PHASE 1 (Complete before February 20th)
• as a group plan a game for 1 to 16 players to be played in the course of a 20 minute game session. (Let me know how many players ASAP so I can plan for Feb 23.)
• design and make the game
PHASE 2 (Complete by February 22 at 1:00)
• test out your game with friends
• write a preliminary report on successes, failures, and revisions – post this to the blog by February 22 at 1:00 pm
• (you will also include this preliminary report in your final report)
PHASE 3 (Complete by February 23 for class)
Final Game and Report
Each person writes the report individually.
REPORT 3-PART STRUCTURE:
• Aims of your game project
• Preliminary report on revision
• Reflection on your game in terms of McLuhan’s ideas about games and society
TOTAL LENGTH: 3 pages
Grade: Game 20 % of course grade (presentation 10%/report 10%)
In our game there are multiple players splaying simultaneously and trying to beat each other, trying to finish first before everyone else. We will have cards depicting photographs which we have collected from Google image searching. Each image was searched as a noun (person, place, or thing) using only one to two words, the noun itself if it is two words or a noun and its describing adjective before it. As soon as the players see the image they are to analyze its elements and guess what word we searched and try to find that identical image. It is required that the photo is to be found on the first page only, so there is no need to click to next pages, it does not count if it is found on page 2 and up. Who ever finds the designated number of images first either wins or goes on to the next level. We have debated on whether to add other image search engines and specify the options of search engines on the back of the card. The extra engines are to add another layer of complexity to the game and possibly some chance.
ReplyDeleteI tried this with my mom and I thought that we might want to try putting some hint words on the back. I also realized that she found a similar image and she could click on that image and see any information and captions describing that photo and then that was the internets own clue to helping her find the photo almost immediately after.
Also, as soon as she started playing, she asked if she had a time limit and I said we did not determine a time limit. I got to realizing that we might want to add a time limit because otherwise the game could go on for quite a long time without getting anything accomplished.
Later I hat two other players compete, My sister and her boyfriend. Through them I discovered that there might be a small flaw in this game because as soon as we started my sister was having computer problems, so the game was delayed, and scores could not be fairly determined. I also realize that some computers are slower than others, so judging who finds the images first is not completely fair. I think the rule might have to change to "the player that finds the image in the least guesses typed into the browser gets points, or wins the round", so even if someone finds the image first maybe the other players can find the image still with less guesses, in this case players are not allowed to look at each others screens. There should also be something or someone to notify the players to start searching, maybe one judge that shows the card and once they show it the search begins.
OH! I GOT IT!
ReplyDelete-a guessing game
At first, our idea was to print out flash cards to be handed out. But the problem we ran in with that was that the images on Google image search would change according to popularity and the cards would soon be useless and will end up wasting materials. So to solve this issue, we decided to create this game online so that images could easily be updated. For hints, we decided to write noun, verb, or adjective on the image itself. This was the major change of the initial idea of the game.
During our tests, the results greatly varied. Groups and teams where people knew each other were the most successful. People interacted with each other, were more competitive and more engaged with the game. The selection of the images worked well too. There was a good mix of words and the difficulty levels ranged nicely. The more technically inclined players seemed very comfortable with the interface of the game website and also Google image search. We are assuming that those who are less inclined with technology would have difficulty playing this game and navigating the interface.
Groups where people did not know each other, were less engaged and less competitive. The rules were read to the players before the game started, but they seemed to miss the clues written on each of the images. Players also missed the rule that each search image was a one-word image. Players seemed to forget if the word they were searching was a noun, adjective or verb.
To solve the issues of players being un-engaged, we thought it would be smart to make the teams create their own team names, and log in with their team names, in order to feel more of a part of the team. We also thought that having this game more time based would help with people becoming more competitive with each other.
Meet Up!
ReplyDeleteRosalie and I tried to create a board game that could represent an answer to social problems of alienation and isolation; a game that would help ‘break the ice’ between people that are not acquainted with one another and that would make friend bond even more. We came up with a system that makes people interact with one another on a personal level, in order to win. The players need to meet each other on the board, draw a card from the Meet Up! Activity deck and play. At the end of the activity they write a receipt that serves as a proof of the encounter and as a momentum of the social experience.
A number of trial tests were necessary to adjust the dynamics of the game. The first problem we encounter was that the game took too long to play. As it exceed 20 minutes, we ultimately changed the number of players to 5. However, we’ve observed that the duration of the game depended mainly on chance and also on how familiar the players were with the game’s rules.
