MA Games design dev log

This log will focus on the new additions and changes made to the game in response to the playtest results from the last log. The newest build was then uploaded to my itch account for additional playtesting, the results of that playtest is gathered below.

Changes made

Please refer to the previous log (https://collaborative.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2021/03/26/critical-play-project-pt-6-voice-over-final-level-and-playtesting/) for the list of issues found.

1. There was some player confusion on how to progress and what to do for puzzles. To address this, an objective in yellow text is placed at the top right when a player is given a puzzle to solve.
2. There also some voice-over lines that indicate if a player is attempting the wrong solution.

3. Objects also change colour if the mouse is over that object.

Unfortunately this change was not correctly implemented during the playtest. Players did not see the mouse over effects. David stated: “I still think you need mouse over indications, when the mouse goes onto a interactive object something should change, either the pointer or the object.”

In response to this comment, I believe the cursor should change instead. There are two reasons for this, one being the fact that the draggable objects change colour for a different mechanic (this being when the objects are dropped into the correct place, they turn yellow). If the object changes colour again then that may add more confusion, the player would have to find out what the different colours mean. The second reason is that in the later puzzles, a reticule is used that changes when over an interactable object. Then it follows that the cursor should also change in a similar manner to the reticule, this approach would keep the mouse over mechanic consistent.

4. Transitions were implemented for the markers.

5. The tap for the third puzzle now has attached a water tank model and repositioned, this was done because the original tap was a single handle and was floating off the side. Playtesters were confused what it did and did not know they were supposed to click on it, adding a detailed model should help the player understand what it does and it’s importance.

6. Colliders have been refined for the markers and content boxes.

7. The quit button loads a scene where the player is back in the room of the finalisaiton phase.

8. In order to make it more clear that the draggable objects are over their correct places, the objects change colour too.

Playtesting changes

The playtest was conducted again, in different ways. One of these methods that the game was shared online via itch.io as per usual and playtested by coursemates and lecturers.

Shiqian Z. offered improvements, most of which concernd the feedback or lack thereof for interactable objects. Shiqian’s 1 and 3 comments show a want for more interactive elements in the first phase. As of right now the player can only click on the door and the game promptly quits the game. Instead a less drastic effect could be implemented. These comments highlight the fact that the player has nothing to do during this phase. The 2nd comment reflects on the timing of the dialogue and allowing the player a space to make the decision if they wish to stay around or leave the game.

As stated before the mouse over will be readjusted to show what is interactable. Both Zhu and David are still experiencing issues with interactable objects, it seems the collision boxes for the objects are still off. Both the WebGL and Windows executable versions were tested and there seems to be inconsistencies with the collider boxes.

As such there must be an issue when building in different platforms. I may even consider choosing to build a windows version exclusively and ignore a WebGL build. I should also consider what else is being affected by being built for WebGL.

Fresh playtest

Another playtest had been arranged with Alex Browne and Jack Dean who had not played the game before. These people are not part of the course and have not been told anything about the game. They played the game just as the above playtesters via itch.io.

Below are gathered their comments.

The first playtester stated: “The camera angle felt hard to control at times, but could be my mouse or my lappy. Felt too fast at times. Like, when you have to turn the tap on felt like everytime i moved my mouse over the tap it would move sharply.“

Another issue with sensitivity, in this case the playtester commented on if it was their set-up at fault. This is unlikely as there have been other playtesters that have stated the speed of the mouse movement is too high. To combat this, there could be a settings menu to change the sensitivity of the mouse. If this were to be implemented then a start screen would need to be implemented too.

The second playtester said: “I really like it! It’s very funny and your voice acting is really good! I really like the switch to 3D and the little objectives to complete. I do slightly feel like the stacking boxes is a touch too difficult and a little glitchy. Same with the tap I took me a while to get it to work. The mouse sensitivity for when you’re POV is a touch too much but besides that it’s fantastic! I especially like the voice testing and your Patrick Warburton impression!“

Again there is difficulty with the mouse senstivity. This playtester also highlighted issues with the stacking and turning on the tap. This was the WebGL build so there may be issues with the collider again.

Changes to implement

• Resolve the mouse sensitivity issue.
• Resolve inconsistent colliders for the 3D sections, this being the tap and the boxes.
• Implement interactive elements in the first phase.

In conclusion

The new changes were successful and resolved those issues found before, there are still some issues left like the mouse sensitivity. The next step would be to address these issues found.

This week the voice-over, worldbuilding and the final level were implemented, as well as adding other touches like post-processing and new materials for objects. These were then playtested.

