Category: Term 1

Entry 3: Researching the topic

It’s time to dig deeper into the topic of hybrid games. A quick overview of related sources showed that hybrid games is not a new phenomenon, but it actively develops as technologies develop. In the very early and basic understanding hybrid games were defined as “games, combining physical and digital element into a single product” (V. Kankainen et. al, 2017) [p.2]. But definition has developed greatly since then. Kankainen gives a broad overview of evolution of hybrid game definitions. Main trend in defining hybrid games is that it’s not correct to focus on technological perspective. Hybrid games should be approached from perspective of playres’ experience or, as Kankainen states in their article “Games as Blends”, “as a blend of different conceptual domains, related to games”.

I agree that technological perspective is not relevant for all types of hybrid games. For example, ARGs, augmented games or location-aware games don’t correspond with this definition. But since my focus area is blending board and digital games, e.g. elecronic board games, the abovementioned definition fits perfectly.

Another Kanakinen’s work “Hybrid Board game design guidelines” provided me with some practical information, where they describe 17 guidelines for this type of games:

  1. Accesibility
  2. Added value
  3. Automation
  4. Aesthetics
  5. Recovery
  6. Availability
  7. Universality
  8. Obsolescence
  9. Scaleability
  10. Customizability
  11. Sociability
  12. Shareability
  13. Tutorials
  14. Modifiable rules
  15. Tangibility
  16. Parallel play
  17. Integration

While developing project concepts, I was already thinking about several of these points. For example, parallel play as a game feature, I’ve set up Integration (which means that digital element should be a justified part of the overall experience) as one of the main aims for the project, Automation and added value as subfunctions of digital elements. So for this project I want to keep up with the following guidelines:

  • Accessibility
  • Added value
  • (Automaion)
  • Availability
  • Universality
  • Integration

Accessibility means that my game would be easy enough to understand from the first play. I believe it’s especially important when including a hybrid element to the game. So that player understands the rules and functioning of digital element. That keeps interest in the game. Added values comes together with intergraton as digital element must have a particular function that makes playing experience unique. Availability is paired with Universality. The game should not use exclusive technology, created specifically for this one project. To make the game massively spread, it should rely on devices that have most people – smartphones or related technology. Automation is optional feature that I may or may not use, depending on how the concept will be developed further.

Case studies

Among electronic board games common case study example is XCOM: board game.

XCOM: Enemy Unknown board game announced, playable next week - Polygon

The game comes with a special app, which “controls some aspects of the game like determining the resources available on a particular round, amount and time of enemies and time to act” (Kankainen, 2017). The app also helps with set up phase, where it’s possible to choose amount of players, difficulty level and place cards. In general the game blends resourse management board game with features of digital games.

XCOM: The Board Game. Мобильное приложение — XCOM: Enemy Unknown — Игры — Gamer.ru: социальная сеть для геймеров

Hitman Go:

Hitman GO - Launch Trailer - YouTube

This game uses alternative approach, where it transfers board game features and mechanics to a video game format. We can see 3D game field with static character figurines, that could potentially be implemented in material and played. But digital format allows more interesting puzzles and enemy behaviours that couldn’t be implemented in reality. So, the game blends game aesthetics with digital puzzle games.

World of Yo-ho:

This game is also more digital than board one, but it has interesting balance between its elements. It can be played both blended and analogue, what contributes to Obsolescence. Thus it can be flayed without an app, digital part makes the experience much more enjoyable visually and interactively. But in my opinion it relies too much on digital element, because most of the aesthetics relies on it as well as quests to complete. Problems with app can make the game unplayable or less enjoyable.

This is my basic research for now which touches upon basic topic of my project. Especially ‘methodological’ resource helped me to define some basic guidelines to follow. I believe they could support basic principles and aims I’ve set up for the project as well as become checkpoints of evaluation and critical reflection in the end, so that I can see if I manages to achieve these goals or not.

Among other possible areas of research, I might have a look at 3D board games with several spatial levels like 3D chess.

