Sunday 31 October 2010

A brief word on posture


My initial idea for the game is to have characters ride on bikes. I have yet to decide whether they shall be riding towards the centre of the screen (towards the end of the pipe) or away from the centre (as if fleeing something). So that I have a good idea of how someone sits on a bike, I took some pictures of my avatar on a bike in Saints Row 2, both from the front and the back. I shall be looking at the game later on in my research as within the game they have a bike that references the Iconic Akira bikes – a possible inspiration for my own bike designs.


Quick Character Concepts

Raine/ Aqua basic concept

Spider character basic concept
These are two simple concepts for possible ‘Riders’. Considering how my basic inspiration was from water dripping down a pipe, I thought it would be appropriate that the characters and items are inspired from pipes of different kinds – or anything cylindrical really (as not to narrow my creative view).
The top character could be the ‘All- Rounder’.  Early ideas for name would be: Aqua or Raine (as her bike would be very much inspired from a water drop). I wanted her to have a futuristic body suit and some kind of racing jacket.

The second character might be the slow but powerful character based around a spider (due to the song – ‘incy wincy spider climbed up the water spout down came the rain and washed the spider out..’) I wanted him to be serious, slightly evil looking maybe. His outfit would be a dark red body suit like the first character but he would have fur around his neck, elbows and knees.
I will do some more concepts later this week.

Saturday 30 October 2010

The Racing Genre -what makes it appealing?

At the moment my focus is looking at the Racing genre, having decided to go down this route with my App idea. But what makes the racing genre popular to the player? To aid in deciphering this question, I looked at three distinctly different racing games.

Forza Motorsport 3
Forza Motorsport 3 is likely to be considered one of the more ‘traditional’ racing games. I use the word traditional loosely, as many different racing games are popular, each with their own appeals but it is because Forza offers the conventional Goals and Rules of racing games that I use the word traditional. The player must travel around a chosen circuit several times, with each revolution equalling one Lap. When the player has completed a set amount of laps, they have finished the race. Obviously there are many possible variables such as having up to seven extra CPU controlled cars on the track, having a score dependant on time, or an alternate track direction (still depending on this, travelling the opposite direction will still result in no positive outcome). These variables will ultimately alter what the player is playing against (Player V System / Player V Player / Player V Player V System) and can alter how competitive the game is. The control system is simple and allows the player to do the following things: Accelerate, Handbrake, Reverse, Turn Left, Turn Right, Change Gear, Reverse time,  Pause or bring up a Drift score.
It could be said that there are many appeals to racing games, but the appeals of Forza over other Racing games is that:
-The graphics are crafted to be almost Photorealistic (for car enthusiasts or escapism into exotic locales that the player would otherwise not be able to visit)
-The player can ‘Rewind’ when they make a mistake in Player V System matches (this removes frustration if a player crashes near the end of a race when they have almost won)
-The player can buy their own cars from a roster of hundreds of cars (some exotic – again for car enthusiasts and escapism but also for customisation and competitive edge over an opponent)
-The player can design a decal for their car using a built in design interface that allows for a thousand ‘layers’ of designs (the ultimate form of customisation for players – if they choose to take the time, they can craft a car that is completely unique)
-The player can also sell those designs on an online marketplace (this both raises funds and awareness of their skill as a designer. Conversely players who are not proficient or do not have the time to work with the design interface can pay nominal fees to have a design on their car)
-The player can race split-screen or online with other players (adds a competitive element to the gameplay)
As you can see, there are several unique selling points to Forza, but considering how racing games have existed for over a decade, are any of the above features specifically unique to the Forza Motorsport brand?
Well impressive graphics have always been a trademark of racing games such as Gran Turismo, Project Gotham Racing and Forza Motorsport, so it cannot be attributed purely to Forza. Additionally the Rewind feature was first introduced by Grid, a year before Forza Motorsport 3’s release. Given that Forza 2 did not have this feature it is clear that it was almost directly imitated in the third game from Grid. However whereas that was the sole Unique Selling Point of Grid, the use in Forza simply seems to be much less explicit. This might be in answer to several fans grievances or just to ease in first time players.
Buying exotic cars again isn’t really a Unique Selling Point as other racing games, like again Project Gotham Racing and Test Drive Unlimited have implemented this into their core appeal directly. In Project Gotham Racing, you could walk around a series of increasingly extravagant garages and interact with the cars you buy directly. Similarly with Test Drive Unlimited, the developers built the game so that they are placing the player into the lifestyle of a rich character who could buy mansions and cars on a whim. They could go into show rooms, get in cars, have a look around and even use novelty features such as the heaters or the car radio. In these two games they allow the player the illusion of wealth. In Forza the player navigates a series of crisp but plain screens to buy their cars, customise them and initiate pre-race protocol.
One feature of which can be said to be, if not unique, the best and well done is the decal creation system. The insane level of detail that a player can place on each part of their car is beyond anything seen in any other racing game – and has been a trademark of the game series. However this aspect doesn’t really edit the game mechanics – but rather the social elements of the Racing game. The marketplace and auction house are further proof. Forza allows players to trade, sell and buy cars, decals and car skins. This is likely to be the unique element in the game, that hasn’t been seen anywhere else. But yet as earlier stated this doesn’t really change the core gameplay. Does this mean that the social and online elements are the focus of the game? Or simply that everything ‘unique’ has been done in the racing genre? Has Innovation become impossible for modern racing games?

