March 17, 2008
Grady's Adventure
In this adventure/puzzle, you control Grady the robot with the arrow keys. You need to construct a rocket by finding the three parts and bringing them to the rocket frame.
The rocket parts are being held by various animals that you need to trade with or trap in order to get the parts.
To move around you need the appropriate upgrades (wheel, flipper, wing, etc) but you can only hold three at a time, and the animals steal the upgrades from you.
Posted by mslaybau at 11:21 PM | Comments (0)
August 17, 2007
Parley
Parley
(latest revision: 1.3 2007/8/17)
This was an entry for JayIsGames Casual Game Design Competition #3 I created with Joe Versoza.
It's a card game with a unique deck, containing up to 5 suits and up to 5 ranks. Unlike in a standard deck of cards, the suits are hierarchical, and also use a bit of rock-paper-scissor logic to determine what card beats another. Also, the ranks are hierarchical, as they are for regular cards, except in Parley the 'Spy' card (2-to-lowest rank) can beat the 'Queen' card (highest rank). Although it may sound complicated, it's pretty easy to pick up the rules after playing a round or two.
The new revision fixes problems with the AI bing too difficult.
Posted by mslaybau at 11:11 PM | Comments (1)
April 14, 2007
Frog and Vine
Jay, of JayIsGames had a game design competition and I entered with this:
http://jayisgames.com/archives/2007/04/frog_and_vine.php
It has 4 puzzles, three of which are original. Looking back, it's more of a prototype than a finished game. The tree puzzle in particular has potential to be developed into something interesting.
Posted by mslaybau at 12:12 PM | Comments (0)
January 08, 2007
Go Rabbit, Go!
Go Rabbit, Go! (beta latest revision: 2006/3/2)
This game was developed over a few days as an entry in the DonationCoder.com Accessibility Game Design Competition.
The parameters were to simply make a 'switch game' (or alternately a game relying only on audio).
A switch game is a game with the simplest interface, a button that is either pressed or not - the space bar, mouse button, or other controller.
The idea is that people with limited mobility may not be able to use conventional game controllers.
Additionally, I consulted with representatives of the Univeristy of Delaware Center for Disability Studies in coming up with a game that could be played by people with a wide variety of abilities or disabilities.
In addition to the switch interface, some of the considerations were:
- LANGUAGE - If someone is unable to read English, whether they are do not speak English, are illiterate, or have impaired vision, the person should be able to figure out the rules quickly without having to read the instructions.
- DESIGN - The design is very simple so that people with impaired vision will still be able to distinguish all the elements from each other, which all differ in size, color, and texture.
- EASE OF GAMEPLAY - Most people (with or without disabilities) do not have the skills to play traditional action games. This game begins quite slowly and while quick reflexes will help they are not required.
- MINIMIZED FRUSTRATION - It can be easy for a person with a disability to get frustrated with a task that seems simple to others. "Go Rabbit, Go!" does not have limited 'lives' or any way to 'die'. Penalties for mistakes are mild and do not force the player to start again.
Posted by mslaybau at 01:24 AM | Comments (0)
June 29, 2006
Games for Change
When hearing or reading the title of the conference, I kept thinking about signs that read "Will work for food" morphing into "Will code games for change"
Over all the conference was not well-organized and was nothing at all like the Serious Games Summit I went to a couple of years ago.
Still, the notion of serious games seems much more accepted than it was back then.
Most of the audience seemed to be middle-aged women who seemed to care about the world, but had no experience with activism or with games.
A few of the panelists were good, but ended up dumbing-down what they had to say to suit the audience.
There were 4 or 5 UN people there, most from Unicef.
Many panelists had no experience with games, and even wondered aloud why they had been asked to come.
One panel was made up of documentary filmmakers, who had experience with trying to raise awareness of issues through the medium of film, but had nothing to say about games.
Another panel was the same but made up of artists.
A third panel was museum exhibit designers, who were more interesting than the other two, but still had nothing to say about games. - Apparently Jamie Allen had been asked to speak at this one, which says something about how desparate they were for qualified speakers. He declined when he learned that panelists still had to pay the registration fee.
The implicit conclusion of those three panels was that games is in some ways just another medium that can be used to raise awareness, but not more so than a museum exhibit or documentary film or piece of art.
One discouraging thing was a video that the conference organizers put together about making games about health issues. A lot of talking heads yammered on about how great games were but the only actual example given in the video was a nurse interviewed who said 'Yeah, video games are great. When the pain medication doesn't work, we give the kids gameboys which helps distract them.' The message being that games are at best an idle distraction.
It was also discouraging to hear the word 'cyberspace' a few times, suggesting that the people there were still about 10 years behind the curve in terms of new media technology.
The best part of the whole conference was the final speaker Ralph Koster, who grew up in Haiti and Peru while his mother was on mission for Unicef, and now works for Sony where he worked on Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies, so he had more first-hand experience with both gaming and social issues than most people in the room had with either.
While most of the panels basically had nothing more to say than to repeat that games had potential without going into any details of how, Koster was the only one to cut through the BS.
He had a cynical attitude about the whole idea of 'games for change' and educational games in general, criticizing them as not being fun enough, and thus having no hope of engaging players long enough to deliver the message effectively. He also slammed 'over-optimistic do-gooders'
And he pointed out one of the main flaws with the concept, in that a game ultimately needs to be fun, while the social issues being addressed tend to be the opposite of fun.
Some in the audience were outraged by his candor, while others (like me) appreciated it.
