UDK LEVEL: FINAL ADDITIONS

           The only assignment I did not get a first grade on this year was the UDK Level and it was for two reasons - one, I did not have any sounds or triggers and two, my level didn't make use of packages (UPK's). I must admit, the level I created was buggy, but I was proud of it considering it was my first ever attempt at using UDK.

    Even so, I couldn't bare finishing university without getting an entire years streak of first grades (you just can't put a price on that). So, in an attempt to achieve this goal, I went into university outside of hours and added what needed adding in. It was hard, I'll be honest, figuring out UPK's with very little assistance had me dumbfound for a little while, but eventually, I did it! I added in preset sounds and tweaked the triggers etc and added in a custom sound that required the creation and exporting of a UPK for future use on other computers.

I'm fully aware that further use of UPK's will take place next year, as the course begins to focus more on level design and the use of UDK, so this challenge I have been posed with has been beneficial. Hopefully, after these additions, I should get a first for the UDK Level!

Here's to hoping I get a first on my group GDD document!

GDD: SYNERGY: GAME DESIGN DOCUMENT AND PRESENTATION

UDK LEVEL (FIXING AND ADDITIONS)

          Play testing session taken into account, I went back to fix, develop and refine my in progress UDK map. With the time limit being as constricting as it was, I didn't have the freedom to really take the map where I wanted it to go and make those dramatic improvements I wish I could of made (the scale of the large bases). However, regardless of these constraints, I still managed to fix some of the issues and make some additions, Take a look at the screenshots below and I'll discuss them later on in this hopefully small post.

UDK LEVEL - ADDITIONS
by Christian Whelan

The GIF is in the order of the additions I made to the map, so I'll start with the first image.

Considering the time constraint and therefore my inability to make any drastic modifications to the scale of the map, I had to find another way to make running around the map less of a chore every time the player dies. So, in order to do this, I added in jump pads in two places - the bridge and the small bases. Two on the bridge and one on each small base. The two on the bridge take the player to their corresponding large base, which in turn, creates a second entrance and exit in some sense, as the player can also jump to the bridge using the same method. The jump pads on each small base take the player to the base on their left-hand side. I believe these additions dramatically improve the map and pace of combat whilst still allowing players to roam near the 'Pit' if they so wish to.

The next Addition was the teleporting points - two within either large base. These teleporting points replace the bugged large jump pads that caused confusion for those in the sniper tower. Now, there is a teleporting point in each base's first floor that leads to their own tower and back. Again, this is a major improvement considering this was the reoccurring complaint in play-testing.

Another criticism was that player never fell to their death when they supposed to. A simple fix for this, was to add a kill box - I did this and thankfully it works.

Finally, and in theory most importantly, I added some coloured lighting in order to distinguish between sides of the map. Personally, I believe the map was too confusing and therefore lackluster in the visuals. Considering this map is designed to be a Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch and Capture the Flag map, it only made sense to make these colours blue and red (in classic Unreal Tournament fashion). Not only this, but these colours are contrasting and complimenting, allowing players to easily distinguish where they are, and in the team based modes, what team they are on.

       So in all. I believe these addition make the map what it should have been, even if the map itself is not what it could have been. Even so, I think I did a good enough job with the time, knowledgeable and experience I had. However, there where a few things I could (and on the most part, tried and failed) to add in to take the map even further - sounds, lighting types and materials. In terms of further improvement or considerations, I thin I could of thought about weapon, ammo, and vehicle placement a little but more, but I guess time constraints just got in the way.

Maybe on the next map!

NEXT POST: CHARACTER AND LEVEL DESIGN (THE CONCEPT)

UDK LEVEL: PLAYTESTING

      I finally got to play-test my UDK Level with real life players! I hosted my server and 11 players joined. The results were great, but as expected, I found some issues brought up by friend mid-play, hilarious ones at that.  Some were game breakers that could be exploited, and some where spoil inconsistencies in the map.

PLAYERS COULDN'T GET DOWN FROM THE SNIPER TOWERS - The jump pads are too confusing, so in order to make things sniping a little easier and less taxing. I shall learn how to implement teleporters in UDK and place two for each tower - one for the tower room and one for the second floor of the large structures.

TEXTURES MISSING AROUND THE MAP - Mid-play, many players told me a texture was missing. I've written them down and will simply fix them. In fact, I may even change up the textures altogether to make the map a little prettier.

