A serious game

We discussed this in the tute but I was thinking of an idea on the way home that I thought I would write about.

Rather than a game about drugs and drug addiction my game would be a symbolic one, I guess sort of similar to the game Malcolm was playing towards the end of the tutorial.

Game Idea:

It would be a side scroller platform game with the usual run, jump, forward and backward actions. You would also have to collect a certain amount of items (let’s say stars but they could be anything) to finish the level. The major mechanic would be given a power up (let’s call it a balloon) which allows you to fly temporarily. Flight makes the game much easier as there are many stars in the sky that you need to collect. While in the sky you can collect more balloons which allow the flight to last longer. With each balloon you fly higher and higher however each balloon only lasts a certain amount of time and every consecutive balloon provides a smaller interval of flight. However when the last balloon runs out you fall causing the player to lose a great deal of health and also a percentage of the stars already collected.

It would be possible to finish the level without flying however it would be very difficult.

Looking at the game so far it does not really portray a strong message ie it could be easily overlooked. It is supposed to represent the cycle of drugs with balloons being the drug (that provides a high/benefit of some sort) but when it runs out it causes a lot of damage to yourself and those around you. I wonder if its possible to create a serious symbolic game rather than the blantantly obvious ones such as the 9/11 game.

Is that all there is?

Rather than discuss the games industry in general which I don’t really know anything about I’d rather respond on the question “Is there no innovation to the scene?”. This sort of comment is said in many different areas, graphic design, game design and the dance scene. The complaint is that people are copying each other and there is no originality and innovation. The defense is that everything has been done before.

Quite frankly this is a load of bull. The people who say everything has been done before have watched too much youtube and tv. This is what differentiates a pioneer of dancing to just a good dancer. The same applies to a great designer and a great game. A great game would be different from the rest and innovative, and I think it should pioneer something that is purely its own.

I remember a quote I read which was in response to a similar argument. It was along the lines of even though the piano has limited keys to play not every song has been played.  The same goes inventing dance moves/styles, the same goes with designing a computer game and the same goes with any creative pursuit. Not everything has been done, there is always room to improve and innovate. That being said in game design we are also governed by the market and patterns in the market. But sometimes you have to take risks…no risk, no reward.

Hardware driven

The player is a puppet master.The end.

Just kidding.

Mechanics

- Each finger will control a “string”

- Left glove: For movement, walking, climbing, jumping, strafing.

- Right glove:  For controlling “limbs” ie fine motor control. For fighting, driving, doing wall flips.

- The puppets are alive (similar to Toy Story). As the player you must save them from whatever dangerous scenario they are put in.

Aesthetics – I think it would definately be a challenge controlling it this way. It must be tuned in a way that it is not annoying and that it does get easier as you play.

I think there is definately a fantasy aspect as well, the whole Toy Story theme and playing some sort of Toy God.

I think moving your fingers will create a sensory pleasure as well as seeing it translate onto the on screen puppet.

It should become easier as time goes on so hopefully it becomes ritual but the scenarios the puppet is put in will become harder therefore still keeping the challenge aspect.

Drama will arise from the different scenarios as well as the learning curve.

Fellowship can come by making it a multiplayer online game (either conflicting or teamwork) or alternatively we can have a more crazy puppet cyborg machine which requires two people to operate. Perhaps one for the weaponry and the other for the 10 limbs or something along those lines.

Discovery would come from the learning curve and finding out which fingers make the puppet do interesting things (like a roundhouse kick, backflip, tangle himself in his strings etc).

For the self expression aspect we can have the puppets customisable or different kinds of puppets. Maybe one is a dinosaur, another is a barbie, another is an action figure, another is a spawn action figure etc. Or we can start with the same base and have clothes on the puppets and draw faces on them. Or maybe due to the wooden/plastic nature of puppets the actual limbs themselves can be customisable, I can replace a hand with a hook or sub machine gun, instead of a head I will have a gun turret, instead of legs I will have two monster truck wheels etc. And perhaps we need to customise for certain levels in order to pass them or make them easier to pass.

Mechanic Driven Game

The year is 2099. An unpredicted gargantuan surge in rising sea levels has destroyed most of the civilised world in less than a month. With the water rising steadily and land mass running out it is up to you to create makeshift housing (either floating or underwater) for the masses of people that remain. You must save as many as you can.

Mechanics

- The water is rising (therefore there is a time limit to each scenario)

- You have a limited amount of materials (scuba gear, heavy machinery, cranes, submarines, oxygen tanks, ships, lumber etc)

- The people will do whatever you want them to do (similar to lemmings).

- In each scenario there is a minimum amount of people you have to save.

- The habitats must be airtight or able to float but also efficient in cost (we have limited resources)

A game for mum

My mum is really into investment strategies, get rich quick schemes and things of that nature. For some reason this made me think of a war game, but not your typical RTS or FPS but one where the main goal is gaining territory, trading resources, buying troops (but no actual fighting).