He described some of the things he saw growing up in Haiti (poverty, disease) and Peru (intimidation of the locals by the Shining Path), and asked how a game could possibly solve or prevent any of them. No one had any answers, other than 'raising awareness' which sounded feeble.
Also good was the expo, where a dozen or so games were showcased, and there were a few examples that (to me) demonstrated that there is potential to really teach concepts in a way that no other media can.
My favorite was (you'll probably remember it from the other conference) 'A Force More Powerful' which is finally finished after three years (released in March 2006) it's available only online for $20. (I ordered a copy that I can give you when it ships)
Unlike most of the other games, it actually looked fun to play, while it also looked like it was very explicit about the messages. - the only way to win was if you have a deep understanding of the issues of how to affect social change in the face of an oppressive government.
'Peacemaker' seemed to be popular, though I didn't get a chance to look at it (http://peacemakergame.com/ also http://www.etc.cmu.edu/projects/peacemaker/TheGame.htm)
'Four Years in Haiti' was put together by GlobalKids (globalkids.org) which I worked with briefly while at the cyberschoolbus at the UN. It was okay, but just a little better than those MTVU games.
There was also one board game designed by a Parson's student that covered the issues of the Chinese Civil War just after WWII between the Communists and Nationalists. It looked like a cross between Risk and Monopoly. It looked really fun, and was especially appealing because it wasn't screen-based.
The worst games were not even games, but merely online quizzes - the user is presented with a cartoon or video clip and then asked multiple-choice questions about it. Taking a test is not fun.
Still, these kinds of games were most common in the 'practica', simulations for people like EMS workers, training them how to act in certain situations.
Other games were merely interactive fiction, where a cartoon or video requires you to click 'next' to proceed.
Of the games that were actually games, some were like 'Food Force' in that the games themselves were not part of the learning, but were essentially a reward for listening to the mini-lectures in between levels.
Others were true educational games, where the lessons were part of the game itself. Some of these were poor because they were too easy - I couldn't imagine any but the very youngest of kids wanting to play them, but at that age the concepts were probably too advanced for them to grasp.
Others suffered because they were too hard, there's no way or nearly no way to win. The MTVU games were like this. In some ways they're good in that they're sobering reminders of how hard life can be in some parts of the world, but it's not really fun if there's no chance to win, meaning people probably won't play them.
On of the artists responded to this by saying how her 'game' was better (it wasn't a game you could play, it was just an arty video-simulation of a game of Go) because 'everyone wins' - lame.
The best, again, was 'A Force More Powerful' which seemed to really have the right balance of fun and education.
(http://afmpgame.com/ also http://nonviolent-conflict.org/)
Part of their advantage was A) big budget ($3 million) and access to lots of quantitative data so they could actually model different situations accurately.
Oddly enough, the production company (http://www.yorkzim.com/) makes documentary films. This is their first and only game.
One thought I had was about Monopoly, which is not a traditional educational game but does have educational value. It doesn't teach about real estate since the ideas are so abstracted as to be irrelevant. The value of Monopoly, I think is in developing math skills, but it doesn't actually teach math, it just allows (forces) a lot of practice with addition and subtraction (and some multiplication when you land on the Income Tax square). And that's a key difference that no one brought up but is important, I think, for any educational game project, whether something tries to actually teach a concept or just allows practice.
---
Funding Sources:
http://www.nystar.state.ny.us/ - this site was repeated several times by a guy who works for the New York State government
http://ssti.org/
http://sbirworld.com/
http://www.ctwo.org/
http://nationalservice.gov
http://www.lmcc.net/ - Jamie and Megatron applied for and got space for an art show via LMCC
http://hopelab.org - currently getting funding for serious-game creation
---
Lessons: (a number of these I recall also being covered in the Serious Games Summit)
- Audio more important than video in educational games - the audio tends to carry the message more while the video is more eye-candy, but kids seem fine with cartoony graphics as long as the game is compelling.
- Games that successfuly deliver a message are those played in groups, allowing lots of discussion - even if it is a single-player game that people play in a group, discussing what to do next. The real learning doesn't happen in the game, but during the discussion among students.
- One advantage of a game over face-to-face learning is that offers the student to make mistakes without embarassment.
- There is funding available, usually in bundles of $2,000, $3,000, or $5,000 - but, the people who read proposals are often stodgy types who still don't 'get' games so the social impact must be emphasized.
- While it is most difficult to get money from philanthropic organizations (as opposed to government or corporate) the grantees get the most leeway with the projects (corporations usually want profit or intellectual property, and government departments want measurable results)
- Some philanthropic organizations are funding serious game projects now, but are largely devoted to feasability studies, related to the other point about assessment.
- NYS grants for educational technology seem to favor 'cures' for obesity, smoking, drug addiction, etc.
Another of the lessons from the various people who spoke was that the weakest part of the whole 'serious games' industry was that of assessment. It's one thing for the designers or funders to think a game is great, but without testing on real kids (or adults) you really have no idea.
This was hammered home by one panel on funding opportunities, where they all said that there is lots of money available for projects such as these games, but a proposal will get ignored unless it includes some numbers to back it up, even if it's just to say how many people will play it (whether they enjoy it or not)
Regarding funding, one guy who works for New York State told a funny story about how he was playing some online multiplayer game and got in a virtual battle with someone, only to discover later it was his boss, who reports directly to the Governor regarding budget issues. A conversation began and now the state is commited to funding educational games.
However, the main interest for the state seems to be in job creation, so if you want to just make a game you'll have more trouble getting money than if you want to start a small company and hire a staff to make games.
