Week 3

This last week, we designed a game similar to tag, but also with the players being in teams or pairs. One of the things that we thought of was how to incorporate the design element of constraint that is talked about in chapter 2. 

“This is constraint—putting limits on player actions and interactions with the objects, other players, and the playspace with the intention of creating a play experience.” (Macklin and Sharp, Chapter 2)

We incorporated this constraint by having players lock arms. This prevented each player from being able to move where they would initially. Their partner would have to come with them (or be dragged with them). The goal of this was for players to gain a lusory attitude where they would willingly have a partner for the fun and somewhat chaotic experience of having one. Another goal of having players lock arms was to increase the challenge of the game. Players were no longer dependent on just themselves. In the game, we incorporated a rule where only one person on the team could tag and only one could be tagged. The goal of this was for each partner to be aware of where they were moving. 

Different from a normal game of tag, our game allowed each pair to be able to tag, rather than just one. A goal of this was not only to give each person in the pair an objective, but also to force players to have more decision making through the game.

“Games also require that players constantly evaluate what is happening while continuing to carry out their actions in the game.” (Macklin and Sharp, Chapter 2)

 With this, each tagger had to not only decide on who they would try to tag, but also think about where they would be leading their partner, as they could lose the game if their partner got tagged in their attempt to tag. With this, we hoped that the players would also be engaged in a cooperative play as they thought about where their partner would be positioned when they move. I believe that they type of cooperation we created was asymmetric cooperation. 

“This creates asymmetrical cooperation in which the players work to figure out how to best utilize the differences in the characters to achieve the game’s goal.” (Macklin and Sharp, Chapter 3)

By giving each player in each pair different roles, they had to think about how to best utilize themselves to win. One strategy could be having the tagger of a team get in front of their partner when they would have been tagged. Another type of play that we targeted was a whimsical play. After testing the game, we decided to change the arm-locking to hand holding. This allows players to be freer with their movement, which allows them to be more chaotic and silly with any strategy they come up with, like one getting on the other’s back for example. 

“Whimsical games like Hit Me and QWOP emphasize the role of the body, and differently from sports, focus on our physical foibles over our skillful grace.” (Macklin and Sharp, Chapter 3)