Octagon is a relatively simple game that is supported on the OSX platform and so played on MacBooks. It is a 1-player game and so it presents a situation where the player competes with the game. In Octagon, the player is required to use the arrow keys to move the octagon in the left, right and up directions only in order to balance it on steps (or platforms). The player is required to have speed and accuracy in order to time the movement of the octagon so as to prevent it from falling and thereby losing the game.

The game can be played in two different modes: Endless Mode and Classic Mode. Endless mode simply measures how long the player can last without losing while Classic Mode presents a more progressive angle to the game. In Classic Mode the player advances from level to level with increasing difficulty.

The fabrication of Octagon presents a very limited space of play. This means, it restricts the player’s movement and limits him/her to the main objective of the game. The only movements that can be made are the leftward, rightward, and upward movements of the octagon onto the next platform. The concept of octagon may be almost fully transformable into a real-life game due to its minimalist and somewhat basic rules. All one may need to do this is a ball and some selected items that will be used as the platforms in the context of the game. However, the digital nature of the game presents a more aesthetic, even though minimalist, view to the game and more restrictive nature as well. In real life, the player may be able to roll the ball way off the next platform or even make some movements that are in no way related to the game, but the digital version creates boundaries which limit “wrong” movements of all sort.

In comparison to other games where the player might have free roaming ability, octagon may seem restrictive and boring at first, however, the game poses a good challenge to the player which in the end makes it as interesting to play like other games. The increasingly difficult nature of the levels in Classic Mode create a situation where the player not only competes with the game but rather competes with himself/herself in the sense that he/she tries very hard to progress to the next level, which signifies some level of improvement in his/her ability to play the game.

Also, unlike other games, the concept of “lives” is not incorporated in Octagon. Once the player fails to move the octagon to the next platform, he/she loses and has to restart the level. For the player this could be frustrating, however, this could be what makes the game pretty addictive which makes it more of a game than just play.

Octagon, in conclusion, is a very basic but addictive game. The limited space of play coupled with the simple but restrictive rules and clear objective speak to the basic nature of the game. However, the game design poses difficulty and challenge that keeps the player playing the game in order to advance.

Sort the Court

The game is about ruling an underdeveloped kingdom to prosperity by saying yes and no. The game does not require any mechanical skills from the player as in proficiency with the keyboard and the mouse. The binary nature of the game makes it less threatening and more interesting. The game takes place in a palace where the kingdom can be seen. There are three features of the kingdom visible to us: money, happiness, population. Each day random guests visit and make inquiries to the king which is the player. Saying yes or no have a long-lasting effect on the evolving story throughout the game while it also has a short-term effect on the happiness, money, population. The game area develops as the game progresses, the richness of the kingdom or the development of the city by the time can directly be observed:

The beginning of the game

Towards the end of the game

The game design is minimalistic in a sense that everything in the design is necessary to capture a king’s palace. The game takes place in the same room throughout so such minimalism is necessary to not bore the player with unnecessary details. The game introduces the main goal when the kingdom is developed enough which is joining to Council of Crowns. Other than this directly given one, other goals are subjective to the player. The player can wonder how a story evolves and he can create his own goal to see where the story leads as long as the kingdom survives. The game story offers surprise elements by character development. Saying yes or no to some characters reroutes the story. For example, helping the robot leads to a gift which is used by a scientist for developing a gold generating machine:

After helping the robot

Received the golden cog

The scientist wants to use it

The gold-generating machine is built

The meetings do not only include various characters constantly pushing us to make decisions affecting the stories. There are many funny elements in the game that do not add up to the main story, however, they are humorous. For example, once every couple of days our grandma will ask for a dime for the newspaper, or a street cat will ask for food, or a random drummer will show you his cool new rhythm. These elements thin out the frequency of the important decisions to be made and provide the gap necessary to distribute the important decisions. This is important to not to squeeze the player and let him make the big calls once at a time.

The main premise of the game is facing the consequences of one’s decisions. Various different problems arise during the game which conveys different ideas. For example, if the kingdom expands too fast the king of trees will show up in our palace and complain about the destruction of the forests which underlines an environmental problem. On another occasion, we have to solve a really silly border problem between the kingdom of plants and the kingdom of sea animals who both claim a swamp as their own land. One another one, our workers will complain about their working conditions and will unionize and demand better conditions. There are many more examples such as these ones during the game that contain subtle messages. These subtle messages modify the priorities of a player in terms of the game objectives. They turn him into a king that does not just care about his kingdom but also is also cautious to cause an environmental problem or has respect for his workers’ rights. The unethical path is usually the easy path in the game but the friendliness of the characters and the trust relationship among the kingdom makes it harder for the player to take that path. Sometimes, the development pushes the player to make unethical decisions to make up for the previous unsuccessful ones:

Do we want to sell souls?

People or gold?

Ruined poor Stumpy’s home

Do we want to hire a thief?

There is a constant trade-off majorly between the three features of the kingdom. Balancing and making the profitable decisions lead to a surviving and growing kingdom along with a fun playing experience.

If you want to play the game:

Sort the Court

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.

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.

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. 

                                                      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.

IM-UH 2320
Classroom: Arts Center Rm.153
Time: Tuesday 2:40 pm – 5:20 pm, Thursday 4:05 pm – 5:20 pm
Instructor: Sarah Fay Krom
Email: sfk3@nyu.edu

Course Description
Games and play are deeply embedded in human culture. Play suggests a broad range of human experiences with universal qualities not easily contained by a common form. Games use their playable form to reflect contemporary culture and speak to the cultural spaces in which they reside. There is freedom in play. There is structure in games. How do they work together? This course explores how games structure play to serve their purpose, and how play inspires games to push against expectations of popular culture of what games are, or are not. Informed by perspectives in game studies and theories of play, students will study a variety of analog and digital games to consider the technological, spatial, artistic and social structures that shape a play experience. The practical component of the class utilizes web-based technologies and the Unity game engine to put students in the role of both game designer and developer. Hands-on projects allow students to experiment with building a game experience capable of conveying meaning and message, and expressing aspects of humanity beyond contest and conflict. Programming experience is preferred but not required.