Presentation
View more presentations from Michael Piercy.
Friday 8 April 2011
Monday 14 March 2011
Sunday 23 January 2011
Games Review - International rules of war
Below is a link to a short video taking a look at some issues of game design relating to International Humanitarian Laws and International Rules of War.
YouTube Link
YouTube Link
Monday 22 November 2010
Wednesday 17 November 2010
Board Game Fun-damentals.
The last few weeks have been focused on studying the fundamental (emphasis on the fun) mechanics of board games.What are they made of? Why do we play them? What do they offer us as a social or personal experience. I found that at the core, there aren't many differences in the structure at the core of board games.
Objectives seem essentially limited to winning criteria strategies such as last man standing: when the player must defeat all other players to become the victor; First to the finish line: the winning player is the first one to reach a certain goal stated in the rules or agreed upon by all players; Richest after all: where the winner is the payer with the highest value of a certain criteria after an agreed upon amount of time. The players act as rule enforcers and keep the players from breaking the rules or cheating.
Translating that into digital games, all the agreements and objectives are made between the computer and other players. The computer acts as the rules enforcer. If there is an illegal move the computer wont let you play it.
While there are some board games that can be played solo, I think it's safe to say that the majority of them in are created to be played by groups. And the social aspect of the game is what brings the fun to the table; and that fun is generally experienced when the players trump the each other in one form or another.
In history of digital games, the social experience of playing online is only really in it's infancy and many games are played by one player. Yet this still brings a similar experience of fun and enjoyment.
While the rules, essential fundamentals and gameplay methods of games in general can be broken down into similar categories whether they're tabletop or digital, they offer similar experiences through different types of play.
So what makes a one player digital game as much fun as a four player board game? Why do players with strong social capital still choose to play on their own rather than with a group? is the type of fun a different experience altogether?
It is argued that fun is a very arbitrary word. Something we all experience but not something that anyone can quite put their finger on. So capitalising on it can be quite tricky. Nonetheless, we can establish what are similar elements in 'fun' games and throw them into the mix to create a seemingly fun game. Maybe from studying that mix a little closer we can establish a more defined definition of the word.
Objectives seem essentially limited to winning criteria strategies such as last man standing: when the player must defeat all other players to become the victor; First to the finish line: the winning player is the first one to reach a certain goal stated in the rules or agreed upon by all players; Richest after all: where the winner is the payer with the highest value of a certain criteria after an agreed upon amount of time. The players act as rule enforcers and keep the players from breaking the rules or cheating.
Translating that into digital games, all the agreements and objectives are made between the computer and other players. The computer acts as the rules enforcer. If there is an illegal move the computer wont let you play it.
While there are some board games that can be played solo, I think it's safe to say that the majority of them in are created to be played by groups. And the social aspect of the game is what brings the fun to the table; and that fun is generally experienced when the players trump the each other in one form or another.
In history of digital games, the social experience of playing online is only really in it's infancy and many games are played by one player. Yet this still brings a similar experience of fun and enjoyment.
While the rules, essential fundamentals and gameplay methods of games in general can be broken down into similar categories whether they're tabletop or digital, they offer similar experiences through different types of play.
So what makes a one player digital game as much fun as a four player board game? Why do players with strong social capital still choose to play on their own rather than with a group? is the type of fun a different experience altogether?
It is argued that fun is a very arbitrary word. Something we all experience but not something that anyone can quite put their finger on. So capitalising on it can be quite tricky. Nonetheless, we can establish what are similar elements in 'fun' games and throw them into the mix to create a seemingly fun game. Maybe from studying that mix a little closer we can establish a more defined definition of the word.
Wednesday 20 October 2010
Monday 4 October 2010
Lifegames
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Lifegames
View more presentations from Michael Piercy.
Wednesday 29 September 2010
Blog: If Dice could talk, what would they say?
Well well well...
So the first week in Ludology workshop proved straight forward enough; Create a small game using a limited number of pieces/elements and restricted to seven rules. Got through that one with enough ease. Maybe because it was the first week and we all had creative juices coming out of our ears! But the second week's task was a little more defined. Less restrictions, yet more challenging. Here's a deck of cards, you know the drill! The first 5 minutes was wasted in staring at a blank page. Dozens of ideas flowing through my head but none quite unique enough or indeed even interesting enough to put on paper. So I took a look at adding some other elements. See if I can't get some inspiration that way. Taking a couple of dice from the box and staring at them for another minute seemed to help.
The Result?
At the time I thought the game was kind of creative, a little unique. But thinking back on it now, I didn't stray too far from the conventional 'Roll of the Dice' and 'Pick a Card from the Deck' as the main structures of the game. Nonetheless the exercise moved on. Play-testing the game and watching how the players interpreted the rules was an interesting exercise. The players seemed to change the rules here and there without the others noticing or indeed noticing themselves but the results worked. Phrases and terminology seemed to stick e.g. I'm gonna Swipe - meaning swap a card with another player. The game seemed to have evolved by itself into the usual comfortable routine of a turn based card game. After a couple of suggestions and a few drafts of the rules, the game became a definitive piece where all three players were sure of the rules and could turn around and teach others.
Last week my small game was a 2 player game and I had to rewrite the rules to make sure everything was explained properly. This week it seemed "Less is More" as I found it hard to come up with more than three rules; And adding any more seemed to take away from the fun.
The game was simple but it worked. I found it interesting that I just needed to create the basic stepping stones of the game and from the players ideas mixed with the conformities of the pieces used (i.e. Cards and Dice) shaped a game that was actually more fun than the original that I created on paper just moments ago.
And what did you learn?
