Nordic Game Jam – Two Danes, a Hungarian, a Mexican and an Irishman walk into a game jam…

What a weekend! It’s amazing that spending your weekend staying up late making games can leave you with an energy boost! Nordic Game Jam is another strong argument for Copenhagen being the centre of the universe for game development (or pretty close). 105 games were created in many different styles: shooters, adventure games, party games, visual novels… great variety!

For the uninitiated, a game jam is an organised time for making games around a certain theme. The spirit of a jam is to arrive unprepared and collaborate with new people on a brand new concept. The theme for Nordic Game Jam this year was “That Again”. Abstract. A blank canvas. Brilliant!

Rasmus, Luis and myself had been chatting the past fews weeks about design goals for game jams in general. Something that has become very important to us is simplicity in mechanics. Addition is far too easy when designing games. Distilling a mechanism to it’s pure components and fully exploring the design space can be far more rewarding. Jonathan Blow, designer of the The Witness, speaks to this in several of his talks (thanks Ryan!).

After joining up with Bence & Casper (also in our MSc Games at ITU) we sat out in the sun to dream up a really simple mechanism. We took inspiration from programming mechanics in boardgames such as the Eyrie Dynasty in Root and Robo Rally. Rasmus and myself felt that there is a lot of fun to be got out of following rules you have previously set – the restriction is a puzzle the player creates for themselves. This was the games core. Anything else would be another dimension.

Level 1 of Pineapple

Pineapple is a “wholesome” puzzle game with a simple interface. You can command the avatar to travel in a certain direction. The twist is that it will remember your previous instructions. As you progress through the levels, the difficulty is increased by increasing the buffer size and the number of walls.

I wanted to write about a couple of things I learned this weekend

  • It is important to communicate and establish your priorities at the start of the jam. For example: we are hard at work on our exam project submissions in ITU and we didn’t plan on spending our weekend pulling all nighters for this jam. Instead we wanted to make good use of the time we were there, make something cool and have enough juice to have fun with new people.
  • Our goal of simplicity was at the front of our minds at this jam. We gave everybody unlimited veto power to pineapple any new proposals i.e. to mark a complex idea as a stretch goal (or really something to tackle after the jam). This might sound like we were aiming low but we ended up really proud of the polish and ‘completeness’ of this little game.
  • Working on the sequencer was a fun, little project. An early idea was to make this game have a timing requirement – you would have to enter a new command before the sequencer reached the end. I had built a prototype with colours signifying the different inputs and after showing it to the team, we could quickly see this timed version was flawed: very punishing, felt random and was not the central idea of the game. Fortunately this system was easily flipped into the current version – triggered by the player. Turning this restriction into agency felt far better to play with.
  • The sound design for the game was kept very toned down – I wanted every element to give some form of feedback to the player without dominating the game. I wrote a short, airy melody with a vinyl scratch effect to match the atmosphere evoked by the VHS effect. Lots of people commented that this was very “atmospheric” and this puzzle was “a little escape”. Many people though that the scratch was being generated by the VHS static and glitching on the screen! Being conscious of the relationship between your visuals and audio can enable you to accomplish a lot with very little.
  • We introduced walls as a secondary challenge. An early playtest with this mechanic on Saturday night revealed the player didn’t know if their command was being ignored when they were colliding with the wall. Our initial reaction was to put in a particle effect. After trying a couple of versions of this, we realised that it just didn’t fit the minimalism of the game. Instead I reused the animation I created for invalid sequencer input. Even though I was cutting a corner here, this ended up looking much more consistent with the rest of the game!
  • 5 is a really good number of people to work on a game with during a jam. Enough hands on deck when needed and enough room for every member to express themselves in the game’s design. Well done guys! It was a lot of fun!

If you are interested in giving it a go, please download from the page where it is available for PC and Mac. We are currently working on more levels and if you have feedback, we would love to hear it!

Rugby, as designed by UFC Game Designers

Last weekend was a fantastic one for sport. Not great results for RK Speed, South Africa, Munster and C.Mc, but enjoyable spectacles nonetheless! I was imagining what would happen if Razzie’s boys could fell the champions and if Munster could beat Leinster in the face of questionable refereeing. Conor’s comeback didn’t live up to the hype but the dream was still alive after he survived the 2nd round and clearly won the 3rd. These games had great moments and powerful stories which I believe is a result of Rugby and MMA being well designed games.

