Designing my own board game

These days, I’ve been thinking about ideas for designing my own board game which I will put towards my games design portfolio. I have admit it’s been quite a challenge for me as it requires different way of thinking/approach from what I’m used to with writing up design documents, figuring out core mechanics and how these mechanics will fill into theme of the game, game’s controls, art style, interface and hud design, etc. I’ve wrote many design documents and enjoy the whole process of it thinking about every piece of the puzzle in detail putting the jigsaw puzzle together to create a description of your game product.

You are probably thinking “If you can write up/design games via game documents surely you have no problem to come up with simple linear board game design?” I can think of many ideas for board games but are any of them “fun” or “compelling”? Sadly not, well a one or two could be “fun” out of the dozen. I believe the problem is the way I come up with ideals/designs for games as I’m creative person who naturally just comes up with ideas out of nowhere from things that I’ve experienced personally thinking of themes, mood, scenarios, etc for a game then develop the gameplay mechanics around that theme/ideal (artistic organic process). Whereas with a board game, you have placed down the rules before you think beyond with themes and moods, etc. the thinking process required has to be clean and exact whereas my usual thinking is free reign creating elements around the core of that creative theme. Doing this exercise has expanded my thinking and the way I personally think/develop my games ideas.

To be honest I wouldn’t even consider this exercise without reading an article by “Brenda Brathwaite” who is game designer who has worked in the industry since 1981 and has shipped 22 commercial titles (certainly makes my track record within the industry seem lame). This article is about game design portfolios and what they should contain which I find really useful and interesting as it’s something that is rarely revealed or spoke about. She made a point that games are games despite their source/background and a portfolio should demonstrate your passion and understanding of gameplay creating “fun” and doing this exercise I can see what she is getting at. You should read, it is very inspirational:

http://bbrathwaite.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/hello-world/

The lesson I learnt from this exercise is a designer requires an understanding for what elements of the game is fun or engages the player? An example, with “Halo” and “Gears of war” the fun obviously lies with killing someone but what really engages the player (keeps them playing and learning) is the constant need to outsmart your enemy for survival due to tough difficult conditions to kill the enemy. That is another factor which makes it fun that requires a lot of skill to be able outsmart player (especially really good one) who expects the typical tactic of sneaking behind with a shotgun. To me, (I know this may sound like far-fetched comment for some) “Gears of war” and “Halo” are like shooter interpretations of “Chess” as the “fun” is created from the same bases of outsmarting their opponent via using heavy use of tactics although you could debate that your ability of aiming/shooting outweighs the use of tactics but that’s another matter.

That’s the job as a games designer, basically understanding where the “fun” lays and how to keep it remaining so. This is where designing a board game can help develop an understanding of this element which is so simple but yet so important to core of any game. As a board game has fewer elements to think about and consider, you can purely focus developing the skill of creating “Fun”. For any wannabe game designer (like myself) who are reading this, I truly recommend designing a board game, its great exercise to do as I’ve certainly learned a lot of it and after many long brainstorming sessions, I’ve finally come up with something pretty cool and hopefully be able to show you something really soon.

Thanks for reading!

Jonesy

My thoughts on Tetsuya Mizuguchi

I read this interview recently from “Tetsuya Mizuguchi” on eurogamer site and I find really interesting and inspiring as he has an out of the box view on video games. Give it a read: http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=149982
If you haven’t heard of him, he’s guy that had made titles like “Rez” “Lummies” “Space channel 5” and owns “Q entertainment”. He is a real innovator when it comes to music themed games or as he calls them “"music interactives" giving himself such an unique identify within the games industry. Here I’ve taken a quote from my favorite part of this interview:

“Eurogamer: So you feel like technology is keeping pace with what people actually want from media? Some people certainly seem to feel like technology is ahead of our desires.

Tetsuya Mizuguchi: I'd like to think that human desire is always walking ahead of technology. I hope so, anyway. I think that every product - including games, entertainment, every piece of content or media - is always designed by human desire. Whether it's invisible or visible, with shape or with no shape... Artificial products, created by human beings, are always designed by our desire and our basic instincts. If we don't feel like, "I want to do this" or "I need this" - if there's no trigger like that, then people won't bother. They'll pass it by and say, I don't care about that - this isn't what I'm interested in. It's a really simple point, but all things, all products, are like that.”

He has a really interesting perspective on gaming with how technology and interactivity through technology is developed and created via our own human desire which is something I’ve never thought of this in this way before. I’ve always thought that the latest current technology inspires new ideals for gaming like “Half life 2” for an example using Havoc physics or “Quake” using internet making it one of the first FPS online multiplayer experiences. Modern technology reflects what can be created within computer games medium, but it is of course its human desire/determination for discovery that creates technology and uses this technology in different ways catering for different needs.