 This moves me nicely along to the next game I looked at.



Burnout Paradise

Again, like Forza Motorsport 3, this is the latest sequel in a long running game franchise. However unlike Forza, this racing game is far from ‘Traditional’. To explain, I’ll have to briefly address the both the origins of the series, in addition to the evolution. Burnout began as a racing game that made the player have to race against the clock to reach the goal. Sounds traditional at the moment, as even if they don’t have a ‘circuit’ racing games (especially early ones) have always been about reaching point B from point A, be it a circuit or a straight cut run. However the game pitted the player against the traffic and themselves, by allowing them to move quickly against the traffic. The risk/ reward focus of the game made for addictive play and was an innovative spin on the usual player v system gameplay, as it was more like Player v System and Themselves. This was because players had to gauge just how quick they could drive without crashing into the traffic and causing a pile up. As the franchise moved forward, by the third game it had the appearances of a traditional racing game. The player would line up with up to 7 AI racers. The track was circuit based and whoever finished the circuit first won. However, the developers had not only allowed players to be able to smash into other players while playing – they encouraged it. This was the birth of the ‘Takedown’ – a gameplay element that has become a permanent fixture.                 Additionally, the mode ‘Crash’ was introduced, that allowed players to deliberately crash their cars into a crossroad, and whoever caused the most damage won. This gameplay added another element into the game – whilst still sticking to the same interface.
By Burnout revenge they had completely shifted away from Burnout’s initial premise – to avoid traffic. In Revenge, in addition to being able to ‘Take down’ opponent’s cars, the player could ram traffic out of the way. By doing these two things, the car gained Boost, which increased speed drastically. Technically, due to the high population of smaller cars and opponents, Burnout Revenge had an astonishing average game speed and can be considered the most exhilarating racing game at the time.
Interestingly in Burnout Paradise, the final instalment thus far, it removed ‘tracks’ from the game in a way. The game takes place on an Island – Paradise City. The player can move freely around the island in their cars and at crossroads initiate Races. These can either be straight point to point races, variations of it (avoid getting taken down on the way to point b) or have no set route, but a time limit and objective). Furthermore the Win/Lose structure was less strict. The player could still progress with a 3rd place finish. Obviously though, the most points came from ‘Wins’. Some may argue that this isn’t as innovative as it first seems as Test Drive Unlimited allows for user selected routes across the island, however this isn’t necessarily the correct assumption. Burnout Paradise only gives players a Starting point and a Finish Point. How they reach it is up to them and this is where the developers have shown innovation. Slowly throughout the years, they have tested each convention to breaking point. The track attacking the player, the player having to fight their own want to go as quick as possible, the players being able to disrupt other players as a core game mechanic to the point where there’s no need for ‘track’ per say, but just points. Each time Criterion has broken one convention, they’ve collected feedback and pushed the boundaries the subsequent game. An example of this is in the removal of ‘checking traffic’ in Paradise. In Paradise, if the player hits traffic, they crash.
Looking at the unique features of the game, they are as follows:
Sandbox map with shortcuts and Jumps hidden throughout (Allows for long periods of exploration and a sense of freedom/ accomplishment when mastered)
Several different game modes, including point to point racing, ‘Road Rage’, Burning Trail, Stunt Run and Marked Man (Variation adds a fresh feel to the game after times of long play, also means players can have a ‘Favourite’ )
Players can choose from several unlicensed cars that range from trucks to F1 cars. Each Car has its own ‘strengths and weaknesses’ and ‘’Boost Type’’ (allows for different styles of play to be incorporated)
‘’Road Rules’’ - recorded time for certain roads (competition among friends over ‘’who has the best time’’)
Crash Mode – a free form mode, where the player has to smash into as many cars as possible to score the highest amount of points – can be activated at any point during play (another form of competition and variation)
Online Features:
Free Roam - up to 8 players can drive around the map at the same time, taking part in the same activities as can be done in single player (makes challenges such as ‘find all the smashes’ a cooperative affair and adds competition for the ‘’road rules’’ are still active. Furthermore, the players can perform takedowns on each other – sparking informal rivalries)
Events – the host player at any point can activate events such as cooperative challenges, free form scenarios and actual races (gives players complete control over whom and what they want to play).

As can be seen by several of these features, the developers have placed the emphasis on freedom for the player to choose what they want to do - whilst continuing the core mechanics of speed and avoiding traffic (the track ‘’attacking’’ the player). It’s here where the question; is innovation lost from racing games, is answered. The Burnout series began by approaching the core gameplay mechanics with a different viewpoint – by making the onus on the track to challenge the player – rather than the AI racers. They have since evolved, each time trying to do the same – allowing players to race against the track with AI racers that they could use the track against (knock them into oncoming traffic). The Developers have tried and tested different mechanics along the way (Revenge’s ‘’Checking Traffic’’), before removing the idea of ‘track’’ in Paradise; replacing it with Point A and Point B.
It is by doing this that Criterion has kept crafting an innovative approach Racing games and how they are approached – rather than Forza Motorsport 3’s simple re hash of other features into a tried and tested mechanic.
Burnout and Forza Motorsport are two examples of ways that gameplay can progress in the long running genre of Racing games. But what of a series that hasn’t evolved in terms of gameplay – but rather by interface used by controller. That series is Mario Kart.


