Month: September 2018

Microwave Saves

Leave a comment

Microwaves Saves

History of the Game

I am a lover of late-night snacking, however, my mother is not. Thus, I always find myself sneaking to satisfy my hunger at night. The microwave is a very essential part of my late-night snacking because it enables me to quickly whip something up and rush back to my room. Despite the usefulness of the microwave, it also poses a huge threat to the process – it beeps loudly when it is done heating my food. Because of this shortcoming, I developed a strategy – to stop the microwave when it gets to the 1-second mark in order to have my food well heated as well as prevent the microwave from beeping. In between the start and stop of the microwave, I usually do a number of things in between. This causes me to be in sync with the microwave timer and count down with it as accurately as possible. These activities together form the game Microwave Saves.

The Game

The game, Microwave Saves, challenges the player to complete a number of tasks in the duration set on the microwave. However, the thrill of the game is this: the player is supposed to stop the microwave at the 1-second mark in order to prevent the microwave from beeping.

To add some context, the food being heated is a midnight snack which is assumed to be forbidden. This is why the player must prevent the microwave from beeping in order not to wake any adults or killjoys.

This game was played in my room lounge since it is equipped with a functioning microwave. I invited some friends to play the game. During the game, I set the following ground rules:

  1. The item should be heated for a maximum of 1 minute.
  2. The player should enter one of the two rooms in the suite after setting the timer in order to eliminate the possibility of the player glancing at the timer during the heating process.

Despite the fact that there were ground rules, I decided to be flexible and allow the players to choose their own set of tasks to complete as the microwave heated the food. I did this because this was a test run and so I did not want to overly complicate the game for now. Hopefully, future models will incorporate more specified and elaborate tasks

As the game was being played, I believe everything went according to plan. I was very satisfied with the outcome and so were the players.

Even though Microwave Saves is not a very flexible game, I feel as though players can be creative with the different set of tasks they perform during the heating process. They could increase the number of tasks or increase the difficulty of the tasks they perform.

Beat The Progress Bar

Leave a comment

DESCRIPTION OF THE GAME:

 

My play experience involved me counting up to 100 while a page is loading if there is a progress bar indicating the loading process. The game that I created from this play experience involves competing with a progress bar on the screen by getting as many taps as the player can on a screen. This game requires a minimum of two players with the player with the higher number of taps will win. If a single player is playing the game, then there is a mode in which the player has to set his best score in the first level and then in order to move on to the next level, the player has to beat his previous score. The player would be given three lives and if they are unable to set a new high score in those three chances, they will have to start over.

 

The essential component in both is competing with a progress bar. While the play experience was geared more towards letting the progress bar finish first, the game involves the player challenging the progress bar and recording as many taps as possible before the progress bar fills up.

 

SPACE APPROPRIATION

 

This game requires there to be a screen with a progress bar and to record the player’s taps (ideally they should both be on the same screen as during playtesting the player was initially a little uncomfortable in having to focus on two separate screens). The screen needs to be a touch-screen for the player can tap on. There should also be a second player to compete with however that is not necessary.

 

Apart from this, there is nothing else that the player need to play this game. As long as the player has a touch screen, they are good to go!

 

PLAYTESTING AND SUBSEQUENT CHANGES

 

The initial idea of the game was that the player has to cross a stipulated number of taps before the progress bar reaches 100% in order to progress to the next level. In order to pass the first level the player needs to cross 200 taps, 250 taps to cross the second level, 300 for the third level and so on. However, during playtesting the players felt that the first few levels were too easy and they didn’t find it challenging enough. Also, after crossing the level which required 350 taps it became extremely difficult to move on to the next level which caused frustration leading to the player giving up. Therefore, in theory I had many levels in the game but in practice only a few levels were challenging enough and pass-able. The rest were either too easy or too difficult to move on.

