The outcome of my Masters degree

It's been a long time since I last made a post to this blog, primarily because I put it to the back of mind once I completed my MA. For anyone who's visiting, and is curious to know, I graduated with Distinction in July 2016. I enjoyed this research project and am continuing to lecture in Manchester, England.

Since then, I've also been made the course leader for BSc (Hons) Game & Interactive Audio at Futureworks, which was validated back in 2015. The course has started well and is now into its second year of delivery. Aside from that, I'm also continuing to develop my own company, Deft Ear, along with my business partner, specialising in providing a range of outsourced sound solutions for all forms of media, including (of course) video games! Check us out here: www.DeftEar.com

You can find a download link to my final Masters degree submission here, which is a combination of all of the research and outcomes featured on this blog. I encourage you to have a read, use this within your own research if you like, and provide any questions or feedback you may have.

Until next time... Thanks for watching!


Joe

Initial Game Concept Game Exercise: Event Review and Analysis

Initial Game Concept Game Exercise

Held at Futureworks on 8^th January 2016

Aims

The second practical test of the Suggested Game Elements was designed to focus on the following:

1.   How experienced practitioners utilised and perceived the suggested game elements as key design considerations for an Exploration Game. Specifically, participants were asked to consider if the Suggested Game Elements are fit-for-purpose, and how comprehensive they are.

2.   The order/ hierarchy and interdependencies between game elements.

The practical test would consist only of developers with experience in making games at Industry-standard, and/or with a high level academic qualification in game development (or related field of expertise).

Event Observations and Analysis

Before the event, all of the invited participants were sent a questionnaire to complete (Appendix A). Of the five participants that were invited, two completed the questionnaire and provided their responses. These can be found in Appendix items B and C respectively. 

The event itself took place on 8^th January 2016 at Futureworks: School of Media. In total, of the five participants invited, four were able to attend. The event was initially intended to last for, at least, a couple of hours. However, due to other commitments held by the participants, the event lasted for one and a half hours. 

The participants were first given the Suggested Game Element diagram to look at, and were briefed as to the aims of the exercise. The participants were informed that they were to work as a group, using the diagram, to come up with a basic game concept that they believed fit the description of an Exploration game.

Firstly, the participants discussed which game elements they should focus on first. It became evident that there was some confusion over what was meant by the term “Open World” despite the description provided. It was commented that a more accurate description would be “Non-Linear World”. It was quickly decided that the underlying story and game environment/world should be the starting point, closely followed by defining the primary goal/objective for the primary character / player (figure 1).

Fig 1. The participants deciding upon which Game Elements they should focus on first.

The group then proceeded to form a basic story around the player character (i.e. who they were, why they were in the game world/ what were they looking for, and what their motivation was). This can be seen in figure 2 below:

Fig 2. An initial “who, what and why?” approach to the player character.

The group then attempted to narrow down and refine their ideas (figure 3):

 

Fig 3. The group’s ideas were refined into more specific details about the player character and their motivation.

During this process, the group’s ‘trail of thought’ was recorded:

Player character -> Motivation (skeletal story structure) -> Means of obtaining objective ->  Where it takes place -> Fleshed out underlying story -> NPCs -> Inventory / collectables / limited useable items.

The group was then shown the following diagram (figure 4) that was created in response to comments made by Darlington and Morris in the questionnaires sent out before the event took place (Appendix B and C). Specifically, Darlington suggested that more clarification of the hierarchy between elements was 

required.

Fig 4. Suggested Game Elements and the Interdependencies between them.

It was explained to the participants that Environment Hazards and NPC elements were considered optional, as were the interdependencies highlighted by dashed lines. They were then asked if they agreed with both the game elements that were included (core and optional) and with the structure/hierarchy presented in the diagram. The results of these questions proved extremely interesting: All of the participants agreed that the core and optional elements were correct. However, where the structure/hierarchy was concerned the responses were far more varied. One participant stated that they would generally agree with the structure but would not like to be restricted to following it exactly. Two of the participants said they would follow a different structure, pointing to their trail of thought during the exercise as a more likely structure. One participant stated that they would not use the diagram as they already have set beliefs of how they would create exploration games from prior experience. This participant elaborated that they would take a more ‘loose’ approach and would focus on core gameplay (mechanics and story first) and would design the other elements simultaneously around these). This was partially demonstrated on the following image (figure 5) that displays what the participants believed to be the structure of the basic game concept they designed during the exercise. An interesting comment was made by one of the participants who stated that they believed a second core genre is needed first to help define the ‘core framework’ of the game. They stated that this would consist of core gameplay mechanics and an underlying story. To this the rest of the group agreed and they suggested that the order of the game elements (and which optional elements to include), rather than be fixed, would in fact change depending on the secondary-core genre. They provided examples of a ‘Survival / Exploration’ game or ‘Narrative / Exploration’ game, to highlight this point.

