Memoirs of a Gaiden

I Love Dragon Quest game + game mechanics analysis

2006-04-21T02:58:00.000+08:00

This game is really hilarious.

The premise is that there is this guy who wants to set a record for the longest ever Dragon Quest play and you are supposed to irritate the hell outta him so that he will stop play.

Takes a while to load though... but its worth it =P

I never could get him more than mildly irritated tho but it was fun. Clicking on the same things when you replay can yield different results. And its funny how he has this hot ang mo girlfriend. Haha.

[Edited: I got him to rampage in his green hat! Hurrah! but that's not the most yet...]

[Edited again: Yatta! I got him to give up! (Winning combi: Call his mum, make him dance, pull him off to bed) I think the rampaging in green hat ending was funnier tho =P]

[Geek part: I think I've figured out some of the mechanics of the game. Each action is given a certain number of points. You get assigned either the failure, green hat rampage or win ending depending on the number of points you accumulate throughout the three stages.

Now while the actions seem random, they aren't really. You see since the game was made in Flash, there are 2 ways to "randomize" the actions. One way is by using a random number and the second is to use keyframes to determine which action to use depending on the timing of the click. It turns out the makers used the easier keyframe method.

This hypothesis can be tested by using the appearance of the star as a time reference. If you click on a spot whenever the star appears, the same action will always occur. Eg: Clicking on the phone in Stage 1 when the star appears will ALWAYS make his mother call. Clicking on the action figures in Stage 3 when the star appears will ALWAYS make him so angry that he will stomp on his action figures...

Hence, we can use this timing method to predict what actions will occur depending on when we click the spots. In conclusion, if I were to do a similar game, I would use the random number method instead, since the effects would be less predictable. In addition, I would only assign one sequence of actions as the winning condition. This would make the game much more challenging but this method would make it a more viable situation to offer the winner of the game a prize.]

Tomb of Doom - A Plasticine Adventure

2006-04-16T14:05:00.000+08:00

A few days ago, I released by latest game online.

Tomb of Doom

It's billed as the first plastercine point n click online Flash game ever. I know Neverhood used the same concept, but it wasn't put online =P Special measures have to be done to make a game playable online, like to optimize the filesize so that it wil be small enough to download quickly. This is a huge problem with plastercine games due the huge amt of images used. Hurray me for working around that limitation =D

I actually made it as a project for another module but got offered a sponsorship deal for it. They offered to sponsor my future games as well =D

Didn't really get to consciously apply much of the concepts learnt in NM3216, but I did try to apply the concept of flow though. I conceptually separated the game into 3 big puzzles. Each big puzzle is made up of small puzzles. But I made it in the way that the first puzzle is pretty easy and requires less exploring while the final puzzle requires more walking around and is more complex. So through solving the first simple puzzle, the player will be able to familiarize with the interface and with how things work and from then on be ready to tackle more difficult challenges.

I know academics look down on point and click adventure games but I keep making them bcos there's a huge online market for them. As long as I keep making them, sponsors will keep paying me. It's the whole consumer culture scene that's to blame. Haha.

Maybe the point is that it all comes down to meaningful play. Bcos these people online can't get enough of point and click adventure games (for some reason), they find their own meaningful play in these games even though others may not.

Quoting political economists of media:
"Does consumer culture serve the interests of capitalists only or was it also what the 'masses' wanted?"

*shrugz* As long as the moola comes in, I'm happy.

With this, I think I've discovered a viable business venture.

There is zero start up cost, no risk for me and no opportunity cost since I enjoy making the games. Normally online content makers need to worry about server costs and where to host their work. I've found it much easier to just tell people, "I'll let you host my game on your server if you pay me." I also don't need to worry with marketing my games to the public because these will all be settled by the sponsor. This marketing will in turn attract more sponsors... and round and round it goes =)

This is actually a win-win situation in that the sponsor will be able to generate traffic to his site via my games and will get revenue through ads. It is likely that he will earn twice the amount he pays me, or even more... and the best thing is that the consumers do not even have to pay a cent!

