Saturday, November 13, 2004

Project Prototype: Divided Attention

1. Name/desiger: Divided Attention by Roger
2. Platform/category: The genre of this game is either ice-breaker, analytical puzzle, or choose your own adventure.
3. Core mechanic: The Core Mechanic of the game is looking.
4. Adjectives describing the play experience: Dramatic, Isolating, Disconcerting, Stressful, Dividing
5. Structural elements: The best part of Rogers game was how digestible the structure of the game was. Most notibly was its effectiveness in delivery. By introducting the rules of the game in a precise, coloquial, and concise manner how to play was very clear. But, more importantly, Rogers editing of the rules in a way to make the Game seem less calculated and structured that it really is was key to play. The game reveals its structure slowly and carefully as to not expose its limits or possibilities. Seriously, one of the best structured games we have seen yet in that it is so focused on this element.
6. Best developed element: As I have already praised its structure, the most effective element of Rogers gane was its mystique and originality. Everything about the game, its cinematic intensity, its subversion of the normally static un-interactive medium of powerpoint, and most of all its completness. The game feels complete whether it is or not just form it unifying elements of color, action, medium, and interaction. Not to mention the more it revealed itself the more evident how much work went into developing the game showed.
7. Rules: I give the rules a 10 out of 10 in delivery, consicion, and execution.
8. Strategy: The strategy for the game seems to be emergent. It also seems to come from the second playing of the game. The structure of the game allows for it but players must first understand the game before disecting its possibilities. Strategy is a concern I have for the game in what could be its one major downfall, repeatability. How playable is this game after its intial experince. Just like a good film you should be able to watch it more than one and in so learn something new all the time.

9. Emergent play: The rigidity of the course of the game seems to not leave much room for strategic emergence for Rogers game. But, the more I think about its intended setting and the way in which the game can become recieved the more I think about how the game supports emergent play not necessary to indside the game. And actually the static nature of the game actually makes it easier for players to quicky get used to its functions and be able to spend time working around it or within it. My best image of the game in this way is audiences vocal participation.

10. Further development: My one concern for the final version is multiple playings, or repeatability. Can the game funtion more that once without giving away its predetermined discourse or should there be mutliple rotating versions to keep information in flux. Is there further rewards for continued/repeat players? If the game is played by the same group more than once should those teams they end up in the end of the first game stay in that color for the start of the next. Although the game is pretty much in its stages of completion now it is a matter of fine tuning, nothng drastic.

Roger this game tottally rocks and I think can become much more than a class project.


Post a Comment

<< Home