This week I decided to improve a bit on my bard game, if only to make the rules that we reestablished in class more official.
Revisions:
Bards will now draw cards from three piles. Beginnings, Middles and Ends. THis way they never run out of those parts of the story.
Bards will play as many cards as there are patrons playing.
The * cards for bards and patrons increase or decrease the value mentioned permanently from the victory thresholds for either side, rather than simply increasing the number for that round. A * card with -1 for a bard would make his goal further away. For example placing a -1* when his goal was 23 would make it 24.
The beginning value of the game will be 2*The number of patrons. The goal for victory for patrons is 0. And for the bard victory is at 4*The number of patrons.
I had some thoughts on adding more cards to the game, but I couldn't recall balance issues with the game so I didn't want to ruin anything. Here are some options.
Players alternate between bard and patrons playing. If bards end up overpowered, then they'll play one less card than the bards. Or one more if they end up weaker.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Prototypin'!
Prototyping!
I've found that when I don't think about the game and the game experience that I'm trying to make I wind up with something that's not very fun. It's important that you get an idea for the game before you fully commit to designing it. Especially with programming. How can you possibly commit so much time to making the full product if it's nothing worth following through with.
I think it's interesting that when prototyping for the iPhone, they realized that they had issues with things as simple as not having the right site. Having a prototype representative of the game that it makes, while not being too inaccurate to make it a different experience and not being too similar to make it too much work is important. That makes paper prototyping for a game that might be electronic a legitimate possibility.
I think that prototyping is a way to simply make sure that people get your idea and that your idea is what you wanted it to be to other people. Game developers should absolutely have an organized, set process for testing games before any significant development occurs.
I've found that when I don't think about the game and the game experience that I'm trying to make I wind up with something that's not very fun. It's important that you get an idea for the game before you fully commit to designing it. Especially with programming. How can you possibly commit so much time to making the full product if it's nothing worth following through with.
I think it's interesting that when prototyping for the iPhone, they realized that they had issues with things as simple as not having the right site. Having a prototype representative of the game that it makes, while not being too inaccurate to make it a different experience and not being too similar to make it too much work is important. That makes paper prototyping for a game that might be electronic a legitimate possibility.
I think that prototyping is a way to simply make sure that people get your idea and that your idea is what you wanted it to be to other people. Game developers should absolutely have an organized, set process for testing games before any significant development occurs.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Revisiting Games
I neglected commenting on the game experiences and the thought process during the creation of a lot of the games previously mention in this blog, so I'll be going back and commenting on them here.
Minotaur
This game had some issues with conveying who is where on the map. Design is a bit difficult for the maps because if one person outright makes their maze more frustrating, they win. I don't think that's a good style of determining a victory.
The game had a decent reception, but I think that as a whole, it wasn't fun enough to keep modifying. There wasn't that outrageously enjoyable like I would like to happen. Gameplay just sort of progressed if I recall correctly.
Terra Cube Death Spelunking
I think that this game was ultimately over-ambitious. The board was complicated and hard to follow. I think that since everyone had so many ways to move through the map, it didn't encourage competition. If the game board and map was simplified or maybe if I had a more advanced board where it wasn't such a chore to move from the inside to the outside of the box.
I could stand having a bigger box and larger tiles that are easier to use. Unfortunately, I only had a small square box. The day we played the game, it was warm and uncomfortable and I don't think anyone really had an enthusiasm. I would basically have to rebuild the entire box from scratch. Admittedly, it was a lot of work to make the board and I don't think I could stand rebuilding it to make it more enjoyable, not to mention that I don't have another square box.
I Have a Dream
This game went over pretty well. People had a lot of fun with it and the idea of making more cards to play with worked nicely. It was easily expanded upon and quick fun without having to put too much work into the game. However, it was basically just like Apples to Apples and I'm hardly proud of something that ended up being so derivative. It's important to note, though, that player driven games can be a lot of fun with what's basically very little work.
Business Card game
This one is notably my biggest failure. I didn't build up a good rule base and force gameplay. Also, it was one of those uncomfortably warm days where nobody really had the enthusiasm to play. I struggled a lot with an idea for a game and this one was forced. I think I could have done a better job with this one if I had more time.
Storytelling- The Epic
This game got a pretty good reception with the group. There were some balance issues between the bard vs. the patrons. It's really hard to have something where multiple players are going against a single one. However, this one is absolutely working on.
