Download GrandMasterPixel (beta) from the Android Market

Related posts:

1. Unveiling my uber-secrect Android game : GrandMasterPixel
2. New title screen for GrandMasterPixel on Android
3. GrandMasterPixel now available for testing in the Android emulator

Part of that philosophy lead me to forgo the customary title screen found in many games. At most, I planned to have the title text “GrandMasterPixel” overlayed on the Drawing screen upon first load, then elegantly fade away. This way the user is thrown straight into one of the two key mechanics – drawing (other being judging). They can immediately poke the screen an start creating some simple pixelart. There isn’t any dire need for a ‘navigation screen’ on the Android version, since all navigation can be accessed in the popup menu, by pressing the Menu button on the device. This is the convention for pretty much every Android app (and is the suggested style in the Android Menu Design Guidelines published by Google).

Recently, however, I’ve have a change of heart on the front page navigation screen idea. Maybe it is required, to better lead new players into the game. Additionally, I’ve also noticed that Android games conventionally seem to have a front page navigation screen, unlike other non-game apps.

Here’s a mockup of one possible front page screen for GrandMasterPixel, made with Mockingbird:

GrandMasterPixel, possible new front page mockup

At the moment, I’m still looking for more people to play test what I have so far, before going crazy  on implementing more features. There are certainly lots of parts that need work, but I’d like to direct my efforts toward areas where players feel they are more required. You can download the alpha version of GrandMasterPixel for Android with this link. I’d appreciate any feedback you have, on FriendFeed, or via Twitter @OMGWTFGAMES or right here in the comments !

Related posts:

1. Unveiling my uber-secrect Android game : GrandMasterPixel
2. New title screen for GrandMasterPixel on Android
3. Woo hoo ! GrandMasterPixel beta available on the Android Market.

Rather than working on my Game Design Concepts project, I instead decided to focus my game development time in August on getting something ready for the “Android Developer Challenge 2“. While I didn’t actually make that deadline (I decided it was not worth submitting something unpolished), it helped to push my uber-secret-Android-project into the realms of playability, and I should be able to release it before the end of the year.

Here’s a summary of my Game Design Concepts project, as it stands.

The game board “pre-prototype”:

"Commuter Hero" board design. Squares are stations, circles are points enroute between stations. Triangles are the destinations ("goals"). Lines are railroads, "roads" are bus routes, dotted lines are walking routes. The "piechart" thing represents the clock, which turns to the next colour each turn (representing 15 minute timesteps, I guess). It's been rubbed off the whiteboard now, so this photo serves as a record of the design in case I want to reproduce it and continue.

Each player is given three destination cards, which are destinations they must visit during the game, as well as sharing two “shared destination” cards with two other players, which are destinations that each pair must meet at during the game. Once a player visits their five destinations, they win. Players move around the board one step each turn, but sometimes they must wait several turns at a station for a train to arrive (indicated by the “colour clock”). While they are waiting at a station, they must roll to possibly draw an “event card”, which can initiate things like rail strikes, or provide a “taxi ticket” to get them from A to B, pronto. The game forces players to determine the optimal route between their destinations, re-route as events occur, and negotiate their routes to be compatible with the players that they must meet.

I may finish designing this game at some point, including proper playtesting, but I also feel like the basic mechanic is a little tedious and there are not enough “interesting decisions”. I may be better off just scrapping it and starting with something entirely new. Below the fold are the rules as they stand, and my working notes …

Commuter Hero

Number of players: 2 – 6 (maybe more, better with more than two)

Assets:

• Game board
• The clock spinner (may be part of the board)
• One token per player.
• Two six sided dice (2d6)
• A set of 18 destination cards (3 of each destination)
• A set of event cards.

Setup and starting the game

Shuffle the event cards and the destination cards, put them in separate piles on the the space provided on the board. Players choose their token, and place it in Central Station. The clock starts at 0 o’clock.

Before the game begins, each player takes _three_ destination cards, which are their ‘solo destinations’ that they must visit during the game. The player can keep these cards secret (face down) if they like.