 

What I did notice during playtesting was that in the first few levels which did not require a lot of taps to be completed, the players would keep on tapping just to see what is the highest number of taps that they can achieve. This led me to create a modification in the game- instead of me providing the players with the required number of taps they would give themselves that number by setting up a best score in the first round. This led to a more engaging experience for the players as they were now trying to be better than themselves and had a more personal incentive to beat the game.

 

I got a chance to playtest the game during class and noticed that it was much more fun and challenging with the multiplayer mode. I also noticed that people were getting a little tired towards the end because the progress bar that I was working with took a minute to complete which is very long for one round. Therefore, the progress bar should definitely complete fast (about 30 seconds). Also, a lot of suggestions were made for the game to include ways in which one player can use the taps that they have accumulated till now to use against the opponent (eg. using 30 taps to freeze the other players screen for a few seconds, use 20 taps to reduce the other players taps etc.). I believe that these challenges will be very suitable to increase the engagement level and challenge level as well.

 

 

Video:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QDWb8ciea4RYEjlTavjEqw11Np3JQ0t7/view?usp=sharing

 

CREATION VS DESTRUCTION AND EXPRESSIVENESS

 

Playing the game invites creation of a feeling of competition and challenging yourself. While the initial version did not do so, the final version takes this into account which is a very important component in making the game engaging and fun. It fosters the quality of trying again and again to make yourself better than before. This is also how a player can be expressive- competing with yourself could be a way to express how you feel about challenging yourself and getting better than yourself. I believe that if a person is very hard working and is open to improving themselves, they will be much more engaged in this game than people who are not very focused on such qualities.

Mult

Leave a comment Simran Parwani

Stuck in a rut? Can’t seem to concentrate on your work? Play Mult, a game tailored to the individual. Before beginning, identify your base task, such as doing your laundry, boiling water for tea, or microwaving food. If there is no base task, click the ‘Just for Fun’ option in the Mult mobile app and set the timer according to your needs.Using the app, create your to do list for the day and assign points to each task. These points should reflect your belief in the underlying difficulty of each task.

 

When you are ready to play, click the ‘START’ button in the app and get to work on completing your tasks. Each time you complete a task, click the specific task in the app (the screen will flash green and a voice should say “congratulations” or “keep it up” or another phrase that provides positive reinforcement.

When the timer runs outs, the screen will flash red and an alarm will go off. When you are done, click the ‘FINISH’ button and the screen will show all the tasks you created and your points/seconds ratio. Your top 3 points/seconds ratio scores will be displayed.

the base task-boiling water for tea

In “gamifying” my play experience, I needed to create elements that clearly made the experience meaningful “play.”  I had to create consequences for not ending the tasks within the defined timeframe to have a clear boundary between playing the game and simply going about one’s day. Thus, I added the elements of a timer with an alarm, the positive reinforcements when completing a task, a randomized task list, and the points/seconds ratio. The timer adds conflict for the player and motivates the player to complete the tasks against time and creates a rush. The timer with an alarm conveys to the player that the game is over and they must click the end button or else their score will be lowered through a worse points/seconds ratio. The positive reinforcements in the form of a green flash on screen and statements like “you are amazing” and “keep it up” are designed to reward the player for completing a task and incentivizing the player to complete more.

Having a randomized task list differentiates the game’s tasks from the everyday tasks and creates a dilemma as the player considers the most strategic way to increase his/her score through task completion. Creating a score in the form of the points/seconds ratio allowed me to quantify what the player accomplished so that in subsequent rounds, the player would have a desire to beat their high score and have it displayed on the top scores scoreboard. Creating a score created a clear outcome and a race objective in trying to reduce the time taken to receive a higher score.

Thus, the player’s actions, though completing the same tasks that he/she would in the “real world,” are constrained by a set of rules that simplify his/her actions within the space of play. It is this clear boundary between the game and the ordinary routine, an artificiality that Salen and Zimmerman conclude is central to the definition of the game, that allows this game to be classified as play (Salen 11).

