Ugh. Mum doesn’t play video games. Ever. Seems to find the whole thing immature and ridiculous, and every time she finds out I’ve bought a game since I was about 14 or so she’s asked “When are you going to grow out of that junk?”
But of course nothing said this had to be a video game – she quite likes playing cards, and some other tabletop games.
Which leaves me in a bit of a jam, because I expect designing a good card game is very tricky.
to be continued……………….
Wikipedia describes emergent gameplay as complex situations that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics. The game Gish uses the concept of emergence to create a far deeper than normal platformer.
David Rosen described Gish’s controls as being “deep” rather than the usual shallow/direct controls. Ie. there is no jump button. To jump, the player uses Gish’s ability to compress and expand to propel him upwards. Similarly, to climb the player uses Gish’s sticky ability to attach to a wall. In some sense the player is truly controlling Gish, rather than just telling him what to do.
Emergent gameplay clearly has potential for some very deep game dynamics. However, I didn’t find Gish very fun. Maybe it’s because I only played the demo, and didn’t take the time to gain any mastery of the controls. But at first, they do not engage me. I found fairly simple movements to be too fiddly and annoying to pull off. Yeah yeah, call a WAHmbulance. Rosen did look pretty cool being a “tarball ninja”.
On to Brian Moriarty’s talk about Contellation. I’m not really sure what to make of it. He seems to be encouraging more random events in games. I guess in some ways this could enhance realism. In other ways it could just make AI actions seem idiotic. I guess sparse random events could make sense.
I’m finding this really hard. Designing something with no ‘goal’. Possibly because so many of the games I play have a specific goal, and I sometimes put ones that don’t into the pointless/easy category.
But I actually have extensively played and quite enjoyed a fair few games that have no real goal. I’m not sure at what point something becomes a ‘toy’, so some of these might not really fit, but whatever:
- The Sims – create a person and do whatever you want with his/her life
-Sim City – build a city from scratch, make it prosper or destroy it entirely with amusing disasters…
-Viva Pinata – create a garden and attract different Pinata animals (they’re sort of like Pokemon, except filled with candy)
-Animal Crossing – You move into a new town…and do whatever. You can customise your house/garden, collect bugs/fish, trade items…its all entirely pointless but highly addictive.
-Nintendogs – Not as much depth as any of the above, but very good for a virtual pet.
-LEGO – everyone loves LEGO!
-Mario Paint – A drawing/animation/music creation game for the Super Nintendo. Pretty cool when I was 6.
So what makes the above fun? In every case, the main ingredient is creative freedom. Often there are rewards that allow for even more ’stuff’ to be creative with. In that sense, these games do offer some goals, but if/when/how the player reaches them is entirely up to them. None have any ‘final’ goal, which is why I decided I could classify them as a toy.
So here’s an idea:
Take everyone’s favourite ever toy, LEGO, and use it to create an online ’sandbox’ game. The scale could range from a small play area to some sort of massive LEGO city. There are no particular goals. The city would have public areas, for free-for-all LEGO building/annoying destruction, and private ‘property’. Each player starts with their own small private lot, and a decent assortment of LEGO pieces. Players would be rewarded with more pieces, and larger private properties for reaching intermediate goals, or for creating things rated highly by the playing community. Players can wander around the city, viewing other players’ creations, communicating with friends, racing LEGO cars, trading pieces/creations.
Creative freedom – tick.
Rewarding play with expanding game – tick.
Social funtimes – tick.
Best – LEGO game – ever.
http://comp4431.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/design-idea-wk-3-design-a-toy/
EDIT: So, I just found at that there’s already a game called LEGO Universe, which is a LEGO MMO, coming out this year. Doh!
I enjoy all kinds of games. I love video games, I enjoy playing and watching sport, especially Rugby League, and I like board games and card games, particularly Monopoly, Risk, and Checkers. I’m not sure where I was going with that, just thought I’d throw it out there.
