I promised I’d come back after Playful and write some more about the Hidden card game, giving more details about how the game worked.
Every attendee received two random cards in their snazzy delegate’s envelope – for the rest of the day, during time between speakers, they challenged each other with those cards (and any others they managed to “acquire” during the game). In all, there were over 600 cards in circulation, composed of 22 different game cards in 3 levels of rarity and 16 Agent cards. The weaker cards just let you do things like look at another player’s cards or steal one at random. The more powerful cards allowed you, for example, to possibly steal all of another player’s cards, but also required you to hand that card over (giving your victim a chance to get back in the game).
The aim of the game was to get as many Agent cards as possible and not get blown up at the end (if a player had managed to get hold of a Body Armour card, they were immune to the fatal effects of Tick, Tick, Tick…). In the event of a tie (which there was) Agent cards were drawn at random to determine which Agent was the winner (the magnificent prize being a copy of One Night Ultimate Werewolf). I did not reveal the goal of the game (or the potential hazards of certain cards) in advance – this was partly so that people could have fun discovering the different cards and effects as they played the game, and partly to stop people from simply hiding Agent cards when they came across them.
I think at least forty cards must have passed through my hands as I wandered around during the breaks (including three different agents!). It was very gratifying to see that hundreds of people were playing the game and having fun. Many were playing casually – the odd card exchanged here and there – but some players were really going for it. There were some fierce stone, scissors, paper battles caused by the High Stakes card, and I saw a classic move where someone used Planted Evidence to give someone else a couple of cards, and then returned a few minutes later with Big Target to steal all of them now that player was vulnerable. I was even a victim of Planted Evidence myself as I walked up to the stage to announce the final result! Someone grabbed my arm, showed me the card, and used it to offload a Tick, Tick, Tick… onto me.
P.S. It should be noted that the actual winner would have been Mudlark’s very own Emma Broadhurst (the only person to end the game with more than one Agent), but Charles purposely sabotaged her by sitting next to her at the end with his Tick, Tick, Tick… card. I’m not sure she’ll ever forgive him…
We were approached by a client to make a game which could be played by a group of people in a festival tent.
The idea was that anyone could join in (or drop out of) the game at literally any time. The game should be instantly understandable, suitable for children and fully co-operative. It should feature a group of up to four players travelling down a river and tackling mini-game tasks that promoted a spirit of working together and helping others.
Co-operative game design presents an interesting set of challenges. In most co-operative games, gameplay can be very interlocked and quite ‘formal’ – i.e. there are puzzles and challenges where each player has to do a certain particular thing in order to complete the puzzle (e.g. one player stands on a switch to open a door while the other one runs through it and props it open from the other side). This didn’t fit our game for a number of reasons: we didn’t have the time/resources for this intricate design; it didn’t fit the more simple co-operation that would be required between a group of people (possibly children) that had never met before; and most importantly we had to ensure the game was still playable by someone playing on their own!
Instead we tried to design games where everyone could contribute, but where it was clear who was doing the most work, where players could mess things up and get in each other’s way. In this way a lot of fun can emerge from very simple games. Players shout at each other, boast, encourage, remonstrate and generally have a good time – exactly the sort of thing you’d want at a festival! Examples include pushing crates into place to make a bridge, and patching & pumping up a giant (and very leaky) balloon.
However, the game had a very limited budget and time-scale. Roughly speaking we had about four weeks each for a coder, designer and artist. So we had to make some tough decisions early on: the mini-games would have to be very simple; we would adapt art assets from the Unity Asset Store rather than making everything from scratch; we would use a single PC and 4-way split-screen on a large screen rather than networking four PCs together.
We built the game in Unity. I’d never used this game development environment before last year, and I am still amazed at how much it speeds up and improves the development cycle. I would estimate that using Unity at least doubles the speed of development. The coder can ‘expose’ all the important variables, which means the designer can tweak gameplay and difficulty directly in the editor without any code changes. And if you search the Asset Store you can find some great assets for tens of pounds that would have cost tens of thousands to produce in-house.
Kev Cook did the coding – I’ve worked with him a number of times over the years and he is quite simply the best (and fastest!) coder I’ve ever worked with. We have a similar broad-brush approach to game development, which makes it very easy to work together. I think the following email exchange nicely illustrates this approach:
Kev: I’m whipping together the Rhythm game at the moment. It is good that they’re all coming together nicely. I love working like this. Rough blockout of the whole game. Then another pass, getting it very roughly playable. Then revisiting and filling in some more gaps, adding animations, control tweaks, sound etc. Having people play it and offer opinions at each pass.It’s very ‘Top Down’, a bit like an artist would with a painting.