My previous mentality regarding games technology was brought across from game developer’s attitudes to their game development process and the type of games they produce, for example say “Epic games” are known for their hard focus towards producing advanced technology/engines such as “Unreal 3 engine” for their games whereas if you look at company like “Square Enix” they focused towards making more artistically creativity titles with the art and story being their main focus. Both of these companies produce high level of visual quality to their games via though different approaches; they are two opposite ends of the same Spectrum, art on one end and tech on the other end. I always used to dislike PC gaming for their heavy use of technology and lacking methods of creativity like Japanese console developers who seem more advanced in their art skills
(Now I think I was quite naïve to think that).

This has got me thinking about how it's all just a balancing act between the art and technology for the creation of a game but what really makes a game beautiful is fulfillment of your desire as gamer, remember the first time you got the sword in “Zelda: Ocarina of Time” or your first online deathmatch on “Quake 3” or when you figured out how to kill Psycho Mantis in Metal Gear Solid, these are moments of fulfillment, joy and pure escapism that I will treasure in my heart. This is what I call good game designer thinking of the next thing we desire as gamers and people as it doesn’t matter what approach is used for creation of the game but belong the designer allows his/her creative ideals push through into the product fulfilling people’s desires. Like he says “It's a really simple point, but all things, all products, are like that”.

The key to design is thinking out of the box, out of your field of expertise I believe and seems like he knows what he’s talking about. Thinking about this topic has changed my thinking process towards games design as you have to think what people want next through the evolution of technology and surrounding pop culture but also have an understanding why they desire that, then you can truly capture people’s hearts.

Written by: Jonesy

My analyse/review on "Everyday Shooter"

I just got PS3 recently (well, a few months ago). I’m not going to lie I’m mainly bought my PS3 for Metal Gear Solid 4 as I’m a big MGS fan. As the PS3 is still new to me, I’ve just been checking out a PSN game called “Everyday Shooter” (its been out for a while now) and I would recommend you to check it out as it is such an interesting unique well executed title both in gameplay and visuals (art style which is similar to Rez) departments which is very rare these days. For those who haven’t played it yet (which I would say to stop reading this and start playing it and read this later!) the closest I would describe this game is blend of “Rez” meets “Geometry Wars” although this isn’t fair description as it’s pretty unique but the closest one I could up with. This game is made by one man crew by the name of Jonathan Mak, I truly respect this dude as he hasn’t just made a game with good programming and art but also with good game design understanding what makes shoot em’up fun following the foundation rule sets. Here are I shall go through these rules:

1.) Simple mechanics - Pick up and play mechanics with hard to master learning curve, players need to be able to continuously learn and develop their own play style through progressive playing. Games like “Tony Hawk” series are good with this method allowing diverse playing styles adding depth to otherwise simple core game.

2.) Score system - the sense of challenge and achievement via the element of risk and reward, more daring you play the better the score.

3.) Kill reaction/ feedback – Player needs to receive a good feeling when he/she kills an enemy via cool sound effect or big over the top explosions, etc give the player a feeling that everything in the game has a impact and consequence on the game logic (of the game’s world) as well as gameplay.

4.) Enemies and their bullet patterns - the challenge of surviving danger/ outwitting enemies, learning the lesson of always keeping your eye on your ship. This is also referred as “meta-game” which are elements of complex pattern memorization and the use of power-ups and other benefits provided by the developer to survive the game. This term is normally referred more within manic Japanese shmups like 1942.

5.) Game balance/logic of the game world – Players need to be able to trust/understand the game system/world that game is presenting to the player without player feeling mistreated or cheated by the game’s logic. For an example, Geometry Wars is set within retro techno neon style box where enemies shaped as basic shapes such as squares, circles, triangles, etc who spawn in huge numbers anywhere within the perimeter of the square sized level. The player never questions this logic of why the enemies can spawn anywhere and accepts it apart of the game’s universe/mechanics due to creativity of the art style and also the fact the player can easily and quickly understand the principles of this game world in terms of gameplay and visuals. This also includes minor game mechanics (which are pretty important peas and carrots elements of a shoot’em up to create the feel and mood of the player’s experience) such as spawn positions, spawn time and rate, enemy’s movement speed, enemy’s function/purpose etc. Most people would argue that this is the same thing as game mechanics but I believe this element is a combination and understanding of both game mechanics/design and creativity/art. This is the hardest element to achieve within a game well, and only small percentage of games actually achieve this especially within shoot’em up genre.