Mario Kart Wii
The original Mario Kart was one of the innovations in racing games. It introduced ‘Weapons’ into the conventional circuit racer that completely changed the way the game was played. Instead of 1st position being ‘safe’ it was constantly under barrage of different attackers and the last place player could end up winning the race via luck of what weapons picked. In fact it could be said that Mario Kart is much more about Luck than Skill. However this is not the reason I looked at Mario Kart – and in particular Mario Kart Wii.
Mario Kart Wii is the latest revival of the game franchise and in its adaptation to the Wii; it runs from using the Wii-mote as the steering device. Steering Wheel attachments have been around for a while, dating back to the PlayStation 2 era. But what interests me about the Wii version is how they’ve built the game mechanics using the Wii’s features. To turn the player must turn the Wii-mote and by tilting it they can do ‘Tricks’ and Wheelies (if on a bike). Looking at the game like this, they have used the motion sensor for navigation and superfluous actions such as tricks. The IPod’s accelerometer works very much in the same way, so makes me wonder how I could use it to similar effect.
Nevertheless, taking a step back from that angle, what makes Mario Kart appealing enough to re purchase due to a different mode of navigation?
Mario Kart has always received appraisal due to its appeal as a ‘Party Game’. This is a common term used to describe games that are suited/ built for play with multiple players in the same room. This is likely due to the balance of family friendly characters/setting and a core gameplay mechanic that means that a player can target others. This status as Party Game has drawbacks in that the Player V System features become less appealing and subsequently less played. On a personal note, I often find this to be an issue with several games in the racing genre. One that doesn’t have that problem so much is Burnout, as there is the appeal that you are playing against your own urges to push forward – that ultimately leads to disaster.

So, what have I learnt from the three games I looked at? Well, Forza Motorsport was a prime example of the modern racing game- Good graphics, Simulation Gameplay that borrows elements from other successful games but ultimately tailored for online play. Burnout forced the player into conflict with several elements at once (the Track, the AI cars and themselves) meaning that gameplay was much more exhilarating for both online and offline modes. Mario Kart attracted in players with a fun reputation, different methods of physically playing and group entertainment. Like Forza, the single player suffered from this.
Each of the games is tailored for different means, and as you can see some have vital flaws – often with single player aspects. In making an App my main audience or reason for playing will be light single player entertainment for a few minutes at a time. Of course this is just a hypothesis so I’ll need to ask and look at how long people play for. But sticking to that idea, I may have to look at my idea in relation to burnout – a game that is fun in offline play due to freedom and challenge.




Interesting note on my possible target audience.

Kyle Bamford says
okay, well its like UBER simple
essentially it is a racing game where you play a bike rider that has to ride to the end of the tunnel or ''pipe''
its all perspective done so obsticles and items will be coming out of the horizon at you
Chelsea Taylor says
awwh cool
Kyle Bamford says
to dodge you tilt the iphone/ ipod (like a wii wheel)
Chelsea Taylor says
yeah
Kyle Bamford says
but since its circular instead of moving the bike, technically what moves is the background
so its kinda like moving the background to avoid the objects rather than the bike
there'll be other elements such as 'boosting' (you shed bike parts to go faster (but those parts double up as lifes so the more u shed the less you can get hit) and there'll be a time trial system
but yeah as a basic idea, first thoughts?
Chelsea Taylor says
yeah
thats sounds pretty cool
i think it would be more aimed at guys though
so work that
yeah altogeather,
its pretty cool



This was from a conversation I was having with a friend about my app idea. As an Iphone owner, I thought her input could be interesting, but from that I learnt something unexpected. She thought it would be more aimed at a male audience. I will look into this and will either focus my attentions on that market, or try and appeal to both.

Friday 29 October 2010

Wk 1 Day 5: ''Flushed''

Mindmap of ideas to do with the game idea (Note: 'Flush' is working title at this point in time)

Very basic layout

I have decided to follow up on the idea I discussed in an earlier post of a racing game built around the accelerometer feature of the IPod.  Thinking about it, here is the rough description of the game concept:
Choosing a character/ Item, the player must reach the end of the track avoiding all obstacles. There is a time that is shown at the top of the screen and at the end of the race this is posted onto a scoreboard.
As you can see goal for the players is to reach point B from point A – so it is a conventional racer game. However the game needs to be innovative and fun for the player. Well that is where the combination of the accelerometer based manoeuvring and the time trial system comes into play. Players will have to have interact with the ‘’console’’ itself while focusing on the screen which will mean that they will be completely focused on the game. Furthermore the inclusion of timed runs and leader boards means that players will want to master the game and get the best time – at least out of other friends who own the game.
But just having accelerate and turning would make time trials a little simple with one set time so I was thinking up other ways I could innovatively have faster times, while raising the risk / reward element of the game. One Idea is to have a player be able to ‘Shed’. By this I mean that players can shed excess parts to make their bike quicker. But that doesn’t really add much ‘risk’ so the bike parts could double up as ‘Lives’ or the number that a player can get hit by obstacles on the track. This would mean that the faster a player wants to go, the fewer margins for error they have. It would also comply with Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of ‘Flow’ - meaning that players regulate just how much of a challenge the game to maximise fun. If it gets too hard, they can choose to not shed until they are too comfortable at that level. Conversely if it is too easy they can shed early to maximise speed and difficulty.
Other things that could be included could be a ‘Hard’ mode, that forces the player onto only half of the track (thus giving them less freedom) and forcing them to shed throughout the race. Another element could be a ‘versus mode’ where up to 4 players race on the same screen over Wireless communication.
This would add a few more dimensions to the game, whilst keeping the premise simple. I would expect each track to last between one or Two minutes to keep the game time low enough for ‘Pick up and play’ appeal.
Since it is going to be a racing game and use the accelerometer, I’d best look into both categories. Also, while I cannot play any applications at the moment, I am tempted to look at some trailers to see the graphical capabilities of the console.

