New tutorial uploaded to here: kActor Physics Door Tutorial for UDK.
Latest Entries »
Below are the (still in progress) rules for a game developed by Jonathan Yao, Ben Throop, Stan Chin, and I as part of the 10th Annual Game Design Workshop. In this exercise we were tasked with, in 45 minutes, creating a game that will trigger the emotions of Schadenfreude and ambivalence in the players.
The game started with the emotions, then we moved to the theme which gave an excellent context and narrative setting for our two emotions. Naturally, this theme was a courtroom. This led us down the trail to mechanics based off Blackjack, in which the goal of the player is to There are three roles for players:
1) Judge – The Dealer
The dealer deals one card face down (the Surprise Witness) and one card face up (Evidence) to each of the attorneys.
2) Attorneys – Players
The Attorneys are the two players to the right of the dealer
These players may take the following actions:
-”Call the next witness”, the Judge gives one card, face up, to that attorney.
-”Rest my case”, the attorney believes the total value of his evidence is higher than the other attorney and will no longer call witnesses.
-”Objection!”, after both attorneys rest their case, and the jury has bet (more on this later), each attorney may “object” to another player’s piece of evidence. This card is then removed from that players evidence string and is not counted in their final total.
3) Jury – Bettors
The jury consists of all players not designated as the Judge, or the Attorneys. These players may bet on each attorney after the judge has dealt them their initial evidence.
At the Start
All players are given an amount of poker chips determined by the player, but greater than 10 “units”
Each player draws one card, the player with the card of highest value is designated as “The Judge”
In the Courtroom
The Judge deals each attorney a Surprise Witness, and a piece of Evidence. The attorney to which a Surprise Witness is dealt may look at their surprise witness, but may not reveal it to other players.
Each member of the jury, in turn, will bet on which attorney they feel has the highest chance of winning
The Defense Attorney, the Attorney furthest from the Judge, is given the choice to “Call the next witness” or “Rest my case”
The Prosecuting Attorney, the Attorney closest to the Judge, is given the same choice
This continues until both attorneys have rested their cases
The Defense Attorney is now given the chance to “Object!” to one of the Prosecuting Attorney’s pieces of evidence
The Prosecuting Attorney is given the same chance
Once both attorneys have rested their cases, and filed objections, the Jury goes into “Deliberation” in which they may place additional bets on each of the attorneys.
Once the Jury has finished deliberating, the attorneys show their surprise witnesses, and the total value of their evidence is added
Whichever attorney has the greatest value of evidence that is not greater than 12 is declared the winner
(This is roughly were the game still needs some work. We still need to hash out how this phase of the game is resolved. I encourage the participants to comment and discuss.)
After that case is resolved, the Judge passes the deck of cards to the player on his left, and player begins again.
Below are the rules to Saratoga Sabotage, the Oregon Trail-themed modification of SiSSYFiGHT3000 developed by Rory Fitz-Gerald, Jon Manning, Leo Cho, Taylor Kalajan, Ryan Milligan, and I as part of the 10th Annual Game Design Workshop at GDC this year.
Players: 4 to 6
Players start with 5 white poker chips, and five blue poker chips
White poker chips denote progress toward the West Coast, or progress points.
Blue poker chips denote supplies/ammo
Goal – Be the first to reach 12 progress points
Each player has a deck with the following cards -
Target Cards
-Red
-Blue
-Green
-Purple
-White
-Black
-Self
Action Cards
- Move
- “Head West” – Target = Self – Gain one progress point
- “Convoy” – Target = Another player, and that player targets you with a move action – Both gain 2 progress points, both lose 1 supply point
- Bullet
- “Get Supples” – Target = Self – Gain 2 supply chips
- “Sabotage” – Target = Another player – That player loses one progress point, initiating player loses 1 supply point
- Raid
- If and only if 2 or more players play “Raid” and target the same player – Target player loses 2 progress points per attacker, attacking players lose 1 supply point each. If only one person raids another player, no damage is dealt and the attacker loses a supply point.
- Defend
- “Circle the Wagons” – Target = Self – Divide total number of lost progress points in a round by half, round down. You now lose that many progress points. If no one attacks you, you lose a progress point.
- “Git Of Mah Land” – Target = Bullet – You take no damage from any “Bullet” attacks which target you, and you take the supply points those players lost in attacking you. If no one attacks you, you lose a progress point.
- “Indians!” – Target = Raid – You take no damage from any “raid” attacks which target you, and you take the supply points those players lost in attacking you. If no one attacks you, you lose a progress point. If only one person performs a raid attack against you, you do not lose a progress point.
- “You Scoundrel!” – Target = Another player – You take no damage from that player, and instead the damage is reflected onto that player. You gain the supply point that player lost in attacking you.
All communication must be public.
All communication does not have to be comprehensible to all players, but must be in a mutually agreed-upon language.
At the start of a game players choose their color, and place that color card in front of them on the table.
1 Round = 2 Turns
No cards played in the 1st turn of a round can be played in the 2nd turn of a round.
A Round -
Turn 1 -
Players choose their action, and the target of that action and lay those cards face down in front of them.
Once all players have chosen an action and a target, all players’ actions and targets are revealed simultaneously.
Players resolve the results of their actions.
Players do not pick up the cards in front of them at the end of this turn. The cards played cannot be played again in this round.
Turn 2-
Players choose another action, and another target.
Once all players have chosen an action and a target, all players’ actions and targets are revealed simultaneously.
Players resolve the results of their actions and targets.
Players pick up all the cards they have laid down in that round and begin a new round.
If at end of a round, a player has 12 progress points, he is declared the winner.
