“my beautiful friend, The End…”

Well the time has come to end this game. Like I said at the begining of this journey, I hope part ways with a mutual disrespect of blogs. If you haven’t, I can’t really do anything about it but make more bad jokes/puns. But I don’t have the energy for that. Ok, thats really not fair. I did quite enjoy posting. It allowed to me to express my ideas and feelings..which is cliche…of a blog. I may even keep it up and running. But seeing as how no one else would actually be reading it I don’t really see the point.

 Personally I think the journal should have been submitted after the prototype. But thats just me.

All in all I have enjoyed this unit and look forward to the next subject along this line. The game my group and I have worked on is something I want to take with me, and reproduce on my own to create my own copy. Then SELL IT AND MAKE BILLIONS. I’ll be sure to mention this subject when the game takes over the world.

Again, be sure to have a look a the blogs of my teammates, they are good reads (Mel and Dave).

See ya when I see ya.

Stitch him back together…

In a continuation about playtesting, lets talk about computer games. In the old early games before the advent of the internet games were as they were. Any problems, bugs, exploits of incompatibilities are just that and no amount of cying is going to un-spill that milk. Then hark! Al Gore created the internet (*cough*), rode the mighty moon-worm and offered a way to fix these problems. Patches. Small incremental changes, edits and fixes. What does this mean for play testing? In the words of some horror movie “It never ends!”

Usually the popular online games get alot of flak about certain issues. Players demand continued support. World of Warcraft closes for maintanance every tuesday night. After these sessions Blizzard occasionally releases patches. And alot of these patches include brand new content. Of course WoW has a subscription fee. Players are paying for this support.  In games like the Battlefield series and the a series of Half-Lfie games, the production company/team cotinues to release patches for free. Starcraft became the gem it is today by patches. A tweak here, a fix there, maybe some new content and a game can evolve. QA support for free.

What does this mean for players? They become comfortable knowing that most of their problems can and will be fixed. What does this mean for game developers? Unfortunately, some game developers are using this as an excuse to not complete their games. Games are released with glaring problems knowing that they can be fixed later. I’m struggling to remember the name of it but I know an Electronic Arts game was patched within 24 hours of its release because it was unplayable. Well I think it was E.A. It was either Battlefield 2142 or Bioshock (which wasn’t an E.A. game).

My turn! My turn!

I’ve always had problems telling people what I do at uni. Somehow telling them that I’m playing a game or making a game or writting about games just seems…well…yeah. No one really takes it seriously. So today when I tell them that I was playing a cardgame in a workshop, they just laugh at me. They don’t even do that really. Just sort of dismiss it.

For the purposes of this post I’m going to talk about the playtesting for both our game and a game that I playtested in a workshop. Such is the reason for a late post on the lecture material (hey, at least I gave a reason this time). Crusaders was something we had looked forward to testing for a while. We really did start it late, but we were confident in it. Now I’m probably biased, but it was good. And is only getting better, if I do say so myself. We probably loose points because there is no really narrative or drive to the game except to simply win. Challenge is variable depending on the player. More experianced players would probably do better, even in our tests we noticed strategies developing after several tests. Such as leaving a rear-guard army behind to destroy any ramps that are already built. Although we have had several games where players attempting to play the waiting game had messed up so the player that rushed forward claimed victory with ease. Although the game can be played with up to four players, we have also only played it with three. We were simple unable to steal someone else to help. Although it is very playable with three players, so we can assume that it would also be playable with up to four players. But It would be very interesting to see how the alliance dynamics change with the fourth player, as well as the longevity of the game.

The game that my group helped playtest in the workshop was a card game involving four decks of cards and five players. I think it was called Catch the King. One player is the King. Another player is the Jester, who helps the King secretly. No one knows who is the Jester until the end of the game, unless they have been paying attention to the cards. The other players are Farmers and have to make sure the King doesn’t win. The four decks of cards are divided up among the four players. The player that has 3 of a kind (the same card through three decks) becomes the King. This is the first hand played on the table. The Jester is the player that can make this four of a kind. But he does not put down the card now, lest to reveal his identiy. Players put down cards in certain orders to beat the hand that is already placed. Whoever starts the round can determine how many cards to put down. Eg, suppose player A has 6 Jokers and he puts them down to start the round, the next player would have to put down 6 cards of a higher denomination to beat that hand. Should another player beat that hand, he starts the next round, and the game continues in a counter-clockwise direction.

