It has support for graphics, sound effects, triggers, mouse clicks, timing and text as output well as input. With all those tools, you should really be able to do something!

So I just got up again, it's the middle of the night and I've been googling. There are actually quite a few educational PowerPoint games out there but they all seem to... Suck. Hard. Big time. That's too bad really. But one could ask, why make a "game" in PowerPoint when there's Flash, etc. My answer is; because of the fun of it and because it's possible.

I'm gonna prototype!

Update: 45 minutes later and I got a prototype "up and running". It's just a proof of concept, but it does what it's supposed to. You can click on the door, the lock, the key and the window with the ladder. You can climb out, get the key and unlock the door. Feel free to try it. Nothing fancy. I'm happy, maybe I can finally get some sleep.

Download The Castle Game

http://arcadeberg.com/files/2010/05/The-Castle-Game.pptx (16/5/2010)

Actual in-game screenshot. No post processing!

Easy game control is a good thing. Well-done game mechanics is another good thing. But when Ubisoft removes much of the charm of being stealthy and sneaky by rewarding me with the function to be able to shoot all the bad guys I see with the touch of a button - then I wonder, was it really a gameplay related point of the reward?

It works like that, the new system of Conviction. A possibility to win by putting out a small red marker to kill a whole bunch of enemies by pressing a button. In my world it becomes more of a punishment, because I play stealth games to get to feel really über-awesome to sneak up on every enemy - and kill them silently.

[...]

This is surely wonderful for many when Conviction turns into a cool movie, complete with the Jason Bourne-influences and everything.

(Translated from Swedish) - http://www.gamereactor.se/blog/petter/#162263 (18/4/2010)

I disagree and I think he just doesn't get it. It's weird, really. I respect him and he usually writes good stuff, but this time I'm just no sure what he's thinking. He complains about the game turning into a movie instead of game, because of the feature to "mark" several enemies and execute them with a press of a button. I see it another way. All they've done is that they've moved and refocused the gameplay.

To be able to execute this technique you first need to perform special actions, like killing someone in stealth close combat, so the stealth gameplay is still very much there and heavily encouraged. The gameplay now focuses on preparation, placement of Sam Fisher (the avatar) and the execution/activation of a planned attack. That for me, is still a whole lot of fun, interactive and not in any way "automatic" or a movie.

Basically, they've just done the shooting aspect of the game more streamlined, which still isn't the entire game, thanks to the stealth, the gadgets and the maneuverability.

Sure, one could argue that the result is a less fun game if you're looking for a precision shooter. But I'm pretty sure the devs knew the game inside and out when designing the levels and scenarios, so claiming that the game became too easy just because of this it strange, because it's a result of many things.

Batman still PWNS Sam though. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/8/28/

There are all forms of expectations when we play games. Many are based on other similar games, like when playing an FPS you keep comparing it to how other FPS games work. If you get a handgrenade, you'd expect to throw it. Not to pull the pin, hold the grenade and then die.

Whenever I play a new Mario-game I can be sure of a few things. Like that it'll be accessible, charming and that I won't pee myself because of fear. Hopefully I won't pee myself at all, come to think of it. Anyway, my point is we always have references while playing and we base our expectations on those.

One of the most brilliant ones I've ever played is in the "Lost in Nightmares" expansion for Resident Evil 5.

Back in -96, the first Resident Evil was released and while the game became a hit, there was one part in particular that came to become an instant cult classic. I'm talking about a hallway in which dogs jump in from outside through the windows. The first time around, players weren't ready for it and it scared the living shit out of them, me included. I remember actually having nightmares... Come on, I was 10 years old.

Whenever people talk about scary moments in games, that scene is brought up.

All of the following Resident Evil games of course had more (in amount) scary moments but I don't think anyone was as effective.

In the Lost in Nightmares expansion, you're playing in an estate extremly similar to that in the first game and to the right of the main hall, just like in the original, there's an identical hallway and guess what; it gave me the chills. In addition, you also hear dogs barking. Not nice!

It might not look scary in the year 2010...

Déjà vu in all its glory. When walking in the exact same corridor again, you get that eerier feeling if knowing that you're in a very, very scary place, but because it's something new at the same time, you do not know what's gonna happen.

It's an excellent example of a good use of the references players that knows about the first Resident Evil have.

If you haven't played it, I'm not gonna spoil what does, or does not happen...

Anyhow, the thing I wanted to share with you was something that happened to me. Have a look at this first screen and look at the top of the screen and then in the center at the syringe that's referred to.

Evade Syringe

When I noticed the open hand icon and the text "Evade Syringe" I thought; "Whoah! That was close. I almost stepped on the syringe! I'd better avoid it.", so I left it alone and moved on.

