Chance
Brathwaite mentions in the opening section of the 5th chapter that 'Most games contain at least some factors that are random or not repeatable'. This statement is clear because it offers the idea that most games will factor in chance to entertain the players.
There are many roles that chance is used for in games, such as:
Delaying solvability
This is the idea that it prevents the player from solving the game, or preventing a single player from being able to win every time the game is played. The idea that chance will prevent players from mastering a game for a longer period of time compared to a game that lacks chance.
Making play 'competitive' for all players
Strong players will beat weak players in pure strategy games. Introducing chance into these games allows a weaker player the chance to beat the stronger player because it becomes more luck based. This allows a higher chance of victory to all players and when a player can blame luck it lessens their chance of being upset about losing.
Increasing variety
If a game lacks chance and randomness, then the players will always begin the game in the same method. By introducing variety it forces players to adapt to the new situations each time they play.
Dramatic Moments
Introducing chance into a strategy game helps create dramatic tension. Tension is created by risk, if a player is making a strategic move that is based on chance the risk could be high and this causes the tension to rise. Tension rises in proportion to the amount of risk.
Decision Making
The player will make the obvious decisions if they can see the outcome. Random factors can offer more strategic choices and allows the player to make more complicated and compelling choices
Mechanics
Dice
Dice are the staple of random mechanics. Utilising dice allows for a random number to be created. However, as more dice are used a 'bell curve' is created and this reduces the random number as numbers located in the middle of the spectrum become more likely to show up. By using dice with more faces, this probability is reduced and the randomness is increased.
Cards
You can randomise the order of cards by shuffling the collection of cards. Cards can work in conjunction with hidden information by hiding your own cards from your opponents and by revealing cards it can change the probability of other cards appearing.
Number Generators
These are technically not random, so they are known as pseudo-random number generators. Players need to be careful because some generators will favor numbers over others.
Hidden Information
The idea of hiding information from certain players allows the information to appear random to the players who are unable to view the information. Hidden information can lead to a player becoming frustrated and leaving the game because they find understanding it more difficult.
There are other bits such as a deidrel, which functions like a 1d4; a spinner which behaves like a dice and tiles to offer a similar randomness to a deck of cards.
Brathwaite mentions in the book that 'All Randomness Is Not Created Equal'. This statement shows that the idea of chance and random is different and unequal in different games. For example, the chance found in Poker is different to the chance found in Chess.
There are two types of games that are purely random, these two types of games are Children's Games, and Gambling.
These games both utilise chance in order to allow more people to play them. Children's games give the illusion of skill to children whilst gambling offers everyone a chance at winning.
Skill
Strategy is a returning point for many games. Players will often return to games in order to learn the necessary patterns and in doing so offers them entertainment whilst they also become more skilled at the game.
There are many reasons to implement skill into games. A good game uses skill to give interesting decisions and the success of those decisions is the players skill. Good games reward this skill with immediate feedback. This allows the player to continue thinking about what to do next and this helps immerse him in the game, or as Brathwaite says in the book: the 'magic circle'. This magic circle relates to 'flow', a type of game state.
These decisions are a sign of a good game and there are multiple types of decisions:
Obvious Decisions
These are decisions that you would take no matter what, such as taking the queen if their is no repurcussions in chess. These choices are often made because they are the optimum choice and there is no point making any other choice. These choices can be automated, such as reloading a gun or recovering stamina.
Meaningless Decisions.
These are decisions in which the responses have no different outcomes on the game. These are boring decisions because they do not affect the game state. There is a different outcome for this in which the player perceives that their meaningless decision is making a change to the game state, when in fact it is not.
Blind Decisions
Decisions that are made without any information regarding the decision. These types of decisions affect the game state however, without information, the outcome is completely random. These decisions are made better if the player is offered with more information, but not the entirety of information.
Tradeoffs
Tradeoffs are decisions that a player must make when they are unable to accomplish all of the available goals. There is no right or wrong with these decisions and that makes them more interesting.