Players also draw a fourth card that is a ‘shared destination’ card. During the game they must meet the player to their right at that spot. These cards are not kept secret, and are placed face up. This means each player will need to actually meet both the player to their left and to their right once in the game.

Gameplay

Players take turns to move (or wait at a station) in an clockwise direction around the table. The youngest player gets to choose who starts.

Traveling around town

Stations are coloured. The ‘color clock’ moves clockwise each turn, cycling through four colored times (0, 15, 30, 45). Trains or buses arrive at the station when the clock reaches the corresponding time/color (this will prevent the annoying task of moving lots of little trains each turn). Players can’t move off a station to travel along the line until the clock matches the time/color of that station or bus stop. Players can always choose to leave a station and travel by foot on a footpath. Once the player has entered a space on the train line or road they must move once space per turn along that line. They cannot change direction, but must travel in the same direction along the route until they hit a station. They can only pass a station on that line if the clock matches the time/color of that station (otherwise they must ‘change trains’ and wait until the clock matches that station before travelling on).

If a player has to wait at a station (eg, they are on a station but the clock doesn’t match the timetabled arrival at that station), they must roll both dice. If they roll a double, they can take an event card.

Certain spaces on bus lines are marked with a ‘bottleneck’. Before moving off these spaces, a player must roll one die. If they roll even then they can move, odd they are delayed in traffic and cannot move in that turn. Trains do not have bottleneck delays.

Event cards

Player draws an event card, but doesn’t disclose what it is for three turns. They place the card face down on the color clock, three segments in advance of the current segment so that everyone remembers this is when the event will be revealed. Once the clock position reaches the card, the card is revealed and the event triggers. (The drawing player hence has inside info that a strike is approaching and can act on it before anyone else). Some cards may also be ‘instants’.

Strikes can close down one form of transport. More likely for trains. Player who drew the card rolls 2d6 each time their turn comes around, as well as moving their piece as usual. If the result of both dice matches (eg, a double), the strike ends immediately (the player can also enter the re-opened transport in that turn).

Any player traveling on a bus or train when a strike is called for that mode of transport must continue traveling on that line but exit the vehicle on at the next station. They cannot re-board until the strike is over, but they can leave the station by foot or another mode of transport.

When a player is moving on a bus (but not at a station), before they move they must roll both dice. If they get a double of any number, the bus is delayed in traffic and they cannot move space in that turn.

Cards

Destination cards (three of each for a six player game ?):

• Butcher (#1)
• Baker (#2)
• Candlestick maker (#3)
• Grocer (#4)
• Hardware store (#5)
• Game shop (#6)

Event cards:

• Secret inside info – Train Strike in three moves ! Once the strike starts, roll 2d6 every turn. A double six to ends the strike.
• Instant train strike – roll 2d6 every turn. A double six to ends the strike.
• Delay at Central Station. No one can board there this turn.
• Taxi Ticket – use this at any time to move from A to B in just one step !
• All trains delayed – players on trains don’t move this turn.

Possible rules to play test

• Players have 5 destination cards, but two may be hidden ?
• Players start with two (or three) destinations, and get given one based on an event during play.
• Player keeps a drop destination secret. They must drop a token at the destination of their colour. Another player has to pick up a token of a colour, that only they know.
• Idea: Finite tickets for certain transport, others are free ?
• Taxi tickets – move to any station on the board.

Board design principles

• All destinations should be roughly equidistant in steps from central station.
• All lines and roads must terminate at a station (there can also be stations along a line)
• All stations must have two types of transport (walk, bus, train) to enter and exit (reduce the probability of getting stuck during a strike)

No related posts.

Related posts:

1. Game Design Concepts: post-mortem (although I’m not finished)

The archetypal Griefer/Killer player type primarily derives pleasure in causing grief to others playing the game. The most pleasure for the Griefer/Killer is derived when they break ‘social norms’ of the game accepted by the majority of other players, and cause annoyance to those other players who play within those ‘social norms’. Note that breaking social norms is well within the rules of the game, it’s just ‘unpopular’ behaviour to most other players.