 

The game does appropriate a space as the ensuing play depends on the context of the player; the conditions of the environment shape what the base task is (whether the player chooses to boil water or to simply play against a timer) and can also shape the tasks the player chooses to do as many of the game elements are derived from elements of the player’s location. For instance, the player may opt to take out the trash, to tidy up shoes, to do the dishes, etc. Thus, a trash can can be appropriated into a prop for the game. As Miguel Sicart summarizes in Play Matters, the player contextualizes a new meaning of the objects within the specific space created by the boundaries of play (Sicart 14).

 

When my friends played, they did the game at the same time in the same space and thus, distracted each other in the spirit of “racing.” Rather than focusing on getting their tasks done, they tried to prevent each other from accomplishing tasks. Thus, I don’t think Mult would work as a multi-player game unless players had no intersection of environments. Additionally, the game is subjective to the individual as one determines their tasks and the respective point values. One friend gave higher values for similar tasks and thus, had a higher score. Additionally, this quantifiable outcome, even if the game is played at an individual level, is so dependent on the point determination in that particular instance, so in trying to beat one’s score, one simply has to define higher points in the beginning of the game. However, the phrase “cheating yourself” comes to mind as the score is merely one element of the game and rather the game experience is designed with the hope that the player simply breaks out of his/her ordinary routine. Thus, following this playtest, I decided on only making Mult a single player vs. game.

distracting another player writing an email

“racing” to take out the trash.

 

The game invites creation and expression as one can often find a new way of doing the ordinary within the constraints of the game. The game disrupts the typical routine and the space in which the player operates. However, the player can also lose himself/herself in the need to get tasks done, thus making the game go too far–destruction as a creative force becomes a dangerous one.

 

LINE RUNNER

Leave a comment Alex Markova

The game Line Runner was inspired by my daily play activity in which I try not to step on the lines between tiles as I am walking. This individual self-challenge became a game for an unlimited amount of participants. In my short video example below, there are two players who compete against each other. The participants begin the race at point A and have to get to point B as fast as they can without stepping on the lines between the tiles. Whoever reaches the destination first without touching the lines wins.

Video documentation: here.

The original play activity did not have a penalty, however, in the games, a participant cannot continue the race after stepping on the line. Also, participants are not allowed to “skip” a tile and jump over them. Both play and game are driven by a human desire to compete. The game is challenging and teasing. Its context includes a short set of easy rules, a simple goal and the presence of contestants. It also requires a certain environment, specifically, a location that is appropriate for the game’s main rule. In my example, I have accommodated the location by choosing the plaza in front of the Arts Center and D2, which has a concrete floor made of triangular tiles. Their relatively small size shortens the lengths of a participant’s step and, therefore, increases the step repetition and the walking speed of players as they try to get to point B as fast as they can. The triangular shape also makes it more difficult to fit in one’s foot at a normal angle and, as we can notice in the video, forces the players to walk on their tiptoes.

The first ‘test game’ was unsuccessful because of the environment. The first location we have chosen (Arts Center hallways) had huge tiles which made the race too easy. Another couple of races outside made me add a few rules (no jumping, cannot continue after overstepping) after having observed the behavior of players. Having a contestant made my play activity much more competitive and dynamic. I have initially envisioned it to be more slow-paced, with players walking carefully not to step over the lines. In reality, the race was fast and chaotic, driven by the desire to win and better than the person walling/running beside you, which makes me think of the Line Runner as an exhibit of destruction rather than creation. It is also expressive, because the race brings out a certain aggression in a player, driving him/her to win.

Potential improvements(complications) to the game:
The path from start to finish of the race could be more complicated, not a straight line.
Tiles could be numbered randomly, so that the participants have to jump around from tile to tile in an order.

Final thoughts: the rules of the Line Runner are quite simple. It is both a “player vs player” and “players vs game” kind of a game, where the participants compete against each other and also struggle with the nature of the environment where the game is played. Having multiple participants in the race was the major difference if comparing the dynamics of the game and the initial play activity. In my own opinion, I find my individual play challenge more entertaining because it allows me to concentrate on a simple task and feel distracted.