STOP!

I read the open hand as "Stop!" and "Evade Syringe" as a warning. But lookie, lookie, what I noticed shortly thereafter:

9mm Rounds

The hand means to pick up and not to stop and the text was the name of the object. The "Evade Syringe" was a usable item that I could use to gain some evasion skill for a short duration.

It's not a huge deal, and I won't be making that mistake again. But the hand in combination with that name sure fooled me.

So lesson learned for me, when making user interface you have to think on how it's read.

This is more how a pick up hand looks in my head:

I actually made this pic.

I started playing Mass Effect 2 last night and I imported my character from Mass Effect (1).

During my play-troughs of Mass Effect, I've always been a bit bothered with the looks I set for my character, because his hairstyle is a bit glitchy sometimes. In some cut-scenes there's some major clipping going on. So yeah, that's always been annoying me.

After having imported him into Mass Effect 2, I got the option to keep or change the appearance of him and guess what; I just couldn't bear with me to change it. I just couldn't. Because for me, that guy with the glitchy hair is commander Shepard and we've been together for more than 50 hours already, so I can't just change him for my Mass Effect 2.

Well done Bioware!

Congratulations. You are now playing the game (if you weren't already).

The Game is very simple.

1. You are always playing the game.
2. Every time you think about The Game, you lose.
3. Loss of The Game must be announced.

And now for some copy/paste from Wikipedia so I don't have to type in the same thing:

The Game is an ongoing game, the objective of which is to avoid thinking about The Game itself. Thinking about The Game constitutes a loss, which, according to the rules of The Game, must be announced each time it occurs. How to win The Game is not defined in the rules; players can only attempt to avoid losing for as long as possible. The Game has been described alternately as pointless and infuriating, or as a challenging game that is fun to play.

[...]

Some players allow a grace period of 30 seconds to half an hour after someone has lost, during which a player cannot lose The Game again, or is not obliged to announce a loss[1] This is done in order to prevent a perpetual loss of the game.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_(mind_game) (22/1/2010)

I honestly, as a game designer, think that The Game is brilliant. I've been "playing" it for years and losses can take anything from a few hours to several months to occur. The clever thing is that really, once invited you can't not play, except that you can refuse to announce your loss. But this is just like the Polar Bear trick:

- Don't think about Polar Bears.

Now you're thinking about Polar Bears!

Even the people who refuse to partake in the game and hence don't announce their loss, when they actually DO think about the game, they also think "I lose".

One could argue that the whole thing is stupid, and maybe it is, but there's actually some things to study and learn from here. There are three easy rules, it spreads like the plague, never ends and you're constantly playing.

Sorry, but you're playing.

For a long time I've been visiting them about once every two weeks to check up on them and see how far along their awesome game "Bob Came In Pieces" was. It's been a joy to see it develop and it's been great fun to be able to give some feedback along the way.

http://ludosity.com/games/bob/

They've just released a trailer and the response has been great and they're popping up all over the Internet! Not bad for a little indie game.

International Media:

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/debut-trailer-bob-came-in/59801

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/12/10/ship-building-bob-came-in-pieces/

http://www.indiegames.com/blog/2009/12/preview_bob_came_in_pieces_lud.html

Swedish Media:

http://www.fz.se/nyhetsarkiv/?id=35835

http://spel.feber.se/art/170315/trailer_fr_bob_came_in_pieces/

(All URL worked 10/12/2009)

It's a physics based puzzle game and I really enjoy playing it! You should definately have a go at it when you get the chance.

And btw, it's made using Unity3D which I've been writing about every now and then.

So here's a shout out for my friends over at Ludosity Interactive! Fun game and good luck!

There's finally some video of gameplay available on Deathspank from Ron Gilbert with a 2D/3D-mix.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/pax-09-deathspank/55826 (15/9/2009)

But the one game that has really caught my eye for its' art style alone is definitely 3D Dot Game Heroes.

What is this? Pixeled 3D-art? Well, it's different, hence you should have a looksie. As far as I know, there are no news about a US/European release.

Oh, and btw; I for one actually thinks the game looks like fun to play as well!

I’ve spent a few hours with Scribblenauts for the Nintendo DS. A game that instantly became one of my all time favorite handheld games. It’s brilliant.

The game in itself is a designers dream, really. If you don’t know about it, I recommend reading up on it or checking some video review.

Summary, coming up:

You’re Maxwell and your mission is to get your hands on a Starite (a star) on every level. Either by simply reaching it, or by solving a puzzle; depending on if it’s an action level or a puzzle level.

