an early outline of the content to be covered in our group's presentation:
INTRODUCTION
team members
intial game concept
desired outcomes
-- game prototype production chronology --
CONCEPT INCEPTION
Tadgh developed the concept of a 2D platformer involving magnetic fields and polarity control before semester started. "I felt it was important to have a some concepts ready to be discussed prior to semester commencement to avoid stalling on an underdeveloped game concept".
TEAM FORMATION
team initially meshed well and the core concept was understood and agreed upon by all, there was however a slight confusion of roles and responsibilities which delayed decision making; whilst Jason is lead designer, there was so much input going around that it was hard for anyone to make an executive decision regarding their area and so some key choices were delayed. Jason and Tadgh had disagreements on gameplay mechanics such as controls. "I learnt the importance of opening up the game design to others without trying to take control of all decision making".
CHARACTER DESIGN
one such decision was the protagonist character design. "As lead graphic designer I created a number of character designs based on my initial
game concept featuring a humaniod as protagonist". team was interested in more obscure designs, eg: geometric robots that flung themselves around levels in the manner of a pinball machine.
I eventually saw the strength in this idea for the
number of gameplay elements it brought to the project, ie: the unique movement and manner of ricocheting
off surfaces".
PHYSICS ENGINE
the physics engine, making use of Box2D, was implemented early on by Tom which allowed us to see the concept in action and helped us to further visualise the possibilities of the game concept. it meant we could see early on what worked and what didn't and really helped the dynamic evolution of the game in the early stages.
RECURSIVE DESIGN ITERATIONS
there was a period of time when the game design choices appeared to be going through a number of recursive iterations, meaning decisions were made only to be revoked, and then made again. such was the inclusion of narrative as a key feature of the game. Tadgh wrote numerous story outlines that could be married to the game mechanic which in turn required alteration to the overall design. at one point we settled upon an open ended world with interconnected areas that would involve back tracking and multiple paths facilitated by the aquisition of various abilities. we eventually decided against such a design for a number of reasons: it increased the scope of the game requiring the creation of a large number of interesting environments that would avoid making back tracking stale. desigining areas with multiple paths through them would also dilute the game chalenges involved for each area would have to avoid being too difficult to navigate so as to avoid the player becoming frustrated. We identitifed the gameplay mechanic of focused point-to-point level navigation challenge as the most intriguing element that should be at the core of the game design and thus decided on more linear, stand-alone stages. in this way we can present a number of difficult frustrating challenges that add to the games enjoyment rather than detract.
GRAPHIC DESIGN
it was at this point we dropped all narrative elements from the game design in order to really focus on level design which would make the game the unique experience we were hoping to create. simultaneously, we decided upon a more minimalist graphic presentation. this arose from having spent so much time with Box2D's own primitive graphic engine and becoming more and more endeared towards it over the weeks. the graphic style we have is reminiscent of vector graphics used in the 1970s era arcade games and goes hand in hand with our more minimalist linear design approach. "Having moved focus away from drawing complex graphics I can now also contribute more time to level design which is an area I would much rather focus on".
POLARITY BECOMES BIPOLAR
at this time we learning of the existence of an earlier student game production titled POLARITY which had a number of similar elements which we planned to use. while we were all initally taken aback by the revelation it turned out to be more of a positive than a setback. "I took the core concept of platforming with repulsion and attraction mechanics and tried to marry it to other design concepts. Ideas like microbiology, or elemental particles like electrons and positrons which would give our game a different look and feel whilst keepingthe same mechanics. We decided to stay with the magnetism theme in the end though the process of trying to reimagine the game in a different way helped us to further solidify and focus on what makes our game design stand out.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Interactivity Testing Feedback Questions
I've been writing an interactivity testing questionnaire in advance for gathering feedback from people who will test the game for us. The questions I have settled upon are as follows:
Questions asking the user to rate the game on a 1 to 5 scale:
How enjoyable was the game?
How difficult was the game to understand?
How difficult was the game to play?
How much did you like the game's graphics?
How likely are you to purchase the game?