---
There was a surprising amount of press there (like at the other conference)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/29/wgames29.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/29/ixnews.html
http://news.com.com/Game+designers+try+to+help+save+the+world/2100-1043_3-6088901.html
http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1673634.htm
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26425086.htm
http://www.theepochtimes.com/news/6-6-28/43282.html
Posted by mslaybau at 09:45 PM | Comments (0)
June 07, 2006
Pricilla gone missing
Pricilla gone missing is a new and quite good, rather short game in the style of Samorost, where you control a character who walks around manipulating objects. I prefer this style to the 'Escape the Room' variety - a genre that seems rather stale now.
The graphics are very good, echoing some post-apocalyptic movies such as Mad Max. The sound is good as well, using music as a cue for success and ambient noises as the background sound.
The puzzles are good as well, and all rely on actual logic and physics, so you have to 'MacGuyver' your way through, rather than depending on finding that one active pixel, or on some arbitrary Deus ex Machina device.
Posted by mslaybau at 06:03 PM | Comments (0)
February 27, 2006
Escape to Obion V: The Chemisphere
Episode 5: The Chemisphere (beta latest revision: 2006/2/27)
length: long
difficulty: hard
This game is more linear than the others, which is necessary because we've added level codes for the 4 levels in the game.
The levels represent junctures in the game that tell you that you've solved everything necessary to get to that point.
The puzzles get increasingly complicated in the game, but should not require taking notes in the way that #3 required.
Still, you will need to jot down a few things.
There is one musical puzzle in the game, but you should be able to get through even if you are unable to hear it, relying on the symbols instead.
Still tracking down any last bugs. If you find any, please report them below.
Posted by mslaybau at 09:33 PM | Comments (43)
February 09, 2006
Escape to Obion IV: Closer to Zero
Episode 4: Closer to Zero (latest revision: 2006/2/10)
Week 4, Game 4.
Many found #3 too hard, and while we could edit that game, it makes more sense to move forward - though I may add more clues to #3 at a later date for future players.
In this one the standalone puzzles are straightforward, but you still will need to take some notes in order to get to the end.
We also advance the story more through found pages from a diary of one of the main villain's primary henchmen.
I had become fascinated with Turing's cracking of the Nazi's Enigma machine, and tried to replicate one for this game. It came off rather well, and it will be a pity if we can't use it again in a future episode.
We had thought that not using English (or any language) would make the game more accessible to international players, but we chose to do so anyway in this game just because that option opened up so many more possibilities for leaving clues and hints in the game.
edit: people were managing to get to the end through trial and error on the last puzzle, but now they have to figure out the rest of the game before they'll know what to do.
Posted by mslaybau at 06:03 PM | Comments (16)
February 02, 2006
Escape to Obion: The Alchemist's Notebook
Obion 3 is out - quite a bit trickier than the other two. This is less about stand-alone puzzles in the game (although the initial map puzzle is clever, like a Rubik's Cube jigsaw) and more about comprehending subtle hints and gathering all the information necessary to get to the end.
You'll probably need pencil and paper to keep track of everything.
Note to everyone who completes this game (or who try and then give up). This is a new series, and future episodes will be designed based on comments on earlier episodes. So, please feel free to say what you liked or didn't like in the game - what you found too easy, or what you thought was too frustrating or complicated.
Posted by mslaybau at 11:51 AM | Comments (13)
January 26, 2006
Escape to Obion: The Hidden Map
One week later, here is the sequel to 'Obion', with about 5 times the number of puzzles and interactivity as the previous one.
As in the first game, one of the guiding principles was to have the puzzles be unique and challenging, but also to have them be solvable through 'brute-force' clicking around just in case they're too tough for any particular player (although for some of the puzzles that could take hours).
One of the other principles is that the narrative should never move backward (as in a failure to complete a particular puzzle having the result of forcing the player to a previous game-state). This only frustrates gameplay by forcing the player to do a lot of mindless and repetitive clicking to get back to where they were before.
Another has to do with perspective - the player can never turn around, and when it's necessary to back up, that's done with the down arrow that is in the same place on every screen. The motivation is to make navigation simple and never let it interfere with the gameplay.
A fourth has to do with the style of interaction. We decided to make this a 'click-only' game with no inventory and no dragging of items; the only exception are a couple of places where typing in of passwords is necessary. One of the essential aspects of casual games is that they need to be immediately accessable; that is, they cannot require any learning by the player before beginning - no instructions, no special key commands, etc. Those things are not bad in themselves, but games that require the user to learn how to play are not casual games.
The game style is also limited to non-time-based interaction, which is typical of the point-and-click adventure genre. It can be frustrating to users to suddenly come across an arcade-style puzzle in the middle of an otherwise action-free game.
Lastly, we wanted this game to be as language-neutral as possible. The Internet audience is multilingual, and creating content in only one language effectively shuts out potential users/viewers. This game has English-language preface and conclusion text, but neither is necessary to play and enjoy the game. Some of the puzzles do use English words, but in those cases, knowledge of the meanings of the words is not necessary. The semantics are irrelevant and the words are used only as sequences of symbols.
Note to everyone who completes this game (or who try and then give up). This is a new series, and future episodes will be designed based on comments on earlier episodes. So, please feel free to say what you liked or didn't like in the game - what you found too easy, or what you thought was too frustrating or complicated.
Posted by mslaybau at 06:18 AM | Comments (45)
January 20, 2006
Escape to Obion: Fire and Ice
Episode 1: Fire and Ice
The first point-and-click adventure we've done, which is a surprise now since it's so much easier to code than other sorts of games.
The challenge for the designer in this genre is in creating puzzles that are tough but not impossible. I think casual games players are a little more likely to get exasperated than they would be with a console or PC game.