Fig 5. How the group visualised the structure and interdependencies of game elements within their initial concept.

The group were finally asked if they who they considered would be the best target audience for the Game Elements hierarchy/structure. Unanimously, the participants believed that game design students, or developers who have little to no experience developing Exploration games would most benefit from using the diagram as a guide.

The results of this exercise perhaps have profound consequences for the content and structure of the overall Design Framework. Firstly, it may be that exploration alone cannot sit independently as a ‘genre’; requiring an additional genre to help define and shape the fundamental elements of the game’s design. Secondly, the results here would suggest that there is no single structure/ hierarchy. While the elements and interdependencies that have been included in the current model tend to be accepted, the responses obtained within this exercise would suggest that the structure itself would vary depending on whatever other ‘core-genre’ was included within the game’s core design / vision.

Appendix

A. Shorrocks, J. (2015) Developer / Practitioner Questionnaire: Designing Games That Focus on Exploration as the Primary Theme

I am currently carrying out an investigation into the suitability of a standardised design-framework for games that use “Exploration” as a primary theme. The investigation has so far considered developers’ opinions regarding Exploration as a primary theme, and how they would approach this within their own practice. Additionally, the investigation has also attempted to understand player engagement in exploring virtual environments, and what factors (core gameplay mechanics, player-defined goals and objectives etc.) most contribute to this engagement.

From the responses obtained by developers and players alike, I have attempted to categorise and contextualise core ‘game elements’ that are most crucial in providing a gameplay experience where the exploration of virtual environments is both necessary and rewarding. While the game elements are designed to act as a guide, I have purposely written them so that they are not too specific in order to encourage and promote creativity through interpretation. You can view these on the next page (please see below).

I would be very grateful for your thoughts on the ‘game elements’ I have suggested, and have composed a short set of questions to gain your thoughts and opinions regarding them. Allow me to thank you in advance for your time to complete your responses; your input is invaluable to the research I am conducting and will help to shape the final output.

For additional information into the research I have been conducting, please visit http://joeshorrocks.blogspot.co.uk/.

Kind regards,

Joe Shorrocks

Please answer the following questions, providing your reasons for each.

Q1. Do you believe the game elements shown on the previous page are comprehensive? Are there any additional elements you would include? Would you remove any of if the existing elements?

Q2. Do you believe the elements suggested would help guide developers to design a game with exploration as a primary focus? (Here I am attempting to ascertain whether the sub-text in each section is specific enough, too specific or not specific enough).

Q3. Taking the game elements into account, if you were tasked to design a game with exploration as the primary focus, in which order would you initially set out design each element, and why?

Q4. When designing a game that focuses on exploration, who do you believe the game elements would work best for as a design guide?

B. Darlington, J. (2015) Developer / Practitioner Questionnaire: Designing Games That Focus on Exploration as the Primary Theme

Q1. Do you believe the game elements shown on the previous page are comprehensive? Are there any additional elements you would include? Would you remove any of if the existing elements?

After a thorough consideration of the elements I feel that everything that could arise as part of a framework for exploration games is accounted for here somewhere. However, the current presentation of the elements does give – to me at least – a sense of something missing. I think this may be due to some elements being much more connected to each other than to other elements and perhaps the way in which they are grouped together  could be made more structured in order to demonstrate this visually. For example, Open World, AI Opponents and Enivronmental Hazards feel like one natural grouping (to do with core gameplay mechanics), while Narrative and Goals section are also closely related. Narrative and Open World, however, are also linked – and Objectives might also group with Inventory… Either way, the particular arrangement of the elements I think could be clearer (or at least more consciously ordered). The elements themselves though seem thorough and exhaustive.

Q2. Do you believe the elements suggested would help guide developers to design a game with exploration as a primary focus? (Here I am attempting to ascertain whether the sub-text in each section is specific enough, too specific or not specific enough).

