itch.io

If I’m making a game that’s using machine learning to validate procedurally generated levels, am I allowed to use your assets? Your tileset itself is not being manipulated to produce new art. Thx.

Wonderful game! It makes great use of the constraints of the platform. It’s clever, funny, odd, and well designed. I do hope the next Eyeland has a save or chapter system, though, so that I’m not worried about losing progress if I have to put my Playdate down.

Dixit is one of my favorite games! I’m glad you came across it.

The game design document will come more into use when you do the big final board game project. For now, just think of it as guidelines for how your group keeps track of what the game is about and what you want the project to accomplish.

Good use of an existing game to make sense of the lessons from the textbook!

I’ve thought about trying to use actual tracking spreadsheets and project management tools like Kanban boards, but this class moves so quickly that it would just add additional work. I’d love a next-level course with a long project that used all those lessons, though.

I can’t imagine being tasked with balancing something like the weapon system in Destiny or a competitive game that has a ton of heroes. It’s such an intense process (and your players will let you know what they think about your decisions in very vocal and often profane ways.)

So long as the randomness is weighted in favor of the player, it’s permissible. But most players find randomness that hinders them less enjoyable.

This was a great reflection on the Schell readings. I’m glad to see the lessons are applicable in the way that I hoped.

I apologize! I did not realize that it was a one-copy at a time book. Digital rights are frustrating. I need to make note of that for the future.

Can I use this as an example of someone who clearly understands the purpose of BattleBattle 😆

Good point in bringing up the two axes of skill and luck. Especially in games vs. a controlled opponent, tilting the odds in favor of the player’s luck is frequently a positive experience.

I’m sorry that Unboxed wasn’t available! I didn’t realize it was only letting one copy be checked out simultaneously. I’ll be on the lookout for that in the future.

I’m happy that you’re determined to bounce back from the previous project. I recognized that you worked hard on it but faced a lot of obstacles. They say “past performance is no guarantee of future results.” And usually that means not resting on your laurels but in this case it means you have a fresh start with BattleBattle and I’m looking forward to seeing what your team has!

I’m pleased that you all learned so much from the playtest sessions. It’s eye-opening to not only give it to other people but to also hear what they suggest.

There’s one thing in The Crew booklet that I particularly find counterproductive: there are rules in little callout boxes on the sides of the pages but it’s difficult to know what they’re related to. Scanning through the book for specific rules, it’s hard to know where on the page they might be.

As we continue to work, I’m interested in how you all feel about and use Teams. I know it’s unfamiliar to most students and it creates a new expectation wherein I ask for a little bit of work throughout the week rather than just cramming homework/reading right before lectures.

I’m inclined to disagree that the iterative process isn’t as important with a card game. a 52-deck of cards obviously doesn’t require as much construction effort, but refining the rules would still be iterative.

Even a little bit of story/premise can help contextualize what the players are doing.

I’m glad you pointed out the “quantity over quality” brainstorming advice because that’s precisely what we’re doing. Between all of the groups, we’ll have had nearly 75 themes and 30 game ideas.

I’m happy that that third quote resonated with you. It’s a really great lesson, right?

I’m so glad you highlighted the “how might we?” approach to conceptualization. We’ll discuss it in class but it’s a significant way of framing the creative process.

I do think there’s something to that Tutorial idea. The nice thing about card/board games is that the “hosts” can make up rules as needed. So, if you were to ever teach this game to someone new you could just write your own tutorial.

The nice thing about a game like Sushi Go is that it goes so quickly that after you play once you can pick up the goals and strategies. I suspect that’s one of the reasons it became popular in the mainstream.

Yeah, those two chapters will come in handy this week. Because things shifted a day or so, their timing wasn’t as immediately apparent.

Good point about trick-taking. I can’t remember if it was your group or another group, but perhaps having the Missions structured like a tutorial would have helped. Mission 1 could have had no tasks and instead just required that each player win one trick. That would acclimate people to that style of game.

Good catch and fix on the colorblindness. That’s one of those accessibility points that’s easy to miss but quick to fix when you know about it.

I’m going to print out a banner that reads “I now fully appreciate Teams” and hang it in my office.

The issue of “one person won’t understand” is an important observation. Is it better or worse if only one person doesn’t get it? How do they feel? How can the game and other players bring them along regardless? At some point, it can probably only be fixed through socializing.

I don’t think the problem with NASCAR was that it was going to be boring but rather that finding the compelling part was going to required more expertise than the group had. It’s a worthwhile lesson, none the less.

Great distillation of Macklin and Sharp!

“Sabotage” is a great type of play experience to consider. It is both mechanical in terms of rules/actions and also is “felt” in the players’ relationships.

4-players definitely creates an interesting dynamic in your game because teammates both want to coordinate but also feel they know what’s most advantageous.

I’d be interested in knowing more about your perspective on “re-doing” action in games vs what’s possible in competition.

This is a useful reflection on Macklin and Sharp.

Balancing “events that matter” with randomization is always tricky. You want to make not only the tension matter but also give the players something to do if the outcome doesn’t go their way.

Yomi is a fascinating design concept. This devlog connects well to the discussion of sports in week 4.

The quote about “not easy to reproduce the same movements” is a great takeaway from the video. It’s a design philosophy that you can carry with you to everything you make so that your players don’t feel they’re just participating in the same rote actions.

I’ve been playing a new-ish game by Foddy recently that doesn’t have quick saves or checkpoints and it really does change the way I think of playing it as executing a performance. Of course, I’m also annoyed that it doesn’t because I don’t have the kind of time to repeat the same actions over and over. But at least it’s a recognizable design ethos.