Gym Warm-up Game

Leave a comment Rowdha Al Sowaidi

Since my game is not really applicable to all places, I decided to create it as a warmup at the gym. In addition to this, this game can be played in relation to specific themes and/or during special events (like Easter and Halloween). There isn’t a specific maximum number of players, but requires at least 2. So as a warmup, the game should be quite simple and easy to understand, and at the same time not so strenuous. The players should decide on a warmup distance to run (300m, 500m, 1km). The timer starts and then the players must start the task at the same time. There are 3 possible outcomes, win, lose, or a sort of in-between outcome. For a player to win, they must be the first one to complete the task, and therefore must wait for the other players to finish. Those who finish after the winner must perform 10 non-weighted squats, which is relatilively a very light punishment, and this would be the in-between winning and losing punishment. The loser, i.e the last player to finish the task must perform 15 burpees! (Because nobody likes burpees).

This counts as a game because there is a sense of friendly competition between the players, as well as a way to entertain the players since they would be able to play with one another as opposed to “work out” in the sense. The players would also be able to have a laugh at whoever has to end up doing the burpees., which contributes to the winning/losing idea.

This idea of the game is not to shame anyone or to make them feel bad. In fact, it might as well encourage players to be adapted to a more healthy lifestyle by incorporating physical activity in it.

As for the play area, it would be most suitable to be played in a gym as a starter or warmup game. However, this is not to say that the game cannot be taken outside to other places. Really what the game needs is several participants and space for them to be active. The only place that I would say that this game cannot be played is in areas that are not socially acceptable for the game to take place (formal events/in the kitchen). I believe that this transforms from “workout” to “game” because it requires the participants to socially interact with one another and communicate, as well as battle each other to avoid having to do more work, whereas in a regular workout you would have no “win”or “lose” situations. It may be hard for other observers to be aware that the game is taking place, but at the same time it would look like a group or community effort to the observer. The game is really initiated between the players and really takes place within the social circle.

The game also contributes to the construction and destruction aspect in the sense that construction = more time for the muscles to rest, and destruction = less time for the muscles to rest/use up more energy, so that players will be deterred from losing. There is the “draw” function that if two (or more) players finish first, they would not have to do anything, and if two (or more) players finish last, the burpee count would be reduced to 7. The idea of construction and destruction could also be pointed out using the analogy of building up muscles, and tearing them down, so that they will be able to get stronger. The strategy of this game would be to manage your energy levels and not burn out after a short period of time, thus making them slower. Each player would be able to show their individuality by their strategy of completing the task (i.e. going 100% through the whole task, or balancing their effort levels so that they won’t be tired out). Each person has a unique working style, so that would show on most participants. There is also the issue of cheating, i.e. only running 400m when asked to run 500m. This can be reduced while using the equipment, because the equipment literally counts the distance covered or calories burned. Without equipment, this can be addressed, for example, by asking the participants to move from point A to point B in an active way (e.g. running). To deter people from cheating, consequences will be issued to people who cheat, for example, count them as a loser or disqualify them.

Since my game is quite hard to apply at any time, I haven’t recorded any tries or tests because I haven’t had the chance to go the gym or find players to partake in the game yet.

Chair-Dare

Leave a comment Claudia Neumann Vallejo

DARE-CHAIR

 

Description

Have you ever thought about daring from a spinning chair? “Dare-Chair” is a game that enhances mental activity and social interaction through the perfect combination of a spinning chair, basic general knowledge questions and lots of fun! The main object of this play is an available spinning chair and everyone from kids to adults can participate in it.  (Disclaimer: at least 3 players are needed)

 

Instructions 

  1. Organization: The games requires a circular organization. The oldest player (Player A) sits on the spinning chair at the middle of the circle, and all the others sit or stand around him/her.
  2. The Game:
    1. Player A closes his/her eyes and spin on the spinning chair.
    2. Once the chair stops, Player A asks a basic general knowledge question to the person who is in front or nearest to him/her (Player B). Player B has 20 seconds to answer. Some examples of general basic knowledge questions are the following: Who did Matthew Perry play in ‘Friends’?, What chemical element is diamond made of?, or What is the capital of Turkey?
    3. If Player B answers correctly, he/she can take the place of Player A.
    4. If Player B answers incorrectly, Player A will dare Player B to do something. Disclaimer: The dare should not be in any way harmful to Player B. After the dare is completed, Player A continues at the center and the game is repeated.
    5. The game can last as much as the players want. The Player who stayed the majority of rounds on the chair is the one who wins.