The ambiguity of the some of the descriptions is a strength I feel. Where a tendency of some design guides / studies in dealing with open worlds is to go for genre expectations (fantasy I guess being the major one), there is something in these descriptions which is applicable across genres and possibly even across gameplay styles.

Q3. Taking the game elements into account, if you were tasked to design a game with exploration as the primary focus, in which order would you initially set out design each element, and why?

The order I would initially adopt is:

1) Underlying Narrative

2) Open World

3) Player-Defined Goals/Objectives

4) Inventory System

5) Environmental Hazards

6) AI Opponents

The reasoning behind this is that the narrative for me defines the vision of the game overall. It may not be fully fleshed out first but the core synopsis of the world and what is at stake in it would drive the rest of the design process and provide a core for all members of the design team to grasp onto when they’re struggling to conceptualise subsequent elements. The open world design would emerge from this including areas and sub-areas of interest (plus Ocarina of Time style separation of thematic areas from each other, combat and non-combat areas with NPCs, etc). This again would help establish the context for the rest of the design work. Goals and Objectives would emerge from combination of world and narrative, the inventory system from the Goals (as accumulation of items would no doubt be part of rewarding the successes of the player and unlocking extra areas by overcoming hazards – which leads to…). Environmental Hazards would follow from inventory and AI from environmental design (and the constraints that would represent for AI functionality in movement and combat/communication). With any good design process each element would feedback to each previous one, but that’s the general approach I’d take.

Q4. When designing a game that focuses on exploration, who do you believe the game elements would work best for as a design guide?

As a design guide I’m guessing that the head of production would find it most useful, although in a small design team that would be lead developer or whoever is responsible for overseeing the direction of the overall team. I would expect something such as this would be most useful in the overall conception of the game and setting out some initial design overview documents. Encountering this type of macro-level design guide during an ongoing design process would probably either conform the current process or else be too late for any changes on that scale to be made. Each company and each project is different however, so these kinds of speculations might prove totally wrong.

C. Morris, S. (2015) Developer / Practitioner Questionnaire: Designing Games That Focus on Exploration as the Primary Theme

Q1. Do you believe the game elements shown on the previous page are comprehensive? Are there any additional elements you would include? Would you remove any of if the existing elements?

I believe the elements to be comprehensive. Although I believe an exploration game can exist without an inventory system or AI, the framework allows for the facilitation of such a game.

Q2. Do you believe the elements suggested would help guide developers to design a game with exploration as a primary focus? (Here I am attempting to ascertain whether the sub-text in each section is specific enough, too specific or not specific enough).

The elements are very clear and would provide good discussion points during the initial conception and throughout the development process.

Q3. Taking the game elements into account, if you were tasked to design a game with exploration as the primary focus, in which order would you initially set out design each element, and why?

1.      Underlying Narrative

2.      Open World

3.      Player-defined goals/objectives

4.      Environmental Hazards

5.      AI Enemies

6.      Inventory System

If designing an exploration game, my primary focus would be ensuring there was a cohesive underlying narrative the player can unravel and drive them to discover more about the environment they have been introduced to. The open world would then be designed around the narrative to encourage the player to explore all tangents of the storyline. I would still have a core narrative but with optional depth rewarding those who take the time to explore beyond the initial requirements (thus leading into the player-defined goals).

With the above three elements in place, I would introduce further conflict into the game world via the environmental hazards to further ground the player immersion as well as provide a gating system to encourage travel/exploration.

As initially mentioned, the final two elements are not completely necessary as good exploration games can exist without either inventory or AI but I would place AI enemies next to provide additional conflict and player drama. The inventory system is an odd one – depending on the context, I would either place it higher up or last. I could use it either as:

·         a system of driving the player forward and achieve goals via a direct challenge (pick up 100 skulls = achievement/craftable shelter) or indirectly (finding crowbar means I can open more things)

·         or dispense with it altogether and focus purely on the narrative.

Q4. When designing a game that focuses on exploration, do you believe the game elements would work best only as a guide to student/new developers, or would they also help existing developers to focus on specific design areas?

I believe the system would work for all areas however with some caveats. It’s a great resource for students/new developers as it establishes a strong foundation from which all aspects of an exploration game can be considered and developed from. In regards to existing developers, it may be more applicable to those who haven’t tackled exploration games in the past as it, again, provides a good framework to work within.

