Jeffool.com

Generally Carnival of Gamers posts offer something to the reader. Well, this time I’m asking something of you. I’d like you to grade a test for me.

If you don’t read Tadhg Kelly’s blog, you don’t care enough about games; it’s just that simple. (Here, for later.) In one of his recent posts, he talks of the resume materials brought in to job interviews. Programmers have code samples, artists can show previous model/texture work, (both of those can perform tests,) level designers can bring levels, etc. But what does a a game designer put forth to show his ability? One could show a previous game, but that’s about it. So, Tadhg, in one of his fine ideas, has created a test (over here,) for designers.

Here’s the gist:

The particleblog design test
Place the candidate in a room and give them the following items.

1 deck of cards
4 six-sided dice
A pad of paper and three pens of different colours
1 pack of index cards (blank)
1 whiteboard and eraseable marker pen
1 bag of 50 black tokens
1 bag of 50 white tokens
2 table-tennis bats
1 table-tennis ball

And you tell them that they have 4 hours to create a game.

Here are the rules of the test:

1. The game must only use the components presented.
2. The game must be in a playable condition at the end of 4 hours.
3. The game must be playable by anyone (i.e. no obscure knowledge of trivia etc)
4. They do not have to use all the components. If they just want to create a puzzle game using only the whiteboard and the tokens, that’s fine.
5. They must not replicate a game which already exists
6. They must write out the rules of the game, because…
7. They don’t get to present the game

So, going from that, I’d like to present my game. If it’s not fun, well, I fail. If you have any questions about the rules, I guess I really fail. Well, I tried it. Let’s see how I did.

Lesser Man’s Face Off
This game is played only with fifty black tokens and a deck of playing cards. The ideal number of players is four-five, but this is flexible from two to fifty.

Pre-Game Set-Up:
Divide the tokens evenly amongst players. Remaining tokens may be given to players that are in need of a handicap, if all players agree. Otherwise set any remaining tokens out of play.

A Round:
The dealer shuffles the deck of cards to his satisfaction and offers the player to his right the chance to cut the deck. After the cut, the dealer then starts with the player to his left and, in a clockwise fashion, hands each player as many cards as they have tokens remaining in their possession.

Starting with the player with the fewest chips, (or in the case of a tie, the player that both has the fewest chips and is closest to the dealer’s left,) , in a clockwise fashion each player tells how many of their tokens they are willing to bet. Each following player can lower the bet if they wish, but no one may raise it. When the betting has made a full circle unchanged, each player must meet the bet by putting that number of tokens into the pot.

Then each player, using a number of cards equal to the bet made, must fashion their best hand possible. (If the lowest bet is two, then each player must put two tokens inthe pot and may only use two cards from their initial dealings.)

The points for each hand from lowest to highest is as follows:
single higher card =1
pair =2
two pair =3
three of a kind =4
five straight =5 (+1 for each additional card in a straight)
four of a kind =6
royal flush =7 (+1 for each additional card in the straight)

The player able to make the most points of their hand wins all of the tokens in the pot. If there is a tie, the player with the highest card in their highest point-getting combination wins the pot. If the players highest card in their highest point-getting combination is of the same value, then the winning players split the pot as evenly as possible and leave any remaining tokens in the pot for the next hand. After a hand, the cards are collected and the player to the left of the current dealer becomes the new dealer, and a new round begins.

Losing Condition:
If a player runs out of tokens, then they are out of the game and may no longer play.

Winning Condition:
If a player wins all of the tokens, leaving no more opponents, then he wins the game.

Not incredibly complex, but hey, it’s just a first try. Anyone actually read this far and want to give me a grade?

(Sorry. It was either that or “Wii will rock you!” which I guarantee you the gaming press will wear that out quickly.) (Also, sorry again, I won’t be making penis jokes.)

Nintendo has announced that their next console (codenamed ‘Revolution’) will in fact be named Wii. Now, is anyone who likes the idea of the Wii, or anyone who likes Nintendo, not going to get this system because of an odd name? No. Just want to get that out of the way. Face it, a bunch of fans will be waiting overnight to get it on launch day. This is a given, accept it and move on. Now, let’s move on to nongamers.