It is probably like the board game Risk (although I have never played it but I imagine that’s what it might be like)

Features that this game would have/need:

• A very easy interface (point and click most likely).
• It can have a lot of information but you should only have to concentrate on one thing at a time.
• Intelligent choices with some risk involved. Eg Should I place all my troops at this strategic location, should I split them up have half attack half defence, what buildings should I invest in, should I trade this particular resource right now because the price is high etc.
• The speed of the game dependent on the player (ie turn based).
• A quick learning curve to the game (my mum is a busy woman). Easy instructions to grasp and play.
• Realistic (ie not too futuristic or alien races).

digital vs non-digital games

To think about: What are the differences between table-top board/card/roleplaying games, computer games and sports/live action games? What does abilities and constraints does each kind offer you as a player or as a designer? How might the same game change from one medium to another?

Well off the top of my head the social aspect is very different. I am going to refer to table-top board/card/roleplaying games as just table games. Most, if not all, table games require minimum two people not including solitaire aka the loner game. Computer games are often played by yourself although now there is a huge popularity with multiplayer and massively multiplayer. But the option is there to play on your own and often we do. If you are playing a sport you are generally doing it in a team. You can train on your own of course but when it comes to playing a game of soccer, basketball, football you require a decent number of people for a good game.

Most table games are generally turn based and orderly. In sports it is the players to determine how fast the game will be. In computer games it depends what type of game but slow paced games in general are not very popular. Ok I feel like doing a table.

Game type and properties

	Table games	Computer games	Sport games
Social	Minimum 2 players	1-many	At least 2, team games require more
Pacing	generally slow	dependent on game type/genre	As fast as players dictate
Space required	small	small	large, may need correct field type
More to come as I think of them			/td>

Take for an example cricket. The sport cricket can be played with 2 people but you need 2 large teams for a real game. An official game of cricket is usually minimum of 1 day. That is a very long time when compared to most games. I have never played the cricket computer game but I imagine a game would not take longer than half an hour. And I assume there is at least a save function. If you were playing the computer game in multiplayer mode the max players would be two. The fielders would probably be AI controlled most the time as well. The table top game is constrained to fielders who cannot move. And the ball is constrained to roll on the ground which historically in normal cricket is an abomination to the game. Actually I think cricket is one of the only games I’ve seen translated to table top. Although there is foozeball and airhockey…

Quick case study: DOTA

Just a quick post on why I think DOTA (aka warcraft III custom map defense of the ancients) is a popular and addictive game. It satisfies most of the aspects that make a fun game as discussed in class.

1.  Challenge – There are people that are very ‘pro’ at the game since it has been around for a long time. And even if you consider yourself a pro there is the (highly annoying) possibility that you will have newbies on your team. There is also many different heroes to master and these heroes are always being added and tinkered with to balance the game and not make the game too easy depending on who you pick.

2. Friends – DOTA can be played with up to 9 friends ! And many people have become friends just by playing the game with each other and forming warclans. Often people will go to an internet cafe or hold a lan party to play the game.

3. Drama – Plenty of dramatic scenarios can occur. My favourite: when you’re losing the first 99% of the game and then by some miracle you kill all their heroes and destroy their base while they are waiting to respawn.

4. Fantasy – Warcraft III has a very rich story line involving orcs, elves, humans and the undead. Each hero has their own made up biography and dinstinct quotes.

5 and 6. Sensation and self expression – I think it doesn’t fill these two aspects very well. Self expression is through the way you play the hero and the particular items you buy.

7. Discovery – New combinations between heroes, new item combinations, new strategies to defeat an enemy hero, new ways to play the game…there is a lot to discover !

8. Immersion – A normal game of dota is generally between 1/2 – 1 hour. And most the time you will play the whole game even if you don’t feel like it half way through because there’s 9 other people playing the game. It’s quite addictive and pretty fast paced. Oh yeah and multiplayer means you can’t really pause.

One quick last point, I think the best feature of DOTA is the constant updates. I don’t play that many online games but I would think DOTA is probably one of the only games that is updated as often as it is. If you don’t play for a month you will probably have to download the custom map again or patch of warcraft III. Changes are often due to character imbalances, boring characters, item changes, completely new heroes, shifting of the terrain etc . All of these add to the challenge and discovery element.

first

Attempted trackback

cs4431

Game and Design. Two of my favourite words ! How COULDN’T I do this subject. Haha. But in all honesty it does sound like one of the more interesting subjects that Computer Science has to offer. Not to mention it ties directly with my other course Digital Media. In fact I think this was one of the reasons why they created the Digital Media/Comp Sci double, so we could get an understanding of the front and back end of computer and interactive games. Alternatively I may have just made that up but I am pretty sure one of my first digital media lecturers said something along those lines.

I think the main reason why I like games is the escape element. This would be a mix between the immersion and fantasy aspects discussed in class. There’s also the challenge, social and other aspects but I would put immersion towards the top of the list. We do it to avoid work, kill boredom and basically escape from reality for a little while. While in game we generally do not think about anything else except our situation on the screen.

I actually have played a lot of turn based games. Heroes of the Might and Magic, Magic the Gathering, Pokemon, Star Wars:Knights of the Old Republic. I think this is probably to do with the control element. At any time I can stop, think and strategise (go to the bathroom, get a drink, chat on MSN as well…)

I think graphics are great but they really do not make a good game. Narrative and gameplay are far more important and I hope I can learn something about this during the course. 

And why I think so many games involve guns? It’s not just guns but violence in general is present in the majority of games. I think it is to do with the fight club mentality. We hit, shoot and blow things up to make us feel better about ourselves and about the reality that is our lives. Subconsciously it might make us feel more like a man. Maybe that’s why there are more male gamers?

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!