 

Don’t Forget these Important Rules

  • The oldest player is the one who starts. However, if the players propose a new way to select the first player, they can go for it. This enhances creativity!
  • Dares should not be in any way harmful to players. 

 

Context

Dare-Chair demands one rolling chair and at least 3 players. The sometimes limited availability of rolling chairs might limit the viability of the game. The environment should be one in which players could hear and understand each other clearly, therefore noisy spaces might not be the right ones for Chair-Dare. The best playground for the game is one that occurs naturally in a classroom, lounge, living room or any room that has enough space to create a circle-like organization between players. Anyone could play Chair-Dare, and it could be played with friends or strangers. In the case of the trial, the game was played at the living room of one of the participants and the rolling chair was brought from her floor’s lounge. The friendly character of the environment made the game go smoothly and increased the players’ pleasure.

 

Space

The game was initially designed to be played inside of one of the residential floor lounges. However, as it was being used for a meeting, the players and I took one of the chairs to one participant’s suite. The players decided to put the chair in the middle of the living room -where they thought it best fitted the game’s description and rules I had previously explained. Also, there was a silent agreement on staying in a standing position throughout the game. In sum, we appropriated the suite and the players accommodated the game according to the physical context. 

 

Playtest

Full video here: https://goo.gl/wLYis9

The players were very excited about the game. One of them automatically decided to take the lead and sit on the chair first. When explaining the game and its rules, I did not specify how the player at the center was supposed to spin. Therefore, it was interesting to see how one of the players took the initiative to spin all the players who came to the center.  Formulating harmful dares was prohibited, and that was carefully respected throughout the game. I was surprised by the questions of the players and also the dares they came up with, which were creative and “healthy” ones. When designing the game, I was unsure about how the participants would receive the instructions and then carry them on. However, it turned out really well and even I had fun recording the activity.

 

Assessing the Game

I think the rule of not formulating any harmful dares greatly limited the “destruction” character of Chair-Dare. The game invited the participants to think of innovative questions and dares. The fact that the questions were created by the players themselves might have invited them to quickly reflect on similar questions they were asked to answer in the past, or even in new ones related to the NYUAD context (as one of the participants did). The questions asked by the players varied in complexity and themes. They were the following: When did the World War II end?, What is the capital of Brazil?, When did the first NYUAD graduate?, and What was the Waka Waka for? The dares were “Dance without music” and “Squat”. Another interesting aspect of the trial was that players helped each other when answering questions (For future trials, the participants could form teams and help each other to win). Chair-Dare’s flexibility allows players to express themselves and show their personalities through the specific questions and dares they present. Also, participants can talk to each other during the game, sharing their feelings, thoughts, and laughs.

 

Phone Toss

Leave a comment Nav

quick description

My play activity was tossing my phone around (literally) when I am in a comfortable setting to do so, i.e, on the couch or on my bed, where I can be sure that even if I drop it I wouldn’t be putting my phone in jeopardy. Note here that the tossing was not done in an arbitrary fashion – the tossing was done such that the phone would spin in all possible axes. I went through several ideas of a possible game before finally arriving at the current version. I tried to incorporate height of the throw, number of spins, etc, but none of that seemed feasible. The solution was to allow this to happen naturally by converting this into a two person, Player vs Player game, as opposed to a Single Player vs Game setting. The game requires basic throwing/catching skill, a willingness to put one’s most precious device at risk and some free time. It is a game that is largely based on luck, but with enough time and practice, it can be mastered.