Around 1 week's work bags me around $1000. So if I churn out a game each week, I'll earn like $4000 a month. Sounds not bad, eh?

Of course there are other factors to consider like schoolwork and stuff... so it's unlikely I'll be doing 4 games a month... but it's an idea that sounds great on paper.

Of course, I expect this bubble to burst eventually like the DotCom thingie. But by then, I'll probably move on to other things...

Videogames and violence

2006-04-15T13:51:00.000+08:00

I was rereading Kurt Squire's Cultural Framing of Computer/Video Games when I came across the part regarding the experiments conducted on players to test the relationship between videogames and violence. I shaln't go into detail but he says that these experiments are not very effective in that the experiments do not accurately portray the transferance of the effects of the violence in games in real life.

Anyway, I thought of a good experiment that would test the direct tranfer of violence in videogames to real life.

Say you have 2 subjects. Let one play Doom for one hour and the other play Myst. Now instead of using noise blasts, we give them both a gun each and tell them that only one can leave the room alive. We have to pressure them until one subject fires the gun at the other subject.

My hypothesis is that the subject who played Doom will more likely fire the gun first under extreme pressure due to the desensitizing of violence, and also the familiarity of the kill or be killed scenario.

Of course, this experiment would be unethical to conduct. One alternative would be to load both guns with blanks but tell the subjects that they are using real bullets. However, both subjects would likely come out of the experiment with a mental breakdown.

How unfortunate =P

Discussion Questions 9

2006-04-13T00:14:00.000+08:00

Think back to the very start of the semester, when we talked about the concept of meaningful play, which occurs when "the relationships between actions and outcomes in a game are both discernable and integrated into the larger context of the game" (from Salen and Zimmerman, Rules of Play). When the game is an alternate reality game such as The Beast, where the game does not have any explicitly declared actions and outcomes, and in some cases does not even acknowledge its own existence, is it possible for there to be meaningful play?

Meaningful play is dependent on the player. The player creates meaning in the play. If there can meaningful play in Calvinball, then yes, there can meaningful play in alternate reality games.

Take The Beast for example, even though its tells people that it is not a game, the self-proclaimed players still felt that it was a game and found their own meaning in it. They formed their own actions, deducted their own outcomes and created their own goals.

Just side tracking, but I think that even if a game does has explicitly declared actions and outcomes, there might not necessarily be meaningful play.
Eg: Monopoly + I-don't-want-to-play-stupid-board-games-I-want-to-play-computer-games kid = no meaningful play

Reiterating my previous point, it is the player that creates meaning in the play.

Does this type of "game" require us to rethink our definition of games?

What's our definition of a game?

Ah yes... "a voluntary interactive activity, in which one or more players follow rules that constrain their behavior, enacting an artificial conflict that ends in a quantifiable outcome." (I had to peek at my old blog entry.. how do u expect someone to memorize that whole chunk! Luckily its an open book exam yar? Haha.)

-voluntary
-artificial
-interactive
-players, experiential
-rules
-goals
-conflict
-quantifiable outcome

Just like I did with Calvinball, let me put an alternate reality game like The Beast against these criteria...

-Voluntary: Check. The players are self-proclaimed. No one forced them to become players.

-Artificial: Check. The lines are blurred but the conflicts are made up so it is artificial. (The killing wasn't real.) 9/11 isn't a game because it is not artificial... but that doesn't stop people from finding meaningful play in it, does it? Some people might think of tracking and killing "terrorists" as a game, don't u think? Find-Osama Game was quite popular... but got forgotten amist the excitement caused by the Find-the-WMD Game and Blame-Saddam Game.

-Interactive: Check. The creators of the Beast had to come up with more puzzles because the "players" solved them too fast right? Isn't that a reaction based on player input? There is also the direct outcome of user action. Player solves puzzle = progress to next puzzle. So I think there is interaction albiet in a different/ more subtle way.

