Final Game Playtesting

A.      The play-testers sit down play the game from the starting screen. They play as many times as they want then after they answer the playtesting questions:

·         What did you like about the game?

·         What didn’t you like about the game?

·         Any suggestions for improvement?

·         Did the character move too quick/ slow/ just right?

·         Were there enough bombs being dropped at once?

·         Was the falling/ explosion rate of the bombs too fast/ slow/ just right?

B.      Observations: On the starting screen they pressed the “No” button multiple times so I removed it. They tended to press the WASD buttons once a time not holding it down. Seemed like they didn’t realize you could run under falling bombs.

Final Game Part 2

Background

Falling Bomb

Exploding Bomb

Player

Game Mock-Up

Exercise: Connect 4

Group Members: Nick Sundermeyer, Logan Clark, Andrew Nixon

Observations: There wasn’t much difference between connect 4 on the boards of varying size.

Game of Choice: The version that was connect 5 instead of connect 4.

Final Game Part 1

Trump’s Media Offensive

By Brad Tully and Peter Taggart

Concept

          The player is a journalist. To start the game, you are asked a simple question: Write a negative story about Trump? If the player hits no it closes the game. If you hit yes you anger Trump so much that you get sucked into his dream world that night where he tries to kill you by dropping bombs from the sky. Your goal as the player is simple, avoid the bombs for as long as possible. You gain points for each bomb survived.

Fear: Construction Paper/ Digital Art Exercise

Paper Design

Digital Recreation

Digital Redesigned

Chapter 8 Summary

                Digital prototypes are critical for making digital games. They shouldn’t be complete projects, should have minimal art, and incomplete gameplay. Prototypes are broken into four categories. One, mechanics: these are discrete features of the formal aspects of games. They can sometimes be tested with a physical prototype. Two aesthetics: the visual and dramatic elements. The right amount should be tested, not too much only important elements. Three kinesthetic: the “feel good” part of the game, the control scheme, the interface. Four technology: the software, it doesn’t have to be written in the final programming language or even directly useable.

                Control schemes are important for the feel of the game. They should be simple and accessible as well as work appropriately with the type of controller used. View point is how the player sees the character/ game. It has a large impact on the gameplay and system. There are multiple types of viewpoints; overhead, side, isometric, first person and third person.

                Things to keep in mind when making a game: form follows function. This means why are you making the game and how is it innovative. Metaphors: how are you going to make interfaces that represent parts of the game for example, health. Visualization: use natural mapping to make it feel normal. Grouping features: what goes together should be grouped together. Consistency: keep certain buttons in the same place. Feedback: visual/ aural elements when the player does something. When making games, you must choose the language and game engine. I found it interesting that you don’t have to make a prototype in the final game language/ engine and that it can be very bare bones. I don’t have any questions for this reading it is straightforward. 

Paper Game 3: Dog Pound

Nick Sundermeyer, Jake Krachman, Brad Tully, Peter Valasares, Logan Clark

Paper Game 3: “Dog Pound”

1) A photo of your game board, tokens, cards, etc as appropriate

2) Copy of rulesheet

Setup

1. One player, the dog catcher, starts on the end of the board on the premarked space
2. The other player places the eight dog pieces in the spaces around the edges of the board. There can be multiple people playing the dog side, and they simply divide the dogs evenly among them and take turns controlling their dog pieces
3. Shuffle and place the event/powerup cards in a draw pile next to the board

Turns and Movement

1. Each turn, the dog side rolls a single 6-sided die and each dog on the team may move the number of spaces on the die
2. Each turn, the the dog catcher rolls two 6-sided dice and may move the total number of spaces that they roll
3. The dog catcher moves first, and from then on players take turns clockwise
4. If the dog catcher lands on the space of one of the dogs, the dog in question rolls a 6-sided die. If they roll a 6, the dog escapes and continues to move on their next turn, otherwise the dog is caught and placed in the pound
5. If a dog is able to land on the dog catcher’s space during its turn, the dog attacks the dog catcher. Dog catcher rolls a 6-sided die, if they roll a 1 they are sent back to their starting space, otherwise play continues as normal

