I found that games were far less superficial than what they appear. The nature and design of a game, in a  lot of cases, runs far deeper than I first believed. I now understand how much work goes into the development of the base mechanics of a game to achieve the desired aesthetics. Prototyping with simple objects was very different for me as I really expected everything to come together much faster. I can now see how much work needs to be put into an idea before it can properly manifest and live up to the original expectations of the designers.

I can also see how the influence of a group can be quite crucial to the design of an interesting game. Having input from a number of sources can dramatically alter how you may perceive an idea. It is hard to picture how your game will be accepted by someone other than yourself. Playtesting is also crucial - it is necessary to be able to view your game from a different perspective as you are generally not designing a game for yourself.

Do you have a new perspective on games or game development?

A lot more effort goes into the design of an interesting game than I thought originally. I had no idea it was so difficult to find a design that would actually work and provide the aesthetics I was looking for. The whole “fail often, fail fast” approach was very difficult for a person like me as I get a bit “perfectionist” over work I produce. I found it very hard to let go of ideas that sounded great but would not work when implemented.

I can now see why so much time, energy and patience goes into a massive project like these.

Where do you think you’ll go with this in the future?

I’m not sure. I think I still feel far more at home with the AI side but I have enjoyed coming up with designs. Over the summer, before I start working, I’d really like to knock up a few of the ideas I’ve had for interesting games.

Whether or not I pursue game design further in the future in terms of a career I am not sure, but I do know that is one of the most enjoyable and rewarding processes I have been through in my studies at uni.

Link to question

What are the functional and cosmetic attributes? How do they affect play?

• Build/Physique
  Determines strength of your character. Benefits skills in hand-to-hand combat and allows for greater physical intimidation of suspects.
• Athleticism
  Determines speed of your character and how well you can chase down the villains.
• Intelligence
  Determines the mental quickness of the character. How fast they can piece together the puzzles presented in the cases.
• Knowledge
  Two areas; criminal law and forensic. Either determines how knowledgeable you are about either of the two subjects areas and how well you preform given tasks relating to them.
• Charisma
  How persuasive you are when interviewing suspects or talking to witnesses.
• Firearms
  How accurately you preform with a gun.

How do they encourage role-play?

Each attribute allows you to tailor a member of the CSI squad and play your part in each investigation. Your characteristics determine your strengths given a situation and you may choose or be tested to become a certain part of the team. In the show, some characters tend to move around or be promoted into different positions – this would also be possible in the game. Your current attributes and notoriety will determine if you are eligible for the given positions thus allowing the play to participate in the fashion they choose.

What different kinds of specialisation will be available?

• Detective
• Police officer
• Police prosecutor
• Crime scene investigator
• Lab technician
• Medical examiner

How do characters progress over time?

Characters may be able to train and improve their attributes over time making them viable for a change in position or even a promotion in their chosen area. Promotions lead to more difficult tasks and a higher pay bracket. Solving cases gets you recognition and experience which counts towards whether you may be eligible for a promotion and/or allows you to increase your attributes by exercising your skills.

Link to question

• Home
• Missing

How do these games make you feel? How does the gameplay contribute to the feeling?

Missing made me feel quite lonely and sad. The story of a person looking for there son in a seemingly futile pursuit. You can walk around asking people the same question over and over with the same results, nothing. You can print out posters to hang them up which really do nothing. You keep playing because you know from experience you will always find the missing child in these games, but it doesn’t seem to happen. No matter where you go or who you ask nothing comes out of it. With every new person you see there is a glimmer of hope, this quickly dies when you receive the same response.

In home you play an elderly man who can only walk at a very slow speed and you are given 4 things to monitor; happiness, hunger, toileting and sleep. As the game progresses you eventually unable to monitor all 4 things at once and end up having to choose. failing at one of these tasks results in some very depressing and sad results; if you can’t feed yourself, you get a feeding tube, if you can’t go to the toilet, you get put in diapers. You are unable to manage all these things because you yourself are so slow.