It took a very long time to set up this game, first dividing up the four decks of cards, and then again for the players to organise their hands. But perhaps even longer to do is explain the game. You can see in the above paragraph just how long it would be to explain, and even then I am missing out on alot. The best way to get the hang of this game is to start playing the game, and have the people who know the game explain the more complicated sections of the game as they arise. That being said, once the game got started it was quite fun, and I can honestly say that I would be quite interested in playing the game again, even outside of this subject.

Yes yes I know this doesn’t really tie into the theory, but I think its quite important to mention our opinions on our actually experiances with implementing the theory. In playing both Crusaders and Catch the King questions were asked before the play, during the play and after the play. Our actions during the playtest pretty much mirrored theory, almost without our noticing it.

1-Up

Whilst play testing today we implemented another design change. Power-ups. This was Mel’s brainchild. Each player is now given two ‘cards’ to play. One doubles the number of spaces one can move out of combat (eg. player A rolls a 5, and he can now move up to 10 spaces). The other card doubles the combat roll.

They both play tested well and seem to add a more tactical element. These power ups are also interchangeable through alliances. The double-movement can be used in conjunciton with an allied-attack move and both players may utilise the double-combat roll in combat (so the roll of both their die is doubled). Power ups may not trade powerups.

I’m more concered about this making the game too complex. I mean its all good fun to bring in these new rules like we are now because we have a very intimate understanding of the game. Explaining it to others is something else entirely and I’m worried about that. Which is why we really need to get the four-person play test underway STAT. Mel also today proposed an ‘immune’ card that would allow a player to avoid combat. However this is implemented could make it it much more complicated or overpower. It also needs testing.

Below; New resource blocks in the dark of night

Whilst playing around in Illustrator on the board design, I’ve been trying to think of a way to redesign the board in a way that gives the impression of a hill, but I havent quite been able to nail it. The idea is to keep the hexagon shape shape, but increase the size of the individual tiles on the outer most rings. With the starting tier becoming the largest (although the same size as the summit-tier). This ring is then moved further back from the second ring. The second ring is made a third smaller than the outer ring and moves closer still to the summit. The third tier around the summit is the same size as the regular hexagons are now, and is in almost direct contact with the summit. The idea of the increasing distance and increasing size is to give the idea of a contour lines, so the whole board represents a hill, rather than just doing artwork onto the board to give the visual representation of a hill.

Anywho, only time will tell. We still have another week to go.

Where is the ‘any’ key?

Does anyone actually know someone who was looking for the ‘any’ key?. I mean REALLY? But how often have you been playing a game, trying to find that option, or that button, or that item in your inventory? You know, before you check the control bindings or read a book about a spaniard named Manual (geddit?).

You may or may not have noticed that the last two major Nintendo produts (the DS and the Wii) both included new ways for users to interface with them without keyboards or 13 buttoned controllers (yes, I actually counted all the buttons on an X-Box controller. 13). The DS introduced a stylus, which is used to gesture on the touch senstive screen, as well as a microphone (awkward in public), whilst the Wii introduced a wand-like controller with motion sensors and accelerometers for more natural gesturing. You want to swing a sword, well just wing the remote and…yeah, just dont make lightsaber noises while you do it.

Below; vrrrmmmm…VRRRMMMMMMM

Why did Nintendo introduce these? To make it easier for users to interact with their games obviously. Unlike a keyboard where you can have upty-billion binds. What started with using a mouse/joystick to look around has ended with light-guns and guitar shaped controllers. Since most games mimic actions that are performed in real life, it makes sense to make their controls similar to how we would do the actions in real life.

But what of onscreen menu’s and selections? Games like Diablo and World of Warcraft have complex menu’s because their interactions cannot be simplified. You may have heard of an RTS called Star Trek Armada. Its interface was very similar to most RTS’s which was good because you didn’t have much new to learn. When the sequel came out, you’d expect much the same. And you’d have been wrong. The interface now took up half the veiewable area, and the introduction of new elements made it far, far to difficult to manage all the new little nuances you have in controlling your ships.

Below; Yes its not a good screen shot, but I can’t for the life of me find the CD to install the game and take one myself. But I still win, because if you can tell me what all those symbols buttons between the minimap and the camera view mean then you’re quite intuitive.

Some UI’s are great because they keep them simple. Just like the Wii and the DS. Freelancer’s UI was quite good. Most onscreen windows could be minimised to maximise viewing area (min to max..hehe), and the ideograms used to represent various functions were very well done, allowing players to recognise what button controlled what system. As opposed to X2/X3 where if you didn’t have a laptop opened up next to you with tutorials and manuals you’d get stuck flying in a circle.

Keep it simple. Crusaders’s interface is quite simple since it is all done by hand. The design of the board, player tokens and resource tokens are all visually distinctive and the game situation can be summised with but a glance.

