So finally got to play it as a competing game for the first time. Two pairs, me and Rob and Mick and Chris, so I am inside and outside at the same time. Tried to bring out the rings some more with the use of coloured tape, a different one for each layer. For this try I thought that we do the same shake each round. Then which ever pair has it down first, they call it and then do it, and then the other team kind of judge it’s success and there is a negotiation about if they can go forwards to the next ring. Then if it is decided they didn’t do it good enough, the other pair have a go. Eventually one team goes all the way to the centre. There is an ethical dilemma of the other team judging how good they do it and if they can pass on, as the failing team is left behind by a positive decision.
As we begin round one, I am wondering now, if maybe the mechanic could be that actually both teams have a set time. Rather than at the moment with it being open till a team calls it. At the beginning I was going to have us do diff versions, but as I explained it in the space, I realised with us doing the same version meant that the team who didn’t do it first could pick it up if the pair failed and have a go, which seems a better game play mechanic. Also if I expand the game in the public realm and play with a number of pairs, I could project the giff large and all try and do it. So that would increase the impact of the work, making it become very visual. Also if there are a number of teams playing and I do the time limit, it would mean that at the end all would show what they have, and then be judged. Though this could give an unfair advantage to those who come later in he showing. It would make the game slightly asymmetrical.
It was more difficult than I imagined. To begin it was pretty hard to do, and I started to think again about slowing the giffs down As we played, Mick and Chris kind of started running a way with it. Bringing to the fore the gamefull structure problem, where one couple pull ahead and even though only four rungs, they seemed to be the inevitable winners and that made me loose interest a bit. Can you really have such a structure in an art game where one person is visibly so ahead. This is the Monopoly problem. One solution was some form of penalty for not succeeding at the shake if you called it. This would temper peoples speed in declaring if not ready. Not sure. The mechanic was raised that you go back one? Is this though drawing out the game-play beyond it’s natural duration of play? It is only four rounds, but want to keep it quick and responsive, an immediate game. If you add in a penalty, then it begins to go back and forth and the end can become time distant. . From today’s experience of play I think penalising people who say they can do it and can’t might be a way forwards as a game mechanism. It needs a large location, a full circle and a number of pairs next I think.
Rule transference, at the moment I have nothing for this, and it is me explaining how the game works. When it is running particpatns in it will hopefully demonstrate to a surrounding public how the game operates.
Shake down and shake off are two alternative names given to the game-play
I found that once we started moving into a more competitive arena, and people in teams playing against each other, the small victories idea didn’t seem so important. It is really a game mechanic, and seemed a bit stuck on, except a couple of times when it did seem to contextualise the shake. Is it because the shakes now about progression more than before when it was one team gong thought the game on their own.
The doffing did seem kind of irrelevant, I might need to tie it in more to what is happening in the game-play. It needs to be more of an aesthetic that affects the outcome perhaps. Or is it a role playing aspect to bring people into and help create the world of the activity? I am wondering about gloves, as a viusal prop.
I found the rings a bit small to stand in, when there were the two of us. If it is a large circular structure then people can be around the perimeter. How important is it that they do the action in the ringed area. Might help with some role play rule aspect. Surely as long as at the end of their go they return to their level, or begin there, the action taking place in it, doesn’t really reflect on the game-play experience, or the art aesthetic.
There is a great deal of me explaining and helping, and organising this structure, when compared to the other game artworks, that seem to run themselves.
The fact that both groups were attempting the same handshake meant we didn’t meed a second screen, and I can just work off the one screen. So as a public game this probably best,as one large projection will be enough for all to play.
The rules here are loosest and leave the most room for player judgement.
It has though the strongest end goal.
Can the handshakes be seen as something you have possession over, like the ball in football. If you have the handshake it is yours and the other team are trying to get if from you. Hmmmmm How to structure that more, and maybe take away the rings and concentrate on handshake possession as then it becomes more about entering the game-world.
Mick seemed to think you shouldn’t be too loud or obvious in how you try to lean it, as the others can hear and learn from this.
OK Looking through the footage, there is a bit on the 6th handshake, it is filmed on the phone, and I say to Chris, OK you have a go, and I reach out and take the phone. Could it be in some-way that the recording device is the object, or toy that people are competing for possession of in some way. Could this also be the defining shot, sometimes the visual documentation can be the central organ