CAGD Page 1
Group 4
Post 6
Our game consists of two players going against each other each with different goals for winning. One player's goal is to capture the other player's pieces, while the other player's goal is to survive until the time runs out. One player has one object to move around the board while the other player has four objects to move around the board, with both players unaware of where each other are at times.
The target audience for this game seems to appeal to the player types of The Competitor and The Director. This game appeals to these types of players due to how the game consists of a competition between player one and player two, as well as the game always allowing the player to move around the board and choosing where they can go next. The Player interaction pattern seems to contain player vs. player patterns. This is appealing due to how the game is always a fight against players, more so even when you include how you can choose between two sides to play as (one being ghost hunter and the other being the four ghosts).
When making the game, we did in fact have problems with the design process of the game. The first problem we seemed to encounter was how to make the game more balanced. This was apparent during our first playtest as well as the playtest with others showed this issue to be apparent. Another problem we faced was with the rule sheet. The content of it was fine but the problem arises with reading the sheet and understanding which player does what. A minor problem we also had was with the game board itself. People were confused with how to move through the board and where they can and can't move. Another problem was a common complaint of how we didn't have any finite characters. We made this decision so that it allowed players to have an easier time finding game pieces, since they could be anything, but it does ruin the ambience of the game by a bit.
Task completion within the group was actually quite good. We worked an equal amount with all assignments, with a small separation when it came to edits on the rule sheet as well as the design of the board's layout. When it came to meetings we also had no problems, being able to take advantage of the whole time we worked as well as always being on time.
Though there were problems with the game development, we were able to take the feedback to heart and fix most of them. We were able to make the game more balanced with two different factors, one being changing the order of who went first in the game, as well as adding abilities to both the characters to help with giving each an equal chance of winning. We also fixed the problem of which character is doing what by highlighting which character is doing what, making it more clear as to which player does what while playing the game. The problem with the board was easily fixed by just adding arrows to where each player can go.
The thing I would do to change the developing process would mainly be adding a finite character to the game. Though what we did help with convenience, it does ruin a bit of the ambiance with how using a coin to move around a haunted mansion isn't the most ideal thing to use. I would also make sure to write the rule sheet more clearly. This would improve the rule sheets in the future due to how it will improve the clarity of what the players should do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 4
Post 5
Our game consists of the player choosing two sides, either to be the ghost hunter trying to rid the ghosts from the mansion, or to play as the four ghosts who are trying to keep the mansion haunted. Each player gets a separate board to play on, due to how while playing both the ghosts and the ghost hunter don't know where each other are. The game ends if the ghost hunter catches all the ghosts before the amount of turns have elapsed, or the four ghosts win if they survive a certain amount of turns.
The iteration process that we went through is how we needed to make sure that each of the characters and their abilities were balanced. This was curtail due to how when we first playtested, we found that the movement and generic one space movement was a tad bit bland, so we wanted to make sure that the character you choose feels different than the other besides the factor of one player is one person and the other player is four. We also wanted to make sure the board was just right. What I mean by that is we wanted to make sure that the board provided a challenge to players that try to find the ghosts and places for the ghosts to go, but also to make sure the board isn't too large so that the player of the ghost hunter feels like it's impossible to find the four ghosts.
The biggest problem we had with our game development was making sure each player had a chance of winning the game. Our game consists of two players choosing separate characters with different objectives to win the game. This was simple, however it always seemed like one of the players had the advantage more often than the other. When me and my partner playtested it was confirmed, but not to a point where there was a huge gap between fairness of the players choice. This, however, did become a problem when we played with other people and one player was able to have a huge advantage over one of the other, so we needed to solve this problem. The problem amongst the team I would say is communication, due to how most of the time ideas aren't shared very often outside of class, as well as the long period of waiting for a response from my partner.
Fortunately we were able to solve these problems quite quickly. For being able to make the players feel more equal in the way of a chance to win, we gave each character a special ability so that it can help not only make the game more enjoyable, but to also make each player feel like they get an extra chance of winning. This was further improved thanks to the playtest of our game, which in general went quite well. The problem with communication was also resolved with the assurance that we make sure to talk with each other and answer any messages as soon as possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 5
Post 4
The game that me and my partner created was a rhythm-based card game with the genre surrounding fast food. The game is played based on how each card has a certain number of beats equaling that card's syllables, and you have to use those cards to equal whatever the time signature is. There are a total of three rounds, and for each correctly used card, you gain a point, the winner is whoever has the most points after three rounds.
