This week in class, we looked at the idea of prototyping from several different perspectives. We saw and experienced prototyping firsthand, listened to Mark Barrett speak of rapid prototyping, and watched our peers play several levels of The Beginner’s Guide. All of these really helped to open up avenues on different ways prototypes and prototyping can be interpreted and used. Our own prototypes were very much in the works proof of concepts type products, and one that we as students would have to carry on and develop into final products after having deliberating on them for a while. Barrett’s presentation on game development, and as a subsequent eventuality: prototyping, portrayed them as a quick and dirty product. Prototypes in that regard seemed to be more a brainstorming tool and first step rather than a second step, as seen with the one-to-four-day prototyping period. Finally, there was The Beginner’s Guide, where the “prototypes” are presented more as final products rather than the previous two. I just thought with these three examples, we seemingly have different definitions of prototyping in different stages of development.

                 The different tools, resources, and perspectives that Barrett introduces was something I thought was noteworthy. For instance, he redefined several things I thought I had a solid grasp on up until hearing it. His outlook on what a prototype should be, where every stage of the prototype should still be reminiscent and indicative of the final product, rather than my notion that only the final stage of the prototype should matter. That “the journey is just as important as the outcome” definition was something I needed, and the visual representation with the bike drawing was more helpful than any statement really. Goal setting was another point Barrett goes over, and its yet another thing I felt was useful in any working environment. I spent two years in high school and my first three years of college in architecture, and I guess something I always had trouble with was working towards that important end goal (final structural design for example) with all these smaller urgent goals in front me (in this case, assignments from other courses). Something I eventually realized (after I decided architecture wasn’t my thing) was that all these other assignments were also architectural assignments, and were stuff I could’ve tied in to my final design, and that they were goals I should’ve incorporated along my path to my final important goal rather than as side goals. Barrett’s presentation was pretty much a visual representation of everything I have been hearing up until now, and it was something that was sorely needed to really cement much of it in place.

                Sources

GDC. “Hitchhiker’s Guide to Rapid Prototypes!” YouTube video, 6 September 2017.

For this week’s lectures, we went through many activities regarding prototypes and game development, which gave us a better understanding of how games look like during the early stages. On Tuesday, in groups we had to create a game based on issues of current games. Our group focused on “pay to win,” games that rely heavily on in-game purchases to progress. We came up with ideas like buying certain spawn locations, starter packs, microtransactions, and weapon rarity. Doing this activity made me realize how games nowadays probably had no problem doing the same thing, as long as people are buying them and staying relevant.

On Thursday we did our first class playthrough on The Beginner’s Guide, a Steam game by Davey Wreden, based on his friend Coda’s ideas. The levels were unfinished, but the point was to understand the story behind every level design rather than the mechanics. It was a unique and beautiful game, but it wasn’t because of the gameplay or visuals. I found it in the narrator’s guidance and explanation for Coda’s designs, showing players how even the most simple or random idea can turn out into something brilliant. Overall, it really fascinated me how the creating process was better than a playable outcome, and shows how important it is to follow how you visualized your game to be.

After the playthrough, we presented our paper prototypes in groups. My prototype was based off the website Twine’s functions, which I hope to master in time to finish my project. What I liked about my group is that most of our ideas and designs were inspired from our last board game session. I was instantly familiar with many of their game mechanics, and I’m excited to see how the final versions turn out.

All these activities were to help prepare us for our solo project, coming off from brainstorming an idea. They were all very effective and inspiring, especially The Beginner’s Guide playthrough. I learned that rather than focusing on the outcome of my project or any game, the focus should be understanding your passion and vision of the game first, then go through the basics of developing and creating prototypes before coming up with final decisions.

This week in Game Design led us towards creating more solid ideas and foundations towards our first projects. It was quite interesting to see some of the rough drafts that people presented, and their thought processes behind the projects themselves. This perfectly exemplified for me the creative process, and how everyone tackles their abstract ideas in different ways. For example, most of the games presented in class tackled a certain idea or mechanic in general, instead of encompassing many broad ideas or difficult topics. This makes sense due to the nature of all of our beginnings, and the exercises we practiced last week in class. My project tackles the idea of tier lists, and the competitive and opinionated nature of the form itself. Tier lists originated with the competitive fighting game, but online personalities have taken tier lists in a new direction, creating tier lists for fast food restaurants, movies, entire games, and even mascots that they could beat in a fight. This idea captivated my friends and I, becoming a pastime we would enjoy during late weekend nights. Therefore, I took this idea and started to play with it, envisioning a playable game around this phenomenon. It seems as though tackling small gaming challenges such as this can prepare you for more challenges ahead, and improve your critical thinking skills when it comes to designing games.