Anyhow, these three categories of games each offer advantages and disadvantages to players and designers. Firstly from a players point of view. Personally, I would say physical sports are the most fun games, if levels of fun can be categorised. To me it seems there is the most at stake, you are competing with your own physical skills, adreniline pumping, etc. Winning a competition in a sport is a lot more satisying and enjoyable than any other game win i’ve ever had. Sport offers the player more challenge and depth than any other type of game, in my opinion, because it engages mind and body, all while under intense physical stress. A sport is harder to learn and master, too. Which brings me to the downsides. Sport is not convenient, or easy. It is difficult to organise, requires equipment and fields and safety measures. Sport is tiring to play. Many people simply lack the desire or physical attributes to be any good and thus will not have fun.
Which brings me to the main advantage of table games – convenience, and usually cheap. Easy to set up and organise, come in a small box, etc. The nature of these games allows a wide range of different experiences – a pack of cards, can play infinitely many games, limited only by the entire world’s imagination. At the same time however, this is somewhat limiting. The variety of games that can be invented using only plastic pieces, cards, dice, and boards isn’t exactly enourmous – ie. With a pack of cards, you can have infinitely many card games, but they will all be card games.
Which finally brings me to video games. In my opinion, limitless in the experiences they can create. Almost any tabletob game can be made in computer game form. Similarly, pretty much any sport can be played on our TV screens. Of course with sport, it will be more fun than the real thing for some, and less so for others. Almost any idea conceivable could be programmed. The real, the unreal, the mundane, the impossible. Video games have two major downsides in my opinion – firstly, is the completely virtual nature of them. You aren’t really *doing* anything. For some people, this is a major turn off. Not me personally. Secondly, and one that effects me far more, is the cost. Hundreds of dollars for a console, or thousands for a computer, and $50+ for any worthwhile game.
A designers point of view is a bit different. Obviously in my opinion, video games offer the most powerful platform for creative expression. Also, they cost the most to create. Modern video games have massive budgets. Getting smaller, unique ideas developed is a huge challenge, a lot of publishers don’t want the risk.
In some ways I think creating a sport or table game would be more difficult. You are far more limited in what you can make. At the same time though you are a bit more free in that you don’t have to worry about programming, graphics, story – just fun.
Last question: how would a game change between mediums. I’ll use the sport of Rugby League as an example. As a live action game it is physical/violent and requires a lot of fitness and skill. As a video game, all of this would be represented on screen and controlled via a control, rather than the players own body. A significant change from sport to video game is that for the most part, the play controls an entire team, or can switch control from player to play on the fly. This changes the dynamic of the game quite a lot, and it turns from a team game to a one on one game. As a table game? My immediate thought was to write “it wouldn’t work”. But, thinking back to primary school, we actually had a game that was played on paper, called flick footy. It actually was a fairly fun representation of Rugby League, the field was drawn on a piece of paper and running, tackling and kicking were represented by pen flicks.
Summary – all types of games are fun, but each offers many different opportunities and limitations for both player and designer.
I found this a lot easier than designing a tabletop game based on ‘the ball game’. Primarily for the reason that a lot more is practically possible in a virtual environment.
Anyhow, I came up with a fairly simple idea that would be best used as a Mario Party style ‘minigame’.
The environment consists of a room divided into 4 squares, with a ball launcher controlled by an individual in each corner. There are 60 balls in play. The ball launcher has a bucket to collect up to 5 balls, which can then by shot out all at once. Balls can bounce off outer walls, launchers, and other balls. The launcher has two actions, rotate and shoot. The mechanics of the game are as follows:
As earlier mentioned, this would be best suited to a minigame setting. Nobody wants to play this for any extended period of time, even less so when it is a computer game rather than a physical activity. So in that regard, it makes sense that the main dynamics that carry over from the original are competitive play, and chaos. Often minigames are chaotic – usually the winner is decided by a large serving of luck with a relatively smaller sprinkling of skill.
