Word and Seek
Team: Francis & The Fab Five
Game overview
The words are hidden go seek them.
You’re given the first letter; your goal is to find a word starting with that letter. From the word you found, use the last letter as the beginning of another word. Record the street number where you found the word.
Repeat until time is up or you find a word that starts with the last letter of the first word.
When calculating score, only teams that finished on time or finished with the last word can multiply.
Aims of the game
Find a word ending with the same letter as the first word ends with.
Number of players
Any reasonable small group
Physical location
The game should be playable either at RMIT or in the nearby city environs.
Special paraphernalia
Video recording equipment
Writing material
Goal/s of the game
Have Fun!
Accumulate the most amounts of points to win
How players will achieve these goals
You are given the first letter.
Find a word beginning with that letter.
Take the last letter of that word and find another word beginning with that letter.
When you find a word note or count down its current (or closest to) street number.
Once you have completed the goal add the unit numbers together and multiply by the amount of letters in total you found.
The group or person with the highest amount in the end wins
Navigate through the urban environment seeking out texts.
Rules
Words found must not be tampered with by the players, but found around street.
Players must not use Mel-way or any form of street directory.
The game should be played either at RMIT or in the nearby city environs.
Video will be the proof of the word you found as well as the street number.
NO CALCULATORS!
If this was too confusing for you are not as clever as Francis & The Fab Five so heres an example. Only players who finished the game on time or finished with a last word can multiply the score
How to play
Given a random letter from A to Z = L (Word to find must begin with L)
Word found @ Swanston St. No. 3 = Lord has 4 letters
Next word to find must begin with D
Word found @ Collins St. No. 2 = Dog has 3 letters
Next word to find must begin with G
Word found @ Lonsdale St. No. 1 = GOD has 3 letters
Goal is completed, as the last letter “D” of last word “GOD” is the same as the last letter “d” of the first word “Lord”!
Points = (3 + 2 + 1) x (4 + 3 + 3) = 60 ← Not a good score!
The multiply by the number of letters in total part is to keep players wanting to find more words instead of finding simple words on high end numbered streets.
2 comments:
Word & Seek assessments
Game master notes
Being the game master of my own game I had a few predictions on how the game would be played and kind of knew of if it was played a certain way, the teams would definitely do well. It was funny to see my predictions come true, the teams that went down the furthest to find the highest street number did not do well, because that may be the first instinctive thing to do, but because of the time restriction you are limited to using simple words in order to finish quickly and get back in time. RMIT proved useful as a starting point as it provided multiple streets to take and thinking about which street would offer the most points became a factor. I found that the teams that put in the effort to finding more words in a not so far but not so low number location were the ones most likely to win. The game was about finding a happy medium and taking the time to think about where you had to go and what words to find before you set out to look for them. The trick was to use you multiply bonus constructively.
The game panned out like this:
- The team the came back first came last.
- The team that came back second
- The team that came back last came first.
- The team that found the least words but high street numbers came last
- The team that found the most words but low street numbers came second
- The team that found the average amount of words and medium ranged set of street numbers won
It also became apparent that if you used bigger words you would have to find less words, but in hand was harder because you had to make sure you could easily link those words.
The main surprise was how high the scores actually got, we had a team score about 200, 000 a second team score around 700,000 and the winning team score around 900,000.
I think our game did not appeal due to the large amounts of planning it may have needed before actually going out playing it. We may have put in a bit too much rules and restrictions as well. I think what was successful was the use of our location, but in the end I think we should have used our ‘hide and seek’ better. And the game ratings speak for themselves, in location based games, its probably best to steer away from a too strategic games as they can come across boring due the game being overloaded with factors to think about.
What good came out of the game was that I think we done the brief pretty well. We didn’t get many questions as we thought we would or clarifications as to what could be used and what couldn’t. I think our examples helped the teams learn a lot faster and in hand indirectly told most of them the catch to winning the game.
The game could appeal to a wide range of ages, down to about 10yrs. The only boundaries are familiarity with technology (a camera phone etc.) and a good grasp of the English language and vocabulary. As for socio economic and racial demographics and such it is pretty much without barrier, as long as the equipment (the camera (phones)) is provided.
Was it too hard? Or Easy? Why?
