My evaluation

Overall, we came across a lot of obstacles in our game’s mechanics and we ironed them out by playtesting and then altering them, they are not completely balanced now, but more so than before, we had a lot of issues with the over powered train and under powered pedestrian and balanced them out and tested them again, although trying to keep all the modes of transport different and not have them be carbon copies with only visual differences, but functional characteristics. These characteristics were defined by rules, so differrent rules would apply to different players, so the balance was crucial. We learned that we had to play our game with the intention of breaking it and finding ways fo fixing it.

The sabotage feature was added early on in the game’s development and although we were reluctant to get rid of it, we realised that not all features make it into the final game, like the city map on the board. We felt that sabotage allowed the players to interact with each other more directly and making them think up alternative routes. When we played through it we really enjoyed ruining other’s journeys and that felt like a secondary goal. Our game has a very basic aesthetic which lacked because we didn’t use our original idea of the city map, it would have added another layer to the game, making it seem less abstract and more relatable on a human level, seeing the roads laid out below you and having to make the jouney in your head before playing your move.

We believe our game had a strategic quality similar to Chess and an aspect of competition that set the tone for our game, although there were dominant strategies that we could not fully address and fix where skipping across all the stars; this will irritate players after a few play throughs, next time we may use less of them, making less of them may make it more of a risk, but it would be worth it for the reward.

Personally, the beginning of my blog had a litle humour in it and felt like it was written for an audience, but by the second and third lesson I began looking more closely into our game and wrote it for myself; any troubles we had, what we had achieved and what we needed to do, this way I was focused on reflecting and evaluating what we had done in the lesson and then use that information, to further develop our game and later refine it.

Lesson 08.03.11

A quick run through: Post it notes, hex board paper and card, colour coded to make it accessible and less confusing when picking a sabotage card. We divided the board up roughly in order to place all players equidistance from the centre – the destination, but found that wouldn’t be fair on the pedestrian and bicycle, so shifted the train and car to corners that were slightly further away.

This time, instead of switching modes of transport after every game so everyone gets to play each type, we stuck with our respective ones, this way we had  a control varible, our mode, and we changed how we played according to different strategies we would attempt in order to win. Some included the cyclist completely ignoring all sabotage cards, this meant no detours were necessary so they finished first. One play through presented an issue where the car could jump from one sabotage star to another all the while getting closer to the finish. This happened often, so we then shifted the stars until it caused the car nuisance to get to them, although it still felt unfairly overpowered.

This blog frequently mentions our difficulty in not making the train the ultimate mode of transport – a dominant strategy, to always pick the train! We began the playtesting with these rules on how many spaces the players can move and whether they could change directions in their singular movements.

Train – 4, linear, can not turn

Car – 3, non linear, can turn

Cycle – 2, non linear, can turn

Person – 1

Here, the car and train were very close to winning, the car because it had sabotaged the train and the train because it traveled there the quickest. Another time showed that that cycle won by sprinting through, forgotten among the revenge matches plotted by the car and train, although, not once did the pedestrian win. One square at a time didn’t bring them nearer the finish and the player didn’t detour to the stars simply because they wouldn’t be able to get to the finish before the others.

Next we changed the rules for the train to: Train – 3, linear, can not turn

Keeping the linear movement retricts the player, now it felt fairer, however other players were not winning because they were underpowered, the pedestrain laid down a few cards but still did not manage to win.

Still we hadn’t catered for the pedestrian and since both car and train could move 3 spots, we upgraded the person to 2 grids non linear movement, but now we had 2 of the exact same modes of transport because the cycle had these features too. Now the cyclist has to travel in 2 spots in a linear format. The player won once, due to the player’s strategy, downing the train and being agile enough to go around traps laid by others.

We decided to add a feature that we just thought of: The pedestrian can hitch a ride! Another player can gain a sabotage card if they give the pedestrian a ride for one turn to where they want to go, in essence the pedestrian commandeers their vehicle. We felt this was quite interesting as it directly interacted with other players. Playing with this feature in mind, the pedestrian was never able to jump on the same grid as another because they all zoomed away, until they were very close to the finish, where there was a sabotage infestation. This feature needs more work but we really liked how the pedestrian was made a little bit formidable, adding to that sense that anyone can win this race.