Note to everyone who completes this game (or who try and then give up). This is a new series, and future episodes will be designed based on comments on earlier episodes. So, please feel free to say what you liked or didn't like in the game - what you found too easy, or what you thought was too frustrating or complicated.
Posted by mslaybau at 01:02 AM | Comments (102)
December 16, 2005
Chutes and Ladders
Chutes and Ladders ('Snakes and Ladders' in England, and 'Hoses and Pickets' in Canada) is fun to play for 5-year-olds, but it quickly loses its value once the players realize that the game is entirely deterministic.
Perhaps it is because we enjoy the illusion of choice and freedom of will that we prefer games that allow us to make mistakes in judgement, rather than simply following the directions from the omnipotent, yet random force of a die or spinning wheel.
So, to make the game more enjoyable, here are some variation that older players might enjoy.
Parcheesi Variation
This is the most crucial variation in that it adds the possibility of choice to each turn.
As in parcheesi (or Sorry!), on each turn, a player may choose to simply advance a piece toward the goal, or play defensively by knocking out the piece of an opponent.
If playing with a younger child, you may wish to start with only two tokens per player, to simplify the strategizing and make it easier for them to grasp the concept of a non-deterministic game (at say, 6 years old, most children still only play deterministic games such as Candy Land and War).
With older players you may wish to use up to 5 tokens per player.
This option is also quite fun with more than two players, as the social aspect increases, with alliances forming to collectively defend against whomever is in the lead.
When knocking out another piece with one of yours, one variation is to knock them completely off the board, so that the piece has to start again at '1', but another option is to knock the piece back to nearest chute.
There are two version of the winning condition.
One is to get all tokens by a given player to the finish, the other is whoever is first to get just one piece to the finish wins.
Barricade Variation
Baricade seems more popular in Europe than in the US, but is quite a good game.
What separates it from parcheesi or backgammon is that the board begins with 10 barricades that impede progress - pieces cannot cross over them.
The only way to remove a barricade is to land squarely on it, at which point the player that has done so can move it anywhere on the board (except for the first row of tiles)
In Chutes and Ladders, the Barricade variation means that at the beginning of the game, each square that is at the top of a chute holds a barricade that can only be removed by landing on it (landing on a barricade at the top of a chute or bottom of a ladder means the token does not travel down the chute or up the ladder).
Alternately, the barricades (10 or so) can be divided among the players, who can choose to play them on a given turn rather than rolling the die.
Backgammon Variation
In this version, two dice are used, and a player can move two pieces, one for each die, or move one piece the combined number of spaces. (if a 5 and 3 are rolled, the player can move one piece 5 and another 3, or one piece 8 spaces)
'Checkers' Variation
So far, the variations are still somewhat chance-oriented, but that can be mitigated by removing the die and having the players decide how to move each piece. On any turn, a player can move one token up to 6 spaces, with the side-rule that no captures can take place in the first row of tiles.
This rule can be modified so that any single move cannot cross rows (a piece cannot move from one row to another unless the token is in the last tile of the row). This helps set up 'choke-points' for defensive play.
Chess Variation
Another variant is to play with chess pieces, with special rules.
Instead of simple tokens, use the pieces from a chess set, specifically the rook (castle), bishop and knight
:the rook cannot be passed over by any other piece, though can be removed by landing directly on it
:the bishop is exempt from sliding down chutes
:the knight can climb both chutes and ladders
Roshambo
Another variant is the 'Roshambo' (rock, paper, scissors) version, where rooks can only take bishops or other rooks, bishops can take only knights or other bishops, and knights can only take rooks or other knights.
Camino del Rey
In this variation (also using chess pieces) one of the tokens is the 'King' and it is the king that must make it to the end, not just any of the tokens.
The play would be like the Parcheesi variation, except the strategy would of course change as the focus becomes on the king.
Cutthroat
One last rule that can be used with any of the others is that once a piece is captured, it is removed from the game, rather than able to start again. This only makes sense when playing with a large number of tokens per player (around 15).
---
Most of these variations can be combined, in fact a rich and complex game could be played by combining all of these special rules together.
Posted by mslaybau at 09:18 PM
November 10, 2005
AJAX Risk
AJAX (aka networked DHTML) is a popular subject now, at least among some developers and software organizations, and is most popularized in the Google Maps utility.
Many have used the API for this and made some interesting projects. One recent one, by TehDiplomat, implements the classic board game Risk using Google Maps
The game development is incomplete, and only supports hotseat gameplay for now.
The use of Google Maps is purely gratuitous, in that zooming to get more terrain detail adds nothing to the game (actually inhibits ability to play). Ideally that will change. This could also be a good opportunity to update the rules of Risk, including having a more granular game board with more, smaller territories.
Posted by mslaybau at 04:21 AM
October 29, 2005
ProtoChess
Chess has some interesting abstractions: the pawns represent the relatively weak infantry who can only advance but are able to attack in a diagonal, quasi-phalanx style; the hooked move of the knight represents cavalry's ability to flank and get behind the enemy; and I imagine the rook's long-range motion represents the long attack of archers in the towers.
But all the other aspects of the game do not represent reality, and I'm guessing were adjustments made to improve gameplay. It would make more sense to give the king the movement ability that the queen has, but as it also makes the most sense as the ultimate target, I understand the reason to separate the 'royal family' into two units, one with power and one as target. The rook probably started as a static piece with only defensive ability, but making it mobile gives more options for strategy. The bishop is an odd one, though.