 

 

“Its a long way to the shop…”

“…If you want a sausage roll” – AC/DC…sorta (Is no song sacred?).

Well kiddies lets talk game. More importantly my idea for allied attack movements being intergrated. Into the game. Yes MY idea. My child. Sniff..they grow up so fast. Of course what i wasn’t expecting was seeing this rule used against me. Here is the rule; Should two players have an army on the same tile, one player (A) may choose to relinquish command of his army to the other player (B). Player B may then roll his movment dice, and the outcome is halved the same way that movemet with resources is done. Should the players land on another player(s) army they may then initiate combat. In said combat player A gives unto player B his 20-sided die, as player B is command here. This essentially gives one player two armies where he would have only had one. Usual combat rules then apply. Should the attacking allies fail, then they must both move their involved armies back to their starting positions.

We aren’t going to let the same rule be used for one player to move two armies of his own. However, if one army is already occupying a zone, and the allied attack-move reinforces that army, in combat that player can use BOTH his armies as well as his allies army in the roll (so 2+1 vs the bad guys). In gameplay this was quite interesting because it allowed us to see 3 vs 2, and 3 vs 3. Quite entertaining. Also we saw a 3 vs 1 where the one 20-sided beat the three 20-sided. Its nice to see that this is quite possible because it reinforces the idea that having mutliple armies does not guarrantee victory, and that with a stroke of luck the entire outcome of the game can be changed.

More photos! Also, isn’t the new board shiny? Thanks Mel.

Below; Nothing witty to say for these.

 

 

And yes, the title and the first line of the blog post are a parody of AC/DC’s “Its a long way to the top”.

“I’ll be frank…”

“Can I still be me?”

Its a commonly accepted social condition to play with others. After all, playing with yourself gets boring after awhile (….heh….heh…..heh). Since our game is designed to be a multiplayer game, we have to consider alot when thinking about how the players will interact with eachother. During the workshop this week we essentially made our own games using a soft football and examined the actor/counter actor roles.

Similar to Crusaders, the actor/counter actor role would change each “round”. We had essentially made a version of Battleships. Inside of an enclosed area, three people would position themselves, while a fourth has the football. The player with the football becomes the Actor since he is trying to score a point. He scores points by hitting other players (counter-actors). The counter actors can catch the ball to convert themselves into Actors and try to score their own points by trying to hit any other player. Once a player is hit, the “actor” switches to another player (in an order decieded during the game). Players have until the new actor picks up the ball to reposition themselves. It was interesting to see some counter actors try to position themselves behind another player as cover.

This constant type of switching roles ensured that no one became bored with how the game was being played. the use of other players as cover also showed that even though the Actor is against the other players, the other players arent nessecarily allied and should try to position themselves in a good position to avoid being hit, but also to fight against other potential actors.

The Crusaders uses similar interactions. Although all players start against eachother, certain players may ally against other players.

…And go for the top at dawn

Hot on the heels of a good day of game testing, we were ready for another…the next day. Alternative designs for the board were examed. Mel had done some sketches on a board and turned it into a big polygon. With six sides…almost..like..a..hexa…sexa…six-side-a-gon. Yes. A six-side-a-gon. Anyway this design allows us to illustrate movement options better when moving up and down tiers (since there are 2 tiles one can move to). After a debacle with the rooms we settled down. And were very happy with this design during gameplay. I think more can be done with the alliance system though. As it is, the alliance system can only really be used in preventative measures. Person X can help Person Y build a ramp, or Person Y can help Person X by not attacking him. I think there should be provisions for both Person X and Person Y to move their armies as one in an attack. Obviously there would have to be some kind of movement penalty.  But even so, this attacking-move doesn’t represent an unstoppable force in probabilty of dice outcome.

But Mel doesn’t seem to like this angle, so we shall see. We may do a playtest in the future. And now, some lovely photgraphs, courtesy of the Nokia N95

 Below; Tools of the Trade; 20 sided die at long last!

 Ah yes, we finally got our 20-sided die, after a long, tedious, arduous wait of a whole day. It was refreshing to see the combat actually work out now. Although we had always intended to combat with 20-sided die, we only had 6 sided yesturday, so we had to do combat with those. And not once was one army able to successfully defeat two armies. But today we did indeed have a few instances of just that occuring. Should the allied-attack movment go through, it would be very interesting to see 2 vs 2, or 3 vs 2, even 3 vs 1!

 

Below; Design sketches (not seen; The Heart of the Ocean)

 

 Below; Six-side-a-gons ahoy!

