Deliverables Graduation Exam:

Postmortem (research and development documentation)

Promotional Gameplay video


A game of Ochiiru from Joeri van Ees on Vimeo.

Final game rules (handout sheet)

Inspiration

"Design a game with a couple of simple gamerules that form a engaging competitive multiplayer game that's easy to learn but hard to master."

This new direction didn't just come out of thin air. I've always had an interest in multiplayer games as a child and always appreciated the way nintendo designed there games to be as accesible as possible though offered a lot of freedom.

Since 2003 I've been involved in the dutch Super Smash Brothers competitive community. That means I've been involved in competitive gaming for about 9 years now. Before I got involved in competitive gaming I attended fencing tournaments. Surprisingly both games share a lot in common.

The main inspirations for this new direction comes from the following games:

SuperSmashBrothers, Go, Pong, Tic Tac Toe and Rock Paper Scissors 

I'll cover what interests me about each game below starting with my favorite competitive game.

Super Smash Brothers Melee

Developed by Nintendo and mainly designed by Masahiro Sakurai, Super Smash Bros Melee(from now on mentioned as SSBM) is the sequel to Super Smash Brothers on the Nintendo 64. Super Smash Brothers is a platform fighting game in which the players try to knock other player of the stage using one of the 25 characters of the rich nintendo universe.

Europe's best vs America's best
One of the most iconic matches in SSBM in  recent years

While the rich nintendo universe got me interested in it what kept me playing it for so long is the astounding depth the games simple ruleset allows.

Game system
Traditional fighting games like streetfighter have the following structure.

Each player has a lifebar and the object of the game is to deplete the others lifebar before their own depletes by hitting each other with the moveset unique to their characters.

The characters attack move has a the set angle, knockback and the stun time. Ideally the players try to trap the other player in a string of moves(known as comboes) or hit using the most damaging ones.

So the main goal in traditional fighting games is to KO their opponent.

In smash the player's don't have a lifebar. Instead they have a percentage meter that starts at 0% and each hit they land increases the percentage meter. Each hit knocks the opponent back based on the characters weight and %. 

The goal is still to KO the other but a KO is result of a ring out. Players knock the other of stage using for example strong moves (the most famous moves are smash attacks). When the players distance to the stage is to far they lose a life.

The winning conditions for a round can vary based on the game mode but the competitive community focusses on one mode: survival (players have a set of lives and the last one standing wins).

The changes to the damage system result in a very different style of gameplay and has changed the effects of the area on the fighting system ( for example the edge of a level). Stages allow for 'edge guarding' which simply means preventing the other from making it back on the stage. This essentially adds a king of the hill moment to the fight that can pretty drastically alter the outcome of it.

Inspiration
While I can talk for hours about the impacts of these ruleset changes the main thing I take away from this is the philosophy behind the gamedesign. Smash was designed to be fun and 'easy to learn, hard to master'. The games was to be played as a party game on a couch with friends. Therefore it had to be easy to pick up and not require hours of practise to enjoy. While this approach was chosen to improve the party game experience it surprisingly and probably unintended ended up benefitting the competitive game system as well.

'Easy to learn, hard to master' forms the basis for the design of my own game and while smash uses a complex phyiscs system that drives the game the player need no knowledge of it to play the game.

There are some more design reasons why I look at smash as a inspiration (counter system, momentum shifts, covering options etc) but I'll probably cover them in the weeks to come. For now let's move back in time to one of the first games in existence.

GO

In GO the object is to surround more territory then your opponent. Players do this by placing their own colored stone at the intersections. A stone can stay on the board if it has liberty (one intersection next to it that is free). If a stone is surrounded by 4 of the opposite color it dies.

Inspiration
What I like about go is that it has some really simple rules yet those contain a lot of depth of strategy within them. Also the design is strictly functional.
GO was originally played on rocks using different colored pebbles or rocks. Because of the simple requirements the game could be set up and played nearly anywhere.

GO originated somewhere in Ancient China. At the time not many were able to read or write. Therefor the rules of GO had to be simple to explain because they had to travel through word of mouth.

That simplicity in design and instruction is something I strive to achieve with my game aswell.

TicTacToe

TicTacToe is a two player game in which players pick a side (either the Cross or the Circle) and then in turns draw their symbol on the board. The first player to get 3 of their own symbol in a row wins.

The game can result in a draw if the players pay the right attention.

Inspiration
TicTacToe is kind of a silly game and quite boring. The game is all about seeing and covering options of yourself and of the opponent. Because the gameboard is only 9 squares this is quite easy to cover.

