So lately i’ve been researching multiple game mechanics, and by that I mean i’ve been playing a tonne of games and calling it uni work. There are some really interesting game mechanics out there, and they really (obviously) define how fun and enjoyable the game is. So i’ve decided to list some games and explain their game mechanics, and explain how i’ve taken my favourite ones and implemented it into my game.

Monopoly:

Everyone loves monopoly. It can define and destroy friendships and families. I think i’ve heard more people say that the game is ‘banned from playing’ than ‘we enjoyed it’ when playing with family members. The reason for the hatred of the game, is because of the negotiations of property and money, and that’s the best part of the game! If you’re a good negotiator, you’re in with a great chance of winning.

My strategy is to always target the people that don’t understand the value of certain properties (all train stations vs 2 properties I need to make a set), and basically be that guy that doesn’t trade certain properties so someone can get a set. The interesting mechanic in this game is the trading and negotiating with people, you can basically decide to team up or embargo players, not trade or make wildly not fair prices on your properties. I like the idea that the interaction between players can decide the fate of the game.

Louis CK explains how well Monopoly works in a family.

SpyFall:

SpyFall works entirely through talking with other players, and group decisions. The basis of the game is that you have 4 or more players, with one person being the spy, and the rest of the players having roles, depending on the location that’s randomly selected. The spy has no idea what the location, is, and to win he must guess the location. The other players have no idea who else is either a spy or a player with a normal role., but they know that the location is.

The game works by each player taking turns to ask other players questions, to gauge whether or not they know what the location is, but not asking specific enough so that the spy will be able to guess it. I love this game because it works through the interaction of other players, and they must form their own arguments/cases/thoughts/questions/answers, and how the game goes, depends on what each person says.

I really wanted to implement this kind of game, rather than a common board game/dice roll game where you have to follow specific rules which basically guides you to the same spot. These games where the players themselves create the storyline remind me of a story generator or “choose your own adventure”, which is great because everyone’s humour and personalities are different, so it’s like making a custom made game for everyone.

NODE really present the game well here, and it’s where I first saw the game.

Super Fight:

This game is similar to SpyFall and Cards Against Humanity, in regards that it requires the players to debate and talk to each other. This game is my main influence for project SURVIVE, because I had a similar idea to Super Fight that I planned to make, until I found out it was already a game 😥

The game operates by have two players fight each other, each having their own character, strength and weakness. They then debate with each other, until the non-fighting players decide who would win in a fight. The game mechanics of this game I want to directly mirror into my own, because it’s such a perfect game mode for what I’ve envisioned for my game.

NODE, yet again, had a greta play through with this, and it’s where I also found the game

 

 

Summary:

So taking all these games into account, I’ve found all of the mechanics from these games to be fun and enjoyable, and I’ve tried to place the best ones (or the ones i’ve enjoyed the most) into my own game. Through my game testing, it worked well, the only aspect of the game mechanic that I might need to reconsider if the judge position, whether or not to have one, or just let ALL the non-players decide on the outcome.

Just before the uni break, I had time to play-test my game with some friends, and see if the game mechanics and cards played out how I imagined in my head. We played through the game twice with a total of 4 people,. and I found a few problems with the game so far;

1. The timer needs to be enforced: I found some debates went for too long, so a 5min debate time needs to be implemented
2. Scenarios: They need to be more specific, and less one-sided. For example, my “the floor is lava and you must survive for 24 hours” is too easy, because the argument was “I’ll just sit on the table for a day”
3. More Cards: I need to create more scenario/advantage/disadvantage cards so there’s more variety
4. Less bias strengths/weaknesses: I need to make these cards less biased, because some cards really outright determine whether you would win or lose without even a debate

So taking this all into account, i’m going to be updating my game to accommodate for these issues, and then play test them again sometime soon. I’ve hit a metaphorical wall when it comes to thinking of new creative scenarios for people to survive, it sounded easy when I first started the assignment, but actually sitting down and listing them off, I’ve found that it’s pretty difficult.

Another thing I need to invest some more time into, is the design of my game. I’m still yet to really think about or actually begin designing the aesthetics of my game, and I think i’ll leave that aspect of my game to last. I have some general ideas, but I don’t want to design parts of the game that i’ll later throw away or discard.

Last week I talked about the content of Chattr, and how much it’s changed since we started back in 2015. This week, I want to talk about the content that we NEED at Chattr, to make it popular and hit a large audience, and that’s Viral Content. Through my research of Viral Content, what I basically found is that while there’s a good way to see content that’s going viral early, no one really knows how to actually a viral video, which is totally reassuring!

One of the most common explanations is that media content now travels like a pandemic, spreading through audiences by infecting person after person who comes into contact with it. The term “viral” first appeared in science fiction stories, describing bad ideas that spread like germs.

Neal Stephenson’s science fiction novel Snow Crash explains this, “We are all susceptible to the pull of viral ideas. Like mass hysteria. Or a tune that gets into your head that you keep on humming all day until you spread it to someone else. Jokes. Urban Legends. Crackpot religions. Marxism. No matter how smart we get, there is always this deep irrational part that makes us potential hosts for self-replicating information” (1992)

Here, the viral is linked to the “irrational,” the public is described as “susceptible” to its “pull,” and participants become unknowing “hosts” of the information they carry across their social networks.

Douglas Rushkoff ’s 1994 book Media Virus argues that media material can act as a Trojan horse, spreading without the user’s conscious consent; people are duped into passing a hidden agenda while circulating compelling content.

“Media viruses spread the same way biological ones spread through the body or a community. But, instead of traveling along an organic circulatory system, a media virus travels through the networks. The “protein shell” of a media virus might be an event, invention, technology, system of thought, musical riff, visual image, scientific theory, sex scandal, clothing style or even a pop hero—as long as it can catch our attention. Once attached, the virus injects its more hidden agendas into the datastream in the form of ideological code—not genes, but an equivalent we now call memes.” (Rushkoff 1994)

In the 1976 book The Selfish Gene, famed British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins introduced the “meme,” which was to become both an incredibly important and incredibly overused idea, just like its viral companion.

“Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. If a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passes it on to his colleagues and students. He mentions it in his articles and his lectures. If the idea catches on, it can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain.” (Dawkins 1976)

Simplified versions of these discussions of “memes” and “media viruses” have given the media industries a false sense of security at a time when the old attention economy has been in flux. The way these terms are now used to mystify the way material spreads, leading professional communicators on quests to create “viral content.”

There’s a great journal about The relationship of virality and emotions by Jonah A. Berger & Katherine L. Milkman, which talks about how an angry reaction to content causes the potential virality to increase dramatically, especially when there are two opposing sides. A great example of this principle in action which springs to mind is the coloured dress craze of 2015 over social media

So What goes viral? What makes something more likely to go viral? Basically, even people that make consistent viral videos don’t know the secrets, and it probably helps that they have a larger audience to start “spreading their content virus”. Watch this video by Casey Neistat (Gets interesting from 6:10) where he talks about his methods an ideas behind what makes viral video. It’s a good summary of my research of viral content – no one knows shit.

 

References:

Jenkins & Ford & Green, HJ SF SG, 2013, ‘Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture’, Spreadable Media <http://reader.eblib.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/(S(p2asztgthxy5k0lzakczmk2x))/Reader.aspx?p=1114591&o=580&u=G5EYdrpLLwc%3d&t=1459300270&h=609E551031458E46719C38A8D7B96C18D9FABC4A&s=43523509&ut=1771&pg=1&r=img&c=-1&pat=n&cms=-1&sd=2>