Critical play. Entry 2: research

Literature overview and case studies

This term is devoted to narrative games in their various forms like autobiographical, political, and philosophical. All these game genres are characterized by prevalence of a narrative element the main function of which is to communicate a message. So, I would like to start the research on the topic from revisiting an abstract from my BA thesis, mentioning the split in approach to narrative analysis of video games:

“Worth mentioning here is the “narrativists vs ludologists” conflict in the area of game studies which significantly influences the choice of approaches to game analysis. In brief, narrativists (Ryan, Jenkins, Simons) tend to treat games as texts or stories, “study them alongside other storytelling media” (Jenkins, 2004) and consequently apply methods of narrative analysis. Ludologists (Juul, Eskelinen, Frasca), on the other hand, accuse narratology of “colonization” (Wesp, 2014) and “want to see the focus shift onto the mechanics of gameplay” (Jenkins, 2004). The debates are very deep and still ongoing, but I find the in-between position of Espen Aarseth (2012) the most appealing one as he calls for approaching the problem from the core structure, that is shared by both games and stories, – the four dimensions: world, objects, agents and events. Aarseth in general presents a narrative theory of games and proves that narrative theory can be used for games not neglecting their special features as a separate medium.”

As I have mentioned in project aims and objectives, I would like to focus on wordless narrative games, therefore I have established several key points to research and apply in the process of artifact production. Apart from general overview of works, devoted to wordless games, the main question I need to answer is what game elements are responsible for “telling a story” and communicating the message to players. I will provide several case studies of silent games to see not only which elements tell the story, but how they do it as well. Eventually I will get some understanding of which way to go and what to keep in mind while working on the wordless game of my own.

Games, obviously, are not the first medium that rejects words to tell a story. Laura McGee (2013) gives a brief retrospective about narrative minimalism in mediums, related to games, from which evolved similar approach to games. First of all, the film medium. Maria Carluccio (2016) also gives overview of that medium in terms of wordless picture books’ research and states that in order to keep the viewer engaged in the story, it must reveal itself gradually and make the viewer constantly ask questions of “why”, “what will happen next” or somehow try to predict future events. [p.67] Same applies to games as they rely on visual sequence as well. Coming back to McGee, she also mentions the fact that games literary started from being very minimalistic in narrative due to their dependence on technological levels, so “plot was kept to a bare minimum if there at all and narrative cues primarily existed to give context”.  As technologies progressed wordlessness became an artistic choice as it allows to experience the game in a more deep and personal way. As both McGee (2013) and Gaikward (2014), and many other researchers in interactive storytelling field agree, human imagination works with patterns and does not need many detailed descriptions in order to produce a wholistic image. It prefers to construct meanings from small bits of information and that is what various media, focusing on telling a lot through less, try to work with and make watchers/players have a much more powerful experience.

While trying to narrow down my research to wordless games, I found out that researchers barely touched on the topic. A lot of scholars debate on questions of game narrative in general (like the abovementioned Ryan, Jenkins, Simons, Aarseth), but I managed to find only one definition of a wordless game by Emma Reay (2020) in her analysis of the games like Little nightmares and Inside: “Wordless video games convey narrative meaning, game rules and ludic feedback through visual, audible, haptic, and mechanical signifiers without the use of written text or verbal speech, other than in the extradiegetic game menus or title screens. Additionally, wordless video games don’t convey information via a ‘heads-up display’ (HUD), which is an interface overlaid onto the game world that displays information on score, lives, time etc.” [p. 8]

Due to this issue I had to base my research on related wordless narrative mediums like silent comics and picture books. Here I want to two main outcomes. First one was partly mentioned above – “show, don’t tell” principle. It means that players can reconstruct the narrative only with several correct clues from the author. To elaborate this point Carluccio mentions that creators should “consider, how much they want the viewer to guess at the story and how much they want to ensure the story is communicated clearly” [p. 59] This is important because imagination differs from person to person as well as cultural differences can lead to ambiguity and several various interpretations of the narrative. Because, as she rightfully claims, “there is no guarantee that the story they [creators] intend [to make] will actually be the story the viewer takes away”[p.56]

