Game Design

Hunted

December 8, 2019

Hunted is a two-player cat-and-mouse style game whereby the Hunter must chase down the Victim, whilst the Victim makes a run for the escape. It is a game of tension, suspense, and decision-making. As the Hunter is on the move, the Victim starts off defenseless, but can find and collect items to help fend off and slow down their pursuer. However, some items are made to slow down or trap the Victim. With mature themes, it is a game recommended for ages 14 and up.

Process

After joining up with my project partner Valerie with her game pitch, we immediately realized the challenge to creating this genre of game to be two-player. Balancing player roles, items and their functions, and combat interactions were problems we worked through both conceptually and after playtesting. The game Dead By Daylight was our starting point and main reference to deciding the kinds of items as well as goals for players. Valerie took care of the materials, while I focused mostly on the balance of the game. All other work was evenly distributed between us. For my part, the balancing, I found the Hunter role to be slightly more powerful than the Victim, while also being too simple and possibly not very fun to play. Through much playtesting and feedback, I was able to improve the gameplay experience and fairness for the roles.

Rules

The Victim would turn away as the Hunter hid items.
Each hidden item has an obstacle placed on top to block movement and attacks.
Only the Victim can interact and reveal these hidden items, which also removes the obstacle.
Game proceeds in turns.
Movement is based on dice rolls.
The Victim can use certain items to attack the Hunter.
The Hunter can attempt to block attacks, otherwise the Hunter loses a turn.
The escape requires a key, which the Victim must find among the hidden items.

Hunted went through several revisions. It was difficult to communicate the state of the game with my partner as I took it upon myself to work out the rules. Many ideas were scrapped such as more obstacles without items underneath, rivers with bridges for crossing, and having the Hunter actually being killable. Eventually, I came up with a more concise version. This served as the baseline for us, as I still continued to make minor changes throughout the process.

One of the biggest balance changes I made that solved a lot of problems was to add tiers to the items, as well as predetermined spaces. This was done through color: green, blue, and purple. Positive items for the Victim were more prominent in green, and less so in blue, and so on. However, purple also consisted of the required item to meet the winning condition for escaping: the key. This gave the incentive that the Victim must search purple items, while blue and green ones are merely optional, although likely helpful.

Playtesting

Through observations, immediate problems we found through playtesting was the Hunter always won. This was largely due to the fact that Hunter players had too much freedom to choose the placements for items. Another problem was the Victim not having the desire to search for items at all. Both problems were fixed with the implication of color-coding items and spaces for items to go. Whereas before, the number of items that can be placed was limited only by the number representing a general area.

The feedback we got was very positive. Players expressed excitement during gameplay, and it was evident there was a lot of thought process going on for deciding the next move. These were things we were aiming for, so we knew we were on the right track. Playtesters understood the game, genuinely had fun, and wished to play again.

Changes

As mentioned, changes to the game was apparent throughout. Valerie and myself both agree that Hunted has reached a competent and well-made state. There was a lot of discussion and desire to somehow turning this into a one versus three scenario, but that goes beyond the requirements for the assignment. The game itself feels complete.

How I would have liked to handle an assignment like this for the future would be to meet up outside of class more than we had. Our communication was fine, but certain alterations to the game would have been better explained in person. We made a lot of progress when we did meet in-class; however, the game design process can be spontaneous. When it came to new ideas, half the time I just dealt with it on my own and provided suggestions to Valerie only after an idea was worked out. Since Hunted was her game pitch, it didn't feel right to leave her in the dark, even if they were minor details.

Final Thoughts

There were no problems working with my partner. We both pitched in a good amount of work equally. I had only wished I included her more often during the concept portion. And again, had we met up more often outside of class this would have all been possible. I feel accomplished with the results of our game. I enjoyed people's reactions when playing it, and their interest for the game.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Ant Run

October 27, 2019

Ant Run is a two-player cooperative board game for ages 4 to 6. The board itself is divided into separate parts, offering interchangeability and making every game feel different. It encourages players to talk to one another, and work together to build their ant trail using colored ant pieces in order to reach the end.

Process

For our group, we were tasked in creating a board game with three criteria in mind: sports, ants, and preschool. Preschool being our target audience, and somehow combining the sports genre with an ant theme. After brainstorming multiple ideas, we decided on the concept of a game where you create your ant trail and maneuver through an obstacle course. We originally called it Antlympics, and later changed it to the more easily pronounced Ant Run with our target audience in mind. It was also initially a player versus player dice game. This, along with many other ideas, was scrapped to accommodate the age range. Many iterations were made to reduce complex gameplay for the sake of the target audience. This was by far the hardest obstacle for us.