This game is a player versus player game that would appeal to the competitive player. This is shown due to how this game is specifically only a two-player game where you are trying to score more points than the opposing player.
I would say the biggest problem that was at the start is trying to figure out what to do with the required areas of rhythm and fast food. The reason for this is that there are many examples of rhythm games on the computer, but not as many with rhythm-based board games, so it was a little difficult doing research to find ideas for our game. Another problem occurred when we started letting other people playtest our game, which was they were confused about how to play. This was a possibility since a lot of our game is surrounded by music theory, which not many people know about, so when they played our game, they didn't really have a grasp on what exactly they needed to do. Another problem we faced was finding ways of creating a good size and getting colors for our food cards, this was mainly due to the restricted resources both of us had, and the low accessibility to a color printer.
Our group was actually able to do a very good job on getting every piece of work completed as well as being observed and edited if there were any errors, but I do think my partner was much more productive with the work, I did in fact help and assist with some things, but not to the level of exactly 50-50 work.
With our difficulties, we were able to solve the big problems relatively quickly. The problem with what to do with our required theme and genre was solved with a combination of in-depth research combined with me and my partner shooting ideas between each other and through that we were able to achieve a good game idea. The other problem we solved was around how we struggled with players understanding how to play a game. We resolved this problem by adding a detailed explanation of what some of these music theory understandings that are needed for our game. The problem with the cards was also solved relatively quickly too, with how we were able to find a color printer to be able to show off the creative and fun looking cards, but also get feedback from our play testers on which card size they prefer. This also led to a great idea for making a game mat for our game, making the player even more enticed in our game as well as being able to organize where everything should go.
The main thing I may change in my developing process is probably try making sure when working on the rules sheet, look at it in a way that is of a new player of my game, and not with my views where I already know what to do in my game. Another thing I will also probably take away going forward is trying to participate a bit more than I usually do, because I do feel like I participate and can support the team, but maybe not to the level that is required to assist equal distribution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 5
The Games that I play tested during this unit were Group 5 (our groups), Group 6, Group 8, Group 2, and Group4
The game that I played the most as well as enjoyed was the game created by Group 6
Formal Elements:
Players
This game is mainly designed for two players. The game seems to show its invitation to play by how it gives off a battleship vibe with it being grid based and the name also being a lure, with it being "Search and Destroy." The roles of the players are that they set up each grid with 11f objects and also two mines, then after that the players grab a plane sheet for themselves and start the game, naming points and see if they hit or miss. The player interaction patterns in this game seem to resemble that of a player vs. player game.
Objectives
The objective of this game is a combination of chase, with how you hunt down the ships to destroy and win by doing so, as well as outwitting due to the different placements of the ships to try and make it less likely for the opponent to hit the object.
Procedures
The game starts by each player placing all their objects on the grid, then each player rolls a dice to see who goes first. After that you roll dice to determine some sort of outcome (will be in the rules section) then try to hit the object by stating a letter and a number (i.e., B2, I7). If you miss, then your turn ends, if you get a hit, you are able to keep guessing until you miss. The players repeat this until there are no more objects on one of the players pages.
Rules
Player's role two die before they attack. Each dice roll gives different effects. Even numbers allow the player to get a hint of where the nearest object is, odd numbers don't allow the hint. Getting snake eyes (two ones) allows you to ask how many units are in a row, but you can't attack until the next row, while double sixes force that player to skip their turn. You are also not allowed to peek at the other players board and the pieces can't be revived once destroyed.
Resources
The resources in this game would be the die for each player, a pencil for each player, two game boards for each player. Then in the game you have 11 objects to protect as well as two mines to randomly place on the board. It shows signs of special terrain as a big resource.
Conflict
The main conflict is that you are up against another opponent trying to accomplish the same goal as you, destroy all the objects. Another conflict is an obstacle each player has, which is the 2 mines that the players can set of if they choose the square that mine is in.
Boundaries
The main boundary in this game is how you can only choose one point on the grid and if you miss that ends your turn. You are also forced to use a certain amount of space with most of the 11 objects. The type of dice roll you get is also a boundary since it could be beneficial or can cause you to lose a turn.
Outcome
The outcome of this game is that the winner is decided by whoever of the two players is able to destroy all of the other players objects. The other Outcome is that the player loses when all their objects are destroyed by the other player.
