Faye, Maria, Emily Carrasco, Puma

When we first created the game, it seemed like our team had a fairly stable idea of what we wanted to do. However, we made a series of revisions that either made the game too complicated, or too simplistic, and it was difficult to find a solid middle ground. We kept changing the size of the field, how many items we could use, the items purpose, the rules of the game when it comes to player contact. Eventually it seemed like everyone in the group had agreed that the only way we could ensure we were creating a good game or not was to wait until we could play it.
 
When we got around to it, it was rainy and at night; and we were wandering somewhere down around Oakland tech. At first we were determined to find somewhere grassy to play, but when we couldn't hop any fences into the school we just set up a make-shift court on the sidewalk to play there. For some reason, after we managed to explain the rules, throwing some out that we realized had no purpose, and got into the game with four players on each side; the game was actually exceedingly fun. We played a series of four rounds that were all rather successful, then continued playing until we became too cold, wet, and tired to continue.
 
By the end of it, everyone felt fairly exhilarated. The game had competition, movement, and a couple different ways to achieve victory; so there's always the chance of something strange/awesome happening during the game to end it.

Miriam, Ki, Emily, Jess

Relay Race

The Halloween Relay Race incorporates all four of Huizinga’s elements of play: agon, ilinx, alea, and mimicry. It achieves this via three stations: the costume station, the pumpkin toss, and the Death Spin. Two teams with an equal amount of players race against each other in an obstacle course.

The prize—a cauldron on candy—is located at the starting line between the two teams. The game begins with the first player running to the costume station, where there lies a bag of costumes. Player one must choose one article of clothing at random from the bag, and put it on. If at anytime during the race the player loses any part of his or her costume, s/he must retrieve it and put it back on before continuing.

Once fully dressed the player picks up the small pumpkin to begin the pumpkin toss. Player one tries to toss the small pumpkin into the larger pumpkin, located 10 feet from the shooting line. The player must shoot and retrieve the pumpkin until s/he makes the goal.

Once the player succeeds in getting a goal in the pumpkin toss, s/he rolls the dice, determining how many times s/he spins around. S/he spins in place before running across the field to Player Two. Player One removes the costume, and Player Two must dress in that same item before embarking on the race.

Each player repeats this process. The last player on the team will race to the cauldron of candy, declaring their team the winner.

While testing out this game we ran into many problems leading use to refine some areas. We worked out a few obstacle of logistics, for example, we originally wanted to have four groups of four, in a more traditional relay manner, in which each person would complete only one task. However, after testing this method, it would be more entertaing for spectators, and more challenging for the players if all performed each task. Another modification came in the form of costumes. In the beginning the game was set up to use only four articles of clothing. We found that elaborating on the costumes by having groups add on articles of clothing added new dimension to the game and would cause the costume to incur increasing interest as the game progressed. We tried incorporating candy in our pumpkin toss but learned through experience the aerodynamics of pumpkins are preferable to that of candy. In choosing dice we considered many options, including multi sided dice, as well as simply choosing numbers out of a hat. We settled on using two regular dice as we saw them as the least confusing option. Originally we were thinking along the lines of a normal relay race and decided to expand on a Halloween theme. This expansion included the incorporation of pumpkins, candy and costumes. In addition the game was designed four different stations to include all four of Huizinga’s principles, but decided to merge two of the principles into one during our Death Spin obstacle. During our testing of the pumpkin toss we experimented with different ranges between the tosser and the goal. Staring out we tried ranges between 20ft. 15ft., 5ft, and 10ft. Eventually we settled on a 10ft. distance as it seemed the most feasible while still keeping the element of challenge. Our test runs of the game proved extremely helpful in making final decisions about our game and seeing how our ideas played out.

Rani, Elliott and Kevin

Our game is based on a scavenger hunt. The player is given a location and they must go to that location and find the next location. The repeat this until the find the envelope and bring it back to the classroom before the time limit.