 

how to play

The game is played as follows. Two players, A and B decide to play the game and choose a phone to toss around. The players agree on the number of throws each one has. Both players position themselves in front of a bed or couch (or any similar setting with a soft landing spot for a phone that is tossed in the air). The players hold the phone in one hand and toss it in the air. The other player must catch the phone before it lands on the bed. The catching may be done with one or two hands. A player can score a point if they are successfully able to catch the phone in the exact same orientation that it was in right before it was tossed. The objective of the game is to score as many points as possible. The player with the most points after the decided number of throws emerges the winner. It must be noted that the phone should be tossed such that it would always land on the bed if the other player were to accidentally drop it. In the event of a tie (ie, both players have equal scores after the end of all throws), the players must go on until one of them scores and the other doesn’t. This may go on upto 10 throws post which both players will be declared mighty champions (becuase honestly you need to be a magician to catch it like that 10 times in a row).  In the case that it is uncertain whether the catch deserves a point or not, the benefit of the doubt goes to the catcher. If agreed upon by both players, the throw may be performed again. 

 

space and context

The context of this game is defined by its space and the players in the space. The game is designed to be played in a particular space – in front of an object that has sufficient space and padding to break the fall of a phone (just in case). It is most likely to be played in one’s bedroom/living room when two people are getting bored and need some form of entertainment. The space was chosen as such obviously for safety reasons. The last few seconds of the playtest video will justify this appropriation of space.  The game wouldn’t work as well if the players didn’t trust each other with tossing one of their phones in the air with a slight chance of damage. 

 

watch it 

A video of the playtest is attached below. Major credits to my roomie Ayaan for playing my game and to Abdul Kareem for shooting the video.

 

 

 

what happened here

Yeah so I lost to him in a game of my own creation. I did, however learn a lot from the experience of playing the game with another person. We played with 5 tosses each. My understanding was that a complex toss would be harder to catch. I had told Ayaan that I’ll be tossing in the way I know best, i.e, trying to make it spin in all three axes. He tried the same way for the first one or two throws but then switched to a different strategy. As it turns out, it is sometimes slightly harder to catch the phone as it spins along its length. During his last throw (the one where I dropped the catch), this strategy supported him. However, since the rules I created prior to playing the game had no mention of the kind of toss, all rules were maintained. The game was quite fun to play too (or maybe Ayaan just said that to make me feel good) – we ended up playing a couple of additional rounds (and yes, I got my revenge). The game was played how I envisioned it. All rules were maintained. The only thing that I hadn’t accounted for was some margin of error in the catch. For example, when the score went from 1-1 to 1-2, Ayaan caught it in between his fingers. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and amended the rules accordingly. 

 

assessment

Phone Toss allows players to come up with their own strategies of how to best toss the phone. I guess this could count as a form of ‘creation’. However, I am well aware that this game is quite dangerous and could invite a lot of destruction (the phone could break because of a bad landing). It invites more destruction than creation, but if played with caution, the destruction is next to zero. The method of tossing also allows the players to add their creativity into the game by means of deciding how to best toss the phone. Different strategies for throwing by different players could count as a form of expression. 

Pattern Doodle Game

Leave a comment Arantza Rodriguez

Description

Pattern Doodle is a one player puzzle game where one must trace out as many as possible doodles in the least amount of time.

 

Pattern Doodle Shapes/Solutions

 

The player is presented with fifteen different doodles, one pencil, and one piece of paper. The objective of the game is to trace them all out without repeating a line or lifting the pen from the paper. The player can try drawing a doodle as many times as he/she wants, but is constrained by the time limit (usually fifteen minutes). The game will end once the player successfully manages to trace out the doodles or runs out of time.

 

*Most of the doodles presented in the game were invented by me, but a couple were taken from existing mind puzzle games.

 

Rules

1. Draw one shape at a time

2. Draw the shape without lifting the pen from the paper

3. Draw the shape without retracing a line

4. If you make a mistake, you can still continue to draw the pattern. Try as many times as you need

5. You have fifteen minutes to draw all fifteen shapes. Try to do as many as you can. You can skip shapes if you wish and come back to them later.