I've been trying to come up with different rules for a chess-like game that has more similarities to actual pre-gunpowder, or even pre-iron age, battle. Many aspects of chess exist because it is a non-computer game. In board games it is too difficult to include features such as individual 'hit points' for each piece, so in chess it is a binary attribute - either you're dead or alive. But as a computer game we can have the hardware do all that work for us.
I like the pace of turn-based games. Even though the trend is to have real-time play, turn-based emphasizes the strategy and de-emphasizes the finger-dexterity aspect.
Board:
The 8x8 board is quite good for lots of strategy games, but I would want to try something larger, say 10x10, and possibly include obstacles of water or mountain or forest, similar to the Stratego board. These obstacles could slow movement (fording a river takes longer than crossing a field) or could stop all but a few pieces (infantry could clamber up a steep rockface while cavalry have to go around).
The hex board seems to give more realism in terms of movement, so this board is hexagonal.
The board contains a castle for each player, and takes up 7 hexes. Imagined behind each castle is a foundry that produces weapons and the fields and homes of the population from where horses and soldiers are drawn. Each player begins with 30 men and 10 horses off the board and cannot produce soldiers or horses after these are exhausted. Unlike most RTS games, the details of researching, producing weapons, and training are highly abstracted and are not part of the game.
Pieces:
I like the rock-paper-scissors quality of infantry-cavalry-archers; pikemen can take down horses, knights can run down bowmen, and they in turn inflict damage from afar on infantry. In reality, any unit can injure any other, and I don't see the need to weight the attack abilities of different pieces other than giving them their respective qualities: infantry have numbers, archers have missile attack, and cavalry have increased movement, and possibly increased attack (horse hooves can crush)
So the types of weapon are the sword and the bow. Initially anyway I don't want more than 2; having more would add too much complexity.
The types of defense should be shield and armor. Armor slows you down, and a shield requires using a hand.
Each man then, can use bow and arrow (takes two hands) or two swords or sword and shield, and is either armored or not and is either riding or not.
Unlike other games, units should be able to pick up and use equipment that they find, and should be to mount or dismount horses as they see fit. This game assumes that all soldiers have training to use all types of weapon, and that all armor fits any man.
Another type of piece is the castle, and the destruction of this is what ends the game, not killing the king. However, once the king is dead, a player can no longer create pieces (explained below).
One last type of weapon is the catapault, which requires two men to operate, and again any soldier can do so (though men on horseback must take a turn to dismount first) - and two horses are required to pull the thing into position. All horses from either side (and all weaponry and armor) can be commandered by either player.
Turns:
The game starts with just the castles in position. An optional first turn is to have the players place their castles.
Production:
Each turn a player can pull two units from his farms, either two men or a man and a horse; and can produce four pieces of weaponry or one catapault. For example, a player could make one (infantry) man with sword and shield and one (archer) man with bow and quiver with 10 arrows (bow and full quiver are considered separate pieces); or could make one (knight) man on horseback with armor, sword, and shield, and save one 'weapon credit' to use on a later turn.
A unit can hold one item in each hand: sword, shield, or bow. If a unit is on horseback, it needs one hand free to hold the reins while moving. If the horse is still, the unit can hold a shield or weapon. An archer needs one hand to carry a bow, but two hands to use it, so cannot attack with a sword or shield in hand. Although the Mongols were able, the units in this game cannot fire arrows while riding.
Additionally, each unit can carry up to two additional items (an extra quiver of arrows, shield, etc.) But it takes one turn to switch items.
Each new unit is placed on the hex immediately in front of the castle. A hex can contain up to 12 men, and a horse is the size of two men, so it could alternately contain up to 6 men on horseback, or one horseman and 10 foot soldiers, or three unmounted horses and 6 foot soldiers. A catapault is the size of 3 horses or 6 men, so a catapault operated by two men and pulled by two horses completely fills a hex.
Each man on the board can do one thing on a turn: move or attack.
All men are considered to be perpetually defending themselves and types of defense (eg. parrying sword, raising shield) are not considered moves.
At the end of each turn, each unit can also pick up/change weapons, or mount/dismount a horse.
Movement:
Men on foot can move to an adjacent hex, men on horseback can move twice. Men in armor cannot move on foot.
If a hex is full, no one can enter until there is room. If a full hex contains an unmounted horse, a man may enter the hex and displace the horse to an adjacent hex. For example, once the catapault is in position to siege the opponent's castle, a player could move in up to four archers, displacing the two horses (used to pull the catapault).
Attack:
Units attack with sword only enemy units in the same hex. Units can attack with arrows enemy units only in adjacent hexes. Catapaults attack hexes that are exactly 4 hexes away. 'Friendly fire' does not exist in this game.
In attack mode, a unit can select to attack any unit in the target area and always hits. (The game is meant to be pure strategy and I don't want any random variables).
Each man has 10 'hit points' and each hit takes off 3 points. Shield and armor each reduce the attack by 1 point, so a man using a shield will sustain only two points, and a man in armor carrying a shield in each hand cannot be injured (although he cannot move or attack either).
If a unit sustains 10 points of damage, he is dead, and his weapons, armor, and horse remain in the hex until another unit (of either side) picks them up.
Catapaults cannot be injured by arrows, but a unit does not need a sword to attack it either. A bowman can enter the hex (provided that it is not full) and attack from there (untying ropes, etc.)
Catapaults have the same damage as any other weapon.
Picking up Weapons:
A player can hold one item in each hand and can carry up to two items on his back. A unit can take a turn to switch items in use (held in hands) with those carried on his back or to pick up or swap items found on the ground. For example, a man with a sword and shield in his hands and a bow on his back enters a hex where there had been a battle and there are weapons on the ground. On the next turn he drops the sword, picks up a quiver and puts it on his back, puts the bow in his hand, and puts the shield on his back.