-Players, experiential: Check. There are players. Self-professed players... so if being self-professed players is good enough for them, it is good enough for me =) They experience solving the puzzles so yes, it is experiential.

-Rules: Check. There weren't any explicit rules but there were cultural and social rules that the players followed. Eg: The Don't Point-your-gun-at-people-and-threaten-to-blow-their-heads-of-if-one-more-person-tells-you-that-this-is-not-a-game rule.

-Goals: Check. The players came up with their own goals. Short term goal- to solve the puzzles. Long term goal - to find out what this is all about.

-Conflict: Check. Conflict between the creators of the game and the players. Speed of creating puzzles vs speed of solving puzzles.

-Quantifiable outcome: Fuzzy. There wasn't an explicit end so the players didn't know when the game ended. But maybe some took the "This is not a game" from the trailer as a confirmation that it was indeed a game. And thus got their quantifiable outcome from there.

In conclusion, while alternate reality games are very different from our conventional games, they can actually still fit into our original definition of games if we look at them from different points of views.

Discussion Questions 8

2006-04-02T19:35:00.000+08:00

1) Creating mods (modifications) to existing games is a common practice, not just for computer games, but for any form of games. Does this imply that any game can be considered a game system? Why/why not?

Any game can be considered a game system because any game can be modified to make it different. However how different you can make it depends on the flexibilty of the game system... and this relates to the specificity of the game.

For example, in Halflife, you can enable the noclip mode and you can have a totally different game where you can fly around. But there are still many rules that you are still contrained with.

If you go to a deeper level (less specificity) and modify the game engine, you can come up with something quite different in terms of gameplay like Counterstrike. You can do this because at a deep level with less specificity, there is more flexibility.

If Halflife is to Blackjack, the Halflife game engine is to a deck of cards. (Am I sidetracking again?)

For a non-digital example, you can just remove the rule of "no-beating-up-the-other-players" and you can see a whole new ball game (the difference can be witnessed by comparing NBA games with the unofficial basketball games that are being played in certain districts)

Anyway, the point is this: Any game can be considered a game system because any game can be modified provided you can find something to modify that has not been tied down by its specificity.

2) Consider a game which you feel could be successfully modified. How could this game be generalized into a game system?

Warcraft 3 can be successfully modified. By changing the objectives and certain variables, new gametypes have emerged from the basic Warcraft 3 free-for-fall base fights. There are currently countless successful Warcraft 3 mods that play very differently from the original game.

How much of the unique character/flavour of the game can be retained?

The deepest the modders could go would be the game engine level so most of the visual feel of the game has to be retained.

How generic can you make the game system? How easy will it be to create new, unique games from the game system?

How generic a game system is or how many possibilities a game system has really depends on the modder himself. If you understand the game system well enough, you can use it to make just about anything you wish... (even though sometimes these things could be done much easier elsewhere. eg: you could use the Warcraft 3 game engine to do a cardgame by using different characters represent different cards. We can use the fog of war to simulate turned down cards. Cards that are not supposed to be revealed can be hidden in the fog of war. Of course not all cardgames can be played using this system but simple ones can...

This is possible but it is terribly stupid and a complete waste of time to make.)

3) Describe one new game designed on top of the game system you proposed in question 2.

I peeked at some other people's blogs and some wrote about how RTS games can never become FPS games. That isn't exactly true. For Warcraft 3, the game engine uses 3D objects. If you can view the game system from that level, you can see that this means the game engine can create anything 3D. Therefore a FPS could actually be possibly using the Warcraft 3 game engine. How?

You give the player only one Dwarfen Gunman (forgot his real name) unit. We mod the engine so that the camera goes so low that it is at the level of the gunman's height, then we point the camera almost parallel to the horizon. What we have here is a camera view of what the unit will see.

