XnoxdeaX ~ The Rambler

Blog #4 - Today I Die

Mon, 14 Feb 2011 17:51:57 -0500

Chris Donlan mentions text adventures and lucasart’s verb-based adventure games. He also brings up philosophy in the text of the game “Today I Die”. This game in particular is a very unique text adventure game. Generally when I think text adventure, I think of something where you click on a word to do something or you must string together a group of words to create a sentence or something to that notion; this game however has no sort of direction and flip flops between two words (like “shine”). The words that are used in the game can also be taken philosophically by reading them and viewing them more as a poem.
Corvus Elrod notes that many other designers have issues with the mechanics. I agree if we are talking about basic gameplay. When I first opened the page, I was very confused because there was no direction, no clue, no starting point. After clicking around on the screen I noticed that some of the objects drag, and that’s how I figured out the piranhas chasing the jellyfish. The words confused me quite a bit haha I had to click on the “stuck” button to progress any further. “There are a lot of confusing message the game is relaying to the player by simply not contextualizing actions with feedback” “I think I mistakenly thought the next level was a failure screen” ”So yes, it was bad game design. IMHO, allthat was needed to make it good game design was for the failure conditions to create learning experiences so that with each failure you got a hint of what you should have done instead” These are all critiques on the mechanics of the game. I think the last one holds the strongest claim, however, after reading how Corvus explains that this game has no possibility of failure, it is an exploratory plan. It allows the player to think and learn and use the context clues to figure out what the next step should be.
I don’t think that looking at “today i die” as a poem prevents it from being a game. I think that you progress, there are certain rules that the player must figure out to progress, and it does have an ending. You can still play it. Like Corvus says, ” Don’t read it like a game, play it like a poem”. The main mechanics being contextual and exploratory.
If I were to incorporate these mechanics into our groups game, I really don’t think it would be possible! :P Our RPG is exploratory (because of the tiles and elementals), but our game board/time travel game would not work. Neither of our games have any words used. Numbers are crucial, and I supposed that we could substitute that somehow into the game, but it would be very difficult. I could see different problems arising on how the words would be taken, if they are politically correct, if someone has a very small vocabulary…etc, etc.
Overall I thought the game was very interesting. I would mostly likely not play it more than once or twice, other than to show someone else and laugh at how they can’t figure it out. :D

Blog #4

Mon, 07 Feb 2011 18:33:15 -0500

Game: UNO RPG

Genre: An RPG style game

Materials: 1 Uno Deck

What Went Right:

I really like our game! First of all, because it took our group FOREVER to come up with this idea. Secondly, the RPG genre was fulfilled completely by growing characters and going on an adventure with the lovely characters while having the main goal of beating the elementals to gain their powers. That brings up another thing that went right - the story. It was very short, but very sweet. I really like the ability to co-op with your players to defeat the boss, while still having the ability to defeat the smaller minions on your own. The balance of the gameplay is pretty nice too, even if it may seem horrible for a few turns, it can change quickly, which makes the game more interesting.

What Went Wrong:

Our group went through many different versions of RPG through UNO. Let me just say…this was a very stressful, very time consuming process. It was worth it though!! We still have some little kinks in the game, such as some card issues with how many high cards are available to defeat the minion cards. Also, the fact that you could draw the boss card on the very first turn is always a possibility and this makes it very difficult for players if all they have is a low hand, plus they have no +2 or +4 cards to help sway the balance. Oh, and if we had some sort of game board, it would make it infinitely easier to set up. They actually set up of the “islands” is sort of complicated, which can also be an issue.

Lessens Learned:

Patience is a virtue!! Also nothing is perfect and there is always room for improvement.

UNO RPG - The Elementals

Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:19:55 -0500

UNO RPG - The Elementals

Blog #3

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 21:17:16 -0500

Game State and Game View:

As an RPG game, each player gets their own colored deck of cards. Four other decks represent the islands of the Elementals. The game state can be seen by anyone, and can determine how long the game has been in play by looking at the number of tiles layed out. No one is really “winning” the game until all the elementals have been defeated.

Game view can be seen by the player when it is on their turn. A card is flipped over from one of the quests (capture Earth, capture Air, capture Fire, capture Water), and the player must defeat the “protector” (the card that is drawn).

Pieces/Bits/Board:

The cards are very important in this game, especially what is printed on that card. If it is a number card it represents the attack of the player or the protector. If it is a symbol card it represents either a dead end, an ability to gain attack power, or a revival card if a player has lost a life. When the protector is defeated, that card is now a tile on the playing field.

If each player had a character piece that could be placed upon the tile cards, it would better represent the questing and the progression of the game play.

Setup Mechanics:

The set up for this game is a tad complex. Each player gets the same amount of number cards and may choose which color they want to play as. Each island of the elementals has a specific amount of number and symbol cards as well as one wild card to represent the elemental. The colors are not specific for these decks unless it is a symbol card for that deck. Each player may only have 5 cards in their hands at one time.

Victory Conditions:

The game is won when all the elementals are defeated. Whatever cards are left in the players decks may be added up (symbol cards will equal a certain amount) and whoever has the most powerful deck left, wins ultimately.

Progression of Play:

The play is turn-based, it takes strategy to determine which card you will play and which quest/island you will draw from. You can see physical progression by the laying of the tiles. Players will be more powerful as they pick up symbol cards.