The accelerometer at a quick glance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvWj3Y4N1f8&feature=channel

An early worry I have with the iPhone was that the accelorometer feature might not be sensitive enough for my racing game idea so I looked up a video about a game called cube runners. By the looks of the video, the accelormeter is really responsive so would be perfectly fine running my game concept successfully.

Tuesday 26 October 2010

Wk 1 Day 2: Some initial ideas

Just some ideas:

A fighting/ chase game played on all four sides of the ipod. Using the accelerometer, the player tilts and flicks their player over to other sides of the screen (ie: ceiling, left, right, floor) and fights off waves of enemies (using the touch screen (and maybe mic?).

A racing game played again using the accelerometer to tilt the player around the map. Best way to describe it would be this >
Very rough sketch of general layout of game

-A game using a darwin style theory (ie start as a single cell organism, progress, etc) (problems being too much like 'Spore')

-Assasination style game using tilting and flicking of the ipod to progress through areas (slightly raised view)

-2D side scroller using touch screen features to fight waves of enemies (like The World ends with you - possible characters:

''Sarcasm man ''- Uses sarcasm and witty comments to generate random attacks (from a large hammer of irony to the ''backfire')

''The love train'' - guy calls upon girls to stampeed over enemies, calls fan girl (use mic to generate attack), heals by calling upon a holy pizza to decend)

Vegetarian Ninja - Uses a katana of celery to slice and dice opponents (optional card and RPG reference attacks?)

Skater - Uses Skateboard to do damage and Music to slow or obliterate enemies

Tech Girl - Uses ''AppAttack'' to do damage to opponents (touch screen and other features to generate attacks) - needs to ''recharge'' occasionally


(Other possible ideas)
-Camera to Card game (take pictures and they become cards you fight people with)

-Picture Points (heavily referencing Dead Rising - players gain points for each person in a pic (goes on 'Leader Board' ) Special points for certain things?

Sunday 24 October 2010

Week 1 Day 1: Apple features.

To understand the restraints and features of the apple format, I looked up both size and features of each of the app compatable products.




Ipod Touch Features:




Height:
4.4 inches (111.0 mm)


Width:
2.3 inches (58.9 mm)


  • Three-axis gyro
  • Accelerometer
  • Ambient light sensor
  • Touch Screen

Iphone Features:





Height:


4.5 inches (115.5 mm)




Width:


2.4 inches (62.1 mm)

  • Recording Voice
  • Accelerometer
  • Proximity sensor
  • Ambient light sensor
  • Touch Screen

Ipad Features



Height:
9.56 inches (242.8 mm)





Width:


7.47 inches (189.7 mm)

  • Accelerometer
  • Ambient light sensor
  • Touch Screen


http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/iphone/iphone-3gs/specs.html
http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/


Clearly designing for the Ipod Touch and Iphone would have the clear constraints in terms of size so game assets would have to be a fair size whereas with the Ipad, it is much more sizable. Furthernmore the graphical capability of the Ipad I assume is likely to be superior. Of course this is just speculative so I shall have to research this further.

New Project: Apple Interactive Project.

The next project is to design an Apple Application for either the Ipod Touch, Iphone or Ipad. Before I can really start compiling ideas, I need to have a firm understanding of both the features and limitation of each platform, which will be my first step.

Wednesday 20 October 2010

Week 4 Day 4: Playtest

Today, our group as a collective had a rough play-test of the formal elements of our game. Over the last week we have had one other playtest from outside testers - which gave us a good idea that our basic game premise worked. However, we discovered that the game was unbalanced via the inclusion of too many demolition and steal squares. Furthermore our board became too cluttered with build icons, having squares allocated to various pieces. This had led to a design overhaul in the placement and implications of some of the rules.
Now our design involves two sets of Cards: Build and Star (or ''Miscalculation'') - each with their own icon on the board. The Demolition and steal rules were placed into the Miscalculation cards also (they each featured once in a set of 32 cards so are rare). These were the positive outcomes to having such a playtest early in the iterative process. Now it was time to refine these elements.

Today's playtest was played within the design team. Jack was the ''Banker'' (a role that could be allocated to any of the 4 playing - we just did this for efficiency and another perspective), Jess, Steven, Robert and Josh played the game, while i observed the play through (making brief notes).

The game took a little while to set up. This was not due to too many pieces but rather as some pieces had to be hastily constructed. These were:
 The playing counters
And the ''dice'' (for which we wrote numbers on some paper. Then each turn a player would randomly select a piece of paper and whatever number was their subsequent dice roll). We will be using a dice for our final game.

Furthermore we had to use the 'build cards' as the robot for two of the players. This was unfortunate, however we have decided for some members of the team to build two other robots (so that there were variants for aesthetic appeal).

The game got underway at 12:10pm and from the first signs of play, it seemed to be playing well. One problem appeared two minutes into gameplay. This was that the ‘randomised’ build cards could have the potential to slow down play –especially since the rules specified that the build had to run from bottom to top (legs then torso, etc.) We changed this mid play so that a player could simply pick up whichever piece was needed straight from a build squares.