Second important point is “why silent?” e.g. why does a particular game or narrative doesn’t use text and how does it benefit from that absence? Here I would like to start with the example of The Arrival – a silent picture book/ graphic novel (opinions vary) by Shaun Tan. It is a story about migrating to a completely foreign country and trying to adapt to the new life there. I completely agree with Sly’s (2020) outcome that silence gives us experience of “trauma and alienation as well as silence resulting from people not having a shared language”. Such omnision makes the story “interactable” because together with the character viewers try to learn and understand the rules of a completely unknown world. It is supported even more by peritext, where even we, the ones outside the story, can’t understand a thing as it was designed not to resemble any known language. By excluding the core means of communication we can not only consciously understand that the character is alone and doesn’t understand a thing as if could have read about it but can feel in on our own. So, silence significantly deepens our experience.

But let’s turn to games medium. Games are different from picture book and comics because of direct player’s interaction, game rules and mechanics that provide and control this interaction. So, the effects of silence would be different. I want to take 3 games as examples: Little nightmares 1&2, The Journey and The Flower. Apart from the question “why silent?”, I will define which visual ques (according to Carlussio) they use to communicate narrative and what role gameplay has in this communication.

The Journey:

Картинки по запросу "the journey game"

Why silent? The case of Journey is related to The Arrival. All locations that we visit are vast deserted areas where our protagonist is the only one standing (we omit the multiplayer feature here). Verbal silence intensifies the feeling of loneliness as well as relates to the characters backstory, who turns out to be the last one standing from their civilization. Thus, you may argue that technically there is a form of verbal communication, using square signs and sounds. But it has the same peritext effect as in The Arrival. We as players don’t understand their communication and the meaning of squares. Everything that players really need to understand is depicted with clear images, that form parallel narrative, that eventually forms backstory of the world and produces meaning. If we analyse silence from the point of operational and interpreted components (Schellekens, 2020), wordlessness functions within interpreted ones (the ones that communicate message to player on their own): theme and aesthetics. From the theme of a lonely traveller in a desert and a destroyed civilization silence is a logical element while most of all we as players feel the influence of silence via aesthetics when there’s literary no one to talk to. Even a potential narrator. We have to find out everything on our own.

Картинки по запросу "the journey game"
Картинки по запросу "the journey game"

What visual cues? We can notice 2 types according to Carluccio, which are symbols and title. Thus, they communicate very little narrative information. The majority of it is communicated via environmental storytelling, where in each location we can see the story (picture sequence on walls + story fragment before proceeding to the next one) and its consequences, that is the ruins. By merging two types of information, we understand the main plot.    

Картинки по запросу "the journey game"

How gameplay communicates the narrative? Journey has a very simple gameplay. Though it can’t compare with environmental storytelling, core mechanics support emergent narrative. For example, we have to free cloth creatures from fragments of some cages in the beginning. Later on we find more preserved ones, which turn out to be snake-like machines and at some point we meet them alive which try to damage us. So, two mechanics “free the creatures” and “avoid cage-creatures” add to the world story narrative.

The Flower:

Картинки по запросу "the flower game logo"

Why silent? Silence supports the theme element, which is nature. Most of the game is about the petal wind flying around. Player just does not need any verbal guidance or information. He must feel free and alone, being able to go wherever with a pleasant music in the background. In this game silence is related to aesthetics and game dynamics elements. Especially dynamics, because without any literal instructions at the beginning of the game you do not have particular understanding what to do and where to go. The clues are made only visually, and player must spend some time just flying around and enjoying colourful scenery. What was intended by developers in the first place.  

What visual cues? Like in Journey it is possible to distinguish only 2 types – symbols and title. Petals symbolize nature and electric tower symbolize the city. Supported with gameplay it is not hard to get a simple message of nature struggling with the grey city. Again, most of the job does environmental storytelling and how locations transform from colourful and airy to hostile electrified and stiff ones as we approach the city.

Картинки по запросу "the flower game"
Картинки по запросу "the flower game"

How gameplay communicates the narrative? Gameplay can be described in one short phrase: collect petals and avoid electricity. From collision with electric tower players get a clear message that the city destroys nature. But closer to the end, we get another mechanics, which is demolishing the towers, which develops the narrative to communicate the main message.

