Saturday 28 December 2013

Notes on Game Development

While after week 7 presentation we were very satisfied with the reception of our team brand identity, week 8 meeting left us a bit disoriented about which of the three ideas for the game was the most apt to be developed. We came to the class confident about our proposals, but something during the presentation seemed to go wrong. In my opinion, in that occasion our main mistake was the lack of a part of the presentation specifically aimed to illustrate our approach to the theme of “world heritage”, which we had been assigned on week 7. While developing our game ideas, we had obviously confronted extensively with the many angles of the topic, however, in the context of the presentation, a introductory conceptualization of the theme would have probably allowed to illuminate better strengths and peculiarities of the single ideas. The conversation with Jo and Sara and the confrontation with other groups' proposals has nevertheless been extremely useful. In particular we realized the benefits of less complex game ideas when aiming to spread awareness about a particular issue.
There are obviously dangers when committing a moral theme to a simple game-design, the most important appeared to be didacticism. While a complex design allows to place instructive messages deeper in game dynamics, a simpler architecture has to rely on playability and capacity to generate fun in order to avoid to be perceived as preachy. In online conversations we subsequently decided to come to our following meeting both with re-elaborations of the first three proposals, as well as with some possible new ideas. During that week I focused mostly on modifying our third idea, a puzzle game focused on biodiversity, figuring out some graphical possibilities for the representation of ecosystems, an aspect that Sara pointed out as potentially problematic. In that process I ended up with shifting the whole game dynamic from “fix an ecosystem” to “build your own ecosystem”. In my opinion, that move allowed to overcome the problems of verisimilitude and scientific precision inherent to the graphical representation of an ecosystem. Therefore, rather than teaching about relations among specific life forms and natural elements, the game would have generically educated players about interdependence among biological forms and environments. During that same week I also worked on the fictional world of our second proposal, a fixed shooter game focused on the theme of cultural heritage, which seemed the best received during the presentation.
At the following meeting, Ruta came with a very nice and simple idea focused on cultural heritage and sustainable tourism, whose working title was “the owl prowl”. In her idea the main character was a owl, in Greek mythology the sacred bird of Athena, protectress of the arts. Referring to tourism flow to Machu Picchu, she gave us an example of possible game dynamics explaining that the owl might have been a defender of cultural sites from unsustainable tourism practices. During the meeting we realized the potentialities of this proposal, especially in the perspective of limiting the topic to a particular aspect, as suggested by Jo and Sara. At the same time emerged as relevant the risk of didacticism previously pointed out, and the importance assumed by an effective design of the different game levels. In that context, in order to increase humor, I proposed to abandon the mythological vibe of the original idea, and focus instead on a more controversial “flying hero” such as a pigeon, a common inhabitant of cultural monuments, ascribable of more “personal” and less didactic reasons to protect monuments. For the following group meeting I worked on this new storyline, and after debating with the group we presented this new idea to Sara and Jack on the 3 of December.

Pigeons notoriously populate monuments across Europe, being often perceived as a bother, a sanitary problem and a threat to architectural beauties. Our idea for the storyline is to re-imagine this unavoidable presence as an army of protectors of cultural sites, a special force disseminated worldwide. The fact that pigeons are also known for being travellers can constitute a narrative device to bring our protagonist/s in places where they are not expected to live. At the moment of writing, indeed, our idea is to dedicate each level to a different cultural site across the world, developing the game dynamics in the direction of a pigeon contrasting specific unsustainable tourism practices.
The ironical twist implicit in the conversion of pigeons to heroes, and propagators of awareness constitutes the aesthetic code we aim to give to the game, and it would be developed in various directions. Still we have to decide if constructing our game around a single heroic pigeon, a squad of few characterized heroes, or instead a wider team mostly characterized collectively. However, our intent is to sketch out our character/s as very proud, and completely engaged in a mission whose value is regularly misunderstood by those who should appreciate it most, i.e. humans. In the context of our game, focused on sustainable tourism, this theme of the misunderstood hero has obvious resonances in the fact that humans represent one main threat to cultural and natural heritage. This double relation between humans and heroic pigeons could be explicitly articulated in the game dynamics of some of the levels, where beside the activity of contrasting and preventing bad tourism practices, pigeons might have to face obstacles and direct threats brought by humans, e.g. traps and various devices to keep birds away from monuments. More in general, we are conceiving various disturbing factors to the pigeons' mission, apart from the mission's difficulty, in order to enrich game dynamics. Here's a provisional list:
  • Traps placed by humans;
  • Difficult flight-zones (pigeons flight is very skilled, but they walk very slow);
  • Watchmen;
  • Hyperactive kids;
  • ...
On the other side, pigeons can rely on some helping factors, and to peculiar abilities:
  • Old Lady’s Boosting Crumbs: awarded troops tend to have a privileged relation with old ladies attending public parks (increased speed/height-ability of flight);
  • Pigeons Droppings: flying forces make use of controversial, non-conventional weapons to dissuade spiteful tourists.
  • The Power of Love: in moments of difficulty, pigeons might be able to call for immediate help from a partner by simply cooing.
  • ...

A further development of the ironical vibe implicit in the assumption of pigeons to heroes might take place in the pauses between one level and the following, where brief animations could show humans complaining about pigeons, cleaning the dirt they leave (“their heritage”), or shooing them out of historical buildings.

At the moment we are developing the game in the direction of a hero, or many heroes, facing unsustainable tourist practices in various geographical settings, chosen for their appeal and fame and for the particular problems tourism generates to local communities, to the monuments themselves, or to the natural environment. Quite obviously, these relations with places of tourist interest might represent an opportunity for the financing of the game, as well as for its advertising. A detailed presentation of these possibilities and of the game-design of the single levels will soon be given in future posts by me and the other members of the group.

Michele Bruzzi




No comments:

Post a Comment