For those who have worked in this field, it may give additional aspects they haven’t considered but they would likely have a system in place already. That being said, any good designer would still utilize the framework as an opportunity to expand their knowledge and provide additional value to the game.

Fig 1. Shorrocks, J. (2016) The participants deciding upon which Game Elements they should focus on first. 8 January 2016.

Fig 2. Shorrocks, J. (2016) An initial “who, what and why?” approach to the player character. 8 January 2016.

Fig 3. Shorrocks, J. (2016) The group’s ideas were refined into more specific details about the player character and their motivation. 8 January 2016.

Fig 4. Shorrocks, J. (2016) Suggested Game Elements and the Interdependencies between them. 8 January 2016.

Fig 5. Shorrocks, J. (2016) How the group visualised the structure and interdependencies of game elements within their initial concept. January 2016.

DE4108: Design Practice 2: Game Jam Analysis

Futureworks Game Jam: Exploration Game Design Framework

Event Review and Research Outcomes Analysis: Design Practice: What are the Implications of this Exercise on the Research Project?

Investigating the emerging genre of video game experience currently known as an “Exploration” game, with an aim to create a new fit-for-purpose Design Framework for developers.

Event Review

The Game Jam event was held at Futureworks School of Media in Manchester on Saturday 25^th and Sunday 26^th April between 11am and 6pm as scheduled (appendix 1). 15 participants attended and contributed to the event. The participants were separated up into small teams consisting of between three and six members each and participants with specialist skills (i.e. Programming and Audio) were allowed to ‘float’ between teams to make up for any shortcomings. This, coupled with tutor support, provided each team with the range of skills and knowledge required to create a small prototype game, based on the genre and game elements that were suggested.

Participants who are currently undertaking a Diploma in Game Development were initially introduced to a basic concept that was based on the suggested game elements (appendix 2). However, this concept was not well received, and ultimately all participants chose the alternative approach in designing their own concepts based on the suggested game elements.

The original basic concept provided to the Game Development
 Diploma participants was not well-received.

Before any development took place, participants were provided with a Welcome letter (appendix 3), which defined the research being undertaken as well as introducing them to the Suggested Game Elements. Participants were informed that they should use these elements as a guide when designing their games, but that they could also deviate from them if they thought it would benefit the overall design. Participants were then provided with an initial questionnaire based on the research being undertaken (appendix 4) before beginning the development process.

An Analysis of the Initial Questionnaire Responses

From the responses obtained from the initial questionnaire (appendix 5), it was clear that all participants had played games which they considered to be Exploration games. This was beneficial as it allowed me to gauge their expectations and make comparisons to games they were familiar with. In regards to whether the participants believed the designers of those titles were successful in what they were trying to achieve, most of the participants believed they were. Participants stated that they believed the designers of these titles wished to create a world in which was intriguing and somewhat mysterious to the player; thus sparking the players’ sense of intrigue and encouraging them to explore the game world. Certain participants believed that the creative freedoms to manipulate the environment provides players with a greater sense of personalisation, identity and ownership; this backs up my findings within the research carried out so far. However, some participants also noted that games that included large expansive environments could sometimes feel overwhelming. Participants suggested that sparse content could also be an issue with large scale open world environments. Other responses indicated that certain exploration games employed mechanics that became repetitive over time- although these responses did not specify which titles they were referring to. This is an interesting point, and one that merits further research. It could be suggested that by providing players with greater freedom and power to manipulate the game environment, the means in which this can be done should be carefully considered. Considerations should be given not just to the boundaries of the game-world (and the limitations of players’ abilities within it), but also to how players go about manipulating the world. Examples here include the building mechanics in games such as Minecraft (Mojang), which force players to spend time mining and collecting resources, crafting them and then using them to build structures. Further study should be given between the sense of value through time invested in, in-game activities, to potential laborious tasks. This echoes Jesse Schell’s comments in both his “Design Outside the Box” DICE presentation (Schell, 2010) and his thoughts on the relationship between work and play at DICE 2013.

The participants were then asked what they believed to be the most important aspects when designing an Exploration game. Here responses were more varied but certain trends were able to be identified. Most participants believed that a detailed open world was essential, whether this be in the form of multiple collectable items, detailed environments, to a large number of side- quests within an intricate background narrative / lore. Other responses included the importance of allowing the player to figure out their own purpose within the game-world, and, in multiplayer games, allowing the player to freely communicate with other players and collaborate towards a common goal.