Voice-over narration

Some dialogue had been written earlier in development before case studying voice narration in other games. I knew what direction the voice-over narration would take, that being the narrator asks the player to help them build the game. There are two aims the voice-over must achieve, it must instruct the player on what to do during each puzzle and it must also reinforce the theme of the game to immerse the player. This was then re-written after the case study, adjusting language and content of the dialogue.

The current implementation of the voice over is linear and play in sequence depending on what level the player is on. The voice-over reacts to the player successes as feedback. There is room for responding to when the player does something wrong too. Like reprimanding the player for placing the boxes wrong. The narration is also accompanied by subtitles, this was in part to maintain clarity and highlight what the player needs to do for that level.

Worldbuilding

The world of this game consists of a virtual space and a computer. The first half places a computer monitor in the player’s view, note the use of smudges and the moving television lines. The intention of these visual elements is that the player is aware they are physically outside the game. So that it’s clear the player is pulled into the virtual space later on.

At the third phase, the player can move the camera and is given a reticule to interact with objects.

The final phase takes place in the narrator’s apartment, filled with paper notes showing development notes as well as different attempts to the narrator’s voice. There the player can also playtest the game on the computer.

Playtesting

Playtests were conducted and the following issues and statements were received:

Player confusion:

• It is not clear what the player can interact with.
• Player is not sure when the mouse is able to pick up objects.
• Player is not sure when they are incorrect in solving a puzzle.
• Player expressed confusion on what to do for puzzles, requested a reminder.
• Player commented on wanting clear objectives to remind the player what to do.

Voice-over/Sound:

• Sound effects could be added to the first levels where the monitor is visible.
• Playtester commented on implementing responsive dialogue that makes comments on player actions i.e throwing content boxes off the screen.
• Playtester expressed joy with the voice-over but still wanted more permanent information.

Gameplay/Quality of life:

• Transitions are found to be quick between sets in the first puzzle.
• Issues with collision detection with the box stacking puzzle result in inconsistent successes.
• The mouse cursor disappears in some levels.
• Tap for the third puzzle is not clear what it does or that the player must interacy with it.
• Camera movement is too sensitive.
• Quit button should in the playtest game should exit the player out of the playtest game but not the whole game.
• The wiggling in the first puzzle does not help make it clear when that object is over the correct spot.
• Playtester expressed frustration with the dragging objects wiggle.

These results consisted of two observed playtests and other comments made by testers who were not observed. All of these playtesters had tested the mechanics test from the last playtest found here: https://collaborative.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2021/03/05/critical-play-project-pt-3-first-prototype-and-playtest/

As such I believe the next playtest should involve playtesters who have not tested the game before. This is to get fresh perspectives and to avoid comparisons made to earlier versions of the game.

Solutions for playtest issues

Addresing player confusion may require re-writing or adding dialogue, this is specifically concerning the clarity in what the player must do for each puzzle. These solutions would suffice:

• Use voice-over dialogue to remind the player what to do at regular intervals.
• Use voice-over dialogue to notify the player their puzzle solution isn’t working.
• Place permanent text on-screen, stating what the player must do.

Changes for voice-over could address other issues like the above. There doesn’t seem to be any issue with the dialogue other than making it clear what the player needs to do during puzzles. The main change that could be made is implementing voice-over that responds to player actions.

Gameplay changes:

• Implement a transition for the first puzzle that is gradual, either a wipe-away effect or a fade away.
• Collision detection for boxes need to be reworked, change the bounciness and collision behaviour.
• Create a set of pipes that infer visual link between the pouring mechanism in the third puzzle.
• Rework the camera movement to be confined to a certain angle and reduce sensitivity.
• Reticle change when over objects that are interactable.
• Change the object wiggle possibly to a colour change.

The next stage is to implement these changes and possibly improve the visual elements of the game, this could be adding textures to certain objects or more visual effects for feedback.

There are still some things to research and look into. A natural extension of the world-building research is a look into 3D level design, this is particularly related to the final level of the game.

3D level design in meta games

The next step is to develop the final phase which is a fully explorable 3D level in first person view. Before attempting this I will look at other games that use 3D levels.

The Stanley Parable by Davey Wreden and William Pugh-The majority of the game is located inside an office space filled with cubicles, doors and offices. Mostly liminal spaces are prevalent. There are also spaces like boss’s office, Stanley’s apartment and the mind control facility. The unique areas seem to represent the disobedience of the player, should they wish to disobey the narrator then they progress towards the unique areas. The main type of choice the player can take are routes, usually two different routes at any one time. The office space is maze-like and indistinguishable from other parts of the office. There are also some spatial traps, doors that lead to nowhere and hallways that loop around in one direction. Colours are used to indicate progression, yellow is used for the “The Stanley Parable Adventure Line”, there are buttons that are coloured too.

