Thursday, November 01, 2012

You Sunk My Battleship!

Battleships - Iterations

~ Fri 25th Oct - Rob  ~

We were tasked with play testing a game called "Battleships". I widely known game throughout the world and has come in many shapes and forms over its life span. Once we had tested and made notes on how the game works we were tasked with changing, adding or removing mechanics from its original structure to better understand how simple changes can affect a game.

I was grouped with Tom Andrews for this and we begun with playing the game in its original form. If I remember correctly I lost but that's not the point. But that was the goal...one must win and one must lose.

We found the original game to be very entertaining despite it being a very old and been played 100 times before, truly a game that has stood the test of time. The mechanics I enjoyed and ultimately made the game are :-
  • Freedom to place you ships anywhere within the board
  • Different sized ships
  • Not being able to see your opponents ship positions
  • Reading your opponent
  • Fair game play, no special treatment for achieving something
The only thing that I didn't find enjoyable was the two square ship that I couldn't seem to find which resulted in me losing the game.

We discussed what mechanics and rules within the structure of the game we enjoyed and disliked. We decided on making a few changes, some not so radical and other a little more so but given we only had a short period of time to achieve making changes we had to throw all the changes in at once but in an ideal world I would of made slight changes gradually to see the outcome. The changes we made were :-
  • Removed the two square ship and replaced it with a two by three square ship
  • Increased the grid size to 12 x 12 (original 10 x 10)
  • Upon destroying a opponents ship, you were able to salvage it and move it to your fleet. After doing so your opponent has the choice to re shuffle his/her ships on the grid
The first 2 changes are simple and worked well but didn't really add anything to the game play nor take anything away. Our final change would of made the game very interesting and made the game a little more interactive with the users with the ever changing positions of the ships but as we were paper prototyping we found that we would of used a huge amount of resources. If we had been using the game grid and piece from the real game it would of simplified the change a lot.




I Have No Words - So I'll Write A Book!

I Have No Words & I Must Design: Towards a Critical Vocabulary for Games
~ Notes on Grey Costikyan's book - Chapter 1 ~

We were tasked with a little reading for Fridays lecture with Rob which I really enjoy doing and always find his lectures very beneficial for expanding my thoughts and ideas about games and then breaking it down to the fundamental elements of what a game involves.

Unfortunately this (apparently) cannot be said for the everyone in my year as only half of the students had bothered to read the 24 pages of text and takes notes, which at the start of the lecturer I didn't even bat an eye lid to but once Rob found this out he spoke a little about why we do the reading. He touched on why discuss reading in groups is a huge factor when it comes down to designing and developing games, without a deep understanding of the gaming world and what makes it tick your unable to contribute to the game or the group you working with and if its one thing I've already learnt, its communication between individuals and the wider audience (the users) that can make or break a game.

The fact only half of the students had done the reading was the perfect example of this, they were unable to contribute anything to the lecture as they had not done the reading so we ended up splitting off into groups and sharing our notes and thoughts on the reading which worked well but took time away from the lecturer instead of using that time to share and explain our thoughts on the reading which would of been a much of beneficial way to spend our time.

Notes - 

'A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards goals'

The best way for me to explain this quote would most like be to break it down to sections.

"Game"

Games come in many sizes, shapes and forms. In Costikyans book he writes a short paragraph on what types of games there are and demonstrates that were only limited by how many types there can be by our own imagination.

"Interactive"


Thorougher into the reading we start getting into what makes a game and game and not simply a book, a puzzle or a movie. A interactive game interacts with its users, via changing its state once the user(s) have interacted with it. A good example of this would be a crossword vs monopoly. A Crossword doesn't change when you interact with it, the words don't move, the squares don't move and the answers don't change. This is a static word puzzle, not technically a game as it doesn't interact with the user. Monopoly on the other hand changes each time a user interacts with it, wither it be by moving the avatar across the board, putting a hotel on your property or going to jail. The state of play changes each time someone interacts.

"Structure"

A Structure of a game is the rules, the boundaries and the limitations within which people play. This can be written rules, the size of the board or map, how many people can play and many more things. A structure is one of the foremost important components of a game. Without it the game would not be defined or playable.
For example, you don't dip you hand into the bank in monopoly whenever you feel like, why? because its against the rules. If you did this it would make the game totally irrelevant. With no structure, this is no game.

"Endogenous Meaning"
The word endogenous derives from the Greek meaning "proceeding from within" - Wikipedia

This a broad meaning. Its relevant to many things within a game and is directly linked with every element of a game. Any good game will give you choices, discussions and for every one you do there will be purpose and consequences. Its hugely important that the users feel that there discussions within the structure of the game affect how the game interacts with the user back. This will give the users a sense of engagement and ultimately compelled to continue playing. This has to come from the game and not the user.

"Struggle"

Even thought struggle outside of games is usually a bad thing within games they are most important. The reason we play games (usually) is to feel challenged and conquering these challenged therefor giving us a sense of achievement. Some games will have different difficulty settings E.g Easy, Medium, Hard but this is not the only kind of struggle within a game. Decisions within a game can change the state of play and this is a form of struggle, to be faced with a question or a task that involves the user maybe losing or gaining something in return for the choice and struggle.


"Goals"

Goals within a game are hugely adaptable and usually change as you interact with a game. Some game structures have pre build goals within them E.g Defeat the last boss, but to truly engross the users the goals have to come from them throughout the state of play (See "Endogenous Meaning"). Using all the things we have just talked about, its your goal to get the user wanting to reach his/her personal goals and the pre build end game goals. Without goals there would be no purpose or need for games.

Final Thoughts 

The reading was very interesting and broke down a lot of elements of game play I hadn't previously thought about and why they are within a game. Every game differs and some games don't even have some of the stuff we have just discussed but with so many different structures, finding the balance of all this is what defines a game in is most simple and basic form.