Each mode had the same number of sabotage cards so therefore the same number of sabotage experiences, 4 each. Although we had a curveball card for the pedestrian; having to go all the way back to their start position because they’d left something important at home, not instilling over-confidence in the player who can control others.

Next, we wanted to address the issue of the area around the finish becoming jam packed with sabotage cards. This was the case with every game and we ran through a few possible solutions, like a rule forbidding placing them in a one block radius around the finishing grid.

Lesson 02.03.11

Refining our board and position of other game objects and play testing our game was today’s priority. We printed ff a hex board and played thorugh our game without making players follow the map like our last prototype. We felt it was restrictive for some modes of transport and this involved a very well thought out and carefully considered city map with lots of attention on several routes in a time scale that wouldn’t allow it.

Our play through showed us that positioning the sabotage stars would be crucial, as on one game the train was near the destination but the nimble players kept on leaving train-contextual sabotage cards in their wake. Next week we will rearrange the stars so they aren’t too close together and in patterns, like 3 boxes apart all the time, here only the players who can move on odd numbers can get to them easier than those with even numbers. Also once we’ve finalised where the stars go,  we will make a bigger version of our board, adding some aesthetics.

Lesson 15.2.11

In this lesson we gained two new members in our group which was quite convenient since our other two couldn’t make it to class, totalling 4 we could play out a small part of our game. But before we did that, we briefed the newbies. This was almost like a pitch, trying to make what they’d be involved in as interesting as possible, since working on something you aren’t that passionate about can be a bit challenging and stale. They found the idea interesting and quickly noticed loopholes and asked a lot of questions which helped us realise what new players would think and what we need to clarify. Fresh and inquisitive minds tend to notice what we overlooked, so that was helpful, one idea raised was the idea of the train not being totally stuck to a route but having the shortest possible route riddled with red lights. We couldn’t implement that idea for our first play through, although we did note it down, especially since it helped balance the advantageous elements of the train with disadvantageous red lights, making it fair.

The rules for our mini prototype were basic and because of this we encountered issues which we discussed as they happened, like a car being in the same grid as a cyclist, could a scenario be that the car has run over the cyclist? Making the small map grid was a challenge in itself, at first I marked that starting and finishing points to make the task more coherent: so I needed to make a route that goes from here to there but there needs to be more than one route and some obstacles that occur naturally, not due to sabotage scenarios, like a park or a set of traffic lights. However these two both hindered the car driver and the cyclist if they abide by the same rules as cars which they sometimes are known for not doing!

The 4 players started on different parts of the grid and had to get to a square marked as ‘end’. We took it in turns, and moved according to the rules we had set in place, cyclists move 2 spaces, pedestrian move 1 place, trains move 4 places and the cars moved 3 spaces, however, we immediately came across an issue, could we move only part of the spaces we are originally allocated? Initially we said no because it may make it easier to grab sabotage cards, which are supposed to be a risk, to go slightly off-route to grab a sabotage card to ruin someone’s journey. However, if to the train is one space away from the destination and therefore one space away from the victory condition, they shouldn’t have to awkwardly U-turn to make it to the winning grid in 4 grids, that would be a nuisance.

Below is the prototype, the bottom left hand corner is the goal; the destination. Each player started off on different parts of the map, it was difficult choosing where to place them so as to not give one player an unfair advantageous. The players gain sabotage scenario cards by stopping on grids marked with a star (*). Sometimes this causes the player to make a slight detour, making a risk, and playing tactically.

The yellow pieces of paper are the sabotage scenarios, our team picked these as soon as they started playing, it seemed as if these were a vital mechanic, there weren’t many, just one affecting each mode of transport. Although, they always seemed to occupy the one grid radius around the destination. As most of us got stalled trying to get past the last grid or so, we discussed setting up a ‘safe zone’, where sabotage can’t be placed in that area, although this will need to be tested out, because if a player gets past that mark there will be no way anyone else can win after that opint, which may hinder the game: placing limits on sabotage.

I used colour to make it clearer, marking off blue for the roads and orange for the players.

