//--Reflective learning

As a major part of the task we were introduced to reflective learning systems- they are mainly used to expand potential of the knowledge that otherwise is forgotten because of its irrelevance to the task. Reflective learning best applies when developing an idea- as it can be seen a spiral system of decision making. Notably, theory is based on concrete experience rather than thought knowledge.  I have looked at David Kolb's and Roger Fry's learning cycle.

The model is based on 4 elements;

*concrete experience
*observation and experience
*forming abstract concepts
*testing in new situations

Although model has a consecutive order, it can begin at any point. Given theory can be seen as- performing an action, evaluating the outcome, expanding on the idea/ adding other concepts, solidifying the ideas into action.


Reference: Smith, M. K. (2001). 'David A. Kolb on experiential learning', the encyclopedia of informal education. Retrieved [13.03.2012] from http://www.infed.org/b-explrn.htm.

//-- Prototype Development

After playing game several times we came to a realization that game lacks replayablity- so we have decided to go into shops and look at existing boardgames - and how they deal with replaybility. The most common resolution is map expansion, which would make clumsier and we would have to adjust a gameplay for that- as currently it would not work out. We were tying to come up with a dynamic map- that will alter every time game is played yet - it should be inbuilt in the map- resolution was a spinning will in the middle of the map. now we had a new problem - it had to spin according to something - so we introduced 12-fold dice. 1 to 6 rotates the wheel to random angle and 7 to 12 would replace previous chance cards. Now that cards are gone - we have decided to create a list with corresponding numbers which will slide out of the board when played.


Also we had to improve rules, before it was possible to wait for a player to get to the needed castle with the flag, making it impossible to win. So we have added are around each point which can only be accessed by other players when player with a flah is there- making it fair for both sides.

We have created digital version of the map.

//--Prototype and Playtesting

Development of the prototype, the map (figure 4) can be played by 2-4 players. Number of steps is equally distributed - so that pathway is fair for each player (red - 9 steps; white - 7 steps).

Figure 4.

Initially the goal was to capture NPC, originally positioned in the center of map -point A(figure 5.), however the position would change if any player would step on exclamation mark(highlighted with orange), and pull a card that will determine NPC's new position (B, C , D or E). There were also other cards that would make a gameplay more interesting; +3 steps, skip a go, players standing on sand(yellow hexagon) skip a go, players standing on water (blue hexagon). 

After playing-testing it, we found out that although deeply interactive- as players have to evaluate each other positions. the game was too random- because NPC's new position was random as a result winning the game did not feel earned.

Figure 5.

We have reconstructed rules, now the game is based on capturing flag and getting to the opposite side of the map.

New rules: Flag would always remain in A point - unless captured by a player. Once player captures a flag she gets 3 step, which is just enough to get away from other players if they are in proximity.The player with a flag can get intercepted by other players, if that happens- player who captured flag will get extra 3 steps. Additionally we have added new cards according to new gameplay.

List of Cards:
*Player with a flag skips a go(new) - expands gameplay
*players standing on green-land skip a go(new) - equalizes green-land with other elements
*skip a go(x2)
*Extra 3 steps(x2)
*players standing on sand skip a go
*players standing on water skip a go

//-- Archetype Initiation

At this stage we have discussed possible types of boardgames that our team would like to make.

We have established a vague game design-the core idea was to make a casual game with some concepts of a hardcore game. According to the initial idea we have decided to restrict few components, such as: dice(inconsistency), cards(complexity), multiple game pieces(complexity). We have acknowledged that some popular videogames have alternative boardgames, such as Halo, Doom and Gears of War. With that in mind we have looked at considerably unique video game - Minecraft, and discussed if it can be recreated in the form of a boardgame. Then, we have came up with a simple concept- where players will take a place of enemies and go after the protagonist(non playable character). The game was a turn-based strategy, which would be played on a hexagon map- where players would start from opposite corners of the map and work their way towards the middle(where NPC is positioned). The map would have different terrains which would affect player's movement.

Consequently, we have a made a crude two-player archetype to test out the gameplay.
Initially position of the NPC would change after each player has made two steps- later we have agreed that counting players' moves was too tedious. So we have added few panels which(when stepped on) will affected NPC's position.

This is a photograph of the first gameplay(Figure2.).
We have set up basic rules: hexagons had different numbers(1-2) that would indicate players movement. Players had to start at the botton of the map and move towards the top-right hexagon with orange outline.
Also there was a platform(outlined with purple) which when activated would cause NPC to relocate.


The image(Figure 2.) demonstrates how both players where moving towards the top-right corner(original NPC's position), yet once player(2) activated the puple platform, NPC switched the position to the top-left(highlighted with red) making it more favourable for himself and less for the opponent.

This version of the game was extremely bias, yet it was possible to trace what desired gameplay would feel like.

Figure 2.

As a team we went with the idea becasue it was slightly contraversial,- since we were replicating existing game yet at the same time gameplay and rules were so different that it could easily have a different theme.

 We have looked at different existing games that are played on a hexagon-grid, one of them was Captha mouse[Figure 3.] where each platform has unevenly round shape, giving an effect of a less formal attitude. The visual tecnique could be applied to our final design.

Figure 3.

//--Given Task

Initially, we had a class focused to contemplate already accumulated knowledge about board games. During the session we have discussed the subject and acknowledged already existing board games, such as chess, monopoly,uno, solitaire and so forth. As a part of the lesson we have been put into groups to gather and expand common elements of board games. The photographic replica (Figure 1) demonstrates spider-diagram which represents group's brainstorming.

Figure 1
Conceivably, we have covered fundamentals of a typical board game. We have agreed that gameplay usually varies between luck and strategic thinking. The most board games are based on mental skills such as chess, checkers, scrabble etc. yet some may be based on physical skills for instance: operation or labyrinth. In most cases board games are made for two or more players nevertheless they can be aimed at one player only. Often board games simulate or even derive from activities that are based on a conflict, such as warfare(Dungeons and Dragons) or economic dominance(Monopoly). Any board game must possess a set of rules which consequently creates a challenge. Player/players must follow rules or else an activity will become meaningless or player/players will be accused of taking an advantage of the system(cheating).

Once we have certified significant aspects of a board game, we have been given a task to design a board game in our group (team of four).


The task assists in understanding autonomous computer games also known as god-games. According to Steven Poole(2004) the difference between a board game and a computer game is an amount of variables.-"what makes them[god-games] slightly different from what they would be otherwise- complex board games- is the modeling of dynamic processes."(Poole, 2004, p34)

Reference:

Poole S.(2004), Trigger Happy: Videogames and the Entertainment Revolution, New York: Arcade Publishing.