Now we fix the camera so that it always points in the direction that the unit is facing and that the origin of the camera is always positioned at the head of the unit. We've got ourself a first person thingie!

That's all the changes we need to be made to the game. The other parts of this mod can be implemented using the existing interface within Warcraft 3 itself!

By rightclicking on the minimap, we can move the unit around. First person walker!

By using the icons to switch between attack move, normal move, guard mode or stop mode, we can control when the unit will shoot. It's not exactly like Doom but at least we can use this method to control his shooting to a certain extent =P

Hurrah! First Person Shooter in Warcraft 3 engine! Is this possible? I haven't tried it but it sounds theoratically viable =D

Discussion Questions 7

2006-04-02T19:05:00.000+08:00

1) Try to find an example of a digital game which truly takes advantage of the traits of the medium, and could not be successfully implemented in a non-digital form. In particular, think about the traits of digital/computer games as listed by Crawford. Describe the game, and identify the core gameplay mechanic. What is it about the core mechanic that makes the game truly a digital game?

I think most RTS games are examples of games that can only be done effectively in the digital medium. I shall just take an arbitary RTS title like the C&C series.

Firstly, RTS games allow you to control tens or hundreds of units with a click of a mouse button. This rides on the ability of the computer to keep track and process of large amounts of data very quickly. Compared to a tabletop strategy game, the digital version will be able to run faster. One round in Warhammer might take hours while a similar round of the same complexity can be done in mere seconds digitally. Furthermore, tabletop versions have to use dumb-downed rules compared to digital strategy games as it will take a lot of brain power if you want to calculate complex maths formulas for each tabletop strategy game unit.

The processing speed of the computer also allows RTS games to run in realtime while tabletop games are forced to be turn-based.

Secondly, say for example that you are a general of a real army. In order to command hundreds of troops, you will be required to go through a chain of command and it might take a matter of days to move an army from a location to another. Even in tabletop gaming, moving hundreds of units might take hours! In the digital version, the sending of commands and movement of troops is almost instantaneous. Time can compressed in digital games.

Thirdly, the networking aspect of digital games allows you to play matches against poeple in other countries. You can't do this offline... unless it's play by mail chess... but that'll take so long that the game will become draggy.

The plasticity of RTS games also allow games and scenario to be setup very quickly. The game is able to change scenarios or locales very quickly. In tabletop Warhammer, the setting up of the scenario terrain takes a long time. In real world games, setting up and taking down of props and terrain features require time.

I guess the main advantage of digital games is that they are able to perform operations much faster and more efficiently than their real world counterparts due to the ability to perform complex calculations faster than any human can.

2) The third and final assignment is to design a digital game. Blog about your initial ideas for the assignment, ready for discussion in the workshop this week.

-a game that connects people -> networking aspect of digital games
-a game that makes use of complex calculations -> processing speed of digital games
-a game that requires the processor to keep track of a lot of stats -> ability of digital games to process large amounts of data
-a game that can map realworld locations to a virtual world
-including some of the ideas from my previous entries...

Discussion Questions 6

2006-03-16T21:09:00.000+08:00

Choose a game which presents itself as a "serious" game, one which is not primarily (or solely) intended for entertainment. Using this game as an example, discuss whether it is possible for a game to be successful on two levels: both in terms of its goals as a game (creating meaningful play and engagement/flow), and as a serious game (achieving specific learning objectives, conveying a political message, or other non-entertainment objectives).

I am going take the mod I made for the School of Combat Engineers as a case-study. I hope noone feels that I'm showing-off =P I want to review the mod is because I find it beneficial for me to reflect on my past work and look at them with the new concepts that I have learnt and to learn from my mistakes =)

Anyway, you can get some background info about the mod from this website (that hasn't been maintained for years =P). In short, it's a mod of a commercial game that allows Combat Engineer Trainees to perform various drills and procedures in the game environment.