Pony Island by Daniel Mullins Games

The majority of the game takes place inside a computer screen where the Pony Island game is shown. The player controls a person who is playing the Pony Island game via a computer.

Shown above is the player character’s hand. Around the screen is the physical border of the computer that the player character is interacting with. Pony Island’s use of space is sparse but it constantly reminds the player that their player character is interacting with a game. This use of space is a reminder that the player is trapped.

There is a cut-scene which gas knocks out the player and briefly the player’s location is shown. Not much is seen but there is a room filled with arcade machines. Again this shows that the player is trapped and that the player is experiencing the game through the player character’s view.

There is also the space of the computer operating system. That being where the game is played. It contains other versions of the Pony Island game as well as system folders and files.

The Beginner’s Guide by Everything Unlimited Ltd.

Similar to The Stanley Parable, the player navigates a series of short games. Each level varies in space, particularly the size. Some games stick to traditional game spaces, linear corridors, houses and paths. While others are stranger, large abstract spaces and smaller dark spaces. These spaces motivate the narrator to explain what their interpretation of the games are. Meaning is not given but inspired by the spaces. These spaces are largely linear, the player will progress forward until the next game is loaded. The narrator also skips some sections of some games, explaining that the level would take too long to progress. The narrator is intertwined with the spaces.

Every level also makes it explicit that it is a video game level, that being there is no attempt to simulate real spaces. But it is apparent there is a limit to the space, there are areas that lead no where.

In conclusion

In all of these games, space is used as a narrative device. In The Beginner’s guide, space is used to inform the narrator to express their own views on the meaning of a game within The Beginner’s Guide. Where as The Stanley Parable asks the player to make choices with it’s space thereby progressing the narrative. Pony Island keeps the player aware that they are controlling a character who is trapped and forced to play a game. These spaces are bizarre to a certain degree but are also recognizable. They are uncanny spaces that use conventions that games are familiar with, mazes and corridors. I believe this is done to make it familiar and ground the player at first. Then the absurd spaces are introduced to the player, as there is a progression in the narrative that is reflected in the spaces.

What can be applied

Because the game will transition from a 2D perspective to a fully 3D space. A need for a space to be made is only needed for the last phase. Not only do I wish the player to understand the game design process but also my own experience of designing this game. Then the final phase will be a replication of my space, the space I have been making the game in. This space should also be filled with notes on this game’s design, even this log could be included. During the other phases there are moments where the player’s perspective changes, again this is another chance to build a different space. These could show the different assets or workings of the unity editor.

Pre-visuals for 3D world

Ideas to use a door to transition between spaces. A computer monitor similar to Pony Island will be used, the reason for this is that I want the player to feel like they’re being pulled into the game itself.

Finalisation phase exit will transition to a end game screen.

Initial implementation

The 3D environment has been implemented with basic models. There is still more to implement but for now the main focus would be to intergrate this with the rest of the phases.

This week I am looking at researching on extending the world in the game and how to implement voice narration. Also I will be reviewing bugs and issues found from playtesting.

Adressing issues

A playtest had identified some issues with the game.

1. Use contextual clues thorughout to aid players in solving the puzzles.
2. Resolve the blue plane/screen appearance.
3. Replicate white screen bug in Refinement phase.
4. Adjust visual aspects of Research phase making it less straining for the eyes.
5. Confine the stacking boxes to one spot for a better transition to the next scene.
6. Begin implementing the finalisation phase.

In response some solutions were implemented for most of the issues above.

1. This may be resolved by implementing environmental objects. As such this may come under building an environment for the rest of the game and should come later.
2. A different material and texture has been placed to imitate smudges on a computer screen as well as moving television lines to emphasise the presence of the screen.
3. This could not be replicated but will still be monitored in the future. I also identify this as a low priority issue.
4. With the material and television lines implemented in 2, the visual intensity of some objects has been lessend, playtesting would help show if this was enough. Some objects colours were also changed to muted colours.
5. A marker is placed in the middle to identify where the player needs to build that tower of boxes. The game does not advance until a tower is built in that spot.
6. The final phase requires a large amount of 3D model work in Blender which I am experienced in. However I wish to perform a case study to best approach this part of the game design process.