Having been reading ‘Games Design Workshop: A playcentric guide to making games’, it had become apparent about the importance of both balance of play and currency systems in a game; something I considered heavily when observing the play session. Our monetary system ran smoothly – with the 300 Credits every game revolution dispersing a reliable stream of cash to players. This was evened out heavily by the purchasing of parts (each part being 500 credits) and the Miscalculation cards – which had a 60/40 split to negatives (ranging from Miss a Turn to 500 credit deductions). Not once during play were all players struggling for money, but yet it became apparent that we had captured the ‘power struggle’ aspect of games such as Monopoly. One player in particular had been hit financially by the Miscalculation cards, often struggling for money in the early stages of the game. I feared a little at this point that more positive cards would have to be slotted into the deck.

One red flag incident was the ‘Betrayal card’. Betrayal targets all players and removes 400 credits. This was met with instant unhappiness from all players as it reduced almost all of them to no funds. Due to this it was ‘Removed from play’ and will not feature in any other playtests unless I review just how much money it takes from all players (100 credits is a possibility).

The Miscalculation cards took 45 minutes to reach fully play through, before re reading old cards. At this point they were shuffled and play continued. This wasn’t a bad sign as many games have several duplicate cards, so for them to last 45 minutes was not bad. Furthermore we expect normal players to use common sense to shuffle the deck – as this is not something normally included into design rules.
At this point of play the game had rewarded the player who was struggling early game and he was vying for the winning pieces with the current leader – causing me to realise that the early observation; that the game had the power struggle feel of monopoly, was not entirely incorrect as the balance of play had switched several times. Jess had gotten an early start, getting two legs early in play. Steven and Robert had one, while Josh until mid-game had no pieces. In the closing stages of play new leader Steven had gotten one arm, a torso and both legs. Josh had gotten up to the torso stage, while Robert and Jess were still at the leg stage via a bad run of the Miscalculation cards.
At the end of play Steven had won and we officially finished the game at 1.15pm. This meant our game had a running time of 1 hour 5 minutes. This we agreed was a good running time, which could have extended either way depending on play.
Speaking to Josh afterwards, he said that the game was ‘both infuriating and good’ and he remarked upon the sudden upturn of his fortunes mid game, thinking that that was a sign that the game was moving in the right direction.

After the game, as a team we spoke about a few aspects – namely the 2 needed Robots and the playing pieces. The playing pieces, Josh suggested, could be a character stood up on some kind of slit based plastic base. My own view was that it should be simple and looking at the board, whilst considering the theme, I pitched the idea that the playing pieces should be small spanners – of different colours. This was because counters are often simple and this would also be easier to produce the most effective prototype of. Jess agreed and put herself forward to make them. This was met with approval from the team.
As for the Robots, both Steven and Josh put themselves forward to make them – while Jess also expressed willing should the team wish, to remake her current robot design, but alter it 4 times for each team. Furthermore, Dom is said to be making another prototype so we shall discuss this further tomorrow.

Saturday 16 October 2010

Bibliography

Goodfellow, Carole. (2008) How We Played: Games from Childhoods past. 1st ed. History Press.

Hathaway, Nina. Jacobs, Byron. Kinsman, Andrew. Perryman, Nigel. Sutcliffe Jenny. (1998) The Encyclopedia of Games. 2nd ed. Aurum Press Ltd.


British Museum. Playable Royal Game of Ur, available from;
http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/tombs/challenge/cha_set.html
[Accessed Tuesday 28th September 2010]

Arneson, Erik. The History of Risk, available from:
http://boardgames.about.com/od/risk/a/risk_history.htm
[Accessed Tuesday 28th September 2010]

Thomas, Phillip. A brief History of Cluedo, available from:
http://www.cluedofan.com/overview.htm
[Accessed Tuesday 28th September 2010]

Wikipedia, Senet, available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senet
[Accessed Tuesday 28th September 2010]

Maler der Grabkammer der Nefertari.The Yorck Project: 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei. DVD-ROM, 2002. ISBN 3936122202. Distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH. Available from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maler_der_Grabkammer_der_Nefertari_003.jpg
[Accessed Tuesday 28th September 2010]


Ferrera, Steve. Market Deco Font. Available from:
http://www.dafont.com/market-deco.font
[Accessed Wednesday 13th October 2010]

Sketches

This was a sketch I produced recently on Photoshop using my tablet. I hadn't really sketched much using my tablet to any success, and recently a friend told me of a method of colouring using opacity changes. I decided to experiment with this, by creating a rough, quick anime sketch from scratch using black and white tones.
This sketch was far superior to my previous technique that was reliant on the dodge and burn tools.

My untoned, previous technique that was reliant on dodge/ burn tooling block colours.