Special Spaces

1. Alleys - thin paths that move through buildings, only dogs may move through these, and it takes two movement spaces to move from one end of the alley to the other
2. Question marks - when the dog catcher lands on one of these spaces, they draw from the top of the events/powerups deck (dogs may not draw cards)
1. If the player draws a powerup card, they keep the card in their hand and do not show it to the other player until they play it at any time during one of their turns
2. If the player draws an event card, they play the card immediately and the effect on the card occurs
3. Traps - when the dog catcher uses a trap card, they leave a trap piece behind them on one of the board spaces. Any dog piece landing on the trap loses its next turn, and the trap is destroyed when it is tripped

The Pound

1. When dogs get caught by the dog catcher they are placed in the pound (paper box)
2. Once three dogs are in the pound, any additional dogs that are caught and placed in the pound die permanently due to overcrowding and are placed in the graveyard
3. If a free dog is able to move to the space adjacent to the pound, the dog may use its turn to free one of the dogs in the pound. When a dog is freed it starts at the space adjacent to the pound

Win Conditions

1. The dog team wins if at least half of the dogs escape to the safe areas
2. The dog catcher wins if half the dog are killed
3. Playtesting sheet from before class

Playtested by: Harold Murphy and Alex Simpson

What was not clear from the rules?

We were a little confused on where to place the dog’s after they were released from the pound.

How the players move the dog pieces.

What did you like about the game?

The concept and the balance of the dogs vs catcher, also how the dog could escape from the catcher or put them back to the start with a little luck!

What did you not like about the game?

The board size and sometimes the dogs feel a little under powered.

What changes would you suggest to make it more fun?

Increase the board size and add special spots!

The game is very bland with no interaction other than just moving on the board.

What did you learn from the game?

Dog pounds aren’t a glorious place and stray dogs may end up dying there if none of them get adopted in time.

Did playing of the game make you more aware of the issue? Did it change your thinking or reveal something about the issue that you had not really thought about before?

I never really thought about dog pounds before.

What suggestions do you have to improve the game or better deliver the message?

Make the board bigger, clarify some rules.

Changed as a result of playtest:

Made the board larger with mores spaces. Clarified some unclear rules with movement and placement of pieces.  Also added special spots on the board.

4) A paragraph explaining what you changed as a result of your outside-of-class-playtesting

Our outside-of-class playtesters liked the game, but our primary issue was unclear rules as well as a bit of a lack of interaction. We refined our rules a lot and made it much more clear how exactly the movement and different player roles worked. We also made the board a bit bigger to allow for more strategy. The playtesters also complained about bland interactions, so we added more of the powerup/event cards to give the dog catcher more options. I think the playtesters really helped us to refine our game a lot, because it definitely started out a bit too simple and also didn’t push our message about pounds being overcrowded well enough. We definitely added a lot more depth to the game and made it push the message more because of the playtesters.

5) A paragraph explaining what you learned from the in-class-playtesting and what you would change if you were to iterate on your game design.

During in-class testing, we learned a lot about the time it could take to play are game, the different strategies that could be used, and how players truly felt about our game. During the playtesting we learned of some parts of the rules that could be improved, specifically on how many moves each player can make in a multiple player situation. We also learned that players liked the game and enjoyed the message, but felt punished by the game when playing as the dogs. Since our intention was to teach a message through punishment, we would call the game a success. In the future we would change the rule to make movement and the way that the turns worked more clear.

Exercise 6 Car Game Design

Partners: Jake Krachman, Peter Valesares, Nick Sundermeyer, Logan Clark

                In the share and capture phase we all shared a story about motor vehicles. There was one about rebuilding a car, getting stuck in mud, almost driving off a cliff, almost getting hit by a train and messing around on a boat. In this phase, we learned to take parts of a few stories and stitch them together into groups.

                In the saturate and group phase, we came up with multiple game ideas. Most of them were of a similar theme/ type of game based on the stories. The game that we decided to make was one about restoring a car by going around a game board and picking up pieces. The first person to do this wins the game. This idea came from the story about fixing up a 1970s BMW. In the saturate and group phase 4 of the 5 people came up with a general idea around fixing up a car for a game and we all concluded to make the game about that.

