Interactive storytelling

In this article Crawford says

'They don't bother with people other than as willing dolls the preform mechanical functions'


Crawford is explaining that in a game the story will have to live up to its fundamental expectations. If said expectations are not met then the players view and overall understanding of the game will be questionable and somewhat anti-climatic.
Crawford gives us 6 lessons on creating  successful story telling.

Lesson 1: Stories are complex structures that must meet many hard to specify requirements.
- Many games don't pay attention to the structural requirements needed in stories. Because of this lack of attention to this detail, games concern themselves with things instead. Example of Things are thing you obtain, things you use, things you destroy etc. Stories are not stories if it is about an object, rather it should be (and always should be) about people.

Lesson 2: Stories are about the most fascinating things in the universe: people.
- Just like lesson 1 it is the people that make the story. In games, they use conflict (specifically violence) to drive the story, it is simple, direct and a much more crowd  pleaser. Other conflicts include social, race and  indirect. In CSI puzzle is the drive of the show, they use science, photographs and amazing machinery  to help solve the crime, but it is the minds of the characters that fascinate the audience.

Lesson 3: Puzzles are not a necessary component of stories. 
- Stories are made by the choices the character makes and with that single (or multiple) decision the story will build up on that. Games have taken that idea and have added spectacle to it.  Spectacle dominants the film industry and is very close to dominating gaming as well. In my personal experience, I found that i shamefully do judge games on their graphics, I'm not sure if its because of the pretty colors how amazing the designers have created the game, but i recently played final fantasy 8 (rated the worst game play graphics in the series) and realised that it i love the game, the story, the characters, and most of all their personalities.

Lesson 4: Spectacle does not make the story.
-As a game player i do enjoy a little spectacle in a story, but I do admit that the minds eye is a much more satisfying element. Visual spectacle is limited , in games you would not be able to know the characters personality by just looking them,or be able to know what they were thinking. A spectacle is somewhat important in a game, but it limits the players imagination.

Lesson 5: Visual thinking should not dominate a story.
-I'm not sure if i read this lesson wrong, but i have to totally disagree with this lesson. In Lesson 4 a spectacle does not make a story, in lesson 6 stories take places on stages not maps. so what is in between? If a player cant use their minds eye to work on the story and there are not words on the screen to tell them what has happened in a certain amount of time, then surly they game should just flick between frames.

Lesson 6: Stories take place on stages, not maps
-Crawford give the example of saying that stories skip how the character arrives at a certain place, or what they did on their journey. In my opinion, if i was to read a story i would not like to listen to every detail of what the character did on their way to a place (unless it was important to the story or comical).

Crawford explanation on storytelling was insightful (event though i disagreed with some of his lessons) but the main conclusion to this is that it is the characters that make the story.  True it wouldn't be a very good story without visuals, objects and maps, but at the very core, characters are what makes a story enjoyable.

Types of Puzzles scott kim

Its not the most obvious thing you notice in games, but it is still there. Puzzles are apart of many games, either by themselves, within a layer of a game, on the web/ phone and in education.

The main concept Kim gives us, is that  a puzzle is "fun to solve" and has a "right answer" (opposed to everyday problems)
In Kim's article he gives us a pyramid of types of puzzles
(starting from top to bottom)

Games: the most obvious multiple puzzle game is chess, which is based solely on working out how to defeat the opponent.
Toy: There is no fixed goal, player is free to explore.
Experience: Non- interactive experience
Motivation: within motivations there are 4 main reasons people play puzzles
-deeper meaning : to find order in the universe
-Charater and setting: immerse self in into the story
-Challenge: people love challenges
-Distraction: from everyday life

Kim then tells us of 5 genres that puzzles can be found in.


Action puzzles:
-combines puzzle with time and pressure.
-you can recover from your errors,  e.g. in Tetris, if you make a mistake, focus on getting rid of it by getting rid of the lines.
- easy to learn from your mistakes

Story puzzles:
-Use's puzzles to tell the story.
- Makes the player think 'why is there a puzzle in the game?' what information does the puzzle give?
examples of this is 'Proffessor Layton' where you have to sole the puzzles given to you to continue the game.