We tested out our game with two people. The first subject got lost and that was when we noticed that our game made the player realized how little they knew the campus. We then decided to edit the locations to our three maps so the player will have to go around to school in a way that is unfamiliar to them. Our second subject was able to complete the game faster than the first subject and she revealed that she had asked for help finding places. We first thought of banned the ability to ask questions but then reconsidered because it made people talk to other people they normally wouldn't talk to. She also felt that the phone call at the end disrupted the flow of our game. So we changed it so that the player would have to return to the classroom to finish the game. Having the two people test out our game helped refined our rules and defined a purpose to our game.

Preliminary Report on Revision

I found that testing our game in the field was very productive in the way that it allowed our group to see exactly what worked about our game and what areas needed to be refined. One example of something we found while playing The Halloween Relay Race was that it worked better with two teams appose to our original idea of using teams of four. Although on paper it seemed logical that we should create a game with teams of four, since we have already all been broken into groups of four for the assignment. When testing the game in the field we found it to be far less confusing and hectic two use only two teams. This refinement also allowed our game to run longer and flow more smoothly. Another modification that we made to our game was the rule about the costumes, or mimicry element of the game. Originally the game was set up so that the first person to go for their team would pick a costume compiled of four articles of clothing that would be passed from teammate to teammate until the end of the game. However, we found that elaborating onto one costumes by having each player add an article of clothing to it proved to be superior. This is mainly because it added tension to the end of the game by making the difficulty level of the course increase towards the finish, when time is most important. Another element of the game that changed when testing our game was the alean component. When testing The Halloween Relay Race, initially we considered simply choosing numbers out of a hat, to determine how many times you must spin before you are allowed to run back to your group. We also even entertained the idea of using dice with more than six sides. However, in the end we found that using a pair of normal dice was the simplest and most effective way of incorporating the element of alea. The final main point of revision and testing came in the form of our pumpkin toss. Initially we were clueless as to how far the shooter should be to the pumpkin bucket, however; after experimenting with an array of distances between 20 and 5 feet we settled on a distance of around 10 feet, because of its perfect difficulty level. Testing The Halloween Relay Race in the field proved to be extremely helpful in making final decisions and logistical revisions to our game, it also allowed us to better understand the natural flow of the game.

Venus, Jackie, Sofia, Sophie's game

BINDED AND BLINDED

Designed by: Venus, Jackie, Sofia, Sophia.

The idea behind this game was to have a relay race with teams in which each

person had some kind of sensory handicap. We would have liked to take away the sense

of sight, of speech, and of hearing, one sense per person, but this was too difficult

logistically. In the end, we came up with this: there are two teams of four. There is also

one referee. In a team, there is one person, the Navigator, who is ‘ tied’ to a chair. This

person can speak, but can’ t move. The other three people are tied (or arm-linked) back-to-

back as an “ amoeba,” and each is blindfolded. These are the Seekers (fuck you, Harry

Potter). The game should take place in a basically flat area, no less than 10 yards across.

At the beginning of the game, the referee blindfolds each of the Seekers, ties them

together, and places an object – either a ball, or a flag – somewhere opposite from the

Navigator’ s chairs in the playing arena. Then the referee spins the Seeker amoebas around

a few times, to disorient them spatially, and places them near the Navigators. The referee

gives the signal to start, and each Navigator tries to vocally direct his or her amoeba to the

object. The team who acquires the object wins the game.

A couple variations may apply. For instance, there may be 2 objects, one for each

team, or multiple objects for each team, so that even if one team gets the first object first,

the other team may have a chance to win in the end by getting all of their objects first.

Another variation, which was tested, is to have a moving object. This requires (a) for the

object to be strapped to a dog or cat, or (b) for the object to be a dog or cat. Or hamster.

But preferably not a hamster, because there is a risk of squishing. The hamster should

sign a liability form, at the very least.

One issue to consider, as was discovered, is whether the voices of the Navigators

are very similar. For “ Level 1” , choose two Navigators with distinct voices. For “ Level

2” , choose Navigators with similar voices, to confuse the Seekers. For “ Level 3” , use

kazoos.