What I think is so interesting with Jonathan Mak’s approach to this game isn’t the fact that he follows these foundation rules for a shoot’em up creation but the fact, he plays around with these rules. For an example, the player doesn’t receive points for killing enemies but only for collecting dots from the deaths of these enemies (sounds like platform game doesn’t it?) which only appear if killed by combo explosion/radius from other certain enemies which blow up. Jonathan Mak has full strong understanding of what works for shoot’em up for these unusual ideas to work like they say “You need to understand rules, before you can break them”.

What I personally also treasure about this game isn’t just playability (mechanics) but the game’s feel and logic. He has really thought about what “feel” and “Mood” he was trying to achieve throughout the game. For an example, enemies are never menacing or daring like “Geometry Wars” but feel enchanting and spiritual but always remains to be challenging like most shoot’em ups especially old skool Japanese shmups like “1942”. Although you could argue that “Geometry Wars” and “Everyday Shooter” have similar design ideals via their enemies that share same geometry of basic shapes but they express different moods giving the player completely different experience. Although the Mood is hugely created by the music and music/sound effects created via killing enemies and also of course unique visual style fitting within the game’s universe/logic. As a player you can tell that “Rez” was a big inspiration towards the game/art style but the game remains unique through own identity of its own ideals.

One of these ideals would be the level structure of this game (which I was going include within the list of rules but I don’t think it is required to be all good shoot’em ups) where each level is length of the song which is stated via the song length bar at the bottom of the screen (like media player software) which adds to the concept of blending music with game interactivity similar to “Rez”.

Jonathan Mak also has a good understanding of the shoot’em up genre’s typical weaknesses or areas which are lacking compared to other genres. For example, he has included lots of unlockables where you use the points you gain from gameplay giving extra incentive for high score for otherwise typical extra life bonuses adding extra lifespan and sense of achievement where typically shoot’em ups lack.

To conclude my analyse/review I would say that this game is an amazing achievement giving some well deserved fresh air towards an old tired genre lacking modernization of today’s gaming ideals and new ideas boost this game with it’s own identity/take on shoot’em up genre. With this game it shows that “Art conquers all” how a simple idea can so beautiful.

http://www.queasygames.com/

(P.S this is his website, where you play the PC version for free and all his other games check it out now!)

Written by: Jonesy

Have video games become too temporary to be valued by consumers and to be apart of western pop culture?

2007 was amazing year for game titles with an extremely competitive games market with huge array of choice for consumers. Halo 3, Bioshock, Mario Galaxy, Methoid Prime, Uncharted, Lair, Assassin’s Creed, Orange Box (Portal, Half life 2, Team Fortress 2), Call of Duty 4, Stranglehold, etc the list goes on. All these big blockbuster titles with huge budgets promising next generation graphics and gameplay, but honestly how many of these titles are still being played by players/consumers now through to 2008? This is a sign of the computer games medium entering pop culture becoming mainstream?

I’m going to discuss three main aspects related to my questions and this topic: The game design approach/ how the games are being made (“The Good”), The Business side of games/publishers (“The Bad”), and the players/target audience (“The Ugly” sorry I’m sure you’re beautiful really). Here I explain in more detail regarding these topics:

The Good (Game design approaches)

Looking at games these days, very few titles are future proof. The definition of “future proof” is a title/engine that is valued for years to come through via open game design, allowances for creativity, diversity of gameplay styles, etc. Halo 3 and Orange box (Half Life 2/Source engine with “Team fortress 2” and “portal” side projects) are good examples of “Future proof” titles but you look at titles in the same genre like “Call of duty 4” or “Stranglehold” which are fun but very current affairs which could be easily expanded or improved with a sequel but surely these titles would want to compete with the two Big H (Halo and Half-life) Brothers? Game designer wannabes (myself included) always debate whatever games outdate due to the continuous constant evolution of technology or the evolution of gameplay mechanics/ideals as we as games players demand?

I believe it is both, the evolution of gaming is pushed by these two factors which is why we are seeing a very transparent divide towards the approach of game design from game developers for what they're trying to achieve with their games. For an example, a good companion (which may not be fair to compare as they are very different in nature) would be Halo 3 and Call of duty 4, Halo 3 expands functionality and interactivity with it’s community based modes such as “forge” (level editor) and “theatre” (make your own video/you tube) modes appealing mostly to the dedicated gamer (hardcore) using advanced technology techniques in creative ways to bring new ideas (future proof design) to the table. Halo 3’s innovation design ideas don’t directly change the traditional gameplay/mechanics for shooters (or halo in fact) but certainly changes the player’s experience overall for a shooter and how the player interacts with/ approaches a shooter which encourages community creativity within seamless accessible environment.