Little Nightmares 1&2:

Why silent? First of all, I think that it contributes to the genre, which is horror. It is supposed to produce mystery and fear, because silence is like darkness: the unknown is what scares the most. Secondly it works well in combination with the main characters, who are children. Reay (2020) states that from one point it hints on children’s “quiet compliance”, making the player feel like “an anxious parent, protecting a dependent child as it moves through a dangerous world” [p.1] From another point it increases mystery and disturbance, when children become stronger with potentially sinister intentions and they “seem imbued with authoritative knowledge” [p. 12] Silence is needed to influence player’s perception of the story and characters, which means it is directly related to aesthetics element (which is “how it feel to play the game”).

Картинки по запросу "little nightmares children"

What visual cues? Little Nightmares have more visual cues as it presents humans and human-like creatures that express a big variety of gestures. A significant amount of storytelling goes by symbols, which make players engaged in the process of finding out their meaning. For example, in part 1 the eye that is present in many locations and is even an obstacle at some point. Part 2 is especially rich in symbols, that can help players develop their understanding of narrative. That is the music box of Six, the door that Mono is constantly trying to reach, TV sets all over the game etc. These key symbols make us ask questions and suppose their meaning and role in the story while playing. Players are interested in finishing the game in hope that the meaning will be revealed in the end or at some point of the game. The key engine of Little nightmares is mystery which creates dynamical interest in the narrative. We are in constant state of “what happens next?” For example, in LM2 with each location change we wonder, which one will be next and what monsters are awaiting there; the mysterious Thin Man by giving us small hints first forces us to move further to reveal his origin, which is the climax of the whole game and turns the narrative understanding inside out. Peritext-like elements are also massively present in the game which allow players to have debates over the whole game story. For example, portraits of the characters, that we saw before together with the ones we don’t know makes us ask questions one who they might be. In LM2 children’s chalk drawings giving hints to future or some explanation to the past events etc.

Картинки по запросу "little nightmares 2 hunter"

How gameplay communicates the narrative? Basically, the gameplay supports the message of vulnerability of child characters. All we can do is hide and trick monsters. But gameplay changes dramatically together with the story and supports the narrative trick. As children gain powers, they not only start to attack, but player gradually has less and less control over them. Especially it is vivid in the ending scene of LM1, where Six devours souls of everyone around, and player has no control, but to let her move forward.  

Outcomes:

– Wordlessness of a game is a tool that must be applied for some particular purpose. Mostly to enhance some kind of feeling and make the experience deeper and more immersive. Depending on the genre, silence can me calm and meditative or disturbing. So when thinking through a project, we must clearly answer the question “what for do I need this silence”.

– Absence of words already communicates a message on the level of aesthetics most of all. It means players can feel something they not always can verbalize. I believe it is a deeper level of interaction with the medium.

– Words or verbal clues are the pieces of the narrative puzzle that can be deliberately omitted in order to stimulate players’ imagination and make them produce meanings by themselves. Alongside core game elements it creates narrative dynamics – the holes, which players’ mind need to close in order to feel comfortable. But important to remember that the main message must be communicated clearly via other elements because there is no guarantee that players will take out the same understanding as developers intended.

– Most of communication in case of wordlessness relies on visual cues. Case studies showed that the most widespread ones are symbols and peritext together with environmental storytelling. Since characters can say nothing, the surroundings will.

– Silence must be supported by gameplay. Characters must demonstrate behaviour and abilities in correspondence with the narrative state they are supposed to be in. Otherwise, the aesthetics will not work properly, and the message is highly probable to be distorted or the narrative will not be engaging enough to keep the player interested.

– In terms of the story, I must clearly think through, what parts of it can be hidden or omitted in order to still keep the main idea clear.

