\documentclass{article}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{natbib}
\usepackage{multicol}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{float}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{lipsum}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{fourier}
\usepackage{array}
\usepackage{makecell}
\usepackage{graphicx}

\graphicspath{{./}}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\setcitestyle{authoryear,open={(},close={)}}
\bibliographystyle{abbrvnat}
\fancyhead{}
\fancyhf{}
\rhead{}
\lhead{Scrappy}
\cfoot{\thepage}
\begin{document}
	\title{Scrappy}

\begin{titlepage}
	\centering
	{\huge\bfseries Scrappy\par}
	\vspace{0.5cm}
	{\large\bfseries Redesigning movement mechanics\par}
	\vspace{1cm}
	Author:\par
	{\Large\itshape Hampus Paulsen\par}
	\vfill
	supervised by\par
	Jakob Berglund Rogert\par
	\vspace{0.5cm}
	{\scshape\large Course: Game Design 1: Introduction\par}
	\vspace{0.5cm}
	{\scshape\large Department of Game Design\par}
	\vspace{0.5cm}
    {\scshape\large Uppsala University \par}

	\vfill

% Bottom of the page
	{\large \today\par}
\end{titlepage}

\begin{abstract} The question presented in this Promemoria is “How does unusual controls as a challenging  mechanic  effect  players  enjoyment  of  the  game?” It is important to discuss this question because we want to evolve the movement mechanics in games. Gameplay where the players would feel overpowered due to certain mechanics in the game and then also have a hard time maneuvering the character was presented in a survey.  A physical maze was also created. The results of the survey points in the direction that it is something players would enjoy although the scope migh tbe limited, more data is needed for further research.
\end{abstract}
\clearpage

%/Table of Contents
\tableofcontents
\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{Introduction}

\clearpage %/ Page break

\thispagestyle{fancy} %/ Provides page head and foot

%/ This is the start of your actual document
%/ the \section{Introduction} command creates a numbered chapter with the title Introduction!

\section{Introduction}

\par Scrappy is a faulty robot fighting off other robots using their parts as upgrades and weaponry. It does not go quite as planned since the parts that are picked up are not quite compatible with the robot, thus creating some interesting side effects.

\par The aesthetic goal that was assigned the group was “A patched-together machine - playing should feel like operating a wonky machinery.”

\par This Aesthetic goal does not necessarily imply changes to the genre norms, but it was decided in our group to take a different approach partly because we enjoy that aspect and partly because it worked with our aesthetic even though it was not implied by the teacher that challenging the norms was needed

\par In a traditional Shoot’ Em Up there can be a strong emphasis on futurism and hard Sci-Fi kin
to Star Wars and other classical works. Scrappy is not about that. Scrappy is about a wonky
robot fighting for his survival in a giant factory. We have taken a lot of influences from the
Steam Punk art style, so our art will be different from other games in the Shoot ‘Em Up genre
in that regard.
\clearpage

\section{Background}
\par Our game will focus a lot on challenges that the player needs to overcome to finish the story of the game, and in the paper called MDA there is a paragraph that I would like to quote “It’s easy to see that supporting adversarial play and clear feedback about who is winning are essential to competitive games. If the player doesn’t see a clear winning condition, or feels like they can’t possibly win, the game is suddenly a lot less interesting..” (Hunicke, LeBlanc and Zubek, 2004, p. 3). This quote gives valuable insight in what is known about this already by respected researchers and professionals in the field. It shows that clear and transparent winning conditions are vital to the success of the game, especially in competitive Player Vs. Player games, but it is also important in singleplayer games. Confusion is not a good feeling in this context.

\par It is a big challenge as a development team for a game that is focused on the narrative which our game is. The fact that we also have a challenging game in mind also adds to that communication difficulty. As the game is being developed plenty of focus needs to be put on communicating the winning conditions of Scrappy.