PLAYERS FOUND THE MAP CONFUSING - A concern I shared throughout the development process. Its perfectly symmetrical, therefore it's incredibly hard to know which side is which. Especially considering there is absolutely nothing to distinguish both from one another. Either I will add some coloured lighting into the mix (which will also facilitate other game modes) or I'll modify the structures. 

INVISIBLE FLOATING PATHWAYS - At one side of the bridge, an invisible path leads upward towards one of the large structures  Although funny, it meant one of the players could exploit it - they could shoot through it but none of the other player could, putting them at a disadvantage.

BOUNCE PAD LOOKS UGLY - The large bounce pad that caused confusion for the sniper towers are so large they have bugged out. Because of this, it looks ugly. Fortunately, I am replacing them in favour for the teleporting points.

INVISIBLE WALLS - My tutor (also play testing my level) found that the second floor of the large structures has an invisible wall, meaning players couldn't and can't get down from the room unless they use the stairs. I have no idea why this is, probably another resultant of constant extrusion from one brush or interconnecting verts. I'll have to investigate this.

PLAYER NOT DYING FROM LARGE FALLS - The main pit in the middle of the map was supposed to be the balance for risk and reward when it came to the vehicle and UDamage. Players are supposed to fall and die if they miscalculate the jump. The problem was and is, that players didn't die. They fell to the bottom and fell into the infinity space. An easy solution, will be to add a death zone to ensure automatic death.

     Overall, I think the play-testing went really well. Players enjoyed it and my level was given its fair share of compliments. However, it clearly has issues and although I am happy with it, I know it's far from perfect. The next step is to fix and polish these issues. Hopefully, with some success.

NEXT POST: UDK LEVEL (FIXING AND ADDITIONS)

IT'S DA BOMB: PLAY TEST SESSIONS

         One session was spent play testing the three puzzles developed for my third assignment. This was done not only to help further my knowledge of puzzle design, but to give me an impression of what puzzle should be refined and handed in as a final deliverable. Altogether the session was incredibly useful when it came to balancing out the mechanics in order to make the puzzle not too easy, but not too hard - a key aspect of any puzzle. Below are photos taken from the play test sessions and the notes.

IT'S DA BOMB: MAZE PUZZLE

PLAY TEST SESSION 1

    This first play test session took place with my fiancee (the image above was taken in the main play test session) whilst the puzzle was to developed. My hopes was for the puzzle to be as refined as possible before it goes into the final testing sessions.

Too easy to solve
At first the maze was simply too easy to solve. To fix this, I altered the routes so that the entrance the solver would find last was at the top of the maze. From this point, the route was further modified to ensure the confusion when exploring the maze. Hopefully this complaint will not pop up again.

Walls not clear enough/ Presentation not good enough
This can be blamed entirely down to the fact the puzzle had not be fully presented - the maze was drawn in faint pencil to leave room for alterations. This not only made it look ugly, but the solver could not differentiate between what was a wall and what was an entrance. Safe to say this was to be fixed before the main play tests sessions.

PLAY TESTS SESSION 2

"Oh my god. This is hard!"
By the end of this session, they did eventually complete the maze, however the fact that they panicked and struggled is a good sign that the challenge was there, proving the previous session's success.

Player retreading old paths
This is a great sign that the maze is challenging. It is exactly what I wanted to happen when I was developing the maze - once they get in, it's going to be hard getting out. However, as stated previously, this was the same session where the solver completed the maze.

Player stopping to think
A crucial aspect of any puzzle is that the player has to stop and think. This happened consistently throughout this session and in doing so, the solver managed to complete the maze. Another great sign that the puzzle has been designed successfully.

Player moves clockwise first/ started on entrance closest to entrance
From my previous assignment, I learned that players move clock wise. Thus, I made sure that the right entrance was the last one and the wrong entrance was the one closest to the entrance. The player chose the one closest to the entrance first, therefore, this intentional design choice paid off.
  
PLAY TEST SESSION 3 

"I can't fault it. There's nothing really wrong with it"
This comment speaks for itself. It pretty much sums up that the puzzle is at its best. 

"Possible competitive elements?"
This was a suggestion considering the player thought it was perfect. Competitive elements are something that could be implemented, however through research I have learned that puzzles are rarely competitive - rather they aim to test a single solvers ingenuity.