Reflecting on current build

Right now the game has taken a different approach, before the game charges the player with fixing the game. However, the game mechanics and structure encourage the player to be a part of the creative process and to make the game. This is expressed through those different puzzles throughout. There is still room for the meta-element. As well as building a 3D environment for the player to explore in (Finalisation phase).

Approaches for indexical story telling and world-building

I will be looking at different approaches to world-building and how world-building is used to tell a story.

Building a living world from Ancient Ruins: Assassin’s Creed Odyssey

Source: [https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1025769/Building-a-Living-World-from]

Defining vision-Here is a conference talk given by Benjamin Hall and Thierry Dansereau. The talk is broken down into seperate parts, one of which is “Vision”. This is seems to be their initial approach. They gather references from films and games that heavily feature ancient greece, as well as paintings that depict that era. They had also conducted reasearch as well as consulting with Stephanie-Anne Rauta, greek historian. This is followed by identifying what they DO NOT want first, then place an emphasis on what they want for their world.

Phases-After doing research they begin to build. Phase one was the above. This involved informing their different departments on the research, those departments would then discuss their ideas and begin to create paper maps. Phase two involved looking at the terrain of the map. Phase three was grey-boxing, creating the buildings required and other assets. Phase four is where the art design and level design begins. Filling the world with interactable content and ensuring they are visually consistent.

Worldbuilding Out of Bounds by Jess Haskins

Source: [https://jess-haskins.medium.com/worldbuilding-out-of-bounds-49701c1b3b54]

In this article, Jess Haskins places emphasis on worldbuilding and how best to represent diversity. It begins by stating that the games are political and carry messages. “You’re making a political statement every time you tell a story or create a fictional world with implicit rules about how you think things work.” The statement of my game is that the creative process and making games is difficult and I try to communicate that to the player. However, I have not considered how this could affect other people. The message has not yet been implemented, once it has I should focus on feedback on this front. “research it as if you literally did not know the first thing about it.”

The main focus of this article is that of the representing diverse characters in works of fiction. My main issue is that there are only two characters present in my game. The narrator and the player. The narrator is some form of myself, but the player can only be their self in the game, I cannot entirely influence or control that. As such the way the narrator talks to the player must be considered, the previous build had voice lines that chastise the player for “breaking” the game. I don’t believe this approach would help convey my message. This coincides with my earlier decision to change the game, that being the game now lets the player help build the “game” instead of being responsible for it and trying to fix something. This I believe is a friendlier approach when involving the player in the narrative.

Worldbuilding approach and decisions

It’s clear that both place emphasis on research on whatever world/character they are trying to include, my game world is quite small and only focuses on the player and the narrator. The player gets pulled into the virtual world of the narrator’s space where the game is housed. As such it is a virtual space, so what the player should see is a representation of what that world would look like. Because of this I believe it does not need to be representative of anything particularly life-like or accurate to an exisitng aesthetic. As such I could base it off on works of fiction that try to capture virtual worlds. Below I have listed some sources of inspiration.

Hackers (1995)-Depicts a virtual world in cyberspace filled with large structures that house pieces of code. This attempts to capture complex data traffic in computers.

Cyberpunk 2077-The cyberspace is represented as a large collection of number matrices tiled together to suggest structures and spaces. Streams of light also outline many spaces and shapes.

The above sources would help develop the aesthetics of the game. As of right now there won’t be much of a priority for this. From these sources there seems to be a need to depict data or information moving or being stored. These can be used as indices to describe code for the game that the player and narrator are working towards.

Voice narration approach

Part of the world is the voice over narrator. The narrator also directly involves the player, the narrator will also be the main method of giving instructions to the player. The role of the narrator is responsible for a lot of the game. Below I have conducted some research on games that feature the use of a voice over narrator. I am specifically looking at how these narrators are used to inform the player of what to do and how they communicate a meta-narrative.

Dr. Langeskov, The Tiger, and The Terribly Cursed Emerald: A Whirlwind Heist by Crows Crows Crows-The narration here is used to direct the player between different tasks to accomplish.

All the while hinting towards a game that the player never gets to play, but enlists the player to help them maintain and progress the game with studio-like contraptions and tools. The narration also helps reinforce the concept of the game being a stage production that’s barely holding on, the narrator expresses some comedic distress. There are also multiple objects in game like resignation letters and signs that inform you about the narrator and the game world. Again it heavily reinforces the slip-shod environemnt of the studio that the player is navigating through.