It's design is even simpler then go and I really like the pick up and play aspect of it.

What interests me the most is the lessons you can learn from playing it though. And this has to do with the intention of the players moves during the game.

The first player(starting player) that starts is on the offensive. The second player can either defend or advance. If both players chose to advance constantly the first player wil win. This means player two has to defend and counter at some point. 

If player one picks the right positions player two can never really win. The only way the second player can win is by capitalizing on player one's mistakes. This is unbalanced sure but it highlights a key requirement for combat in my opinion which is that a player must know who they are in the fight and can't just focus on their own strategy. They must adapt to the other player and know what role they are pushed in. And they must be patient. Once one player advances the other enters a unbalanced situation in which they are forced to react instead of taking the initiative itself.

It also highlights that in combat players can never be both at the same time. They are either advancing, or retreating or defending and it's key that they know what role there are in and what mode to change to. Combat is all about getting the advantage over the other player and therefor putting them at a disadvantage.

What I like about TicTacToe is that it makes these fundamental aspect of combat very explicit due to it's simple design and while you can grow bored of it rather quickly it's only once you realize and accept this yourself.

Rock Paper Scissors

Rock Paper Scissors is a handgame that's all about countering the other players choice.
Player's yell "rock paper scissors" and on scissors they show either scissors, rock or paper. Drawing the same results in a tie. Drawing Rock vs Paper results in paper winning. Drawing Paper vs Scissors results in scissors winning etc.

Simplified the system is A > B B>C C>A. One round of rock paper scissors one could say is based a lot of luck. Multiple rounds require more pattern recognition to win.

Inspiration
Rock Paper Scissors is an inspiration cause it's the most basic form of a counter system I can think of. Counter Systems form the basis for any kind of power struggle. In a way all modern fighting games (or any kind of combat system in games) really is a more complex system of rock paper scissors.
This game is all about predicting your opponent and thinking ahead. Thinking to far ahead can backfire.
Since I intend to design a simple multiplayer game it's probably very hard for me to avoid some kind of counter system.

Pong

Pong is really a simplified system of tennis. It was one of the first real videogames and because it's made for 2 players it's on of the first competitive multiplayer games as well.

In Pong 2 players try to get one ball across their opponents line to score a point. The one with the most points wins. By bouncing the ball back and forth players try to keep the ball from crossing their line.

Based on the point of impact of the ball they can influence the ball's direction. This allows for a lot more strategy then simple bouncing would do because it gives the player options to chose from.

Inspiration
Like the games mentioned above I really like pongs simplistic minimalist design. Like TicTacToe pong features a lot of the fundemental aspects of a good power struggle. Also Pong's main fun comes from it's gameplay and nothing else.

What I like about pong is that it's really about managing 1 resource and thats space. Based on the position you influence you space the other needs to cover. Give to much space away and it get's harder to reach the ball once it speeds up.

If I end up going somewhat of the digital route then pong's design is one that I'll keep referencing quite a bit.

That's all
So these are my current main inspirations. Ideally I hope my game ends up combining the best of both worlds.

Next up I'll introduce and motivate my research question that I will use to look into these and similar games like this more closely and look for literature.

Change of plans

Recap

The last months I have been working on the prototyping environment. Sadly I found that the environment wasn't gonna work out the way I wanted to in Unity3d. I also found that I was spending the majority of the time developing a tool with flexible tools. I'm to much of a beginner programmer to really get that to work the way in a way that it would really be usefull. After 2 months I found I had mostlty build the basis for a generic platformer. About 80 % of the essential elements that I had found for any kind of game were there but they weren't flexible and easy enough to use yet.  It's the way these were going to be combined that was going to result in interesting gameplay. I was going to have to change the elements quite a bit for them to work the way I wanted to. And to get it to work the way I was had to go against the framework of Unity it self.

So I've decided to move away from the prototyping environment. I want to graduate as a gamedesigner so the best thing for me is to design  a game not a tool.

After my mock exam presentation(a presentation about the progress that we have to do about halfway into the project) I was given the advice to remove the technical focus from my game and focus on the design of game rules.

I did some thinking about that and I looking back I think it's all falling in to place now. I come from a competitive gaming background and primarily focus on forming the core rules of a game. So it only makes sense if my project reflects that.

But what game?

