Design Idea Wk 3 – Design a Toy

http://comp4431.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/design-idea-wk-3-design-a-toy/

Design a “toy” – that is a game that has no explicit goals but offers space for self-directed play.

Toy Room

My “toy” is a room with a window and a door. The door signifies exiting the room, and hence the game, and the window is a view to the outside with the sun and moon affecting the lighting in the room. The game is played in first person and you can do almost anything you want and affect the room itself. For example you could get some paint and start painting the walls or the floor, and every time you came back to the room, it would be exactly how you left it. There would also be a toy box, with assorted toys that you would be able to interact with. There would be no goals to the game as everything would be given to you depending on the limits of the games programming.

Design Idea Week 2 – Ball Game

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

The Ball Game

As I understand the ball game (since I missed the tutorial where it was played), the players work in groups / teams to try and push balls into the other teams areas. In the real life version the space was a room divided into 4 quadrants. The balls fly around the room as teams cannot maintain control over all the balls all the time. The object was to have the least amount of balls in your quadrant at the end of a time limit.

My version of the Ball Game:

is a word game. Essentially players have words come on their part of the screen and they have to type words to pass them on. The game can have anywhere between two and four players but I think that more could be accommodated. In the first version of the game, to make it simple, the player would be able to spell out the words using a keyboard, and as soon as they finish a word, the word is passed on to another player of their choice. Each player would have their own little segment to play with and words that appear in that segment would be theirs.

A variant could be that players have to collect letters in their segment to spell out words to pass them on, instead of having to type out given words.

To draw similarities to the ball game, the players will have a space of their own, and a way to give themselves an advantage while pushing other players back, much like throwing a ball into an opponents court. The game will also be timed, so that there is some semblance of a beginning and ending, not having the game run for too long.

Journal Week 2 – Digital vs. non-Digital Games

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

Your reflection topic for this week: What are the differences between table-top board/card/roleplaying games, computer games and sports/live action games? What does abilities and constraints does each kind offer you as a player or as a designer? How might the same game change from one medium to another?

Differences / Similarities

The obvious difference between table top / computer games and live action games is the physical aspect, where live action games have a full sensory experience, with pain and real life physics, table top games have only as much physical action as the players want, and computer games have almost none at all.

Another difference is in the viewpoint of the player. In live action, the player is yourself (i.e. there is no representation or avatar) and your view is first person and field of vision is how much you can physically see, which means somewhere close to 160 degrees wide. However this view is subjective as sometimes people can see certain colours better (this would change the game if the ball was red or green, for example) and some people tend to look to their right or to their left more. In table-top gaming, the player is given a full view of the world, which gives them a more powerful (almost commander / god-like) approach to the game, which means that they gain an overall view of the action and gives a more strategic edge to it. Computer games are dependent on the way it is designed, and can be first person, third person, or both, with maps and some such. A lot of games nowadays also have some sort of game state information displayed, the simplest being the current score.

Constraints / Abilities

As a designer, computer games allow you to determine what actions the player can perform, by designing the games mechanics including things such as the physics of the world etc. This allows the designer to give abilities to the player while putting restrictions on how far they can go, putting the game on a scale between sandbox, such as grand theft auto, and linear gameplay, such as a simple mario game. Computer games can also be multiplayer or single player, depending on design.

Tabletop games are generally representational, and multiplayer competitive / co-operational, which means that there aren’t many single player tabletop games out there, if any. Players are expected to follow the rules of the game to make it fun, but also use their imagination to make it fun.

Live action games usually require some kind of equipment, as simple as a ball, and most games require more than one person to play. The human aspect also means that the rules are not perfectly enforced, as is with computers. This means that rules can be changed, or bent as per the current situation of players etc. This gives more flexibility in the games rules, and hence the game’s designer and players both have control over the mechanics of the game, whereas with computer games, usually only the designer has this power.

Same Game, One medium to another

One examples of games that translate from one medium to another is that involving guns, the computer version being any game in the first-person shooter genre, particularly war games, the table-top version again being any war game, and the real life version being paintball.

The real life version, i.e. paintball, is quite demanding, especially physically as each bullet hurts a fair amount. In this way, the player’s highest priority is not getting hit, the next highest is scoring via shooting the enemy or whatever the objective may be. Also, the experience is quite strong as again you have a full field of vision, holding a relatively heavy item, and wearing army-coloured overalls.

In tabletop, the player takes a more objective view, putting troops into battle, caring most about the objective at hand, whatever that may be. The player is more removed from the game physically, but causes them to use more of their imagination to see what possible outcomes could be, and also possible tactics the players (or in this case the avatars on the field) could employ.

In computer games, both of these two gametypes can be seen. One is the first person shooter game set in a warzone, which gives the player a sense of immersion, of really being there without being there. The interactivity lends to this as well, as it seems like the player is controlling the action. The other type of game (where the player sees the overall view) is demonstrated in real time strategy games where the player can control which troops go where etc.