For professionalism reasons I have decided to set up a new blog for my 3rd year of my Games Design degree. For all my latest work follow this link to my new blog: https://jasonpook3d.wordpress.com/
Jenga is a tabletop game which requires skill physically and mentally, it was created by Leslie Scott in 1983 through a game that had she had played with her family in the 1970’s. The rules of jenga are that you have a set of 54 blocks, stacked 3 across each time rotated when piling up. This creates the Jenga structure, from that then each player is to remove a block at a time and place it on top of the structure, with each move the structure gets taller and loses stability. This requires alot of physical skill in patience, control and balance accompanied by mental skill of judgement, composure and resilience. To end the game the structure will fall over and whoever it was that made it fall over is the loser of the game, you them rebuild and that player is eliminated until a winner is determined.
Mihaly Csikzentmihalyi’s theory of flow applies to jenga when you are playing its been going on for a while so the tower is high but you have the skill to remove another block. Jenga covers most of the flow chart just like Tetris, it gets harder as the game goes on with each block that rises there are less and less options to take a piece without knocking the structure over.
You begin in any area jenga is never easy the game can be over in the first block if you dont have the hand stability and control to remove a piece, most would start in control as the challenge level is in the middle and everyone should have high skill at the start to be able to remove a piece. Whilst you play though and it gets far on the immersion can emotionally drive you crazy, begging for the tower to fall over on your opponent so it doesn’t come back round to you, that’s the thing soon as you have taken your move you worried its coming back around the tension to keep composure on your turn combined with the wait for your turn if people take time makes for an immersive experience.
Categories of Play:
For Roger Caillois’s ‘categories of play’ Jenga would fall under primarily ‘Agon’. Agon is games of competition, with Jenga you are competing against other players to try survive your turn and place your block carefully on top to build the structure, the goal is not to be the person who makes the wrong move and collapses the statue as then you are eliminated as the loser.
It also falls under ‘Alea’. Alea is games of chance, in Jenga sometimes you slowly wriggle out that seemingly impossible block with a sweat on your brow to place it on the top, the structure wobbles a bit and you call for everyone not to move. There is a chance you go for the wrong block and have to move it as you have touched it dependent on the rules (I normally play a feel is alright but push and you have to move it), also the chance other people make a mistake and not you could keep you in the game when you know you will struggle on your next move.
To link this into Bartle’s test which defines you as a player through a series of questions this type of game being puzzle based and score based would appeal more to an ‘achiever’ style of player rather than the others due to the achiever always wants to win, in jenga the only goal is to survive and hope the other players knock over the structure before your turn. Other than that the categories of players cant apply to jenga.
When we played Jenga in the studio it was arguably the greatest game of jenga I had ever witnessed, the tower just kept going and going on the first round Me, Barrie, Rinalds and Phil wasn’t letting up. Rinalds pulled off some things I didnt think was from this universe he must have manipulated physics to make that structure balance but it worked, this was similar through every game we was all somehow masters of jenga and control the final game was myself and Rinalds, seeing what he had done it felt optimistic that I would have any chance he appeared to be raised in a school and purely taught jenga. But after grueling turn after turn he made a mistake and I won, the euphoria was uncontrollable. This clearly can be a game for fun or serious competition, we started the exercise to analyse the game for game theory and then it turned into a serious competition which was almost hysterical at times as we had no clue how the game could continue. The level of flow and immersion in the jenga game when it was at this stage of anxiety and unknown when it would go was a psychoanalytically available to analyse our behaviors. Jenga allows the player to engage in mental and physical challenges as the difficulty increases the emotional reactions to the game increase with it, this could both effect the player positively or negatively it could overwhelm them into making a mistake by panicking on their turn or motivate them further to win the session.
Here is an example of the emotional reactions towards an insane move on Jenga:
As you can see after performing this crazy move the lady celebrates in disbelief the emotional reaction to completing a move in this game is there with every move which makes it a great immersive and re-playable game.