I have 2 primary interests as a gamedesigner right now. One part of me likes designing games with a limited set of rules that have a lot of depth in them. These are the type of games I really like myself and have the most experience with.
The other part likes to come up with experimental interactive concepts. These are concepts that touch the borders of what we consider games. They focus on evoking emotions unusual to games (for example a game that plays like a walse for 2). To avoid going into to much detail I have a link to a description that I think kinda describes what I'm looking for. Again they are experimental so they tend to be hard to define.

I gave both of these types of games a shot during brainstorming but I found that the limited ruleset game concepts are more clear and more feasable. So I decided to focus on those for the rest of the period.

New direction

So my new project goal is now:

"Design a game with a couple of simple gamerules that form a engaging competitive game that's easy to learn but hard to master."

The game experience is to be be engaging to play due to the gamesystem not the art or sound. The rest supports this experience in a as minimal way as possible. So no fancy artwork, soundtracks or complex technology as the selling point.

Form?

Since the focus is now primarily on finding, tweaking and refining the game rules the form is left to be decided. It can be any form really (that includes cards, boards, roleplay etc). What remains the same is that form is not the focus point but merely a means to an end.

Impact on thesis

This change in direction impacts the research I was doing for my project. The focus is not on prototyping methods any more but on finding and enhancing a type of play.

Since the gamerules are the focus now I need to research gamerule types and the effect they have on gameplay. I need to define for myself what is required for competitive gameplay and what enhances it.
And I need to do a lot of prototyping in the following weeks with the concepts I have designed. The majority of the time will be spend adjusting the gamerules.
In the end I want visitors of the graduation expo to join in on the game and walk away convinced that this has competitive depth (even though they only played it for a fraction of the time). I'll know that the game is a succes when players find it hard to quit.

The research will still be primarily practical and not so much academic in nature though and mainly serves as a point of reference for my design decisions. I don't really intend to make a statement (although I will share my view on what makes a good competitive game and what doesn't).

So next up I'll start by sharing the games that form my current main inspiration.

Update: Warmups finished , A book of lenses on prototyping etc

Reached the end of the InsurgentX tutorials. Was a nice warmup.

Spend most of the time yesterday trying to find the game elements that reoccur in each game type. Wikipedia lists a ton of genres but I think that most genres contain reoccuring elements. So I've done a lot of brainstorming, mindmapping and sketching on A4's to find them. Considering comparing screenshots to find recoccuring elements.

I've discovered that I kinda already know why you should prototype and think I have a good idea of what method to use when. I just haven't put this into practise yet. My biggest obstacle to overcome is definitly the technical and practical hurdle and not so much the theoretical.

I had some spare hours today that used to read the chapter about iteration in 'The Art of Game Design: A book of Lenses' by Jesse Schell'.  I was pleased to read that he also states that the primary focus of prototyping is to answer questions. He has a lot of pointers on what to consider when designing/building prototypes so I'm reading through those.

As I try to find recoccuring game core elements among genres I did discover that it would be best if I focussed on 1 genre that interests me the most for the time being and then implement/rebuild the flexibility of the environment afterwards. I was kinda planning to do that anyway.

There are 2 types of games that really interest me at the moment. They are a platforming environment & top down environment suited for simple multiplayer gameplay. I want to explore fairly geometric simple multiplayer gameplay. Easy to learn hard to master.

The other is exploring expressive concepts through abstract visuals. This is the arty side of mine.

The arty side is the most experimental which doesn't just focus on fun, the multiplayer side likes to make fun engaging games in which the player can grow in skill over time.

First I need to learn to build game elements though before I can really focus on expression or engagement. I think starting off with editor script tutorials by the walkerboys and doing the platformer tutorial would be best. During these tutorials I'll learn how to make a spritemanager in unity and build the 1st level of mariobros1. They also cover how to go about designing a tool which should be really helpfull when I design the elements to extend Unity with.

I'm also considering designing multiple simpel prototypes geared towards top down multiplayer and platforming gameplay and build those on set days that I reserve for experimentation. That way I don't just follow instructions but put them in practise aswell.

So in short: Lot's of things to decide but I think I'm heading in the right direction and I'm on schedule.

My own thoughts on prototyping

Started of this week doing the InsurgentX tutorials to warmup and it's definetly getting me in the right mindset. Especially started to see that classes aren't that complex. It's more the hierarchy that's confusing to me. About 3/4 into the series. 

I've done some webresearch. I found a bunch of links but I notice that I really needed to inventarize my own knowledge because a lot sounds familiar.  So below are my thoughts on prototyping.

What I know

Figured it’s best if I try to inventarize what I know about prototyping myself while doing research.

I’ll start of with what methods that are know to me. Then I’ll talk about the use of prototyping as I know of.