Call of duty 4 has the overall approach of if it ain’t broke, why fix it (Although the game has introduced the XP system which is fresh clever addition for shooters but the game’s overall mechanics/ideals/gameplay are inspired by it’s peers such as Ghost recon and other games in the same sub-genre) appealing mostly to casual gamers being their first competitive online gaming experience/ army shooter using solid but old school FPS mechanics (current/yesterday game design). Due to the nature of Call of duty it makes the game instantly playable with the principles of easy to pick up and difficult to master making far more accessible in regards of gameplay over Halo (especially if you aren’t familiar with shooters in the first place) with it’s slower pace and in-depth weapon mechanics . The developers have very different intentions from a gameplay/ game design viewpoint. Like I previously stated before shouldn’t both of these titles be disposed of by now as there’s so many titles out there worth playing?

The Bad (The business)

These days, the whole industry seems to be cut into three parts aiming for three different audiences: Hardcore gamers, Casual gamers or non-gamers. Publishers are vey focused towards investing money for games that cater for these demographics due to this; the games market is very competitive and compressed with many games in same genres fighting for the same customer’s attention.

The usual story from the industry is a indie developer comes along creates a unique well crafted game (highly received by the games media) which usually gets lack of financial support leading to a loss and ends up being in debt to the publisher who expects the developer to whip two to four games per year hoping one of these titles will be successful gaining the money lose as well as a big profit margin. Obviously the titles created end up rushed and non-polished leading to a huge number of disposable titles on game store shelves but does this do the industry any harm in the long term?

This is worrying trend within the industry have to say but I believe its necessary evil for a creativity industry; this does happen often within the film industry where the studio forces a director to make certain films cause of their previously films have tanked. You know that “Micheal Bay” didn’t want to make “Transformers” but was forced to as his last film “The Island” tanked (which I quite enjoyed for a sci-fi action flick) and the film industry isn’t suffering from this, its still very financial stable industry (sources say that film industry is losing money but it still overall very profitable and successful, look at Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy sales for an example). You could say the film industry is old and big enough to have such notion going on within its business as it’s so broad with diversity appearing to many different types of audiences that this method of business works but with computer games being a young industry (10 years mainstream with Playstation I say) compared to other entertainment mediums, does this give people the wrong message/mentality towards games as a entertainment medium?

Currently the games industry is going through a transition “boom” period where non-gamer market has taken off big time within last few years with the “Wii” and “DS” and a lot of developers/publishers are trying to cash in on this “market revolution”. I haven’t seen such turn of events in the market since Playstation 1 which was the first console marketed towards adults making gaming cool. There are many casual games like “Ponies”, “My Word coach” “Imagine: Babies”, etc where you do feel that (being a gamer) they are taking advantage of the situation with people don’t know much about games. Don’t get me wrong I think “Wii” and “DS” are both great for gaming, its breath of fresh air this revolution but the lack of creativity on these titles worries me which may make this trend like a gimmick not something that people should take seriously. . At end of the day, it is business and industry like any other which is out to make money to put food on the table like Music and Film industry there is lot of disposable trash but do get your gems too, that’s how the entertainment business works.

The Ugly (The people who buy games and the social acceptance to games)

Though what worries me more is the actual design mentality behind by these casual games, I believe these games are being made too functional; by functional I’m referring (not to the mechanics of the games) to the nature of why people are playing/buying these games to get something directional from the game.
Like for an example “Guitar Hero” to learn/play a guitar or “Brain age” to gain intelligence (that’s what I like to think when I’m playing it) but isn’t that like trying to win over or persuade people that it’s ok to play games as you getting something in return? As a gamer I don’t want games be functional like food, like an Italian chef would say “We live to eat” not “we eat to live” I want them to have feeling/expressing something, may sound pretentious but be an art form. Any entertainment medium considered an art form; people enjoy and learn from in sub-conscious form and people don’t go in expecting to gain something directional from it. For an example, “Lord of the rings” (books or films) is set within fantasy theme/setting where viewers may gain knowledge about the themes explored such as politics, honour, love, etc making it both complex and fulfilling with depth and emotion.

Looking at this topic through a viewing glass not from my perspective as a gamer, I think it’s very positive in the long term of things these type of games are being made. These titles may not be “art” and be considered by myself as temporary, but isn’t that what consumer wants from titles anyhow?

