I have been working on a few games concurrently, and one of them is a genre-mash-up somewhere between a TCG and a tabletop RPG. For the sake of discretion, let's give this project a codename: Nalpha.
So, I've been working on this project for a couple weeks, and there was a bit of a gimmicky hook to the play action; the cards were used in a physical way as a game element that cards usually aren't. Yes, I know I'm being guarded with my description, but bear with me. I wouldn't probably be talking openly about this game at all, if not for the developmental crossroads I find myself at.
There are other things that make the game unique and - in my estimation - fun and interesting, but this is particular facet makes handling the cards feel different.
There are a couple downsides to the format, however. For one, this implementation requires special play surfaces (a mat of sorts) that both takes up a fair amount of table-space, as well as mandates extra hardware (the mat itself) to play the game. These in turn reduce the portability of the game; it is not very travel-friendly.
One of the things I love about TCGs is the ability to throw a deck in your backpack, purse, or pocket. It's not a cheesy "travel-version" of the "real game;" the real game is travel friendly. You can take it to school, or the coffee shop, or a friend's house easily. Pull out your deck and in under a minute you are playing the game.
I could redesign the game components (without changing game mechanics) to address all of these problems, and even give a few intuitive improvements to some cards. But if I do so, then I eliminate the physical hook that gives you the "Whoa" impression when you first see the game.
Ultimately, I think either format will feel similar once you have learned the game (with a slight edge to the "redesigned" Nalpha), so it comes down to other factors. The question I'm grappling with is simple, really:
Is having a strong (visual/physical, not mechanical) gimmick more or less valuable than designing components for optimum playability?
Marketing is a factor, but fidelity to the player (not merely the consumer) is important, too. This question was posed in a different way by Arcade over at Learning Game Design, which I posited my two cents on. But now that it's my crisis and not his, I'm finding it more difficult to sort out the issue.
10.29.2009
10.21.2009
More on Learning and Gaming
I think there is something intrinsically human in our need to learn. This, of course, transcends academics and/or the assimilation of data. But learning is one of the most gratifying experiences within the scope of humanity. Learning can manifest in many ways, based on the objective.
One form of learning is mimicry. This is a performance-oriented mode of learning. On one end of the spectrum would be learning a fixed dance step. On the other, perhaps would be conjugating Latin verbs. One improves simply by doing what an authority does.
This is one of the least satisfying modes of learning, but it is efficient when performance (to an established standard) is necessary. In many gaming arenas, this may be called "Cookie-cutter builds/decks". For many, designing a deck or customizing a character is a large portion of the fun. But when initially learning the game (how it works, what its rules are, what is a good play or a bad play, etc.), mimicry can get a novice up and running quickly, providing a necessary entre into the game.
Once beyond mimicry, many learners move into proverbial thinking. This mode of learning is similar to mimicry, but allows for much more freedom and opens early opportunities to experiment and explore. Proverbial thinking is when the learner does not mimic the authority in execution, but rather makes his own decisions based on values laid out by the authority. Some examples of value-proverbs might be: "Cash is king," "Speed kills," or "Always stand on 17 or higher." Such proverbs provide a framework, but allow for ownership within those bounds.
Most casual players will stop at proverbial thinking. What happens within this mode is that players become more adept at adhering to the proverbs. Their performance will increase as long as their adopted proverbs accurately describe the reality of game mechanics.
The final mode of learning I am going to highlight is innovation. In this mode, the learner has moved himself (and perhaps his peers) to the position of authority. Typically, proverbs once learned are now challenged and tested for viability. Experimentation becomes a hallmark of the learning experience. The learner will often attempt to model (mathematically or otherwise) the phenomenon so as to thoroughly understand it. Innovation operates more in the theoretical and hypothetical than the other two modes.
Innovative gamers are the gurus that are sought for the cookie-cutters and proverbs. It is their play that gets studied by novices and amateurs. Interestingly, relaxation through play seems to be reduced as does "fun" in play. The "fun-factor" for innovators is the meta-game; the game of doing the game differently and/or better than it has been done before.
I find that proverbial players seem to be the happiest consistently, but it is impossible to be a different kind of learner than you are. For myself, I know that I am not satisfied with anything less than something distinctively my own, (even if it handicaps me for a time).
One form of learning is mimicry. This is a performance-oriented mode of learning. On one end of the spectrum would be learning a fixed dance step. On the other, perhaps would be conjugating Latin verbs. One improves simply by doing what an authority does.