Thursday 14 October 2010

Wk 3: Day 4: Printing and final touches

Today was printing day for our team, and the 'Miscalculation cards', Money (Credits - as not to be partial to any forms of current money), Board, Instruction manual and Box were all printed. There were some issues with the printing of the cards - due to the double sided design. Initially it was printed onto 150 gram paper. The print turned out fine, but unfortunately the paper was far too flimsy for cards. The second batch was done on thicker paper, but had to be turned half way into the process. This was okay, until it was discovered that the card was printed on upside down so that the back was upside down to the front. This wasn’t a huge issue, but it still wasn’t ideal. The third batch was correct.
However an issue was discovered in the cutting of the cards. The back wasn’t exactly matched up on the successful batch. The upside batch were slightly better; however the flimsy copy was exactly right (due to the double sided printing specifically). Nevertheless I, Jack and Josh agreed that this misalignment was an issue, but not really large enough to warrant another batch print.
I cut out both batches (leaving a rough outline to make sure not to damage the cards) so that we could mix and match in future test plays.
When I got home, to tell them apart I quickly produced two long thin sheet designs to be wrapped around the successful batch and spare batch. This was both for presentational and divisive purposes.

Wednesday 13 October 2010

Wk 3: Day 3: Changes taken

With print day fast approaching, I needed to finalise the writing on the card. My first idea - which was the neon lighting - was far too modern for the theme so stepping back from that, I took Josh's advice and used Market Deco typeface - obtained from DaFont.com. The typeface, designed by Steve Ferrera was specified as free for personal use, so meant that it could be used without copyright infringement. This was useful, as the writing perfectly fitted our theme.

But nevertheless I needed to incorporate writing onto my cards - which I had altered to be a more copper colour to fit with Roberts’s earlier advice to make them look copper colour.
Once again, the features of Photoshop elements 6.0 were handy in creating a bevelled effect on the typeface – which added to both the 3D element of graphic and meant the representation of writing carved into metal was met. Once again though, upon asking several people for their opinions, I discovered that many found it very difficult to read the writing on the card. This was a critical blow and after experimenting with different typeface and colours, I decided to make alterations to the card template. The major issue with the typeface was that it was hard to read in the darker areas. To counteract this, I used the dodge tool to lighten the area around the typeface to ensure that it was easier to read. This process was repeated until all of those I asked could read the writing.


The final card design - which I applied all 30+ effects to and saved in TIFF format for printing.

Tuesday 12 October 2010

Wk 3: Day 2: Card Back

Inspired by Josh's 1920's style design, I realised that my metal design was perhaps not as fitting to other people’s ideas and I needed to change this. The back of the card hadn't been designed yet so this was a perfect opportunity to link the theme of the board game with my original concepts. Using a simple Google search ('1920's posters’) I realised that the artwork and Art Deco style was comprised heavily of smooth lines and block colour.
Choosing red and beige as the colour theme I began to construct two sets of diagonal lines that extended in width as they got further out. Furthermore I incorporated the basic Logo in the centre of the design. The Logo wasn’t perfect but nevertheless this was something that could be changed on Thursday before printing. Besides, Josh had said that his logo would be up on our Facebook group by Wednesday.
After making the basic geometric shapes, I crumpled some paper, folding one corner - before scanning it in. Josh had mentioned in the team meeting that he had used paper texture as an overlay to give it a worn feel. I imitated this in my card design. I also included the fold so that the back of the card looks as if it has been crudely stuck onto the metallic surface (shown by the front of the card). This way it bridges the theme and my face design excellently.
I showed the design to a few people on my social networking list. They liked the design but had the criticism that the 'Star logo' (which I had included to look as if it had been burnt into both the back and front of the card) drew attention away from the design. I removed the star from the design on the below version.





This was a definite improvement as the attention then focused onto the logo and 'Miscalculation' title. I chose Miscalculation for the name of the cards as our narrative storyline is that our player is a mad/ evil scientist. The word 'Miscalculation' is synonymous with scientists as it describes something unplanned or a wrong answer. By using this word, it means that the card is neither positive nor negative.
While this version was again positively received by those I showed it too, some mentioned that it wasn’t too apparent that the back was meant to be peeling off the metallic design. So I used the burn tool to highlight the paper texture in the below edit.




I liked this version but again, the same issue of not looking like it was peeling off was there for those I showed it to.


. This was the penultimate design made. I used a more contrasted edit of the paper texture to make the crumples more prominent - and give the design a darker, worn look. With further constructive input from people I showed it to, I added two screws in the top two corners to finish off the look. This was met with positive feedback. Later I replaced the logo with Josh's as it was much more precise, and was used in all other designs, so was needed to make my design gel with others in the group.




Wk 3: Day 2: Team meeting

At around 11 o'clock everyone in the team had gathered and discussed each other’s progress over the previous evening. I presented my designs that the team liked, however Robert offered some advice that perhaps it would be best to add a bronze / copper style tinge to the cards. I noted this down for editing tonight or tomorrow - before printing on Thursday.
Looking at other team members designs, Robert had created an impressive blueprint design that had summarised what we wanted as a team collectively. He had also created a great back of the card that made it seem like a secret military dossier. Overall, I was very impressed.
Josh had made some similarly impressive box art that adhered to the Art Deco style, which was popular in that period of time. Using a typeface from the website; 'Dafont.com', that had allowed users to use it for personal use and a realistic crumpled paper effect, Josh had captured the theme perfectly.
Steven had been doing some Robot concepts, which were really detailed and professional. The only worry that was shared by the team was that they were perhaps too futuristic. Nevertheless Jess and Steven will continue to work at it.
Jack had produced some excellent money for our game also, that again really fit the theme. I could begin to see that when all the pieces come together at the end of the week, it would be an impressive board game.