It was in some ways too easy, our team quickly moved to a book shop which had a street number of over 400. The game failed to take in account these opportunities to “cheat” the intended experience.
Was it physically or mentally challenging?
It could be physically challenging if you went about the task in a frantic way seeking out words from different locations but again there wasn’t enough incentive to move about. So no it wasn’t terribly taxing in either form.
Does it have a steep learning curve?
I takes about 5 minutes to grasp the concept (having an example made all the difference). So a small simple learning curve to begin with, easy to tackle.
Would it be a game people came back to play again to improve their skill etc?
Not terribly, once you’ve played it it’s really only a matter of changing the location to have different words available to you and that’s not a measure of improving your skill, just playing with the odds.
Rules
Are they clear, comprehensible, logical?
Yes, again the example helped a lot.
Are they easy to remember and follow?
Yes
Are there enough or too many?
Perhaps not enough, as I’ve mentioned there weren’t barriers to prevent you from cheating the concept. Something like requiring each photo be taken in a different location could have taken care of that.
Do they get in the way of playing the game?
No
Magic Circle
Is a sense of the scope of the game established?
Not well, the fact that scores were calculated and turned into such large numbers with math you can’t do mentally meant it was really hard to keep track of how you were doing or what to expect from other teams. You just kept gathering words without really understand how well you were doing.
Is it over an appropriate area?
Well there weren’t limits to the area specified but the city was a good location, full of storefronts and signage.
Is any special paraphernalia needed for it appropriate?
Camera phones are a pretty common thing to be in possession of these days, it seems appropriate to me.
Do such items fit in with the theme of the game?
Essentially they create the theme so yes.
Do they extend the experience or potential of the game?
Not really, just help it to function.
Goals
Do you know what the goal of the game is?
In essence to score more then the opposing teams.
Do the game actions make sense in relation to the goal?
Yes, the rules help explain their relation quite well.
Do the goals seem meaningful?
Well a score is a pretty stale method of tracking progress and success but an effective and logical one.
Duration
Did it take too long?
Perhaps, to the end there was certainly a noticeable fall of interest from my team-mates (and myself) since we’d been performing the same task for about an hour
What was the experience like?
The best part was the treasure hunt like aspect to find matching words. That provided some entertainment to keep a watchful eye and point out other things to your team-mates. Other then that it did get repetitive and slowly more boring as mentioned.
Gameplay.
Was it fun? And why/not?
It wasn’t terribly exciting and engaging at any stage but that’s not to say it was a complete bore. It began with more enthusiasm then it ended with (for reasons described above). It never really had that excited frantic moments that great location based games seem to have though.
Would anyone play it if they weren’t being forced to?
Potentially but there are other variants on the same theme that arguably work better, so probably not.
What could have been improved?
As has been mentioned, some rules needed to be tweaked to prevent cheating the concept. If people were really forced to move around and keep at a fast pace it would be all the more exciting to play. Not to mention that the player in the team holding the camera ended up being all the more important, as part of a 4 person team you could easily just mind your own business following your team-mates around not really engaging with the experience. Perhaps some way of keeping all members involved (requiring they be in the pictures?) would help.
What really worked about it?
As I’ve said, the treasure hunt aspect of keeping your eyes peeled for the next connecting word and then quickly alerting your team-mates so you can get another one done. That was the most entertaining aspect.
Who would the game appeal to?
People who likes to play word games. It’s hard to determine age group, because I think that the game requires you to be old enough to complete the word chains, but then there may be some age groups that may find the game not appealing enough but then I might be wrong. So I’m going to guess 17 years old and above.
Was it too hard? Or Easy? Why?
It’s not too easy, because it does require to some thought into what word to be used next without ending the chain too quickly. But the game wasn’t hard at all.
Was it physically or mentally challenging?
Compared to TPMSSC, Word and Seek was much more of a relaxed game. Although it also requires players to participate both physically and mentally, the urgency or competitiveness wasn’t there.
Does it have a steep learning curve?
Once you sort out that the word chain ends with a word that starts with the last letter of your first word, the game is pretty much self explanatory (plus the game was similar to Quota(?))
Would it be a game people came back to play again to improve their skill etc?
I don’t think they would. However the game does require you to use your creativity-ness and observation skills.
