Troy Farmer (10 year old male, student)
7 AM: Wake up
8 AM: Eat breakfast
9 AM - 10:15: Be at school to learn about trees
10:15 - 10:30 : Recess. Plays some wallball.
10:30 - 12:00: Learns about the rain forest
12 PM - 1 PM: Lunch time. Tries to play a board game, but other kids start arguing over a rules interpretation to see who wins. No one wins because the bell rings.
1-2:00: Learn about the rain forest.
2:00 - 2:15 : Recess. Plays a familiar board game like Connect 4 and loses.
2:15 - 3:00 - Learns about logging.
3:00 - Heads home
3:30 - 4:00: Watches cartoons
4:00 - 5:00 - Does homework
5:00 - 6:30 - Shopping trip with family. They buy a board game.
7:00 - Arrive back home to eat dinner.
8:00 - They try to learn to play the board game. Troy's parents intentionally play badly. Troy's clever so he picks up on it. It affects his enjoyment of the game.
9:00 Troy goes to sleep.
Sarah Williams (43-year old female teacher)
7AM Wake up
8 AM Eat Breakfast
8:30 AM - Be at Work and prepare for lessons
9 AM - 10:15: Teach about trees
10:15 - 10:30 : Recess. Grades papers.
10:30 - 12:00: Teaches about the rain forest
12 PM - 1 PM: Lunch time. Tries to supervise kids. Some of them play a board game and get into an argument. She stays out of it. No one wins because the bell rings.
1-2:00: Teach about the rain forest.
2:00 - 2:15 : Recess. She does some more grading. She looks over the rules for the board game the kids were arguing over. She'll be prepared next time.
2:15 - 3:00 -Teaches about logging.
3:00 - Sees the kids off home
3:00 - 4:00: Does some more preparation
4:00 - 5:00 - Staff Meetings
5:00 - Goes home
5:00 - 7:30 - Prepares tomorrow's lessons.
7:30 - 8:00 - Eats dinner
7:00 - 9:00 - Watches TV
Jane Farmer (39-year old office manager and mom)
7-8 AM Eat Breakfast
8-9 AM Go to work
9-11:30 AM - Meetings
11:30 - 12:30 PM - Lunch
12:30 -1 PM - Spreadsheets
1 - 3:30 PM Work
3:30 - 3:45 PM Break. Eats a snack.
3:45 - 5 PM - Meetings
5 PM - Goes home
5:00 - 6:30 - Shopping trip with family. They buy a board game.
7:00 - Arrive back home to eat dinner.
8:00 - They try to learn to play the board game. She doesn't want to hurt Troy, so she plays to lose. Troy's clever so he picks up on it. It affects his enjoyment of the game.
9:00 Troy goes to sleep. She cleans up.
10:00 - Goes to bed.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Feedback Loops
Game Design's a relatively new field. We don't really have a whole lot of vocabulary. Here's a couple important terms before I forget.
Positive Feedback Loop: This speeds up the end of the game. A player that does well is rewarded, which causes them to do even better, which gives them more rewards, which pushes them closer to winning, which will end the game. It isn't necessarily about rewards either. A player punished for doing badly and making them less likely to win is also a positive feedback loop. Speeding up the end of the game is good and exciting, but the rift between the people winning and the people losing isn't so good ALL the time. There's another tool for that.
Negative Feedback Loop: This delays the end of a game. A player that does badly is given some sort of consolation which will cause them to perform better and keep them in the struggle for longer. Or a player that does well has some burden placed upon them.
Use a positive feedback loop when you want an exciting finish or when you want the game to end. Use a negative feedback loop when you want to draw out the action and give the losers a fighting chance. You aren't restricted to using one or the other. Many games use both.
Positive Feedback Loop: This speeds up the end of the game. A player that does well is rewarded, which causes them to do even better, which gives them more rewards, which pushes them closer to winning, which will end the game. It isn't necessarily about rewards either. A player punished for doing badly and making them less likely to win is also a positive feedback loop. Speeding up the end of the game is good and exciting, but the rift between the people winning and the people losing isn't so good ALL the time. There's another tool for that.
Negative Feedback Loop: This delays the end of a game. A player that does badly is given some sort of consolation which will cause them to perform better and keep them in the struggle for longer. Or a player that does well has some burden placed upon them.
Use a positive feedback loop when you want an exciting finish or when you want the game to end. Use a negative feedback loop when you want to draw out the action and give the losers a fighting chance. You aren't restricted to using one or the other. Many games use both.
My Targets
Here we go. Here' s the stuff that'd normally go on the front of the box.
[Insert Game Name Here]
For Ages 7+ (actually targeted at 7-10)
Playing Time: 30 - 45 minutes
[Insert Game Name Here]
For Ages 7+ (actually targeted at 7-10)
Playing Time: 30 - 45 minutes
Elements of Cooperative Board Games
Today, I went out and bought a copy of Pandemic, a recent and fairly well-received board game. Having no one else to play with right now, I read over the rules and attempting to play it with myself taking the roles of each of the players.