\par The challenge will come from multiple factors, but an imperative mechanic in our game will be strong power-ups in the game that also punishes the player, they are not compatible with the robot. This will be further explained to the player with the heavy focus on narrative mentioned earlier, I would also like to add to this with another quote from Fundamentals of Game Design. “Reward in a large way, punish in a small way, or to use an old adage, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. The hope of success motivates players more than the fear of failure does. If a game repeatedly smacks them down hard, players will become discouraged and abandon the game with a feeling that they’re being abused. Don’t forget that the duty to empathize is one of the obligations of player-centric game design: Your primary objective is to give players an enjoyable experience. Build more rewards than punishments into your level.” (Adams, 2014, p. 442).

\par This in addition to the MDA quote shows exactly how important it is and how fine of a line it is to design a game that is challenging in an unconventional way, which is the case for our game and that is also our focus.

\par The goal with Scrappy is to create an enjoyable experience with challenging controls being a core mechanic. For that to work a lot of effort needs to be put on the rewards, it has been decided that our group is going to make a game with quite substantial power-ups to balance out the challenging movement aspect.  The group also wanted to obtain more concrete evidence of what the best way to implement challenging movement would be.

\section*{Research Question}
How does unusual controls as a challenging mechanic effect players enjoyment of the game?
\clearpage

\section{Methods}
LaTex will form your text for you, so you only need to worry about writing and providing the correct commands. The LaTeX document is divided into
\begin{itemize}
    \item \verb|\chapter|
    \item \verb|\section|
    \item \verb|\subsection|
    \item \verb|\par|(agraphs)
\end{itemize}
If you add a * at the end of \verb|\section*| you command an unnumbered chapter or section. If you write \verb|\section|, LaTeX automatically numbers it for you and adds it to your Table of Contents.

%/ If you need to display a large image, you might need to break the two-columns using the following command:


\centering
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{rabbitofdeath.png}

% And then tell the code to resume using two columns.



\subsection{The Survey}

\par The group had some problems coming up with ideas for a sturdy and useful test (useful because it gave the group data that could be worked with and analyzed in a valuable way).  The paper prototype went through three iterations. The first iteration was a rudimentary survey with just two questions. The first question was “Do you think you would enjoy a game with inverted controls?” and the second question was “would you enjoy a Shoot ‘Em Up game where the movement is the challenging aspect?” About a day later it was decided that more data would be needed, thus we needed to expand the survey.

\par In the second iteration, a substantial amount of questions was added to the survey. The survey now included questions asking the players if they would find traps and obstacles interesting in a Shoot ‘Em up game. Then the participants were asked questions where they would pick the mechanics that feel wonky in a good way in rather than frustrating and annoying from a list. \newline


\par These ended up being our questions:
\begin{itemize}
\item After testing our prototype, do you think the experience would be just as fun in a single-player Shoot 'Em Up game?

\item Do you think that inverted controls are an interesting and fun mechanic, or do you think it is frustrating and/or overused?

\item Do you think obstacles/traps are interesting in a Shoot 'Em Up game?

\item Our game is supposed to feel wonky. Which ones of these mechanics do you think are wonky in a good way and challenging instead of just frustrating and annoying?

\end{itemize}



\subsection{The Maze} % smaller title here
\par It was decided that something more was needed as well. The group wanted to test if the inverted movement mechanic would be enjoyable in a more practical and visual way in addition to just the survey.




\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{theMaze.png}
\caption{A photo taken during our physical maze, The person with the beard is giving instructions to the person with their eyes covered.}
\end{figure}

\par One participant was shouting instructions and one participant experienced the maze while blindfolded. The blindfolded person was instructed by us to do the opposite of what he/she was instructed by the other participant (i.e. he/she went left when told to go right). The participants did the maze and after that they answered the Google survey on their phones. The results were then collected anonymously and then analyzed through the built in Google functionality. The goal of the survey was to gather data about what type of gameplay mechanics would fit our aesthetic goal while also not coming across as annoying and punishing, the latter being terrible game design.

\par It was then decided just before the testing began that the group could benefit from a rating of our prototype, so the last question was added to the survey which was:

\begin{itemize}
\item Rate your experience with our prototype
\end{itemize}

\par This was added so that the group could get some feedback on how well our test was executed and furthermore if it was enjoyable.

\subsection{Challenging Movement}

\par The group focused a lot of effort on making power-ups that are two-sided.They are on one hand very substantial but on the hand also slightly punishing.
\newpage

\section{Results}
\subsection{The Evidence and the Outcomes}
\par The group got a substantial amount of sturdy and robust feedback which can be analyzed and used when potentially making our game in the future. We had 21 participants in our maze and survey.  The tables and the graph coming in the next section shows the answers to the survey.





