Afterthoughts...

I found this game while reading my kotaku feed the other day:

http://www.kongregate.com/games/2DArray/the-company-of-myself?sfa=permalink

The whole premise of the game is that the main character is a lonely hermit who has no one, and goes through levels by only helping himself. You get to a point where you're reunited with your former love but then you realise that you're meant to be alone after all. It made me sad when I got to the level where I had to kill the main character's love interest =(

It reminded me a lot of those depressing games we played during the last lecture. This one's quite interesting though... you learn the mechanics of the game as you go. It's not a straight platformer as you're able to create clones of yourself to help get yourself through the other stages. It's very much a game where you have to fail a level once to see how to complete it. There's elements similar to Braid in that you can't die - or rather, there's no penalty for dying.

I spent a lot of time playing this game, just because it was simplistic yet challenging.

Journal Week 12 - What Did You Learn?

When I started this course I was into a lot of mainstream games. I had big ideas about game ideas and what I wanted to achieve, and in some ways the course was a massive slap in the face. From the get go the course has turned all my assumptions around and still made it fun, from the moment we threw plastic balls at each other. Doing this course has changed so many perspectives and assumptions I have on games:

Indie games are fun.

I used to balk at the site of games that I didn't know some background on. It would take my boyfriend to play a game I hadn't heard of. But after playing games which are free, or at least not a Lucasarts/Blizzard/Westwood/Bioware creation, I've come to realise that they're a lot of fun! Games like Galcon and World of Goo, and even online and free games such as Home and Missing are games I've come to appreciate, even if I wouldn't play it for hours on end. Doing this course has broadened my appreciation in games for what they represent and the messages the convey.

Game Design is really hard.

From my friend's talks about a Pokemon MMO to vision I have in my head of what I want to do to games I already play. It seemed like making a game was so simple at the start. But when you look at the parts that comprise the bigger picture you realise there's more to it then "fun". It's actually getting there and achieving the intended experience. I didn't realise something as simple as a mod for a game could have a hugely positive or negative impact. Nor that every design element of a game is crucial - story, characters, visuals, audio, gameplay. There's more to game design than what meets the eye and it's something I really want to look into later on.

Game Design is still work.

It's not all fun and games, if you'll pardon the expression. There's actually a lot of technical aspects in game design - and important aspects - that differentiate between an ok game, and a good game. There's still a design process you have to go through. There's still painful group work. You still have to test. You still have to redesign. You still have to justify it. But it means a game can come out of the process as a great game.

Enjoyment comes from the most unexpected things.

It seemed like such a stupid aspect to a game - you have a bunch of triangles, try and get all of the same colour in your space. I didn't really expect the chaos that ensued as a result to be so enjoyable. Some ideas for game mechanics failed, others worked spectacularly, and it made me realise that you don't have to follow a set formula of build a base, make some units and go blow the other player's brains out to have a good time. Not every game needs a lightsaber to be cool.

Fun is no longer part of my vocabulary.

Now that I can see the reasons why I enjoy a game, the word "fun" is such an inadequate word. There's so many other ways of describing the gaming experience that not only conveys the same message but also shows what makes a good design work. It sort of sounds like an English class back in high school, but analysing why I like a game has become much more in depth than how it was before.

Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road.

This course has been great to me and I know to a lot of people. I definitely want to explore other types of games and step up the gaming experience. I'm not the best gamer around, but I've certainly developed a greater appreciate playing and making games. I think above all, though, doing this course has reasserted that I love games, in every shape and form. As for where I'll go... I'm considering doing honours and doing a thesis. I'm not entirely sure. I'm thinking of doing Advanced Graphics next year - who knows? Maybe I'll make a game.

Game Week 11 - missing and home

These are probably the most depressing games I've ever seen. I like games with some conclusive and happy ending, and that's mostly been the type of game I play, so this was an eye-opener for me.


Missing is just sad because you never seem to finish it, and it's also a bit tedious because you talk to people and they say the same responses but nothing progresses from them. This aids in the depression I get from the game because you're trying to find your player's son but no matter who you talk to no one knows anything. The pixellated feel and the emptiness in the game play also adds to the void and the emptiness I feel from the game.