SOURCES:

  1. Carluccio, M., (2016). Wordless Children’s Picture Books: A Universal Language, Fashion Institute of Technology, State University of New York.
  2. Gaikward, K. (2014). Use of a Wordless Narrative in Gaming. Available at: https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/KaranGaikwad/20140831/216312/Use_of_a_Wordless_Narrative_in_Gaming.php (Accessed: 21.02.2021).
  3. Jenkins, H. (2004) ‘Games design as narrative architecture’ in Wardrip-Fruin, N. and Harrigan, P. (ed.) First person: new media as story, performance and game. Cambridge, Ma.: The MIT Press.
  4. Mcgee, P. A. (2013) Minimalism inGame Narrative: Can we say more bytalking less? Available at: www.dreamfeel.net:http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/PaulAndrewMcgee/20130517/192492/Minimalism_in_Game_Narrative_Can_we_say_more_by_talking_less.php (Accessed: 20.02.2021)
  5. Reay, E., (2020) Secrets, Stealth, and Survival The Silent Child in the Video Games Little Nightmares and INSIDE. Barnboken, 43.
  6. Sly, C. (2020) An eloquent silence: The value of wordless narratives. Scan, 39(7).
  7. Schellekens, J., Caselli, S., Gualeni, S., Giappone, C. (2020) Satirical Game Design: The case of the Boardgame Construction BOOM!. In In the Proceedings of The International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. FDG.

Critical play. Entry 1: concept and idea

First I was going to continue one of the 3 games we had to make for the beginning of this unit and when the oficcial start of developing the final piece I was considering which one to choose. But just I was about to decide, an event happened that I considered the best option to turn into a concept of an autobiographical narrative game.

In late February just a week before my birthday my friend was denided entry to the country due to covid restrictions and had a very rough trip back home which included walking 5 km in snow and cold in the middle of the night, trying to catch several cars and a bus. Not mentioning our disappointment, because we’ve been waiting for this meeting for more than 6 months.

Overwhelmed by emotions, after he reported that he made it back home safe eventually, I decided that this is the personal story I want to tell in my game since it quite relevant for many people these days, when we can’t see our loved ones when we want to. Apart from that I want to show the situation from both perspectives. From the perspective of my friend, who had to physically overcome obstacles and mine, when you’re staying have hundreds of kilometers away and can do nothing to help, but to comfort somehow over the phone when there is a connection available.

So for now I think this will be a wordless story, because I want players to feel the atmosphere and emotions themselves as well as leave some space for their personal interpretation and relation to the story. I want it to be something like Journey – a small, but stylish atmospheric game with a simple plot, whict communicates the message that if you support and care for each other, then anything is possible to bear.

I am also thinking about including symbolism in the game. Since I’m telling a personal story, they will be the ones we have between us two, but again, quite common for many people, so they still can relate to some of them. These can be common activities like playing games, listening to music or more private ones, but still open to be adapted to player’s personal interpretation.

Collaborative unit. Entry 1. Research and literature overview

For this unit we decided to cooperate with Trini again and choose the brief about adapting a comic strip from the New Yorker. This week we decided to start with research and literature review. While I’m doing theoretical research on satire, she is doing several ca\se studies on humoristic and satirical games.

Satire in games design

Since the topic of our collaborative project is comic strips in the New Yorker, after researching and analysing several of them we noticed that quite a significant amount is based not only basic humour, but includes an element of satire. We decided that this is an interesting, but underrated element withing games design, so it would be interesting to make some research within this area to implement further in the game.

Theoretical part of the research includes answering the questions of what is a satire, what is satire in games specifically and if it has any distinguishing features within this medium. Practical part includes analysis of several case studies, e.g. games with a noticeable satire component and, finally, analysis of the comic strip of our choice to be transformed into a satirical video game.

We will highlight the general definition of satire briefly as it is not our main question in focus. All researchers of satire agree on the position that it is hardly possible to make a solid definition of satire as arguments on its essential features vary greatly from author to author. Declerq (2018) mentions that there’s even  consensus that satire has no essential features. [p. 321] Feinberg (1967), for example, gives a very broad understanding of satire as something that “pretends to be something other than what it really is”. [p.3] But like the majority of scholars still mentions 1 main feature (that we can consider as essential, but opinions vary) – criticism of something. In most cases it comes together with humour, but the amount of it varies greatly and even its necessity in a work to be considered as satirical is still debatable. For the purposes of our research we have chosen Declerq’s definition which matches with the understanding of satire by scholars, who research the topic within game design area. So we would define satire as “a genre with the purpose to critique and entertain (with the qualification that these purposes necessarily interact, although neither is wholly instrumental to the other).”  [p.328]