Dilemmas
A type of tradeoff that only has a negative outcome for the player.
Risk versus Reward Tradeoff
A type of tradeoff which involves a situation with different levels of risk, yet multiple outcomes.
Frequency or Anticipation of Decisions
Developers need to think about the number of decisions that a player needs to make in a game and how often they need to be made. The quality of a game depends on the frequency of decisions that are being made. Decisions are not always frequent but there is often a build up towards the situation, by building tension for example.
Strategy and Tactics
Strategy is the term given to when a player is deciding what to do in the long run whilst tactics is more for short run. These terms are also related to macro and micro management respectively. Tradeoffs are good for strategy whilst twitch skill is more related to tactics.
Mechanics of Skill
Tradeoff mechanics
Auctions
There are multiple types of auctions, they typically involve betting resources in order to earn another item or resource.
Open Auction
A type of auction in which the participants can call out bids whenever they want until noone makes another bid.
Sequential Auction
The same as an Open Auction but there is a specific order in which the bidding is done.
Silent Auction
Ever players makes their bid at the same time, but in secret.
Fixed Price Auction
The item is set at a fixed price, and the first player to accept wins.
Dutch Auction
The item starts at a high price but begins to drop over time.
Reverse Auction
An auction in which the players bid to prevent a negative effect happening to them.
Purchases
The ability to buy items or equipment or actions. The choices come from the limited currency and the urgency of purchasing that item or equipment, because it may not be available later on.
Limited Use Abilities
Allows players to break the standard rules of the game in specific ways. These are limited and are only used once or twice, offering a limited advantage. The choice comes in using the ability at specific times.
Dynamic Limited Use Abilities
Varying strengths of abilities based on time, location or other factors the decision can change strategically. Offers a choice as to when to use the abilities.
Explicit Choices
Choices with clear results. The choice comes in which path to follow.
Limited Actions
Having a limited choice of which actions, or which characters to follow.
Trading and Negotiation
Choices involving alliances, choices to trade items and offer advantages to other players or to offer them bad deals and to betray them. These choices can affect late game because the players will be more reluctant to trust you.
Strategic Evaluations
Developers need to understand how a player will go through their game when considering skill and strategy. Questions such as 'do players care when other players are taking their turn?' or 'Are players making long term plans?' or 'Are there multiple strategies for multiple games?' come into play and the developer must deal with these appropriately. The developer would need to find a way to immerse the player into the game so that they will want to stay with it for the length of the game. Developers need to attempt to persuade their players into planning ahead for the game, in order to gain an advantage and they would need to persuade the players to be finding multiple strategies for solving the game.
Wednesday, 21 November 2012
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Bluff
In this session we played a game called Bluff, in order to explore the idea of creating dramatic tension.
Bluff is a game which involves rolling 5 dice and then hiding them from the other players. By hiding the dice it offers the uncertainty of what each player has rolled and this helps create drama. Each round a player will lose a dice and as more dice are lost to the middle of the table the inevitability of the game is revealed as less and less dice are in play, revealing how close to the end it is. The hiding of the dice can be related to the idea of having a fog of war, the information shown to the player is limited in the beginning but can increase as more dice are lost from other players, whilst getting smaller when the player loses their own dice.
By retaining more dice than your opponents it offers a more tactical advantage, a form of positive feedback. This feedback can help a player retain their advantage.
The main dramatic idea behind this game is from the secrecy and deception that is revealed when a player places their bid. The idea of challenging a bid also contributes towards the drama because the player may not want to risk their own dice, however the player must raise the bid and this can also increase the risk.
We decided to iterate the game without changing the rules. To begin with we decided to completely hide the hidden information, such as how many dice are in play. These caused the players who were not keeping count to be at a loss as to how many dice are in play, compared to the players who chose to keep track.
This was the only iteration made because it enabled the game to play out with a larger amount of uncertainty, and also hid the inevitability to an extent because the players were unable to see how many pieces were left in the middle.