This is one of the least satisfying modes of learning, but it is efficient when performance (to an established standard) is necessary. In many gaming arenas, this may be called "Cookie-cutter builds/decks". For many, designing a deck or customizing a character is a large portion of the fun. But when initially learning the game (how it works, what its rules are, what is a good play or a bad play, etc.), mimicry can get a novice up and running quickly, providing a necessary entre into the game.
Once beyond mimicry, many learners move into proverbial thinking. This mode of learning is similar to mimicry, but allows for much more freedom and opens early opportunities to experiment and explore. Proverbial thinking is when the learner does not mimic the authority in execution, but rather makes his own decisions based on values laid out by the authority. Some examples of value-proverbs might be: "Cash is king," "Speed kills," or "Always stand on 17 or higher." Such proverbs provide a framework, but allow for ownership within those bounds.
Most casual players will stop at proverbial thinking. What happens within this mode is that players become more adept at adhering to the proverbs. Their performance will increase as long as their adopted proverbs accurately describe the reality of game mechanics.
The final mode of learning I am going to highlight is innovation. In this mode, the learner has moved himself (and perhaps his peers) to the position of authority. Typically, proverbs once learned are now challenged and tested for viability. Experimentation becomes a hallmark of the learning experience. The learner will often attempt to model (mathematically or otherwise) the phenomenon so as to thoroughly understand it. Innovation operates more in the theoretical and hypothetical than the other two modes.
Innovative gamers are the gurus that are sought for the cookie-cutters and proverbs. It is their play that gets studied by novices and amateurs. Interestingly, relaxation through play seems to be reduced as does "fun" in play. The "fun-factor" for innovators is the meta-game; the game of doing the game differently and/or better than it has been done before.
I find that proverbial players seem to be the happiest consistently, but it is impossible to be a different kind of learner than you are. For myself, I know that I am not satisfied with anything less than something distinctively my own, (even if it handicaps me for a time).
10.07.2009
The Learning Curve
This week I had the privilege of demo-ing my card game with a friend of mine I only see occassionally. After the game I thanked him for testing for me and his response was this: "No problem. I think I make a good tester because I am a slow learner."
I thought his comment was at once endearing (there was no hint of false modesty in his face or voice) and instructive to me. He had fun playing... not merely because the game ran well but because, by his estimation, he understood the game well by the second or third turn.
I took this to be a good sign for a game that is meant to be light-weight and casual. What I thought was even better was watching over the course of four games or so, he made consistently better plays. His skill level increased as his experience increased.
There is, I think, a fairly low ceiling for how good you can get at the game. It doesn't offer the strategic depth of something like Magic: the Gathering or interpersonal skills like Poker. But there are choices and in most cases there are poor, fair, and good decisions that can be made.
I think that's the strength of my card game (I can't go into much by way of specifics if I hope to get published), but the gist is that the rules are minimal but comprehensive and the cards are fairly easily understood. You can know everything there is to know in just a couple minutes. But there is a "feel" to the game, a heirarchy of decision making that comes with experience. Anyone who has played two games is unlikely to spend more than a minute on even the most labored turn, because cards are easily and situationally prioritized.
I've been told that my game lacks a "ground-breaking inventive mechanic." I think that's true, but I'm going to continue to pursue publication for a while anyways because I believe it is worth it. It's novel. It's a joy to play. It's a good product.
Hmm... I meant to spend more time talking about the role of "learning" a game than I actually did. Perhaps I'll tie-in to this in a separate post later.
I thought his comment was at once endearing (there was no hint of false modesty in his face or voice) and instructive to me. He had fun playing... not merely because the game ran well but because, by his estimation, he understood the game well by the second or third turn.
I took this to be a good sign for a game that is meant to be light-weight and casual. What I thought was even better was watching over the course of four games or so, he made consistently better plays. His skill level increased as his experience increased.
There is, I think, a fairly low ceiling for how good you can get at the game. It doesn't offer the strategic depth of something like Magic: the Gathering or interpersonal skills like Poker. But there are choices and in most cases there are poor, fair, and good decisions that can be made.
I think that's the strength of my card game (I can't go into much by way of specifics if I hope to get published), but the gist is that the rules are minimal but comprehensive and the cards are fairly easily understood. You can know everything there is to know in just a couple minutes. But there is a "feel" to the game, a heirarchy of decision making that comes with experience. Anyone who has played two games is unlikely to spend more than a minute on even the most labored turn, because cards are easily and situationally prioritized.
I've been told that my game lacks a "ground-breaking inventive mechanic." I think that's true, but I'm going to continue to pursue publication for a while anyways because I believe it is worth it. It's novel. It's a joy to play. It's a good product.
Hmm... I meant to spend more time talking about the role of "learning" a game than I actually did. Perhaps I'll tie-in to this in a separate post later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)