Players Actions:

Each player has 5 attack cards in their hands. The player will choose which quest/island to flip a card from and place it in a tile pattern. The player must then choose a card from their hand that will either match or beat the card they have drawn (the color will represent an advantage or disadvantage against one another). If they defeat it, they will take that card, put theirs in its place and draw a card from their deck so that they still have 5 cards in their hands. If they lose, they must discard a card from their hand to represent a life they have lost.

Game View at Given Moment:

The player can determine the game view by looking at whose turn it is, how many tiles from each quest/island have been layed down, and how many lifes they have lost.

Dynamic and Goal:

Defeat all of the protectors from each quest until the Elemental is drawn. Fight together to defeat the Elemental. Gain that power and master all four elements.

Theme:

You are a Band of Seekers traveling to the Islands of the Elementals looking to defeat them and capture the powers of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water.

Ok, so the first time I typed this it was little better explained, however I have less patience now, so I’m sorry if its not as involved. :P This game took our scattered group 4 times to invent, so I really hope you guys like it when we do the game testing next class!!

AARRGG

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:50:01 -0500

I typed the whole thing out and the server on tumblr crashed so now I have to type the whole blog over again!!! arragkajsdlfgasoeigawergtihasdfih

Blog #2

Mon, 03 Jan 2011 18:35:48 -0500

Which of the listed cores does your game most easily fit? Explain which and in what way. (it’s okay if it’s more that one).

Our game is kind of a tie between three different cores: destruction, building, and survival. As an RPG game, it is meant to build character, but also destroy your enemies, while still surviving your enemies attacks.

Which is your game least like? Again, which and in what way.

Our game is least like trading. There are no card exchanges or point exchanges in anyway. We only build upon each others attacks in order to defeat our enemy.

How could you, with changing at the most 2 rules, convert your current core into it’s direct opposite?

With every round, we could trade our level up abilities, or we could trade our elements in order to help our teammates under certain circumstances.

How do you think that would affect play? Take us through a few fictitious rounds. Which of these core structures is generally your favorite?

In our game, if an enemy “water” boss was attacking our “fire” character in order to do the most damage, a fellow “earth” or “air” character could take the hit instead by trading the hit points or our level up abilities in order to kill the boss faster and prevent the teammate from dying. I would say that all of them are awesome, it just takes a certain amount of patience for the building and it is certainly fun in the destruction games, so it just depends on my mood and my patience level. :P

Blog #1 - What is Game?

Mon, 20 Dec 2010 18:21:00 -0500

Ian Schrieber lists many definitions of the word game, and out of all of them, I agree with this:

A game is a “voluntary effort to overcome unnecessary obstacles.” This is a favorite among my classroom students. It sounds a bit different, but includes a lot of concepts of former definitions: it is voluntary, it has goals and rules. The bit about “unnecessary obstacles” implies an inefficiency caused by the rules on purpose — for example, if the object of Tic Tac Toe is to get three symbols across, down or diagonally, the easiest way to do that is to simply write three symbols in a row on your first turn while keeping the paper away from your opponent. But you don’t do that, because the rules get in the way… and it is from those rules that the play emerges. (Bernard Suits)

I think that the very first sentence describes a game perfectly. As Ian points out, there is no true definition for the word game because it can be taken too broadly (which this definition might fall under) or too narrowly.

One definition I’m not too fond of is this one:

Games are a “form of art in which the participants, termed Players, make decisions in order to manage resources through game tokens in the pursuit of a goal.” This definition includes a number of concepts not seen in earlier definitions: games are art, they involve decisions and resource management, and they have “tokens” (objects within the game). There is also the familiar concept of goals. (Greg Costikyan)

Not every single game is going to use resource management. Ever play the “Quiet game” or the “Staring game”? They are both very simple. First one who makes a noise loses. First one to blink loses. (You can’t cheat and blow in their eye or make them laugh by tickling them or something.) In both of these games there are no resources to be used as a token to win the game, besides maybe strength of will. (but that is a whole other ballpark that Ian doesn’t really touch base on here).

In all of the possible definitions, they state that a game is: voluntary, it has rules or a structure, it has an uncertain outcome, it has a goal, it involves decision making, it is an activity, and involve conflict.

Universally, I think we can all agree that a game involves rules - that is what differentiates it from the word “play”. I don’t think that everyone can call game a form of art. But then that depends on your definition of the word art!!

Out of all the fuzzy categories: puzzles, rpg, chose your own adventure and stories, I think that stories would be the biggest “no-no” of the list.

A story is a story. It should not be considered a game. You can read a story from a game, you can act out a story, and you can hire someone to create a story for your game, but it has nothing to do with the definition of the word “game”. There are no decision making factors when reading a story. If you are creating a story, I think that maybe you could call that a game. You have to use decision making to create the world and character of the story, you have to voluntarily create the story, there are certain guidelines to how a story should be made (beginning, middle, end), and there is an outcome. HOWEVER!! When creating a story, you know what that outcome will be, and therefore, it cannot ‘technically’ be called a game.

So I can conclude that a game is a mixture of all of these definitions, and ultimately should be defined by each person on their own, just like how the word “art” can be interpreted.

-Stephanie Cool