Dev.log Blue

Coming up with original ideas is a challenge in itself, but at least you have a fresh template to work off of. However, I feel trying to add one to an already established idea or property can be difficult in multiple ways. Whether it be trying to evolve an already existing aesthetic, or trying to create a new one. I had this issue and challenge to deal with this weekend concept this past week.

I had to work on reworking a game into a new aesthetic and choose Battleship. It was very simple in nature, which allowed for complexity to thrive and many other games didn't provide that free range I was looking for. To put it simply, you have 5 ships on a 10x10 grid and have to fire missles by calling coordinates and destroying all of them. You were supposed to feel strategic, powerful and precise. Now that the foundation was laid out of me, I was thinking "how could I flip these concepts on their heads and give it a new feeling?" I started with the main goal and figured you should lose instead of win when shooting at the ships, and now that power dynamic turns into fear. I also figured since people wouldn't want to hit the ships, I divided the grid into quadrants they cycle through and the shots are instant kill hits. This way, they can't purposely miss, the matches pass faster, and the atmosphere is way more intense. Then the last loose end to tie up was why would this even happen? Why would shooting at your opponents ships cause you to lose? I remembered in The Dark Knight Rises, there was a scene of 2 ships, one with citizens and one with inmates, both of which had bombs. Each ship had a detonator for the other ship and had a limited amount of time before the Joker would blow them both; but in the end, that didn't happen. So in this scenario, both combatants are forced to destroy their own fleets and potentially kill all their crew members. The instant ship destruction mechanic was based on minesweeper; make one hit and its over. I wanted the feeling of this to be like walking blindly over a minefield and hoping you don't perish.

Now while I am proud of what I came up with, I feel there could've been better ways to go about it. My main issue was the limitations on which coordinates you call. Because that aspect of gameplay is so free-form, people would try to play it very safe and go one space at a time or hug the walls with their shots. I tried many different methods, like making it where you could not make your next shot on the same column or row as your last one. For example, if you make a shot at D4, your next shot could not be anywhere on Row D or column 4 in your next shot. I tried a few variations with that, but when asking people if they understood any of these variations, no one understood, so I scrapped it entirely. I tried making you go one row at a time or 1 column at a time and picking one spot within those parameters, but it didn't feel good. With the shots, I tried making it a napalm strike of sorts when you fire off an entire row of column, but tracking it would he tedious and/or hard to keep track of depending on who's playing. Finding that balance did not yield the best results, but I still think they were interesting. Maybe in the future I can visit this concept again and find new and efficient ways to pass these hurdles.

Just after the 'invitation to play' occurs before a game, players must decide who will go first. In CandyLand, the first player has the advantage, so the rules require the youngest player to go first. Other games advantage (or disadvantage) the first player in different ways. Make a list of 10 different ways you can determine who will go first in a board game. Then reflect on this exercise for your devlog. What did you learn? Which method would you prefer as a player? Consider including your favorite from this list or another innovative method you think of later in your next Game Design Assignment. 

This exercise I felt was pretty easy and hard at the same time. Easy because I've played many games in general in the past and have had to think of many different methods. At the same time, some methods are faded in my memory and are usually specific for certain games. After doing a little research, I felt confident.

I opened up a document and started off listing conventional ways of choosing who goes first. There were classic ways like "eenie meenie miney mo" or "not it". I had to dig deep in my childhood for some of the other ones I listed. There were also more mentally or physically demanding demanding ones like thinking of a random number or flipping a coin. Then I considered the Candyland example and thought that if there were mixed age groups playing a game, how would one party have an advantage or disadvantage when playing against others? So there was that workaround of the youngest going first to help kids and adolescents out. Other than that, I was pretty stumped and was happy with what I already had on hand.

If I had any takeaway from this, it's that originality for ice breakers isn't so easy. When I made a card game a few weeks ago, I tried making it so accessible that no matter who played and went first, everyone would have an equal, albeit random, chance of winning. I did this so I wouldn't have to worry about giving people a handicap, but then again, I wasn't completely satisfied with the final product. Then when I look to video games specifically it's usually some alternate coin toss method or something fun and new, like in Mario Party. At the start of each match, you would have to hit a dice block and the higher it was, the better your chance was to go first. So I wonder how in the future I can possibly evolve or improve what's already an established method.