6. The game will end once the time runs out or you manage to trace all shapes!


Context of Play & SPACE

The game is bound by a piece of paper and the player. It is only the person, the paper, and the doodles. The game is purposely designed to let the mind wander around without any outside interference. There are no people, only two rules, three objects, and one winning condition.

 

Pattern Doodle can take place anywhere at anytime. All you need is pen an paper. Therefore, I believe the space is the paper. So, anywhere a player can find a paper, a player can play the game.


Playtest

Pattern Doodle was playtested with five different NYU Abu Dhabi students. They were presented with the description, the rules, a piece of paper, a pen, and the fifteen doodles.

 

The first two students received a different set of instructions than the last three. They were initially told to draw the fifteen doodles without a time constraint, but with a paper constraint. The game would end if they didn’t finish drawing the doodles in the amount of paper they were given.

 

As I observed their interaction with the game, I noticed that both students tried to form first the pattern in their heads because they had fear of making a mistake and running out of paper. Therefore, it wasn’t until they knew for sure how to draw the doodle without lifting the pen, that they would put it on the paper. This went against the idea of free doodling that I had initially discussed in class: mindless drawing.

 

This was not what I had originally intended, so I decided to change the rules. I gave the last three students as much paper as they needed, but gave them only fifteen minutes to draw the doodles. With this new rule change, the students drew more doodles without fear of making mistakes. This new game play was closer to what I had envisioned.

 


Creation vs. Destruction 

Pattern Doodle invites creation because it forces people to explore different ways of drawing a doodle. When I playtested the game, I observed how players reached the same solution by moving the pen in different directions and starting points. The game allows users to create new solutions.


Expressiveness

This game brought a lot of emotions to those playing it. The wide range of expressions includes deep concentration when trying to strategist a doodle, relaxation when tracing the pattern on the paper, frustration when failing to get the doodle correct during any attempt, and satisfaction when finally succeeding to draw a pattern.

 

All the players that played the game experienced at least one of these emotions and was very expressive. I believe this is a good thing because it engages whoever is involved and allows them to get to know themselves better.

 

 

IN CLASS PLAYTESTING

 

I was able to play test the Pattern Doodle game once more during class time. I realized that the instructions were not as clear as I had believed earlier. My explanation was not as clear, possibly because we had so little time in class to play all games, and I rushed without allowing the players to know the exact rules. Instead of having the players draw one pattern at a time without lifting the pen up, two of the players thought they had to draw all patterns without lifting the pen up. After time was up, I was able to tell them what the actual rules and procedures were. As a result, I have made an update to the rules to make them much more clearer to the player (they can be found as an update to the post). 

Afro n Seek

Leave a comment Hatim Benhsain

Afro n Seek

 

Afro n Seek is a game about strategic thinking, hand dexterity, and time management. There are two players, one game board (my hair), and five objects (five cotton buds).

 

The two players are playing against each other. Player A is blindfolded, while Player B has to hide the five cotton buds inside of my hair. Player A then has to find the buds in my hair while still being blindfolded. Then, Player A and B swap places. The player who can find all five buds in the shortest amount of time wins the game.

 

Game test video:

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1t2BhdBByROgw7LtK890wMdXlEWzPzxQx

 

Impressions of the players:

 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LN4edBL1D3GBGP0oj9oNOJx6uYamiPSU

 

Analysis: During the playtest, we were sitting in a student residential lounge on a sofa, but it could been player pretty much anywhere else so the context in this sense was not particularly essential to the course of the game. There is a clear goal; find the buds, and quickly. There wasn’t a story behind it, and my hair (nor the buds for the matter) did not symbolize anything. I chose buds because they are small enough not to be easily found, and shaped in such a way that it is easy to lodge them in my hair without falling. When I realized though that their bright color would make them easy to find, I came up with the idea of blindfolding the player. I also experimented with hiding an M&M is my hair, but I realized, after the candy came out of my hair white (it was blue when it entered), that that wouldn’t be completely hygienic. As for appropriating a space, we chose to have the game test in a residential lounge because it was night and that was a close-by well-lit space, but it really could have happened anywhere without appropriating a big space since we didn’t take much room. There was no one else besides me and the two players in the lounge at the time though, so I expect the game could be a lot funnier had we been in a more public space.