Considering that the main reason why I decided to do this project was so that I would be able to spend time playing computer games instead of being out in the jungles training, I can identify various flaws in the project that really made it not that effective. (Flaws that I just couldn't be bothered to correct because I could get away with it =P)

First of all, I think the trainees did not find much meaningful play in the game. They just saw it as one of the things they have to go through for their training so they didn't really care much for it. This could also be due to the fact that they were "forced" to play the game by their instructors... and perhaps that the game wasn't particularly FUN =P

Also, there isn't really much engagement or flow. I think some of the scenarios are a little too difficult. The fact that the players are able die very easily makes it very difficult. (But will in turn this help put emphasis on the fatality of being careless in war situations?) Players were also not allowed to respawn in order to teach the consequences of casualties in war. This made the game even harder.

As for educational aspects of the game, the game managed to achieve some of the objectives that it was set out to meet however there is much room for improvement as well.

The things that worked:
1) The procedures for the real drills are supposed to be performed according to a certain order. This is reinforced in the game by not allowing the players to proceed safely until they have completed each step properly. ie. Players get blown up by a mine if they do not perform the proper procedures to disarm it. The game helps the players to enumerate the steps in their mind and hopefully remember the steps when they have to perform them outfield.

2) The trainees could die in the game so this emulates situations where they have to perform the drills under enemy fire - something that the Army has yet to emulate effectively in real life.

3) The main selling point of this project is that it will cost the army less to train the soldier on computers than to train them outfield. Also, by familiarizing the trainees with the procedures in a game, they are theoratically supposed to perform more efficiently during outfield trainings resulting in less costly hours spent outfield.

The things that flopped:
1) While some things can be realistically portrayed in the game, other important things like distance judgement will be hard to perform in the game. It is difficult to judge 500m on a computer screen as compare in real life.

2) The available actions are all text options in an option box in the game. The trainees just need to select the proper options at correct locations in order to perform them. There could possibly be problems with mapping the actions to the real life procedures.

More Assignment 2 Ideas

2006-03-03T12:08:00.000+08:00

I think in social games, the objective is not really to win... but NOT to lose. And it the act of "sabo-ing" someone to make him lose that is fun.

Taboo actions like causing pain also seems to delight most people. Some people just need a reason to whack their friends =P

So Idea 1: Inverse Whacko!
One guy in the centre of the cirle of people. Everyone except the guy in the centre has a paper stick and a card stuck on them. So the guy in the centre has to try to grab the card from the stick wielding people. If he grabs someones card, either 1) he exchanges place with them or 2) that victim will now join in the centre of the centre. Meanwhile... those with the sticks can whack the life out of those in the centre. Muhahahaha.

Of course this game won't be approved because its too violent.

Idea 2: Some game where you can keep adding rules eg: when a diamond card comes out, the player must say "Diamonds are a girl's best friend" or something like that. The fun part will be trying to remember all the rules and teasing your friends who forget.

Discussion Questions 5

2006-03-03T11:34:00.000+08:00

In this week's workshop, we'll be playing 3 games which exhibit emergent social play: Little Max, Mafia, and Stand Up. Choose one of these games, and answer the following questions:

For Little Max:

1) Describe the social interactions which you observed during play. In what way did these interactions emerge from within the formal elements of the game?

Due to the unfamiliarity of the players, the social interactions were few. There was a little taunting but the other player normally do not bother with the game when it is not their turn. Most social interactions were about clarifying the rules =P

2) Using Sutton-Smith's categorization of social play roles, discuss how the players' roles changed during the course of the game.

When it isn't their turn, the players are more or less in the role to tease and taunt. When it is their turn, the player decides if he want to be an "attacker" and challenge the cup or not. There is perhaps a "seduction" to tempt the player to challenge a cup that that has been honestly declared.

3) Suggest a modification to the game which will alter the social dynamics that emerge during play.