The Stanley Parable by Davey Wreden and William Pugh-The narrator, describes who the player character is and offers context to the player’s initial situation. As the player progresses the narrator continually describes the player actions. Then there are suggested choices the player should take, more in the form of direct instruction. The player may follow the narrator’s instructions or they may disobey. Upon disobeying, the narrator chastises the player and begins to rectify the game. The narrator adopts a less passive role in the game and actively changes the player’s environment and choices. The narrator expresses emotional distress then confusion and ultimately anger should the player continue disobeying. As this continues, the player is forced to choose whether to engage with the game or try to disrupt the story. As they keep going against the story, the narrative shifts to focusing on the narrator and player’s struggle for agency in the game.

There is no Game by Draw Me A Pixel-The narrator directly addresses the player. The narrator constantly tries to persuade the player that there is no game and begins to frame the narrative, introducing their self as a program who is talking to the player for the developer. The narrator does not entirely instruct the player, but takes a reactionary role. It seems that the more a player interacts with the game the more the narrator reacts, goading them on in a sense. Even if the dialogue seems to suggest doing the opposite. Again the narrator is omnipotent in the game and controls game elements, like spawning in a different title after the player destroys it. There also elements that change the narrator, a mute button is available to mute the narrator.

In conclusion

In all three games the narrator adresses the player directly, then immediately introduces the story of the game and provides context for the player. Narration always has an influence in player choices, this is achieved by either telling the player what to do, provide contextual clues or telling the player to NOT do something. Another similarity is that the narrator personifies the game itself and controls the game, they can affect the mechanics and introduce objects or load levels. A relationship is developed, this may be antagonistic or cooperative depending on the narrative and context.

For the project

The narrator will cooperate with the player, at first it will be understood that the game is not finished, so the narrator asks the player to help them complete the game. That will be the story for the game. The narrator will also give instruction to the player to follow, all the while alluding to the difficulties in getting the player through the game.

First prototype

Last week I had proposed the following objectives:

1. Replace the “Broken unity loader” aesthetic. The aesthetic just needs to be a mock aesthetic, this will be replaced in the future once I do research into other game loading screens.
2. Implement the drag and drop mechanic for the different elements within the game screen for the research phase.
3. Develop the stackable content shape phase. These objects need to stack on top and instantiate themselves.
4. Implement the refinement phase, where the stack is droppable into the loading bar object.

These were accomplished and then tested. Playable here: https://deadfish1225.itch.io/critplay-mechanics-test

Replacing the aesthetic-The aesthetic overall was simple enough to replace as it only existed in the first scene. Then I had chosen simple colours and shapes for the objects in the game. These all act as placeholders for the time, in the future if there is time, they would be changed.

Research phase-Drag and drop mechanic was implemented well enough.

The objects that are picked up shake when hovering over their correct places. The shadows also help the player predict where they fall.

The drag and droppable objects, during the next phases are used as evidence of the players involvement and their own impression on the game space.

Development phase-Here the various coloured boxes represent different content types. The boxes, once clicked move only at a certain depth. The trigger for the next scene is that there should be a cube in contact with the upper blue plane for some time. It won’t be tricked as it also requires the user to let go of that cube.

As of right now, there is no feedback if the user gets it right. There needs to be a smooth transition from Development to Refinement. Similar to the first transition.

Refinement phase-There is currently no challenge for this phase, instead the player just needs to open the switch until all the cubes fill the bar up to the top and they succeed.

This does not feel engaging as the player only needs to click a trigger and wait for some time until it fills up.

Playtesting

The current focus is to solidify the first three phases as the last one will have the least amount of interaction. The current prototype has been shared with my classmates. Some have commented as shown below. This was shared with the link above.

Unclear goals

Zhu had stated that he was stuck on the first level.

Here the issue is most likely both the fact that I have only given the mechanics and puzzles to test as well as not giving enough information in the game to solve the puzzle. Without the context and narration it seems Zhu was not sure what was needed to progress. This may be solved by implementing Voice Over narration, as well as providing contextual, visual clues.

Required stack indicator(blue plane) is unclear

Arthur found that the blue plane was hard to discern from the background.

Arthur was not able to see the above plane. I believe the issue could be solved fairly easily by changing the alpha value of the material for that plane. However, that blue plane was meant to represent the physical screen. The transition between Research and Development was meant to imply that the player is being pulled into the game. As such a gritty texture could be implemented onto that plane ot further imply the existence of a computer screen.

In Pony Island the player can see scratches and smudges on their monitor that shows the Pony Island game being played.