The blessing and curse of this course I’m taking in game design is looking at every experience under a different lens – I’m promise I’m still fun… Sports are especially interesting as prescribed experiences as they were not designed by game designers in isolation. They have rules and laws that were revised after years of playing and reflecting on their features as games and as meta-games. Even though we don’t usually think so, the law makers and referees are the on-the-fly game designers of sport.

I thought it would be a fun thought-experiment to clash games together. The scenario is this: World Rugby have decided the current format of Union (15’s) needs a radical refresh so they brought in the crack team that formulated competitive Mixed Martial Arts (specifically the UFC) to consult on the redesign of Rugby. What would they introduce using what they had learned from their last successful project? Let’s have a think…

Rugby in rounds

Rugby is currently just one big round of roughly 80 minutes of play. Even though we have a break in the middle, there is only one round to be won (although Timmy Ryan may have something to say about this). We know this to be quite common in lots of other sports of course. But why? Asking this is probably a paper in itself. A common answer might be: it’s a simple formula. Test who will have the highest score at the end of the game. It also provides for some long-term strategy and is a bit of a statement of athletic prowess. Still being able to pull off a key play at the end of the game is exciting and impressive.

There are some issues with having one big round. The game can be decided very early on, giving the losing side nothing to play for. If a game is close, the side that is currently winning could decide to try and just keep possession away from the opposition until the time is up – very common in rugby. While this might be an engaging competition, it is not always the most enjoyable to watch.

Why are the rounds not longer than 5 minutes in the UFC? Even though the athletes are in peak physical form, I think this time is a sweet spot between encouraging the players to operate at 100% knowing a break is coming and providing the possibility of mistakes from a tired defender. Why is Rugby Union 80 minutes long? Probably for similar reasons. It has previously been different lengths – the first international was 2 x 50 minute halves – so we can assume some sort of playtesting led the rugby community to 80 minutes. We can see that 7’s is only 7 minutes because they have relatively more pitch to cover.

I think length of play in a given sport is an interesting parameter because professional athletes are on average getting fitter but the times of sports are remaining the same. My hunch is: shorter rounds encourage more attack and longer rounds provide more blunders.

Emphasis on attacking rugby has been spoken about quite a bit in the rugby media over the past 6 years. Beyond the purists, it is accepted that more tries and exciting attack makes the game more appealing to fans. So if we broke down Rugby into 5 x 16 minute fifths, would it be played differently? Of course it would! Imagine this: South Africa beat New Zealand in the first, second and fourth fifths. The last ditch comeback (2 tries in 5ish minutes) wouldn’t be good enough!

Round based rugby does have some flaws. In round based combat sport, you’re never certain you’re winning. You might have an idea of the judges score cards but we have seen many upsets over the years. Also inevitable victories are avoided with the possibility of incapacitating your opponent at any point by KO or TKO – giving the side with lower points something to aim for in each round. Bloodbowl would be interesting to watch but doesn’t sound like a sustainable alternative path to victory. Do we even need it?

If we had the rounds in Rugby, the game could often be finished by round 3! Either the last two rounds would be pointless or just not-played. So if a side lost the first round, a lot of pressure would be put on them to win the second round to avoid a nightmare scenario in round 3. This may just encourage more out and out attack so who’s complaining about having an unknown game length? I guess this would be a big shake up for the hospitality and television companies that fund the sport. 48 minutes isn’t long enough for you? Make them 20 minute segments.┬áThese flaws don’t seem too awful in my book so I think we might be on to something!

Additional interesting ideas our UFC Rugby designers could introduce would be weight classes, narky press conferences and title bouts (actually Rugby kind of already has this concept in the Raeburn Shield). Who wouldn’t want to hear Eben Etzebeth intimidate Sam Whitelock roaring about all the line outs he was gonna take off him?

What do you think of this suggestion from our imaginary designers? Interested in hearing about Rugby as designed by other sport designers? Let me know!

Ryder Cup – a Game of Awesome Moments

Watching Francesco finish up 5 nil for the weekend against Mickelson on 16 was an awesome moment. Jon Rahm releasing his emotions after fighting off Tigers back-9 comeback was an awesome moment. Europe winning 8 matches back to back through Thursday afternoon and Friday morning was as well. The Ryder Cup is full of awesome moments (for the Americans as well… probably) and it appears to me the game is designed to create these. I thought I would highlight two of the aspects that make one of sport’s greatest events a particularly interesting game to me.