Below; BEHOLD

 And so we slowly march forward toward victory. Stay tuned for more updates, when I can be bothered to do them.

We’ll make camp here…

Game development news! Melchor, Dave and myself met in the botanical gardens after our workshop to play our game prototype. You might wonder why we waited so long to actually do this. Well, we have discussed the game at length alot, and I had done a mock-play alone to write for the design document, so we all had a good idea about how it was going to work. But today, we had dice, and counters to actually play it.

Below; IT’S ALLLLIIIIIVVVVEEEEEE!!!!!

Mel drew a game board over two pages in his notebook, while dave and I fashioned more army-tokens and more resource-tokens (also know as ‘rocks’), after this was done we set about playing it, and being very loud whislt doing so. It all went very well and we had a great deal of fun playing it. Naturally, I won…..well there is more to it than that. It did seem as though Mel (blue) was very close to actually winning the game, so David (red) and I (green) formed an alliance (which is a large part of this game), to finally win the game by combining resources. Theres not much else to say really. We questioned alot about how certain things were going to work, but in the end decided we should test out those ideas sepereatly rather than introduce them midgame.

Below; If you’ve actually been reading, why would I caption?

It was very envigourating to see our plans come together so well. We had a new life about the project and we’re glad for all the discussion we had put into it (being friends we would discuss it quite often just when we were out and about). There were some minor issues. Since we were witout 20-sided die (as was planned for) we had to use 6-sided die, which made the two-army vs one-army pretty much a guarranteed win for the player with two-armies. Also, since there were four resource counters on the third level (and needing three to progress to victory), David and I had two each, in one location, each with two armies guarding them, the game quickly developed into a stale-mate. We have plans to address this by adding one additional rock to the third tier.

I also felt that the alliance system was lacking. It seems to me that this system only really comes into use by not attacking other players and by combining resources. I feel that there should be away for two allied armies to attack another player directly, in unision. This would involve moving both armies at the same time. David seems to be interested in the idea, but Mel isn’t very. Personally I think it would add a big piece to the game, as allied armies would be come much more of a threat.

Also, doesn’t my new phone take such great pictures? Too bad the Agency won’t be getting the privilledge of recieving its 5 megapixel goodness. But you can gaze upon Mel’s sad look of defeat!

Below; The bitter taste of defeat

 

Start spreading the news….

…I want to be a part of it, LIIBBBEERRRTTYY CITTYY” – Frank Sinatra…sorta

Bastardising Frankie asaide, Grand Theft Auto IV is here, and alot of epople are very happy indeed. But I’m not here to review it for you, I’m here to talk to you about game environments. Drawing players into the game world to give them a more in-depth playing experiance. How does one do this? Ultra realistic graphics? I think not. Whilst visuals may play a large part in game immersion, if you look back on games in the past is it not the visuals which determined the depth of an environment, but rather how the player interacts with the environment, and how the environment interacts with the player.

Liberty City is the setting for GTAIV, and what a city it is. Waking up in the morning, Niko Bellic (player character) can hail a cab, and ask to go down to the local internet cafe to check his e-mail, read up on the personals and news, and even download a new ringtone for his phone. After his business is complete, he gets a call from his cousin, who would like to go drinking. Niko agrees and puts his mobile phone away, steals a car, and drives off. Yes, you have a phone you can use to call, text, and even take pictures with. Yes, there is an in-game internet. And yes you can meet girls from that internet and take them on dates. I’m not game enough to see what happens if you try to take out a guy.

Below; New York, New York?

This depth of the ingame world mirrors alot with how we interact with our own world, and it is this mirroring that brings us into Liberty City and makes us feel like we are apart of it. Naturally, this does effect our enjoyment of the game. Close enough to reality to draw us into its world, but also different enough for it to not feel like a simulator.

We can also be immersered in a game world which is nothing like the world we know it today. Enter Doom3. Whilst the (then) realistic graphics drew you in, and the ultra realistic lighting and shadowing made you think monsters were around every corner, there is more to it then that. Picking up a PDA and hearing a scientist’s montoeanous report take a turn for the worse as demons are unleashed upon the base, or hearing the radio-chatter of zombiefied marines coming after you… Would the game have been as scary were just the graphics? Without the audio or computer interaction to make that world come to life, it might as well be a game of Total Recall.

Below; Windows PDA operating system in 2120

Does the game environment effect players? Well I don’t know about you, but I can’t wait to get back to Liberty, and I never did finish playing Doom3 because…well…if I say anymore my masculinity may take a hit.

(Yes I’m aware of my previous Doom3 post, but that was about gameplay, this was about environment. Though I can safely say why I didn’t finish Doom3 anymore.)