Moving onto board games I played Chess. Chess is a two player strategy board game in which the objective is use your pieces to attack the opponent with the goal of placed the opponents king in checkmate. Check mate is when the king is in a position where it cannot be moved into a safe place or blocked by any other piece, you can put the king in ‘check’ at any point but its only check mate if the check cannot be stopped.
Mihaly Csikzentmihalyi’s theory of flow applies to Chess as the tactical board game requires alot of planning, tactics and intelligence to dominate the board. In a game where both opponents are highly skilled that is when flow occurs, chess will always vary in the flow chart purely dependent on the opponents skill level. If the opponent or yourself is a beginner to the game and is unaware of the rules of the game and the individual piece rules then the requirement to teach them to play will have you or your opponent relaxed until they improve their abilities. My experience in chess is high as I have played it majority of my life and actually won a chess club tournament a few times at junior school, so when I came up against Brad who claimed to be also highly skilled in chess due to his strategies in the game it induced flow, this turned into control mid way through as he unknowingly was forced into a mistake costing him his queen and from that point I never let up and won. Flow continued into my next opponent which was my tutor Paul who is a experienced chess player, this was a much closer game but I eventually got him in check mate.
Categories of Play:
For Roger Caillois’s ‘categories of play’ Chess would fall under primarily ‘Agon’. Agon is games of competition, in Chess it is a 2 player game so you are competing against the other player at all times wanting to be more strategic than them to win the game.
It also falls under ‘Alea’. Alea is games of chance, Chess can fall into chance dependent on if the opponent makes a mistake in the game. Rules of Chess state that one you have let go of your piece if its been moved that is the end of your turn, so if someone makes a move lets go then realises the mistake its too late. So chance can play a part but personally id say its all technical ability.
To link this into Bartle’s test which defines you as a player through a series of questions this type of game being strategy based board game is more an ‘achiever’ style of player rather than the others due to the achiever always wants to win, in chess your aim is to place the opponent in check mate or force them into forfeit on impending defeat.
Killer can also apply, Chess is a strategy game to simulate a war field its your army of pieces against your opponents on a battlefield, the way to win is to be the more strategic player by defeating your opponents pieces then eventually the king. By taking an opponents piece to attack their ranks is an offensive strategy a killer would employ.
Socialiser can also apply due to the game being a 2 player activity. Chess is now also a sport hosting big tournaments and a world championship so social presence comes into it if you go professional, otherwise its a social experience between you and another player if challenged to a game of chess.
Chess for me immerses you in the chessboard, even when its not your turn your constantly thinking a few steps ahead planning how you can take your opponent down with various strategies. Personally I like to use my line of pawns as a line of defense but due to the movement of the Jacks and Knights they are available to get out from behind the line of pawns if I should so chose, this allows an offensive but still defensive method of play. I find chess mentally simulating as it tests me and my intelligence in one versus one basis through strategies, this passion for chess and being a constant game in my life since being young has had an effect on other games I enjoy today, like Sid Meier’s Civilisation series.
SSX is a snowboarding game which required you to race whilst pulling off tricks, the main part of the game is the tricks as you gain boost and amount high scores through landing the tricks. It was released in 2012 by Electronic Arts (EA) for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 as the latest addition to the SSX series. It features single and multiplayer online, so online leaderboards and co operative trick races etc could be done to compete against eachother.
Mihaly Csikzentmihalyi’s theory of flow applies to SSX through score and skill, In SSX you have to use skill, timing and control to pull off the jumps, grinds and tricks to the highest of quality and gain large scores, the more combinations of tricks you landed it would fill up your “Tricky” meter and once this was full you would activate in when you wanted to pull of your characters most ridiculous stunt for massive score. To achieve flow it required alot of practice, the skills were performed by a combination of precise analog stick movements and buttons this wasn’t picked up easily as alot of memory was needed. Otherwise you was just doing your best you could by randomly attacking your controller to see what happened. When you was on a big downhill mountain with alot of jumps and grinds and you could pull off your best tricks (different ones each time as otherwise your score was knocked for being repetitive) then you really enjoyed the game and hit the big scores.