The following question asked participants if they believed there are any constraints when designing games within the Exploration genre. Again this drew a range of different opinions, from those believed there are no fundamental constraints to those who believed that the game-world should change with every play-through. The reasoning behind this is to provide longevity to games that rely on mystery and uniqueness to the game world. Interestingly, some of the games I have analysed during the course of my research have implemented procedurally generated worlds, to some degree or other, perhaps to specifically tackle this issue (i.e. Sunless Sea (Failbetter Games)). Other participants believed that the scale of the game-world may also cause issues, again linking this to a sense of overwhelming the player.

Sunless Sea by Failbetter Games uses a degree of
procedural generation for it's environment.

The final question asked if the participants how important they believe traditional design fundamentals, such as providing challenges to the player, are for an experience that focuses on exploration. In addition, the participants were asked if they believed there are any alternative approaches or goals that they would present to the player instead. This question generated some interesting responses, with most participants believing set challenges form an important part of maintaining player engagement. The form of these challenges however, differed across the range of responses that were submitted. Some participants believed that the challenges presented should be story-based, providing further context to the narrative and the role of the player. Other participants believed that the only challenges that could realistically be presented are that of environmental hazards and enemies to defeat. Interestingly, these are two of the suggested game elements that are presented within the Design Framework. One participant believed that while set-challenges are important, ‘good’ game mechanics can provide means for a player to set their own challenges. Another participant believed that challenges should not be immediately apparent and that part of the ‘joy’ of exploration is allowing the player to discover themselves what it is they want or need to achieve rather than having it presented to them via the design or narrative. An interesting response to this question was presented when a participant suggested that “presenting a world rich enough for the player to explore and find meaning in could easily replace traditional concepts”. This participant provided the game Proteus (Curve Studios) as an example.

Game Jam Observations

During the Game Jam, I made several observations based upon the participants’ initial reception to the theme and suggested game elements, how they planned their designs based upon these, and how ultimately they approached the development of their prototypes.

As previously mentioned, the majority of participants did not well-receive the initial basic concept provided to them by the Game Development Diploma tutors. Interestingly, on the whole this is not because they did not like the concept, but rather they believed it was too restrictive in terms of providing them with creative freedom. Instead, all of the participants opted to create their own concepts based on the suggested game elements.

Certain students initially struggled to think of concepts that included all of the elements, and became frustrated by this. However, with the help of the Game Design Degree students (acting as design consultants) all of the teams eventually came up with their own unique concepts. The scope of the concepts was also an issue, given the amount of suggested game elements involved versus the amount of development time available within the game jam. Despite indications to the contrary, all of the participants felt compelled to include all of the Suggested Game Elements in the concepts, which seemed to overwhelm several of them. Another point of interest was that the participants chose to use reference material from other popular Exploration titles such as Journey (ThatGameCompany) to inspire their theme and art styles. It was clear that the participants felt safe to emulate the look and feel of these titles as this is what they identified as forming the expectations within the genre. In order to share ideas, participants relied primarily on verbal communication rather than centralising their ideas on a basic initial concept document or a simple GDD. When questioned about this, one participant replied that they did not see the need for such documentation, as they all knew the basic theme, art-style and game mechanics and were using the Suggested Game Elements for consistency.

In regards to the development process, the range of technical skills and design knowledge within the group was evidently quite wide. This, coupled with the scope of what each team was trying to achieve in the limited amount of time, had a profound impact on the quality and level of completeness of the final prototypes. Again, the assistance, guidance and technical competency of the tutors, Degree students, and from the single Game Audio Diploma student, went some way to negate the teams’ skill-gaps.

The final prototypes produced at the end of the game jam have been included within the appendix link (please see appendix link below).

Various teams at work at the Futureworks Game Jam

Analysis of Post-Game Jam Reflective Questionnaire Responses

Once the game jam was completed, participants were asked to reflect on their practice and the effectiveness of the Suggested Game Elements. The questionnaire (appendix 6) first asked the participants if their perception of Exploration games had changed now that they had worked on developing their own. Responses indicate that for a slight majority, their perceptions had changed with participants indicating that they now had a greater awareness of the various game mechanics that encourage players to explore the game-world. Other comments suggested that some participants now had a greater appreciation for the way combinations of mechanics, narrative and an interactive environment worked together to encourage certain player behaviours while still allowing for a sense of freedom and self-direction.