Rules
Are they clear, comprehensible, logical?
Yes
Are they easy to remember and follow?
Yes
Are there enough or too many?
I felt that there wasn’t enough. The rules in explaining how the word chain works was enough, however, I felt that if they added in rules such as an absolute time limit where players can only come back after x amount of time, it will create a tension between the teams to compete more.
Do they get in the way of playing the game?
No they don’t.
Magic Circle
Is a sense of the scope of the game established?
It didn’t feel it. Although knowing that I am playing a game, and being able to identify my competitors, throughout the game I felt like I was just roaming around the city taking photos.
Is it over an appropriate area?
Yes.
Is there any special paraphernalia for it appropriate?
Yes – a camera of some sort (ie. Video recorders, digital cam, camera phones etc..)
Do such items fit in with the theme of the game?
I believe so, it was the most efficient way to complete the goals of the game as well as record them down as proof of evidence.
Do they extend the experience or potential of the game?
It was ok. I mean cameras are used for taking photos anyways – the use of the camera wasn’t anything different. I guess if they made us record our journey of the game it would be a bit more interesting.
Goals
Do you know what the goal of the game is?
Complete a word chain by using images to represent the words
Do the game actions make sense in relation to the goal?
Yes
Do the goals seem meaningful?
It didn’t really, we were meant to be competing against another team, but basically with my experience, its more of which team is willing to spend more time looking for things to continue their word chain.
Duration
Did it take too long?
Although we were given an hour limit, it didn’t really matter when we got. With our team, we ended our word chain purposely.
What was the experience like?
Too similar to the game quota, but given different guidelines in what things to take a picture of. I lost interest half way.
Was it fun? And why/not?
The game wasn’t boring, but it wasn’t very interesting either. But this is only because (I think) it was too similar to the game Quota and I was probably tired from previous game.
Would anyone play it if they weren’t being forced to?
I can’t see why not. It is an interesting adaptation of a word game.
What could have been improved?
I think the level of challenge can be lifted up if the teams were given a theme to work around with. From personal experience of playing that word chain game recently, it is so much harder when you are restricted to certain a theme.
What really worked about it?
The fact that we had to think about which words we use next – picking a word that starts with the last letter of our first word, meant the game is over for us and if we picked a word that ended with a letter that is very common in being the first letter of a word (let alone find an image of it) then we are screwed.
Game Target Audience:
I would think that Word and Seek is a game suited to an audience of people between 14 + because of its complicated nature and rules.
Difficulty Level:
This game was more complicated to come to grips with in terms of the rules and process compared to Duck Hunt. There seemed to be a lot more depth to the scoring and points awarded as well.
Rules:
The rules for Word & Seek were quite confusing at first, but the example given in the notes that were handed out made understanding the game a lot easier. In the end the rules were fairly clear in terms of what you couldn’t do but there was some leeway in terms of how you could manipulate them to your advantage which in a way gives a new dimension to the game. For instance staying within one place and using one word over and over to amount to a very large score.
Because the rules were fairly detailed, we had to keep referring back to them to check what we could do so remembering them wasn’t easy.
I think there were enough rules for the game to run fairly smoothly without affecting the enjoyment of the game.
Magic Circle:
It seems to me that the scope of the game was determined to be fairly big. I think that it could be adaptable to any area where there are streets and street numbers.
The game was held over an appropriate area for testing and it worked well in terms of going around a small area of the city and finding long street names with high numbers.
No special items are required to play the game except for a pen and paper to write down the names and numbers that the player would collect. This is good in a way because small items like a pen and paper are easy to carry and deal with and don’t slow you down when moving around.
Goals:
The goal of the game was to go around a particular area (in this case the university environs) and write down words found on street signs or objects and their location number (e.g. DOG seen near 555 Swanston Street). Then using the last letter of the word you just found, you are to find another word beginning with that letter. This has to go on until you finish the cycle. The actions of the game would surely have an impact on the final goal in that the more you look for larger words or higher street numbers, the greater chance you have of winning the game.
Duration:
We were given one hour to complete the game but I think the game wasn’t as lively or enjoyable as it could have been. I think we got bored about 45 minutes into it and decided to go back to the game master to sort out the points.