To link to the diagram for SSX one game mode was a deadly descent now this would involve the most dangerous snowboarding downhills possible it had a different theme each time such as trees, rocks and darkness” some would require flying with wing-suits to get over huge chasms in the mountains. Every time I played these it Anxiety, I had high skill level on the game but when it came to a deadly descent you never knew what was coming and if you switch off at any point it was over and restart the drop. Soon as you reached the bottom the sense of achievement overwhelmed you as it was done, over and you had won through skill, luck, and persistence most of the time from failing. Then flow would occur on your favourite downhill where you knew how to hit the big scores but wanted to beat your previous 64 million score as your friend ad just text you his 66 million score.
Categories of Play:
For Roger Caillois’s ‘categories of play’ SSX would fall under primarily ‘Agon’. Agon is games of competition, Your goal in the game is to go down the mountains to gain as much score as possible through tricks and be awarded with medals for your efforts, this would give you credits to buy better gear and improve your downhill performances. Also the online multiplayer allowed you to race against other players or friends to get to the finish line but you had to do this in style as boost only came with completed tricks otherwise you would be slow, then the leaderboards visible to see how your friends did on that particular single player mountain would want you to beat their score or even boost your own so they have no chance.
It also falls under ‘Alea’. Alea is games of chance, on the deadly descents as I explained it required alot of skill to time jumps and avoid obstacles but you never knew what was coming around the corner, when its hundreds of trees and your just hoping to make it through without being knocked of your board and restarting.
Illinx can be applied in the boost feature or damage. Illinx games of vertigo/ confusion, when you boosted it blurred the screen around you distorting your vision, then if you landed a stunt badly or hit an object your screen would flash red as if you was hurt. Also on one deadly descent if you stayed in the shadows too long you was too cold and your screen would freeze over distorting vision more and more until you failed as your character had frozen to death.
To link this into Bartle’s test which defines you as a player through a series of questions this type of game being score/skill based it would appeal more to an ‘achiever’ style of player rather than the others due to the achiever always wants to win. You always want to win the race but to do that you must also do it with tricks in style to gain boost and score. The added multiplayer features increase competition through leaderboards and co operative play.
‘Socialiser’ also applies as the game is multiplayer, mainly through the leaderboard system that compares your scores to your friends or the world if you change the settings. You are trying to achieve but also scoialising with other people by submitting a score or time to a mountain track.
SSX has always been one of my favourite games, despite the tricks being rather gravity defying and unrealistic the game is simply awesome. The challenge of learning the tricks to maximise player experience and achievement is the type of game I get fully immersed in, when it required time to learn and master the game its always rewarding for me to complete the game. Currently I no longer own SSX due to selling it to a friend but after replaying it for Game Theory I will be reinvesting in a very good game.
Here is some gameplay of SSX with all the features I have explaining with tricks, racing and score from GameSpot’s YouTube channel:
Mario Kart 64 is a racing game developed by Nintendo for the Nintendo 64 console as the latest addition to iconic character Mario’s list of games. The game is multiplayer compatible so you can play with your friends on your Nintendo 64 console if you had extra controllers through split-screen. You could play as 8 playable characters from previous Mario games Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Toad, Yoshi, Bowser, Wario and Donkey Kong.
Mihaly Csikzentmihalyi’s theory of flow applies to Mario Kart 64 through racing, when you race you want to win to be first place in every race is the main target for any gamer. To finish 2nd or 3rd and be presented on a podium with a silver or bronze is only a downgrade from what you really wanted that ultimate racer 1st place. To race in the game it requires you to drive around 1 of 16 circuit tracks which have obstacles, corners and pick ups (weapons or power ups), you have to be focused on the game to overcome any challenges you are presented with whilst on the track. Personally for me to achieve flow in mario kart whilst racing against 3 other students we was on Rainbow road the hardest track on the game with opportunities to fall off the track and lose position on nearly every corner, control of your kart is difficult and needs high skill for the challenge. This is to be repeated for 3 laps whilst other players fire shells at you leave banana’s on the track and so on, winning this race was a proud moment for me i felt in flow throughout the race and nothing was going to get in my way of my 1st place goal.