So first of the methods. For gamedevelopment 3 methods are known to me.

1  Paper Prototyping	Using pen and paper the core mechanics are tested quickly
2. Physical Prototyping	Through physical  behaviour and rules game play is acted out. Uses physical ‘dummy’ objects to simulate ingame objects
3. Digital Prototyping	A quick messy digital version is made containing the core features

Each method has it’s advantages and disadvantages  

Paper Prototyping 

Is usely the one designers start off with since it requires the least technical investment. This means the designer can focus on the design itself and avoid distraction by technical bugs.

This approach is limited though. While it’s very usefull to test quick game rules the rules are changed to test how the game plays. This means there is a difference in game rules and can cause differing results from the actual game.

Also because it’s paper the concept get’s throw in a set of boardgame rules. This can cause players to overthink their actions and this may not be what you want for a digital game.

Physical Prototyping
A very free form of prototyping. Players utilize their own body feature which means the only thing that needs to be built are props for the players to use. These often don’t require much work. This method makes heavy use of the players imagination to fill in the gaps though.

Physical and Paper prototyping are usefull at the start to get view of the players decision making.

Videogames are interactive and evolve over time though and often have a lot of things going on at the same time at once. Distilling the game in paper form can mean a lot of manual calculation is required. This disrupts the play experience. The more complex ideas can get dropped pretty quickly due to this. And this might not be fair.

Tools: Blocks, Physical Props, Imagination

Digital prototypes
Since these are ‘simple games’ this form get’s closest to the actual game and is thus most representational for the real game experience. They tend to take longer to make then paper or physical methods though.

The uses of prototyping
Prototyping really means testing to me. Testing is mainly done because there are questions. Prototypes are used to find answers to these questions. So prototyping has 2 main uses in my opion.

1.   To answer  existing questions
2.    To find new questions

Designers can have different type of questions.

What prototypes should consist of
Prototypes should focus on answering the questions the designer has about the concept. This means the designer needs to distill the game to it’s core and find the most fast, effective way to produce different results.

Prototypes should allow for fast tweaking. If option 1 doesn’t work option 2 might and maybe option 3.

What should be forgotten when prototyping:

All unnecessary features that aren't necessary to answer the question. These just take up time and distract. Examples are complicated animation features, particle effects, rendering etc.

To be continued 

Introduction

Greetings,

Welcome to my game prototyping blog.

I am Joeri van Ees, and I'm a student at the Utrecht School of the Arts in Hilversum, The Netherlands. I study Gamedesign and aspire to work as a gamedesigner at a company after I graduate. I have found that fast efficiënt analog and digitial prototyping skills are increasingly becoming a requirement for gamedesigners to prove their concept ideas these days. Since I lack experience with these means I decided my graduation project might be the best free time I get to get down and dirty with these methods and learn to overcome my biggest obstacle, actually building what I design. I am no programmer by trade though so there's a lot I need to learn and frankly code kinda scares me :(.

For my graduation project I will be researching and learning protoyping methods for games. I will be looking at tools like GameMaker, Unity3D and Paper Prototyping methodes. The goal is to become very proficient at protyping by the end of the project and know as much of the ins and outs as I can. This should help me when I have to test a game idea quickly for either a client or personal projects.

I will start off by looking for the most common returning elements in games (elements you need to build no matter what the game is). I will then attempt to design and build these elements in Unity 3D using Components, Classes and Editor scripts. I will be working in a Room with 6 other gamedesigners that are all doing projects that focus on gameplay. So I'll try to learn as much as I can from their methods of prototyping.

I'll try to share as much of my insighs as I can and I hope the information is usefull to outsiders.

If all goes well I will try make these elements a flexible as possible so you can quickly throw them together and test game ideas. Kinda the digital equivalent of a box of building blocks.

This blog is meant to track my progress, show my progress to outsiders and to stay on track and time. I will also use this to think of what to do next so be prepared for lot's of thoughts flying around in the posts to come.

First things first though and that's getting familiar with Unity3D again, planning  and ordering the tasks for the weeks to come and setting up my projects structure so I stay neatly organized.

I'm looking forward to this and I hope it will all work out in the end.

I have found some video tutorials by InsurgentX. They show you how to build a RPG environment. Since these environments make heavy use of classes they should be a good warmpup for my project. They seem to start off with the basics again though but it can never hurt to refresh those again.

http://forum.unity3d.com/threads/107593-InsurgentX-s-Unity-Advanced-Tutorials

Enjoy the blog!