Short answer interview questions:
What did you like about the game?
What did you dislike about the game?
What things did the game bring to mind?
What would you change about the game?
The key things I am aiming to draw from the feedback are how well the user understood the game play (controls, elements, challenges) and what they find valuable about the game design (what works, what doesn't, what's enjoyable). It's important at our current stage to find out how explicitly we need to instruct the player as opposed to letting them work things out themselves. Currently we are debating over the inclusion of tutorial stages; whether or not the elements need explicit introduction and explanation, or whether the game is intuitive enough to allow the player figure things out without instruction. Related to this is training the difficulty level of the game to avoid the game being either too frustrating or too straightforward.
Asking the user what they liked and disliked about the game is a means to find out which elements work best and stand out in the game design and which ones need to be reworked. Likewise for the graphics; whether they are appropriate for the game or should be reworked. Asking "what things the game brings to mind" is a way to find out what really stands out about the game, in relation to either other games, genres, mediums, or even concepts, and to see if our target of a uniquely intriguing puzzle platformer is inline with what users actually feel about the game.
Asking how likely the user is to purchase the game is a measure of how much value they place on the game experience and whether it is good enough to hold their interest. It will also help to assess the most appropriate audience for the game, being those most likely to purchase it.
Obviously the most important element in regard to test feedback are the levels used in the testing; they should be designed primarily to introduce the player to elements whilst also keeping a suitable challenge level.
Questions asking the user to rate the game on a 1 to 5 scale:
How enjoyable was the game?
How difficult was the game to understand?
How difficult was the game to play?
How much did you like the game's graphics?
How likely are you to purchase the game?
Short answer interview questions:
What did you like about the game?
What did you dislike about the game?
What things did the game bring to mind?
What would you change about the game?
The key things I am aiming to draw from the feedback are how well the user understood the game play (controls, elements, challenges) and what they find valuable about the game design (what works, what doesn't, what's enjoyable). It's important at our current stage to find out how explicitly we need to instruct the player as opposed to letting them work things out themselves. Currently we are debating over the inclusion of tutorial stages; whether or not the elements need explicit introduction and explanation, or whether the game is intuitive enough to allow the player figure things out without instruction. Related to this is training the difficulty level of the game to avoid the game being either too frustrating or too straightforward.
Asking the user what they liked and disliked about the game is a means to find out which elements work best and stand out in the game design and which ones need to be reworked. Likewise for the graphics; whether they are appropriate for the game or should be reworked. Asking "what things the game brings to mind" is a way to find out what really stands out about the game, in relation to either other games, genres, mediums, or even concepts, and to see if our target of a uniquely intriguing puzzle platformer is inline with what users actually feel about the game.
Asking how likely the user is to purchase the game is a measure of how much value they place on the game experience and whether it is good enough to hold their interest. It will also help to assess the most appropriate audience for the game, being those most likely to purchase it.
Obviously the most important element in regard to test feedback are the levels used in the testing; they should be designed primarily to introduce the player to elements whilst also keeping a suitable challenge level.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Game Title
Having settled on the game title "Polarity" early on it was rather disappointing to find that a game of the same name and similar concept had already been created by students a few years ago. However, it has been very interesting to come at the game design from a new perspective in order to re imagine a new title and further distinguish the game concept from what's come before it.
Tossing around ideas we thought about keeping the core gameplay mechanic of interacting with magnetic fields, whilst putting a new layer over them, for example: making them magical fields or some such. I considered ideas like biology and atomic science, positrons and neutrons, or a cell in a blood stream attracted to or repulsed from other cells. We could not however think of an idea that would match the game mechanic as well as magnetism, and so we've decided to stick with it whilst deciding upon a new title.
We brainstormed, throwing out anything related to magnetism and the cube shaped player that we could think of: "Magnabox", "Super Cube-o-tron DX", "MAGnificent", "Magnoid" (a game title that is already taken), "Magnext", "Charge", even so far as to look up the word polarity in other languages. I played with the idea of mixing the words plus and minus together: "Plumin", or even just using the symbols + and - as an abstract title. We finally settled upon (at least for now) the title "Bipolar", for while it does have some mental illness connotations, it also succinctly describes the game mechanic: you have bi-polarity control.