Lesson 1.2.11

We began with addressing the pros and cons of the modes of transport, and separating this from the sabotage scenarios because the former referred to the rules of the game and the latter referred to the mechanics. The mechanics, we elaborated, could be cards that players earn and then can place on the board to hinder another players journey, forcing them to take distant route, bypassing the sabotage card and situation or by continuing their journey but having to miss a go due to the inconvenience. This will make the player think tactically, planning in advance, looking for other directions they can take if this one gets sabotaged.

At first we chose to use a hex board, however we decided to simplify this to a basic square grid board, like Snakes and Ladders, to work out the pros and cons of how far one can travel. However we still had trouble balancing out the advantages and disadvantages, so we tried out a new idea: all players begin as pedestrians. And linking this with an older idea: all players start at the corners of the board gave us a starting point with the balancing problem, although it opened up new challenges, since the other vehicle facilities, like train stations, cars and bicycles racks (Borris Bikes), needed to be equally scattered and arranged so that one route or starting point did not have a dominant strategy and gave the player unfair advantages. Although, making the 4 quarters of the board the same would mean the players are playing on separated maps.

We tried out our idea with a map of the Elephant and Castle area, I picked one corner and Matthew picked another, however, the map was too small of an area and only included one tube station, so we used cars, bicycles and walking as our modes of transport, trying to get to university which was conveniently in the middle of the map. We marked off where we would go, opting for the car, trying to be devious and working out loopholes, we decided that you can’t get too close to the university in the car as there is no place to park! So finding a small narrow road, the car was parked and the route carried on by foot.

Although this was just a trial of a trial, we learned the importance of marking out areas in strategic locations, not having too little facilities so the player has no choice and not having too many, cluttering the board, also it showed how we could use our daily commutes as ideas, seeing the infrastructure of transport, how in some areas favour certain modes of transport; making the journey more accessible for them, like cycle lanes. And how some make it a little difficult, a bit like our sabotage cards! Yellow lanes in shopping areas, forcing you to either take public transport or pay for parking in multi storey car parks, either way rinsing out your wallet well before you make it to elephant and castle mall.

In the next lesson we will split the map up into grids and play with more regards to the rules. Fearing our game would not have much content if we only focused on trains, cars, pedestrians and bicycles, we began adding other forms of transport, like pedalos, trams, cabs and buses. This would give us more to work with if we didn’t have enough, after refining their characteristics, and it would give the game variety, although if they needed to be cut, we would still have our 3 or 4 main modes left to work with.

So the changes we have put on the table:

1.       All players begin the game on foot

2.       Starting points for players are the corners of the board

3.       Having a map drawn onto the board, with transport facilities being available (and unavailable due to sabotage cards) to the players

4.       Sabotage is in the form of cards than are awarded to the player (we still have to work out how, perhaps by detouring to collect them as bonuses) the player can place these on the grid to hinder players. This’ll involve thinking strategically; working out where the opposing player will want to go, attacking their shortest route will cause the most damage

5.       Hex board replaced with square grids, mirroring co-ordinates on maps.

Aims for next lesson

1.       Work on balancing the game objects

2.       Begin the design on the playing board

Lesson: 25.1.11

Today, we set about arranging the board of the game, we decided on a hex board, with the centre being the destination; the job interview. Next we needed to give each vehicle their special characteristics, advantages and disadvantages ad ways to sabotage other players. At first, we thought of quite a few of each, however they were imbalanced. For example the train seemed to be the most advantageous, with it being the fastest, being at the top of the ‘food-chain’, where a bike can hinder a pedestrian, a car can hinder the bicycle and the person can hinder both, the train seemed unstoppable. The train would quickly become a dominant strategy, we needed to give it disadvantages and have the effect of sabotage balance its advantages. One idea was a person jumping on to the tracks, another included

Being able to cover straight distances quickly seems an advantage, but if the route includes turns, this would prove difficult, however, we still have to discuss this idea of routes, after a while, the players will learn the shortest distant, another dominant strategy, one idea that could be implemented would be where players can be awarded sabotage cards so they can leave them in the route of other players, for example, leaving the sabotage card: person on track in the route of the train. Another example could include the cyclist leaving the sabotage card: flat tyre, in the shortest oncoming route to the destination, disrupting the car, the car player then has a choice, suffer the flat tyre and therefore miss their next turn but still be on the shortest route or to change route but still be able to play their next turn.