If we narrow down the area to game design, we can notice that the topic of satire in video games is barely touched. In a relatively old work (2002) Helene Madsen made an attempt to research satire in short flash games like “The Mustafa Game”. She claims that games of such type primarily exist to communicate an idea, rather than entertain. [p.76] She applies Feinberg’s study of classic satirical techniques and demonstrates how non-narrative satirical devices work in these games, and illustrates usage of incongruity, surprise, pretence and superiority along with their subtypes. Thus we think that Madsen didn’t manage to distinguish any particular functions or characteristics of satire that are specific for games. Because according to her conclusions it is not games that bring new aspects to satire, but satire as a classical genre and its techniques “allows computer games to exceed themselves as games” [p.86] But despite that she finishes with an interesting point that urge of “game mastery”, e.g. player’s wish to reach game goal or the best highscore can work as a satire itself, especially is the gameplay was intentionally designed to be hard. “Why spend a lot of time on a game that is meant to be too difficult? This is also part of the joke” [p.86]

Thus, the article points out several satiric techniques proven to exist and work in games. For our project we now have some understanding of which techniques can make our game work both as satirical and humoristic. The best techniques so far are parody and superiority since we will be highly likely to touch upon social satire. A deeper look into Feinberg’s study suggested even more relevant techniques such as reductor ad absurdum, caricature, unexpected honesty and symbols. [3, pp. 101-198] Together with that worth thinking about if we could make the gameplay itself work as a satirical element.  

Hence, we will focus on the recent article by Caseli et al (2020) who consider games as a new means to express satire and try to distinguish new features of it, relevant particularly to the game medium. Their main definition is identical to Declerq’s, where they focus on 2 key elements – critical intent and entertaining purpose. So they claim, that “as long as a discourse or narrative necessarily sets out to entertain and critique some state of affairs via the use of win, derision, irony parody and so on, it could be understood as satirical” [p.4] What they notice, however, in terms of novelty in understanding satire in such a new medium in games, is that it acquired a new feature – playfulness, which means a viewer or player being involved into it instead of being a silent observer [p.3]. Based on the theory of procedural rhetoric (introduced by I. Bogost) they state that games “can be satirical due to their procedural rhetoric”, e.g. because game designer made it work as a satirical artefact, but at the same time “satire can exist only during the players’ appropriation of that rhetoric while playing” [p.5] In other words despite game rules or other game elements are designed to express satire, the game can’t be considered satirical if player themselves doesn’t understand it as satirical. In addition, worth mentioning is that in games often “satire is ultimately context-relative”, which means players must know or recognise some historical or cultural facts on the game theme.

Caseli’s ideas in combination with game components, identified by Treanor et al were developed in a practical way by Schellekens et al (2020), where they create and analyse satirical game design on a board game of their own “Construction BOOM!”. Their main idea is based on defining 2 groups of game components: operational elements (like goals, mechanics, performance etc.) and interpreted components (like dynamics, theme, aesthetics). The evidence provided profs that satire must be present in both groups of elements, but at the same time “operational elements on their own don’t provide sufficient information to players for them to reach conclusion on the game’s satiric intent”. It means that “operational elements can reinforce satirical elements, but are unable to communicate the message on their own” [p.2] Schellekens et al illustrate every element from both groups from the perspective of satire functioning and also mention an important role of paraludic components (such as instruction videos, packaging) which can provide “further elucidation of the satiric intent” [p.9] This can be pointed out as another new feature of satire with its ability to go beyond the “text” it originates from.  

We found the two latter sources as the most relevant for now. Caseli stresses on the idea of balance between the 2 key features of game satire and advices that “one way of ensuring that critique is not overshadowed by entertainment is to bring the designers’ intention into the foreground to reduce the possible variations that could occur in the process of their interference” [1, p.6]. With practical approach of Schellekens we could define more carefully via which game elements we are attempting to express satire and if our gameplay elements cooperate with interpreted components and successfully communicate satirical intent.  