Resources:

  1. V. Kankainen , J. Arjoranta, T. Nummenmaa (2017) Games as Blends: Understanding Hybrid Games. Journal of Virtual Reality and Broadcasting, Volume 14(2017), no. 4.  ISSN 1860-2037.
  2. V. Kankainen, J. Paavilainen (2019) Hybrid Board game design guidelines. Proceedings of the 2019 DiGRA International Conference: Game, Play and the Emerging Ludo-Mix. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336687318_Hybrid_Board_Game_Design_Guidelines (Accessed: 07.05.2021).

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)

Round, 3 bonus cards, explosion, flood, grashopper, neutral, scorpion

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.

Week 7: developing the concept; rules draft

The game is designed for 2 people. One plays for scropion and the other one for grasshopper. Roles are distributed by wish, coin toss or any other appropriate option.

Card types

2 – scorpion and grasshopper (goal cards)

4 – short path (2 for scorpion, 2 for grasshopper)

8 – long path (4 per each. Flood cards for scorpion and explosion cards for grasshopper)

2 spare or some kind of special cards? or just add them to the long path cards? Or special start cards (player can’t start building the path until gets this card)

Goal:

To win the game you must place 4 cards of the long path or 2 cards for short path faster than your opponent.

Cards are shuffled and set in one card deck. Players are allowed to have only 2 cards for each turn.  The game works on “believe me or not” principle. During each turn a player must place one card. Despite they have or don’t have the right card, they can place a card face down and the opponent decides if they believe it or not. If the opponent believes, the card is left as it is and the game continues. If they don’t believe, the card is revealed. Player can use any card, whether it’s long or short path.

What if it’s the truth (e.g. flood card for scorpion or explode card for grasshopper)?

  • Opponent has to give one long path card. If they don’t have one, it can be substituted with a short path card. If there’re no opposite cards in stock, they take away one card from their path (first long or short) and it comes back to the deck.

What if it’s a lie?

  • The card is passed to the opponent to add to their long or short path (depending on the card type revealed)

The game ends as soon as one of the players complete any path to their goal.

Questions to consider:

  1. How to get short path cards? (solved) – they appear randomly from the card deck. Luck element.
  2. How to distribute long path cards? (solved) – shuffled card deck and take some amount of cards by each player.
  3. How to implement “believe me or not” element? (solved) – read above.
  4. What if you don’t have the right card and how to get the right one from you opponent? (solved) – read above.
  5. Can you exchange short path cards? (solved) – generally not, but they can be passed within “believe me or not” system
  6. What is the optimal number of cards a player can have? (to be play tested) – It doesn’t work with no restrictions, works fine with 2 cards. Maybe try 3.

ALternative option:

To extend the game, short path cards can be used only as marker of each round’s winner. Maybe 2 spare cards can become one more pair of short path, so that we can have a min no. of rounds 3 (pure victory) and max of 5 rounds.

Current project state: ready to playtest the draft.

Week 6: 18 cards game concept

According to prompts to concept approaches given during our Monday session, I decided to take the path “from narrative to game”. As an inspiration I’ve chosen an episode from my favourite novel – the Phantom of the Opera, chapter 26, episode with scorpion or grasshopper. The main idea is that the Phantom offers Christine Dae a choice – to choose and turn a statuette of a scorpion or grasshopper on the mantelpiece. If she chooses scorpion – the opera and people will be safe, but she has to marry him. If she chooses grashopper – she’d reject the Phantom, and he’d blow the building up, burying everyone.

So we have 2 main elements – scorpion and grasshopper as the basement of the game concept. Currently I have 2 ideas:

A) They can be a final goal and mark the game ending after the events/mechanics happen.

B) They are incorporated into the mechanics and serve as active elements. For example, turning points, that can be both static or set up by players within their strategy. Players can focus on reaching their own goal or preventing the opponent from winning. Scorpion and grasshopper can have special functions each.

I have rerad the episode several times, thinking about elements that can be derived and turned into game features or parts of mechanics:

  1. Scorpion and grasshopper opposition as the main game concept
  2. Christine has to turn one of the figurines to activate the mechanism – possible mechanics element
  3. Explosion/flooding – can also be transferred into mechanics

I see the second option as the most promising one and is highly likely to develop this one. “Maze” games are too common whilst my approach to games is to have at least one small, but unique feature.

For the second option I have to create a criteria of how the cards can be attached to each other and to the goal creature. Maybe it will contain elements of pattern from the third option. That’s my task for the next week.