It was found that this game, if played in a small arena, doesn’ t take very long to

win. Here are some solutions. 1: play the game in a larger space, for instance, the lawn on

CCA’ s campus. 2: add relatively safe obstacles to the path between the Seekers and the

object. For instance, large exercise balls, pillows, or “ quicksand” (a marked zone that

cannot be entered, or the team loses the game).

Blog Post #2

Take another look at Fuller's Dymaxion World Map:

In class, we analyzed the World Game from a number of theoretical perspectives, but we didn't talk about Deleuze and Guattari. In your blog post, discuss the Dymaxion Map from the point-of-view of Deleuze and Guattari's text. Organize your response into two paragraphs: in the first paragraph, consider the following questions:

* Is Fuller's mapping of game-space "smooth" or "striated"?
* Is the World Game more akin to Go (a war game) or Chess (a game of the state)?

In your second paragraph, give a critique of Fuller's Map. Is the Map an appropriate game-board for the World Game? Why or why not? Keep in mind Deleuze and Guattari's categorization of game-spaces (war games are played in smooth space, games of state in striated spaces). Could the map be redesigned to make it more useful?


Remember, proofread your writing before posting. Your response should be between 300-500 words (include a word count at the end of your post).

To help you out, I've included below a useful summary of Deleuze and Guattari's concept of smooth vs. striated space (an excerpt from this article):

 

Deleuze and space: The smooth and the striated

If we are to grasp Deleuze’s concepts of space, a few words should be said about his ‘political anthropology’, which is intended to replace Karl Marx’ political economy and historical dialectics as an analysis and guide in today’s political struggle. In his account of the historical process, Deleuze introduces an agent called ‘the nomad’, unknown to Marxism, who runs counter to ‘the State’ in the sense that the nomad is aggressively creative, while the State plays the more passive role of consolidator: the State thrives by capturing nomadic innovations and transforming them to fit its own needs, precisely in order to consolidate a certain state of affairs. On the other hand, every consolidated state induces renewed nomadic aggression and inventions that the State must absorb and adapt to its consolidating tissue, which, thus enriched, opens up paths for amplified nomadic action, and so on. In accordance with his philosophical style, Deleuze does not come up with a definition of the nomad, but puts the word into play in different contexts, and such that it never acquires a definite meaning, but rather is intended to serve as a conceptual nomad: an agent in unfinished philosophical, political, artistic and other business. This is not to say that the word is reduced to a metaphor or some other trope; the baffling thing is that the historical and anthropological nomads who used to roam the steppes and deserts, warring against the surrounding States, are indeed subsumed under the concept of the nomad at the same level as other nomads introduced along the way, including ‘mad’ physical particles, viruses and rats as well as craftsmen and engineers, and minorities involved in actions against the State. When the nomad/State opposition is applied to space, the basic principle is that nomad space is ‘smooth’ and heterogeneous, while State space is ‘striated’ and homogeneous. Deleuze illustrates these concepts with an example from technology: woven fabric is striated, that is, with the threads of warp and woof; felt is smooth, as it consists of entangled fibres; it is no accident, Deleuze comments, that the Mongolian nomads excel in using felt for their tents, clothing and even armoury. As a matter of fact, the very spaces inhabited by nomads – steppes and deserts – are smooth, and the same is true of the ice desert inhabited by Eskimos, and of the sea roamed by seafaring peoples. In these spaces orientations, landmarks and linkages are in continuous variation, Deleuze observes, and goes on: “there is no line separating earth and sky; there is no intermediate distance, no perspective or contour; visibility is limited; and yet there is an extraordinarily fine topology that relies not on points or objects, but rather on haecceities, on sets of relations (winds, undulations of snow or sand, the song of the sand, the creaking of the ice, the tactile qualities of both).” In contrast to this fluid state, the spaces inhabited by sedentary peoples – which are State spaces – are striated with walls, enclosures and roads that exhibit constancy of orientation and metric regularity.