To clarify instructions and rules for the game, we decided to write them on a piece of paper that the players are supposed to read before starting the game. We aimed to write the instructions clearly and concisely. However we faced problems that demanded revisions, for the gamers still had some questions after reading the instructions. As we worked on rephrasing the rules, we noticed that hierarchy, fonts and bullet points played a consistent role in delivering the message more or less clearly. It ultimately took a combination of clear writing and structured look to make it more successful.
The realization of the game in terms of making the various components required some planning, but the design changed as we played. In fact, we lead towards simplifying the look and dynamics, incorporating change and variations into the game, such as no fixed board and role of dice. Strategy remained a big component of the game as it seemed to be appreciated. The activities on the cards remained almost the same from the beginning. Since our is a social game that draws on personal taste and experience, we tried not to embarrass people, nor to put them in difficult positions when it comes to answering the questions from the activity deck. They generally responded well to the requests from the cards, except for a couple of situations when they felt it took them too much time to think of an answer. (The names of Snow White’s seven Dwarfs were a problem!)We modified the cards and add examples to them, to help the players. The one major change suggested by the gamers was that to introduce cards that would function as obstacles for them. We’ve taken that into consideration and ultimately found that it functioned as a nice addition to the game, for it had a level of complexity.
The successful result of the trials is that, although changes were necessary, the nature and aims of the game remained largely those with which we’ve started the project.
THEN AND NOW - Preliminary report:
ReplyDelete--Ofri Afek -- Ryan Kreuscher --
After testing our game on several groups of friends,
here is what we have learned:
• Category Cards: At first we had only blank cards for the Category Cards and players were supposed to write the instances in the beginning of each game. The player were confused as to what type of words would qualify to be written on the cards before starting to play. We decided to provide the players with the instances and leave the back of the cards blank so, after playing the game a few times, player could also come-up with their own instances but would have something to start with.
• Abstract: Once a round started the players were unsure of what would qualify as an answer. This confusion arose in the beginning of several rounds which lead us to add an abstract to the instructions. The abstract comes to encourage players to use their imagination and clarifies what kind of thinking is expected from the player in order to be successful in this game.
• Format: The format of the game interested people, and got them excited about playing the game. The larger format of the die and the cards gave players an unfamiliar twist to a regular card and die game. Once the game got going people were more inclined to use their imaginations when coming up with the answers, and the game play quickened and became much more enjoyable as the players tried to one up each other.
• Category Cards: We realized we did not indicate what had to be done with the Category Card once it is pick up. The first player was not sure weather they can look at it or if the other players are allowed to see the card. We had to make sure the players understand that the card must be seen by all players before each round starts. We addressed this by modifying the instructions.
• Category Cards: The instances on the cards didn’t have categories at first so we added categories to help focus the players. We found that by just having words on a card people didn’t know if they were thinking about the object itself or the use of that object. For example, when shown the card ‘canned food’, the players weren’t sure if they should come up with an example of a type of food or what the equivalent of canned food would have been. So by labeling the card as ‘Food’ and not ‘Object’ or ‘Technology’ people will understand that they should be coming up with types of canned food from the specified time period.
Meet Up! Preliminary Report
ReplyDeleteOur first prototype of the game was a paper-printed board, player pieces, a dice, a set of souvenir papers, and activity cards. When we played with a group of people for the first time, we noticed that some of the activity cards were unclear, or the activity took too long, boring the other players who were not directly involved in the game. We proofread and edited the activity cards a bit, and also eliminated some of the player pieces, because some of the colors were too similar. The dice we used, which had 10 sides (from 0 to 9) was popular amongst the players, because rolling a zero was a surprising way to break the flow of the game (sort of like drawing a “skip a turn” card). Fortunately, the players seemed to enjoy doing the activities, and the movement on the board was not too difficult (in fact, it was surprisingly easy to intersect with other players). We considered making the board more challenging to navigate. When we began to lasercut the board tiles, we realized that they could be presented loosely as a collection of tiles that the players could arrange into a board. This might make the movement more difficult, for instance if there are missing areas in the grid, or if the board ends up shaped like a blob. Our first game included 6 players, and we realized that the more players in the game, the longer the game would take. We decided to have fewer players per game in order to fit the game into a 20 minute time slot. Later tests with the loose tiles showed us that there would be a variety of potential “boards”, so calculating obstacles for the board sometimes made the game almost impossible. We ended up with a simpler set of tiles - all one color/material - in order to keep the attention on the meet-up instances between players and not waste time on the set-up part of the game. We also had to edit our game instructions: at first we avoided using traditional gameboard terms, but realized that people were not understanding how to win the game.