Paper Game 2: Oil Barons

Partners Name: Peter Taggart

Rules

• ·         This is a 2-player territorial acquisition game.
• ·         Both players start with 30 million dollars, and one of two countries, Russia, or the United States of America. The United States of America goes first.
• ·         The objective of the game is to acquire the most oil, by either purchasing or conquering territories.
• ·         After 10 turns each, the game will end. The player with the most oil (not the most territory) wins.
• ·         Each turn, a player can purchase one territory (if they can afford it), and use their combat units to either attack or move.
• ·         Each territory owned by a player generates one combat unit at the end of both players’ turns. The first combat unit in the USA and in Russia is generated at the end of Russia’s turn.
• ·         After the first combat unit is generated in a purchased territory, one unit must stay in that territory to keep it under the control of the player.
• ·         Units may move to one adjacent or overseas-linked territory per turn, with no attack that turn if moved.
• ·         Players can attack each other’s land only from an adjacent territory, with units in that territory, or overseas by an attack lane (denoted by dashed arrows).
• ·         Units may either attack once or move once per turn. They can not do both.
• ·         Attacking an unowned territory wins the territory for the attacker with no casualties.
• ·         When attacking, the attacker and defender both roll one six-sided die. They add the result of their roll to their total combat units involved in the current conflict.
• ·         If the attacker’s total is greater, the attacker loses the amount of the defender’s total, and the defender loses all units (if defender’s total is higher than attacker’s actual ‘combat unit’ total, the attacker also loses all units, but still gains the territory).
• ·         If the totals are equal, neither side loses units and the defender keeps the territory.
• ·         If the defender’s total is greater, the attacker loses all units, and the defender loses half of the attacker’s total (round up).
• ·         Attacking from the North or South Arctic Regions gives you a +1 attacking bonus for surprise.
• ·         Defending the North or South Arctic Regions gives you a +2 defending bonus because you’re basically the Night’s Watch.

In-Class Playtesting: As of this being written one person wrote on the in class paper game play-testing. Based on what the one person said I would spruce up the game board a little bit. As well as add a touch more of luck to the game.

Exercise 5: Information Structures

Name of Partner: Nick Sundermeyer

Learned: How to make changes to a game to limit the amount of information that the players have.

Exercise 4

Partners: Griffin and Peter V.

Things Learned: How to change the rules of an already established game to make a new one that is more complex. Understand the systems of checkers.

Reading 3 Chapter 5

                This reading focused on the concept of game systems. Fullerton defines a system as a set of interacting elements that form an integrated whole with a common goal. Systems are made up of objects, properties, behaviors and relationships. Properties define physical or conceptual aspects of objects. Behaviors are potential actions an object may perform in a certain state. Relationships are needed because without them objects are just a collection and not a system. A system is greater than the sum of its parts, meaning that each individual piece is meaningless if it isn’t constantly interacting with the rest in some way.

                One type of system that can be present in a game is an economy. An economy is defined by Fullerton as the utility and scarcity of resources which allows for exchanges to be made. There are multiple types of economies defined in the text. Simple bartering is the trading of objects where amount of product is fixed, there is no money supply, prices are fixed, and trading opportunities aren’t restricted. In complex barter the amount of product is controlled in growth, there is no money, prices are at market value with a cap and trading opportunities are restricted by turn. In a simple market the amount of product is fixed, money supply is controlled growth, prices are at market value and trading opportunities aren’t restricted. In a complex market the amount of product is control growth, the money supply is controlled growth, prices are market value with a base and trading opportunities aren’t restricted. The last is a meta-economy where the amount of product is controlled growth, money supply is not available, price is market value and trading opportunities aren’t restricted.

                The last topic of this chapter is emergent systems, which are systems where one individual component does little, but many of those same components together make a complex system. When making a game, it is important to consider the information structure, which is how much info the players have. There is open where the player knows everything, hidden where the player knows nothing of the opponent and a mix of the both. The controls of the game are important as well. Will players have direct or indirect control? What is the right control style for the game? Feedback is the output of an interaction and the change it has on another system element. I found the types of economy interesting and how much variety there can be and how it effects the gameplay. After reading this I would ask is why aren’t emergent systems more common in digital games?

Tabletop Game 1: Cross Town Race

By Brad Tully and Shenghua Chen

Rules

·         Each player has one game piece that they are trying to move across the map

·         They start in opposite corners that are pre-marked with a checkered flag and are trying to get to the other pre-marked spot

·         The player can move forward, left, and right

·         Each player starts out with 10 fuel tokens (marked “F”)

·         The player can move a total 3 spaces in a turn

·         Each space that the player moves will use one fuel token

·         There are two special spaces that the player can land on:

·         The refuel spot marked “R” with a corresponding number which is the amount of fuel tokens the player receives for landing there, the player cannot stay on this spot for multiple turns

·         The “?” block where the player rolls the dice and depending on the number rolled one of the following happens. After rolling pick up the corresponding card, it can be used when the player so chooses.