The difficulty in this task is that Griefer/Killer players generally do not exist in a vacuum, but require other players with different goals to feed off. Any game that caters to only Griefer/Killers would have difficulty finding (or at least maintaining) players of other types. I don’t believe G/Killers would derive much pleasure from simply ‘killing’ other G/Killers, if all players in the game were G/Killers with essentially the same goals – kill or be killed – since this would be the accepted behaviour in the game, and no social norms would be broken. However, I’d predict that a group of ‘real’ G/Killers, if they kept playing at all, would find a way to play that would annoy everyone, hence deriving pleasure – but this dynamic would not be the intended way to play the game (or at least not appear to be).

One strategy would be to set up dynamics such that G/Killers were griefing other G/Killers. The problem here is that if it was obvious to those players that griefing was within social norms and generally accepted as ‘part of the game’, the griefing would  no longer maintain it’s appeal.

To take Bartle’s example of a MUD overbalanced to encouraging G/Killers – he proposes that this would be an arcade-style shooter, which would preserve the ‘thrill of the chase’, but sacrifice the main motivating activity of the G/Killer – the ‘parasitic’ griefing of other players. Parasites need hosts to survive, and other parasites usually don’t make good hosts to feed off. I don’t believe that a shooter, for example a FPS like Quake, is a ‘game for griefers’ – witness how a new specific class of griefer just emerges instead, now called the ‘camper’ or ‘teamkiller’.

To put things another way – G/Killers knock down, and don’t enjoy to build anything except maybe their reputation. There needs to be someone else to build – unless the G/Killers can be ‘tricked’ into building through their own prefered actions of knocking down. Even then, the fun for the building-Griefers may only be maintain so long as they remain decieved about the actual mechanics of the game.

How can the dynamic of G/Killers killing G/Killers by made into a compelling (or ‘fun’) experience for these players ? For ‘pure’ Griefer/Killer/Troll player types, this is very tough, but most players will in reality be a mixture of player types. G/Killers that have some tendency toward the Achiever player type can be catered for – one simple way would be to make scoring equivalent to kills, with kills being reset to zero if a player is killed. Maybe also taking the killed player out of the game for a short time, and broadcasting their humiliation clearly to the other remaining players would help enhance the need to feel superior (at least for those that were winning).

Another less ethical proposal is to create the Griefer game as an ‘overlay’ or ‘meta-game’ on top of some other legitimate game or activity that does not explicitly include the G/Killers as an accepted participant. As outsiders to a larger group of players with different goals, the G/Killers would have a fresh stream of hosts to parasitize, as long as they do not become too dominant and kill the game entirely. One example may be organised groups that make a game of trolling Slashdot, such as the obscure, possibly defunct, GNAA organisation ( http://web.archive.org/web/20040805015319/http://www.gnaa.us/ , NSFW, depending where you work ). Bartle also notes that, on the whole, the game played by a G/Killer is a solo pursuit. In this proposed griefing/trolling meta-game, G/Killers with some tendency toward socialization would probably have more fun, since they can chat and brag about exploits, further fulfilling their need for feeling superior to other players.

I had a quick look at the Game Design Concepts course forums and noticed that Matthew Johnson has come up with a similar type of idea, using existing forums or social networks designed for other purposes as the backdrop for a ‘trollish’ game. A significant difference (both ethically and with respect to catering to the targeted player type) is that in his design concept all players appear to be willing participants – see his “Facebook Diplomacy“.

No related posts.

Main course links

Blog: http://gamedesignconcepts.wordpress.com/

Forum: http://gamedesignconcepts.aceboard.com/index.php?login=336227

Wiki: http://gamedesignconcepts.pbworks.com/

Twitter hashtag: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=%23GDCU

My work

(These assignments are completed in a set time, and are generally early prototypes in need of further playtesting and development to become decent games. Some are experiments that are unlikely to ever become decent games … while others may be developed further in the future)

Level 1 Challenge: http://gamedesignconcepts.pbworks.com/Race-Game

Level 3 Challenge: http://gamedesignconcepts.aceboard.com/336227-2700-1245-0-Simpson-Abdul-thier-Donkeys.htm

Level 4 Challenge: http://gamedesignconcepts.aceboard.com/336227-3124-1566-0-Battle-board-game.htm

Level 5 Challenge: TBC. Make a rule change to the dice game Bluff to eliminate the positive feedback loop (which comes about due to the information assymetry between winning player and losing players).