Rules

Arrange the game board so it is ready for play.
Both players must choose their color.
Youngest player goes first.
Ant pieces must alternate by color (the same color pieces cannot be touching).
Player turns are based on which player can place a piece down.
Players are allowed to remove or replace their last piece(s) if agreed upon.
A trail must connect between the water and leaf, or twigs, in order to cross.
Work together to reach the finish, and win!

Ant Run being a cooperative game for a young audience meant creating rules that are not strict and easily understood. Something so lenient such as allowing players to change their minds on what pieces they placed seemed necessary to include. After all, the direction for this game has always been solely on player interaction, communication, and progression.

Playtesting

The playtesting sessions revealed to us that our game was enjoyable, if not too easy. The rule sheet was short and concise, and left the players the time they needed to play and finish our game. We were provided with useful feedback that helped a lot in our process for revisions. Players liked the rearranging of the game board, and favored the cooperative aspect with each player having some ant pieces specific to them. For the most part, only minor adjustments to the rules were necessary. Not that our rules were misunderstood, rather things needed to be clarified. Pictures for further clarity was also advised. Overall, our game was well received.

Changes

There is not a whole lot that we feel needs to be changed to the core game mechanics. Only by having our target audience playtest our game would we know for sure whether more should be added. We are confident that we could move on to the final phase of development, and make a finished product. This would help flesh out what is missing from our type of game: eye candy. Moving on to this phase would greatly change how our game would be received.

Final Thoughts

Between me and my partner the workload was well distributed. Both of us treated each assignment as if it were individual. We would then come together and compromise our answers. My partner took the liberty of formatting our documents and turning in the finalized version. We worked extensively on conceptualizing, bouncing off ideas between us, and retracting those ideas when proven too complex for our age range. My job consisted of designing the game board and creating the physical prototype. We put in the time and effort for this project, and are proud of its outcome.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Solitaire: Rush

September 22, 2019

A version of Solitaire that plays differently by implementing options and obstacles within a time constraint. It challenges the player's abilities of quick decision-making and physical endurance. A game best played by anyone already familiar with standard play.

Process
For our modification we tried to stay true to the original version of Solitaire while incrementally adding changes to the gameplay. One challenge was weighing between whether or not enough was added to call it its own game. Of course, the set-up and objective is identical to standard play. The first rule that was added was the time constraint. If you cannot finish within 10 minutes, you lose. This didn't seem like enough as the time limit never became a factor for losing. Including the Joker cards to act as obstacles and slow down the player while under the pressure of time seemed to fix this.

Rules

• Cards must be stacked by King, Queen, Jack, 10, 9, and so on.
• Cards must be stacked while alternating colors.
• Cards from the suit piles can be used to stack columns.
• Any card can be placed within an empty column, including a Joker.
• You cannot place cards atop a Joker, vice versa.
• Must complete within a 10 minute constraint.
• You are given a one-card slot to save and put aside any non-Joker card.

To give the player the freedom to place any card within an empty column added decision-making to the gameplay. Also, with the option to save a card, which was another rule added much later, it gives the player further manipulation to the game. The physical endurance factor comes from, of course, the time.

Playtesting

When it came to having other game designers playtest our modified Solitaire, many surprising outcomes came about. The players were either confused or hesitant during play. I later realized they had little knowledge of the base game as is, and needed clarification on those rules. Not knowing the standard rules overcomplicated the added rules tremendously. Despite these hiccups there was clear interest, or intrigue, coming from the players. Their attention was kept, and from observing them they seemed to be working it out.

Changes

One thing that would have helped to include within the rule sheet would be pictures for reference. That way the player can easily understand fully of how their game should look. Perhaps rewording of the rules themselves to better translate could also help improve understanding. Another huge help would have been to get a proper playtest session as soon as any rules were altered or added. After all, anything that was conceptualized and sounded good ended up being exactly what was implemented. Nothing was cut.


Final Thoughts
Management on the project seemed solid. There was communication between myself and my partner throughout the whole process, and we were on top of the work. Not a whole lot of feedback was ever given, so we were in the dark on this one. Although, I do believe our modded game turned out well enough. I for one found enjoyment during my playing the game.