Braid to me felt like any other puzzle game. the mechanics were something new and challenging and the art of the game was beautiful, but as far as the story goes I couldn’t be bothered with it. The puzzles in the first half of the worlds were pretty easy, but once the game became too difficult, I didn’t want to spend time playing it anymore. It felt fairly bland as far as game-play, with no special mechanics to explore and use as I felt because the puzzles were so rigidly constructed. 2D games usually feel much more boring to me than 3D.
I liked Corvus Elrod’s interpretation because it seems he feels similarly about the game as I do. It’s a one-way puzzle game, and a little bit of story in the fashion of text before the levels just wasn’t engaging enough.
Honestly, David Hellman’s artwork exercises for the game hold more interest to me than the entire finished product. I play games because it is a way to escape the world around me. I tend to not focus on the artwork within the game while I am playing it because I am to busy thinking about all the motion and controlling occurring. I don’t generally see games as art as much as I see them as entertainment, which might be why Braid doesn’t seem all that great to me. If I read an interesting book or see an eye-catching painting I can consider more the “art” side of it, but when gaming that part of it doesn’t really matter, it’s more of an immersion factor into the controls and action taking place on screen. Give me the most artistic and beautiful game ever created and if the controls are bad, and the game-play mechanics are weak, I want no part of it. It goes back into what Michael Clarkson was saying about the game, with the scientific and artistic split in the game. When I play games I see them more on a scientific and functioning level, and when I read a book or look at paints or photos, I see them in an artistic fashion.
Story of the game: Alpha (the main character) and his friend Crammus are on their pilgrimage to attain THE ALMIGHTY SUPER-POWERFUL ULTRA MEGA RARE INCREDIBLE THING. At this point, we don’t know what it really is, it’s that awesome.
What player is doing: The player is exploring the environment by controlling Alpha and Crammus. They can choose how to play the levels, because they can use the underground, or they can fly with Crammus.
Point of game: To explore the possibilities of gaming with the limitation of 1 button input.
Implementation: 1 button game utilizing the space-bar. Within the levels are 2 sections, the aerial and underground. In the air, Alpha rides Crammus. In the underground, Alpha walks until he can fly again. In the air, holding the space-bar generates rapid upward movement, but uses much more cram (fuel for Crammus).
The player experiences the created IF game world by interacting with it. By inputting commands commonly used throughout most IFs, players have a base understanding of what does and does not work in your game. Sometimes IFs involve more complex actions specific to it in which the player must be exposed to. The player might be going through a constant loop of learning and implementing; experiencing and growing along with the game itself.
After thinking about it for a while, 2 words pop into my head to explain the relationship between the game representation and the real world. Language and Action. Just as you use language to communicate with other people in the real world, as well as to think to yourself, in the game you are using inputs you have learned from other IFs and gaming experiences in the form of language to solve problems, and review what you already know. Similarly, just as we “do things” in the real world (take action), in the game world we are taking action to solve problems and puzzles, as well as interact with NPCs and to generally “beat the game”.
On the World Model…
My world model is built around the idea that important things need to be important while unimportant things are unimportant. Redundancy aside, it does explain what I mean. If a player needs a key to get through X door, the key had better be easy to identify, find, use, and examine as well as have a complete description about itself. If there is an arm-chair in a room that does absolutely nothing to change the story or affect the player in a meaningful way, then it is just an armchair and using actions on it should give vague, dull, unhelpful responses, begging that the player look elsewhere for interactions.
On the Parser…
The player needs to be aware of what re-occuring actions they can take are, the output needs to be specific and helpful rather than vague and confusing, input needs to be easily understood and kept simplified unless a certain case arises where a complex input completes or helps a puzzle.
On the Output…
Output needs to be interesting, engaging, and helpful at all times. There is no point in making a game with completely dull output as the player will soon become bored and disinterested in the game. Players should always have access to vital information such as an item list, clothing list, accurate item descriptions, locations, and options.
Well it may be a few weeks behind schedule, but I am getting caught up on my IF. So far I have 2 rooms almost completely done, and several working wearable and useable objects. I’ve included some stranger actions such as “smell”, and “taste”. I have designed 2 different menu-based conversations with NPCs, and part of one of the dialogues actually gets you teleported to the next room which I think is pretty neat.
There is still a lot to come as I need to figure out some issues I am having with object interactions in the 2nd room, as well as building the 3rd and final area, figuring out how to change carried and worn objects from one thing to another, and do a final and much more complicated menu-based interaction that might end in death. Maybe death.
This project has caused me a lot of anxiety, maybe for silly reasons that are my own, but still, I really think it’s going to turn out to be a great first-timer IF game.
It makes me laugh when I think that I enjoy coding IFs more than playing them, haha.
- You enter a room with a desk and some chairs. Upon the desk you notice a piece of paper.
** Examine piece of paper.
- You look closely at the piece of paper and make note of a large A+ written in sharp, red ink.
** Take paper
- You receive an A+ grade.
I READ THROUGH PAGE 22! SUCCESS!
Post Mortem of Antique Race
By: Chris Bennett
The game originally was to be a simple board-game. It was to be a 4-player game in which trophies were collected to win. A big part of the original idea was the “dueling” concept. We also at first had movement decided by dice-rolls. The audience for the game was specifically the other members of the Interactive Authoring I class. The team worked very well together at in-class meetings. We had a pretty solid game from the beginning and never had to completely move in a different direction.