With Home it was sad because whatever you did was futile. You eventually lost one status bar after another until your character becomes incapacitated. It also feels as though your player had alzheimers from te start because at the end your daughter comes in and tells her she visits you all the time and you seem to forget. It was sad to play towards the end because you couldn't sleep anymore, or go to the bathroom, or talk to the nurse, and the rate at which the status bars dropped was faster than you could walk, so there was a sense of dread as you wonder what happens towards the end.


I don't agree with the article, I think games are very much art. Just because it doesn't have the same historical presence as Shakespeare plays or Monet artworks, it doesn't mean a game can't be a piece of art. Something that induces some emotional experience in the audience, viewer or reader and has some form of creative input into it is certainly art. It's simply art in the contemporary world.

Design Week 10 - Music

A puzzle game comes to mind when I think of this. A player navigates through a world where they must unlock doors or get past objects by playing music.

They start of with a simple instrument such as a drum, and have requirements with each obstacle. They make a tune or rhythm of at least 10 notes for each obstacle. Sometimes if they must persuade a person to let them through they might be required to accompany a rhythm or a melody, much like in the Legend of Zelda games on GameBoy where the player must follow a rhythm.

They can pick up additional instruments and in later levels have the potential to do a symphony or a jazz number, but because of the small restrictions of at least 10 notes and maybe an instrument which is required, the player is allowed to do as much or as little as they want.

They can then save the pieces they make and further improve them if they want as one of the side features.

There could even be a feature where as the player makes their music the happiness rating of the person they must get past goes up or down, so that a player doesn't make something awful. It would probably detect harmonies which class at any points so that a player doesn't ruin the ears of other people.

Journal Week 9 - Impro

In most computer games, players have their own perceptions drawn on the game based on what conceptual art, platform and backstory the game pitches to the public. Players go into first person shooters expecting to be given a gun and allowed to go nuts, whereas players who buy a real-time strategy game look forward to the expansive selection of units they can build. Similarly, when a player reads the blurb on the packaging they form their own ideas of how the story will unfold, particularly if the story pertains to a universe they may be familiar with such as warcraft or star wars.

If players have narrow expectations for a game it may cause certain aspects of the game to disrupt their immersion. Suddenly asking a player who's into a first person shooter to do some puzzles as part of the gameplay may cause a bit of confusion and frustration in the player as they might be so into the action going on around them. A player might not be used to a certain style of game either - whilst playing Knights of the Old Republic I suddenly had to race a swoop, which I wasn't expectng at all, and it took a while to get used to. Players wanting to build huge bases might find that levels in a game that require them to manage a finite number of units a bit frustrating as they have no supply to fall back on.

I think players should expect the unexpected in a game. While a game should incorporate other elements of game styles well - like the puzzles that platformers such as Super Metroid have which teach the player new tricks or make them think about how to get to a certain area, players should be prepared for anything that the game will throw at them. To do this, games like Super Metroid should have the other experiences incorportated WELL into the game. KotOR I think is fantastic at this - there are various elements such as puzzles, racing, card games and duels which are all different to regular game play but fit in well with the story and allow another form of enjoyment for the player.

Having played Word at a time story in the CSE Revue Cast I know only too well that games such as this force the players to think about where the story is going. It's the notion of accepting the offer that another player as given. If a player suddenly changes the situation you were intending the story to go into, it makes you think about what you can do to work with what you've got. Of course, some ideas given are downright weird and often made just for the fun of it, but all in all a player in any game should be able to take the information they are given about the situation and run with it and turn it into an even greater story with enjoyment.

Design Week 8 - Sydney Explorer

I played a game when I was in Singapore two years ago. When I lived there back in the 90s I noticed along Orchard Road there were plaques that had different kinds of fruit on them, all important in Singapore Culture. At least that's what I think they were there for. When I got back I vowed I would find each different type of plaque and take a picture of where they were, and what they were. It turns out I only managed to find 7 different designs, but as they were all along pathways I had to travel along all these streets to find them. People tend to stick the same type of sticker around places and I always make a habit of finding them and seeing where they all are.

I think something similar could work here in Sydney as well - even more so as Sydney roads are designed so haphazardly. Basically you have a noticeable icon - a plaque, sticker, statue or some form or sign which is replicated along the streets and sights of Sydney, and the goal is to find as many of them as possible. You cannot go by transport nor is there anything past the Harbour or Anzac Bridge. It's almost like a scavenger hunt except you're not looking for a list of places, you're looking for an identical symbol in various locations. The group who can find the most number of symbols - and have proof - would be declared the winners.