Language Game
ReplyDeletePreliminary Testing
Kevin and Colin
Our language game is designed for any number of players. The play space is on the web and players join by entering a username. The more players, the more word generation, the better the game play.
In testing the game we came across a number of factors which need to be altered or tweaked out a bit. One issue is the "standstill" factor. The game engine checks to see that all players have entered their response to a particular rule and once complete the round advances, offering a new rule on which to respond. This is fine until we have a player who lags or doesn't enter a response. We had feedback from players saying that the play became boring and slow when others were not quick enough in responding. This could possibly be fixed with a counter that switches rounds based on time as well as checking to see if all players have entered a response for the round.
The overall functionality seems to be working okay with the exception of scoring. The score-keeping for the game is based on each player's wager. There are two wagering options: submitting your response as "unique" or "non-unique." In theory the scripting would check through previous histories of the game to see how often the word has been played and then deliver points based on the players choice of "unique" or "non-unique." The problem with the score keeping has left us to keep track of scoring by hand during testing. This doesn't really work well with a web-based game and the scoring must be modified to do so. Another issue with scoring based on uniqueness is made obvious when you can see the words that the other players have entered in almost real time. So if player #1 enters the word "rubbish" then player #2, can see the word, enter "rubbish" and hit "non-unique" and score the points for the round. This could pose some issues and give an advantage to the players who wait the longest before entering words. A possible change is delaying the reveal of responses until the round is complete and then displaying the words. This too poses problems but is an issue we will try to address. The scoring module may be our biggest hurdle in going from test version to final version because without a running tally of points the game is stagnant.
Finally, our test version was completely text based in its graphical interface - black font on white background. For the visually oriented type this made the game experience less enjoyable and more confusing. This is something we were aware of and intended to be temporary. While we appreciate Jane McGonigal's concepts in favor of complex interfaces and play, we feel that our game would be more entertaining with a simple, accessible interface. The overall look could help the game by keeping things bold and obvious and leaving the focus on word production.
We have accomplished our goal of building a word game based on language rules and associations, and having it exist in a virtual play space. In making the game experience more interesting our primary intent is to revise the scoring module and the graphical interface. This can be followed by some smaller concerns as time allows.
Trial run - Hannah, Mark, Richard, Laurel
ReplyDeleteIn playing our game ‘Pop’, with students who very graciously volunteered their time, we discovered many problems and success. Our original plan was to have a capture the flag type game with three players on each team. The players were to have a small balloon tied to their ankles with string which would be popped by the other team, eliminating them from the game. The object of this game was to conquer the other team’s base.
Once we gathered to try the game out for the first time we, by lucky accident, ended up with long balloon-animal balloons as opposed to the traditional variety. This turned out to be great as these balloons could be tied to the ankle without the use of string and, as they are relatively stiff, their movement along with the foot turned out to be more predictable. These balloons also happen to look quite hilarious, adding humor to our game of war. In playing the game, we recognized the excitement and drama added by a loud popping sound which we hadn’t thought about before.
On our first round we had each team attempt to pop the other team’s master balloon. This lasted about 45 seconds, and gave very little incentive for players to pop each other's balloons as they were mostly interested in capturing the other team’s ‘base’ which took the form of the master balloon. To make the game longer, and to encourage the players to go after each other first, we made a rule that before popping the other teams master balloon, each individual must first pop a balloon on the leg of an opponent and then proceed to write the word ‘pop’ on a piece of paper, before finally popping the master balloon. This made the game much more exciting and fun, but still lasted a very short period of time.
Our final solution to this problem was to have several rounds of the game and have no replenishing of lost balloons between rounds. Our rule to keep ones hands behind their back was of good intentions, but turned out to be mostly redundant as most players forgot to follow this rule, which was designed to keep players from pushing and grabbing. Luckily the players were decent enough not to grab at each other anyway. We decided to keep the rule as a reminder that hands were not to be used, but to be lenient on the policing of the rule as long as no one was using their hands for any naughty business. We decided to keep track of who had popped which balloons, a referee was needed. We discovered that in our game everyone is not equally equipped to play. Some people, and thus teams, by virtue of aggressiveness or coordination, were simply better than others so well matched teams are desirable.