One aspect of the cards I had yet to cement entirely was which effects the cards should have. I spoke with Dominic and together we collaborated to create this list:


Positives

You won the noble prize (gain $400)
Reports say problems are happening at your build area. You rush back to find that it is only a mime outside the gate (go to your build area ...and that mime wasn’t around for long)
You persuade an engineer from a rival military force to work for you. He brought with him some blueprints from his previous job (pick up a build card)
You invent some kind of death ray and sell it at an auction (gain $400)
You sell space on your robot for advertising (gain $300)
After pleading with the general you get an advance on your pay (gain $300)
You get a free delivery with your ‘Evil meal’ (move to nearest delivery square)
Defeat your Arch-nemesis and sell the silent movie rights (gain $300)
Spies report back from an opponent’s base with their plans (pick up a build card)
You win evil scientist of the year award (gain $500)
You collect $100 for charity ...it’s your charity (gain $100)
Negatives
You hire a group of train robbers to loot the bank accounts of your opponents. Unfortunately they target your own account also (everyone loses $400)
Some idiots in the local security office install some form of metal identifying device – forcing you to leave all carried pieces (lose carried piece)
You are invited to an honorary zeppelin ride. It crashes. (Miss a turn)
Some of your scientists were testing woods properties with the steam engine. As a result your robot caught fire. (Lose $100 for each piece you own (if not paid lose that piece))
A platform collapses. With you on it (Miss a turn)
You are tricked by a pyramid scheme (lose $500)
You are forced to partake in a military parade (Miss a turn)
Through a clerical error, explosive testing was scheduled on the same day as build servicing (lose a piece)
Take a personal leave to quell worker/ robot uprising (Miss a turn)
One of your workers quits, joining a travelling band (pay $200 to have him Eradicated...)
Your steam engine runs out of coal (pay $100)
Your aircraft is blown off course – move to adjacent square (if build / chance square it is NOT activated. Also if you pass your build station it does not allow you to get pay / place build items)
Joinery workers on strike (if you have a piece, cannot attach until next go)
Your local wireless rant on how robots will eventually run flying machines gets you barred from all delivery squares for 1 turn)

Dud
You come last in a beauty pageant ...ouch
You get gum on your shoe ...how irritating
                Aimed
You try out one of your scientists new inventions. It’s a success ...unfortunately for your opponent (Chose a player. That player can only roll between 1 and 3 their next turn)
You discover a vinyl with hypnotic qualities.  (Pick a player. They miss a turn – waking their workers)
Weapons practice: you decide to try out your robot’s destructive capabilities...on your opponent (pick a player – they miss a turn)
Amnesia – everyone re rolls their ‘who starts’ dice roll to determine a new order.
Pickpocket – you may steal either $500 off an opponent or a carried ‘piece’ (you may NOT steal from the build area)
Steal – You may steal one piece from an opponent’s build area
Demolition – you may destroy remove one piece from an opponent’s build area
Sabotage – you sabotage the delivery system – other players cannot use it next turn

Monday 11 October 2010

Wk 3: Day 1: Card Front

Given the role of Card design, I thought a lot about our combination of themes (1920’s industrial sky city and the somewhat futuristic Robot build) and how best I could incorporate this. The word Robot brings forth connotations of futuristic, clean lines, sleek design. But then again, in the 1920’s it was very bulky. Furthermore Cogs, Copper, steel and a solid industrial process were all features of production lines in that era.
This was the basic template I constructed. Using simple geometric shapes and metallic toning, I aimed for a plain metallic sheet look. This wouldn’t have been too difficult in this era as steel was very much part of the economy. Never the less, it looked rather simplistic so, I decided to add a slightly ‘futuristic’ look to the design by incorporating some clean lines that would divide up the metal. My reason for doing this is it does make it look more futuristic but nevertheless wouldn’t be impossible to achieve in that era. I added a small cog into the bottom left hand corner to further increase the detail of the design and further improve the construction of the theme.





Josh had suggested that the mishap/ positive cards had a star icon on the board that looked as if it had been 'spray painted on' with a clear centre. This is the design of which I felt fit those criteria, and also would fit the card design as it looked as if it had been burnt onto the metal. After having done these above concepts, I experimented a little with colour and form using photoshop effects.By applying the Photoshop effect ‘Poster edges’ and a cold photo filter, it showed another direction I could take with the cards that was bright, vibrant and more unrealistic. Of course, this isn’t my main intention for the card, so I will present it tomorrow to the team in addition to the card templates. I also trialled some interesting text effects for the card.




The neon effect is easy to read and fits the theme of the card; however I do worry that it shall be too futuristic for the time period. Again I shall present this to the team and gather any criticism or opinions.


Overall, I am optimistic about the designs I have created. Of course there will be room to manoeuvre within the designs depending on the directions others have taken. But hopefully it will be accepted well, and the opinions I gathered from friends that I have showed the cards to was great so this can only bode well.

Week 3: Day 1: Meeting and Presentation

Today, our team had to present and pitch our concept to the group. I showed some of my concepts which seemed to get a good reception, as well as other themes the team presented also. Overall while the presentation went well, there was a definite room for improvement within our pitching. The tutors mentioned two points:
- Assigning roles when speaking (either one person speak about the entire project or each team member is allocate a topic that they cannot stray from).
-Do not show your own project in a bad light (‘‘If you think it is bad, what are they going to think?'').

The first, much more than the second applied to our group and are something I will definitely take on-board next time I am pitching my ideas and concepts. The second didn’t apply as all of our team members were very positive about the game and each other’s concepts.