\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|>{\centering\hspace{0pt}}p{0.543\linewidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash\hspace{0pt}}p{0.453\linewidth}|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|>{\centering\arraybackslash\hspace{0pt}}p{0.996\linewidth}|}{After testing our prototype, do you think the experience would be just as fun in a singleplayer Shoot 'Em Up game?} \\
\hline
\textbf{Yes} & \textbf{No} \\
\hline
90.5\% & 9.5\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|>{\hspace{0pt}}p{0.337\linewidth}|>{\hspace{0pt}}p{0.347\linewidth}|>{\hspace{0pt}}p{0.31\linewidth}|}
\hline
\multicolumn{3}{|>{\hspace{0pt}}p{0.994\linewidth}|}{Do you think that inverted controls are an interesting and fun mechanic, or do you think it is frustrating and/or overused?} \\
\hline
\textbf{Interesting}  & \textbf{Frustrating}  & \textbf{Overused}  \\
\hline
76.2\% & 19\% & 4.8\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}


\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|>{\centering\hspace{0pt}}p{0.541\linewidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash\hspace{0pt}}p{0.455\linewidth}|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|>{\centering\arraybackslash\hspace{0pt}}p{0.996\linewidth}|}{Do you think obstacles/traps are interesting in a Shoot 'Em Up game?} \\
\hline
\textbf{Yes}  & \textbf{No}  \\
\hline
90.5\% & 9.5\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}




\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|>{\centering\hspace{0pt}}p{0.382\linewidth}|>{\centering\hspace{0pt}}p{0.195\linewidth}|>{\centering\hspace{0pt}}p{0.277\linewidth}|>{\centering\arraybackslash\hspace{0pt}}p{0.139\linewidth}|}
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|>{\centering\arraybackslash\hspace{0pt}}p{0.993\linewidth}|}{Our game is supposed to feel wonky. Which ones of these mechanics do you think are wonky in a good way and challenging, instead of just frustrating and annoying?} \\
\hline
\textbf{Power-ups make you stronger but also complicate character control. For example, giving you more damage but it makes the controls inverted.}  & \textbf{When your character takes damage, it becomes more difficult to control.}  & \textbf{Not dodging the obstacles in the game permanently or temporarily impairs your character's movement.}  & \textbf{When you fight a boss, he impairs your movement.}  \\
\hline
71.4\% & 38.1\% & 47.6\% & 42.9\% \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{figure}[H]
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{graph.png}
\caption{The graph above is the ratings of our prototype, this question was asked so that we could get some feedback on the quality of the prototype itself.}
\end{figure}




\subsection{Reflection} % smaller title here
\subsection{Trends in the Field} % smaller title here
\clearpage
\section{Conclusion}


\section{References}
To cite sources, we ask that you use what is called Author-Date style, which is sometimes loosely referred to as Harvard style. In this style, before the end of your sentence that includes material that requires citation, you include the author's (or authors') name(s) and the year of publication in parentheses like this (Adams 2010). Note that the citation comes before the full stop (period) mark. If the work comes from a document that has numbered pages, you must include the page number(s) from which the content comes after a colon (Adams 2010: 35 40). These numbers should be written in digits. If the author published more than one reference that you cite in a single year, add a letter to the date (Adams 2012a). Keep in mind that all cited sources must be gathered in a reference list at the end of the thesis. It is acceptable to cite people like this, if you are making a direct quote: Adams (2010) says, blah blah blah blah.
For additional examples please see:\url{http://library.williams.edu/citing/styles/chicago2.php}

\subsection*{ShareLaTeX References}
\par
Using ShareLaTeX simplifies references, as this template has already set up a reference document called \emph{library.bib}. That file has all your references. You can make your own references based on the template file.
To add one of your references in the text, add it's ID like this: \verb|\cite{ einstein }|.\\ When properly compiled it looks like this: \citep{MicrosoftPageN}.
	Figure captions should be below the figures.

	\bibliography{library}
\end{document}