So I've been thinking alot about this Flash game we're to be making in scripting. It's funny actually, the group project requires us to make a game aimed at 5-7 year olds. The playtech brief assigns us with re-skinning or a quiet re-design of the original Sports wheel game. But with this flash game, anything goes. The possibilities are endless and the prospect of a fully original idea brought to life to be played is so exciting.
So why,
why oh why,
do I spend 2 weeks with a head full of fluff.
It's always the way I guess, an oppurtunity to stretch the creative hamstrings of my mind and my brain doesn't want to work with me on this one. I suppose complete freedom isn't all it's cracked up to be.
However. . .I was recently on a train trapped somewhere between sleep and boredom, with loud music in my ears and a pencil and paper and had some ideas, which I will share with you now.
So I don't know how many people have played Robokill.
(http://www.rocksolidarcade.com/games/robokill/)
It's a great game, with simple mechanics but great artwork and an upgradeable character in an almost RPG style way. I've found myself become increasingly addicted and it would feel great to emulate a similar style game in flash.
To come up with a concept to do this game justice I wanted to stray away from the norm, it's too obvious for zombies or the like, I reckon it would be wasted.
Instead I stared gormlessly out of the train window and contemplated different kinds of conflict, as that is the core of a shoot-em-up kind of game. My mind flew between wizards and sc-fi until it occurred to me that maybe it would be fun to play as the 'bad guy' fighting the 'good guy'. I know it HAS been done, but rarely and I can't think of an example offhand, which strengthens my point.
So what for a concept? Well instead of preventing the apocalypse why can't you play as the one whose causing it? See, this bad guy thing could be alot of fun. Don't get me wrong, it's not going to be a heavy story with lots of complicated mechanics and plenty of choices, it's only a flash game at the end of the day.
But before I reveal the whole idea I will finish some sketches and mock-up art to assist my concepts, I just wanted to blog about something that is relevant, yet, unrequired in a sense.
I know I havent said much, but any input would be great! xD
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Costikyan : I have no words I must design
'A game is an interactive structure of endogenous meaning that requires players to struggle towards goals'
Firstly, what a great quote. To those who agree, it can sum up what a game is in a sentence, which as budding young games designers we are already learning is incredibly challenging.
Costikyan explores the definition of games by categorising certain elements, such as the ones italicised in the quote.
He firstly mentions 'Interactive', which by his definition in the article means that the state of the gameplay can change, due to choices or decisions made by the player, something you might not find in a puzzle. He uses Monopoly as an example this but I will choose another game; Scrabble.
I choose Scrabble because the gamestate is in constant change, all down to the players decisions, what letters to place, where to place them. This practically gurantees a different outcome for every single game you play when you think about the letters the players are given randomly, the places that they can put the letters, the amount of words in the english language. . .It goes on and on.
Structure is also mentioned, defined by Costikyan as being the way a game is played by the players under the same rules and restrictions. A game without rules or boundaries cannot work as the player would not be limited in their means to win, severely damaging the purpose behind the whole game.
Endogenous meaning refers to how value is interpreted inside a game and in the real world. For example, if a player from World of Warcraft goes on a raid and collects some rare weapons and armour, physically this means nothing. The player cannot touch the items, cannot merit their existence in the real world, yet in the game it might make them that much stronger, make their character amazing. . .but only in the game world.
Struggle is mentioned and is compulsory in giving a game some character. To win a game in one move is no fun, so struggle is enforced to pose an obstacle that the player must overcome in order to achieve their goals.
Which brings us to goals! Goals are the reason behind games. What does the player get out of all this struggle and interaction? Where is the player heading with the decisions they've made? And ultimately, what is the player achieving. This is dependant on the game being played, but the concept remains the same.
So according to each definition, the original quote stands to reason. I agree with Costikyan and once again respect his ability to answer the question, "What is a game?".
Firstly, what a great quote. To those who agree, it can sum up what a game is in a sentence, which as budding young games designers we are already learning is incredibly challenging.
Costikyan explores the definition of games by categorising certain elements, such as the ones italicised in the quote.
He firstly mentions 'Interactive', which by his definition in the article means that the state of the gameplay can change, due to choices or decisions made by the player, something you might not find in a puzzle. He uses Monopoly as an example this but I will choose another game; Scrabble.
I choose Scrabble because the gamestate is in constant change, all down to the players decisions, what letters to place, where to place them. This practically gurantees a different outcome for every single game you play when you think about the letters the players are given randomly, the places that they can put the letters, the amount of words in the english language. . .It goes on and on.
Structure is also mentioned, defined by Costikyan as being the way a game is played by the players under the same rules and restrictions. A game without rules or boundaries cannot work as the player would not be limited in their means to win, severely damaging the purpose behind the whole game.
Endogenous meaning refers to how value is interpreted inside a game and in the real world. For example, if a player from World of Warcraft goes on a raid and collects some rare weapons and armour, physically this means nothing. The player cannot touch the items, cannot merit their existence in the real world, yet in the game it might make them that much stronger, make their character amazing. . .but only in the game world.
Struggle is mentioned and is compulsory in giving a game some character. To win a game in one move is no fun, so struggle is enforced to pose an obstacle that the player must overcome in order to achieve their goals.
Which brings us to goals! Goals are the reason behind games. What does the player get out of all this struggle and interaction? Where is the player heading with the decisions they've made? And ultimately, what is the player achieving. This is dependant on the game being played, but the concept remains the same.
So according to each definition, the original quote stands to reason. I agree with Costikyan and once again respect his ability to answer the question, "What is a game?".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)