The catch is you're not told what the symbol is. You know it's going to be a plaque, sticker or whatever medium it is, and you know it's going to recur in various locations (and it's not already existing such as a company logo - though finding all the McDonalds' in Sydney is probably as time consuming) so you might even miss the item at the start. This would mean people have to canvas all of Sydney, even parts they might not have been to before. It would also mean they familiarise themselves with the area - I often remember where I've been through Sydney based on posters I've seen on the walls.

Journal Week 8 - Story in Games

I think stories take on several roles in games. One is to give the player a goal - a set and solid storyline gives the player a sense of direction in what they're doing, rather than aimlessly wandering about, trying to figure out where to go. A good story should drive a player to play the game, wanting to find out the next plot point in the story. It should also aid in bringing the player into the world of the game, weaving a tale and characters so tangible the player is immersed in gameplay.

Stories need two important things: a well written plot and well written characters. You cannot have one without the other. A well written characters cannot drive a poorly written story, nor can an excellent story have the same impact if the characters do not have depth to their history, personality and their purpose in the game. As such, it is possible for a game to have a very good and meaningful story if both these elements exist in the game.

Suffice to say I will be highlighting an example which the video would knock off as being in the Star Wars category, but their RPG Knights of the Old Republic has one of the best stories I have ever seen in a game. Not only does the plot have a good level of suspense, emotion and depth to it but the characters all contribute in their own way to push the story and make it as engaging as it is. If not for the characters and the storyline I would not have played that game more than once despite it's fantastic game play, which brings me to another point.

Stories cannot be overshadowed by the gameplay. Games which focuses on the graphics and the mechanics tend to butcher the story or possess one which is sub-par, and one example of this was the fifth Ace Attourney game, Miles Edgeworth. The gameplay was fantastic. I had a new way of logically determining what went down in each crime and got to see the prosecution side of the game I knew and love. There were more interactive parts of the game plus a few throwbacks to the origianl series. But the stories were terrible, and it made the character I loved from the Phoenix Wright trilogy crueler and less witty than before. Not to mention the bad puns. Puns in a game can kill the characters and the plot if used badly *cringe*

As such, I don't think narrative contraints impede on freedom of play. in KotOR you could talk to several characters and do other missions, end missions your own way, build your own equipment and play mini games. While, yes, most of these can ultimately lead to the end there's still room for play for the player. In Max Payne you could interact with the environment: vending machines, TVs, shoot pattersn in the walls. In both games there was no time limit on levels, so games with good stories still allowed for freedom of the player to do what he or she wanted while still reaching the next plot point.

I'm not sure if sandbox storytelling can be completely feasible. Like Adams said, the Sims has some form of sandbox storytelling but only through having multiple facets which the player can tell the story through, and coming up with their own narrative. Having a single player in a world with multiple forms of interaction, would, in a sense, be exactly like an MMORPG, and ultimately have a world where the plot isn't necessarily experienced through exploration because there is no plot at all. For a game to be good, it has to either have multiple facets which engage the player through mechanically performing the same actions, or have a single plot that drives the player to the conclusion of the game. I don't think games with stories can have both these elements.

Game Week 8 - Interactive Fiction

Playing these games was incredibly annoying. Because of the wide bank of words that is the English language it was difficult to find the words that would trigger any progress in the story.

The playability can be taken in two wasy: playing it over and over again with different words, or going through all the words then playing it again. With Aisle, the same word triggered the same ending. In a way this was good, because it allowed for consistency, but if you managed to exhaust all possible words then you couldn't play it anymore. As a first timer with the game, however, it was enjoyable to read the various endings I could trigger. The fact that you could only go one step into the story, however, madeit slightly addictive as you would go back and see what ending you could come up with.

Galatea was a bit more annoying. The story would run for as long as I could continue conversing with Galatea, but you couldn't use the same word more than once. If you tried to, they would say the conversation has been exhausted. There were also certain formats you had to write sentences in to trigger an event which was also frustrating. I felt this game could go on for longer but the limited vocabulary, again, made it frustrating.

In short, while these games can be entertaining for a while, for me, they don't work. The discovery element in the game of finding out where you progressed in the story with trigger words is fun for a while, but the restrictive format got me very bored in no time.