Creative and Effective Game Design

As part of a learning process of developing games, it is important to view games from two perspectives: a player and a designer. When playing a game it is easy to become immersed in the gameplay. While this is the intended purpose of most games, this test session I focused on trying to determine the "behind the scenes" strategies and techniques of design, along with new interesting mechanics and features.

Example Game 1: This Is The Only Level

Figure 1: The first (and only) level

A platforming game such as This Is The Only Level usually comes with many rooms. Dungeon crawlers have checkpoints, boss battles, or simply different layouts. However, TITOL has only one level, and it is shown above. It may seem that a simple game like this is dull and has a really short playtime, but I assure you this is not the case. By using a simple design, the developers were able to skip the long and tedious process of animation and visual splendor, and focus on the gameplay. The trick is that each proceeding level has a small trick to it, such as reversing the controls, or turning off gravity. By minimizing the visuals, the designers created an interesting game with potentially infinite expansion.

Example Game 2: WizardWizard

Figure 2: Obstacles and an enemy!

WizardWizard is a more traditional platformer, where the player needs to collect a key and go through the door. When it comes to WizardWizard, we were very lucky to be presented with the source code, so we could see exactly every aspect the developers used to make this game. This is invaluable to a developer, because it can teach you techniques it may have taken years to develop alone. It also goes to show exactly how much work needs to be put into a game before it can be considered done. This will be extremely helpful as a resource to design games with different rooms, with physics, and with enemies.

Example Game 3: Prismic Shift

Figure 3: Prismic Shift

Prismic shift is a game designed by a student at SJSU for play in an arcade cabinet. The main mechanic I observed with this game was the control scheme. The joystick feel makes this game amazing. The feeling of maneuvering a ship through tight formations of enemies with a joystick can never be compared to that with a keyboard or controller. Another fantastic aspect of this game was how the designer dealt with an ammo system. In some games, ammo isn't even needed, and in others, it is required but very poorly included. This game however takes a simple approach: if you run out, you need to blow yourself up. This mechanic makes the players have to be more conscious about their resources, and strategically detonate in order to score the most points. Its also an extremely interesting aspect for co-op modes, where teammates can blow each other up if they are not careful!

Session Report: The Evolution of Warcage

Introduction:
Warcage is a grid-based war game where a player moves units around the grid in order to try to eliminate the enemies forces. The game is over when either player eliminates the enemy hero. The combat of the game is determined by a combination of dice rolling and card playing, giving the game a unique chance based element with the opportunity for strategic twists. Each player has 4 units (a hero, a warrior, a tank, and a horseman), and a deck of cards. The cards are labeled with single attributes: attack, defense, parry, or boost. Each unit also gains a small boost based off its type. Warriors get +1 Attack, Tanks get +1 Defense, Heroes get +1 Attack and Defense, and Horsemen cannot be Parried.

Fig 1: The drafted rules.

Session 1: Initial game testing
For the first session the rules started off very simple: eliminate the enemy hero. Both players placed 4 units onto the field in the back two rows at each end of the board. We rolled a dice to determine who went first. The first two turns of the game seemed very slow because the units started too far away from each other to initiate combat immediately. After consideration, we decided to keep the game this way in order to allow for strategic maneuverability for the first two turns. The next phase of the game introduced the combat, which was fun but very unbalanced. The initial style of combat we had was based off of 4 card types: attack, defense, agility, and bluff. The attack and defense made a lot of sense together: the damage dealt to a unit was the different between the attack and defense values. With the dice roll determining the total damage, we calculated that the maximum damage dealt from a single dice would be 5 (max roll of 6 minus the minimum roll of 1). Because of this we made each units base health 5 hit points, so there would be a small probability of killing the enemy in one blow. Although the maximum damage by one dice would 5, we determined combat would be decided by 2 dice per player, allowing for more combinations of cards to be played. Also, each unit would apply a bonus to the rolls: warriors would get +1 attack, tanks would get +1 defense, horsemen would get +1 agility, and heroes would get +1 of each.

Fig 2: Day 1 Gameboard

Fig 3: Day 1 Combat

However, we ran into our first problem here. The "Agility" mechanic was a multiplier to either attack or defense, allowing some rolls to be significantly higher than others. The "bluff" mechanic also proved to be frustrating in this sense, because with poor luck, the battle could swing in favor of the enemy way too quickly. The reliance on luck was further increased by the small hand size of 3, limiting the options of each player. Lastly, each players deck had 10 of each of this cards, making poor luck cause you to draw multiple bluffs and very few defense and attack. Warcage was extremely fun still, but after this session I decided to revamp some of the combat to try and make it a little more balanced.

Session 2: Revised Testing
During session two, I tested with a friend who does not play video or board games in order to see how interesting the game could be to pick up and play. After session 1, I revised the rules a little. "Agility" no longer was a multiplier, but instead treated as a tiebreaker. Also, I changed the amount of cards in the deck, to 13 "attack" cards, 13 "defense" cards, 7 "Agility" cards and 7 "Bluff" cards. I hoped this would provide less bad hands and more hands with playable strategies. When the game started, the first two turns played out similarly, slowly but with strategic unit advancement across the board. When the combat initiated, the game was very different. It was no longer a one-attack blowout and instead required strategic placement of units with flanking and pincer placement (trapping single enemy units). This game was much more enjoyable, and usually ended with one player trapping the other in the corner.

