1) Fairness
Our game in it's nature is an asymmetrical game. It is supposed to simulate as closely as possible what it is like to be a bystander during a disaster- therefore your choices and knowledge are limited.
A) Other then the fact that this is a fantasy situation, the realities of dealing with devastation are well documented through survivor accounts from air raids, invasions, and natural disasters. One part of surviving is luck, which will be simulated in the game. A route will close off if you don't get through it fast enough, and the time it takes to backtrack may either kill you or trap you, both causing the game to end in failure. Also the player has to be able to dodge debris and other matter that could potentially crush them on their way out of the city. Another aspect is dealing with the limited information you are given. In disaster situations people have to be able to make snap judgement and execute a plan, no matter how rudimentary. If the player panics and runs off trying to escape with no though to strategy, they WILL die. If the player is too scared and barely covers any ground, they WILL die. While the game isn't intrinsically "fair", it is meant to encourage the player to deal with seemingly impossible situations with a cool head.
B) It is through these route options and events that the player explores the world and is able to have a different experience each time. Different routes pose different challenges, and the combination of options lead to hundreds of ways to get through the city.
C) This game is not designed to appeal to a certain gamer type. It is a survival horror, yes, but there is little to no shooter aspect (depending on how you play). The one category this could appeal to is stealth gamers, but there is no backup of killing the enemy if you are discovered, so rouge players that like hacking and slashing will find the conflict purposefully lacking.
D) The playing field is leveled by the sneak spaces provided to the player throughout the level, as well as objects you can destroy/use to get the monster temporarily off your tail. You will alos be supplied a map and vauge text hints in the form of news alerts from your phone. However, through playtesting we will monitor when the distance gets to be too great/the threat lessens, and we will add events in those areas that make the monster an ever present threat to the player's livelihood.
E) This game involves a great deal of strategy, and if we make it correctly, I actually want the player to die trying to figure out how to survive. Failing (as long as it isn't being crushed without hope) is a great motivator for strategy and learning. The game will also measure what kind of survivor you are, should you complete the game. It would be interesting to see gamers obsessed with collecting all the possible endings trying different strategies purposefully so they can get each badge available, and if, when actually pressed into the same situation again, they are even capable of making a different decision.
2) Challenge vs. Success
A) The game will grow more difficult as you get closer to the exit, but it won't be in measureable ways like levels, but instead less places to hide, more obscure pathways, and higher instances of monster bait events, such as a siren, etc.
B) If a player has experience in stealth games, the amount of cover provided in the first part of the level should be easy, and if a player falsely assumes they can just run fast enough they will be quickly corrected. That said, the game isn't designed to be "easy", it is more like Dark Souls in the sense that getting through it should be a badge of some skill. (now of course it won't be QUITE that difficult, but you get what I mean. The element of fun is surviving, and if surviving is too easy the game has no value as a game or as a judge of character).
C) There are no scores, besides what type of survivor score, which will be displayed at the end of the game. In order to get a different score the player must get through the entire game again.
D) Difficulty is constant. If this project was fully developed perhaps I would include it, but for our current time frame it is not necessary.
E) We will playtest on as diverse of an audience as possible given the small scale of the project.
3) Meaningful Choices
A) Yes
B) Yes
C) Kinda? Depends on the replay value to the particular player.
D) No
E) Yes
F) Defense always
G) Yes
H) No powers in the game, but which item to destroy/use is a meaningful choice.
I) Yes
4) Triangularity
A) If the final verdict on your survival style is seen as a reward, then yes there is triangularity. There is no other scoring system though, so the player would value their actions in the game based on what they think is heroic/a fitting description of themselves and their skills. For instance, if a player barely makes it out alive because they moved so slowly, they would be a Cautious Survivor, but if that person values valor and bravado, they may push themselves in the next playthrough to achieve Sole Survivor for the fastest run time.
B) Since the player will determine what they value or the result they want from the game, I think it is balanced. It is meant to be a fair assessment, judging the player only by their actions and measuring those results.
5) Skill vs. Chance
A) The player will be judged mainly, but the player's willingness to take chances will factor into their final survivor type.
B) This game is rather serious, it takes dedicated effort and thinking to get out of the city, so it's not something you simply pick up and put down. There is also no saving so to fully simulate the cost of dying in the game, so that ramps up the difficulty since you have to get through the entire level in one go or else start all over.
C) The game has the possibility of getting tedious, so several chance events will be added, including 2 NPC events.