Competitive puzzle:
-Multi-player, where each player plays a separate puzzle game.
-The main attribute of competitive puzzle is the scoring.

Construction puzzle:
-Combines solving puzzles with construction. e.g.  in some dungeons on Zelda,you would sometime have to move blocks of stone around to create an opening for a new room. In Neopets, to feed for your pets you would have to take different challenges/puzzles to obtain food.
-In Tetris, it uses Modularity ( meaning different pieces can fit together).

Pure puzzle:
-Puzzle solving is the focus of the game.

Kim's 8 steps to a finished game:
1. Inspiration
- By looking at other peoples games you can get inspiration from the artwork or gameplay mechanics.
- It doesn't necessarily have to be video games, board games have different mechanics from non digital games.

2. Simplify:
-When making a game, look at the bare essentials of it, there is no need to jump straight  designing irrelevant details of the game when it has just been born.

3. Editor:
-Test the game with to find faults.
-At this stage there is no need to worry about the art, just get the basic gameplay finished.

4. Specs:
- Gather all your information together. e.g make a design document.

5. Level Design:
- The level designer has to create individual puzzles and knows how to solve them.

6. Hinting:
- Let the player get frustrated enough to care about finishing the puzzle, but not enough to make them give up. Hinting keeps the flow of frustration in check with the player.

7. Testing:
- The only way to know if the game will be successful is if you have a small section of the public test it for you.

8. Presentation:
- The final piece is to add art, sound, user interface ETC...

Is puzzle a game?

                                                Jess Schell  ‘The art of Game Design

The main Question Schell is trying to answer in his book is, ‘Are puzzles a game, or just a “fun problem”’

He starts off saying that all puzzles have a ‘dominant strategy’ meaning that a single strategy with defeat a game every time. When I used to play noughts and crosses, over the years i realised that there was a startatey that always made me win. At first I thought I was unbeatable, untouchable and more importantly, there was no other strategy that could beat mine, however when playing with other people (family) they themselves had their over strategies that countered mine. The horrible feeling you get when you thought that you were a champion at noughts and crosses, only to have It crash and burn down on.  I think noughts and crosses are a bad example to use when asking the question of whether a puzzle is a game or not, since it has so many dominant strategies.

A theory of Schell is that puzzles are dying out because popular game consoles focus mainly on the players hand- eye coordination’s.  A puzzle is anything that makes you think says Schell, so at first sight it may not be noticeable, but a lot of modern games integrate puzzles into the gameplay. Games like the final fantasy series have the player’s think of where to go next, what combinations of equipment will make them stronger, though this is not a typical puzzle; it still makes the player stop and think. In other games like Zelda, it is more noticeable. In almost all dungeons, you will have to move something or do something a certain way to complete the stage.  Schell tells us about the ‘Puzzle principle’ a 7 step of what a puzzle should have or contain

1.       Make the goal easily understood (unless part of the puzzle is to find out how to play it. Be cautious though, players will rage quit if they don’t understand).

2.    

1.        Make it easy to start off with. ( from personal experience when I first play a puzzle they make the starting stages too easy, so easy that I sometime think will the puzzle actually be good)

3.   

          Give the sense of progess. ( this goes hand in hand with 2. When you complete each easy level, it give hope to the player that they have nearly completed that puzzle)

4.    

          Give a sense of solvability. (if the player has no sense of solvability then they give up)

5.       Increase difficulty. (makes sense really)

6. 

            Hints (I thank the gaming gods for hints, when playing games like Professor Layton the hints is what get me thought the game)

7.

           Finally, give the answer.

The puzzle principle is what you can say most puzzles have, but it differs with digital games than non digital. In digital they rarely give hints that will give you major progress in the puzzle, and almost always, you can’t move forward unless you use cheats.

The question of whether puzzle is a game or not is still questionable for me, but what Schell has told us is that if you don’t consider puzzles as a game, then puzzles is almost a necessity for games to succeed.

