week 8 – Social Game

I actually do not remember any of the games discussed in the lecture except for scissors, paper, rock. Which on a completely unrelated topic actually did come in handy! I am now the scissors, paper, rock grandmaster at work!

I also do not have facebook…

Anyway so here is my game:
I’ve always been very interested in visual representations of data so it would be really cool if you could make a 3D web of paths based on the connections between mutual friends on facebook. Although it would probably have to be limited to a certain number otherwise it might implode from the massiveness of data…

Anyway the idea would be to race each other to a certain goal (another somehow mutually related friend a couple of times removed, represented by some kind of node on the paths) by traveling along the web of connections between people. This could be done via a rather pointless but fun and fast method like in audiosurf or more of a slow, mind game style where perhaps to pass each node (person) you would have to correctly answer a question about them.

It could also be interesting if you were limited by traveling only on the paths that were created from your own connections, although that might make things very unbalanced… unless chances are you would be versing your friends in which case there would be many common paths and players would have to somehow trade or fight each other for the right of way.

That’s about all i’ve got for now…

week 8 – Mafia

What makes it work? Categorized into the eight kinds of fun!~

Sensation:

It is a game played in real life, involving a lot of talking and real time game play so there is the sensation of being able to look at people while they talk, analyze body language/tones of voice, decipher whether or not particular people show signs of relief or shock when a vote or murder is revealed etc…

Fantasy:

People are placed in a particular situation and given roles in which they have no control over. They then are required to act out their parts for the duration of the game. Therefore quite obviously there is a strong element of fantasy as players have to act out these roles that (hopefully) they do not have a connection with in their normal real lives.

Exploration:

As the game progresses players slowly discover who everyone is. Forced mechanic in the game, as players are required to kill off others by day and night. Also is particularly amusing in that players can look back and realize how they may have been deceived and what kind of tactics each player uses.

Drama:

Closely tied in with Exploration. There is quite a build up as players vote to kill of someone they suspect (if a civilian) and discovering if that person was in fact one of them or a Mafia. For the Mafia there is similar build up but the drama ends in discovering the results of the vote as they instantly know if they have succeeded in killing off a civilian or in saving a fellow Mafia.

There is also an extended sense of drama in the game as players slowly begin to die off and the ratio of Mafia to civilian begin to even out or tip in favor of the civilians.

Challenge:

There is definitely quite an interesting psychological challenge in the game. Particularly so if you are playing with people that you actually know, and therefore may have greater knowledge in how that person behaves when telling lies. There is of course the challenge of also being able to lie yourself and to strategize; speak at the right time and say the right things etc…

Submission:

Players have to commit to a certain period of time. It’s not a very short game and in consideration to everyone else playing, the game cannot simply be paused and resumed later on. So it does require a bit of commitment.

It also requires submission in that the players have to be devoted to their roles, in order for the game to be interesting. If someone does not really want to play, they may just throw in the towel and get themselves killed which isn’t very fun for everyone else and ruins the balance of the game.

Fellowship:

common goals, common enemies/teammates. It is a collective effort to either figure out who the Mafia and kill them before they get you, or to kill off villagers before they figure out you are Mafia.

Sharing the same kinds of drama also helps players to feel as part of a collective.

What is good strategy?

If you’re mafia:

Kill off the ones that have rough ideas or are too threatening (find out who the detective is). Don’t want to kill off people that are EXTREMELY set on killing someone, otherwise it would become much too suspicious as to who one member of the Mafia is. Unless of course, the person they are intent on is actually not a Mafia, in which case it would be brilliant strategy to place suspicion on to another civilian.

Mix it up. Don’t always vote to kill a civilian or to save a fellow Mafia member. Observant people are bound to notice. If a fellow Mafia member is doomed then just vote to kill them off and avoid suspicion for a bit longer.

If you’re civilian:

Be Observant. Look at who votes to kill or save. Watch people’s expressions when a verdict is made. Yet don’t be too silent. Basically try to stay in between, otherwise you’ll just be suspicious.

If you’re Detective:

Same as Civilian except also have to be very careful in revealing what you know as you want to stay in the game for as long as possible. Need to subtly steer conversation towards the suspected Mafia without outright blatantly accusing them, unless it is the last round and killing this one dude will win the game for you.

Also want to try and set up an alliance with the assassin dude. Would be the perfect team.

If you’re Rouge Assassin Dude?:

Try to figure out who detective is, as well as who the Mafia are.

Could it work as an online game? If not could you change it to make it work?

It could potentially work as an online game. But it would have to be made much more complex to make up for the loss of the interesting body language factor. Or turn it into a bit more of a less serious fighting game.

slow, more complex one:

As a single player game. You are placed into a world as a civilian or a Mafia and have to roam around either avoiding suspicion or tracking down who the Mafia are by snooping around for clues.