I feel that allowing anyone to challenge the cup will make the game more social. This modification will get more people involved in the game even though it isn't their turn. Even though we tried this modification and it didn't seem to make a difference, I think it was because the players didn't really attempt to challenge enough. (Depends on the crowd) Possibly adding one more die into the cup will cancel out the resultant speedup of the game.

Assignment 2

2006-02-24T15:30:00.000+08:00

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

2006-02-19T15:34:00.000+08:00

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

2006-02-13T18:47:00.000+08:00

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

2006-02-11T15:38:00.000+08:00

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

2006-02-09T02:42:00.000+08:00

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

2006-02-06T21:42:00.000+08:00

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"

2006-02-03T21:34:00.000+08:00

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

2006-02-01T21:33:00.000+08:00

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

Discussion Questions 2

2006-01-25T14:48:00.000+08:00

1) Based on the definitions of a game and meaningful play as presented in class, discuss whether the game of Calvinball could be considered a game. Could meaningful play emerge from this game? Why/why not?

So if I've been paying attention to the correct parts of the lecture, a game is defined as

"a voluntary interactive activity, in which one or more players follow rules that constrain their behavior, enacting an artificial conflict that ends in a quantifiable outcome."

and the criteria for classifying something as a game are as follows:

-voluntary
-artificial
-interactive
-players, experiential
-rules
-goals
-conflict
-quantifiable outcome

So in a very methodical fashion, I shall put Calvinball through each critera to determine if it is in actual fact a game.

Voluntary: Check. The players play because they want to. They also agree to obey the rules even though they might not like them.

Artificial: Check. The game is played within its own domain, the "magic circle" of the game.

Interactive: Check. Whatever happens in the game is in one way or other determined by what the player had done or what the other players had done or are doing. The players are in control of what happens in Calvinball.

Players: Check. Calvinball requires players. It is experiential.

Rules: This is a little tricky. There are rules in Calvinball but they are always changing. But I guess rules are still rules so I'll say "yes" to this one.

Goals: Another tricky one. I guess the goal is to win... but I can't find an appropriate winning condition in Calvinball... so I guess it's "no" to this one.

Conflict: Check. There is conflict between the players. The players are all playing to win.

Quantifiable outcome: How do you determine a winner if the score is Q to 12? I say "no".

So in conclusion, Calvinball does not fit the criteria of what makes a game. Hence, Calvinball is not a game.

Furthermore, I can't really find any meaningful play in Calvinball. Yes there is discernability where it is easy to perceive the immediate outcome of an action, however there is no integration as the outcome of the game is so open and unclear. (But then again, to the player it might be meaningful. Seeing how Calvin is so passionate about the game, I'm sure he sees meaning in the game... hmmm)

But Calvinball sure does sound fun though =P

2) Begin developing your initial concept for assignment 1: design a traditional format game, and share your ideas on your blog. You can do this individually for now, and we'll form groups in the workshop next week.

I haven't got any concrete concepts yet so I'll just brainstorm here and vomit out whatever ideas that come to mind.

-There are so many games that you can play with poker cards...
-Maybe a game that involves not only the game pieces (cards, dice, board) but also the environment of the player...
-Maybe a game that has something to do with trust and betrayal. Games that involve human emotions and conflict are always interesting...
-Boardgame? The possiblilties are limitless...
-There are really so many games that can be made and so many ideas to play with... maybe I'll just wait till the group decided wat type of game we want it to be (card, board or something else) so that it'll be easier to narrow down the options.

(More coming soon)

Thoughts after the "Digital Media Industry in Singapore" talk

2006-01-13T18:18:00.000+08:00

It was a pretty informative talk, piquing my interest in the animation industry, in addition to the game industry, as well.

What I would like to know is what does the portfolio, that they keep talking about, consist of? What should I put in my portfolio and how do I create one in the first place?

I was a little disappointed when I heard about the current state of the game industry though. Companies are unwilling to produce original games because they are afraid of taking the risk because they have to answer to shareholders. I feel that that's a totally wrong mindset. Shouldn't it be more correct to feel that big companies like EA have enough capital to be able to take more risks?