Level 6 Challenge: TBC

Some  notes on some ‘art game’ playings:

• Passage: Mechanic reminds me of Ico (Playstation2) – your movement is restricted by your NPC partner which must follow you (potentially a dead weight, although one you aparrently don’t mind, indicated by the little love heart upon meeting). Aesthetic/Surface, despite being ‘lowfi’, reminds me of the feel of Pink Floyd’s “Dark Side of the Moon”, particularly the track Breathe. Damn you artists for making use think about inevitable things we can’t change and don’t want think about !

Level 7 Challenge: Make a modification to the simple card game “War” to add some interesting decisions. http://gamedesignconcepts.aceboard.com/336227-4682-2357-0-Counter-attack.htm

Level 8 Challenge: Create a concept for a game that is built to appeal specifically to griefers (ie player killers in MUD terms, campers or teamkillers in FPS terms). My notes are here. I never posted these to the official forum since it’s still a bit of a ramble and needs refinement – I couldn’t bear to subject the other course participants to actually wading through the text, but it’s posted here anyhow just in case you have precious time to kill (yeh right ).

Level 9 Challenge: Create an embedded backstory for the game “Pente“. What is the setting? What do the pieces represent? Why are you placing them? Attempt to make the backstory that fit the mechanics. TBC.

Level 11 Challenge: Brainstorm ideas (over 48 hours) for a board game, post the best three. This is the beginning of a month long design project. At the “Easy” green circle level, the game ideas cannot include the overused roll-to-move mechanic, and cannot be a trivia game or trading card game (eg Magic: The Gathering style) due to the time consuming nature of producing content for those types of game. http://gamedesignconcepts.aceboard.com/336227-5708-2723-0-Commuter-Turn-based-tactics-mother-Seat-pants.htm .

Related posts:

1. Game Design Concepts: post-mortem (although I’m not finished)

MDA

(from Hunicke, LeBlanc and Zubek, MDA: A Formal Approach To Game Design and Game Research)

Mechanics, Rules, “core mechanics”, (Struture in McCloud terminology).

Aethetics (Surface in McCloud terminology).

Dynamics (closest to “Craft” in McCloud terminology).

Other

Objectives, Goals

Genre (Idiom in McCloud terminology).

Setup / Progression (game loop) / Resolution (“Winning condition”)

Related posts:

1. Game Design Concepts: post-mortem (although I’m not finished)

Phobocore is a two-player hotseat game, where the aim is to capture all the planets onscreen by shooting them. It’s sort of a cross between Asteroids and Risk/Galcon, with a respectful nod to open field overhead shooters like Robotron, Bezerk or Gauntlet.

Download Phobocore (v.09 for Windows & Linux) [10.3 mb]

The experience of creating this game has been quite enlightening so far. It really got me thinking about aspects of game design I hadn’t thought deeply about. I threw around lots of ideas relating to ‘resources’ and ‘defenses’, particularly thinking about how RTSs like Starcraft require balance in play style between defense building, offensive maneuvers and resource gathering. Good players must multitask and proiritize to get the upperhand on their opponents. Key questions like “Should captured/neutral/enemy planets be solid objects or unhindering ?” occupied more than one dinner time conversation, bearing out all the ways these would changed the game. I had great fun testing the effect of different game rules, and how these changed the dynamics of the gameplay (with huge thanks to my long-suffering girlfriend for playtesting. The next best thing to writing an AI player ). If you are keen to fiddle with these game rules yourself, you can throw various flags in the phobocore.py sourcecode to test how these variations change the play style required to win.

I also spent considerable time tweaking things like fire rates and the “planets-held to ammo recharge rate” ratio to try and make the game somewhat fun. It works pretty well for players that are equally matched, but much like Galcon, once one player gets an edge, it can be hard to recover and things are over pretty quickly.