 

The game test went smoothly, as the two players quickly understood the rules and respected them throughout the game. I suppose that the lack of too complex rules/their straightforwardness also helped that. Neither of the players were too aggressive with my hair, and I actually found the treatment almost therapeutic. It might have gone differently with different players though. Both of the players reported having had fun and enjoyed the process, and I can say the same, so I’m glad. They also said that they liked the feeling of my hair texture, and that being blindfolded actually heightened the experience. One of them did however mention feeling “lost”, but that did not seem to bother her much. A few other observations:

 

  • I did get hit once in my eyes, so eye protection for me might be useful.
  • The game wouldn’t have worked had I shorter/straight hair. I also hadn’t washed my hair for a few days, so it was frizzier than usual. I’m not sure of how well the buds would have held onto my hair had I just washed it.
  • “The longer the hair the better” the game might have been more fun had I longer hair (maybe in a few years?).

Assessment: Again, my game is very straightforward; it’s hard to play it “wrong” as all you have to do is rummage your hands through my hair until you find the buds. The part of the game that does involve creation is when the player has to hide the buds in my hair, where they might start thinking about where best to hide them so that the other player would have a harder time finding them. The part where the player has to extract the buds also evokes destruction, but the player has to be careful as not to damage the game board (a.k.a. tear out my hair or hit me). The general act of searching through my hair brought laughter to both the players and the board (me) during the playtest, so engaging with the game might be considered expressive in that way. The player who hides the buds may also express themselves by adding their own personal touch to where they hide it, but it is only to their own pleasure as neither the board (me) nor the other player (because they’re blindfolded) will be able to enjoy/look at it.

 

Peanut Showdown

Leave a comment Dogukan Avci

                                                      Rules

The game is called Peanut Showdown. In this game, the maximum number of players is two. The required materials are a can of peanuts (optionally any kind of nuts or popcorn or even chickpeas), a handful of paper towels, an open play area of at least 5×2 m2. The game is simple. Each player agrees upon a distance initially and starts throwing the nuts at each other’s’ mouths by turn. The thrown player has to catch the nut only by using her mouth, no limbs allowed. One strict rule is that they need to throw vertically, and kindly. Both players have three lives. The game starts simply yet each time a player manages to catch the nut he has to go one step back, deciding how big the step will be himself. Each fail of catching a thrown nut means losing one live. If a player loses all the three lives, he loses and the game is over. The loser has to clean all the thrown nuts after the game as a punishment.

This is a game because there is a challenge involved consisting of a required ability and strategic thinking along with observation. It is a fun activity and a new experience because the activity it involves is merged with the competition. There is the concept of losing and winning along with a punishment. The punishment is not too heavy to take the fun away from it. It gives meaning to losing while respecting to the play area by cleaning it. The space in the game can grow if more experienced players are involved. The preferred location of the game is indoors to motivate the players by taking the fear of falling down and getting injured.

Peanut Showdown largely exhibits construction over destruction. It involves improving a set of skills (reflexes, strategic thinking) while supplying pleasure. It introduces a new experience to its players and motivates them to be risk takers to win the game. There is also a minor exhibition of destruction which is making the loser clean the play area. This rule, however, gives the game consequences so the players try harder to not lose.

The strategy is shaped by deciding one’s size of the steps. A player can dominate by finding the distance that the other player is weak at. Thus, it is natural that more experienced players have a huge advantage in this game.

                                                     Gameplay

The game experimented with a player and the rules previously stated were pretty much respected and not violated. The player expressed the difficulty of the game which is normal for an inexperienced player. The joy of the audience can be heard which reveals the fun of Peanut Showdown.