Evaluating level designs

Stout does an analyses of the original SNES game 'Legend of Zelda and explains to the reader what a a good level design should have to be successful

-Level flow
how the level 'fits' together e.g the layout of the rooms
In Zelda the dungeons are carefully planned into a 'critical path' which means that its the original path that the designer has laid out for the player to take The player doesn't have to explore the whole dungeon to complete the stage, just room that are mandatory. The optional rooms and the shortcuts in the game makes the game feel less linear.
'...From analysesing the flow that the level design has, it strike's an excellent balance between giving the player the feeling of exploration and keeping them from getting lost'

-Intensity Ramping
Do monsters get more difficult as you move on in the game, does the player get to learn how the enemy work?
In general, no encounters should appear twice. In the dungeons each room should have a different enemy or layout form the one before, this keeps the player constantly being introduced to new things.

-Variety
Is there enough  variety in the game so the player wont get board or feel like the game is repeating on itself ?
Stout says that there might be a bit too much variety in the game with the enemies, i disagree with this completely,  yes, there is a lot of different monsters, and each of them require a certain way to kill them, as a player I think that it  makes the game less boring.

-Training
does the game 'train' the player to get better at the game?
In the SNES Legend of Zelda  they used to have a 'black room' where it was meant to give the player hints and train them. In the Japanese version it gave specific hints to the player, yet when it was translated into american the hints became pretty useless to the player, and so over time the developers got rid of the room.

Royal Game of Ur essay

­­­­In critical game studies of Computer games design we were introduced to an ancient board game called ‘The Royal Game of Ur. After playing the game and getting to know the rules of it, we were set a task to iterate the game rules.

The ‘Royal Game of Ur’ board consists of twenty squares in a rectangular shape. The right side consists of 2 x 3 squares, and the left consisting of 4 x 3 squares both sides are connected by a row of two squares. Sir Leonard Woolley excavated the Royal Game of Ur between 1926 and 1930.  According to Andrea Becker ( Becker, 1990:p11) the game is thought to be dated from 3000B.C

                                       Figure 1

Though the exact rules are still unknown, nonetheless analysis has produced these rules:

• Each player has 7 counters
• Four sided dice or a ‘stick’ numbered 1-4 where used
• Rosetta spaces have a significant meaning, which affect the player
• The aim of the game is to get all the pieces on and off the board.

R.C. Bell suggested these game rules players must first agree to the sum of the pool. (This suggests that the royal game of Ur was suitable for both adults and children). To decide who goes first, what colour will correspond to which player and which side they want to play on (Bell, 1979:p24-25). A player would throw a single die (a D4) and the other player would have to guess if the die would land on a tipped or un-tipped corner. Both teams start where it says enter (see above diagram) and the starting player would throw the dice. The next move is dependent upon these rules:

Three tipped corners up … move 5 and another throw

Three plain corners up … move 4 and another throw

Two plain corners up … move 0 and the turn finishes

One plan corner up … move 1 and another throw

Throwing a 5 is the only way to get on the board, if a player lands on a rosette space they will have to add to the pool. The feeling of competitiveness occurs when both player enter the single row. If a black counter was in the middle and the other player had thrown a number that meant it would land on top of the black, the white would be sent off and they would have to start again with a throw of 5. The players are not restricted to the number of counter on the board, but are only allowed one counter on a single space. An exact number is needed to be able to remove a piece off the board.

Bell’s rules on how to play the game it the general idea of what historians would agree on how it would have been played (Bell, 1979:p24-25). Only changing minor rules like how many die is used or what the meanings of the rosette squares represent.