To link to the diagram for Mario Kart when you are losing or keep getting hit by everything coming near you, it loses your want to play the game you enter apathy as you feel rubbish at the game but dont feel you should be in the position you are so its not like the game is hard. Or you could be racing against people in your group claiming to be mario kart 64 professionals on the hardest track and beat them to win the race entering flow throughout (that was me against Barrie).
Categories of Play:
For Roger Caillois’s ‘categories of play’ Mario Kart 64 would fall under primarily ‘Agon’. Agon is games of competition, with Mario Kart 64 you are playing to win the race or beat your best times. The added feature of muliplayer interactivity in this game adds to the competition as you want to beat your friends. There are in game cups to add to the competition as you want to win the championships in your kart to prove you are the best racer by completing the game.
It also falls under ‘Alea’. Alea is games of chance, with Mario Kart 64 chance is a big part. One corner a banana may have been left but you serve round it to see a red shell coming for you (homing missile) but it hits the banana, this is one of many examples first place may get hit by a blue shell (homing missile just for 1st place) before the finish line and you take the lead.
Mimicry also applies as Mario is a fantasy character and you race in Mario’s fantasy world and settings which the circuits are based on, you play as the avatar you select in the race to experience this fantasy world.
To link this into Bartle’s test which defines you as a player through a series of questions this type of game being puzzle based and score based would appeal more to an ‘achiever’ style of player rather than the others due to the achiever always wants to win. You always want to win the race or the championship either against the computer or your friends so achieving that is your aim.
‘Socialiser’ also applies when muliplayer gameplay comes into it as you are racing with your friends or family around the circuits, this can be an enjoyable experience which can also cause bonding or the opposite as you hit your Dad with that red shell on the final corner to the take the win and he storms off as “you didn’t deserve it”.
Pac-man is an arcade game that was developed by Namco and released in 1980. Pac-man is a little yellow circle with a segment missing (mouth) which believe it or not was a design from a pizza with a slice taken out. Pac-man runs around a maze to pick up as many of the dots as possible whilst avoiding the ghosts (Blinky, Pinky, Inky and Clyde). If you get caught by any of them pac-man dies and you lose a life, once all your lives are gone the game is over and your score from how many dots you collected is revealed.
Mihaly Csikzentmihalyi’s theory of flow applies to pac-man as the arcade game requires the player to deal with collecting dots whilst navigating around the maze quickly or intelligently to avoid the enemies, If you eat a big dot you can then eat an enemy but only for a limited amount of time as they return to the ghost enclosure to come back to get you again. The aim is to collect all the dots and gain as many points as possible, the difficulty is the same but you can get yourself into difficult situations where the ghosts are closing in on you and your reactions really have to be sharp to get away otherwise its a life lost. I achieved flow in pac-man due to playing against class students to try get the highest score possible so I was really focusing on every move made and how I can get to the next set of dots without being caught.
Using Csikzentmihalyi’s flow diagram Pac-man can fall into any of them categories it depends how addicted and immersed you in the game. Some cases of flow when Pac-man was released were quite extreme, in the documentary “Thumb Candy” they meet the makers of Pac-man to discuss the popularity of the game 24minutes into the video is the section on Pac-man. 28 minutes in they mention it made “60 billion yen, so roughly 60 million dollars…in one year” for Namco.
Categories of Play:
For Roger Caillois’s ‘categories of play’ Pac-man would fall under primarily ‘Agon’. Agon is games of competition, with Pac-man you are playing to achieve as much points as possible which will require you to survive longer and gain a high score. The replayability to make this a competition with others includes leader boards and also trying to beat your own personal best. An example of Agon would be when we was asked to play free online PC games to later analyse through game theory and in teams of 4 we was to also play against each other for score then rank through score before moving onto the next game.