That's the main problem about EA, I guess. Yes they have lots of money and suckers will keep buying all 999 variants of Fifa, however what does one more Fifa game on the shelf benefit the gaming industry? Maybe they'll have better graphics but underneath all, it's still the same game. Companies should be willing to produce more Katamaris. If they don't, how do they expect the industry to mature?

The movie industry didn't mature by showing the same old crap. Sure there's Aliens 1,2,3,4... and Terminator 1,2,3... and who can forget Star Wars 4,5,6,1,2,3... but it is movies like Sixth Sense, Memento or even Matrix that really break barriers and bring the industry and expectations of the quality of future films forward.

Do we really need another Home Alone movie?

Discussion Questions 1

2006-01-12T14:45:00.000+08:00

What is a game?

Basically a game something that you can play. Following that train of thought, that brings us to the question, "What is play?" According to dictionary.com (which incidentally is the dictionary that I swear by), the best definition for this context is

"To occupy oneself in amusement, sport, or other recreation".

Hence, a game is something that you can potentially get amusement or fun out of. I use the word "potentially" because some games are just not fun... or could be fun to some people and not to others. (Will go more into that in the next section, "What makes a good game?")

In fact, almost anything can be seen as a game. It all depends on how you look at it. Life is a game. Love is a game. What the hell, even CORS bidding and choosing your modules can be a game depending on how you look at it.

Module prequisites and allocation of points to get the module that you want. Diablo Skill Tree anyone?

I guess for something to be game, the player should also has to have a certain extent of control. But then again with the "everything-is-a-game-world-view", anything can be interactive if you look at it in a correct light. Are movies interactive? Yes they can be. Even though nothing you can do can change the ending, watching a movie can be a game in itself too!

Take murder mysteries for example. If you manage to guess who the killer is before the end of the movie, wouldn't you be able to consider yourself to have "won" the movie? To me, movies = a identify-the-clues-and-guess-the-ending game. The game happens all in your head.

I know that this is a weird way of thinking... but it sure is fun!

Perhaps I'm rambling already... but I've just thought of this. Do games really have to have a goal? What if the game has no end? Is it still a game? What if the gameplay is so fun/engaging that it is not the endgame that rewards the player but the very process of playing it?

I feel that designing games is like art. Yes there are rules to classifying something as a game... but these rules can also be broken.

A game can be anything. Anything can be a game.
(OK It's confirmed. I'm rambling.)

[Edited: Oh! Just thought of something else. A game must have rules. If it doesn't have rules, it's just a toy. Toy + Rules = Game. What do you think of this equation?]

What makes a good game?

A good game is one where you can derive fun out of. However, since the concept of fun is quite subjective, it is impossible to come out with a game that satisfies everyone and that everyone will find good.

Personally, I like a game with a good storyline. I like plot twists and interesting characters... similar to books and movies. I feel that games are the storytellers for the new age.

I like games that are not too tedious.

I like games that try to break conventions and succeed.

If I like a game, it is a good game to me.

The point: Whether a game is good or not is subjective.

Of course it is easy to see what the "majority" of gamer like to play and try to make games to fit their expectations. "If it works, why change it?" Hence the large number of FPS and RTS clones out there. (And not many of them are particularly good.)

As game designers/developers, do we just give the masses what they want? Economists say yes. Supply and demand. Capitalist pigs! I say no. Originality is the key. A good game is original. A good game is fresh. A good game is new. It is only through originality that the game industry will not stagnate.

Also with regards to the obsession with better graphics... some people feel that the better the graphics, the better the game. I beg to differ. Anyway if you get the chance, try out Darwinia. Simple graphics but very brilliant and original gameplay, methinks.

A homework blog! Whatever will they think of next?

2006-01-12T04:54:00.000+08:00

This is a no-frills blog for my NM3216 homework. Gaming Culture! Hot Damn!