I sincerely enjoyed reading your game idea. I can tell that there was much thought put into the concept judging from such an in-depth narrative. I believe that if this game were to be actually created the narrative might just be a factor in the engagement if done correctly. Now, if I were to look at this within a ludological perspective, my comments would probably be a complete contradiction from what I had just told you. Within your story there might just be too much emphasis on the story itself and not so much on the player interaction within the story. Ludologists widely support the assumption that video games are but an extension of narrative. Therefore, instead of giving detailed descriptions of what the kidnappers or the protagonists are using to defend themselves perhaps you might benefit by describing how the player will be able to attack or defend him/herself by using such weapons that you had discussed. I would suggest straying away from the stereotypical and cliché’ use of such weapons…Perhaps “Jason” is smarter than just using weapons like an AK47. Perhaps he is an explosive expert and can cleverly devise weapons from random objects like MacGuyver. This in turn will serve as a better “simulation” of the protagonist taking his personality from the narrative and structuring it within the gameplay.
Despite the fact that in video games the player will have to undergo a beginning and an end, between that time, it might be a lot more enticing for the player if you would structure the narrative so that it allows for more repetition with varying results in each session. It seems to me that this is a very straightforward narrative that might just be engaging and interesting to a player that is experiencing the gameplay for the first time. However, part of the goal of game designers and Ludologists is trying to find new ways to invite the player to continue playing over and over again. A good “run-around” for this might just be a matter of incorporating different degrees of outcome in the end. The popular video game “Grand Theft Auto 3” is a good example of incorporating a varying experience for each player per session. If we were to further scrutinize, we would see that this particular video game incorporates mini-games within the main narrative (that does not distort the original story but complements it) that creates yet another reason why they should not end their session. Whereas, if we left “Release of the Hostage” with such strict constraints (the outcome will always be freeing the hostages – getting a medal etc…) then the players might not find much reason to repeat the game experience with this particular title. We should try to give them enough choices within the game that they find themselves with an exponential amount of outcomes because of the choices they make.
Hi Alpesh,
I sincerely enjoyed reading your game idea. I can tell that there was much thought put into the concept judging from such an in-depth narrative. I believe that if this game were to be actually created the narrative might just be a factor in the engagement if done correctly. Now, if I were to look at this within a ludological perspective, my comments would probably be a complete contradiction from what I had just told you. Within your story there might just be too much emphasis on the story itself and not so much on the player interaction within the story. Ludologists widely support the assumption that video games are but an extension of narrative. Therefore, instead of giving detailed descriptions of what the kidnappers or the protagonists are using to defend themselves perhaps you might benefit by describing how the player will be able to attack or defend him/herself by using such weapons that you had discussed. I would suggest straying away from the stereotypical and cliché’ use of such weapons…Perhaps “Jason” is smarter than just using weapons like an AK47. Perhaps he is an explosive expert and can cleverly devise weapons from random objects like MacGuyver. This in turn will serve as a better “simulation” of the protagonist taking his personality from the narrative and structuring it within the gameplay.
Despite the fact that in video games the player will have to undergo a beginning and an end, between that time, it might be a lot more enticing for the player if you would structure the narrative so that it allows for more repetition with varying results in each session. It seems to me that this is a very straightforward narrative that might just be engaging and interesting to a player that is experiencing the gameplay for the first time. However, part of the goal of game designers and Ludologists is trying to find new ways to invite the player to continue playing over and over again. A good “run-around” for this might just be a matter of incorporating different degrees of outcome in the end. The popular video game “Grand Theft Auto 3” is a good example of incorporating a varying experience for each player per session. If we were to further scrutinize, we would see that this particular video game incorporates mini-games within the main narrative (that does not distort the original story but complements it) that creates yet another reason why they should not end their session. Whereas, if we left “Release of the Hostage” with such strict constraints (the outcome will always be freeing the hostages – getting a medal etc…) then the players might not find much reason to repeat the game experience with this particular title. We should try to give them enough choices within the game that they find themselves with an exponential amount of outcomes because of the choices they make.