The game play contributes to this feeling of futility by its slow controls, sombre 8-bit sound and incredibly plain, but iconic art. The repetition in the dialogue also helps enforce the idea that the pursuit is futile. In Home, the condescending tone every conversation has just makes you even more frustrated.

Consider the question: Are games art?

Art is incredibly subjective, what one person takes from a piece can be completely different from what another takes. In this vein of thinking, what one person sees as art, another may not. There are some incredibly brilliant and emotive games out there and I believe to enjoy and experience them you need to be immersed in that world, just like you would a painting. If art is “the product or process of deliberately arranging symbolic elements in a way that influences and affects the senses, emotions, and/or intellect” I believe we can count many titles as art, but few as inspirational.

It is true that there is no equivalent to the Mona Lisa in the games world, but we are progressing in some respects. I’d say we are defiantly beyond the realm of cave paintings in terms of complexity and meaning, but there is yet to be a gaming Renascence.

Link to question

It is hard to comment on this being such a large question. I think the expectations to tend to be quite different based on the genre and the audience. I will attempt to generalise.

Gamers generally expect to see something new and exciting, but also familiar. As gamers, when we come to a game of a certain genre or style we expect certain things to be connected with that genre or style. For instance when we see “first person” the third word is almost always “shooter”. It is the minority of games in which the view of the player is in the first person and you are not wielding a gun. There are of course some notable games in which the first person view has yielded fascinating game-play without guns, but it is a sad fact these games tend to be overlooked. These formulas are apparent in the major titles that seem to share the same elements over and over again. Why? Because they sell, the formula works. Not that this is a bad thing, it is just repetitive.

Most gamers also expect a similar experience when approaching a game. Challenge, excitement and a positive experience are the most common. This is an obvious trend in most games; you beat the aliens, win the war, stop a mass conspiracy, get the girl and/or save the planet. Very few people play a game with the expectation to lose, to die or to be insulted.

How might these expectations hamper certain kinds of experience?

Expectations narrow the mind. When positive expectations that are not met, we tend to get disappointed. When we expect something from a game that isn’t supplied we may lose interest. This has an impact on both the player and the game industry. Players may not be willing to play the games they feel they are going to let them down, but are more willing to play games in which their expectations will be met. This narrows the field of which games we are likely to play, the games titles we will play and how accepting we will be of them. To make money, developers will attempt to cater to these expectations. This practice creates many of clones in the industry and so we look to the indie games developers for diversity.

Can we train players to take a different approach to games which will give them more enjoyment? How?

This is hard to say. One method may be meeting some expectations gamers may have, but also exposing them to new forms of play different from their initial expectations. This allows gamers to be accepting of the game initially, but makes room for their horizons to be expanded. Another method is the subversion of expectations. The game “Eversion”, for instance, presents its self as a simple Super Mario clone. Upon playing it for a bit, these expectations about the game are broken and the game transforms into something far different. Both these approaches, while not working all the time, may provide a “transition process”.

Check out some improv games such as:

• Yes Lets
• Just Gibberish
• Presents
• Word at a time story

What do these games do to encourage players’ creativity?

They provide a positive environment where there are no mistakes. Without negativity, people are far more comfortable with throwing ideas out into the world. Each of these games require input from each person, thereby including everybody and giving everybody an innate value. These games attempt to break down barriers of nervousness or embarrassment by being completely open and uncritical.

Link to question

This week’s game is Crayon Physics Deluxe by Petri Purho.

What different kinds of approaches do people take?

Compare this game to Armadillo Run.

How do the game mechanics and sensory aesthetics differ?

There is no music and all the sounds are very mechanical. Every thing looks far more polished and professional than crayon physics. As such, it feels more adult. Instead of the more simpler physics available in crayon physics, armadillo run gives you far more access and play room with set object space.

How does this change the experience of the game?