IT'S DA BOMB: MATH BOMB

 

PLAY TEST SESSION 1

"Like the idea, but actually doing it isn't as fun... makes me feel stupid"
The first thing to note is that the puzzle itself is a great idea, clearly the execution is at fault here. This issue must lie within the main mechanic of the puzzle - the mathematical puzzles. I wondered if these calculations would of been too hard to solve, clearly they were.

"Either make it just plus and minus, or take it down to 3 numbers instead of 4. Anything to make it simpler"
This is a suggestion resultant from the previous issue, and it's a valid one. The calculations were clearly too hard, therefore reducing the numbers would make the puzzle as easy as it would be by reducing the amount of mathematical symbols. The question is which to reduce to make is easier but still retain the challenge.

"Have a mechanic that gives the player the symbols use, like a clue."
I was actually baffled I hadn't thought of this beforehand considering clues are a major part of puzzles. I was told in a lecture that a puzzle is worthless if it isn't solvable - clues prevent such a scenario. Therefore, a clue system was added that aided the solver in the calculations, but also punished them by taking time off the solver. 

PLAY TEST SESSION 2

"Yep, this is fine now, and it looks really good!"
After considering the criticism and suggestions from the previous play test session and finally improving the presentation, the puzzle looked like it was at its best. However that was just through considering suggestions from one solver.

PLAY TEST SESSION 3

"Really well presented"
Once again the presentation was complimentary, and considering understandability is key in puzzles, the presentation being one of the strong suits is a good sign the design is successful.

Not enough time for the solver to finish the puzzle.
In this case, the solver found it near impossible to finish the puzzle within the 5 minute time limit that was set. This was not just the case with this session however, almost all solvers struggled greatly with the time limit. Therefore it was suggested that the time limit should be heightened and so it was - to 10 minutes.

More puzzles to add variety
At this stage there were only 4 different mathematical puzzles. The result of this is that the puzzle (once played) became repetitive - once the solver had completed the puzzle, the puzzle could not be solved again. Thus, 3 more mathematical puzzles were made with potential for many more.

"Definitely increase the time limit, as although it would be a long puzzle, it's fun enough to want to spend more time on the puzzle"
This not only solidifies the second note of this session, but it also emphasises the puzzle's success as a whole. From this statement, I can now confidently state that the puzzle is fun and challenging.

Solver smiled when they unlocked a digit
I had completely left the solver to solve the puzzle on his own. When you consider this fact, the solver smiling when he unlocked a digit is phenomenal, as a person is more likely to reflect a positive emotion when in groups. This is a clear sign that the rewards in the puzzle are an effective motivator and measurement of progression.

 

IT'S DA BOMB: LIGHTS OUT

PLAY TEST SESSION 1

Possible larger field of view to avoid confusion

The view finder is the primary mechanic of the puzzle and thus, the most crucial part of the puzzle. This importance when compared with the extent the solver will interact with this, raised the issue of confusion. The solver seemed distressed when using the viewfinder, as it obstructed his view a little too much. However the solver did manage to solve the puzzle and instantly seemed pleased. A possible alteration here?

More time? 5 Minutes?

Although the solver did complete the puzzle, he was left with no less than 5 seconds left on the clock. Whether this was down to the solver using his time strategically of whether it was simple chance will be answered in further play test sessions. At least 1 minute could be added onto the time limit to be safe.

PLAY TEST SESSION 2

"No need for larger field of field. It's perfect!"

When questioned about a previous complaint, the solver replied with the above statment. At the end of the day, some people will find a puzzle difficult, where as other will find it perfect - it is meant to be challenging. Therefore the time limit will not be altered after all.

        As you can see the play test sessions went perfectly. Both the positive and negative feedback gave me great insight into how I could refine the puzzles and push them forward for a great product. Within each of these puzzles, I believe I have succeeded. However, when looking over the play testing notes, it seems that the math bomb really had the most feedback - this was completely down to interest and how immersed the solvers were. They really wanted to give their opinion on it. As a result of this conclusion, "It's Da Bomb: Math Bomb" will be the puzzle that I refine and hand in as a final deliverable - it has the most potential.  

 NEXT POST:  IT'S DA BOMB: MATH BOMB (INSTRUCTIONS)

 

WHAT'S MINE IS YOURS: PLAY TESTING SESSION AND NOTES

   I had an entire 4 hours to play test 'I Do' with multiple groups to gather the notes I needed to improve and refine the game's mechanics. Each play test session gave me 20 minutes to let the players test the game and a further 5 minutes to receive feedback from the players.