Armor is considered a carried item, so a man in armor can have only one item on his back.
A quiver holds 10 arrows, and each shot of an arrow reduces the number by one. A unit must pick up arrows from the ground before using them again. Arrows (and all other weaponry) are assumed to never break, unless explicitly.
During the end-of-turn phase, units can break weapons if the player chooses, so as to not leave any arrows or shields behind.
Units can pick up arrows to give to other units later, but can only hold one arrow at a time unless carrying a quiver, which can hold no more than 10.
Mounting/dismounting:
Similarly, a player can take a turn to get off a horse or get on a horse that has no rider. Horses of either player can be riden by units of either player.
Winning:
The castle is made up of 7 hexes, and any one plus the center hex must be destroyed to achieve victory. A castle hex has 10 hit points, but can only be damaged by catapault.
A castle hex can contain up to 5 men (but not horses or catapaults) which could be used for defensive archers. If a player produces arrows (or any weapon) on a turn, these can be given to men within a castle hex.
Tweaking:
The game is considerably more complicated than chess, and is similar to some role-playing games, but the emphasis on equipment here is much less than in RPGs. But because of the complexity, having more than about 7 units per player on the board at any one time would mean most time spent swapping weapons as opposed to thinking about strategy, so some variables may need to be changed to avoid this potential problem.
A key issue is finding the balance between realism and gameplay. Many aspects of a true simulation would burden the players with details that would the game seem more like work than a game. However, abstracting details too much could remove the richness that also makes a game enjoyable. One issue to be determined is whether the player perspective is 'god-like' (as in chess, where the entire board is visible to all players at all times) where in effect the issue of gathering intelligence in the field is assumed to be good enough that players know whats going on everywhere, or limited so that the board starts out dark and must be scouted (as in most RTS games, where opposing players are only visible from nearby areas).
Again, board games are by necessity more abstracted than computer games because it is too difficult to simulate hidden information without aid of a computer (although Stratego manages to conceal the identity of units, this results in a test of memory more than I care for).
Many RTSs allow units to be healed, which in this game could provide some negative feedback, in that a player in a weak position could revive his troops, however, only a player in a stronger position could afford to bring injured units back from the front. Even if this option were added, I wouldn't add the feature of wizards or whatever that are able to heal by waving their arms.
If chess is considered a simulation of war, the time frame that a single game encompasses is probably between a day and a week, with each turn representing an hour or so. I envision this proposed game to be finer-grained than that, with each turn representing 15 minutes or so, and so healing is not a realistic option, as an invalid may take weeks to recouperate.
Strategy:
Because of the size of the board and the vulnerability of the units, I envision the game proceeding in a fashion similar to the way it did in the time period that the rules emulate; that is, with large groups of units moving and attacking together
Archers are quite vulnerable and should be placed behind other units to attack remotely.
Catapaults must be attacked by first removing the men sharing its hex via archers, then moving men in. Accordingly, catapaults should be defended by surrounding them as much as possible. As such, these units are likely to not be brought out until late in the game.
Posted by mslaybau at 05:33 PM | Comments (0)
October 05, 2005
Experimental Gameplay Project 2.0
Experimental Gameplay Project 2.0
Now in it's second semester, our goal is to once again generate over 50 games in one semester. Our fresh new team will pop out 4 new games every Wednesday.
Brand new this semester, we invite you to submit your own games! Every week on Wednesday night we will post the current theme of the week. Try to make a game based around this theme, you might surprise yourself! Remember, this project was founded on the idea that "complexity is not necessary for fun".
This week's theme for Wednesday, 10.5.2005:
"Temperature"
Posted by mslaybau at 04:42 PM | Comments (0)
February 22, 2005
My Games Page
Games Page
Matt Slaybaugh
Games |
|
Posted by mslaybau at 04:02 PM | Comments (0)
November 12, 2004
Review: Conqueror!
Game Design
November 11, 2004
Conqueror! (http://www.conquerorgame.com/ ) follows the tradition introduced to me via RISK, and continued with products such as Axis & Allies - games that simulate warfare by having players manage armies on a playing board that represents an actual map of the world - or in the case of Conqueror!, a map of Europe circa AD 1000. Unlike its predecessors, however, Conqueror! is not a board game but an online multiplayer (up to 16) game, currently in beta development, and currently free.
Making the game digital has allowed the authors to automate much of the more cumbersome tasks related to resource management. In games such as Axis & Allies, there is a practical cap on how complex, and thus how realistic, the game can be because of limitations related to the number of elements a human player can feasibly keep track of in a given turn. These limitations don't exist with computer-based games, so they are better able to simulate real-world, complex scenarios.
GAME PLAY
On each turn, each player can alter how each of his territories produce - developing resources (farms or culture), raising armies, levying taxes, or building defensive castles.
TURNS
Games traditionally have been turn-based because that was the only way to handle logistics in board games. Turn-based games tend to be slower while allowing more contemplation on the part of each player.
Real-time strategy games allow a much faster game at the expense of deliberated planning. Conqueror! has come up with a good compromise, having players each place orders over the course of a few minutes, the orders are then processed simultaneously by the system. This allows for more contemplation and planning while keeping the game faster than its offline brethren.
