Last week I opened a discussion on my effort to quantify game characteristics. I had in mind that I would explore this question on my own, somewhat in a vacuum, based on my own experience and opinions, as something of an exercise to see what defensible conclusions I might reach.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Gamers tend to characterize games in terms of luck vs. skill, replayability, lightness vs. depth, and so forth. These qualitative assessments help us to evaluate what we might like or dislike about a game before we've played it ourselves, or help to consider which games might be appropriate for a specific social, tournament, or convention setting. These characterizations also help in establishing design goals and parameters as well as assist publishers in determining which potential titles will fit within their product line.
Friday, April 11, 2014
I have finally started working in earnest on a co-op idea I've had percolating in my mind for the last few weeks. The theme is that the players are workers in a nuclear reactor plant whose maintenance has been neglected, until finally the bad day comes when everything seems to break at once. The goal is to get the plant into a "safe condition" without melting down a core or irradiating any of the workers.
I ran a couple of solo playtests. I won one and lost one, which made me think that I've got the initial balance at least coarsely in the right neighborhood. What surprised me was how quickly each game completed - roughly ten or fifteen minutes per game. I usually have the opposite problem with the games I design - play times that run way too long. Right now I've got a game that takes more time to explain than it does to play. So I want to figure out some way of extending the gameplay as well as the "story arc" so that I'm not just "making it longer" for the sake of making it last.
|First prototype of "Reactor Scram"|