Or as a multiplayer game. Within time limits everyone must type out their suspicions and why. At the end of the time limit, each player’s votes are revealed and cast. Could maybe even have a chat box in which players can constantly chat in. It could also be interesting to have them all placed in a world with little avatars that they can control.

fighting one:

Everyone logs in. Game randomizes everyone’s roles. Everyone placed into the world. Everyone’s character looks the same to you (civilian) except for yourself if you aren’t a civilian. You can roam around and talk to people, the map must be discovered, and players will only be able to see in a radius around themselves and areas already discovered will be dimmed (can see the map but not people in them).

Each character for the different roles have different kinds of weaponry and can choose to attack another player but in doing so will reveal who they are. Players can also choose to voluntarily reveal who they are to another player and if they are correct in thinking that the other player is a comrade, then an alliance is formed and they will now be able to detect each other via radar (and share discovered areas on their maps) and send private communications.

week 6 – hardware driven design

Honestly all i could think of were games that have been done before but would be interesting to play without the use of the conventional controlling devices currently available. Or games that involves to some degree, activities that could very well be done in real life on a relatively day to day basis.

For example…

Imagine playing a game of pool or snooker where you flick your fingers to move the balls.

Or for the kids a digital colouring game or an educational handwriting game

Or Starcraft without mouse controls… o_o That would be incredibly interesting to watch…

week 6 – player centred design

I think that this topic greatly ties in with the whole idea of games as a form of art. Basically it really just depends on what people believe a game is, or what they believe the purpose of a game is.

Again i don’t think that it can be so strictly defined, there is no reason for it to be either. Games do not have to be for just one purpose and therefore do not have to be always for the sole purpose of entertaining or invoking an emotional response in a player.

If the purpose of a game is to be entertaining and widely mainstream and commercial then yes i do believe that the designer should keep in mind what the player wants and strive to achieve that goal. The game’s purpose and reason for existence is to entertain and therefore it should be what the player wants and pays for.

So yes a designer’s duty is to entertain and to empathize with players if the game they are to produce is purely for mainstream, commercial purposes.

However if the game’s purpose is to be more of an artistic statement on the part of the designer, then it can either be or not be what the player wants, depending on whatever the designer wishes. Art does not have to also be strictly of one purpose either, but can be commercialised and industrialised (pop art, fashion photography etc…) or move in entirely opposite directions and purposefully isolate, invoke emotional responses, challenge mainstream thinking, inspire, make political or moral judgements, and the list pretty much goes on.

So in this case, the designer’s sole duty is not to entertain but to reach whatever goal it is they are trying to reach. Which, fair enough may be to entertain the player in which case, their duty is to entertain and empathize; or it could be to challenge the players into thinking outside the box, in which case the empathy would definitely come into play but not necessarily the duty to entertain. Yet again the designer’s goal may be purely to design a game that is completely self-indulgent, like drawing for the sake of drawing not so that there would be a finished product for others to look at, in which case the designer has no obligation to entertain or to empathize with anyone at all.

It really just depends on what the game is for, which is decided by the designer, which i guess means the duty or obligations of the designer is whatever they wish them to be. The player’s opinion and desire only comes into play if that is what the designer wants, which i think is the case more often than not.

week 4 – game for mum

This is hard… My mum doesn’t like computer games… she probably wouldn’t know what i meant if i told her she needs to move the mouse to walk around.

So it needs to be something a little more intuitive to her but also different enough to maintain interest. So i think that a Wii game would be perfect! She’s also pretty un-coordinated so it would only use the remote or maybe the wii fit board. And it would have to be completely simple… so basically like any of the dumb wii sports games.

How about a game where you’re a bird and have to migrate south, dodging random stormy clouds, planes and other stuff and collecting shiny orbs.

week 4 – is that all there is?

I do think that the games industry has kind of been in a bit of a creative rut, although i don’t think it’s particularly a bad thing. I enjoy the games that are out now, heaps of people enjoy it as it is and companies love to make them. I do realize that there is plenty of opportunity to make games a form of art though and I’d probably like to see that happen also, mostly just out of curiosity…

I definitely do not agree with people that get all up-in-arms about the whole thing though. I don’t think it could threaten the current games industry at all, we will always have games that are centered around shooting zombies.

I don’t think that it is at all profitable though, i mean you could definitely get some small companies going for it and it would probably make a lovely weird artsy/nerdy community… but i highly doubt it will take off and stay there.

I also don’t think it’s fair to just blame the large companies for not backing them up because after all it’s a business. We live in a capitalist society. If you want a gold sticker for your efforts and pretty ideas then stay in kindy.

So basically, cool idea, go for it? don’t expect billions, don’t expect anyone to even play it repetitively (don’t think most people play games for an emotional experience), but yea, why not?

week 3 – emergence

Firstly, it would’ve probably been a good idea to have talked about emergence or have been given a reading about it so we know what we’re actually looking for in the seemingly random resources for this week. Or maybe i should learn to read titles…. =/

Gish:

Awesome game! I don’t think that emergence is such a massive part of this game though. I mean i definitely think it’s there more than most other games out there but taking emergence to mean gameplay that is not controlled by the programmer then it’s not really emergence. It’s actually very intuitive, if you were a blob then it makes sense that to jump you have to squish then stretch and that squish and stretch is provided by the programmer. Its kind of like giving you two doors to choose from which both lead to the same room anyway.

