If you look at the rules of making a cup of tea, it resembles the rules of games. You would think;
[1] Grab a cup.
[2] Boil the kettle to a temperature you prefer.
[3] Grab a teaspoon.
[4] Scoop out some sugar to put into the cup.
[5] Grab a teabag and put it into the cup.
[6] Put milk into the cup.
[7] When the kettle is done boiling, pour the water into cup.
[8] With the teaspoon, stir the water.
[9] Use the teaspoon to take the teabag out.
[10] Your tea is ready to drink.
Now that is a standard way of making tea. However, you may think that's an easy instruction list of making tea, it isn't. In fact, the key fundamentals of this list is really hard to spot unless you look at it from a perspective of a person who has never made tea before. This list would be pretty much useless.
How does this resemble game rules and ideas? Rules are the mechanics of games, like previously said, so they need to be said in a more easier way then: "Press this button" or "Jump over there". Is the thought of "how do you do that?".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignment in Class
We were told to make a game based around the game Squares. Squares is a very simple and heart pumping game, but to make it into something else was quite a challenge. We had to use our knowledge of 'simple rules' and make our own game and our own rules of our game so that another could play it.
I found this quite challenging, because it may be easy for the group to understand it because we discussed the mechanics of it, but some one who wasn't in our group would have found it hard to comprehend.
To make the rules simple, we wrote the rules so that they were very easy to understand them. Then, we made sure that the game was simple itself, by not making it complicated and full of a lot of details that really made the game much more harder to play and really understand.
The game we made at the end was a fun symmetry game where all sides were the same layout, and you had to make squares (how many lines you drew were determined by die rolls) and race to the middle of the board.
After we had done that and people had played our game, there was a few hiccups which people pointed out to us, as a group;
★ The game could have really used a much more complex route. A symmetrical board is great, but really makes the game a game of luck because everyone knows the best possible route. We, as a group, could have made different routes, challenging paths, for each of the players so it wasn't so easy to complete.★ The colour of the pens we provided to play the game didn't really show against the backgrounds we chose for each four corners. We could have either made the backgrounds lighter to make the pen colours more distinguishable against the board. This is really a design flaw, and happens to quite a lot of games. Colours are always an issue, no matter how you look at it.
★ The dice rolls made the game quite tedious, and made the game more of a game of luck (Just like the symmetrical problem, said before.) Maybe the route could have been shorter so that the dice could be incorporated in the game still, or just forget the die and choose another method of going around the board.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Other Games
We then had to examine other peoples games and share our own opinion on them. It is more about realising the mistakes that people had made, and how they can improve on their own game template.
[Game 1] The Straw Squares
★ There was not enough straws to complete the game. They could have helped this if they counted the amount of straws were needed and make sure everyone was supplied with enough.
★ The question cards were a great factor to the game. It made the experience of the game very competitive and fun, which is something all 'board' games need, a little push to compete.
★ The rules were very hard to make out, it took a while to understand the whole aspect of the idea. However, as the game went on, it gradually got easier and the game was much more easier to understand.
★ The game very quickly became tedious. We found it hard to continue.
★ Having the availability to get more rolls made the game very competitive and made us keep going. It was definitely one of the 'wow' factors which made us play for longer.
★ The point system was very hard to understand.
[Game 2] Dungeon Tag
★ The board was very small, and could do with more playing space for players. Having more space could expand the choices of tactics that each of the players could throw at the other players to trap them.
★ Rules were complicated but enough for us to understand completely what was needed to complete and win the game. Having greatly translated rules helps game play.
★ Having a competitive game was key. In the game, it was fun to work together to take down one person, but then managing to take out each other was such an adrenaline rush.
★ The concept of the whole board was very amazing, and was well worth examining. It had various details and great ideas.
★ The figures for the board made the game more believable to be a board game, rather then a paper based game. This gave the game more depth, and some what, a story.
[Game 3] Square Monopoly
★ The duel dice made the game much more harder to play, as it was quite a small board. Replacing it with just a single dice would have given the game much more play time, and made it competitive for all players.
★ The reason for the special squares (Train Station, Bus, etc.) had to do with the game. There could have been more explanation to what exactly they meant.
★ Rules needed to be a bit more explained as they didn't exactly show how easy the game could have been, which left us hindered as to what to do next.
★ Too much of a slow paced game which seemed to never end.
★ Design of the board was very well done. It was like you were playing a 'board' game because of the quality.
★ Too much of a slow paced game which seemed to never end.
★ Design of the board was very well done. It was like you were playing a 'board' game because of the quality.
No comments:
Post a Comment