The participants were next asked what aspects of an Exploration define the genre. Here the responses were more varied but certain trends did appear. Specifically, most participants felt that an open world was crucial, but also suggested that the world needed to be content-rich and allow for a good deal of interaction. Participants believed that this approach was crucial to making the world engaging and able to keep the player’s interest. Customisation of the player character was also mentioned by one participant, stressing that a sense of personalisation was important to them. Progressive goals was also identified as an important aspect for the majority of participants, with one participant stressing that allowing the player to progress at their own pace was one aspect that set Exploration games apart from games in other genres. This factor is interesting, as I believe it ties in with allowing the player a greater sense of freedom over their own actions, and ultimately, their own successes or failures within the context of the game. Forcing the player to act at a set pace works well in games that strive to create a sense of tension, or allow the designer a greater amount of control over in-game events. However, this approach may also make the game-world feel less authentic and may remove the sense of control and responsibility from the player. I believe this aspect is one that merits further study, and may tie directly into the emotional experience of the player.

Next, the participants were asked if the Suggested Game Elements they were provided were useful when designing their Exploration game prototypes. This question provided a wide range of results. From those participants who responded, seven participants believed the Suggested Game Elements supported their design and provided guidance; three believed they did not and were too restrictive in terms of creative freedom within their designs. In addition to this, some participants suggested that there were too many suggested elements and this made the possible designs too rigid. From the remaining two participants who completed the questionnaire, these did not provide a specific response to this question. These responses, coupled with my own observations, suggest that the way the Design Framework is presented to developers may be essential to how it is received, and ultimately utilised. It is apparent, that it is important to stress that the Framework and the Suggested Game Elements within, should not be portrayed as a set of compulsory constraints that must be followed. Furthermore, it also raises the underlying question as to whether such a Design Model is practical within a ‘real-life’ design and development environment.

In order to assist in any potential changes to the Design Framework, participants were asked if they had any recommendations to either the Suggested Game Elements or the way in which they were presented. The answers to this question was enlightening: Most of the participants found that the game elements were useful for initial concept work, but that if followed too literally they constrained and limited their creativity. This is interesting because it somewhat contradicts comments made by Arthur Parsons during my earlier research: “knowing where your boundaries are makes design easier because you are less likely to lose direction” (Parsons, 2013). However, a possible explanation for the participants’ response to this could be found in the following question which asked if they would make any specific changes should they carry out a similar project in the future. To this, almost all of the participants said that they did not have enough time to fully explore the recommended game elements to a level they were happy with. It could be, therefore, that with more time, the participants would have embraced and pushed the boundaries of the suggested game elements. This, in turn would have provided them with a greater amount of creative freedom and may have inspired more innovative designs. These in turn, would likely have pushed the boundaries of the genre itself. Further study is required to fully test this theory but I believe this is an encouraging development.

Implications Towards Future Practice and Research

Upon reflection, I believe this exercise has provided me with evidence that there is scope and demand for this type of design framework – at least, within the Exploration genre. In this regard, my findings would suggest that standard practice would benefit from such a structured approach, although I believe more refinement is needed to make this a fully-viable development aid.

In order to further test the theories that have come about from carrying out this Game Jam, it would be practical to attempt to carry out the exercise again but allowing for more development time. Ideally, if time permitted, it would be enlightening to test the Design Framework on the development of a fully-scoped game. It would also be beneficial to allow more experienced developers to attempt to create a prototype in order to gauge if developer experience is a factor in the effectiveness and usefulness of such a Design Framework. This, coupled with the User Guide I created earlier in the project, would help to ascertain if this type of approach to game development practice is more beneficial as educational material for students and graduates, or if it is universally beneficial for all developers within the Industry.

Another consideration that did not feature in the Game Jam was the order and priority of design and development for each of the game elements that were suggested. For example, should the environment be designed first and then the game mechanics, or should the game mechanics directly influence the design of the environment? It is highly probable that the order in which game elements are designed and developed will have a significant outcome on the overall design of the game. It could be argued that a specific order is not required, and attempting to standardise this would further restrict creativity within design. Again, this is something that merits further consideration as the project develops.

References

Curve Studios (2013). Proteus [Video game]. London: Curve Studios

Failbetter Games (2015). Sunless Sea [Video game]. Greenwich : Failbetter Games.

Mojang (2009). Minecraft [Video game]. Stockholm : Microsoft

Mojang (2009). Minecraft [Video game]. Stockholm : Microsoft.