After the presentations we decided to playtest our basic concept with another team. Using the rough board template that Josh produced early on in the process and a rough paper robot that Jess had made, we quickly decided on basic board squares:
4 Demolitions
4 Steal
4 legs
4 arms
2 torsos
And we decided to have the 'delivery squares' (of which there were 4) as the point where you claim the 'Head' at the end stages of the game.
The board and playing pieces were very rudimentary, but never the less it seemed to be playable. However the first of the bugs became very apparent around 5 minutes into the playtest. With many squares dedicated to steal and demolition - it meant that players were 'destroying' pieces quicker than building them. This was a clear issue and needed to be addressed. In the playtest we decided to have 'steal' to only apply to pieces that players were carrying at the time. While the play testers were growing a little impatient with the process, there were definite hints at what we were trying to achieve in our game. (At one stage a player was carrying a piece, it got stolen then he landed on a delivery square - which would have saved it. It is these kinds of ironies that make board games both fun and frustrating and I was very happy to see it happening). Nevertheless this playtest lead to some important decisions about our game.
Firstly the demolition squares would be rare and only target pieces in an opponent’s build area. Furthermore Steal squares would be equally rare, targeting only what players had on them. However despite these changes that were needed, the playtest was relatively successful and meant that we could finally work to cementing the rules, theme and play style of the game as a team. To do this we had a meeting.

All of our team (Me, Jess, Josh, Steven, Robert and Jack) were present aside from Dominic, who had some urgent matters to attend to, and Ronnie who was suffering from an illness (they were notified straight afterwards of their roles).
In our very first meeting as a team, we had decided not to include cards. However over the last week, it became very apparent to me that cards can make a game fun and unique. Josh had also included some form of card system into his concepts. His idea was to have the pieces as cards that could be picked up from a ‘Build pile’. This was an interesting idea as it means that luck would play a huge part in whether a player is successful or not in acquiring the right piece or not. We decided as a group that this was probably the best way to do the method of acquiring build pieces. In doing so we removed a tactical element of the game – however considering how a dice roll determines play, we were simply specialising in the Luck aspect of our game rather than an ill attempt to be a strategic game. If there is build cards, there should also be chance or mishap cards – much like my Acts of god card concept. We spoke about this, and after discussing the pros and cons of them, I put myself forward to produce both the artwork and actual happenings on the cards. This was accepted by the group.
We still had yet to decide on theme. After having been impressed Josh’s 1920s board design in the presentation, we all decided to adopt that theme for the final product. However there was a slight debate on whether or not we should build buildings or not. Josh’s original idea had been to be buildings – as had mine. But Jess argued the valid point that young people would not be enticed by buildings. It wasn’t attractive as a proposition. From that, we decided to incorporate the robot theme that Steven and Jess had been working on as it would be a much more appealing ‘build’ for a younger audience. Jess and Steven had also been decided to be the team to work on constructing the robot and playing pieces, using light weight clay. Additionally Jess would be researching about robots, and presumably ways how they could fit the game’s 1920s feel as she was passionate about the researching side of the project.
Josh, having produced the Board was decided to make the instruction booklet and box art as his style was the overall theme. Robert put himself forward to produce the build cards, which I collaborated with him for the idea to incorporate them in some kind of blueprint. Finally Jack decided to take on the challenge of designing the money. Having decided on roles, we all headed off with a clear direction for the next session tomorrow.

Thursday 7 October 2010

Wk 2: Day 4 - 6: Board design

So far, I had looked at board logos, card design and general logo for my theme. What I had not attempted was board design. So I allowed myself several days to draw up some basic concepts for a board. My photoshop version used Joshua Allen's basic board template that he had drawn up and posted on facebook for the rest of the groups use - as well as his own.


Josh Allen's basic board template.


In the template there were two distinct board blocks - the tiles that the players would move around and the build areas. The build areas would clearly have to be identifiable for a certain team or colour. I used washes of brown, with the dodge, burn and smudge tool to create the mud texture. Then i used block colours, with the burn or dodge tool to create the outer edging.


Given that my theme was simple building, I used a basic geometric looking pavement square design to be the board squares. They are plain but identifiable as pavement.

The corner square( created by combining three of the original pavement squares)

My Basic Board concept.
This board concept I created by placing my pavement squares onto Josh's board design. Then I placed the 4 build areas in each corner. Then I produced a simple centre piece and layered my Build it Up logo over the top. I asked a few people on my social network for their opinions. Most said it was okay, but they brought up key issues such as:
-The yellow and green build areas were hard to read.
-The centrepiece was dull and too simple
-The logo obscured the centrepiece and didn’t fit with the board.

I decided to address each problem, one by one.


I went about making the writing easier to read by first trying to edit the typeface colour - which didn’t help. Following that, and some advice from a friend who was proficient with Photoshop, I was introduced to the bevel effects. By using these I could raise the writing from the background with ease.


The next issue was the centrepiece, which was deemed too simplistic and dull. I attempted to make a courtyard and fountain to replace the park and lake. Again I was finding problems making it interesting and not dull. I experimented with a variety of Photoshop effects and finally found the below centrepiece was much more potent.




The above two images are my 'final' board concept. I once again asked a variety of people what they thought of the board and generally the reaction was positive. My only worry is that the board will become too busy with different icons. Still I have yet to see what my team mates have been producing so hopefully they will have insight into how to deal with that issue.