It also falls under ‘Alea’. Alea is games of chance, with Pac-man the movement of the enemy that the game presents you with is that chance, you could be pinned in a corner by the enemies but somehow manage to escape the navigate randomly but primarily try to chase you but if not they patrol the maze. So chance has a part to play with the enemy, some would say skill is a large part of avoiding them but sometimes you just need that bit of luck to reach the big dot in time before they catch you and eat them all to give you space to continue.
To link this into Bartle’s test which defines you as a player through a series of questions this type of game being puzzle based and score based would appeal to an ‘achiever’ style of player due to the points system and the survival aspect.
But it also links to the “Killer” category as Pac-man is a predator, he eats all the dots and if a big dot is activated can eat his enemies which rewards you with bonus score. Therefore it does have killer aspects to the gameplay and rewards.
Socialiser can also link in as when Pac-man was a hugely popular arcade game people would go down to the arcade to play with or against each other, at the end a leaderboard would reveal and you could enter your initials so you was constantly competing with others if you should so choose to treat it that way.
My personal playing of pac-man was that I was either really good at it or just rubbish, when I doing well I enjoyed the game alot and wanted to play more but when i was doing badly it just frustrated me and i wanted to move onto another game. Emotional reactions to the game shows this game has a psychological effect on the player through performance. This is arguable present in all games but this proves the game could be critically analysed using psychoanalysis as a perspective.
Tetris is a puzzle game originally designed and programmed in Russia by Alexey Pajitnov in 1984, since then this has been a hugely successful game franchise spanning across most platforms.
To apply Game Theory I had to play Tetris and then make an analysis on its features and how you can apply game theory to the game.
Mihaly Csikzentmihalyi’s theory of flow applies to tetris as the seemingly endless puzzle game requires the player to deal with each incoming block, the blocks vary in shape on a random basis and the goal on the game is to create as many ‘lines’ as possible to gain score and ultimately last longer. As the game progresses the longer you last the harder it gets, the blocks come down with more speed in each level requiring quick reactions and in some cases sacrifices to leave a gap in your lines in order to make a new line. Due to this focus at all times is a must to achieve anything in this game.
Personally I can see Tetris being a game version of the flow diagram, in Csikzentmihalyi’s flow diagram (see above) you are determined in different states whilst playing a game dependent on challenge and skill level. With Tetris it starts really easy and slow so you get a grip of the game (relaxed) then as you progress through the challenge level increases slowly so you will gradually go through control into flow where you are so focused on the game whilst glancing at upcoming pieces to plot your next move. Then as it goes further it will ultimately get too hard for any player and create anxiety to then make the player fail and lose.
Categories of Play:
For Roger Caillois’s ‘categories of play’ Tetris would fall under primarily ‘Agon’. Agon is games of competition, with Tetris you are playing to achieve as many lines as possible which will make you play for longer and have a high score. The replayability to make this a competition with others includes leader boards and also trying to beat your own personal best. An example of Agon would be when we was asked to play free online PC games to later analyse through game theory and in teams of 4 we was to also play against each other for score then rank through score before moving onto the next game.
It also falls under ‘Alea’. Alea is games of chance, with Tetris the randomly generated shapes that the game presents you with is that chance, you could be waiting for a long time stacking up shapes on all sides for that long line piece so you get a combo of lines but it may never come and you ultimately reach the top with shapes and lose. So chance has a part to play with piece randomisation being kind or not to how you set up your blocks.
To link this into Bartle’s test which defines you as a player through a series of questions this type of game being puzzle based and score based would appeal more to an ‘achiever’ style of player rather than the others due to the achiever always wants to win, or reach that high score before anyone else so with Tetris and the points systems through collecting lines and survival of rounds will appeal much more to an achiever.