 

As you can clearly see, the players enjoyed themselves very much when playing 'I Do', however regardless there where still criticisms by the end of the session. Note: The texts in bold are the actual play test notes. The text following each note is my response to those notes.

PLAY TEST SESSION ONE

ORIGINAL GOAL LIMITED GAME – PLAYERS COULD BUY THE BEST ITEMS INSTANTLY AND WIN GAME.

The goal needed to be changed completely, therefore the game’s goal now focuses around the last team standing – this ensured that the game continued on and was determined by chance and strategy.

PLAYERS ALWAYS WENT CLOCKWISE INSTEAD OF ANTI-CLOCKWISE.

The game originally asked players to move anti-clockwise, however due to confusion and the fact that most board games ask players to move clock-wise, the game has been changed to answer criticism and help players understand the game.

PLAYERS COULD BUY THE ITEMS STRAIGHT AWAY.

As the game’s main goal changed, rather than a focus on collecting, the game has switched to survival. Thus, players no longer buy items at choice; instead they have to no matter what.

PLAYERS LIKED THE CARD IDEA, AND ITEMS WERE THE MOST BORING PART OF GAME.

The items had no value or identity beside the “I” or they were assigned. Therefore both items and venues now have their own cards that players pick up. This will answer the demand for cards whilst also fix the issue of boredom when working with items.

 

PEOPLE ENJOYED LUCK CARDS IN THE GAME.

The luck cards in the game were a big hit, so in answer to this reaction, more luck cards were made and opportunities to land on them were increased.

PLAYERS KNEW WHAT WAS COMING NEXT OF WHAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN.

As the game was linear, players had an idea of exactly where they could land. As a result, chance cards where added which moved the players back and forth – this adds more cards (the most loved aspect of the game) and more variety.

PLAYERS COULD PLAY THE GAME ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT EVER HELPING TEAM MATE.

The game was so rewarding that players never had to use teamwork. More minuses where added into the game to promote teamwork and make it essential in order to win.

PLAYERS SPENT TOO MUCH TIME HANDLING MONEY RATHER THAN PLAYING.

Although explained, the currency system required a lot of calculations, therefore all currencies and amounts where changed to denominations of 20 in order to simplify process and shift focus to the game.

 PLAY TEST SESSION TWO

PLAYERS LOSING MONEY ON FIRST TURN.

The first six spaces were too punishing, thus more reward spaces were added to ensure the first move the player makes is positive or exciting, starting players off to an entertaining game.

PLAYERS FACED THE THREATS OF BEING KNOCKED OUT OF THE GAME ON THE FIRST CYCLE.

To increase the players starting chances, the starting budget was increased to £300 instead of £200 – this balanced out the sense of despair and hope.

PLAYERS EARNED TOO MUCH MONEY TO FACE ANY THREAT.

As the game progressed, players were earning close to £2000 in total, ensuring the game would continue on for too long and that any threat wouldn't affect the player. The only solution was too add more double misuses and to remove one double plus in favour of a smaller single plus space.

FIRST TWO TURNS TOO DANGEROUS FOR PLAYERS.

Through each game, the players were still more likely to face punishment in the first two turns. Therefore the first 8 spaces were made even more rewarding with the addition of more double plus spaces.

PLAYERS WERE HAVING LONG STREAKS OF BAD LUCK.

To stop long streaks of bad luck, the reward and punishment spaces were spread out more evenly.

DIAMOND POINT GAVE TOO MUCH MONEY.

Every player crosses the diamond point at some point, thus each player was gaining the large reward. Seeming as though the money was a certainty, reducing the amount earned at this point was acceptable, therefore it was dropped to £200 – not too low and not too high now further mechanics had changed.

    The first play test session focused on the large issues of the game, whereas as the second session focused on the little issues that could polish the game. However when carrying out the second play test session I noticed these smaller issues actually gave birth to game breaking problems. Since these two play test sessions I have rebuilt the game from ground up taking into account the complaints as well as the positives. And through play tests at home, the game seems to have developed far beyond what it was. However, further play tests have to be carried out, as the game may not be perfect.

NEXT POST: WHAT'S MINE IS YOURS: FINAL INSTRUCTIONS