Entry Bronze: Week 10

Reflection:

This week, we have been working on project 3. Part of which, we had to write a Bartle Type Analysis and a mini Game Design Document (GDD) for a preexisting game. I chose Splatoon 2 because I know this game like the back of my hand (if not better). Being that I'm a Splatoon (1) vet, I got the demo on the Switch, participated in the Splatfest World Premiere, and have/had my own competitive gaming team. I felt like choosing a game that I know so well could force me to truly focus on analyzing the game better rather than focusing on trying to figure out the game.

Though, truly I found writing both of these papers to be really resourceful. For one, I think it was really important to take a prexisting game and see which player types does it appeal to. Because, I think it might be more natural to see the types and try to figure out which players one would want to appeal to for their own games, without first figuring out what this looks like in other games. When I had to apply these different lenses to Splatoon 2, I was able to realize how much more they appealed or didn't appeal to certain aspects than I thought. How even things I had overlooked or hadn't really considered contributed to a bigger picture. But by looking at the player types I was able to figure out a little bit more about myself as a player; and, where my personal type conflicts with the game. For example, Splatoon 2 does in fact cater to the Achievers type; however, not as much as I, being one, would like. Because I felt there isn't enough to keep a player going once they have, say, reached the max level or made it to the top rank (X). I found myself, as a player trying to create more obstacles for myself by unnecesarily trying to perfect a bunch of gear. I also wound up creating a side account some time ago and trying from the ground up with weapons I wasn't usually good with; and, all just to keep some sort of challenege for myself being a pro player.

As for the GDD, I found this to be especially interesting. For one, I just didn't know this was something gaming companies did. On top of this, ironically, I had created something very similar for one of my own games. A while back, before I knew I wanted Game Design to be my major, I conceptualized a game. I started up a document and wrote down all the things in it I wanted, with the help of a friend; and, the more information we came up with the more sections we added. Console(s), controls, online multiplayer aspects, art style, genre, characters, fighting styles and classes, world environment, DLC concepts, we even tried to figure out a mathmatical system for the different classes and how their say, defense or health, would be in comparison to another class as well as how they would level up. We considered A LOT of aspects to say the least, and seperately on Pinterest I created a private board of art inspo for each important character (good and bad) as well as the game world concepts, not to mention my own art as a character designer. So, I was really fascinated to see that in my own way I had created an amateur mini GDD, although, the size of the document was starting to grow drastically over time. We would play and research other games to get a gist of the elements in my game that I wanted, to see how other games did this and if I wanted to incorporate them, alter them, or not. But now that I have a more legitimatized structure of what I should be considering and what needs to be conveyed over to a team, I want to revisit and apply this to my own game concepts.

Experience:

This week, I played Among Us on iOS with some friends, which is considered a social deduction game. Admittedly, this wasn't a game I was personally into however one of my friends wanted to try and I had never played it prior so we all downloaded it. As soon as you open the app, its pretty straightforward, so my friend hosted a private room where the three of us joined and chose our appearances. I choice light green and a little plant on my head, which I found to be a cute and nice little feature as it allows players to personalize their own characters. This definitely helps players to make a more personal connection with their character. We then opened the room and 7 others joined.

At first, it was a bit overwhelming trying to figure out what I needed to do and more importantly, how and where to do it. But as I noticed other people running around and the exclamation points on the map I started to catch on to where I needed to be and what was being asked of me. One of my friends was murdered by blue and so she told me. A player called for a meeting and we noticed that there was a chat function and even though my friend had died she was still able to communicate in the chat. At this point she said to me, "wait why would they have this when the players can just say who the imposter(s) is?" And I couldn't understand myself, my other friend replied, "yeah this is why I don't play this."

We did finish the match, and as we got the hang of it, it became more enjoyable. However, the overall consesus was that we didn't want to continue. I found it interesting though, because by adding the chat feature without in any way limiting what/which players can say, despite the voting system, it in a way breaks the main point of the game. Which, is to try and figure out who the killer is, but if a player that was killed can simply say who killed them, then doesn't this kill the dynamic of actually deducting? Adding a chat feature creates the dynamic of "deducting" who the Imposter is; however, if the victims can communicate afterwards, this takes away the point of deducting. While, not entirely detrimental to the gameplay, it did removed the emersion for all of us. So, I took this as a learning point for my own games. I need to make sure to look clearly at loopholes and what exactly the cause and effects are of what I put into my games; and, how it in turn alters the gameplay.