Jerry outlined the idea of giving the player lots of things to remember, that by having multitasking in the game, it requires more effort and is for older audiences, keeping this in mind, we needed to elaborate our idea of fuel depleting, he pointed out that in a digital game, the code would do this, keep an eye on it and stopping the vehicle when fuel = zero, but here, the player will have to do it, while planning their next move and sabotaging players, how would it be done? Will there be a timer, like chess, but the fuel will deplete even while everyone else is playing their turn? Also, this fuel concept only affects the train and the car, so the pedestrian and cyclist will need a similar depletion of something, like energy perhaps. This time/fuel/energy-limit element would add the sense of ever-present urgency to the goal; Costikyan believes that the goals should ‘guide our behaviour in the game’ (2002, p.12) Similarly, Crawford defines game as a ‘conflicts in which players directly interact in such a way as to foil each other’s goals.’ (2003, p.8) which could reflect our idea of sabotaging other players so they don’t get to their goal before you do.

The table below shows some of the advantages and disadvantages of each mode of transport:

Pedestrian Advantages Freedom of movement Disadvantages Slow Has to stop at railway crossings Have to wait to cross roads Depleting energy	Car Advantages Fast Disadvantages Restriction of movement, has to follow roads Has to wait at traffic lights Affected by road works Depleting fuel
Cyclist Advantages Can skip traffic lights Relatively free movement Disadvantages Can get a flat tyre Can get hit by car Depleting energy -	Train Advantages Fast Disadvantages Affected by people on track Affected by engineering works Restricted movement, has to follow tracks Has to stop at stations

We also discussed implementing move sets similar to Chess, e.g. where the knight can only move 2 grids forward and one left or right. What we drafted was trains moving 4 grids forward and only turning after two goes, cars moving 2 grids at a time and turning on their second go, pedestrians being able to move one grid and turn on any go and cyclists being able to do the same. However this may mean the players will have to remember what go it is and whether they are permitted to turn or not. Although it poses other problems, we need to calculate the amount of grids that need to be traversed to win and if using the train, is more difficult because there is less movement, so if they are 1 grid away from the destination and there turn dictates that they have to turn, they will not win, needing to perform an awkward U turn while the other players get closer to the victory condition.

So our main aims for next lesson are:

1)      Balance the pros and cons of each mode of transport

2)      Balance the sabotage scenarios

3)      Work out the movement on the hex board.

References

Costikyan, G. (2002) I have no words & I must design: Toward a critical vocabulary for games [internet] Available from <http://www.costik.com/nowords2002.pdf> [Accessed 28 January 2011]

Crawford, C. (2003) Chris Crawford on game design. United States of America: New Riders Publishing.

Lesson 11-1-11

Today, we used a deck of cards to make a game. We kept the mechanics the same; one person puts down a card and so does the next person, so on and so forth. We all made up rules and a scoring system, and the person whose rules we were playing was the dealer and called out each person’s score when they put a card down. As there were six of us, we needed to play through six games. Although, this was a game in itself; as we had to deduce what the rules were and try to win with the acquired knowledge. We used basic maths skills and applied card logic to work out the rules, paying close attention to the score when a card was put down and what was before it, trying to work out how a point was scored, what the card was in relation to the one before it that awarded the player with a point. Also, seeing how the score changed when a King, Queen and Jack was put down uncovered some rules too. The aces usually had a special rule, for example, one rule was that when a player placed an ace, they would get all the points from the previous player, leaving them with zero.

As we played through the games, we each had sheets out where we would write down our points after the dealer recited them according to their rules. We made note of what was before the card we just put down and its suit/colour. We analysed other people’s points too, after a while, we all knew what some of the rules were and exploited these. This was almost like a learning curve. At the beginning, we were unsure, playing with no particular strategy, just figuring out what leaves us with more points or devoid of them. Later, as we learned some of the rules, we played with strategies, tactics even, for example saving the aces, in the previously mentioned example, until a player before you accumulated a big score which you could take by slamming an ace onto the pile.