Through time however, the board underwent a change in layout. Still with twenty squares, the single two squares row was replaced with long a single row of eight squares, with the rosettes still in place. This modification not only changed the aesthetics of the game but it also gave the game a more competitive nature to it, through adding a skill attribute. “…the new format would suggest a change in play, in that the pieces would remain ‘at war’ all the way to the end of the track” (Finkel 1990:p18)

                                  Figure 2

Finkel stated that this change may have occurred in the second or first millennia B.C (Finkel 1990:p18). The change in the board does not affect the way it is played, or what ‘game bits’ (Braithewate and Schriebier 2008:p14) are needed; it simply improved the dynamics of the game. The new format made the game more tense and somewhat more of a serious game; increasing the row of squares the players can battle each other to the very end (see Figure 2). Leblanc (2006) states with the change in the dynamics ‘We can only create the circumstances from which drama will emerge’ (Leblanc.2006: p440)­­

Bell (1979 p 23) also stated that the number of counters on the board at one time is unlimited. Before the change of the board, one would assume it would be safe to put at least four counters on at the same time, as the probability of having a counter sent off is low. The new format of the board requires players to think more carefully about how many counters they are willing to put on the board. Battling each other for the majority of the game creates constant tension and drama through the uncertainty of losing a counter. If a player chooses to load 4 counters on the board, the risk of getting three sent off would be higher then having two counters on the board.

For our iteration of the game, we used the second form of the board. The rules were the same as Bell’s (1979 p23), but this time, pieces can double up and move together, the rosettes mean you get another go and you cannot be knocked off.

After playing the game I discovered some problems, initially I thought that the game was too long and got quite boring. Instead of taking away the amount of counters used, I replaced one of the rosette squares and changed it to a heaven square. If you landed on a heaven square the counter that landed on it would instantly cross the board, but that would also mean that the player would miss a go. The addition of the heaven square made the game more interesting as both players wanted to land on it. Though I said that I wanted the game to speed up, I included a miss a go turn because I wanted an ‘illusion’ technique to be included in the game which Leblanc states ‘…manipulate a player’s perspective in a game’ (Leblanc. 2006:p440)

With the addition of the heaven square it meant the possibility of increasing the number of counters on the other side of the board much faster. This made players more hopeful of winning, but with the miss a go effect after it, it lessened the chances of getting another piece off or on the board.

Now that I had introduced an illusion factor, I still had the problem of how to make the game run faster. To solve this, I replaced the second furthest rosette square with a chance square. With this iteration, if you land on it, the players would have to play rock, paper, scissors, if the player who landed on the chance square won and they had a counter anywhere behind them, that counter could double up with the one on the chance square, as well as that, that player would get 3 extra goes.  However if that player loses the rock, paper, scissors round, the only benefit is that, if they had a counter behind them, they could double up. This iteration defiantly made the game run faster. Adding the rock, paper, scissors to the iteration still made the square have an uncertainty element. The appeal of doubling up as well as getting three extra goes makes the player more interested in the game as they would feel like they have gained the most out of landing on that square. Consequently if they lose the rock, paper, scissors the feeling of not being able to obtain the maximum usage of the square would affect them, thus making the player have emotion in the game.

My final interaction had nothing to do with changing anything on the board, since I thought that the amount of squares was just right, and changing anymore squares would make the board look too crowded. I introduced a ‘Fog of War’ tactic; I made it essential that the players need to hide how many counters have been though the board and have yet to go on. Unless each player keeps count on the other player, the uncertainty of how far along each player is in the game keeps the tension up throughout the game.

Playing with all three of my iterations The Royal Game of Ur became much more interesting, before it was long winded, and I felt that the rosette squares had of nothing of importance. With the changes made, I have achieved player game interaction, though not a major interaction, but enough to get the players to have emotions towards the game. The chance square made the most difference, as it removed my initial problem of the game being too long winded. Before I iterated the game I thought that the game was too straight forward, with no element of surprise. The majority of my iteration ideas came from Marc Leblanc’s (2006) article on how to create dramatic tension, because of his ideas, my iterated version of Ur now has extra features which draws the player’s attention to the game for longer and in my opinion has made the game more entertaining.

Before I played the game I thought that The Royal game of Ur in its original board form had its problems, where the competiveness was almost non-existent and it didn’t have any elements of modern fun. ‘The royal game of Ur served as the play station of its day’ ( Green/ London 2008) When reading from the summer journey (2008), Finkel’s quote about the game of Ur being the Playstation of its day changed my view on the game. I believe that the modern games have made us lazy in the way that we do not appreciate the minor details anymore. I noticed that every Ur board game excavated had different designs and detail on the, as we’ll as different counters. In conclusions I believe that the Royal Game of Ur would have been a fantastic game to play in the millennia B.C, as the aesthetics of the boards and the rules were simple and fun enough for all to play, but compared to modern board games, iterations to the game is greatly needed to match the attributes of a ‘fun’ modern board game.