However, one mechanic that has changed significantly from the original, and thus would lead to different play dynamics, is the timing. The original was played with a music based time limit, it was essentially unknown. This version is strictly timed. In the original, most strategy was fairly pointless (even though one team decided to try anyway, which led to my idea for launcher stockpiling buckets) due to the unkown end time. However through the combination of a visible timer, and the ball launcher’s ability to stockpile, there is some element of strategy. Do you want to quickly shoot one ball at a time, or shoot 5 at a time onto one of your enemies, though more slowly?
Anyway, that’s all. I never know to end a blog sensibly. Bye 
http://comp4431.wordpress.com/2009/07/27/design-idea-wk2-ball-game/
Firstly, on the Dogma Manifesto… I agree with the sentiment but disagree with most of the specifics. The hardware limitations are archaic, and I happen to like games with guns and/or dragons. And no sidescrollers? Really? It’s a viewpoint, not a genre. I could understand no shooters, no platformers, but no sidescrollers is plain ridiculous.
But anyhow. Designing a game to fit those specifications is unsurprisingly very difficult. Are we at the point where nothing is original any more? Obviously not, but it definitely becoming harder and harder to deliver truly unique gaming experiences. Some recent examples that stand out are Portal, World of Goo, and Viva Pinata. But there aren’t a lot.
To maker this slightly easier on myself, I’m going to ignore the technical limitations, because they are unrealistic and in my view pointless, and focus on the innovation aspect, which is actually a worthwhile goal. But when trying to think of a good idea, I can’t help thinking of other games that already exist!
So, I was devoid of ideas. Even after all that ^ procrastination. So I talked about it with friends a bit, and we came up with the idea of some sort of traffic simulator (ingenious!). The basic idea being you build roundabouts, traffic lights, and other traffic infrastructure to effectively manage an ever growing traffic flow throughout a city. Obviously different objects would have different advantages and disadvantages. Do you use a roundabout or a traffic light intersection? The possibilities are endless! Well not really. But it could potentially be a mildly entertaining game. Perhaps a “bonus” level could be in the style of the old ‘Pipe Dream’ Windows game. Given a starting point, and a some flows of traffic, you have to direct it to an end point through some given skeleton road structure.
Anyway, in summary, that was difficult.
http://comp4431.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/design-idea-wk-1-dogma-manifesto/
Woo excitement! I have a blog. Whatever, straight into the fun stuff…
Why are you doing this subject? What interests you about games? What kinds of games would you like to play? To make? What do you hope to learn?
Well, I’ve always been interested in heading towards game design (mainly programming) as a career, and I find the whole thing pretty interesting. Most importantly I’m hoping this course gives me some sort of ideas I could use to create my own games. I’m fairly sure I have, or could learn, the technical skills required, but have never really had an idea worth putting effort into.
I’ve been interested in video games since I first played Battletoads and Super Mario Bros on my cousins NES at around 3 years old. I was hooked straight away. I think it’s the interactivity and the challenge that draws me to games moreso than other forms of passive entertainment.
I enjoy most kinds of games. Platformers, FPS, strategy, RPGs, simulations, racing games have all hooked me at some point in my life. My favourite game of all time is The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. At the moment I’m a bit of a Guitar Hero/Rock Band addict.
I’m not sure what I’d like to make. That’s pretty much why I chose this course.
I’m hoping to learn how to come up with good, fun ideas. I can think about what makes someone else’s game fun, or terrible, but I’m not quite sure how to do the reverse, ie. design a game that would be fun.
Why do so many games involve guns?
I think there is something oddly enjoyable about killing imaginary things. People are horrified by, but at the same time drawn to blood, gore, violence, death, and of course big explosions. Also, guns are pretty much the perfect video game tool. Skill in aiming, strategy in choosing the correct one, tactics in knowing when to hide, run, or attack, and competition in killing the most.
That’s all for this week…enjoy my rantings.
http://comp4431.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/journal-wk-1-why-are-you-here