Matchplay – damage limitation

The format of the modern Ryder Cup has been fixed since Great Britain & Ireland was extended to include Europe in 1979. For the uninitiated: on the Friday and Saturday of the Ryder Cup, 8 players from each team will face off against each other in pairs playing both the Fourball and the Foursomes formats – both are Matchplay. Let’s unpack some of those terms:

  • Fourball – both my team mate and me play a ball on every hole. The best score amongst us is our score for the hole.
  • Foursomes – only one ball is shared between my team mate and me. We take turns hitting the same ball and therefore only have one score at each hole.
  • Matchplay – whichever team gets the ball in the hole with the fewest number of shots wins the hole. If both teams use the same number of shots, the hole is halved (tied).

I think the matchplay is a central reason to the Ryder Cup’s awesomeness. The tournament would have to be structured completely differently if we were counting shots or stableford points (I’m sure nobody would watch it). As well as being very simple to pick up, it also encourages ties more than other formats. For example if Casey had a diabolical 1st hole against Koepka, he would just be one hole behind him. If Casey won the 2nd hole, they would be tied again. This actually happened today. If they were not playing matchplay, a double bogey could be a huge setback for the match. Because score is tracked as a series of bouts, it is more likely the competition will be tight so every point is hard-fought. Victory will never fully be out of reach until the late in the back 9 when the golfers will be in front of a crowd, waiting for an awesome moment.

Matchplay – tactics

Matchplay also encourages you to think carefully about how the other player is playing a particular hole. If Phil is on the green in two here and has a sniper rifle for a putter, Francesco might as well have a cut no matter how risky. Or conversely, if Jordan is in the rough, I just need to play conservatively and aim for par. Le Golf National was repeatedly commented on for having holes favouring accuracy and tactical placement over pure distance. This definitely emphasised an interactive (or at least dependant) approach to shot selection. When these crazy shots come off, they are certainly awesome moments.

Matchplay – strategy of emotion

The above two points are of course true for any Golf matchplay but I think the Ryder Cup has a special layer of strategy for emotion. Teenage me would have reacted with “wait… theres no strategy in golf! you just do your best to hit the ball closer and closer to the hole until you can go home, right?” – absolutely wrong teen John! These golfers are not robots. They do not just passionlessly ping the ball along the grass. Playing in the Foursome pairs on the Friday and Saturday, the players undoubtedly feel some form of responsibility for where they leave the ball. This may manifest itself as pressure when it doesn’t come off and camaraderie when it does. Therefore it is important to put together players who will gel well and compliment each other’s skills. Furthermore, when selecting the order of the golfers, the captains are not aware who will be facing who. But it is common to put out strong golfers first on the Sunday to either consolidate a lead or ignite the comeback. This weekend, both sides put out 3 veterans ahead of their rookies. This would in theory take some of the pressure off the new players taking to this emotional stage. While it may not be for everybody, Rory kicking off the Sunday, matching the American attitude and swagger was very cool to watch.

Singles on the Sunday

So you might have noticed or already know that not all players have to play on the Friday and Saturday. On the Sunday, everybody plays. Nowhere to hide. 12 pts up for grabs on the Sunday. I guess in theory, the Ryder Cup could be won by the Saturday evening if one side had won all 16 of the matches. Did the designers just decide this was extremely unlikely? In any case, having 42% of the points up for grabs on the Sunday means the dream is always alive. It also means the game is asymmetrical! Taking this weekend as an example, every halved match in the singles was (in theory) a victory for Europe. The USA would have to do better than half hole and matches to win the trophy. That of course doesn’t mean that Europe were taking the foot off the gas. It just framed the game in a different way and as long as the score is not tied on Saturday evening, this will always be the case for the Sunday of the Ryder Cup. It creates an underdog and a potential comeback scenario. Beautiful!

I wonder what it would be like if the ratio was different and how they arrived at this particular number. Would comebacks be more or less likely if the ratio was 50/50 for example?

What do you think about the design of the Ryder Cup? Good game? Just more golf? I haven’t even commented on the sense of identity the Ryder Cup brings to the sport, giving us something more to cheers for than the name on a betting slip (or Rory I guess). It’s always a very exciting weekend for me and I appreciate it even more now under the lens of a designed game. Thanks for reading!