To give a personal experience of Tetris to apply to game theory, I have played Tetris nearly all my life from my Game Boy to on my phone to on my PC at school. Tetris has always been a game that has kept me engaged, switched on and immersed. No matter how well I do on my last play I always want to play again to beat my best score, this game has an addictive nature about it due to the complexity of the puzzles and feeling that “what if” whilst playing, what if that square shape had come down or that line piece I may have beaten my high score due to the line combo score it would have given me. That feature of the game will always have me coming back for more to try out achieve myself.
Tests from Dr Richard Haier suggest that by playing Tetris you are increasing your brain’s efficiency and have a thicker cortex. This research was determined by monitoring brain activity whilst subjects played the game, the images showed improved brain results. Here is the document.
Here is a humorous video titled “The Tetris God” by CollegeHumor claiming that there is an evil tetris god that calls out the shapes into the game to purposely torture players waiting for that one piece to get a high score of lines and progress:
Continuing on from the previous Game Jam (Plant Trap) our tutor decided to organise another game jam to once again give people the opportunity to gain extra credit. With this Game Jam my team was Me, Phil, Mark and Shane. The topic for this game jam was an application (mobile game) and we have to have 1 main character, 1 main mechanic and 1 environment. We could do this however we liked to build any game we wanted along as it tailored to these categories. To begin the design process as always we planned our what makes a good game. We went down the route of mobile games being addictive, fun to play and easy to pick up. Due to this we collectively thought of examples of games on our phones:
- Flappy Bird
- Bloons: Tower Defense
- Paper Toss
- Angry Birds
These are just a couple of examples, from this we determined that animals in games birds and monkeys etc. So from that we tried to list as many animals as we could that potentially had or hadn’t been done. From this we narrowed it down to a Mole, obviously games like Whack-a-mole are in existence but we could do our own game with a mole character. From this somehow we decided it would be fun to make him a funky disco mole with huge sunglasses and an Afro who has friendly disco moles and rival gang moles trying to sabotage his funky life. Alongside other moles trying to sabotage his mole hill we looked into common predators for moles, this came back with snakes so another enemy designed was a snake. Then to gain a life we had what moles like to eat which is worms once you collected enough worms you gained a life. My personal involvement in this project was in 3D and HUD, I designed the main character also known as “Molevin” it was a really simple design but could be edited and re-textured to create other characters. Which is what I turned Molevin into the enemy character who had different attire wearing a vest and a top hat with a flower in, then for a boss I scaled it up added a bandanna, match in his mouth and a bomb in hand with gloves on. Simply by reusing and editing the initial main character I created 3 characters for in game use good, bad and boss. I also created a tree stump that i projection painted using a mudbox preset to be used for the environment which wasn’t implemented in the end due to it being a unnecessary obstacle on a small environment game but it was used in the Game Over screen to add a visual. The environment is a field and the mole sits in the middle in what was supposed to be a mole hill but its more of a ditch at the moment. It has randomly place assets of grass and stones in the level just to add to the visuals.
This is my work for the HUD designs, using Photoshop to create simple circle icons, i took images of the characters to link it directly to the game, good guy is people saved, worms are lives, and the enemies are how many you have killed throughout the game. Very simple icons but still useful for covering the HUD elements in the game and also with it being a mobile game we didn’t want too much going on to get in the way of the game so small simple icons were effective in avoiding too much distraction from the game.
Here is the in game screenshots of the working HUD and game with my characters in. The menu system, game over and leaderboard design was made by Mark using the custom typeface we created by using a paint brush to go the font on paper then scan them in to be textured on the signposts. Mark used assets from all team members to piece together the menus, start featured everything, game over features the bad guys to symbolise they won and you lost, then the leaderboard was just visual models like grass, rocks and tree stumps. This game I had quite a prominent role in the modelling due to my increased skills over the year and primarily being the more advanced modeler in my group. As for HUD designs I was pleased with my products as they was simplistic but worked well with the theme of the product. As for the game to evaluate it we was very pleased with the end product it was fun and addictive players had to click (or tap for mobile which didn’t work) the enemies to kill them (1 for standard enemy and 2 for the snake). This racked up your score for kills and the aim was to last as long as possible as move and move waves of good and bad characters came into the level at varied speeds and difficulty as it progressed. Only disappointment I had was that my boss character never got time to be implemented but like the other game jams if we had time to progress we would implement a boss level for example. This was my personal favourite of all the game jams as i liked the style of game we had created. I’m looking forward to next next game jam which is in Cambridge Jun 2015.