Sourses:

  1. Caselli, Stefano & Bonello, Krista & Bonello Rutter Giappone, Krista & Schellekens, Jasper & Gualeni, Stefano. (2020) Satire at Play A Game Studies Approach to Satire. DOI: 10.1145/3402942.3403007.
  2. Dieter Declercq. (2018) A Definition of Satire (And Why a Definition Matters). The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 76, 3 (2018), 319–330.
  3. Feinberg, L. Introduction to Satire. The Iowa State University Press, Ames Iowa, 1967, 101-42, 176, 205, 143-75, 206-75.
  4. Helene Madsen and Johansson Troels Degn. (2002)  Gameplay Rhetoric: A Study of the Construction of Satirical and Associational Meaning in Short Computer Games for the WWW. In Computer Games and Digital Cultures Conference Proceedings. Tampere University Press. Available at: http: //www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/05164.20160.pdf (Accessed: 14.02.2021).
  5. Jasper Schellekens, Stefano Caselli, Stefano Gualeni, and Krista Bonello Rutter Giappone. (2020) Satirical Game Design: The case of the Boardgame Construction BOOM!. In In the Proceedings of The International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. FDG. Available at: file:///C:/Users/ValeryCrow/OneDrive/Desktop/ACM_Style_Construction_BOOM__Pre_Print_2col_Version__.pdf (Accessed: 14.02.2021).

Ghosts vs Hunters final alterations

This is a small update of rules and map after the final playtest. I’ve updated the “how to play” section according to the process, depicted in play video. We decided not to mention the game master directly, but technically this role still exists. One of the players will take it as the broadcaster of the map.

Changes in the map include 2 additional rooms – attic and corridor as well as door between game room and kitchen. So that hunters have more options to move now. Attic was added to give ghosts a clear start space. And a rounds marker space just to note how many times the teams have won. And the map was turned landscape, so that it can be shared right from the rule set.

Week 10: Video chat game final playtest

Today we finally had our last playtest before submission to try out the 2 options for our rules.

Firstly, I have revorked the rules according to our previous discussions and designed the look, and had some friends read them to give feedback. The rulles were described as clear and easy to understand. Also they preferred the option without a game master

Playtest option 1

We decided to test this option as well. Thus from the beginning it went not very coherently as we’ve mixed the two “how to play” versions. So players acted according to the following scheme:

  1. Ghosts mute themselves and hunters decide on their positions (they discuss it and form a strategy)
  2. Hunters mute themselves and ghosts decide on their positions (same applies to ghosts)
  3. Hunters reveal positions and clashes are announced, as well as rooms, claimed by ghosts. This can be done by any player as they wish, preferably the one, who’s sharing the map and can make marks.

Such approach went quite well, but according to playtesters’ feedback, had several major issues.

a) That most of the time players spend silent and waiting for the other team to decide. We didn’t set the time limit for discussion, so sometimes it took quite long. Also there’s a big opportunity to cheat.

b) We found out that hunters’ moves are quite limited. Playtesters offered at least to add a door between kitchen and game room, so that they can access that part of house faster. Since they’re allowed only one move to a connected room per turn, they end up wandering between entrance, living room and kitchen for most of the time. Another alternative suhggestion was to allow hunters up to 2 moves per turn. Thus this part is debatable, because hunters always prevail over ghosts and as a team we think that allowing ghosts have some extra rooms claimed in the beginning of the game because hunters can’t get there physically yet is fair enough.

Playtest option 2

After that we tried another option which is basically a bit improved original scheme (this was offered and developed by Trini), where everyone should have typed in their position at the same time. This time the positions were revealed simultanoisly per team and it was made spontaniously without any discussion, so that players have to rely on mostly luck and knowledge of each others possible strategy or behaviour.

Moving patterns remain the same: hunters limited, ghosts can go anywhere. Clashes are now announced on the end of hunters’ turn. Who starts first is decided by luck, let’s say, with the help of a coin. Or another random challenge.