This ideology came to me in part due to playing “The Beginner’s Guide” during class this week. It tells the story of a mysterious and, perhaps misunderstood, amateur game developer known as Coda. The narrator, Davey Wreden, tells the story of his relationship with Coda, and how they were driven apart over the years. Each “level” showcases a different game that Coda created, starting with his first creations, and progressing through his journey of creation. While every game is different in its own way, it seems that each game encompasses one single idea in a flowing narrative inside Coda’s mind. One game might focus on puzzle solving, one might play with the idea of player interaction, some are just small corridors or rooms with little gameplay. It is hard to say what each individual project means, but each one certainly meant something to Coda. It seemed he hated the idea that every game needed a narrative or gameplay that serves the player, which Wreden tried to force upon Coda, eventually driving them apart. Wreden even tries to force meaning in the game through his narration, and intentionally skipping past portions of Coda’s work or manipulating his work. I think the most important take away from this game is that everyone thinks very differently about their projects, and envision ideas completely differently from others. While some may not see things the way you do, it is important to visualize your own success and seek to solve the problems in your own mind. While our projects have to be PLAYABLE in their final iterations, I hope to learn more from the entire process of creating a game, and how to fine my abstract idea into a fun and lively product.

On the lecture on Tuesday, in our small group we have to come up with a game related to the topics we come up in the class. The topic we choose is pay to win, loot boxes and micro transactions.

We come up with a Vision Document during the class time. It consist of 5 parts. First part is Overview/goals, second part is Team Members/Roles, third part is Tools/Software/Materials, And the fourth part is deliverables.

For Overview/goals we create a shooting game like Cross Fire/CS-GO that address the issue of pay to win/loot boxes/micro transactions. For team Members/Roles, Timothy is the Software Developer, Pang is the UI/UX Designer, Nick is the audio Designer, Rick is the animation Artist

For the tools/software/materials we use Unity, Sound equipments and recorders and any softwares needed to design the visual or the game

For the Deliverables it is a shooting game that is similar to CS-GO. It also has ranking system with XP and players can get better weapons, of course without paying more. Players can get cooler skins by paying.

We also have an asset-list for our game. External part we have software developers, audio developers, visual Developers, animation artists and computers and related to program the game or design visual. For the internal part we have the character, gun/weapons, playgrounds or maps, UI layouts including user profile, Scoreboards/Ranking system, Matching making system, shop or marketplace(micro transactions), Settings and login system.

Also on the individual game project. I came up with a paper prototype have card boards with different characters, skill cards. Right now my main goal before next Thursday is to have a neat looking board game and find my friends to play test it, write down the feedback from the players and ready to improve the game play, character, skills card, over all game play style based on the player feedback.

Fullerton ended the prototype chapter writing, “And most importantly, making a prototype gives you the freedom to experiment—and through experimentation comes innovation” (pg 235). I thought that this profound statement has a deep connection to the game we partially played through in class, The Beginner’s Guide. While looking through the games by Coda, that Daniel Wreden carefully stitched together to tell a story and make a point about his friend, I think we saw a lot of both experimentation and innovation in this process. 

I found Wreden’s game to be particularly beautiful and intimate in a very unique way when it comes to games. He was clearly exploring a personal relationship with his friend Coda while reflecting on the timeline of his game-making career. It was extremely bold, especially considering how rare and difficult it is to make a game that is so outwardly and unapologetically  about himself and a friend (here i am referring to this type of expression as rare in games compared to other forms of art). Games like this very much expand the idea of what a game can/should be, beyond the typical selling points of interactiveness and enjoyability.

The question that came up in class about whether or not a player should understand what they are playing is a particularly interesting question to me. As a player I would like to say yes, I want to understand everything about what I am participating in. However, as a creator, there are many things that I express (in the creation of games and in other forms of self expression and art) that I know I cannot convey to others who will see that content and try to understand it. I don’t believe it is possible to understand all of the complexities that come with any form of expression, especially those that can be as extensive as an abstract game that somebody made. The reality is that forms of expression are not always comprehensible or understandable and they are not meant to be, even if we want them to be. 