Here is the video footage of game play from Mark Shaw’s YouTube channel:
This was a in house game jam in the studio, due to the success and benefits from entering the Cambridge Game Jam I kept pressuring the tutors to either find and enter us into a new one through the course or host an in house one potentially over the holidays, which would be optional but beneficial to students if they attended.
This game jam split us into 2 teams of 5 mixed with 3rd, 2nd and 1st years so experience would be shared across the team to try help the 1st years improve. The theme was “Life” we could interpret this how we liked but the game would be assessed on features:
With this like the previous game jam we got into our group and put down everything we could think of life related, this included:
- life cycles
- life system (3 lives etc.)
We decided on Plants, and the idea behind the game was that you are a plant in a farmers field/maze and you have to collect water and sunlight to stay alive. By going around the maze to collect randomly spawning water you would gain speed, without water you would eventually slow down and die. Also in the maze was enemies of plants which patrolled areas of the maze in the form of an ant and a spider if they caught you it was game over, but you had a limited ability to fire a razor leaf at them which stunned them for 5 seconds so you could get away. Also the maze changed as you played so suddenly you could be caught in a dead end without prior notice of change.
My role in this game was design of the main character the plant, razor leaf model and blueprints (projectile), navigation mesh of the maze for the AI, AI tracking of the player in blueprints and the logo design. I also worked alongside Mark in trying to figure out animation for my character and his enemy characters.
Here are some in game footage images from Plant Trap:
Then here is my work (without blueprints):
The main focus was on the design and texturing of the character as this was only a 24 hour game jam, then animation also took some time. Once they was out of the way getting the AI to work was my priority with building the nav mesh so that one enemy had one half of the maze and the other patrolled the rest, the varied difficulty of the maze depended on which section you was in due to the upped speed of the ant so you needed alot of water and quick reactions to collect water in that area. As a final extra touch due to time left over I added a projectile system to our main character which allowed the player on pressing space bar to use a razor leaf ability to disable the enemy for a temporary time on a delay node of 5 seconds.
Here are the blueprints I did:
This is for the razor leaf projectile which disables the enemy characters for a set delay, and then the movement of the AI characters around the area tracking the player character to try end the game.
Unfortunately we completely overlooked the HUD/UI features for the game and this cost us in the marking, we did have a sort of display of points by using blueprints print strings but this isn’t a proper working HUD/UI. The menu system was implemented using my logo design as the background and a simple “Start Game” so the game did have a navigation system.
I used a contrast of green for plants to simulate life in the plant then black for trap and the spider to symbolise death. The simplicity of the logo in colour scheme gives it a nice professional flat look to it, I didn’t try to over do anything it was simple silhouettes of the characters then a type that I felt suited the game bold but also edgy. I used the L to balance the plant on due to it looking like a solid unit you would place a plant on, then the spider suspended down from the loop in the A seemed to suit nicely for layout. If you choose to read further into it the semiotics behind the plant in higher position is to show authority over the spider as you are the main character, but also the spider despite being lower and therefore inferior being black in a poised position to pounce its not to be under estimated as it can bring death upon you.
Overall I am pleased with the final product from the Plant Trap game, some features that we designed such as models for power-ups and bad pick-ups such as seed fertilizer for growth, and then toxic pollution to damage the plant didn’t get implemented but they are there if the game was to be progressed upon. My disappointment would be that we forgot to implement a HUD system which evidently cost us in the end.
