are notified of their objectives through a central command. The fun part will be identifying your allies and doublecrossing your enemies in order to complete these objectives.

3) a game where each person has a piece of the puzzle (ie like a clue) and the first person to solve the mystery wins

4) a game that spills over into real life. a game that takes place every even when u r in lectures or tutorials.

5) or a game that goes along the lines of icebreakers...

hmmm

[Edited: OK just got back from lecture. We aren't supposed to do massively multiplayer social game. Dohz! Back to the drawing board =P]

Post Assignment 1 post

Credits

Rules: Yap Choon Onn
Cards: Lim Chin Tech Barry
Figurines: Kenneth Joel Phua Zaiyao
Board: Chan Haoran Luther
Playtesting: All

I love my board.

I know having a nice board alone doesn't make a game good, but I think it really does add to the experience. Compared to our previous playtesting sessions when we just used a plain board with a grid, using the done-up board is a teeny weeny little bit more fun. Same thing with our figurines and cards. Compared to using flimsy paper mockups, using plastic toy soldiers and the proper cards also made the game a little more fun. I guess its the tactile sensation that adds to the fun. But of course, if the underlying concept and rules are bad, the game won't be good no matter how fancy the equipment is. So kudos to the group!

I think we had more time, it would be better if the other group could play our game a few more times. The more times you play the game, the more familiar you get with the rules, the more fun it gets bcos of all the emergent strategies that you can come up with. It is when all these cheapo strategies (eg: Barry's Sacrifice Technique, my Turtle Defense + Ion Cannon Spam...) come into the game that the fun factor of the game shoots up.

Why do I feel that our game is good? Bcos I want to play more of it =P

Discussion Questions 4

Choose a game which you feel attempts to incorporate strong narrative elements.

Fahrenheit: Indigo Prophecy. One of the most effective games that I've played in terms of narrative elements. It is probably considered obscure in Singapore but you should try it out if you manage to get your hands on it.


Discuss the tension between agency and narrative structure within the game. Do you agree that narrative and interactivity can never co-exist? Why/why not?

I feel that agency and the narrative structure within Indigo Prophecy go well with each other. Perhaps it's the sheer number of choices and outcomes that are possible that gives the player a sense of agency together with a strong narrative structure.

While this game is an adventure game in the sense that there are sometimes certain tasks to accomplish in order to move on to the next scene, the games also allows you to choose how much of the task you want to do. For example, in one scene you are presented with a murder scene and you are supposed to investigate it. How thorough you search the scene is up to you, however the number of clues you find will indirectly affect what happens later on. You can even choose to just leave the scene without investigating and the game will still be able to carry on the narrative without a hitch.

Even while there are only 3 "proper" endings (where you don't die), there are so many possibilities for the story to unravel that the narrative will very rarely be identical when different people play it. And even if you do die midway in the game, the narrative structure also manages to close the story in a reasonable way.

Perhaps what the game succeeds in doing is to give the player an illusion of agency. And a good job it does at that =P However with a keen eye, you can sometimes spot a trick and unravel the illusion

For example, there is a scene where you are allowed to pick 3 cards from the 24 tarot cards laid out on a table. The character will then tell you your fortune depending out which cards you pick. I found this amazing since the permutations available of the cards are countless. It was only when I played the scene the second time that I realized that no matter which card you pick, the same cards will always appear in order. Thus I realized that the agency that I thought I had was actually an illusion. (And I applaude Atari for being able to trick me so.)

So while narrative limits interactivity to a certain extent, narrative and illusions of interactivity are actually able to coexist very effectively through clever tricks and plot devices.


How is time represented in the game? Is there a separation of story and discourse time? How does the game’s use of time allow for interactivity?

The game uses the "24" screen-in-screen effect to show events occuring simultaneously. For example, there is a scene where you are standing in a toilet with a corpse at your feet and you are suppose to hide it. Then the game suddenly opens a small window on the screen showing a policeman walking towards the toilet.
The appearance of this device really gives the player an intense sense of urgency and I find it very effective.

This game also features interactive flashbacks that still manage to tie back well into the story even if you fail or accomplish the tasks occuring in the flashbacks. One way the game achieves this is by implementing a variable which is the mental state of the characeter.

The choices available to the player are dependent on this mental state. The less stressed the protagonist is, the clearer his mind, the more options there will be available in each given situation.

So depending on the actions of the player during the flashback, his mental state goes up and down and will indirectly affect the possible narrative arcs.


Sigh... now that I try to put the experience down into words, I find myself lacking. Some things you just have to experience to know. Indigo Prophesy is a game that I will recommend to all to play.

(While I found the narrative structure of the game extremely good, I felt that the plot would have been better with a change in the twist near the end =P)

After 2x playtesting

It turns out that everyone has a different preception of the game when we first discussed the initial game idea. However, after 2 sessions of playtesting and straightening everything out, I think everyone now has a cohesive view of the game.

Major gameplay changes have been made since our initial idea and the game is now less complicated and more smooth-flowing. We are aiming to create a game that is simple to pick up and play but with has a strategic depth to it. "Easy to learn, hard to master".

We'll be having at least 1 or 2 more playtesting sessions before we'll be satisfied.

Gameboard is now bigger (13x9) and each sector size his elongated to be able to fit a card.

Terrain and all the other environment cards are now revamped.

The game

Will give a description of the game later. Let just say its a dice-card-board game.

I'm doing up the board and the terrain cards.