I think that this oddly named product has the potential to make the word ‘Nintendo’ ubiquitous to gaming again. The Wii’s ability to take players in a new direction (yes, thanks to the controller, its ability to offer add-ons, and an assumed retained focus on gameplay) will make it different from other systems, which has long been Nintendo’s “Blue Ocean” strategy. They want to the the iPod to Sony’s discman and Microsoft’s… Well, ‘other discman.’ (To stick with the comparison.) To do that, they’ll need a new type of gaming to go along with it. Let’s hope that Red Steel is only the tip of that iceberg.

There are also those who game, but don’t really care. Let’s call them non-fans. I have no problem with people like that, as I’m sure Nintendo hopes to make a killing off of these people! They bought Guitar Hero because it was new, and fun. They bought Halo when they heard that fun coop had came back to gaming. They buy whatever console or a PC and play the games they like. To those, normal, people, gaming is similar to TV and movies. They play a game and then go about their day and I commend them for it. Gaming doesn’t have to be an all-encompassing way of life.

But the haters? The ones who actively hate on Nintendo, not just because of the name, but call them ‘too kiddie’ simply because their games don’t contain more violence/blood? The people who will surely be using the term ‘Wiitards’ in the coming years? Y’know, those people who you (I) secretly hate because they think of themselves as hardcore for getting into games because of Final Fantasy VII? People who have never so much as heard of M.U.L.E.? They’ve pushed me over the edge. After constant complaining about how gaming has been ruined by marketing and graphics-whoring games, which they themselves buy every year, they have the nerve to bitch when a large company finally makes a move to be independent of that type of shit. To reference RvB, they could bitch about anything.

I’ve never owned a Gamecube. It didn’t strike me as something I’d like at the beginning due to the games released on it, and I never got around to picking one up after games I thought I would enjoy finally came out. But a while back I picked up a Nintendo DS and it all made sense to me. It just felt ‘right’. Before, I was just ‘really interested’ in the Wii. Now I’m drinking the Kool-Aid. I’m in Nintendo’s boat and sailing off into the Blue Ocean with them, because I desperately want greener gaming pastures.

So a week ago a link was passed around about how virtually all informative video game related internet shows (video and audio) suck. (Here.) I can totally understand his opinion. I only listen to one podcast really; well, aside from the Lost podcast, but that’s mandatory. I listen to one video game podcast, and it’s the one I host (host meaning provide webspace for, not perform emcee duties during,) Evil Avatar Radio.

If you stay up to date on all the video game goings on then it won’t provide you with information, just maybe a few laughs. If you’re not into that, you probably shouldn’t bother. But the reason I feel that it works and provides those laughs is because it’s approached more like a bastardized local talk show than an authoritative podcast. As it’s an offshoot from the gaming news-link-site EvilAvatar.com. Our sense of community has really carried over well to the show and as a reader of the site, I feel like a part of the show even when I’m not on it because I know those talking (and being talked about,) relatively well. (Hell, you can even listen live and call in from 10pm-1am Eastern Friday nights.) Also, I would think that a cast of people who work well together would help non-EvAvers get into the feel of things, I would think. After all, a well functioning community is always appealing.

Now, the idea of ‘community podcasting’ is obviously not new. Many TV shows, websites, and other hobbies have their own podcasts. And it’s not just podcasts for communities. Some communities have sprung up around initial podcasts (TWiT, etc.) This lead me to thinking about community gaming. Not just a community about gaming, or even gaming with your community, but rather gaming about your community. If one were to look at gaming as a reflection of the partaking community then it’s easy to see why FPS players are the jocks of the gaming world. FPS’ are all competition, there’s smacktalk, rivalries, and their stars even get endorsement deals. Hardcore MMORPGers are the Amish, who have moved away from our civilization, preferring their own world. And of course who could forget the starving artists of Interactive Fiction?

So, I thought, what if someone were to invert even that? Let’s take a community, and build a game around it. Hell, you could even shove those people into an existing game. Remember how much fun it was to type your friends names into Oregon Trail and see if they’ll make it? Imagine starting up a popular single player game and playing in a world where the cast is a community you’ve known for years. It sounded fun, so, I think I’ll do it.

Oh, and that radio show? Because I’m an attention whore you can hear me in the latest episode, F-Bomb. (Actually, it was after we finished the show when we realized that by recording this on the internet instead of the radio, we could have cussed constantly if we wanted. And we wanted. We just didn’t know Nat hadn’t stopped recording.)