Works Cited:

Fullerton, Tracy. Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games, 4th Edition. 2019.

Wreden, Daniel. The Beginner’s Guide. Steam. 2015.

Prototyping is very important in the gaming industry. By making different prototypes one by one, designers can work on a different aspect of the game to help improve upon it. Apparently, there are different methods of prototyping in which game designers may use to test out their games. Those methods are physical prototypes, visual prototypes, video prototypes, software prototypes, and much more. In the Game Design Workshop 4th Edition Textbook, by Trace Fullerton, it mostly talks about physical prototyping, such as using cardboard, pencil, paper, etc. The benefits of physical prototyping are that “it allows you to focus on gameplay rather than technology” (Fullerton p. 203). I agree with what Ms. Fullerton is saying. By prototyping a game to its bare minimum can provide a more understanding of the game mechanics and its flaws. Once the game mechanics are set and stone then designing how the game looks come next. I may be old fashioned, but I really enjoy sketching things out on pencil and paper before I finalize on my projects. During the earlier stages of my artistic projects, it is easier for me to scrap a piece a paper than to worry about deleting everything on an editing application.

I believe one of the most useful tips in this chapter is the use of visual core gameplay. Ms. Fullerton talks about how “the core gameplay mechanism. Or ‘core mechanic,’ can be defined as the actions that a player repeats most often while striving to achieve the game’s overall goal” (Fullerton p. 216). On the same page, it shows a visual analysis comparison between the games Spider-man 2 and True Crime 2. In the comparisons, you can see players have interactions with certain things thus giving them rewards. For instance, in Spider-man 2 if the player completes a challenge, they will get points. In True Crime 2, if the character completes a mission, they will get money and ranking. It is important to take one step at a time when making a game. If you rush a certain aspect of making a game, it will have a negative effect on the end product. Prototyping is very crucial and is one of the most important processes of making a well-finished game.

Works Cited

Fullerton, Tracy. Game Design Workshop: a Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games. CRC Press, 2019.

The importance of a paper prototype can allude people from time to time. Why do we need a paper prototype? Well not only is it useful for helping other members of a team conceptualize what is being created, but it can be tested. A paper prototype can be played with and readjusted. It can help us figure out what works and what doesn’t. Others can play it and tell you what mechanics fall flat. Some might just focus on the look of the game, but the physicality of the prototype is not just a visualization. A prototype’s purpose is interactivity. Only focusing on the end goal and not the process can cause a game to fail when you thought the idea was completely perfect and never make changes.

Within the process of creating a game, there is a vision. The vision is the game concept, planning and building. Mark Barrett supports this with his in depth explanation of what the vision is. He explains that the vision starts as just a description of the game and some art to help envision the look of it. This is the production of a game concept and the first part of the vision. After the game concept, a plan for it’s execution can be thought up. It should be simple and easy to understand mock ups. Once the basic game exists, this leads to his next point of core mechanics and fleshing out the game. Without core mechanics, the game is unplayable. A narrative with no mechanics can heavily impact a game. For example, pokemon without battles is missing a core mechanic. It would have a story, but it wouldn’t be the same. A game needs to have balance. If there is only a focus on the core and nothing else, it leaves a boring concept that doesn’t challenge the player.

There is always a concentration on balance with games. There is a prototype to find balance. There must be balance between the core mechanics, secondary mechanics and narrative. Everything must fit together properly for a perfect game, but of course a perfect game does not exist. So, with all of this importance on balance, is it fair to say that balance is more than just the pieces fitting together? It’s the combination of these parts that best fit with what the target audience wants. In the end, if the target audience likes it, it’s perfect in the creator’s eyes.

Works Cited

Fullerton, Tracy. Game Design Workshop: a Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games. CRC Press, 2019.

GDC. “Hitchhiker’s Guide to Rapid Prototypes!” Online video clip.YouTube, 6 September 2017. Web. 19 February 2020.

In class on Tuesday, we listened to Mark Barrett’s Hitchhiker’s Guide to Rapid Prototypes.  It was really interesting to hear his perspective on this subject, as he discussed things I never really thought about.  Barrett talked about game jams (creating a game in a short amount of time) and how they’re a good way to learn more in both the game industry and as a human.