Bibliography:

Beaker A. (1990) Ancient board games in perspective in Finkel, ed.1990

www.britishmuseum.org

Bell, R. C. Board and Table Games from Many Civilizations. Revised edition. (1979) 

Challenges for games designers, Braitewaite and Schriber, Charles River Media 2008

Finkel I, Ancient Board Games in Perspective in Finkel (1990)

Green, W. "Big Game Hunter". Time Magazine. (2008)

Leblanc M.The game Designer Reader, in Zimmerman and Salan MIT Press 2006

Building a simple Level

When building a level design in a game you have to have the Basic Elements which are
-Concept (consistency)
-Environment
-Beginng
-Ending
-Goal (the goal is always constant)
-Challenge to overcome (Between the player and the goal, immediately recognizable)
-Reward (progression is a reward in itself)
-Way of handling failure

if any of these elements are missing from a game than the level is incomplete. Games like tetris use all elements and also the Mario series.
At first, when reading, i thought story would be one of the basic elements, but in this Brynes article he says that story can enhance and give players information on what is expected to come in the game, but games like chess and sims don't have a story element to them.

Using Super Mario as an example, the concept is about 2 plumbers who travel across the world to save Princess Peach, with constant enemies.  The environment depends on the enemy and stage. In the Gameboy version of Super Mario, you had different stages ranging from under the sea,  inside a pyramid or floating just above sea.   I am ashamed to admit that was never able to get past the fifth stage on the gameboy, but i can get a rough idea of what happens, and the same with the beginnings. In all Mario series the Begining will always have the same connection as the others. The challenge is overcoming the enemies that the game throws at you,  whether by jumping on the grass hopper looking thing, jumping on turtles or  walking pixelated mushrooms. I think in the game it has many mini rewards, collecting the coins to gain an extra life, finding secret tunnels, and at the end of each stage, the player has the option to try to get to the higher exit to have the chance of gaining something extra. Finally the way to deal with failure, with Mario once you have lost all your lives, you cannot start from the last stage you died at. To compensate for that, when you  gain a special mushroom that lets you grow into a bigger Mario, when you get hit by an enemy, instead of dying, you just lose that certain ability.

Bryne says that the best type of gameplay mechanic is where no explanation is needed (in mario it is pretty obvious that collecting the star makes you invincible) with no explanation needed, it makes the player feel cleaver.

With these basic elements in your game, you have a perfectly working game, you can add other elements to it, like a story, or an uncertainty element to it, but as long as it has the foundations of the basic elements, the game will be a success.

Why rules are an important factor to a board game

à How to write rules without confusing people 

-If rules are not understood in a board game the game is ultimately unplayable.
-Rules have to be clear and understandable, but brief as well
-When reading rule books for board games they usually follow the same setting
                -Listing the materials in the box
                -show how to set up the board (normally illustrations are used to not make the rule seem like an essay for the players)
                -when you read the rules on how to play the game it starts off on how you win the game, so logically the next rules coming up will serve as a winning condition.
                -Going from general examples and explanations to more specific rules
                -And finally in the rules, what the player can do before telling them what they can’t do.

The next passage we had to read is by Jacob Davenport. His way of writing rules is pretty much like Seigal but he adds explanations. With electronic games you can easily play the game without reading the rules, but with board games, no matter how great the game, poorly written rules makes the game useless and confusing. Like  Seigal  you have to be clear and brief. Davenport recommends NOT to mix humour, history of the game and extra information.
When we play board games we designate one player to read the rules to us, but (obviously) if they read a section and have to pause to further give explanation to help them understand. Then you have failed to write a good set of rules.
finally and most importantly, you have to get a public opinion of your rules,  because you have created the game, you feel that it is perfect, but unless you have the opinion of others you don’t know then your game is nowhere near complete