Some escapism for a short period chill out from a hard day’s work, ok its not hardcore deep escapism like “Lord of the rings” filled with deep meaning but who’s to say that its any less form of entertainment or in this case escapism? This approach of design is bringing new people to play games that wouldn’t touch a game in the first place without these casual games. This is a good start to expanding the games market to other audiences and I can see these design ideals/approaches behind these games evolving to other exciting things appearing other groups of people. Though I believe its good start in expanding the market though I remain to believe that these games need to have more substance with broader themes where people can relate to which is why the games haven’t become accepted as art form/ apart of western pop culture yet. A lot of people can not understand or relate to themes/contexts explored that are typically in games as games don’t normally explore current affairs and worries/fears of society like film and music do. These casual titles are very non-offensive and family focused which everyone can play, but they aren’t expressing anything to the audience which is where the issue lack of mainstream acceptance of video games truly lies.

Good example of pop culture which uses society’s current affairs and fears is torture horror films such as “Saw” “Hostel” “The Hill have eyes 2”, etc that taps into people current fears of being kidnapped and well possibly …. well you know. This may be an extreme example as I don’t certainly think that I’m going to get kidnapped (I’m not that rich nor that good looking, honest) but a lot of people can relate to this and that’s why these films have proved so popular and profitable. Here is a link of an article about these films and how they become cultural/societal accepted, you should read it: http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/804/804194p1.html
It’s interesting but its ok if don’t want to but anyhow I’ve taken a quote from it.
Quote from: “Jennifer Ashlock”, a professor of sociology at the College of Notre Dame

"You have a potential to make more money with torture (horror films) now because that's what actually scares a mainstream audience today," she says. "I don't think that they were very popular before because it just seemed so far off base. Like, 'That could never happen,' and it seemed very fringe back in the '70s and '80s. Not that you didn't have gore back then, but now that is something that we know is going on in the world. We know about certain atrocities in Guantanamo, for example. Even in Iraq, under Saddam Hussein supposedly, and even in our own American prison system, we know that torture goes on. Because of the Internet and the global media, we know that torture is a way of life really. That information is just more accessible to us. I also think it's more fundamentally frightening to us, because it's sort of a given now that torture is happening around the world."

This is why film/music industry has been (or probably will always be) successful art forms/apart of pop culture for years as they making changing the themes of their products to fill the new trends/current affairs. Is this type of horror films temporary trend? Yeah sure and so they are these casual games which is where I would say this is the beginning of games entering the pop culture to due it’s nature of filling a current trend. With time, these types of games will evolve into something else that will fill the latest trend of current affairs like these horror films. Until games do this more often, the medium won’t never be accepted as an art form and games will need to able fit into people’s psyche/mindset for all types of audiences/tastes for commercial acceptance. All this takes time as people need to be willing to allow games to enter pop culture and along with their mindsets but at the same time, games need the themes and subject matters to get their juices going to accept it in the first place, as you can’t expect everyone to love Halo and Call of Duty with it’s confident balls in mouth attitude of “Let’s kick some ass”.

Conclusion (The Beautiful)

For the industry to achieve such a thing, games need to evolve their game design approaches to the subject matter of the game and understanding what their target audience is, customizing the style and content to their tastes. I believe the industry as a whole has problems achieving such a goal due to the lack of risk and the understanding how to go about breaking into pop culture. I believe games also lack the confident behind their ideals and creativity embrace their concepts through unique visual design and clever research and development approaches from both developers and publishers giving the devs the funding they need to fully realise such games. My best example is “Grand Theft Auto 4” which is one of the very few games that is breaking this boundary of pop culture. “Rockstar” are known for taking risks and having confident in their ideals and one of the few companies that has good understanding of the surrounding current pop culture using it as it’s inspiration as well as it’s identity. This is one of the reasons for its success using current pop culture so people can relate to and understand it and making easily marketable for a target audience.

The games industry currently reminds me of 50’s rock and roll where it is the beginning of rock music being limited but cheered on by Elvis with lots of wannabe bands just like competing with the current trend, it wasn’t till the 60’s and 70’s where rock music really become diverse and defined with different styles and genres which was fully accepted by all types of people where the freedom of creativity came in with bands like “Led Zeppelin” and “Pink Floyd”. Experimenting became the natural progress of making organic artistic music. I look forward to the future of the games industry as I can imagine it in 10 or 20 years time and I look forward into being part of that and fully I will introduce something new to games like 60’s and 70’s rock bands did to the music industry.

Written by: Jonesy

(P.S please leave comments as I would enjoy discussing and debating this topic, this is my first of many to come! Thanks for reading I hope enjoyed reading it )