I also went to Target, Wal-Mart, and Toys R Us to look over their selection of board games to see what's basically on the shelves these days.
But first things first.
Pandemic is a board game for 2-4 players. The players play the role of CDC agents trying to contain and find the cures for four different diseases ravaging the world. They travel from city to city, trying to contain outbreaks.
The instruction manual can be found here: http://www.zmangames.com/boardgames/files/pandemic/Pandemic_Rules.pdf
Oh, and the Shadows over Camelot manual can be found here: http://static.shadowsovercamelot.com/lang/english/images/sc_rules_en.pdf
Some trends I've noticed in both. And I'm not going to try to go into player experiences too much. I want to strip away the aesthetics, go past the dynamics, and examine the bare-faced mechanics behind the systems. I'll try to reconstruct the dynamics and aesthetics from there.
Mechanic:The games have a shared victory. All of the players win, or all of the players fail.
Dynamic: The players do not try to hinder each other, and will help players to be in a better position to win.
Aesthetic: The players feel a drive to teamwork.
Mechanic: The game board is made up of different areas. Players have individual avatar tokens, and they can move independently of each other.
Dynamic: The players will split up to address multiple areas at once, or assemble in the same areas to influence what occurs there more strongly.
Aesthetic: The players, while acting as a group, still behave as individuals
Mechanic:For every player turn, an event occurs that causes an area to move closer to a condition that will push the players towards losing.
Dynamic: The game's difficulty scales with the number of players. The players will try to deal with "hot zones".
Aesthetic: The players feel pressure to work stave off defeat, but it is not overwhelming or too easy for their number of players.
Mechanic: Movement is NOT randomly rolled.
Dynamic: Players choose a place from among the locations they may legally move to and have perfect control over their movement.
Aesthetic: The players feel that the game involves more strategy and less chance. They feel less frustrated with not being able to go to places they want to go.
Mechanic: Player turn are limited to a small number of actions.
Dynamic: Player turns end quickly, and it is a given player's turn again relatively soon.
Aesthetic: Players do not feel bored waiting for other people to finish their turns. The action feels fast-paced, and player efforts and "enemy" efforts move such that a struggle is clear.
Mechanic: Players have information that is not visible to other players, in the form of a hand of cards.
Dynamic: Players are unable to act with perfect information. Players try to communicate with each other to gain information.
Aesthetic: The players feel tension and uncertainty with the lack of information, in spite of working with the other players.
Mechanic: Players cannot give cards or other resources to each other except in special cases.
Dynamic: Players try to work together in ways that do not involve giving each other resources whenever and wherever they please. They try to find ways to work as a group without having to directly give items to each other. They may work to fulfill conditions where they can give resources to each other directly.
Aesthetic: The players are reinforced as individuals since they are distinct characters. They feel pressure to seek each other out so they can hand off and receive resources.
Mechanic: Players are usually unable to interact directly with each other.
Dynamic: Players do not work together unless they are trying to accomplish tasks together. They do not travel together by default.
Aesthetic: Players have individual accomplishments they may be proud of instead of only a long series of group accomplishments.
Whew. That was rough. Took me at least a couple hours to compile the list of mechanics and figure out the meaning behind all of this.
I had some concepts for designs, but I may do away with them after examining these MDA structures more closely. They do lead to a VERY strong design structure that has won awards, and these trends repeat in other cooperative board games as well.
I also went to Target, Wal-Mart, and Toys R Us to look over their selection of board games to see what's basically on the shelves these days.
But first things first.
Pandemic is a board game for 2-4 players. The players play the role of CDC agents trying to contain and find the cures for four different diseases ravaging the world. They travel from city to city, trying to contain outbreaks.
The instruction manual can be found here: http://www.zmangames.com/boardgames/files/pandemic/Pandemic_Rules.pdf
Oh, and the Shadows over Camelot manual can be found here: http://static.shadowsovercamelot.com/lang/english/images/sc_rules_en.pdf
Some trends I've noticed in both. And I'm not going to try to go into player experiences too much. I want to strip away the aesthetics, go past the dynamics, and examine the bare-faced mechanics behind the systems. I'll try to reconstruct the dynamics and aesthetics from there.
Mechanic:The games have a shared victory. All of the players win, or all of the players fail.
Dynamic: The players do not try to hinder each other, and will help players to be in a better position to win.
Aesthetic: The players feel a drive to teamwork.
Mechanic: The game board is made up of different areas. Players have individual avatar tokens, and they can move independently of each other.
Dynamic: The players will split up to address multiple areas at once, or assemble in the same areas to influence what occurs there more strongly.
Aesthetic: The players, while acting as a group, still behave as individuals
Mechanic:For every player turn, an event occurs that causes an area to move closer to a condition that will push the players towards losing.
Dynamic: The game's difficulty scales with the number of players. The players will try to deal with "hot zones".
Aesthetic: The players feel pressure to work stave off defeat, but it is not overwhelming or too easy for their number of players.
Mechanic: Movement is NOT randomly rolled.