My own personal contributions to the project I felt that I was a key member of the team that had involvement in all aspects of the project, including leadership which was sort of collaborative dependent on the situation but an overall id say I called a few decisions in the project and tasked people with work once they had completed a previous task.
Here is a video of captured game play footage from me playing the game on Mark Shaw’s YouTube channel:
In July last year I entered my first official Game jam, this was run by JAGEX at their studios in Cambridge. We entered as a course and took 6 members and our tutor with us to form a team (Paul observed and graded). With this being right after the end of first year it was great practice to keep the ball rolling with work and improving all the time, the most valuable part of it was being part of a mixed team with 2nd years this allowed us to work with people who was further along in the course to try bring us up to speed for this 48 hour straight game jam.
The theme was “cycles” due to the Tour de France taking part at the same time. We could interpret this theme how we wished so it didn’t specifically have to do with bicycles, to try and expand our area of “cycles” and find a idea to build a game we sat in a group and threw down anything we could think of to do with cycles this included ideas such as:
These were the main features we could come up with and eventually we settled on a slight incorporation of a few of them. We pinned down a cyclist who is in a dream and he has the power to change the day night cycle to solve puzzles and piece together his bicycle. So it was a puzzle 2.5D side scrolling game we decided to go with to support this and it was fairly basic to do in a shorter space of time, showing we didn’t punch above our weight implying we would do a fully immersive 3D environment with multiplayer online time trials.
My role in the project initially was alongside Phil to sketch up some level designs, so plan out issues that the player would come across forcing them to go back or use the power to change the day/night cycle. We decided that a journey from city to countryside so sort of a race in his dreams to the start line of the race, settings would go from city to park to village to countryside (hills) to start line. This was obviously ambitious to have 5 environments in the final project but at least we had considered how the game could have gone forward with extra time.
Then after level design I worked on hand painted texturing of the level, my limited skill in texturing at the time Paul suggested I used Mudbox’s projection painting. This proved very quick and useful granted it wasn’t all perfect when it came to bricks but with the time length of the project the visuals was still impressive. I then used this to projection paint graffiti onto a bus for the city level, I did this using many iconic game characters and general graffiti (even had Banksy art on the bus). Then I modeled a taxi (this first ever car I had done) which I was very pleased with at the time for the quality of my 3D and it actually made me pursue automotive modelling throughout the summer. Alongside general texturing of other peoples models and doing little assets myself I then took it upon myself to think or a name and design the logo.
Here are all the contributions to the game jam I could recover:
Then some engine shots (taken from James Cook’s blog):
This shows my work in level design, hand painted texturing and models.
Here is my logo designs I tried to tie all the theme in of cycles to the logo as well and with it being Tour de France “Le Cyc” seemed relevant, here it is:
Admittedly a quick logo at best but you can see the idea behind it with the “cyc” making a bicycle, with more time alot of this would have been alot further along, some models didn’t make it in but nothing is wasted as if we was to progress this idea at any point we have put in the work through a design process to easily expand on what we have.
To evaluate the game jam overall it was a very worthwhile experience for myself, it allowed me chance to work in a team to push along together with a 48 hour deadline, which testing teamwork, communication and overall commitment to stay awake and work. I have taken alot away from this game jam in relation to how my 2nd year has gone, I view it as the starting point of my 2nd year to push on, after I began work on my personal classic mini project due to enjoying the modeling of the taxi. One thing I have reigned in is the graffiti, granted projection painting was very enjoyable and produced decent results but graffiti took over my game jam i remember doing it on a coke can just because I could, should the opportunity ever arise in a project requiring graffiti you can be sure I have it covered though.
Despite not winning on this case the JAGEX judges was impressed with our work and the visuals of the project. Most of the other teams was programmers which we didnt have any we are all artists so naturally our game would look better but maybe not play as well, but personally I think what we produced with the issues James had with Kizmit on his own was a great achievement. Maybe a programmer would be advisable next time but now our knowledge in blueprints is more that enough for a Game Jam so we should in future have a visually and interactive game, to hopefully win with.