Playtesters found this version far more fun and enjoyable as well as quicker. Which is fair enough, because the previous one had no discussion time limit. Here discussions are eliminated at all. Since desisions are almost spontanious and quick, players make more strategy mistakes and clashes happen more often, making the game more dynamic.

Among other suggestions for the future were to resolve stailmate issue, because hunters almost always win them. With randomness of this version ghosts should have more opportunities to survive the stailmate;

To add more rooms to the mansion as the game ends quite fast. What I will partly try to do by the submission date;

To introduce the opportunity for hunters to undo claimed rooms, because ghosts claim them too fast sometimes. The problem with the claimed rooms was that players didn’t tend to enter or pass them even though it is allowed by the rules. We’ll try to enphasize it more in the rules, I think;

The game master issue

Still I have noticed one issue here. Even though we decided to eliminate the role of a game master, technically we still have it as someone has to share the map and mark the positions as you’ll see in the game process video. This person announces clashes as well. Anyone can take up this role from any team and still play the game, but technically we didn’t manage to get rid of the role completely. Otherwise the game would be chaotic.

Conclusions:

The game is mainly working, not according to the scheme that we intended to playtes, but we managed to update our original shoutout idea and bring the chaos to the minimum. Also we don’t need to use technicalities like sound muting. The game is not finished at this stage and can be developed further to enlarging the mansion and adding some features like the one to undo the ectoplasm. The balance between hunters and ghosts need adjusting as well. But still it’s a decent working prototype wich was successfully created by collaboration of 3 people: Arthur, Trini and me. We enjoyed it 🙂

Christmas break: Card game playtest

Finally it’s time for the playtest. My main goal for test was to find out:

  1. how many cards are players allowed to have at hand. The default number was 2, potential number was 3. Definitely not more, because there are only 14 playable cards or even 10 excluding bonus ones
  2. If the “believe me or not” mechanism works. If it works, does it allow to exchange cards (especially exclusive)
  3. how many exclusive cards are compulsory to have in order to complete the path and win the round. Ideally it would be all 3 so that players are encouraged to use the main exchanging mechanics and beat the challenge. If that turns out to be stagnating the game, the number will be reduced and more neutral cards introduced instead

But firstly, as I was adviced, the rules needed testing too. After a bit of corrections and adjusting I tested the rules with people of my generation, with knowledge of English (natives and non natives), and older generation of non-speakers (I translated it for them). All the feedback was positive with the rules being clear. The only bit of difficulty was remembering the tricking mechanism and events that happen in each of the 4 cases, but as the playtest showed later, keeping the describtions helps a lot and by 4-5th run most of it was easy to learn apply without the guide.

Issue 1:

I found this issue even without playtest, which is no describtion of when and how to use bonus cards. I didn’t fix it before the playtest, but this was resolved in the process. Bonus cards are acquired within the trading mechanism and their effect comes immediately.

Issue 2:

How to decide, who goes first, scorpion or grasshopper. Actually, any method will work, like coin toss or rock-paper-scissors. Just need to mention this in the rules as well

Issue 3:

Exchanging mechanism worked almost perfectly but for 1 thing – neutral cards must not be allowed there. Because there was a moment, when rules confront logic, when technically the player could finish the round with neutral card, but the rules didn’t allow it. The case was solved with excluding neutral cards from exchanging process. After that the mechanism worked perfectly.

The amount of cards:

As the game proceeded, I saw that the flow with 2 cards at hand was the best option and didn’t need any interventions. One bonus card occasionally allows 3 cards at hand for one player during one round. It’s more than enough to give a boost, but not to speed up the game too much.

As for the number of exclusive cards in the path. I was afraid that it would be too hard to obtain all 3 cards and was ready to reduce the amount to just one. But playtest showed that it wasn’t needed and the level of challenge is enough to keep the game entertaining. Playtesters even mentioned it in their feedback. So I don’t see the point of changing anything here if it works just fine.

Conclusions:

The playtest went far better than I expected. Thust the main exchanging mechanics seemed a bit too complicated to catch, it worked well enough with just minor alterations. The game flow is smooth and entertaining enough and my initial predictions about the amount of cards was proved effective. All I have left to do is to apply the changes to the rule set and the progect can be considered as working and complete.