Dynamic: Players choose a place from among the locations they may legally move to and have perfect control over their movement.
Aesthetic: The players feel that the game involves more strategy and less chance. They feel less frustrated with not being able to go to places they want to go.
Mechanic: Player turn are limited to a small number of actions.
Dynamic: Player turns end quickly, and it is a given player's turn again relatively soon.
Aesthetic: Players do not feel bored waiting for other people to finish their turns. The action feels fast-paced, and player efforts and "enemy" efforts move such that a struggle is clear.
Mechanic: Players have information that is not visible to other players, in the form of a hand of cards.
Dynamic: Players are unable to act with perfect information. Players try to communicate with each other to gain information.
Aesthetic: The players feel tension and uncertainty with the lack of information, in spite of working with the other players.
Mechanic: Players cannot give cards or other resources to each other except in special cases.
Dynamic: Players try to work together in ways that do not involve giving each other resources whenever and wherever they please. They try to find ways to work as a group without having to directly give items to each other. They may work to fulfill conditions where they can give resources to each other directly.
Aesthetic: The players are reinforced as individuals since they are distinct characters. They feel pressure to seek each other out so they can hand off and receive resources.
Mechanic: Players are usually unable to interact directly with each other.
Dynamic: Players do not work together unless they are trying to accomplish tasks together. They do not travel together by default.
Aesthetic: Players have individual accomplishments they may be proud of instead of only a long series of group accomplishments.
Whew. That was rough. Took me at least a couple hours to compile the list of mechanics and figure out the meaning behind all of this.
I had some concepts for designs, but I may do away with them after examining these MDA structures more closely. They do lead to a VERY strong design structure that has won awards, and these trends repeat in other cooperative board games as well.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Survey
I've created a very simple super short survey to help me out with gathering information. I'd be pretty happy if I got a large number of responses, so please fill it out
Click here to get started!
Thanks!
Click here to get started!
Thanks!
Revised Problem Statement
Although some board games for adults involve teams, many of the board games for children between the ages of 7 and 10 are focused entirely on competition with no attention given to cooperation.
The purpose of this study was to develop a set of rules for a board game for children between the ages of 7 and 10 in which cooperation is a core theme of play.
Oh, and another game I found in my closet.
The Game of Life. 2-6 players, ages 9+. This game actually originated in 1860 by Milton Bradley himself. Though it got an update on its 100th anniversary. Since then, it got an update in the 80s, early 90s, the year two thousand (the year two thou saaaaaaaaand), and in 2005.
Many of these updates dealt with inflation.
2000 edition, college put you 40,000 in debt but gave you some benefits. 2005 edition puts you 100,000 in debt, and doesn't give any more benefits to compensate, for example.
The purpose of this study was to develop a set of rules for a board game for children between the ages of 7 and 10 in which cooperation is a core theme of play.
Oh, and another game I found in my closet.
The Game of Life. 2-6 players, ages 9+. This game actually originated in 1860 by Milton Bradley himself. Though it got an update on its 100th anniversary. Since then, it got an update in the 80s, early 90s, the year two thousand (the year two thou saaaaaaaaand), and in 2005.
Many of these updates dealt with inflation.
2000 edition, college put you 40,000 in debt but gave you some benefits. 2005 edition puts you 100,000 in debt, and doesn't give any more benefits to compensate, for example.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Comparative Analysis
Not a total analysis, but a quick rundown of games that kids play that I'm aware of, and their associated ages. Maybe listing it will help me get my thoughts organized.
Uno is a card game rated for ages 7+. Judging by its extreme popularity (over one million purchases on Xbox Live Arcade, for example), it certainly appeals to people much older than 7 as well. It claims to support 2-10 players
Clue is a board game for ages 8+, and it was my favorite board game growing up. The players must use logic and process of elimination. It supports 2-6 or 3-6 players. It didn't really have any strategy in it, but there was a large revision to the game last year that I may decide to look into.
Monopoly supports 2-8 players, and rated for kids 8+. It's an iconic game, but I don't think it's very good.
Candy Land says it's good for 2-4 players from the ages of 1 to 100. Cute. This game has zero skill involved. It's all luck to see who can traverse the 134 squares first. No decision making.
Snakes and ladders (2+ layers, ages 3+) is similar but requires the ability to count.
Uno is a card game rated for ages 7+. Judging by its extreme popularity (over one million purchases on Xbox Live Arcade, for example), it certainly appeals to people much older than 7 as well. It claims to support 2-10 players
Clue is a board game for ages 8+, and it was my favorite board game growing up. The players must use logic and process of elimination. It supports 2-6 or 3-6 players. It didn't really have any strategy in it, but there was a large revision to the game last year that I may decide to look into.
Monopoly supports 2-8 players, and rated for kids 8+. It's an iconic game, but I don't think it's very good.
Candy Land says it's good for 2-4 players from the ages of 1 to 100. Cute. This game has zero skill involved. It's all luck to see who can traverse the 134 squares first. No decision making.
Snakes and ladders (2+ layers, ages 3+) is similar but requires the ability to count.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)