Constellation:

He really likes his beatles…

But to the point, brilliant idea! But, I’m not convinced something like that would work in a computer game. I mean yes adding little bits of randomness will often result in players coming to their own conclusions but it’s a bit of a let down if nothing ever comes of it.

I don’t think that you can also compare the game of ‘ paul is dead’ to a modern day computer game either. There’s just too many differences. First of all it worked so well because there were so many ridiculously crazy fans and so many materials to work with. The goal of the game (find evidence of Paul’s death) also arose out nothing. There were no set rules or goals beforehand.

A computer game has a goal, the game is focused on that goal, the player is focused on that goal. They’re not looking for some crazy conspiracy or game play that hasn’t been programmed in. Players look for secret levels or items or places in a game, but that’s not really emergence because that’s intended by the programmer.

So in conclusion i still need a bit more convincing on this point.

week 3 – design a toy

So design a “game” with no goals =/

I hardly think this has to be designed. Drop a person into the middle of an unknown city and let the world be their “toy”.

But you’re probably looking for something alot more …. plausible.

Actually for some reason all i keep thinking of is like little lab experiments with mice. Where you put them inside a maze and see what happens.

Anyway…. how about, a digital play room, where using your hand or something you can draw objects onto the screen, once finished the object now exists in your “play-space”. The “play-space” is essentially a screen, a lit background behind the interactor projects a shadow of themselves which is what the players use to interact within the play-space.

Now if we introduce a few more little interesting dynamics like the ability to scale shadows (have a little man running along a normal sized person’s arm?) or turn off gravity? Or even random modifications to a person’s shadow. It could provide the basics for a very interesting and fun playing area.

week 2 – ball game

http://comp4431.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/design-idea-wk2-ball-game/

The first idea that came to mind when asked to make a computer game, carrying over some of the dynamics of the ball game, was a multi-playered version of tetris.

Basically, players have their own little tetris windows, and every time you clear a line, a line is added to your opponents’ games. If you clear multiple lines in one go then you get some kind of special ability to further obstruct your opponents or give you can advantage. Something like, instant clearing of your own lines or flipping your opponents window upside-down or speeding up their blocks etc…

Actually kind of sounds like mario kart….

So what’s carried across?

1. The awesome colorfulness.

2. The Chaos – the more players the crazier it gets. Perhaps if individuals were allowed to also team up then the team aspect could also be carried across.

3. The idea that the closer you (or your team) gets to their goal, the further away you push away your opponents from their goals.

4. Race against time. The longer you take, the faster the blocks and so inevitably there is a time limit.

And i really can’t be bothered to type anymore… =).

week 2 – digital vs non digital games

http://comp4431.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/journal-wk2-digital-vs-non-digital-games/

The major difference between table-top and live action games and computer games is that table-top and live action games tend to always require more than the one individual. Although often many computer games do require another interactor, they can still theoretically be replaced with an AI.

Live action games also tend to be almost completely physical and because of this tend to be games that require quick reaction time and only a small amount of foresight. Whereas board-games although can be a little physical have the ability to create games with extremely large levels of look-ahead (which of course can be extended into a computer game e.g. chess) because elements of the game are introduced which are outside the individual abilities of the players (stronger, faster, taller players don’t have more of an advantage) and are limited in the player’s ability to control.

In terms of mechanics, dynamics and aesthetics, mechanics is really quite the same in all mediums although of course details are altered to match the specifics of the medium, rules are rules. As for dynamics, players will always have a desire to bend the rules as they please, the different mediums however restricts how and even if the player can do so. For example in computer games you can’t simply do as your imagination desires and walk off the end of the map or blow up that object if it has not been programmed in. It is a limited space with strict rules implemented by the designers/programmers, whereas in real life you can simply walk off the court or choose to be an ass and throw the ball into the neighbours’ backyard when you’re losing; there really is nothing to stop you from doing anything within the limits of the human body and the laws of the universe. In board games, there are certain limits before the game ceases to be the game, often players change, add or drop rules as they please, people tend to play differently from group to group and this is still “allowed”.

Aesthetically, computers have quite a distinct and unique advantage in being able to generate impossible environments and to draw and invite the player to become a part of it. Although this does also come with a negative, which is that the player is limited to a certain window and depth of field, as well as movements and controls of the environment (although i do believe this will definitely continue to expand). As for sports, as mentioned above, the limits are the limits of the human body and the laws of the universe and argueably with board games also. There are table-top games that involve these alternative realities but the individual is required to take it upon themselves to immerse themselves using their own imaginations. So the designer has a real issue with encouraging the imagination without being able to actually generate the visuals themselves.

As for the last question, How might the same game change from one medium to another? Personally i don’t think it works very well at all except for card games. I cannot for the life of me understand why people play sports on the computer… WHY PEOPLE WHY? If you want to play sports then why would you take away the only advantage which is the physical and social aspect? It makes absolutely no sense…. unless its on the wii in which case it’s really just a novelty thing. The only reason why card games work is because they don’t really have that extremely social or physical aspect so other players can be replaced easily with an AI.

So that’s about it from me~