Gameplay:
The gameplay was ok. It wasn’t greatly enjoyable because of a similar reason to Duck Hunt in that there was no real pressure involved because there wasn’t a very strict time limit in which the player had to do things in. There was no real sense of urgency which can really impact on a games enjoyment level.
The game was fun for the first half hour or so but then quickly became one where we stayed in one area writing down things which we could see rather than moving around.
Improvements:
What I really felt needed the most improvement was the speed factor of the game. It needed something to make it go faster. Like a shorter time limit or penalties for not doing particular things.
Otherwise the game was pretty well thought out in terms of rules and how it would work.
We were introduced with a very hasty tutorial which didn't totally teach us how to play but it gave us an idea. We were given a rule sheet each though which came quite in handy. The game involves running around in the streets doing a word puzzle (creating the longest possible connection of words, the longer the more points with the actual street numbers where those words were discovered adding to the amount of points) which would mean that this is designed for a older audience. A relative large problem with the game is that we were given no time limits or any special kind of restriction for how to complete it which totally made the game very unfocused. Soon enough (around 30mins into it) we basically stopped and figured we had enough points collected and decided to go back to base to deliver our collected words for score countup. We lost our lust to compete and willingly ended the game at that point. We also took an amount of photo proofs as the rules told us but these were not taken into consideration when the points were counted up (which means we could have made up any number of words and street numbers if we were really desperate to win). So to conclude, there's a game hidden here but it wasn't very well thought through so it didn't up working so well. They had a nice price at the end though for the winner in form of a gigantic bag of popcorn which is nice and I also thought the rule sheet was pretty nicely illustrated.
To start the game, you are given a word and then you have to take a photo of an object that begins with the last letter of the word given. For example, your first word given to you is PEN, you have to take a photo of an object that starts with N like a NUMBER. After that you take photos of another object that begins with the last letter of the previous word. For example, after NUMBER you need to take a photo of an object that starts with R like RUBBISH BIN and also take the photo of the address for proof. You continue making a chain of words and photos until you take a photo of an object that ends with the last letter of your first word. Example, your first word is PEN and you take a photo of a MAN, the game is over because both words end with the same letter.
Questions
Who would the game appeal to? (age groups, demographics)
This game is suitable for children aged 13 and above. Although it would appeal to people older than young adults. Because it allows them to use their brains and there isn’t anything physically demanding.
Was it too hard? Or Easy? Why?
The game wasn’t hard because there are a lot of objects in the city anybody can take photos of. The game didn’t require physical attributes and we were competing with other teams simultaneously.
Was it physically or mentally challenging?
It was more mentally challenging. The aim was to take a photo of an object whose first letter is the last letter of the previous word. The word should not end with the same last word as the first word given.
Does it have a steep learning curve?
The learning curve is quite gentle as not a lot of learning is needed. As you gather a lot of words you feel as if you want to think of a word that ends with a different letter than the previous times, because you may have a lot of words that begin with the same letters.
Would it be a game people came back to play again to improve their skill etc?
It would be a good game to play again and try making the chain of words longer again if they replay it in a different area.
Rules
Are they clear, comprehensible, logical?
The rules were pretty much straight forward. Collect as many words as a chain until you get a word that ends with the same letter as the last letter of the first word given.
Are they easy to remember and follow?
The rules were easy to remember and follow.
Are there enough or too many?
There weren’t much rules too remember.
Do they get in the way of playing the game?
Not at all.
Magic Circle
Is a sense of the scope of the game established?
It wasn’t that competitive; it was sort of relaxing. There weren’t much area boundaries.
Is it over an appropriate area?
The area was just around the city. The city had a lot of objects we the players could create a chain of images/words out of.
Is any special paraphernalia needed for it appropriate?
The only special equipment used in the game is a camera.
Do such items fit in with the theme of the game?
The camera is for evidence that we did find something.
Do they extend the experience or potential of the game?
When we have gather a lot of words that begin and end with the same letters we’ve done before then it starts to lose its interest and gets boring.
Goals
Do you know what the goal of the game is?
The goal of the game was to create as many words as you can as a chain in an hour. At the end the number of words and the number of its letters are calculated and compared to the other teams who have completed the game. The team with the most is the winner.
Do the game actions make sense in relation to the goal?