In regards to dramatic tension, I believe that I understand how dynamics can be manipulated in order to show off the aesthetic notion of inevitability and uncertainty.
Bluff is a game which involves rolling 5 dice and then hiding them from the other players. By hiding the dice it offers the uncertainty of what each player has rolled and this helps create drama. Each round a player will lose a dice and as more dice are lost to the middle of the table the inevitability of the game is revealed as less and less dice are in play, revealing how close to the end it is. The hiding of the dice can be related to the idea of having a fog of war, the information shown to the player is limited in the beginning but can increase as more dice are lost from other players, whilst getting smaller when the player loses their own dice.
By retaining more dice than your opponents it offers a more tactical advantage, a form of positive feedback. This feedback can help a player retain their advantage.
The main dramatic idea behind this game is from the secrecy and deception that is revealed when a player places their bid. The idea of challenging a bid also contributes towards the drama because the player may not want to risk their own dice, however the player must raise the bid and this can also increase the risk.
We decided to iterate the game without changing the rules. To begin with we decided to completely hide the hidden information, such as how many dice are in play. These caused the players who were not keeping count to be at a loss as to how many dice are in play, compared to the players who chose to keep track.
This was the only iteration made because it enabled the game to play out with a larger amount of uncertainty, and also hid the inevitability to an extent because the players were unable to see how many pieces were left in the middle.
In regards to dramatic tension, I believe that I understand how dynamics can be manipulated in order to show off the aesthetic notion of inevitability and uncertainty.
Monday, 12 November 2012
Tools For Creating Dramatic Game Dynamics
This weeks reading focuses on the idea of creating a dramatic game and how a designer will go about this. The main question and focus when reading this article involve the actual mechanics that are used and how they work.
This article mentions Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics. These terms have already been covered in the previous reading which was focused on these tools and what they are used for. The article uses this framework and poses three questions:
How does drama function as an aesthetic of play?
What kinds of game dynamics can evoke drama?
From what kinds of mechanics do these dynamics emerge?
The article begins by focusing upon the aesthetics and, as stated before in the article, begins to work backwards from the aesthetics. This means that the writer, LeBlanc, decides that the aesthetics are the first part of games design. In relation to the aesthetics, LeBlanc, mentions creating an aesthetic model in order to give proportion to how the drama is going to be made in the game. Below is an example of this aesthetic model.
http://www.education.com/study-help/article/plot-conflict-resolution/
The idea behind the above diagram is that the drama will rise along with the Rising Action and then peak at the climax, before subsiding during the Falling Action. The idea behind the dramatic tension is that it is impossible to gauge how much tension there will be. The diagram shows where the general idea for tension will be located and so the game can be designed accordingly.
LeBlanc continues by displaying the importance of dramatic arcs and how they can influence the attention of an audience, giving them a moment that will capture their attention and be more remembered than other parts of the product.
LeBlanc mentions that there are two factors for dramatic tension:
Uncertainty: or the idea that the outcome is unknown
Inevitability: The idea that the outcome is being approached and will happen regardless of what is done.
LeBlanc discusses that these two points must work together in order to fashion the tension of a game because they co-exist and improve the aesthetic experience of the player.
Next, LeBlanc begins to discuss the dynamic aspect of creating tension and drama. He discusses how uncertainty and inevitability are independent of one another and are brought on by game dynamics. He begins discussing uncertainty, and how in a game the designer has the choice of using force or illusion to create uncertainty. Force is the idea that the designer manipulates the game state to always be close, or prevent the game from becoming inevitable. Illusion is to change the way that players perceive the game state so that the game appears closer than it is. These two methods have pure techniques and also techniques that mix the two together. LeBlanc continues to discuss methods of showing uncertainty and these include: Feedback, escalation, fog of war, hidden energy and many more.
The article relates uncertainty to feedback systems through the use of positive and negative feedback. Positive feedback is the idea of dispelling the uncertainty by moving the game forward. Negative feedback is a type of feedback that attempts to keep the game as close as possible, helping to re-create a balance.