Group 14
Post 2
The game that me and my partner created was a game similar to solitaire, but with more of a fast pace feel with a limited time, but at the same time, you could add seconds to the timer for each card placed in the suite pile. We also wanted to add the joker card to the game so that it can add a fun bonus of some kind, and in our game, it was able to add time to the game and could reshuffle the pile you draw from. This game allows a combination of skillfulness with how good the player is at solitaire, but at the same time this game has a good luck element with what cards you draw.
When first designing his game, we wanted to make this game more of a competitive type of play. This means that we wanted players to keep trying to play our game multiple times and see if they can improve their time. What was surprising, however, was that there was actually a hidden chance-based play with what cards you draw and get while you play. The player type that would be perfect for this game would be the director. This would be due to the fact that this whole game is controlled by the player, and you choose when and where to place the cards (within the parameters of solitaire). This game is also targeted for single players, mainly due to the restraints of the game and what parameters of the mod we could use.
When we were making the game, we had some problems with the time limit. Once we were able to figure out what to set the time limit at, but when we had some other student's playtest our game, we found that the set time limit we decided on was still not ideal. Another problem that we faced is adding some form of additional aspect. Many times, doing this game, it did seem to be a little bland in the way of originality. The trouble for us was finding some way to change the game while keeping the core of solitaire the same.
Though difficult to find, our group was indeed able to find solutions to all of these problems that were presented to us. The first problem solved was the time constraint, we fixed this by adding more total time as well as adding the amount of time you are given by the suite pile. We had a bit of a dispute on what the time limit should be, but we agreed on the starting time to be a minute higher, and the seconds added by the cards to be five seconds more. The other problem that we were able to solve was the absence of a separate aspect. We did this by adding a separate rule or "bonus" challenge to the game, where the difficulty is much higher in the bonus version.
If there were any changes I would like to make in the future, it would be maybe looking more outside of the box. What I mean by this is how we thought it would be too difficult or impossible to change up the mechanics of solitaire, yet when playtesting some people's mods, I noticed how they changed it up in a way that allowed the game to seem fresh and original. Another thing I would also change would be the amount of playtesting of our mod of solitaire. We didn't do a lot of playtesting with our mod and if we tried to playtest a bit more, we could have possibly found ways to shake up the game and make it more fun.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group 14
Post 1
We decided to do a different type of spin on the game solitaire. This game involves more of a quick-thinking skill, with how the player has limited time and the strain and challenge that forces the player to be more dramatic. It also makes the game go quicker, due to the limited time, with solitaire at times taking a long time to complete.
When I played solitaire for the first time, I did enjoy it, but I also thought that the game was too long, causing the player to lose interest. With this idea and constraint of the original game in mind, we began making the rules for the game. As we started to have ideas of how to change up the game, we had some trouble on what we needed to do to make these rules unique.
We first thought about changing the core of the game, but sadly, this did not do very well, due to how trying to do something like changing what the cards means ruins the core game aspect. This showed itself when trying to change a card value if getting a joker card or getting a card with the same number together and you can take both the cards. When in practice, however, it did not work well due to how it ruins how the core game works. We did want to incorporate the joker card in some way, because of how it is usually not used in the game of solitaire. We thought it would be a fun addition to the game in full.
We also thought of external methods of how to make the games unique, but this took a little bit to figure out, but we were able to put together a good solution, the external obstacle/resource we used was time. During the playtest, the structure and the rules we put in place was quite good, but unfortunately, there were some problems while playtesting. We found that the time constraint was too loose, meaning it gave the player too much time, and while playtesting, it slowly but surely became more like just playing solitaire. When we came back to meet, we discussed how we should make any additional time be worth less. We felt like we needed to make sure that the feel of that time constraint was active while the player played, hence the decision on mitigating the time each suite pile time you get as well as the time the joker cards gave to the players.
Me and my partner were very well managed, we always communicated well and felt that we felt heard. We each had ideas in what we thought should have been added, and we were able to agree in the end to the time constates. We also were very flexible to hearing new ideas and fixing problems, like when we were making the new rules to our game, we were able to discuss what needed to be fixed.
What I would change in the development in the future is maybe spend some more time playtesting so that it is possible to catch some type of error quicker. I would also have changed the narrow-minded approach to finding a unique gimmick to the rules put forth. The reason for this is because I feel like I should have been more flexible to different ideas that could have made the game also unique. Even though we were limited in what we could do in the game, that doesn't mean I had any reason to constrain myself to one sole idea that I thought was the correct choice when I made it.
Comments
Post a Comment