White screen

Zhu also stated that there was an issue that a white screen appears during a transition between the Development and Refinement phase. I had not seen this issue but I will try to replicate it in game.

In person playtest

Another playtest was conducted with a person I am living with, they were not told anything about the game other than that they only need to use the mouse and click to interact with the game. The following notes were gathered.

Research phase

The main issue here was that the shadows were too harsh on the eyes, playtester suggested removing it. In fact the playtester commented on it on two occasions. Along with the shaking the effect was worse. It seems that the light and shadows were too strong and caused too much strain on the eyes.

I plan to resolve this by using soft shadows, currently it is set to hard. Also the pure white of the objects may be too intense for players as well. Just setting it to a slightly darker colour could help with readability.

Development phase

Again the player was confused on what to do. They thought that their goal was to arrange the boxes into piles associated via colour. Only then did they accidentally solve it by stacking the boxes high enough. This reinforces on what had happened with Zhu and Arthur. I still believe it can be resolved with Voice over and contextual clues.

There was also an issue where the player did not stack the boxes in the correct position. During transition, the tower would be placed in the wrong area and would not be dropped into the loading bar. Again this could be solved by highlighting an area where the box can be stacked.

Refinement phase

Beacause the last puzzle was not solved correctly the player experienced additional confusion on the next level. This highlighted the fact that all parts of the game must be completed without issue, otherwise one problem will lead on to another. Take the loading bar for instance, the player must place the bar in the correct place otherwise it may appear somewhere unexpected and could mess up any of the transitions.

Next steps

Taking in the feedback I will focus on resolving them and then moving forward on the Voice over narration. Which I feel will require a case study into other games and how they implement voice over narration. Specifically on games that have a meta-narrative focus.

What needs to be fixed for the game is:

1. Use contextual clues thorughout to aid players in solving the puzzles.
2. Resolve the blue plane/screen appearance.
3. Replicate white screen bug in Refinement phase.
4. Adjust visual aspects of Research phase making it less straining for the eyes.
5. Confine the stacking boxes to one spot for a better transition to the next scene.
6. Begin implementing the finalisation phase.

My current approach seems to be producing good results and am on track, once these changes have been made then they will be playtested once again.

Reworking ideas

After reviewing the ideas, some approaches to the phases have been changed as well as overall elements. This is including abandoning the broken Unity aesthetic. I had realised that rather than the game being broken in the initial unity loading section, it would be better if the player had to deal with an in game loading screen instead.

Research phase

Another change is adding a timer that keeps counting down through the whole game, this was meant to replicate the pressures of a deadline.

I also considered what the V.O would be saying through each phase, I also want to impart a sense of doubt and second-guessing at every point.

Development phase

Here the camera transitions to a different angle. Instead of stacking content inside the bar, the player can freely stack in without a container.

Refinement phase

The stack of content shapes is then taken and dropped into the loading bar, it will either not fit or fill the loading bar. As such the player must reshape the stack or fill the loading bar with ‘fluff’, this will be represented as liquid from a tap.

Finalising phase

The finalising phase will still be the same, I do feel that it is not entirely neccessary for the game. I would focus on working on the first three phases until I feel there is enough time to add the finalising phase. In fact I would deem this as a high-risk feature to implement as I have the least amount of experience with 3D game design, this can be resolved should I commit time to learn and implement skills for 3D design in the future. I do believe the main three must be implemented first in some manner.

Approach to development

During the writing of this log I had already looked at different Software Development Lifecycles to adopt for the Collaborartive project as found here: [https://collaborative.myblog.arts.ac.uk/2021/02/14/project-epsilon-dev-log-pt-3/]. In that log I had concluded that the AGILE model was the most suitable for that project, as such I will adopt the same model for this project too as these projects both make use of Unity and would result in a playable game at the end of the project. I will consider each of those models for this project too however:

1. Waterfall– This model requires communication with a client and is not so flexible. This model also focuses on using a set of requirements that this project does not have.
2. Iterative-Again this relies on a set of requirements, with this model the game can be incrementally built upon. However this project has some high-risk features, specifically the 3D elements of the game. The iterative model can only allow this if the requirements are clearly defined/known.
3. AGILE-This model seems to be more useful as it is adaptive, it does not rely on a requirements analysis to inform the design. This allows me to respond to major project changes, if there is any part that may not work I could adapt quickly. For this project I imagine every cycle would start with some planning, development, testing then refinement (similar to the process I have found in my previous case study).

Initial plan

With my structure planned and my approach chosen, I believe I am in a good place to move forward with the project. My first plan is to adapt my current build of the game towards the ideas I had formed as shown above.