It seems that when it comes to the interface design of a game (not just a table game), how it is represented visually to the player, contributes to teaching the player how the game actually works. This contribution is based on the players experiences of playing other similar games. However, when it comes to design you still need to point out the obvious. While they take that experience with them, they may still be weary of what each element is actually used for in this particular game. E.g. A handful of cards are placed face down before you and you're told 'They're yours.' - yet you feel the urge to ask, 'Can I look at them?'
In a digital game, conformities might be in the shape of pixelated avatars with an integer next to it in the corner of the screen representing a finite number of lives. This is a given. Seeing this tells the player 'You can jump off that cliff over there because this number assures you 2 more tries.' The same again for a digital timer, counting down to zero. Your instinct and anticipation tells you that when it reaches 0, it's Gamer Over! However, having neither of these in the corner of the screen doesn't exactly tell the player that there is an infinite number of lives or time to play with. It just makes them curious.
I always thought these elements of User Interfaces were always a good thing. Why would you have the player sit in wonder when a simple image or number will tell them exactly what they're itching to know? Then I played Limbo on Xbox Live Arcade and you start the game with nothing! You don't know who you are or how many 'lives' you've got, or if there's a time limit; You just have to explore it to find out. And one of the beauties of this game is that the puzzles are so subtly integrated in the gameplay that you sometimes start one and you don't even realise it.
Liberal or Conformist?
So now I'm on the fence... is it better to tell the player straight up, these are the rules, this is the way things are and that's that. Or is it better to let them find out for themselves. Let the game evolve or grow on them. In saying all this, I do think it depends on the game your designing. Playing a Beat 'em up with no indication of exactly how 'Beaten-up' you or your enemy is just doesn't work. In this case, conformity might be the best policy, but that's not to say it has to be a green and red bar that depletes next to their name; You could have the character itself as the visual representation of how close to dead you are E.G. Small Mario = 1 more hit, Big Mario = 2 more hits.
I guess it just takes play testing with others to find out which works best for your game!
So the first week in Ludology workshop proved straight forward enough; Create a small game using a limited number of pieces/elements and restricted to seven rules. Got through that one with enough ease. Maybe because it was the first week and we all had creative juices coming out of our ears! But the second week's task was a little more defined. Less restrictions, yet more challenging. Here's a deck of cards, you know the drill! The first 5 minutes was wasted in staring at a blank page. Dozens of ideas flowing through my head but none quite unique enough or indeed even interesting enough to put on paper. So I took a look at adding some other elements. See if I can't get some inspiration that way. Taking a couple of dice from the box and staring at them for another minute seemed to help.
The Result?
At the time I thought the game was kind of creative, a little unique. But thinking back on it now, I didn't stray too far from the conventional 'Roll of the Dice' and 'Pick a Card from the Deck' as the main structures of the game. Nonetheless the exercise moved on. Play-testing the game and watching how the players interpreted the rules was an interesting exercise. The players seemed to change the rules here and there without the others noticing or indeed noticing themselves but the results worked. Phrases and terminology seemed to stick e.g. I'm gonna Swipe - meaning swap a card with another player. The game seemed to have evolved by itself into the usual comfortable routine of a turn based card game. After a couple of suggestions and a few drafts of the rules, the game became a definitive piece where all three players were sure of the rules and could turn around and teach others.
Last week my small game was a 2 player game and I had to rewrite the rules to make sure everything was explained properly. This week it seemed "Less is More" as I found it hard to come up with more than three rules; And adding any more seemed to take away from the fun.
The game was simple but it worked. I found it interesting that I just needed to create the basic stepping stones of the game and from the players ideas mixed with the conformities of the pieces used (i.e. Cards and Dice) shaped a game that was actually more fun than the original that I created on paper just moments ago.
And what did you learn?
It seems that when it comes to the interface design of a game (not just a table game), how it is represented visually to the player, contributes to teaching the player how the game actually works. This contribution is based on the players experiences of playing other similar games. However, when it comes to design you still need to point out the obvious. While they take that experience with them, they may still be weary of what each element is actually used for in this particular game. E.g. A handful of cards are placed face down before you and you're told 'They're yours.' - yet you feel the urge to ask, 'Can I look at them?'
In a digital game, conformities might be in the shape of pixelated avatars with an integer next to it in the corner of the screen representing a finite number of lives. This is a given. Seeing this tells the player 'You can jump off that cliff over there because this number assures you 2 more tries.' The same again for a digital timer, counting down to zero. Your instinct and anticipation tells you that when it reaches 0, it's Gamer Over! However, having neither of these in the corner of the screen doesn't exactly tell the player that there is an infinite number of lives or time to play with. It just makes them curious.
I always thought these elements of User Interfaces were always a good thing. Why would you have the player sit in wonder when a simple image or number will tell them exactly what they're itching to know? Then I played Limbo on Xbox Live Arcade and you start the game with nothing! You don't know who you are or how many 'lives' you've got, or if there's a time limit; You just have to explore it to find out. And one of the beauties of this game is that the puzzles are so subtly integrated in the gameplay that you sometimes start one and you don't even realise it.
Liberal or Conformist?
So now I'm on the fence... is it better to tell the player straight up, these are the rules, this is the way things are and that's that. Or is it better to let them find out for themselves. Let the game evolve or grow on them. In saying all this, I do think it depends on the game your designing. Playing a Beat 'em up with no indication of exactly how 'Beaten-up' you or your enemy is just doesn't work. In this case, conformity might be the best policy, but that's not to say it has to be a green and red bar that depletes next to their name; You could have the character itself as the visual representation of how close to dead you are E.G. Small Mario = 1 more hit, Big Mario = 2 more hits.
I guess it just takes play testing with others to find out which works best for your game!
Monday 12 July 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)