Escalation is the idea that the score of the game will increase as the game goes on at faster speeds.
Hidden energy is the idea that each players have a set amount of hidden resources in the game, which allows each player to be uncertain about what the other players have.
Fog of war is a tool that gives the players a limited field of vision. This hides the other players and information in the game state, adding to the uncertainty of what is found in the game.
He continues to discuss the sources of inevitability and relates inevitability to asking the question 'when will it end' and relates it to a ticking clock. This analogy is made through the idea that as time runs out the urgency of the player will increase as they aim to get more done. This analogy of time can be adjusted depending on the game, such as information in Clue, or game space in SSX. Creating inevitability in a game is to simply create the idea that the game will end soon, and the players are aware of this.
The above goes over the idea of using uncertainty and inevitability as a part of the MDA framework in order to create dramatic tension in games. The balance that is required from the two different types of methods is important because otherwise it can rob the players of their reasons to continue playing the game and cause them to become bored. As to my belief on the above, i believe that it is a good follow on from the MDA reading that I have previously done and will help me to better form my ability at creating games in the future.
This article mentions Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics. These terms have already been covered in the previous reading which was focused on these tools and what they are used for. The article uses this framework and poses three questions:
How does drama function as an aesthetic of play?
What kinds of game dynamics can evoke drama?
From what kinds of mechanics do these dynamics emerge?
The article begins by focusing upon the aesthetics and, as stated before in the article, begins to work backwards from the aesthetics. This means that the writer, LeBlanc, decides that the aesthetics are the first part of games design. In relation to the aesthetics, LeBlanc, mentions creating an aesthetic model in order to give proportion to how the drama is going to be made in the game. Below is an example of this aesthetic model.
http://www.education.com/study-help/article/plot-conflict-resolution/
The idea behind the above diagram is that the drama will rise along with the Rising Action and then peak at the climax, before subsiding during the Falling Action. The idea behind the dramatic tension is that it is impossible to gauge how much tension there will be. The diagram shows where the general idea for tension will be located and so the game can be designed accordingly.
LeBlanc continues by displaying the importance of dramatic arcs and how they can influence the attention of an audience, giving them a moment that will capture their attention and be more remembered than other parts of the product.
LeBlanc mentions that there are two factors for dramatic tension:
Uncertainty: or the idea that the outcome is unknown
Inevitability: The idea that the outcome is being approached and will happen regardless of what is done.
LeBlanc discusses that these two points must work together in order to fashion the tension of a game because they co-exist and improve the aesthetic experience of the player.
Next, LeBlanc begins to discuss the dynamic aspect of creating tension and drama. He discusses how uncertainty and inevitability are independent of one another and are brought on by game dynamics. He begins discussing uncertainty, and how in a game the designer has the choice of using force or illusion to create uncertainty. Force is the idea that the designer manipulates the game state to always be close, or prevent the game from becoming inevitable. Illusion is to change the way that players perceive the game state so that the game appears closer than it is. These two methods have pure techniques and also techniques that mix the two together. LeBlanc continues to discuss methods of showing uncertainty and these include: Feedback, escalation, fog of war, hidden energy and many more.
The article relates uncertainty to feedback systems through the use of positive and negative feedback. Positive feedback is the idea of dispelling the uncertainty by moving the game forward. Negative feedback is a type of feedback that attempts to keep the game as close as possible, helping to re-create a balance.
Escalation is the idea that the score of the game will increase as the game goes on at faster speeds.
Hidden energy is the idea that each players have a set amount of hidden resources in the game, which allows each player to be uncertain about what the other players have.
Fog of war is a tool that gives the players a limited field of vision. This hides the other players and information in the game state, adding to the uncertainty of what is found in the game.
He continues to discuss the sources of inevitability and relates inevitability to asking the question 'when will it end' and relates it to a ticking clock. This analogy is made through the idea that as time runs out the urgency of the player will increase as they aim to get more done. This analogy of time can be adjusted depending on the game, such as information in Clue, or game space in SSX. Creating inevitability in a game is to simply create the idea that the game will end soon, and the players are aware of this.