·         1: Get 5 fuel points

·         2: Move 2 spaces for free

·         3: Disable the other player for a turn

·         4: Steal 2 fuel points from the other player

·         5: Nothing sorry :(

·         6: Double gas mileage for one turn (can move up to 6 spaces)

·         If the player runs out of gas they automatically go to the nearest 5 token refilling station behind them

Play Testing Outside of Class

Changes Made

·         Increased the amount of spaces on the board

·         Made the ends more balanced and similar

·         Decreased the refuel spaces

·         Clarified some unclear rules

In Game Action Shot

In Class Play Testing

In terms of gameplay the only criticism from some was a little too much luck. The other criticism was the lack of connection to the city theme and a weak presentation. If I were going to make changes to the game I would add more city themed art and color to it and make some changes to the board that evoke more of a city based theme. Such as traffic lights and routes instead of an open board design.

Reading 2 Chapter 3

                This chapter starts of talking about a unique feature to games, the invitation to play. Games directly ask the player to join the experience. One features of games is the numbers of players it can be an exact number or variable from one or more. Players in some games can take up unique rolls which changes the way they play the game. Games have certain player interaction patterns. There is single player versus the game, multiple individual players versus the game, but not directly working together or conflicting with each other. There is player versus player, unilateral competition which is one player vs multiple players. Cooperative play is another style as is team competition which pits multiple teams against each other.

                Objectives are the basis of gameplay goals and strategy. The objectives listed in the chapter are capture, chase, race, rescue, construction, exploration, solution, and outwit. There is also alignment where the player must organize game pieces in a certain way to win. Another objective is forbidden action which is one where the player that performs it will lose the game. Procedures in games are the processes that the player goes through to accomplish parts of the game. The core procedures are the starting action, progression of action, special actions and resolving actions.

                Rules are an important factor of games that balance the complexity of the game and are the basis of what players can and cannot do. They must be clear so players can understand them. Rules can define objects or concepts, restrict actions, and determine certain effects. Resources are what is available to the players to use. Common resources are lives, units, health, currency, actions, power-ups, inventory, special terrain, and time. Conflicts are working against the player and can be obstacles, opponents, and dilemmas such as how to allocate resources. Games have certain boundaries that contain them and the game ends in a specific outcome.

                I found the list of player interaction patterns to be interesting. Specifically, unilateral competition and multiple individual players versus the game. I feel like these are lesser used player interaction patterns. Also in objectives alignment and forbidden act aren’t really used too much in digital games. Can there be more forms of player interaction and objectives that aren’t on the list?

Exercise 3 Variable Amount of Skill vs Luck

Partner: Jake Krachman

Learned: How to balance the amount of luck and skill in a game. How luck and skill can add or detract good qualities from a game.

Reading 1 Chapter 2

                In Chapter 2 Fullerton asks, what are the defining quality of games? Games have players that except the rules. The have a clear objective. There are procedures that players complete to achieve goals. The rules define what they can and can’t do. There are resources or objects of value in the game. The game has a conflict which keeps you from your goal. The game has a physical and metaphorical boundary. It has an unpredictable outcome.

Fullerton also asks, what makes games engaging? Things like challenge, play, premise, characters, story and dramatic elements. Per Tracy Fullerton this is all just a framework for games not an absolution. Games are now becoming more abstract and getting into the fields of art and education.

I thought the way Fullerton set up a sound format for what a standard game is was interesting. I think it is a good simple way of defining a game. I also thought her outline for what makes a game engaging was interesting. After reading this my question would be can you have a “true” game by her definition and it also be an abstract piece of art?

Exercise 2: Luck vs Skill

Name: Brad Tully

Partner: Jake Krachman

Play-testers: Esya Kircher, Isaac Kaaren

Learned: The contrast between a game based on skill and one based on luck. How to mechanically base a game on skill or luck. Try and make a variety of paper based games.

Luck Game

Skill Game

Rules for Both

Evaluation Sheet

Exercise 1 "Warmup"

Name: Brad T.

Partner: Peter

Play Testers: Andrew and Max

Learned: The process of quickly making a prototype of a board game with constraints and having to work out rules and mechanics to make a fun and interesting game.