EDUCATIONAL VALUE
Realism has little, if anything, necessarily to do with how fun a game is, but in this case the realism is important (to me anyway). I found this game to be educational, in a limited way, in how I was unable to not learn some geography from playing. The geography was not part of the instructions, and never explicitly forced onto the players, but was just a natural consequence of playing the game. This type of education is the model I hope to use in educational games I develop, where no memorization - or even conscious thought - is required to absorb the information available.
MULTIPLAY VS AI
The developers have clearly done a lot of work in developing the various artificial intelligences assigned to nations not controlled by human players. Some are unpredictably aggressive, and some (according to the developers' notes) even have built in 'revenge' algorithms so that they are more likely to attack players that have attacked them.
However, playing versus humans is very different than playing against AIs. Even discounting the common trend of 12-year-old boys (or adults regressing in anonymity to being 12 years old again) being obnoxious, human opponent are so much better at anticipating other players' moves that they require a much more defensive strategy to defeat.
Human players also add the optional element of alliances - which typically seem to consist of working together to beat the AIs, then fighting each other (perhaps a representation of what the War of the Robots will look like).
ADDICTION
The central fun of this game comes from what I call the 'lawnmower principle', the premise of which is that it is inherently pleasurable to see the effects of one's labor - to 'wipe the slate clean'. Conqueror! is more than mowing the lawn, however, because of the complexities involved in doing so; on any given turn there are between 5 and 10 decisions that have to be made; decisions that affect both this turn and future ones.
These decisions are typical of many games of this type - whether to build resources or attack.
But what makes the game addictive is what I will call 'scaling depth' - the fact that a new player can pay attention to only the more coarse details (whether one is being attacked or not, for example) and still take some ground (although likely lose eventually) while more experienced players know which of the more subtle details (which of one's territories are most suited to raising armies versus building farms, or how large of a front one wants to maintain, for example) can lead to victory.
This scaling depth is what keeps players coming back. A game such as Tetris is addictive because every game ends with the player thinking about how he would do a little better next time, and Conqueror! has the same quality.
SECOND-GUESSING
I’m making this its own section since second-guessing is so critical to multiplayer strategy games. The second-guessing in Conqueror! is quite good, and perhaps the dominant quality of the game, at least when playing human opponents. When playing AIs, it’s much easier to figure out what their driving algorithm is, and act accordingly.
USER INVOLVEMENT IN GAME DESIGN PROCESS
Conqueror! is a game-in-progress, having gone through perhaps 200 iterative builds (to date, the build number is 86, but the developers typically release a, b, and c sub-builds) in the past couple of years.
They have an active forum (http://conquerorgame.com/forum/index.php?f=6) where players can report bugs, plan games, and request features. For armchair game developers such as myself (I'm currently lifting myself out of the La-Z-Boy) this is a valuable window into the process of creating games.
After playing a few times, I started flooding the list under different names, with concerns over the same issue: that the end-game is too easy. The positive feedback is so strong (as it is with most War games) that once a player has conquered about a quarter of the board, he's unstoppable. My suggestion was that a better simulation of Empire would be to have more rebellions in territories far removed from the capital, that boarding soldiers should be more expensive when far from the capital, and a few other related ideas.
I was surprised and excited when I saw all of my ideas implemented in the next build, although in some ways, the game was better before my ‘fixes’ were added.
Still, it is the only environment I know where players can affect the conditions of the game so directly - even democratically, since my forum posts received numerous follow-ups with both supporting and refuting arguments.
IMPROVEMENTS OVER SIMILAR GAMES
There are many, but two interesting ones are devotion level within a territory and influence over adjacent ones. Having a variable for how happy citizens are is not new, perhaps first introduced in the Civilization series, but in Conqueror! the value is tied to resource production and likelihood of rebellion in a compelling way.
A territory’s influence is based on the citizen’s devotion to the player, the number of armies in the territory, the level of culture that has been achieved, and the amount of money in the coffer. A territory is influenced by all adjacent ones and at times of invasion or rebellion, the influence can determine how much the soldiers resist being invaded, and the differences in influence are great enough, can even lead to secession to another player without having to attack.
Overall, Conqueror! is an enjoyable game that you can have 30 or more hours of fun with before getting bored. Considering that it's free (as long as it's still in development) that's a bargain.
KRAMER SCALE:
Based on Wolfgang Kramer's list of issues to consider in evaluating games, I'm rating Conqueror! on a series of 5-point scales. Kramer's list is imperfect, but good as a starting point when evaluating any game.
ORIGINALITY **** Good
War simulations are thousands of years old, but all game genres are well-established so I can't criticize this game for producing yet another "improvement on Risk".
The originality in Conqueror! is in how the developers took lessons from previous games such as Axis & Allies and those by Avalon Hill and combined them with some fresh approaches, specifically regarding how to exploit the advantages that computer games have over board games in terms of allowing lots of behind-the-scenes calculations.
FRESHNESS AND REPLAYABILITY *** Fair
Conqueror! has a replayability value of about 30 games, which is pretty good, but doesn't compare with truly addictive games such as Tetris. There are more problems in this regard when playing just AIs than there are when playing human opponents because the second-guessing is so much easier with AIs.
But, either way, there are a small number of overall strategies: build then attack vs. attack while building, protect your base vs. extending out in order to flank other territories, etc.
Also, regardless of the type of opponent, there is still a significant wait in between turns and lots of required clicking in order to maintain production of resources, both of which lead to boredom once you've figured out all the intricacies of the game.
