My favorite aspect of the game design project was the process of playtesting the game prototype in different stages of the design process. From bodystorming the experience of sound-based interaction to testing the difficulty of our game in its later form, I enjoyed the process of reflecting and receiving feedback on a variety of aspects of our game.
In the beginning of the project, when we were still very unsure of where the concept was heading, it was exciting just to think about all the possibilities. Trying out the experience of blind navigation through sound stimuli was highly inspiring, and it was augmented by our benchmarking exploration of other existing sound-based games. When we were self-testing, it was interesting to see how my own expectations were either confirmed or denied by the experience of actually trying it out myself. It is one thing to come up with an idea for a mechanic that sounds cool, but knowing if it will actually work and be cool in reality is a whole different thing. Self-testing during the concept development phase is extremely important, and although I think we spent a little too long lingering on this phase and not leaving enough time for better implementation, I'm glad we had the chance to explore what we really wanted to do with this game. It would have been worse if we had committed to a concept and mechanics that we didn't really like and got stuck with it for the rest of the project.
Playtesting on others was also a highly informative learning experience. The most difficult part for me in playtesting (and with user testing in interaction design in general) is leaving the tester alone to explore the prototype, to not interrupt and help them too much. When we were playtesting our mid-fi prototype this was particularly important. We wanted to see if our game "made sense" as it was, but I felt like I had to explain certain aspects of the game anyway. But because I kept myself from explaining to the tester what the game was about and how to play it, we got more meaningful feedback as we watched the testers figure it out on their own. Certain aspects that were unclear became obvious, and we could then move on in development to improve the game experience.
I think the most beneficial part of this course has been the in depth iterative design process with the strong emphasis on testing and reflection. This was a good opportunity to hone my user testing techniques and learn why and how it is important. Although I don't see myself going on to design games (but perhaps play some more games than I used to), I did get a lot out of the process of designing a game from start to finish.
Although I have never been a big fan of The Sims myself, it has always seemed to me like an interesting game, and I've never had trouble seeing why people find it so addictive. The player becomes a sort of god, controlling every aspect of their sims' lives, making them suffer or making them happy and successful. I'm also fascinated by the way cheats are so explicitly incorporated into the game. I found a few posts from my classmates that took up cheating in The Sims and thought it would be fun to give my own two cents on the matter, even though I have limited experience playing the game.
My first thought when we discussed cheating in general is that it really isn't possible to cheat in the normal sense at a one-player game. The Sims is a perfect example. By entering cheat codes to attain endless money or instantly enhance other aspects of the game, you are only skipping over all the strategy and content of the actual game. The essence of the game changes - instead of working patiently to increase the success of your sim, you can perhaps focus more time on spending a bunch of money and seeing how badly you can mess things up for your sims. It is still a game, just that the rules have been bended drastically to alter the core gameplay. And since it is only one person playing the game by themselves, it doesn't ruin anything for anyone else.
Emilie argues differently: "We discussed in class about if it really is cheating when you play against yourself and with no actual finish line? It is debatable but I will say that the answer to that question is yes. Even if you don’t really have an opponent or a goal, it is still cheating because when you cheat you kind of destroy the purpose of the game when you can make anything happen."
From my impression, the main point in The Sims is that the player has full power over their sims. Removing the time variable to attain money might change the dynamics of patiently following your sim around for hours on end, but it doesn't "destroy the purpose of the game", unless being superfluously patient is the point of the game. The only times I've played Sims or Sim City I've used cheats to quickly create a more interesting game and then see how creatively I can destroy the sims' lives or ruin the city. Does that make me a cheater? I think it just means I want to play the game differently, and The Sims is designed in a way to be open for that.
Nellie points out a different perspective on The Sims: "The goal of the game is up to the individual and it doesn’t have a clear ending which can be both good and bad. On the bad side the player may be unsatisfied if it’s just an endless path of creating new families and completing every career choice. But on the good side the game doesn’t feel rushed and stressful like other games were you are supposed to gather points or race against the clock in some way. While playing I felt like this was good because I didn’t feel much pressure to be skilled to be able to enjoy the game fully."
For many people The Sims is fun because it is a game that takes a lot of time, that it can relieve stress and become some sort of pass-time that is ultimately satisfying. Nellie describes The Sims as a game you don't really have to be skilled at to play, that it is enough to put in time and effort into it and the game will offer rewards. I still don't think that it makes my style of playing The Sims "cheating". I would say that we are essentially playing two different games when Nellie plays The Sim's the correct way and I play with the "cheat and destroy" tactic.
I don't play games very often, but after hearing about Monument Valley I thought I that it might be up my alley. It was a pleasure to play, a game that with tantalizing sounds, visual effects, and simple mechanics creates a sublime experience. Each level contained a variety of special moments that were in their own way beautiful and amazing.
Monument Valley - "an illusory adventure of impossible architecture and forgiveness" - is a fairly easy puzzle game that doesn't take very long to complete. However, I don't think I was alone in getting absorbed in the gorgeous levels. The key mechanic entails rotating the levels in order to fit pathways together for the main character to access and press buttons that open up the next part of the level. This rotating mechanic is accompanied by musical audio feedback that feels like turning the crank on a music box.
The levels are often designed in an impossible way reminiscent of works by Escher. The player has to forget normal physics and accept certain optical illusions as real in order to complete the level. I wouldn't describe this game as flashy; it is juicy in a subdued, more subtle way. The process of solving each puzzle is more like a delightful meditation than a beat-the-clock challenge. I often found that I was taking more time on the puzzle than I actually needed just so I could appreciate the beautiful forms from different perspectives and play with the different sounds to be made.
The main character is a little princess in white with a pointy hat, while the "adversaries" - they mostly just get in the way, but can sometimes be used to help - are black crows that use basically the same forms except reversed. Each level uses balance, contrast, and interesting negative shapes to create an experience that doesn't get old and conveys a sense of graphical harmony. I don't think I ever felt lost in a level, as there were always clever visual cues indicating the next move.
The sequence of 10 levels also included short texts at the beginning of each level that hinted at some sort of narrative and background story, but I was too absorbed in playing the levels to really pay too much attention to how it unfolded. Who the little princess is and what she is doing didn't really matter to me; the sounds and the graphics were enough to motivate me through the game. Perhaps playing the game a second time will unveil even more beautiful moments to be enjoyed.
