Designing a Knowledge Based Puzzle Game Case: After Now Archeology Jaakko Kemppainen Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture Department of Media Media Lab Helsinki Master’s Thesis April 2014 Aalto University, P.O. BOX 11000, 00076 AALTO www.aalto.fi Master of Arts thesis abstract Author Jaakko Kemppainen Title of thesis Designing a Knowledge Based Puzzle Game – Case: After Now Archeology Department Media Degree programme MA in New Media: Game Design and production Year 2014 Number of pages 86+2 Language English Abstract This thesis studies knowledge based puzzle games. It defines the small genre of knowledge based puzzles as puzzles, which require using information not available in the game itself as a tool to solve the puzzle. The study is done by examining a game made for the project: After Now Archeology. The design process of the game is explained, to give an idea of what kind of design decisions has been made when making a game that directs the player to exit the game itself and search for the information outside of the game’s magic circle. The game is then examined using various theories and tools of games and game design, to get an understanding of how the game positions itself within the field of games, but also within the context of gaming culture and playing games. A definition of knowledge based puzzles is made by analyzing the games in the puzzle genre and comparing them to the game made in this project. It is found that knowledge based puzzles are difficult to fit into the genre of puzzles – especially among digital games. The pervasive nature of the game bends the concept of gameplay and magic circle. It is also found that the players divide strongly to those who do not have time and patience to search for information, and them who can spend hours on a single puzzle, searching for information and gaining new knowledge. Keywords game design, puzzle, pervasive games Aalto-yliopisto, PL 11000, 00076 AALTO www.aalto.fi Taiteen maisterin opinnäytteen tiivistelmä Tekijä Jaakko Kemppainen Työn nimi Designing a Knowledge Based Puzzle Game – Case: After Now Archeology Laitos Media Koulutusohjelma Taiteen maisteri, uusi media, pelisuunnittelu Vuosi 2014 Sivumäärä 86+2 Kieli Englanti Tiivistelmä Tämä opinnäytetyö tutkii tietoon perustuvia pulmapelejä. Se määrittelee tietoon perustuvien pul- mapelien pienen genren pulmiksi, joiden ratkaiseminen vaatii pelin ulkopuolisen tiedon käyttöä työkaluna. Tutkimus toteutettiin tarkastelemalla opinnäytetyöprojektina toteutettua peliä After Now Ar- cheology. Pelin suunnitteluprosessi käydään läpi, jotta saadaan hyvä kuva niistä suunnittelupäätök- sistä, joita sisältyy pelin ulkoisen tiedon ääreen ohjaavien pulmien suunnittelemiseen. Peliä tutki- taan käyttäen useita pelien ja pelisuunnittelun teorioita ja työkaluja. Täten pyritään ymmärtämään, miten After Now Archeology sijoittuu pelien kentälle, mutta myös sen olemusta yleisemmin pelien ja pelaamisen kulttuurissa. Tietoon perustuvien pulmapelien määritelmä tuotetaan analysoimalla muita pulmapelien genreen kuuluvia pelejä ja vertaamalla niitä tässä projektissa tuotettuun peliin. Tulee ilmi, että tietoon pe- rustuvat pulmapelit on vaikea sijoittaa yleiseen pulmapelien genreen – varsinkaan digitaalisten pe- lien kontekstissa. Pelin pervasiivinen luonne koettelee pelaamisen ja taikapiirin rajoja. Voidaan myös havaita, että pelaajat jakautuvat hyvin voimakkaasti niihin, joilla ei riitä aikaa eikä kärsivälli- syyttä tiedon etsimiseen ja niihin, jotka saattavat käyttää tunteja yhden pulman parissa etsien in- formaatiota ja omaksuen uutta tietoa. Avainsanat pelisuunnittelu, puzzle, pulmapelit, pervasiiviset pelit Acknowledgements Thanks go to Miikka Junnila, who read through and commented several work-in-progress versions of this thesis. Special thanks go to Antti Marjala, Jalmari Raippalinna and Tuomas Paavola for sharing my interest towards difficult puzzles. They also tested many parts of After Now Archeology. Thanks to people in Aalto ARTS gaming club, who also participated in testing the game. Apologies go to people who listened my whining about half-real thesis for several years. You know who you are. And people who made Timehunt (we have met in Wien, 2003), The First Door and Torment. Without your inspiration this project would have never even started. Not to mention Antti Ilvessuo, whose achievements in designing puzzles and Easter eggs was a huge inspiration during the last few weeks of the writing process of this thesis. Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................. 8 1.1. Research questions ............................................................................... 8 1.2. Structure ................................................................................................ 9 1.3. Methodology and theoretical background ............................................ 10 2. After Now Archeology ................................................................................ 11 2.1. Background ......................................................................................... 12 2.2. The Name ............................................................................................ 13 2.3. The design question ............................................................................ 13 2.4. Informal design process ....................................................................... 15 2.5. Sources of inspiration and benchmarking ............................................ 15 2.5.1. External knowledge ....................................................................... 16 2.5.2. Traditional digital puzzles .............................................................. 17 2.5.3. Easter eggs and external knowledge ............................................ 19 2.5.4. Books and films ............................................................................. 20 2.6. Overall puzzle design process ............................................................. 21 2.7. Content design ..................................................................................... 24 2.8. Game mechanics ................................................................................. 26 2.9. Narrative .............................................................................................. 26 2.10. Difficulty balancing ............................................................................... 27 2.10.1. Progression of difficulty .............................................................. 30 2.10.2. Paths .......................................................................................... 30 2.10.3. Hints ........................................................................................... 31 2.10.4. Player community and hackers .................................................. 32 2.11. The problem of enlightenment and solving the puzzle ......................... 33 2.12. About the development process .......................................................... 33 2.12.1. Tools .......................................................................................... 34 2.12.2. Blog ............................................................................................ 36 2.12.3. Early testing ............................................................................... 36 2.12.4. Level of implementation ............................................................. 37 2.13. Examples of puzzles ............................................................................ 39 2.13.1. Ancient Skies ............................................................................. 39 2.13.2. Serious Fun ............................................................................... 40 2.13.3. Metromancy ............................................................................... 42 2.14. After Now Archeology summary........................................................... 44 3. Is it a game – the theoretical background .................................................. 46 3.1. Puzzles, games and other pastimes .................................................... 46 3.2. Genre of After Now Archeology ............................................................ 48 3.3. Emergence and progression ................................................................ 51 3.4. Magic Circle ......................................................................................... 52 3.5. Rules of design – broken or not? ......................................................... 54 3.5.1. Rouse’s practical advices .............................................................. 54 3.5.2. Schell’s elements of a good puzzle ............................................... 58 3.6. Game of Learning ................................................................................ 61 4. Knowledge based puzzle ........................................................................... 63 4.1. Many types of puzzles ......................................................................... 63 4.1.1. Previous puzzle discussions ......................................................... 63 4.1.2. Riddles .......................................................................................... 67 4.1.3. Game mechanics based puzzles................................................... 68 4.1.4. Action puzzles ............................................................................... 68 4.1.5. Embedded puzzles .......................................................................