The game feels much more inventive, rather than creative. It is like building Rube Goldberg machine. You feel more like a mad genius than an inventive child. The play style is far more complex and constrained though, as such, it feels as though it is limiting creativity.

Link to question

What is the role of story in games?

Stories actively connect the player with the game; they provide a reason to continue playing and also assist in emerging the player in the experience. There have been a fair few times I’ve taken up the controls of a new game, played it for a while and have become utterly bored with the mechanics (whether they are bad or just repetitive) but have continued playing simply because the story was quite interesting.

Not only does a good story create emotional ties between the game’s protagonists and the player themselves but it also gives them a goal of sorts; to find out what happens next. One example of this was Assassin’s Creed; I was pretty appalled with the repetitiveness of the game play but was so bound up the story I sat waiting to find out what new twists and plot developments would arise. I started to care about Altier and what was to become of him, which is why I kept playing.

Is it really possible to make a game tell a meaningful story?

Definitely. Two of my favourite story based games are Planescape Torment (which has also been turned into a book by a fan) and Bioshock. These two told stories in very different ways, but with similar starts. Protagonist awakes in world he doesn’t recognise, doesn’t remember his past and continues onwards to discover. Bioshock on one hand is a discovery of what happened to Rapture, and what your future will become, whereas, Planescape Torment was about the discovery of your past lives. Both of these games I found incredibly engaging with some excellent voice acting, interesting visuals and fantastic plot twists that have embedded themselves in my mind along side that of some of my favourite movies and books.

How do the constraints of narrative mesh with the freedom of play?

With great difficulty, a lot of linear games require you to play out the game in a certain way with little room for self expression. I feel these would be the easiest to write for; you play out the story rather than create it, much like Prince of Persia: Sands of time, where the game is actually the prince retelling what has happened to him. When the player is given no narrative effecting choices, or choices of little consequence, there is little or no room for the gamer to alter or change the outcome of the story, thus the game really only has to have a singular plot line.

Making moral or story effecting choices becomes much like a “choose you own adventure” kind of book where the choices you make directly effect the outcome of the story. I imagine these would be quite difficult to write for because it requires many smaller story components to mesh properly together in order to form a conhesive narrative.

Read Ernest Adams article on Sandbox Storytelling. Do you agree?

I agree with he idea that sandbox storytelling would make quite an interesting environment for the player to create their own story and play out the game in a way they want to, but I believe it is quite dependant on the tools you give the player and the area you give them to play in. I think that it would be quite hard to get the depth that the a linear story telling provides by having a combination of player-dependent and player-independent events. There needs to be a balance, if the player-independent events are too leading it just feels like a linear game with side quests.

Link to question

There is a inherent reward in learning something new. Making a previous unknown connection between ideas gives us that fantastic “Ohhhhh!” moment. It genuinely feels good to understand a concept that was previously unknown or unexplored.

There needs to be some underlying desire to obtain this new knowledge. Being forced to learn things is no fun at all, you have to want understand it! Curiosity may have killed the cat, but I’m sure if it had lives left, it wouldn’t do it again (bad example, I know). By being curious about the topic, you are far more engadged and actively looking for answers, as opposed to simply being a receptacle.

There has to be some amount of challenge to the learning process. If it is too simplistic, the results seem far too obvious. Being simply told the facts doesn’t necessary make the act of learning enjoyable – it should be a personal exploration and feel as though the lesson has occurred within, rather than externally. I feel there is a huge difference between learning something, and remembering a fact. A good example of this comes from maths; you can easily memorise a formula, but until you derive it, you don’t necessarily understand it.

There also needs to be some level of discourse; room to ask questions from the teacher. When we discuss an idea, it helps to solidify it in our minds. We then move this idea from our working memory to our long term memory and gain the understanding. By being involved with the discussion we are made to feel apart of the lesson, and hence, more involved.