Yes, the photos taken in order provide as proof.
Do the goals seem meaningful?
The goal is simple.
Duration
Did it take too long?
When I played we actually took at least half an hour to come up with a lot of words.
Gameplay
What was the experience like?
To me, I thought it was a good idea with the chain method. It involved a lot of thinking and usage of the environment. However, as you progress into the game you may have a lot of words in less than half an hour; it just starts to get boring. There are times when you find a word that ends with a letter you’ve done a lot of times before.]
Was it fun? And why/not?
It’s fun at first but after you get a lot of words in the chain you feel bored and want to already finish the game.
Would anyone play it if they weren’t being forced to?
Some people might think that this game is plain and simple.
What could have been improved?
They probably need rules like a limited number of words with the same first letter or the number of points allocated for a certain letter like in the game of Scrabble.
What really worked about it?
The reason why the game worked was because the idea was quite unique. It also allowed players to use their heads and think of original ideas.
Who would the game appeal to?
It would appeal probably to a teenage audience. Or someone who likes taking a lot of random pictures with his/her camera
Was it too hard or easy? Why?
It was easy but the pictures themselves are hard to find.
Was it physically or mentally challenging?
Not really. In fact it was pretty boring due to the goal (see below)
Does it have a steep learning curve?
Nope, easy to understand and easy to do
Would it be a game people came back to play again to improve their skills?
No, as it is more location-dependent than skill dependent
Rules
Are they clear, comprehensible, logical?
Not really. I knew a lot of people were confused. Things that were clear were the fact that it’s a letter-chaining game and the “finishing” word must end in the same letter as your initial word ends.
Are they easy to remember and follow?
Easy to remember, a bit tough to follow because not all places had their postal address pasted infront of their shop.
Are there enough or too many?
There’s enough, but not very clear.
Do they get in the way of playing the game?
Yes as we either had to approximate the postal address or we had to find other places with the word we wanted.
Magic Circle
Is a sense of the scope of the game established?
No, there was no boundary and as such players must make it themselves so they can return on time.
Is it over an appropriate area?
Area is appropriate as there was a lot to take a picture of. But no boundary just made it harder.
Is any special paraphernalia needed for it appropriate?
Nope, camera is needed for the gameplay but the subjects are provided by the area itself.
Goals
Do you know what the goal of the game is?
To get more score than the other team. However the means of getting those scores are questionable.
Do the game actions make sense in relation to the goal?
Yes, taking pictures and converting them to words in order to get the score is simple enough. Again, a hitch with the address number aspect of it was really annoying and became a hindrance.
Do the goals seem meaningful?
I found it really broad and shallow. It didn’t grab you enough as there was no real finite goal. For example in Quoto, you still want a high score but the quote limits your scope and you’re working to fulfil that boundary. With Word and Seek it was limitless so pretty much the goal for our team was to finish it when we had enough.
Scoring
The whole “you must note the address where you find said word” was rather confusing as not all of the places display them. Unfortunately you need them because you have to multiply it with other variables to get the final score. Not to mention that all of the words you want can probably be found in one big place like Melbourne Central, where there is no “set” address, making scoring difficult.
Duration
Did it take too long?
No, in fact there wasn’t really any definite timer, so players must get their own. Although because it didn’t really grab my attention, an hour seemed so long and we ended it at around 40 minutes mark.
Game Play
What was the experience like?
Boring. Because the nature of the game of taking pictures of nouns (words) in a no-boundary area it was pretty much going at your own pace to wherever you like. There wasn’t enough competition as well because there wasn’t a limit to your goal.
Would anyone play it if they weren’t being forced to?
I don’t think it was interesting enough to make people play it in their own accord.
What really worked about it?
Letter-chaining game can go for ages, and there was no end to the subject/resource for it even in the immediate starting area.
What could have been improved?
They might want to be more specific about the boundary. Also unless there was a lot of address posted on the façade of buildings in that area, it’s better if they remove that rule and change it to something else, for example the street that it was on and then change that street name into some numbers.
Who would the game appeal to?
Primary school children or maybe people who don’t know Melbourne very well.
Was it too hard? Or Easy? Why?
The difficulty varied. The words were too easy to find as we just took photos of signs. It was hard to match the first word with the last word to complete the game though.
