This past weekend I played the popular game of Pictionary with two friends. It was a fun afternoon and I’ll definitely be back to play it again.
The game was a collaboration between gamers over the internet, so we were all on the same page about what was going on. The game is a collaboration of two games, one of them being “Concepts of Games”, a free online game by the same name. The other game is “Concepts of Scenarios”, a popular “scenario-based” game.
Concept of Scenarios is an early example of what I call “scenario games that don’t have a name” (yes, that is a real thing that we see on the internet). The game is basically a cooperative game of a group of people trying to complete scenarios, either by solving puzzles or by playing a set of scenarios against each other. It’s not only fun, but you’re also helping to advance a game in the process.
When it comes to Scenario games, there are many variations that vary from game to game. This is why I have to say that I often see one or two game mechanics on one page, and the other pages are full of game mechanics and features and gameplay. Sometimes all this gets confusing and I end up seeing what I think are game mechanics on a page and finding out they actually are something else.
This is a bit of an aside, but I always thought it was a bit of a sign of bad game design that the entire game is the same game. As I said before, I think the fact that you can play a game and not see the game mechanics on the same page means it is a bad game design. I mean, how often do you see a game mechanic on a page and not in the game? It probably means the developer can’t design a game that way.
I think the real lesson here is to think about what the game mechanic really is, and not just what it looks like. The game mechanics are a lot more important to the story than the design of the page. For example, the game mechanic “The player must take out eight Visionaries” is actually just a way to make it easier to keep track of them all.
In this case though, the actual mechanic is that the players are working together to keep track of the Visionaries. Like the real-life cops, a group is organized by a leader who has specific powers and rules (like how to go about killing bad guys). A group of cops working together to track down murderers is much more effective than a single cop working alone.
It’s also a way of managing the number of Visionaries at once, as opposed to a single leader keeping track of all of them. Because of this, it’s often easier to coordinate among a group of players rather than having to manage all nine.
The game has a lot of similar ideas and ways to coordinate. For example, when two different groups of cops are tracking down the same criminal, they’re usually working together and are often given different paths to the crime. This allows for a more cohesive approach to the game, as opposed to trying to deal with all the crime on your own.
There seems to be this assumption that games can be coordinated with a single leader, but that’s not the case with most games. The idea of a single leader is more like a coordinator, and can be used to coordinate smaller groups of players. However, a single leader should never be able to coordinate the entire group of players, as they are too different from one another and it would be unfair to all players.