D) There is a certain level of bad luck a player can have, but it isn't so excessive that the player feels like they have absolutely no control over the situation. The player should be constantly paranoid, yes, but with the right amount of skill and a little luck the game is survivable.
6) Head vs. Hands
A) Intellectual Challenge
B) The entire game is essentially solving the same puzzle, just there is several ways to do so. Depending on the skill of your hands some ways are more open then others.
C)Yes, they do have that choice, but they must still puzzle their way through the streets and find out which way they are going.
D) 7-8
7) Competition vs. Cooperation
A) It measures which way they survive, and if they think that certain ways to survive are more valuable based on social constructs then yes, it does measure skill.
B) They want to say they survived and tell their friends what kind of survivor they are.
C) Yes, because the difficulty will be set so that winning it is no simple task.
D) Yes, but they might have to learn the hard way several times before they finally survive.
E) Yes, especially if they are going for more challenging survivor results.
F) There is no multiplayer, but the more skill you have the more likely you are to unlock different survivor types.
G) - L) There is no cooperation, it is a one player survival game.
M) 1
N) No
O) Competition
P) Solo competition (if, as stated earlier, certain results are seen as more validating/desirable eg. Most people want to be Gryffindor but not Hufflepuff, even though one isn't more intrinsically valuable then the other. The value is formed by society's perception of what is most worthy of honor.)
8) Short vs. Long
The game will be relatively short, but not mini-game short. We are creating enough content to fill at least 10 minutes, but I imagine the completed game would not be over 2 hours since the player cannot save and must therefore play the game straight through.
A) How long you play the game is determined by one, how long it takes to complete a single playthrough, and two, how many times you are willing to replay to get different results. The game would therefore fluctuate between either being a less than 1 hour to 5-10 hour game depending on the player.
B) - C) N/A at this point
D) There will be an overall time limit, but the player will not be notified until the final bridge is close to being crushed that the game is about to end. (no visible timer)
E) No
9) Rewards
A) No
B) Kind of yes? Your actions put a certain amount of points in several different categories that ultimately determine your final survival style, eg, which area has the most points.
C) No, unless you are a game completionist, then yes.
D) No
E) The atmosphere is supposed to be inspiring, but it isn't a reward in and of itself unless the player values aesthetic experience.
F) No
G) No
H) Yes, some resources can only be used by encountering them through luck and using skill.
I) Yes, winning the game is it's own reward.
J) - N) N/A at this point
10) Punishment
A) No
B) No
C) No, unless as stated earlier they are trying for a specific ending.
D) Yes, if you lose, the game is over and you have to restart.
E) No
F) No
G) Yes, if you use all of your resources or don't destroy threat items in time you will die.
H) I am punishing my players to more fully simulate the costs of failure in a high stress situation where lives are on the line. If you die you died, and that's that. If you made certain decisions that trapped you into a situation you couldn't foresee, that's life and the player must deal with the consequences of the decisions made in the heat of the moment.
I) N/A at this time
J) No, it is the only real punishment of the game versus all the rewards offered.
K) I believe so, game testing will tell us more.
11) Freedom vs Control
Other then the environment providing the walls to the map, the player is completely free to try to complete the game in whichever way they want. That isn't to say the player can do anything and win, they must make correct choices or guesses and know how to navigate without getting eaten.
12) Simple vs. Complex
A) - D) Our game is innately complex because of it's requirements in order to survive. You must one, not be loud, two, not be seen/hide in the dark, and three, make intelligent choices on how to navigate the map. From this I hope to see a lot of emergent complexity with the various solutions to the problems presented, but we will have to play test to see if we get that desired result. I do not believe the game is too simple though, in fact the challenge we have is making it too complex for the time we are given.
13) Detail vs. Imagination
A) They must understand they are in a city trying to escape a murderous monster and in order to do so they must sneak through the streets.
B) The details of the monster are not important. The player's goal is NOT to encounter him, and honestly the monsters we create in our minds are often scarier then any design.
C) If time allows I would really like to stress the visual atmosphere of the collapsing city and to make sure the 3D sound is fully integrated.
D) Buildings can be covered with textures rather then being detailed models- exactness is not as important.
E) Yes, the rumbling of the camera and sound can add fear and wonder, thus spurring the players imagination further.
F) If they see too much of the monster the player might lose their fear of it. We must make sure that the player is risking immediate death should they want to get cocky and get a good look at what is chasing them.
THINGS I DID FOR THE GAME THIS WEEK:
Ran the presentation, made this beautiful piece - WIP