For the purposes of action-resolution, attacks are resolved before progress points are awarded.
I will be attending the 2010 Game Developer’s Conference in San Francisco, CA from Tuesday until Saturday.
Jeremy Griffith and I will be traditional game jamming on the 2nd floor of the main conference building each day at breakfast and possibly lunch. Come find us if you’re interested in joining us.
Along with Jeremy Griffith, Amanda Cha, and Linnea Harrison, I help to operate the Ringling College of Art and Design’s Game Design Club. Our mission is simple, to provide a structured and regular forum for Ringling students to engage in curriculum-based and extracurricular game design activities. In the first semester of each academic year the Sophomores in the curriculum are learning about game design using traditional games, and Game Design Club found a niche in supporting that project.
Finding a way to maintain relevance during the Spring semester proved somewhat more of a challenge. We wanted a way to hone our understanding of Game Design, and traditional media had proven useful in the past. With no project grounded in the curriculum, however, encouraging students to play and analyze board games every week proved somewhat shortlived, or would prove rather expensive.
After a fair amount of reading about Global Game Jam and some idea synthesis Jeremy and I sat down with a deck of cards with the simple goal of “make a game.” Our first experiment was both success and failure. The game itself was rather boring, and unnecessarily complex. The success lay in our realization that we learned volumes about game design in 2 hours with one deck of cards, moreso than we could have trying to knock together a flash game in 48 hours.
Following that first experiment Jeremy and I simply dubbed the activity “Traditional Game Jamming” and tasked the Game Design Club with the same goal: “Make a game”. As time has progressed we vary the constraints and the media. Sometimes dice, sometimes cards, sometimes we use the assets of an extant board game outside the context of the board game’s rules.
Regardless of the contstraints these game jams held a common thread: a 2 hour time limit. This, we found, allowed us to rapidly iterate not only on our games, but on our design skills as well. If we made a game that turned out to be boring or complex we’d analyze why the game was a failure and take that knowledge with us to the next game jam. Through this iteration we found we’re more quickly able to sketch up mechanics, goals, and challenges regardless of the projects we’ve been assgined in classes.
So, to anyone who feels it takes millions of dollars and a significant risk to make a game I say “poppy-cock”. To those who think it takes significant programming experience to bang out a prototype I say the same. I encourage you to grab a deck of cards, grab a friend, and make a game in 2 hours. It’s a great way to practice game design with no risk involved.
Artists sketch, why can’t designers jam?
I spent ten years in community and school-based theatre. During my time as an active thespian, and particulraly with my last director, I was exposed to the “I Want” statement. The basic premise is that with each line spoken, the character the actor is portraying wants something. For example, in the Stargate SG-1 episode “Singularity” when Dr. Jackson says to Teal’c “What happens when you dial your own phone?” his “I Want” statement reads “I want to explain to Teal’c why Carter and O’Niell are having trouble dialing out of the Stargate, and why we can’t reach them. “I Want” statements help actors understand their character’s thought process, and how to deliver the line. They justify each and every line, instead of simply being words coming out of your mouth. Hit the jump to see how this all links to video games.
The Total War series, brought to you by The Creative Assembly, is a series of real-time strategy games, each strongly rooted in a single historical setting per game. Before Empire, The Creative Assembly released Shogun, Rome, Medieval, and Medieval II. The games never progressed past the mid-1600′s, and finally TCA developed Empire: Total War, to take place after 1700. In a noted book on military tactics and strategy, Of the Art of the War (not to be confused with Sun Tzu’s The Art of War), the author makes a distinction between Strategy (Wars), general movement, population control, and Tactics (Battles), moving individual units within the situation of a single conflict. The Empire: Total War is a two-sided coin, both sides represent one of these combat types. One side is the turn-based War strategy, positioning units by territory, building out facilities and tech trees within those territories, managing the taxation and happiness of a territory’s population, and utilizing agents for and against other nations. The second side to Total War is the real-time unit tactics within a given battle, positioning lines of infantry, maneuvering groups of cavalry, and using cannons to slaughter.
I’ve found a common thread running through the major complaints about a lot of TV shows these days, and not just the ones grounded in science fiction. I hear, all too often, “that’s not possible” or “that’s not how that works” or “you can’t do that”. This ends up being a fundamental problem with a person’s ability to enjoy the show.
For example, a lot of complaints about shows like House or Bones stem from their lack of fidelity to medical and forensic practices. To which I say “bollocks, these aren’t pieces of education, they’re pieces of entertainment. They’ll break the rules of reality to enhance the enjoyment of the piece.” More fantastical examples, like Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica come to mind, and many of these vein of shows simply create their own rules of the universe that sound vaguely like our own. Again,these shows come under fire for breaking their OWN laws of the universe. People, the writers MAKE the rules of the universe, they are GOD in their universe. They make the rules. Roll with it (unless of course it’s a complete reversal). Some of the shows based in the modern day take the most of this flak, Dollhouse and Fringe come to mind. Again, these shows are based around psuedoscientific concepts that could never possibly happen in our time. Let it go, have fun.
So, ultimately, all I’m asking is for people to sit back, and enjoy the show. Stop being so critical of the science, it’s entertainment.
A summary of the notes I took while I was at GDC attending various seminars and round tables. Not very organized, but do enjoy.
For the full version, go to my post on the Ringling Game Design Club blog.
I’d like to redact an earlier post regarding my formerly ill opinion of Powerpoint Slideshows in general. After seeing many well-executed slideshow presentations at the Game Developers Conference last week my faith has been restored in the power and utility of slideshow presentations.
Thank you to all the people who spoke with well-utilized slideshows, you have restored my faith.
-Ozz