1. Replace the “Broken unity loader” aesthetic. The aesthetic just needs to be a mock aesthetic, this will be replaced in the future once I do research into other game loading screens.
2. Implement the drag and drop mechanic for the different elements within the game screen for the research phase.
3. Develop the stackable content shape phase. These objects need to stack on top and instantiate themselves.
4. Implement the refinement phase, where the stack is droppable into the loading bar object.

After next week these changes would be reviewed, if these have not been completed then changes to the plan would be made.

An autobiographical/meta project

For this project I will be further developing on my submission for the meta game brief which I decided to call Gameplay game.

[https://deadfish1225.itch.io/gameplay-game]

After typing this I realize that the title is quite misleading. Because the game does not focus on gameplay, instead it focuses on the player fixing the game. Locating the start button and placing the loading bar, after that the player is awarded by giving them a simple flower collecting game. I felt that this could instead be used to explore the difficulties of making a game. Show that the game needs the player’s help to put it back together and this message could be communicated with puzzles to solve.

Aims for the project

1. To explore methods in world-building and indexical-storytelling in terms of 3D game design. -This is here because I plan to expand the game into 3D environments that allow the player to further understand difficulties of creating a game.
2. Develop my meta-narrative skills with a focus on voice narration . – Due to the message of the game, this may be the only way to communicate the message. That is by breaking the fourth wall and talking to the player directly in some instance.
3. To create a game that communicates the difficulties of the design process.-This is my chosen message to show through the game. It will be my aim to satisfy this with the chosen genre and elements I have shown above.

How the game will be expanded

The Gameplay game had two different levels/aesthetics attached, one was the broken unity loading screen and the other was a mock desktop that showed a window with a game in it.

Then the objective of the game will be the same, that is the player is tasked to start the game. They would progress towards this goal by solving puzzles that are related to loading a game, which may include manipulating a loading bar, placing letters of a title card and so on. Each puzzle will slowly transition from a 2D space into a 3D space. All the while the player will be accompanied by a voice-over narration that hints to solutions and will impart my message.

Monday’s pitch and feedback

After pitching my idea to the group I had received some feedback from David K. and Madelena G.

• I could look into different approaches to the creative process, this may not be confined within games design but in other creative fields too. Writers, graphical designers, architects, any creative discipline that entails a staged creative process could be used as a basis for a structure for the game.
• One personal aim is to explore 3D space, David K. had commented on how the loading screen is presented in a 2D form, this could be interpreted in 3D space, certainly a transition between the two could be captured within the game.
• Maddy referenced There Is No Game, this game turns the loading bar into an interactable element. The idea of trying to start the game being the main stage for gameplay is also prevalent as such it is worth looking into.
• Also Maddy referred to Davey Wreden’s blog [http://web.archive.org/web/20170603112100/http://www.galactic-cafe.com/] which was written after the release of The Stanley Parable.

Moving forward

In response I will begin with reassessing my pitch.

• The player will be shown a barely finished game, that has bugs and loads incorrectly and shows error messages. The V.O (Voice Over/Designer) will come in and begin berating the player for starting the game and chastising them for being here(in the play space.)
• The Designer will then relinquish and ask the player to help them finish the game. First to tackle the loading screen, then handle the title, then help the Designer decide on an aesthetic for the start screen. Eventually the player will be asked to come out of the game into the Designer’s space to help develop the game.
• Each puzzle/stage would mirror a step in the design process which I shall research into later!
• I will also commit to the “Broken Unity” aesthetic at least until there is the transition to the 3D space. At this point I imagine there will be a simple 3D space, a blocky space that features simple models of furniture and colours that represent my own workspace. Then that transition between 2D and 3D space should mirror the transition between the two aesthetics. These aesthetics would be informed by the case studies on particular games.

Game structure

The current structure of the game involves the player moving from one puzzle to another, but it must mirror steps in the creative process. As such I will look at various creative processes to base the structure of the game. This may also help inform my own process in this project too.

Creative Process case study

Below I will look at creative processes from different disciplines. I will pay attention to the structure of these processes and how they progress from one to another. What I hope to get out of this is a base to inform different levels for the game.