Fig 4: Day 2 strategic unit placement

After this play session, it was determined that "Agility" still didn't work as it should, and that "bluff" cards forced too much luck on the combat. However, the new deck breakdown made the draws more consistent and more enjoyable. There were much fewer times when we felt our hands were worthless, and more times where playing cards took more thought than just luck. After this session I decided to completely scrap "bluff" and "agility" in favor of two new abilities, which I would then test with a third partner

Session 3: Final Testing
On Monday, I paired up with my third partner in order to test the updated rules of my game. This time "bluff" and "agility" were replaced with 2 new types: "parry" and "boost". The parry mechanic would counteract any opponents dice roll of equal value, giving the defender a needed boost when behind, but not putting the attacker at a huge advantage for lucky rolls. The "boost" mechanic merged the units with the combat better. It provided a flat bonus to each units type bonus already existing. This change also meant that the horseman's' bonus would have to change. In order to keep the stats linear, the horseman's new ability became "cannot be parried". This unique ability allows for parry and boost cards to still be played as bluffs during the horseman's turn, but not be wasted other turns.

Fig 5: Day 3 unit placement.

After testing one game with my partner, we decided that the "parry" and the "boost" mechanics were extremely fun and made our game hectic and got us both to the edge of our seats. However, after a short discussion we decided to try a game with a hand size of 5, to allow for more combinations. This change was by far the most significant, because it allowed for us to have way more options on both offense and defense, and caused for some of the most intense dice rolling yet. With these final rules, Warcage became the game it set out to be: an epic war game with tense combat, big damage swings, epic counter attacks, and a fun experience.

It's Called Risk for a Reason!

On September 2^nd, a group of designers and I did a game play session of Risk, developed by Hasbro. Risk is the game of global domination, where dice rolling and strategic battle strategies can lead to you to conquer or to be conquered. When you conquer territories, you collect risk cards, which you can turn in to recruit large amounts of troops. However, if you get wiped out, then your opponent turns in your cards. An average game can take upwards of two hours, so we played a revised version in order to finish on time.

Game Setup: To start the game, each player is allocated random territories on the map, until all territories are taken. Then, each player places troops on pre-conquered territories until everyone has twenty units on the board. The last part of setup requires the players to determine the turn order, so we rolled a dice to see who would go first. During our setup, Aldo turned out particularly lucky and secured 3 of the 4 territories in Australia. I had a few troops scattered around South America early, Nathan had spread countries throughout Europe and Asia, Andrew had a foothold in North America, and Michael had a spread through Asia.

Aldo won the dice roll and started off first. He used his turn to conquer Australia. He lost 3 forces to the one defender due to poor dice rolls, and then fortified his border with his whole force. I went next, and conquered Peru, Argentina, and Brazil. I only lost one troop, and fortified my borders. Nathan went on a blitzkrieg, attacking and conquering 4 territories, one from each player.  At the start of Andrews turn, he decided to try and conquer all of North America. He attacked me in Central America, Alaska, and Alberta. He then attacked Michael on eastern Canada conquered it, and turned his sights on the Michael in the Northwest Territory, conquering all of North America. Michael tried to attack Central Africa with 3 units, but lost those troops due to poor rolls.

He then took a big risk and attacked northern Africa, winning it by a hair. He tried then to take over Western Europe, but was defeated. After this sequence was over, 3 players controlled 3 different countries, while 2 were still struggling to control Asia, Africa, and Europe. Each player got a Risk card after their turn because they all conquered territories.

The game came back around to Aldo, who used his massive military force to conquer a single territory and end his turn. I then used a medium force to conquer Central America and disrupt Andrew’s country bonus. Nathan attacked a few European Countries to get his risk card. Andrew attacked me back in Central America, to regain his bonus. Michael fortified South Africa and attempted to take back central Africa, which he barely defeated. Each player earned a Risk card for his valiant attacks this turn.

On the next sequence Aldo took over India for a card. I put a huge force into Venezuela and took over Central America. Nathan fortified and ended turn. Andrew, who was scared of my forces, retreated from North America into Asia. Michael started to go for Africa, but was defeated by Nathan. Aldo took over one, got a card, and ended. I then started to creep into North America to secure a two-country foothold. Nathan and Andrew each took over one territory, got their card, and ended. Michael took over Africa. After these two quick turns, North America was in shambles, Aldo was pressing out of Australia, I was expanding into North America, and Michael, Nathan, and Andrew fought over the remaining territories. Everyone got 2 cards except Michael, who got 1.

Since we were running out of time, we declared this would be the last turn: The winner would be the player with the most troops.

Aldo took 2 countries over with his massive force, but could not press into Africa. I turned in my cards and took a risk, going on a huge chain of attacks. I wiped out Andrew in Asia and turned in his cards for 15 more troops. I then looked to fortify my borders and end my turn. Nathan in his last stand went for Europe, taking out many of Aldo's troops in the process. Andrew, sadly, was eliminated earlier so he had no turn. Michael in his last stand decided to take his frustration out on Aldo. Michael's risky maneuvers took out many of Aldo's troops and ended up securing Africa.

Final Troop standings:
Aldo: 25

Colt: 46
Nathan: 14
Andrew: 0

Michael: 8

I was declared the winner by default with the most troops. The strategy I used to win was to stay safe behind my fortified defenses and look to attack the weakest player in order to string together a large chain of attacks. Even though wars were fought and dice were rolled, everyone enjoyed their time playing. Risk is definitely a game I would play again.