It also helps if you can experiment or play with the thing being learned. In maths we do practice examples, when programming we create test programs and when gaming we try out different strategies. Being able to experiment helps us gain a further understanding of the idea while enjoying ourselves.

Can you remember any teachers who really made learning ‘come alive’ for you? What did they do to make this happen?

Chemistry was a great learning experience for me. Reading about the reactions and actively participating in them was a large attraction. The enjoyment associated with this experimentation urged me to learn more. My teacher, Mr Brooks, loved chemistry as much as we did. The first lesson he filled detergent with gas and lit the bubbles on fire – creating a mushroom cloud of fire. It was awesome. Since then, our interests were sparked and we wanted to be involved.

What about things you have learnt outside of school?

• How to play golf
• Acting (to some degree)
• Certain aspects of programming
• Using your finger to test how hot a frying pan/oven/hot plate/boiling water is, is not a good idea.
• The joy of food
• When enough beer is enough

Check out Raph Koster’s Theory of Fun

Link to question

Where is the fun in this game?

In the exploration and discovery of these interesting and unique environments. A lot of the levels feel as though you are not supposed to be looking around where you are which gives the game a satisfying, subversive feel – exploration into areas where people have forgotten or are forbidden. It is the anticipation of discovering more and the enjoyment of uncovering and exploring and interesting environment.

How do I know what I am supposed to be doing?

The screen prompts you; as you moves the “fog” slowly lifts around your surrounding area allowing you to see. The screen also pulls back to allow you to see the greater picture all at once.

What makes you continue playing? (or not?)

Anticipation and curiosity I believe are the two main driving factors for continued play.  You keep playing because you want to see what happens next, what is the next place you get to explore, and once you are there, what is behind the “fog”.

Link to question

A controller changes the way a game feels dramatically, it provides a different interface with which you interact with the game; a joystick feels quite different to play with than gamepad. This is because of the methods of interactions; buttons, directional pads, analogue stick, motion, trigger, tackpad, mouse ball, etc – all have a unique feel and as such contribute differently to sensation while playing.

When controls mimic the interaction occurring in a game, the effect becomes quite immersive, like the hacking in Batman: Arkham Asylum. As such there are specially designed controllers made for special games. A few examples of these are Flight Sticks, light guns, racing wheels, and perhaps the most elaborate the Steel Battalion. Possibly one of the most interesting accessories/controllers I have heard of Nintendo’s R.O.B which was a controller but also played with you.

Are “motion controllers” such as the WiiMote and the Kinect a good thing?

Motion controller are just another movement in control, I don’t believe it is “the future” of gaming and is instead a stage/fad. Although not traditional, they are an interesting technology with many applications. I believe they shouldn’t be considered the be all and end all of video gaming but instead be used where appropriate and be a catalyst for new and innovative design.

What about the Emotiv headset? Is this a good direction for gaming?

Again, as with motion controllers it is another interesting movement in gaming, and shouldn’t be considered a direction but instead a branch.

Link to question

This game contains several feedback loops. What are they?

There are 3 main ones I have found during my brief play. The first is a positive feedback loop; the more planets you own, the more ships you generate in total. Each planet generates ships at a set pace, hence owning more planets allows you to generate a larger fleet.

The second is a negative feedback loop; the more planets you own, the more your attention is spread and the less able you are to manage everything at once. This leaves you quite vulnerable, although you would generally have a large force at your disposal the ability to launch them effectively and protect your planets is decreased dramatically.

The third is a negative feedback loop found only in competitions with more than two players. Once you gain a lot of ground and have a large amount of planets, you often become the target of the other players. As such, you tend to be overwhelmed by the other players and lose ground again.

What does the tutorial add to the game? Is it necessary?

The tutorial teaches some of the finer controls of the game to user. Such a lengthy tutorial was a bit annoying and the base mechanic was simple enough to figure out by playing, but little things like controlling the percentage of ships sent at once I did need assistance with. I feel the the tutorial is beneficial and needed to some degree but should indeed be shorter.

Link to question