Most coders would tell you this is the wrong way of doing it. You need to break down every task at the start and build up the components. “If it’s planned correctly, then it only takes one pass”. But I’ve been doing it for 24 years and know that’s bullsh*t. So f*** ‘em! Only after each iteration can people get their hands on it and see what will and won’t work, what art and animations will look best and where. Changes can be made mid-process. Game development should be a very flexible process. Unity suits me down to the ground because it allows me to knock up prototypes in no time. Me and Unity sitting in a tree…
Tom: I absolutely agree with every word of your email. This is definitely the way to make games. It’s impossible to design and plan a game completely in advance. You can make an educated guess on what will be fun, and what assets you need and how long it will take. But you need a process of iteration to make things feel right and fun.
I am conscious that when I write designs sometimes it comes over a bit wishy-washy, because I say “we could do this or we could do that” but often it’s just a case of trying something and seeing if it works, and having a plan B ready for if it doesn’t. And the best way to do that is trying a very rough version and tweaking it and then being prepared to abandon it if you need to (which is a pain, but at least you haven’t plowed huge amounts of time, effort and finished art assets into that one perfect version which seemed like a good idea on paper but which is actually no fun to play).
In summary: yeah, f*** ‘em!
Kev: Exactly! How many projects have you worked on that have been planned to death, detailed schedules, task breakdowns, etc. Then months of work by tens of people manage to produce something that just doesn’t work. Sounded ok on paper, but actually, it’s no fun at all.
And amazingly, almost everyone you talk to in development houses will still insist that this is the way to do it.
The thing is: developing a little co-op game this way really is fun in a way that, sadly, big game development so often isn’t. And it looks like we’re not the only ones to think that the days of behemoth all-encompassing game design documents may be numbered.
We wanted this year’s Playful to be more interactive than ever. I spend far too much of my spare time designing board and card games, so it seemed like an interesting challenge to design something that could be played by everyone at Playful and which fitted this year’s theme of “Hidden”.
I’ve spent a lot of time over the last year playing the hidden-role card game “One Night Ultimate Werewolf” (ONUW) which takes the classic party game “Werewolf” and condenses it down into an intense 5-minute experience without losing any of the negotiation, pleading and fun of the original.
ONUW has an interesting genesis. Social deduction card games have become all the rage over the last 5 years. Games like “The Resistance” and “Coup” had players trying to work out who was on their side, and what role (and therefore what abilities) they had. Japanese designers, especially Seiji Kanai, further distilled these ideas down into ‘microgames’ such as the multi-award-winning “Love Letter”, a game consisting of just 16 cards.
The Japanese designer Akihisa Okui applied this microgame ethos to Werewolf, and the idea was refined by American designer Ted Alspach, who made the inspired decision to add an app which played the narrator/moderator role (one of the annoying thing about the original Werewolf was that one person was required to sit the game out in order to play this role). I could (and may!) write a whole blog just on dissecting a single game of ONUW. For now, suffice to say that I have never known a game that packs such a punch (and so much fun) into such a short space of time.
So for this year’s Playful I wanted to take some of these ideas and design a game that could be played by 300 or more people over the course of a day (we think this may well be the biggest card game ever played in the UK!). There are many interesting factors to take into account with this sort of game. The three most difficult limitations are that you can’t really have a draw pile, you can’t have turn-taking (people need to be able to wander round and play with who they want in a completely ad-hoc manner) and you can’t have many rules – the game needs to be instantly understandable. You also want to avoid player-elimination, and ideally keep the victory conditions at least partly hidden (because you don’t want the game to be over in the first 5 minutes, or someone thinking that they’ve got a winning hand and then hiding for the rest of the day). I had 5 or 6 ideas for games… some of the rejects are shown here.
But in the end, after several playtesting sessions (though it’s difficult trying to extrapolate from 5 testers to at least 300 players), I returned to the design that is closest to social deduction microgames such as “Love Letter” and its ‘sequel’ “Lost Legacy” – though it’s very different to either of those games, to allow for the limitations described earlier, and the game has over 600 cards rather than 16! I’d like to explain it in more detail here, but I think the game will be more fun if people don’t know the rules in advance, so we’ll save the detailed description for another blog after the event (along with an analysis of how successful – or otherwise – the game was!).