The theme for this week was storytelling and I admittedly took a really cheap way out of making a sort of "generic" shell to fit the formula since the gameplay is representative of stories. I could probably get away with adding very precise and entertaining bard/patron cards to make the game more interesting.
Gold Rush
This game was a good concept, but I think that it would do better on computer than it would on the semi-game board that I used by making a grid of paper. When playing this game, we revised the rules on just about everything. The tiles are face down and the players don't know where the gold is. It could be anywhere. The rocks all have reactions based on you finding them instead of reacting to you moving near them. Avalanches pile up dirt over the player to give a proper reaction. For example, when trying to dig through the large rocks that collapse, you take damage unless you can spend 2 movement points to get through it and be safe. Otherwise you move through it and take damage.
I think this game had promise and I enjoyed revising it.
Minotaur
This game had some issues with conveying who is where on the map. Design is a bit difficult for the maps because if one person outright makes their maze more frustrating, they win. I don't think that's a good style of determining a victory.
The game had a decent reception, but I think that as a whole, it wasn't fun enough to keep modifying. There wasn't that outrageously enjoyable like I would like to happen. Gameplay just sort of progressed if I recall correctly.
Terra Cube Death Spelunking
I think that this game was ultimately over-ambitious. The board was complicated and hard to follow. I think that since everyone had so many ways to move through the map, it didn't encourage competition. If the game board and map was simplified or maybe if I had a more advanced board where it wasn't such a chore to move from the inside to the outside of the box.
I could stand having a bigger box and larger tiles that are easier to use. Unfortunately, I only had a small square box. The day we played the game, it was warm and uncomfortable and I don't think anyone really had an enthusiasm. I would basically have to rebuild the entire box from scratch. Admittedly, it was a lot of work to make the board and I don't think I could stand rebuilding it to make it more enjoyable, not to mention that I don't have another square box.
I Have a Dream
This game went over pretty well. People had a lot of fun with it and the idea of making more cards to play with worked nicely. It was easily expanded upon and quick fun without having to put too much work into the game. However, it was basically just like Apples to Apples and I'm hardly proud of something that ended up being so derivative. It's important to note, though, that player driven games can be a lot of fun with what's basically very little work.
Business Card game
This one is notably my biggest failure. I didn't build up a good rule base and force gameplay. Also, it was one of those uncomfortably warm days where nobody really had the enthusiasm to play. I struggled a lot with an idea for a game and this one was forced. I think I could have done a better job with this one if I had more time.
Storytelling- The Epic
This game got a pretty good reception with the group. There were some balance issues between the bard vs. the patrons. It's really hard to have something where multiple players are going against a single one. However, this one is absolutely working on.
The theme for this week was storytelling and I admittedly took a really cheap way out of making a sort of "generic" shell to fit the formula since the gameplay is representative of stories. I could probably get away with adding very precise and entertaining bard/patron cards to make the game more interesting.
Gold Rush
This game was a good concept, but I think that it would do better on computer than it would on the semi-game board that I used by making a grid of paper. When playing this game, we revised the rules on just about everything. The tiles are face down and the players don't know where the gold is. It could be anywhere. The rocks all have reactions based on you finding them instead of reacting to you moving near them. Avalanches pile up dirt over the player to give a proper reaction. For example, when trying to dig through the large rocks that collapse, you take damage unless you can spend 2 movement points to get through it and be safe. Otherwise you move through it and take damage.
I think this game had promise and I enjoyed revising it.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Theme Game- Wargame
When we ran out of games to play on Monday, I mentioned that I had a half-formed game concept. And from there we had to figure out the rest of the game on the fly. We argued over rules, and then argued over the rules. Afterwords, we played for about 5 minutes, and then argued over the rules. It's pretty obvious that this isn't a very good way to develop a game. Devin is right. Bring up a concept, test it out, and try again. Testing and revision is a better idea than talking conceptual rules. Even if we don't like the new rule, maybe it makes the game play better.
The concept I wanted for my game was a more life-themed sort of Risk-like game. I took away the map because this sort of nation-based complexity wouldn't work per country on a Risk board. Some countries within this game will clearly be at a disadvantage if they get the wrong cards at the start. That's how things work in real life sometimes and some players will inevitably be doomed. I think that's an important element of the game.
Rules:
Setup:
Each player draws 2 random economic and 2 random war trait cards. Players get 4 riches and 4 armies at the beginning and their total modifiers are added or subtracted from those beginning 4 armies or riches.
