“Art Journals” are worse.

 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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.