The above goes over the idea of using uncertainty and inevitability as a part of the MDA framework in order to create dramatic tension in games. The balance that is required from the two different types of methods is important because otherwise it can rob the players of their reasons to continue playing the game and cause them to become bored. As to my belief on the above, i believe that it is a good follow on from the MDA reading that I have previously done and will help me to better form my ability at creating games in the future.
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
Creating an RTS
In this session we were set the task to create an RTS. This task was based around the reading describing MDA, Mechanics, Dynamics and Aesthetics.
To begin with we created a broken game based around the use of simultaneous showing of card choices. The players could select to Move, Move and Turn, Turn, and Shoot. With the inclusion of obstacles this method of play led to players camping in spot and preventing a successful outcome because players will not want to leave their safe camp spot.
We moved away from this and deciding to attempt to implement the aesthetic of challenge into the game. Our method of doing this was to implement a squad system into the game and have each player utilise the following troops:
A - Soldier - 6hp, 3 range
B - Sniper - 4hp, 7 range
C - Medic - 5hp, 2 range, half damage, AOE heal
D - Air - 7hp, 3 range, jumps over cover.
After implementing the troop types we played a game. However we discovered that this simply dragged out gameplay for longer because we had kept the original movement rules.
After making the above discovery we removed the multiple troops and implemented a 3-card system. The players were able to make a choice of up to 3 cards to play for their turn. This system allowed the players to maximise their movement and helped speed up the game.
After adding in this movement system we created a goal for the players to strive for in hopes that they will aim for it and improve the action found in the game.
The above implementations were all made in order to base the game around the idea of MDA. We believe that were were able to accomplish our goal of creating a challenging game and also implemented the ideas of frustration and expression. The mechanics were constantly changed as we play tested and iterated the game and this also helped us discover the difference that a few mechanics can do to a game. We discovered it was simple to create a game and base it around MDA, however we found the idea of making a RTS board game challenging and were unable to create a fun working game.
To begin with we created a broken game based around the use of simultaneous showing of card choices. The players could select to Move, Move and Turn, Turn, and Shoot. With the inclusion of obstacles this method of play led to players camping in spot and preventing a successful outcome because players will not want to leave their safe camp spot.
We moved away from this and deciding to attempt to implement the aesthetic of challenge into the game. Our method of doing this was to implement a squad system into the game and have each player utilise the following troops:
A - Soldier - 6hp, 3 range
B - Sniper - 4hp, 7 range
C - Medic - 5hp, 2 range, half damage, AOE heal
D - Air - 7hp, 3 range, jumps over cover.
After implementing the troop types we played a game. However we discovered that this simply dragged out gameplay for longer because we had kept the original movement rules.
After making the above discovery we removed the multiple troops and implemented a 3-card system. The players were able to make a choice of up to 3 cards to play for their turn. This system allowed the players to maximise their movement and helped speed up the game.
After adding in this movement system we created a goal for the players to strive for in hopes that they will aim for it and improve the action found in the game.
The above implementations were all made in order to base the game around the idea of MDA. We believe that were were able to accomplish our goal of creating a challenging game and also implemented the ideas of frustration and expression. The mechanics were constantly changed as we play tested and iterated the game and this also helped us discover the difference that a few mechanics can do to a game. We discovered it was simple to create a game and base it around MDA, however we found the idea of making a RTS board game challenging and were unable to create a fun working game.
Friday, 2 November 2012
Iterating Snakes and Ladders
Snakes and Ladders is a simple board game that is based around getting from start to finish. The game introduces snakes and ladders as the obstacles that must be overcome by the players in order to progress.
When discussing snakes and ladders we came to the conclusion that there is no intention within the game because of the random dice roles and there is no choice for the player. Due to this lack of choice there was also no perceivable consequence, or the players were able to see the consequences but because of the random nature of the game they were not able to stop them happening. Also Snakes and Ladders does not have a story, which we have also thought about.