Was it physically or mentally challenging?
More mentally, as you had to think how the words linked.
Does it have a steep learning curve?
The learning curve is the same, until you find ways to cheat. The game become stupidly simple when you use a dictionary.
Would it be a game people came back to play again to improve their skill etc?
No. I think people would avoid playing this game again at all costs. It isn’t interesting at all, because all you do is walk around and find words.
Rules
Are they clear, comprehensible, logical?
Kind of clear, but I found my group had many questions of how we are supposed to be playing, when we were playing. The score system of multiplying numbers seems illogical. The final scores were huge.
Are they easy to remember and follow?
Kind of, but there was confusion over what we can and can’t do.
Are there enough or too many?
Maybe too many as the whole; linking the fist word with the last word thing was annoying. Yet it was the only rule that gave the game any challenge.
Do they get in the way of playing the game?
Yes, as they made the game hard to finish (see above answer).
Magic Circle
Is a sense of the scope of the game established?
No. We never knew how other groups were going or even how the approached the game. In the end I didn’t care who won because of this.
Is it over an appropriate area?
If there were a limited area that we could play in it would have been better. Instead we had everywhere literally possible, so it was mostly randomly wandering around Swanston St.
Is there any special paraphernalia for it appropriate?
None.
Do such items fit in with the theme of the game?
-
Do they extend the experience or potential of the game?
-
Goals
Do you know what the goal of the game is?
Take photos of items or words, making sure that the last letter of the first word matches the first letter of the next word etc…
Do the game actions make sense in relation to the goal?
Yes.
Do the goals seem meaningful?
No. The goal was boring. Finding words is boring.
Duration
Did it take too long?
It took a while because my group wanted a big score. To do this we had to spend more time taking pictures.
What was the experience like?
Boring, slow and meaningless. I wanted it to be over after the third word.
Was it fun? And why/not?
No. The goal was boring.
Would anyone play it if they weren’t being forced to?
If they didn’t have to they probably wouldn’t.
What could have been improved?
Scratch the entire game and start again with something completely different; more adrenaline, more competition and better props.
What really worked about it?
Using mobiles to take photos. Having the game played outside and not having to run much due to no sense of competition.
The rules of this game were a little vague and were left a bit open ended so technically the winner is the group/person that is willing to apply the most time towards playing the game. Basically we had to find a picture or word, and from the word we found we had to find another word the begins with the last letter of the initial word and work consecutively from each new word. It was entertaining in a way as we could just walk around the campus and the city streets an hunt for words. Was fun as we pass by other groups and attempt to cheat and things like that. But we basically just tried to find the largest words we could, after we found a bunch of words we decided to end our game by find a word that starts with the last letter of the previous word but ends in the first letter of the previous word, or so we thought. We took a hunch that that was the rule and went to tally up our score. Was fun to find out the insane high score we got, and allows us to walk around and socialise with a driven goal of beating rival teams. Allows groups of as many as u like to play and allows physical effort to play. Fresh air is an added bonus as it allows us to get away from artificial light and computers.
After playing duck hunt, word and seek felt all too familiar, wandering around the city with the same people, taking photos on our phones again. We’d also played a similar game in class a couple of weeks before, when we had to take photos of words/pictures/things to spell out a quote.
The game went like this (you can skip ahead if you already know):
- you got a letter
- find a word somewhere starting with that letter
- record the street number
- use the final letter in word to find next word
- loop until last letter matches original first
- head back
The scoring was equated by: (sum of all street numbers) x (sum of all letters in words).
We quickly realised that the best way to get a high score was not to look for long words or high street numbers, but just to hang around one spot and find as many as we could. Due to the nature of the scoring and no rules saying we couldn’t use the same place over and over again, the game was too easy and lacking in scope. By the end, we were just standing in a bookshop taking heaps of photos and getting bored. The idea for the game was sound, but this loophole spoilt the whole experience. Despite this flaw, the rules were crystal clear once explained, and they were explained tremendously well with examples and diagrams and everything.
At first this game seems clever and interesting, and maybe once off it would’ve been, but after playing similar games a few times and having this one nothing too special, and having a slightly unrefined rule/scoring system, “word and seek” came in 2nd place behind “duck hunt”.
Post a Comment