Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- research_report_tot:start [2010-01-11 13:34] – 94.225.45.31
+++ research_report_tot:start [2010-01-11 14:01] – 94.225.45.31
@@ Line 79: / Line 79: @@
 We felt that one of the important motivators in the social experience of the game, would be the plant avatars that each players would be growing. So we came up with a system to represent how these plants might look. And how a garden would look comprised of such plants.
-adding missing elements: avatars, garden
+http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2593/4057547369_cc7d5bdec9.jpg
-no game
+The basic shapes of these plants were based on drawings by Lina and Theun.
-our priorities: user experience is more important than artist's message
-let's make a game already
-make choices: trying to make everything is a recipe for failure
-our preferences: being in a plantlike mindset when playing (underground), showing off your flower as a human (above ground)
-dismiss: plant guilds as anthropomorphic (too conscious, leads to too deliberate strategic gameplay: "Sim City for plants")
-dismiss: first person view (plant is not a person, Dave's prototypes are confusing, idea of being a growing seed is too difficult to express)
-add: a feeling of accomplishment for the player, a reason to play (showing off, making something pretty, care)
-passive game idea
+The concept of our garden was that each player was represent as a basic shape that grew out of the ground surface and was made from the same material (we were imagining white ceramic for the prototype). So plants and world are one. This basic shape would grow according to algorithm that were specific to its species. This growth would happen very slowly.
-make a game for people?
+Next to the basic element that is specific to the species, every plant would be able to grow attachments based on nutrients found by the roots in the soils. This are like leaves and flowers, except that every plant is capable of growing every type of attachment. So the attachments are not species-specific (but they could be location or time specific).
+When below ground, the player would be playing from his plant's perspective.
+Above ground, the player gets full control over the camera to roam the garden.
+== Ideas for future development ==
+At the end of this phase, we were a bit disappointed that we didn't really have a clear idea of the kind of game that we might want to make.
+To help get to that point, we would suggest the following.
+= It's about the player =
+The user's experience is more important than the artist's message.
+All of our ideas should serve only as inspiration. Our focus should always be on how the player feels when interacting with our game. Not on whether or not we are expressing our ideas well. If the game ends up being about something else, that is fine too. We're not making edutainment.
+We should take the interesting elements from our prototypes and optimize them.
+= Not the kitchen sink =
+When producing games, trying to implement all ideas is a recipe for failure.
+It's important to make choices and to have a reductionist approach to game design and features. Choose one idea and make a game with it. Not necessarily because the others are bad but because you need focus in order to finish something. and our philosophy is "It's better to make something than nothing".
+= What we would keep and throw out =
+To our mind, the best idea for a game that came out of this phase is a dual game of being in a plantlike mindset when playing (underground), showing off your flower as a human (above ground).
+We would remove the concept of plant guilds and the first person perspective.
+As per above, we don't need any reasons to remove things. Reductionism is the reason.
+But the plant guilds feel a bit too anthropomorphic to us. It feels too conscious and may lead to too deliberate strategic gameplay as in a World of Warcraft-like leveling MMO or a sort of  "Sim City for plants". The first person view seems redundant because a plant is not a person. Also, we can't really come up with a solution for the confusion that Dave's first person prototypes cause in us when playing. Sadly, perhaps, the idea of being a growing seed seems too difficult to express.
+One thing that we feel is missing from the game idea is a feeling of accomplishment for the player, a reason/motivation to play.
+Satisfying this desire is somewhat at odds with the vegetal mindset that we're aiming for. Which is why we want to represent this aspect above ground (the human part of the game).
+the motivation to play would thus be human and consist of showing off your plant, trying to make something pretty and care for the organism that you're creating.
+= Passive game =
+passive game idea
 ==== Context ====