Firstly we decided to offer the player a choice when playing. This choice was the ability to choose whether they will climb the ladders. If the player wants to take the ladder they must roll a 4 or above in order to climb the ladder. If the player does not roll the successful number then they will miss their next go. This allowed the choice to the player, with a visible consequence if they choose to take the risk.
The second iteration we made incorporated the same rule as above, however we implemented it with the snakes. The player must go down the snake unless they are able to roll a 5 or a 6. This is a method of being safe, with the player able to save themselves from a near game-losing move.
The third iteration we made was an improvement upon the rule above, in which we made it so you must halve your next roll if you fall down a snake. This penalty can work in a players favor if, for example, they roll a number and half of it reaches a ladder. This rule was to make a more dangerous penalty for falling down the snakes.
The fourth iteration we made was from taking inspiration from the royal game of ur. We utilised 5 pieces instead of 1 and decided that the pieces are able to pair up and form groups. These groups were able to block spaces on the board and prevent any group of less pieces to pass. This method felt unbalanced before because the players were able to block their opponent by grouping all five of their pieces together. This issue was addressed by taking inspiration from Spanish Ludo; if a player rolls a number that matches the number of pieces in a group then that group must lose a piece to move forward that number of spaces.
With the above iterations we began to decide upon the story. We decided that we will base our game upon Indiana Jones. With this story we came to the conclusion that the two groups are Indiana Jones and his companions against a group of Nazis. Using this story we have been able to decide that the board can be updated to show off the stories theme, for example we could include pitfall traps or change the design of the snakes and ladders to show off the story and theme more.
Following this session I understand the idea of including Intention, Perceivable Consequence and Story into a game in order to make it more interesting to play. This was a very good follow-up session to the reading that has been done following the article of Doug Church.
When discussing snakes and ladders we came to the conclusion that there is no intention within the game because of the random dice roles and there is no choice for the player. Due to this lack of choice there was also no perceivable consequence, or the players were able to see the consequences but because of the random nature of the game they were not able to stop them happening. Also Snakes and Ladders does not have a story, which we have also thought about.
Firstly we decided to offer the player a choice when playing. This choice was the ability to choose whether they will climb the ladders. If the player wants to take the ladder they must roll a 4 or above in order to climb the ladder. If the player does not roll the successful number then they will miss their next go. This allowed the choice to the player, with a visible consequence if they choose to take the risk.
The second iteration we made incorporated the same rule as above, however we implemented it with the snakes. The player must go down the snake unless they are able to roll a 5 or a 6. This is a method of being safe, with the player able to save themselves from a near game-losing move.
The third iteration we made was an improvement upon the rule above, in which we made it so you must halve your next roll if you fall down a snake. This penalty can work in a players favor if, for example, they roll a number and half of it reaches a ladder. This rule was to make a more dangerous penalty for falling down the snakes.
The fourth iteration we made was from taking inspiration from the royal game of ur. We utilised 5 pieces instead of 1 and decided that the pieces are able to pair up and form groups. These groups were able to block spaces on the board and prevent any group of less pieces to pass. This method felt unbalanced before because the players were able to block their opponent by grouping all five of their pieces together. This issue was addressed by taking inspiration from Spanish Ludo; if a player rolls a number that matches the number of pieces in a group then that group must lose a piece to move forward that number of spaces.
With the above iterations we began to decide upon the story. We decided that we will base our game upon Indiana Jones. With this story we came to the conclusion that the two groups are Indiana Jones and his companions against a group of Nazis. Using this story we have been able to decide that the board can be updated to show off the stories theme, for example we could include pitfall traps or change the design of the snakes and ladders to show off the story and theme more.
Following this session I understand the idea of including Intention, Perceivable Consequence and Story into a game in order to make it more interesting to play. This was a very good follow-up session to the reading that has been done following the article of Doug Church.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)