For the first playtest, I'll need to determine

1) Board
- size of board
- number of sectors on board
- shape of sectors
- number of squares in each sector (size of sector)

2) Terrain cards
- if each type of card works
- number of each type of card
- if combining card attributes work
- if there are other possible card types

[Current status: initial setting]

Board:
12x8 sector board
4 squares in each sector

Terrain Cards:
- defense +1
- defense +2
- defense x2
- attack +1
- attack +2
- 1 sided wall
- corner wall
- obstacle
- movement -2
- impassable to vehicles, attach +1, movement -2 (mountains)

Discussion Questions 3

For a game of your choice:

1) Describe the formal elements that make up the game. Be as clear and detailed as possible.

I think it'll be interesting to use what I've learnt and try to apply it on some games that I've worked on. Not only do I get to compare my "then" and "now" states, I also get to help myself improve my future games and finish a homework assignment at the same time!

So I shall attempt to analyse my Darkness series. It's a point-and-click adventure game. I know the readings have been insinuating that adventure games and not technically games... but I say wth... There's a large audience for these type of games and to these players, adventure games are games and they like playing them... so that's all that matters =P

Players- It's made for one player (control are only available for 1 person) but from my playtesting sessions, it seems that there's more fun to be had when playing the game with people looking over your shoulder and sharing your experience.

Objectives- The ultimate objective is to escape from and survive the scenario that the player has been put in.

Procedures- The player explores the game environment, picks up items and finds clues. Using both textual and visual clues, the player has to use logic to figure out the solutions to the various obstacles in order to proceed on to the next part of the game or to unlock more areas in the game environment.

Rules- Maybe it's a rule that says "figure out what the game creator wants you to do and do it". Are adventure game another take on the game "Simon Says"?

Resources- These would be the items that you find.

Conflict- The conflict would be against the scenario of being trapped and also against the ghostly antagonists that attack you from time to time.

Boundaries- Locked door and obstacles that prevent you from moving on in the game.

Outcome- The player eventually escapes the presented scenario at the end of each episode but is presented with a cliffhanger in order to make them look forward to the following episode. According to feedback, some people are upset with the cliffhangers because they realize that the "big" game hasn't ended yet and they don't like the feeling of incompleteness... but I guess this is inherent with the serial-episode format.


2) Does this description fully capture the requirements for playing the game? Are there any additional rules or assumptions that you may have left out? Do these need to be written down? Why/why not?

As this is a horror game, there is a requirement for the player to turn up the volume and turn down the lights in order to have the optimal environment in which to play the game. This has to be stated explicitly at the beginning of the game because player will not normally adjust their environment just to play a game. There are people (those who like being frightened) who will follow these instructions, and there are also people who will do the exact opposite by turning off the volume and turning on the lights because they want to find out what the game is about but they do not want to be scared.

There is another unwritten rule for the player not to search the Internet for a walkthrough to the game. The player won't normally do that as they know that having a walkthrough will take away the satisfaction of having solved the puzzles themselves. In general, players will try to solve the puzzles on their own until they reach the point where they are so "stuck" that they will start asking for help or hints.

This rule doesn't need to be written down because we live in a meritocratic society... and it's no fun boasting that you won the game if you cheated through it.


3) Following Doug Church’s approach, try to extract the abstract design concepts that constitute the gameplay. Can these be transferred to a different type of game? Why/why not?

Some games have elements to invoke emotions in the player. In Darkness, this emotion is fear. The sound, imagery in the game is made such as to create a scary atmosphere for the player. Darkness relies mostly on sound and also certain shock tactics borrowed from movies in order to realize this. Personally, I feel that it is this created sense of fear that makes this game different from all the other point-and-click adventure games on the net.

I'm not sure... but can I classify the invoking of emotions and feelings in the player as an abstract design concept?

I find that it is a good thing if a game is able to invoke an emotion (other than frustration =P) from the player. It helps draw the player deeper into the game and makes it more immersive.

Invoking of emotions and feelings is present in many other games as well. Survival Horror games like Resident Evil, Clock Tower and Silent Hill also rely on this sense of fear in the player to make it fun. Other games like FFVII try to invoke other emotions like sadness ie. by killing off Aerith. Most games also invoke happiness and a sense of accomplishment by letting you advance a level.

Thoughts after reading Jesper Juul's "Games of Emergence and Games of Progression"

I think you can't really compare Emergence games and Progression games. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Yes you may say that apples are sweeter than oranges (or vice versa) but still, you can't say that one fruit is better than the other.

Being emergence or progression is just inherent of a genre. Real Time Strategy games are emergence. Multiplayer games are emergence. RPGs are progression games. Platform games are progression games. Games that have stories are progression games. How do you compare Tetris(emergence) with Halflife(progression)? Both are brilliant games but they are just incomparable. It is impossible to determine which is the better game.

You can't compare genres and say that one is better than the other. It also all depends on the player's tastes and what he finds fun.

Perhaps the goal of this module is to teach us wat makes a game fun but so far, from the lectures and readings, I still find evidence to back up the notion that while there are elements that can identify that make a game fun, ultimately whether a game is good or not really is still very subjective.

CNY post

During CNY, I was witnessing some kids playing a fighting game and it dawned upon me that meaningful play can mean different things to different people. even though they are playing the same game.

For experienced KOF players, they know the key combinations that allow the onscreen character to perform certain moves. They play the game with this intentionality and create strategies using this knowledge. The game is meaningful to them in this way.

In comparison, to a kid who just mashes buttons, he see the game as one where the harder and faster he presses the buttons, the better his character will fight (and this sometime works too!) And this is meaningful to him as well.

Both players find their way of playing the game fun and both are able to find different meaningful play frameworks from the same game.

Just a random thought, that's all =P