Big features I’d love to add in the future: an AI compurer player for single player mode, and maybe network play. I need to work on the collision detection, improve the graphics, add background music, and add a help screen / tutorial screen and slap on a license (probably GPL for code and Creative Commons for audiovisual assests).

Have fun & feedback is, as always, welcome !

Here’s the README.txt

┏━┓╻ ╻┏━┓┏┓ ┏━┓┏━╸┏━┓┏━┓┏━╸
┣━┛┣━┫┃ ┃┣┻┓┃ ┃┃  ┃ ┃┣┳┛┣╸
╹  ╹ ╹┗━┛┗━┛┗━┛┗━╸┗━┛╹┗╸┗━╸
Copyright Andrew Perry, 2008, 2009.

A two player hotseat game of screen domination.
It's pink vs. blue.
Boys vs. girls.

┃: GAMEPLAY :┃

Phobocore is a a simultaneous two player game. The goal is to capture
 as many planets as possible.
* You capture planets by shooting them - eventually they will turn to
  your colour.
* If you shoot a planet enough, it becomes locked to your colour -
  these planets cannot be re-captured by the enemy.
* The more planets you capture, the faster your ammo refills (orange
  bar). The more locked planets you hold, the more powerful your
  bullets become.
* You can fly through neural (white) or enemy planets. You cannot fly
  through your own planets.
* Shooting the enemy freezes them momentarily, however they also
  absorb your bullets for their own ammo store.
* Powerups occasionally appear - these give you more ammo, and can
  provide the vital edge you need to capture more planets than your
  opponent.
* The red bar goes up the more planets you lock. Once you have locked
  30 % of the planets on screen, you win.

┃: CONTROLS :┃

Player 1 (pink, left ammo bar): W,A,S,D and space
Player 2 (blue, right ammo bar): Arrow keys and right-CTRL

┃: OPTIONS :┃

Commandline options:

-f          run the game in full screen mode

┃:   TIPS   :┃

Early on, every bullet counts. Fire accurately and efficiently.

It may seem frustrating at first, since you can't shoot very fast.
Early in the game, aim to quickly but efficiently capture as many
planets as possible, and pick up powerups if you can. Don't waste
ammo locking too many planets early in the game - it's more about
quantity not quality at this stage. As you capture more planets,
your fire rate will go up.

Once you have a reasonable fire rate established, start focusing
on locking planets too. This will increase your bullet power,
meaning you can also capture/lock planets faster.

Take opportunities to steal any weak planets owned by your opponent
(the smaller ones) with a quick circular spray of bullets - this
will seriously impact on your opponents fire rate, frustrating
their efforts to capture/steal/lock more planets.

Try not to fence yourself in. Keep in mind that planets you capture
become blockades for you, but become open space for your opponent.
Rather than spraying a whole 360 degree circle of bullets to capture
all the planets in your vicinity, try doing 270 degree sweeps,
leaving yourself a exit small hole of neutral or enemy planets.

No related posts.

“Spore is essentially a very impressive, entertaining, and elaborate Mr. Potato Head that uses the language of evolution but none of the major principles,” conclude Gregory and Eldredge.

It sounds like some kind of Mii creator tied together with minigames. Apparently it rates high on ‘cute’, but very low on ‘fun’ or ‘science’. The conclusion is that EA is wrapping this game in marketing language that speaks of ‘evolution’, trying to push the educational aspects, but in reality there isn’t a scrap of evolution in the game. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t believe games require any educational value whatsoever .. pure fun is fine with me. But claiming your game has a basis in solid science when it is clearly based on cute graphics alone does players (and educators) a disservice.

“the breakthrough science that’s revealing the secret genetic machinery that shapes all life in the game Spore.” — Will Wright

Yeh, right .. thanks for that Will. As far as it’s use in science education … I can only see Spore being suitable for the education system in Kansas.

No related posts.

There are some pearls of wisdom here, eg:

For me the retrogaming movement is more than just nostalgia of misty eyed Gen X’ers. It’s a reaction to the current graphical overkill, the simulation obsessed gaming environment of the late 90s. In our quest for absolute graphical realism, we have forgotten the basics of gaming.

– Eugene Jarvis from a Halcyon Days interview

No related posts.