As it is a board game, Antique Race is essentially analogue. We did however design most of the pieces in either Photoshop, or Illustrator.
What went right…
1.) The team worked together really well and we had no trouble deciding on what ideas to use and how to implement them.
2.) The original idea we started off with was really sound. It is much easier to start with an idea that is solid and that everyone likes than to start off on a bad foot and have to make a lot of changes.
3.) The card system we came up with ended up being a much better idea that dice-rolls.
4.) The theme fits in very well with what is going on during play.
5.) The changes we made along the way only ever made the game better. It felt really good to not take too many steps backward from new ideas.
What went wrong…
1.) The first thing that stands out is that I missed our only “outside of class” meeting because I put too much trust in google-maps. It’s never good when a team-member misses out on an important meeting.
2.) The money system we tried to implement into the game ended up failing horribly. It made everything much to complex and we ended up scrapping the idea fairly quickly.
3.) The teams system we were using for the game never lived up to the level of fun when it is a 2-4 player free for all, so we ended up not going along with that idea.
4.) With only one week to hash out the final prototype game it too a lot of effort to finish on time. Everyone pulled through though and we had a playable, and nice-looking prototype.
5.) Some the pieces we originally started with were hard to implement into our design. After thinking about it some more and eliminating the parts that didn’t work, we had a solid base to start our prototype on.
INFO
3 developers
No real budget
11 weeks development time
release date 2-24-10
Analogue game
Software used: Photoshop, Illustrator
The game I chose for this blog was Mass Effect 2.
To be honest I was a bit confused about what I really needed to be doing in this blog. I kept trying to change it into a description of the game instead of answering and discussing the specific ideas. This for now will be short but sweet, and I can add more later if I’m told to.
As far as embedded narrative, this game is a sequel, and it doesn’t try to hide that fact. It is interesting how the beginning story can actually be modified based on the data from your saved game from the first Mass Effect, which changes the story a little.
This game has a LOT of emergent narrative. You have the main quest-line which is mostly the same throughout multiple characters. The rest of the game is almost entirely up to you. Side-quests, dialogue wheels and good/evil choices all change the experience in the game.
Obviously, the title of the game simply explains the game is the 2nd in the trilogy of Mass Effect games. The variation of settings in this game is amazing. You can literally explore entire solar-systems, adding in a lot of emergent narrative. Even as you play the game the choices (good/evil system) you make effect the way your character’s facial scarring looks, and the the way they talk to other characters.
With so much extra dialogue, narrative and exploring to be done in this game, it is very much emergent. The developers give you the entire galaxy to roam and conquer, and they give you just as much choice and variance as you could ask for.
1.) I like the direction that “Today I Die” takes. It is based on exploration and experimentation. A lot of video games today are flashy and showy and complex. They may look beautiful, but there is a certain essence of a well-made simple game that I feel trumps the “looks” of modern day graphics. It is definitely unique because of the strong emphasis on the changing poem throughout the exploration. The fact that you can’t ever really die or lose at the game adds so much to it. A game that allows access to multiple ways of passing a level or sequence is better than a game where there is one specific way to do it. Replay value is higher, the game is more challenging, there is a deeper connection with the game environment and when you finally figure it out, more rewarding. I feel that games like this are much more fun than games based on points or kills or repeated actions. Simple exploration, play, and fun make this such a unique and great game.
2.) Daniel’s approach with text is very different from a text-based game. The first difference is that Daniel’s form of writing is poetry, where as most other text games are simple prose. Because poetry captures emotions in a different way than in prose, the connection the player feels towards the game is more organic, more emotional. Another difference is that in Daniel’s game, the words are already defined and are actual props in the game. In scribblenauts, words are defined by the player and the play style is much more open.
3.) Corvus thinks that some game designers have it wrong to think that games need some sort of fail-state or death. I think Corvus is right. “Today I Die” is a great game because of the fact it has no fail-state, no “death”. The solution to this perceptual problem that Corvus suggests is to read games “like a poem”. It is a solution to the problem because most games are set up with very specific ways of completing objectives. Usually when you play the game the wrong way, you will hit the fail-state or simply lose and have to try again. The game is essentially teaching you the one way to play and beat it. If you take Corvus’ advice and build a game that plays like a poem reads, you create a much more deep and meaningful experience. In this situation, the player can take as much or as little as they want from the game without having to be taught or programed boringly to understand and complete the game.
Having a game play like a poem doesn’t change it’s status as a game. In my opinion it will make a better game every time. You still accept the rules of the world the game takes place in, there is a goal (to understand the game to the point you are satisfied), and it is a fun and engaging activity.
Corvus considers “Today I Die” to be both a poem and a game. I fully agree with that idea. It is a poem due to the strong textual element that has you exploring the possibilities of the original poem when the game starts. It is also a game because you still accept the rules of the world the game takes place in, there is a goal (to understand the game to the point you are satisfied), and it is a fun and engaging activity.
I think in order to have a fully-fledged video game that plays like you read a poem there must be options, areas, and ideas for the player to be exploring at all times. One of the big problems I could see arising from attempting to design a game in this style would be explaining the rules. If you simply explained what the player can and cannot do, there would be no exploration element. Subtly showing game elements and rules in a visual and progressive style would most likely prove difficult.