Traits:
Countries have traits that modify war and riches gain. Every single turn, aside from the first turn, you gain or lose that many riches or armies per turn. Players can not have negative armies, but they must go in debt and take out loans to stay solvent when they are losing cash.
Riches:
Riches can be spent on armies. 2 riches for 1 army. If a player is out of money, they may take out loans. If a nation hits 11 loans, they lose the game. Loans function as normal money, but must be kept aside even from normal cash to show debt. Riches can be used with any negotiation with other players. There are no restrictions on how cash can be exchanged.
Armies:
Armies can be stationed within a country for defense or used to invade other nations. Combat within the game works like Risk's combat: The attacking nation can attack with as many armies as they would like, but may only roll 3 dice for attack. The defender may roll 2. Ties are in favor of the country owner.
Taking over a nation:
When a defending nation runs out of armies, they are an occupied. An occupied nation is still technically owned by the initial owner. The next turn the occupied nation owner gets a turn, they get the total bonus of their cards in free armies for one turn and have a chance to retake their country for one turn. Even if they are negative bonuses, they still are given as armies. Players also are allowed to trade remaining cash with players to buy armies to save their country.
Deals and agreements:
Allied nations get one extra army and one extra riches card every time their turn begins. This number does not increase with extra allies. There must be a return for any alliances and the bonus can not be shared without additional benefits. Any stated terms for alliances must be agreed upon. Loopholes are allowed.
Repairing bad traits:
When a nation has a negative economic card, they are permitted to spend 2.5 the total positive value of the card to make it a positive trait. The positive, fixed card gives a ½ the positive number of the card instead.
Winning:
Players win when all the involved players are finally stable and not at war. This can involve stabilizing all players or eliminating the rest.
The concept I wanted for my game was a more life-themed sort of Risk-like game. I took away the map because this sort of nation-based complexity wouldn't work per country on a Risk board. Some countries within this game will clearly be at a disadvantage if they get the wrong cards at the start. That's how things work in real life sometimes and some players will inevitably be doomed. I think that's an important element of the game.
Rules:
Setup:
Each player draws 2 random economic and 2 random war trait cards. Players get 4 riches and 4 armies at the beginning and their total modifiers are added or subtracted from those beginning 4 armies or riches.
Traits:
Countries have traits that modify war and riches gain. Every single turn, aside from the first turn, you gain or lose that many riches or armies per turn. Players can not have negative armies, but they must go in debt and take out loans to stay solvent when they are losing cash.
Riches:
Riches can be spent on armies. 2 riches for 1 army. If a player is out of money, they may take out loans. If a nation hits 11 loans, they lose the game. Loans function as normal money, but must be kept aside even from normal cash to show debt. Riches can be used with any negotiation with other players. There are no restrictions on how cash can be exchanged.
Armies:
Armies can be stationed within a country for defense or used to invade other nations. Combat within the game works like Risk's combat: The attacking nation can attack with as many armies as they would like, but may only roll 3 dice for attack. The defender may roll 2. Ties are in favor of the country owner.
Taking over a nation:
When a defending nation runs out of armies, they are an occupied. An occupied nation is still technically owned by the initial owner. The next turn the occupied nation owner gets a turn, they get the total bonus of their cards in free armies for one turn and have a chance to retake their country for one turn. Even if they are negative bonuses, they still are given as armies. Players also are allowed to trade remaining cash with players to buy armies to save their country.
Deals and agreements:
Allied nations get one extra army and one extra riches card every time their turn begins. This number does not increase with extra allies. There must be a return for any alliances and the bonus can not be shared without additional benefits. Any stated terms for alliances must be agreed upon. Loopholes are allowed.
Repairing bad traits:
When a nation has a negative economic card, they are permitted to spend 2.5 the total positive value of the card to make it a positive trait. The positive, fixed card gives a ½ the positive number of the card instead.
Winning:
Players win when all the involved players are finally stable and not at war. This can involve stabilizing all players or eliminating the rest.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Gold Rush: Digging Destruction Edition
When I tried to think of an idea involving a moving game board, one of the things that came to mind was the earth itself. Consequently, I made a game where the players have to move down through the earth and deal with gravity and the instability of what they've done to manage. The game was inspired by dig dug. I think that if anything I need to increase the size of the playing board.
Objective:
The objective of this game is to successfully dig down through the map to the gold cache below. Players dig through the map and exploit the dangerous environment to prevent other players from doing it.