• 10 steps to Design a Tabletop Game by Jamey Stegmaier– In this video, Jamey explains the different steps he takes to create a tabletop game. There are ten steps that can be broken down to three parts. Firstly his process begins with Inspiration, Brainstorming and Market Research these steps involve forming the concept of an idea by looking at other media including games and works of fiction. Then follow this with listing themes or mechanics. Market research looks at the viability of the ideas that have been listed and tries to gauge whether those ideas would be engaging for the intended audience. Next part includes the First prototype, Consider Constraints, Internal playtesting and Local playtesting. To me this is the development cycle, a prototype is made and it is continually refined. The first prototype would prove the concept, then it would be assessed for monetary costs for things like materials. The game would then under go playtesting, finding issues and proposing solutions to these issues. Lastly he finalizes the process by Writing rules, Blind Playtesting and Deciding if it’s finished. This focuses on preparing the game for release, it considers the readiness of the game and how best to present the rules. There is a final playtest that involves playtesters outside of his immediate circle. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgEt7PysQgc]

• Resources for writers: The Writing Process by Comparative Media Studies M.I.T-This post details the writing process and breaks it down into four steps. First beginning with Prewriting, “It includes thinking, taking notes, talking to others, brainstorming, outlining, and gathering information.” This correlates with the previous source and focuses on gathering information and ideas which is then followed by Drafting. Comparing this to the above process this would be prototyping, it instructs the writer to begin writing on the ideas formed from Prewriting. Then followed by Revising which places emphasis on the reader’s experience, what may need defining on the reader’s part or what can be better organized. Lastly Editing begins, this involves checking for spelling, punctuation and grammar. [https://cmsw.mit.edu/writing-and-communication-center/resources/writers/writing-process/#:~:text=Writing%20is%20a%20process%20that,develop%20and%20expand%20your%20ideas.]
• An Architect’s Process by Karin Patriquin-This process is described as a collabortive effort, it is also targeted towards clients too but it does encapsulate their approach in design. Beginning with a Pre-design phase where the clients needs are discussed in detail, their team then consider the clients current situation. What is feasible under the budget and research the regulatory parameters. This is followed by Schematic design where the previous findings are put into models and plans that are shown to the client. Design development begins by refining the schematics with detailed drawings and documents that capture the major components. This is all packaged in Construction documents, where all the plans and drawings are prepared for a contractor to carry out the construction. [http://www.patriquinarchitects.com/an-architects-process/]

What I gather from the above is that the process usually has three or four phases beginning with an initial research phase. Taking in ideas from other sources and trying to form a solution or concept to develop upon. After that is the development phase, the concept is worked on until a prototype is made. Then refinement phase where the prototype is reviewed for weaknesses and areas of improvement. Finally the finalising phase where it is prepared for submission, details are refined and small mistakes are resolved.

The structure of my game

As shown above there are four distinct phases(Research, Development, Refinement and Finalising), my game should capture these four different phases in some way, either by voice over or in 3D space.

Four phases

1. Research-Here the game would first position the player with different loading screen formats expressed as different images. These would vary in the positioning of the loading bar/title, colour themes and choice font. The player would be able to cycle through them to appease the Designer for the what he perceives as the perfect look. This perfect look may be completely random and not have any basis.
2. Development-An emphasis on a building process, the player would be given a series of boxes, each box labeled different assets and these must be stacked in the correct order which the Designer will dictate and mislead.
3. Refinement-Forced to take what they have stacked and begin to reform it into a loading bar. At this point the player maybe in the 3D space. It is understood that steps 2 and 3 are iterative. There is possibility to make these two steps loop back over, so maybe the game backtracks or forces teh player to start at Development again.
4. Finalising-The player will then be transported into the Designer’s workspace and will play the game from their seat.

Initial ideas

With these phases I began to come up with ideas for these phases. I will still use the idea of playing with fixing a start screen as the main setting, that is the puzzles will act as metaphors for each different phase. This will be communicated through a mix of Voice Over narration and gameplay mechanic.

Research phase

Research phase focuses on dragging and dropping start screen items, the V.O comments on how the placement is not ideal and refers to research results (that the player never sees) and compares how different the player’s placement is.

Development phase

The player must now fill the loading bar with content represented as odd shapes that are labeled as generic content phrases like “Story” or “Gameplay”. The V.O will instruct the player in filling the loading bar with content tnhe Designer feels is necessary.

Refinement phase

Here the V.O chastises the player for the odd number of things being stacked into the loading bar, challenging the player to fix the content so it fits into the loading bar. The player can now also turn and look around their envrionment. It should now be clear that they are inside the game screen.

Finalising phase

The player now traverses out of the game screen into the V.O’s space. That room is surounded by notes as shown here. A door appears where the player can exit.

These ideas are a rough draft and will be refined soon.