Christmas break: Developing the visuals and creating cards

Since I didn’t manage to recreate the digital version of the game in playingcards.io, for the playtest I have to make the physical cards first. Being a game artist, this is the part I’m most comfortable and familiar with. I don’t think this step requires much documenting and describing since it’s not the main focus of the course, so I’ll mention it briefly.

I wanted to attach the style to the time and styles, popular at the time of the novel, which is the end of 19th century. We’re talking about opera atmosphere, wealth, art nouveau, balls and masquarades. Thus during experimenting I decided to take turn to art deco instead to give it some modernity. Classic colour scheme is gold, red and dark brown. So I based my design on these references.

I had to create 9 artworks for all 7 types of cards + 2 card backs (for regular and bonus cards)

I printed them out afterwards and the full set of cards was ready. Though it took additional time to make, it worked out as actual printing test which was more than successfull. I personally recommend double-side printing on a thick paper ~ 300 or more gsm, so that players won’t need to glue back and front together as I had to.

The whole set of cards required 4 pages for the standart size poker card, which is 88.9×63.5 mm

So the printing test went well and the game is ready for playtesting. By that time I have designed the rule set, which, hopefully, won’t need major changes after the playtest.

Week 8: reviewing the basics and developing final rules

After the feedback session I got several pieces of advice on how to improve my concept technically. So I tried to review what I currently had and try to implement the changes.

First was about using various types of cards. To do that I came back to the very beginning and asked myself again about the objective for the game mechanics. Since we’re playing mostly to build the long path to our goal, I have the following balance to achieve:

“Path cards must not be received too easy. So that players must be encouraged not to just collect, but fight for them. But at the same time it mustn’t be too hard since there will be several rounds till the final victory”

I am sure about how to stop players from hoarding cards. That is to limit the number of cards they have to 2, what is left fron the first game draft.

To diversify playable cards I decided to introduce 2 types – exclusive ones only for scorpion or grasshopper path and neutral, which can be used to fill in path slots of any player. Since we have 5 path slots available, I tried different options for card type proportions: 4 excl. to 1 neutr., which I found not relevant, and 3 excl. to 2 neutr., which for now work as a basic proportion. Because the game is not likely to stagnate because of trying to win over too many exclusive cards.

Introducing neutral cards will make path building faster and easier; can be used as a minor trophy in “belive me or not system”, but potentially can speed up the game too much.

The new positioning scheme now looks like this:

Bonus cards:

Another card type worth implementing are bonus ones. They give some special features and can help to overcome stagnating states. There will be 4 of them. First, I thought that they should be distributed randomly from the deck. But then I understood that that won’t be too fair; bonuses can occupy all 2 card options that you’re allowed to have at hand. So the best solution is to make them as trophies for the main tricking mechanic.

For now there are:

2 “this card can fill one path slot”

1 “Opponent has to empty one path slot” (the card goes beck to the deck)

1 “+1 card at hand till the end of the round”

Rounds

New idea develops from the alternative first draft concept, where I wanted to use short path cards as round markers. I was advised to use just 2 cards for that with a flip system. So now round markers will be cards that fit the narrative as well. I’ll call them arrow cards and they will have an image of arrow, turning each time towards the scorpion and /or grasshopper. Like timer or trigger of the whole mechanism. Whoever wins 3 rounds will activate the mechanism.

Believe me or not

Advice in this area was to think about rewarding players rather than punishing them. So I asked myself a question: What behaviour type should be rewarded? Since the game is connected to the book episode, where the Phantom was tricking Christine, I thought that players should be rewarded for tricking their opponent the most and get the least or no profit from telling the truth or being busted. I’ve been thinking for a long time on the rewards and profits and finally came up with the following scheme, which, I believe, is balanced enough. That will not only allow to get bonuses, but to work as a ‘trading’ mechanism to make players shuffle or exchange exclusive cards.

Having all these decided, I managed to come up with mostly final draft of the ruleset.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sdrmjr4y7qBctalAZaZziJGPzj0-rKQ2/view?usp=sharing

For the playtest I have one major question, that is what is the minimum of exclusive cards a player must have. Either minimum of 1 or obligatory have all 3.