Setup:
Players will randomly shuffle the deck of map cards and place them face up in a 4 x 8 grid. The gold cache will be randomly placed on the bottom. Players will each place their token representing their vehicle above one of the squares at the top.
All players have 8 HP. If a player runs out of HP they will die. Each player draws 5 cards for themselves to hold in their hand. The first player to roll a 3 on a D10 goes first. Play is done in a clockwise order.
The turns:
At any time in a turn, a player can use an item card as long as he is not at the surface. Players roll a d4 to decide how many squares they may move per turn. Moving through an open square takes 1 point. Players can only move horizontally or down. Moving through ground takes 2. When a player succeeds in digging through a square of ground, the square is flipped over to demonstrate that it is cleared out.
When a square is removed, there is a danger of collapse if there is a collapsible rock directly above or a unstable boulder any square above, there will be a tunnel collapse.
The special map cards:
Gold Ore: The game objective. Get here to win.
Unstable Boulders: These boulders are large and indicated with a skull and crossbones on them. When a player moves within 3 squares below one of these by digging, the terrain will collapse and the boulder will immediately move directly above the player. This will end their turn and deal 2 damage.
Oil Caches: Oil caches are indicated by black blobs with an oil barrel within them. When you run over one of these squares, you get two bonus movement points.
Collapsible Rock: When a player moves directly below one of these rocks, it will collapse on their vehicle and deal 1 damage to the player. After dealing the damage, the rock goes away and the squares below shift down one square to fill the place.
Underground Grue Lair: The black mass. If you go adjacent to this square, you take 2844318 damage and die. Players may choose to play without this card.
Old Sovient Landmines: These are the small spiked balls. Going through these mines inflicts 1 damage to the player. Any open spaces within 1 square of them will collapse.
The Player Deck Cards:
Doomalanche: All unsupported open spaces collapse.
Drillaser: Opens up two spaces in a direction of your choice. Players hit by this take 1 damage.
Artificial wall: Place this piece in an adjacent open square to make the next player moving through have to dig to get through the space again.
Mines: Must be placed within an open square. Deal 1 damage when moved over.
Rocket booster: Player can use to move 2 extra squares in any direction including up. If the player hasn't already used a card, a booster can be used to avoid a collapse.
Support Beams: Place to prevent a collapse. Can be used as a reaction to a collapse if the player hasn't already played a card. The space can still be used to move as an open space.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Sid Meier
Second person in the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences' Hall of Fame
Big Titles:
Civilization
Railroad Tycoon
Pirates!
Sid's Game History
Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Colonization (2008), 2K Games
Sid Meier's Civilization Revolution (2008), 2K Games
Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Beyond The Sword (2007), 2K Games
Sid Meier's Railroads! (2006), 2K Games
Sid Meier's Civlization IV: Warlords (2006), 2K Games
Sid Meier's Civlization IV (2005), 2K Games
Sid Meier's Pirates! for Xbox (2005), 2K Games
Sid Meier's Pirates! (2004), Atari, Inc.
Sid Meier's Civilization III: Conquests (2003), Atari, Inc.
Age of Mythology (2002), Microsoft
Sid Meier's SimGolf (2002), Electronic Arts Inc.
Sid Meier's Civilization III (2001), Infogrames
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri Planetary Pack (2000), Electronic Arts Inc.
Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire (1999), Electronic Arts Inc.
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (1999), Electronic Arts Inc.
Sid Meier's Antietam! (1998), Electronic Arts Inc.
Sid Meier's Gettysburg! (1997), Electronic Arts Inc.
Sid Meier's Civilization II (1996), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Vikings: The Strategy of Ultimate Conquest (1996), GT Interactive
Sid Meier's CivNet (1995), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Sid Meier's Colonization (1994), MicroProse Software, Inc.
F-15 Strike Eagle III (1993), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Pirates! Gold (1993), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Return of the Phantom (1993), MicroProse Software, Inc.
High Command: Europe 1939-45 (1992), Three-Sixty Pacific
Gunship 2000 (1991), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Civilization (1991), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Railroad Tycoon (1990), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Covert Action (1990), MicroProse Software, Inc.
F-15 Strike Eagle II (1989), MicroProse Software, Inc.
M1 Tank Platoon (1989), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Red Storm Rising (1989), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Sword of the Samurai (1989), MicroProse Software, Inc.
F-19 Stealth Fighter (1988), MicroProse Software,
Pirates! (1987), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Conflict in Vietnam (1986), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Gunship (1986), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Crusade in Europe (1985), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Decision in the Desert (1985), MicroProse Software, Inc.