SURPRISE ** Poor
The AIs in Conqueror! are sometimes quite good, acting in ways that mimic the best human players. In fact, human players, though more challenging overall than the AIs, are often more predictable than the AIs, which clearly have some randomness built into their algorithms. But, reacting to randomness is much less satisfying than reacting to a brilliant but unexpected move, as is often found in other strategy games.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY **** Good
Creating true equality in games in games (as in life) is very difficult, particularly for turn-based ones. But Conqueror! does a good job in evening out the usual bias that favors the first turn.
The real-world map is what creates the most inequality in this game. Countries that begin with few borders (Morocco borders only Tangiers) have an early advantage in that they can invest less in defense. However, these same countries have a disadvantage in the later game when they need to expand to the opposite side of the board. Countries that begin in the middle have a more difficult time early on, with attackers on all sides, but then have it easier later as they have equal distances to cross to reach the edge of the playing area in any direction.
WINNING CHANCES * Bad (but doesn't matter)
This rule is different for board games compared to computer games. Risk-style war simulations require that nations can be obliterated during the course of the game. Most computer games allow players to quit and start over when they're killed. Conqueror! allows player to sign in as another country when killed. This itself can be a problem for other players when a defeated player returns.
NO "KINGMAKER EFFECT" **** Good
Heavy positive feedback ensures that losing countries dwindle in strength before they're crushed, so there is no kingmaker effect in that regard. However, a 'feature' of Conqueror! is that when a player quits, his nation is taken over by an AI, which can be frustrating for the remaining players.
I typically quit a game once I've reached 'Emperor' level, at which point I usually control about a quarter of the board. The AI that takes over for me usually acts in erratic ways, which are magnified because the resource base I left with it is so strong.
NO EARLY ELIMINATION ** Poor
Again, war games require that some players can be eliminated, but Conqueror! does have a flaw in that some games begin with such unfair disadvantages (multiple strong, aggressive, adjacent opponents) that survival is impossible. You can simply quit and start over, but that's no fun.
REASONABLE WAITING TIMES *** Fair
When setting up a game, you can choose how long to set the timer (15-second increments between 15 seconds and an hour) which is very useful, but some turns require little decision-making while others require a lot, and being locked into the time can be frustrating, especially when trying to realize a particular aggressive strategy. Turn-based games have to include some wait-time, but when playing Conqueror! I yearned for the dynamically flexible wait time in Chess, with periods of contemplation punctuated by rapid turns of aggression. ‘Rush-games’, with only 15 or 30 seconds per turn can be quite challenging, and give the AIs a strong advantage.
CREATIVE CONTROL **** Good
There is some randomness in the determination of losses during combat, but overall Conqueror! offers good creative control. The only drawback is occasional, when the erratic behavior of some AIs effectively punishes a player for no reason.
UNIFORMITY and QUALITY OF COMPONENTS ***** Excellent
Verisimilitude is not necessary for a game, but I really enjoyed the quality of the map and graphics in general - making the game far more enjoyable than if I were to 'play' an Excel spreadsheet with all the algorithms as embedded equations in different cells.
TARGET GROUPS AND CONSISTENCY OF RULES *** Fair
This is one of Kramer's most debatable rules, and Conqueror! is clearly an exception. It is a strategy game that relies on randomness to some degree. However, the randomness is well-enough contained that the luck factor enhances rather than detracts from the game. I'd be curious to play this game without any chance factor, though.
TENSION **** Good
This varies greatly between games against AIs and those against human opponents.
Overall, though, there is a good mix of paranoid building phases, sudden reactionary defense phases, and planned aggressive phases.
LEARNING AND MASTERING A GAME *** Fair
The initial learning curve is steep (assuming time on the Y axis and learning on the X axis) to the effect that simply understanding all the rules requires playing about 3 games.
Unfortunately, mastering the subtleties takes only several games more, without a broad, pleasant band of discovery in between those two moments. Beyond that, the game is still enjoyable as players can experiment with different strategies.
COMPLEXITY AND INFLUENCE *** Fair
Similar to Csikszentmihalyi's (phew!) 'flow channel', Kramer’s graph of complexity and influence shows how a game should scale along with the players' abilities.
Conqueror! is fairly rigid in this regard, being a little too difficult for new players and too simple for experienced ones.
Posted by mslaybau at 03:11 PM | Comments (0)
January 01, 2004
Stone Age
An idea for a game: You are transported back in time to 30,000 years ago, somewhere on Earth, maybe in the ice-age areas in the north, or the plains of Africa.
The animals are of that era (wooly rhinoceroses, giant squirrels) and the native peoples don't have written language.
You however, have all the knowledge of a 21st-century person, and your quest is to introduce technologies of metallurgy and engineering to the societies you find.
It would be sort of like Age of Empires or SimCity except the goals would be much more practical, such as how to actually hunt down a mastodon while keeping safe from sabre-tooths and other predators - tasks usually hinted at but not developed in other games.
The first task would be simply to find food and shelter, then to find other people and convince them to not kill you, and eventually let them allow you to lead them.
The game would require strong AI in the other characters, and would be an opportunity to learn about life way back then.
--------
Posted by mslaybau at 03:05 AM | Comments (0)
December 28, 2003
Pac-Man in Excel
This guy used Excel macros to code versions of Pac-Man and Space Invaders.
--------Posted by mslaybau at 11:02 AM | Comments (0)
December 19, 2003
Werewolves
2 teams, humans and werewolves. Equipment: 1 ball (kickball, playing the role of silver bullet)
Version 1
If a werewolf touches a human, the human turns into a werewolf, joining the other side If the ball touches a werewolf, the werewolf turns into a human, joining the other side Game ends when all players are on same side.
Version 2
Instead of switching, players die. Game ends when only one player left
--------
Posted by mslaybau at 01:13 AM | Comments (0)