The amazing mechanic however, is that you can bring up a keyboard and write any word in it, and it will spawn in the game world. And the crazy thing is, it has a huge amount of words hidden in there. I’ve spawned “laser sword”, “tranquilizer gun”, “wings”, “behemoth”, “ninja”, “shuriken”, “Kraken” and so on… And so on… And so on…

Each thing has a behavior, so you can attack with weapon, shoot with guns, drive vehicles, etc. If you write “hunter” and then “bear”, the hunter will kill the bear.

And yes, you can write “maid” to have her clean up and then type “shotgun”, grab it and kill her. Amazing, isn’t it?

The game in itself is worth all the attention it is getting. I, like many other developers are thinking:

- Why didn’t I think of that! Daaaamn you, 5th Cell!

You could chop it down with an "axe", use a "chain saw" or why not tie it to a "helicopter" with a "rope"?

But(!) the thing that I find really interesting with this game is how I, and most other people play it.

For example, there is one level where the mission is to reunite a cat on a rooftop with a girl standing on the ground.

An obvious, working and easy way to do this would be to simply type “ladder”, climb up to the cat, pick it up and carry it down to the girl.

Did I do that? Of course not! I tried a ton of stuff, like using dynamite to simply destroy the house. Unfortunately, the cat died and I failed. I used a “fan”, placed it on the roof and had the cat blown down. You can use a “helicopter” to get there. Or why not a “jetpack”?

I know I’m not alone in pondering on how to finish the level in a cool, interesting, unnecessary complex or just not an “obvious” way. That’s what makes the game fun for us.

You can’t really “beat the game” (don’t confuse this with finishing it, which you can) because we’re encouraged to try out these mad ideas.

This shows that if you give the player a big enough playing field, there’s a good chance for him to have fun on his own without constant pampering from the game’s creator. This is also often the case with games including a lot of physics, where the player is likely to play around with that, finding different solutions for a given problem.

It’s a fantastic thing, when players start having fun in a game when it’s not just by progressing in it. It’s more of play than a game.

Scribblenauts isn’t the only game that empowers this behavior, but it’s the game that does it best in a very long time! To be completely honest, right now I can’t think of any other game that does it as well.

PS.

The two funniest words I’ve found out yet are:

1. Longcat – If you’re a lolcatz-fan and is familiar with 4chan, this one will crack you up!
2. Ninjashark – It’s a friggin’ Ninja Shark! That is just pure awesomenesss!

Luck is basically the opposite of skill, since it’s something you don’t have control over. For me, that’s the opposite of what the player wants to do. He wants to perform, to affect the outcome of the game, right?

But yes, I can’t deny that luck can be very efficient in game design as well, even if I’m not personally a fan. Like when picking up a Power Up and you don’t know what you’re gonna get.

For me, a rule of thumb when it comes to implementing luck into a game is to figure out where it lies in the scale from “just for fun” and “hardcore competition”.

If the game is used for competing with other players and perhaps even just with bots, luck shouldn’t be a big factor. Imagine playing Quake online and once you have the aim on an opponent and press Fire, a slot machine appears on screen. If you get three of the same icon in a row, he dies, if not, he is unaffected. That’s not really a way to excel.

But when it comes to games that you play “just for fun” (one could argue that’s the reason we play any game but think of it more as a play than a game) even if they are competitive, like Mario Kart with friends, luck can be great.

You never know what Power Up you’re gonna get but that’s just a part of the thrill.

I’m gonna tell you a little story about my time at GRIN and the power of luck.

At GRIN, we were a group of people that usually played LAN during lunch breaks and other spare time. We played GRID, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, some were playing Company of Heroes and there was some Battlefield 2 going on. But all the games had a lifespan of a couple of weeks, because after a while it was clear who was the better player and people started having less fun because they never won.

Then, brilliant as I am, I suggested we played Worms Armageddon.

A group of seven people, including me, started playing Worms Armageddon via LAN everyday. To make a long story short, we ended up playing 2-7 matches per day for about half a year. The only reason we stopped playing it was because… Well, our office was shut down. (I hope they’re unrelated…)

What was so amazing with Worms was the tremendous amount of luck and dumb fun involved. You never knew what kind of weapons you’d get your hands on, so even the “worst” gamer could get his hand on a Holy Hand grenade and wipe out an entire team.

The key here is that we never knew who would win the game. And everybody won now and again, even our sound guy Anders… If you’re reading this (I don’t think he is), I’m sorry.

Because of this, we could keep on playing. The game just never stopped being fun.

Skill mattered, but luck triumphed. We were just playing for fun.

If I have to reach a conclusion at the end of this post, I suppose it is that you should think long and hard about what the effect of having luck in your game will be and that it’s a two-edged sword.

And don’t drink and drive!