F-15 Strike Eagle (1985), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Silent Service (1985), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Solo Flight (1985), MicroProse Software, Inc.
NATO Commander (1984), US Gold
Spitfire Ace (1984), MicroProse Software, Inc.
http://civanon.org/main.html
Big Titles:
Civilization
Railroad Tycoon
Pirates!
Sid's Game History
Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Colonization (2008), 2K Games
Sid Meier's Civilization Revolution (2008), 2K Games
Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Beyond The Sword (2007), 2K Games
Sid Meier's Railroads! (2006), 2K Games
Sid Meier's Civlization IV: Warlords (2006), 2K Games
Sid Meier's Civlization IV (2005), 2K Games
Sid Meier's Pirates! for Xbox (2005), 2K Games
Sid Meier's Pirates! (2004), Atari, Inc.
Sid Meier's Civilization III: Conquests (2003), Atari, Inc.
Age of Mythology (2002), Microsoft
Sid Meier's SimGolf (2002), Electronic Arts Inc.
Sid Meier's Civilization III (2001), Infogrames
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri Planetary Pack (2000), Electronic Arts Inc.
Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire (1999), Electronic Arts Inc.
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (1999), Electronic Arts Inc.
Sid Meier's Antietam! (1998), Electronic Arts Inc.
Sid Meier's Gettysburg! (1997), Electronic Arts Inc.
Sid Meier's Civilization II (1996), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Vikings: The Strategy of Ultimate Conquest (1996), GT Interactive
Sid Meier's CivNet (1995), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Sid Meier's Colonization (1994), MicroProse Software, Inc.
F-15 Strike Eagle III (1993), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Pirates! Gold (1993), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Return of the Phantom (1993), MicroProse Software, Inc.
High Command: Europe 1939-45 (1992), Three-Sixty Pacific
Gunship 2000 (1991), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Civilization (1991), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Railroad Tycoon (1990), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Covert Action (1990), MicroProse Software, Inc.
F-15 Strike Eagle II (1989), MicroProse Software, Inc.
M1 Tank Platoon (1989), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Red Storm Rising (1989), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Sword of the Samurai (1989), MicroProse Software, Inc.
F-19 Stealth Fighter (1988), MicroProse Software,
Pirates! (1987), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Conflict in Vietnam (1986), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Gunship (1986), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Crusade in Europe (1985), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Decision in the Desert (1985), MicroProse Software, Inc.
F-15 Strike Eagle (1985), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Silent Service (1985), MicroProse Software, Inc.
Solo Flight (1985), MicroProse Software, Inc.
NATO Commander (1984), US Gold
Spitfire Ace (1984), MicroProse Software, Inc.
http://civanon.org/main.html
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Theme Game: Storytelling
The Epic
In this game, it is the goal of the bard to get the patrons drunk and happy enough to tip him as much as possible. Ultimately the patrons want to get distracted and tip him as little as possible. There is one bard and all other players are patrons.
When the cards I drawn, the Bard and the players alternate between draws. The bard draws, then a patron, the bard goes again and then the second patron and so on. Patrons are always in the same order.
Bard Rules:
The bard has a deck of the number of patrons +1. If there are 5 patrons, the bard holds 6 cards.
When the bard begins his planning phase, he sets out as many cards as there are patrons. His goal is to make the value of his cards played as high as possible. His turn must have a Beginning card (marked with a B) at the start, his stories middle portions must all be M's and it must end with an E. Failure to comply is -2 to his score.
Patron Rules:
The patrons may not communicate about what cards they will play. Patrons may have two cards at a time, and draw new ones at the end of the round. Each patron places his card face down. They are drawn one by one as the bard draws his cards. There are no specific rules on the order of cards to be played.
Card descriptions:
If a card gives business for multiple players it is indicated with (2+: 1 per card). This means that if there's 2 or more players, it's 1 per player).
1, +1 for each player would mean that each card of that type placed gives the value of 1, and then if there are 2 cards placed, you get a bonus of 2 for a total of 4. 3 cards placed would be 6.
Winning:
There are 30 interested patrons in the room at the beginning. Whoever gets the higher score in a round adds the amount that it won the round by to the number of patrons (if you're the bard) or subtracts it from the number (if you're the patrons). Whenever the number of patrons is reduced to the number of participating patrons, the patrons win. If the Bard brings the number of patrons to 45, the bard wins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)