Barrett discussed setting goals, which are something you desire that motivate you to do certain things.  He discussed the differences between Urgent and Important goals. Urgent goals are more immediate/current and an important decision is a more long-term evolving decision.  He resists his urgent goals and instead tries to creatively control them so they don’t prevent him from his long-term goal. I think this honestly isn’t only applicable to prototyping, but can also be applicable to everyday life.  He brought into play how important it is to write your goals down in game design.

It was also super interesting to see how, even without any coding or drawing for the art, he was able to create a solid draft of his dog rescue game.  He used google images and photoshop for the art, and he used an online tool to create the testable game prototype. This way of prototyping is extremely useful and really puts into perspective how you can effectively create a prototype at such a low-cost, meaning anyone can do it!  Not only this, but you also don’t even need to know how to code, design, or draw. This is definitely useful in game prototyping and for our future endeavors as students. The fact that it truly is that easy to make a testable game is super cool.  

The other point I found intriguing is when Barrett discussed the core mechanic and how it is the purposeful mechanic that occurs most frequently.  He initially stated the core mechanic for pacman is eating, but then said it’s actually moving. That really made me think about most games I’ve played.  It seems that almost every single games’ core mechanic is moving. When we think of a first person shooter game, even though shooting is a large mechanic, you need to move in order to not get shot, and you also must move to find other people.  This notion definitely had me thinking deeply about core mechanics in the games that I play.

GDC. “Hitchhiker’s Guide to Rapid Prototyping.” YouTube video, 25:49. Sep 6, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYWkiv1hTPM

This week was very interesting as we read about and discussed different components of games and we participated in gameplay, of multiple games, in class. On Tuesday we discussed procedural rhetoric. This is how the rules and mechanics of games can hold meaning and sometimes teach the player a lesson. We broke up into groups to play and then discuss different games. Most of the other groups played games that had some kind of strategy, though many of them had some form f randomness. I played Chutes and Ladders where the procedural rhetoric of the game was pure randomness, sometimes things just happen. While I did not enjoy the pure randomness of Chutes and Ladders, I did enjoy the game mechanic of the chutes and the ladders and how they could dramatically change a player’s position in the game. I took inspiration from this mechanic when we brainstormed on Thursday and I developed the basic concept of my game idea during class.

The basic concept of my game follows a lot of the base rules of Chutes and Ladders though I added interaction between the players to add strategy and competitive components to the game. Players will have the opportunity to sabotage other players through the use of action cards. I look forward to developing my game more and being able to playtest it.

Class Discussion and Assigned Reading (Fullerton, Tracy. Game Design Workshop: a Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games. CRC Press, 2019)

This week we talked about the structure, procedural rhetoric, and some ideas for games and game design. In Conceptualization of Game Design Workshop, Tracy Fullerton talks about the origin of ideas when it comes to design. “Great ideas come from great input into your mind and senses. Living a full life- full of curiosity, interesting people, places, thoughts, and events- is the starting point to being a person full of ideas (Fullerton 165).” This was something that we also covered in class during our brainstorming session where we all came up with a game idea, no matter how simple or mundane, based off of something we had experienced that day. If something as simple as our everyday lives could inspire a game, unique experiences and thoughts could inspire something greater.

Fullerton also mentions something I think is very important, which is drawing inspiration from sources other than games. “Use your interest in something other than games to fill your mind with potential ideas.” This is something I so, so, so very much agree with, and I cannot stress that feeling enough. This permeates to not just game design, but also game critique. I cannot recall how many times I have heard the phrase “This [game] is the ‘Dark Souls’ of [insert genre].” When describing a game idea, I believe it is fine to draw inspiration from a game, but it should only go that far; if the game can be described using another game, I feel it has become far too reliant on the source. For instance, using Dark Souls as an example, I can name several games that simply is “Dark Souls but [x].” The Surge is Dark Souls but futuristic, Code Vein is Dark Souls but for people of culture anime, Lords of the Fallen is Dark Souls but bad medieval; these games simply use too many similar features and become so reminiscent of one another that they can be described almost in its entirety as such.

Using what we learned about the themes and structure of games (story, mechanic, setting(?)), I feel there has to be some deviation in thinking. There is only so much “inspiration” before it becomes a poor attempt at a homework copy with some answers changed. “Vary the method. Don’t rely on just one method for brainstorming (Fullerton 168).” I wholeheartedly agree because there are so many sources to pull inspiration from, it’s just a matter of seeing them.

Sources

Fullerton, Tracy. Game Design Workshop: A Playcentric Approach to Creating Innovative Games; Third Volume