Using the above symbol for polarity I worked at design a title logo. We all had issue with the C shape standing out too much as the letter C making the title read "bipcolar" so I continued revising until we all agreed on the one at bottom:
Game Design Development
After relinquishing the head design role to Jason I was a little worried to as to the direction the game would take. I was initially keen to take the head design role, however it happened that I was the only one willing to do graphic design fro the game and so I've taken that role in the absence of anyone else.
For a few weeks the development was going around in circles; deciding upon some game elements, then back flipping the next week only to return to it again. For example the overall style of the game was initially going to be self contained, small cohesive levels that present an obvious A to B progression challenge. We developed the concept further to make the game an interconnected world design where the player has narrative driven objectives, for which the nonlinear interconnect stages become the setting. I was worried this would water down the level design as it places a lot of restrictions on the design, for one it becomes necessary for the areas to have multiple paths through them to allow backtracking, and it also requires that each area be designed well enough to keep it interesting for each revisit as well as avoiding frustration from the player due to the difficulty of certain areas. We have since turned back to the original stripped down design idea of self contained levels as it allows for more interesting free-form stage design worth the only constraint being that there must be an end goal for each stage.
Presently I am very happy with the direction the game is heading. The stripped down design is the way I always wanted to take the game as i felt while a narrative could have added to the game, it would be detracting from the unique gameplay mechanics more than adding to them. The key to the game's success comes down to the level design which is something I'm eager to get stuck into. Minimalising the game and graphic design means we have a lot more time to focus on the level design.
Levels so far designed by Jason have been interesting enough to show of the mechanics of the game though I fear he lacks strength in conceptual design as they are very straight forward and not as awe inspiring as one might hope. I am very interested to see what the rest of the team has in mind for level design and I myself will be working more on level design as the other aspects of the game are finalised.
For a few weeks the development was going around in circles; deciding upon some game elements, then back flipping the next week only to return to it again. For example the overall style of the game was initially going to be self contained, small cohesive levels that present an obvious A to B progression challenge. We developed the concept further to make the game an interconnected world design where the player has narrative driven objectives, for which the nonlinear interconnect stages become the setting. I was worried this would water down the level design as it places a lot of restrictions on the design, for one it becomes necessary for the areas to have multiple paths through them to allow backtracking, and it also requires that each area be designed well enough to keep it interesting for each revisit as well as avoiding frustration from the player due to the difficulty of certain areas. We have since turned back to the original stripped down design idea of self contained levels as it allows for more interesting free-form stage design worth the only constraint being that there must be an end goal for each stage.
Presently I am very happy with the direction the game is heading. The stripped down design is the way I always wanted to take the game as i felt while a narrative could have added to the game, it would be detracting from the unique gameplay mechanics more than adding to them. The key to the game's success comes down to the level design which is something I'm eager to get stuck into. Minimalising the game and graphic design means we have a lot more time to focus on the level design.
Levels so far designed by Jason have been interesting enough to show of the mechanics of the game though I fear he lacks strength in conceptual design as they are very straight forward and not as awe inspiring as one might hope. I am very interested to see what the rest of the team has in mind for level design and I myself will be working more on level design as the other aspects of the game are finalised.
Vector Graphics Implementation
Above is the current look of the game. We like the minimalist look which highlights the interactive elements, the blue and red platforms and magnetic fields. The other neutral, dark elements give the game a spacey / sci-fi feel, cold and sparse. The vector art is reminiscent of the early era arcade games which is a look I really like and is something I'll be drawing inspiration from for the graphic look.
Vector Graphics
As we've been working with the default vector graphics of the 2D box physics engine for a while we've become accustomed to the minimalist graphic look it presents. I originally considered the vector art in the early stages of graphic development though we initially opted for a (slightly) more modern 8bit/16bit graphic look. The above are 2 stage mock ups done using vector graphics in Adobe Illustrator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