Parsons, Arthur (2013) Video Lecture at UCLan, Recorded 8^th February 2013

Schell, J., 2010. Design Outside the Box. Las Vegas, DICE.

Schell, J., 2013. The Secret Mechanisms. Las Vegas: DICE.

ThatGameCompany (2012). Journey [Video game]. Los Angeles. CA.: Sony Computer Entertainment

Appendix

Please click on the following DropBox link for all appendix items:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cdxrmouvbxfidsz/AADg-tra6d0V_XATSsM6k8R8a?dl=0

DE4108: Exploration Genre Suggested Game Elements

Below is a more graphically-rich version of Suggested Game Elements for the Exploration genre. Each Suggested Game Element is accompanied by a design-focused definition which is targeted towards developers. The graphic is designed to provide developers with 'at-a-glance' guidance and direction to form the basis of an Exploration game.

DE4108: Game Jam: An Initial Test of the Exploration Genre Game Design Framework

Game Jam: An Initial Test of the Exploration Genre

Game Design Framework

Rationale

Using a practical game development exercise (game jam), test the effectiveness of suggested game elements within a design framework, based upon the research carried out into popular Exploration game titles and from the Practitioner Research conducted earlier in the project (DE4201). Within the research that has been carried out, various commonly used game elements have been identified. I have used a combination of established game design theory, my own practical knowledge and the collective opinions of the practitioners interviewed during DE4201, to suggest why these elements are frequently used by designers within the Exploration genre. This body of research will be compared and critically analysed against the opinions of the participants, both before and after the game jam exercise has taken place. The participants understanding and opinions of the Exploration genre- and ultimately the framework itself- will also be compared before and after the exercise to ascertain if the framework is effective in influencing developers’ practice.

Date of event - 24^th- 25^th April 2015, 11am-6pm.

Location  - Futureworks, Riverside, New Bailey Street, Manchester, UK.

Participants

The participants that have been invited to undertake the exercise are as follows:

1.       Game Development Diploma Students.

2.       3^rd Year BA(Hons) Game Design Students.

3.       Diploma in Game Audio students.

As a result of their current levels of education, both groups of students will have varying practical skills and theoretical knowledge of game design and game development. This will help to test the design framework’s flexibility and usability across a greater range of developers. However, after consultation with the Game Development Diploma’s teaching staff it was recommended that slightly more guidance be provided to these participants in order to ensure the best possible outcomes (prototypes). Therefore, the exercise will be modified slightly for these participants (see below for details). The Diploma in Game Audio participants will be given the option of which team they wish to join, given their specialist area of expertise.

Schedule

1.     Participants will be welcomed and asked to fill in a pre-exercise questionnaire. This questionnaire will also set out the nature of the exercise and the research project linked to it.

2.       Depending on their level of expertise, participants will be either:

a.       Provided with a basic game concept theme (based upon an Exploration game), and will be provided with and asked to work within, the suggested game elements. This condition will be provided to those participants undertaking the Diploma in Game Development.

b.      Provided and asked to work within with the suggested game elements, and be asked to create an “Exploration” game. This condition will be provided to those participants undertaking a BA(Hons) in Game Design.

3.      Participants will be organised into groups – preferably ones with an evenly spread skill set (progammers, designers, artists, audio etc.)

4.       Each team of participants will have between 11am-6pm on Saturday 25^th April and Sunday 26^th April to use the suggested game elements to create a small-scope prototype video game. Members of the Futureworks tutor team will be on hand to provide any additional guidance required as well as ensuring that the suggested game elements are adhered to.

5.       At the end of the game jam, participants will be invited to fill in a reflective questionnaire based on the practical research exercise, as well as gathering their thoughts on the wider scope of the research that is taking place.

6.      The responses from participants will be analysed and will aid my overall conclusions in regards to further refinement of the Design Framework.

7.       The final game prototype builds will be analysed in terms of how closely they met with the recommended game elements guidelines. Responses from the reflective questionnaires will be considered when analysing the prototypes to inform design decisions made by the participants.

Possible Issues / Problems

Attendance – While approximately 30 participants have been invited to the Game Jam, and initial indications are that the majority of these will attend, attendance is voluntary. A low number of participants may not provide a true indication of the effectiveness of the Design Framework, and may hinder the development of the prototypes that are created. All possible measures to ensure the confirmation of attendance have been made.