Some of the games rules were easy to decipher, logical steps we all concluded while playing, like placing a card of the same number gave you a point or lost you a point. Another example includes the Jack, Queen or King doubling points, and adding up the cards number to the previous one, making that the score.

Although, there were lots of inventive rules which were harder to infer, one rule awarded the player a point if a card of consecutive numbers was put down. So placing a 5 of hearts on top of a 4 of clubs would give the player a point. However, putting a 5 of diamonds on top of a 6 of hearts would award the player 2 points, so there were two rules concerning the colour of the cards; same colour gave you more points. Another rule which was difficult to understand when first encountered was that whenever a player put a 7 of clubs down, they would lose 5 points. The other players decided to risk putting down their 7 of whatever suite to see if that was included in the rule.

The task was useful because there were controlled variables, like the games mechanics, so we would be focusing on the rules and not the other factors of the game. Also it was familiar in some shape or form because we’d all played cards before. Another reason for using a deck of cards was that they convey lots of information in the form of icons such as numbers, colours, suits and images of royal figures, we could use these to make our rules, specifying them to certain icons, red means this, hearts means that, hearts plus red equals this etc. The task allowed us to see how a player will feel when playing a game, our game, for the first time, barely knowing the rules, jumping straight in and figuring it out as they play.

Lessons two and three

Lesson Two

Much to the dismay of my team mates, I was not here, so on to lesson three!

Lesson Three

We spent this lesson picking an idea to shreds in order to decide which one we could eventually paper prototype and construct into a board game. Our idea based on the cake-maker stealing ingredients from passers-by, seemed stubborn, we couldn’t translated onto paper; it required a lot of action and sneakiness. We felt it would suit better as a digital game.

The idea based on falling asleep while driving and mixing music to stay awake was reminiscent of digital games like Guitar Hero, DJ Hero and Singstar.

5-a-side football with zombies was a Dead Rising, House of Dead type of game, with its need for AI or multiple players with the role of zombies and fewer for the unfortunate morgue supervisor.

The floor-is-lava but you can’t let steaming hot molten rock halt your education, so get there by rock climbing idea included a need for scenery and varying location which we couldn’t quite fathom with paper. However, we saw an opportunity to improve the situation with a little more of that good stuff: creative lee way, which we have named; development alterations. We simply got rid of the lava and rock climbing aspect. That left us with… going to university, yes, it’s mundane, a chore, the bane of our existence, but a necessity that sometimes has a lot of obstacles in the way, not to mention the cost.

This was where we also added a new aspect to the idea and more detail in the game’s rules and player choices.

Each player is assigned a mode of transport:

-          Car

-          Tube

-          Bicycle

-          Walking

Their ultimate goal: to get to university – but wait, is that really competitive enough? We don’t arrive early and shout “ha ha I’m early, you’re on time, and therefore you smell!” to fellow students? We needed there to be a worthy victory condition our players would relate to, or at least understand the urgency of it, like a job interview!

Perfect, we found our ultimate goal – being the first one to the job interview, and the challenge and the player choice: ruining the other candidates’ chances of getting there by jeopardising their respective modes of transport.

We have yet to decide the mechanics, it could be in the form of a board game where players also receive cards to indicate the nuisance they cause to another players journey, which then causes players to miss a go or to move back a few spaces.

Here are a few scenarios we thought of in class, and which mode of transport/player they will affect:

Scenario	Affects
Call in a tube strike Person on track Hit by car Punctured tyre Traffic Stopped by police for routine check Painful stitch in ribs Stuck behind lost tourists	Tube user Tube user Cyclist Cyclist Car driver Car driver Pedestrian Pedestrian
Other ideas included humorous ones like looking in anything reflective at your sexy spandex clad butt for cyclists, stopping to apply anti-nipple-chafe cream for pedestrians and rubbernecking a gruesome accident, which we are all guilty of. Some are more controversial, like calling in a fake bomb threat to affect tube users and getting hit by a car or being kidnapped. By applying these types of scenarios, we are changing the tone of the game, so we need to decide on which scenarios we keep and which we leave on the cutting room floor.