BRIEF 3: ARCADE GAME

The computer game I have chosen to observe, record and analyse for this assignment is the interactive version of Deal Or No Deal, a spin-off from a current television programme by TM Endemol. The game may be considered metaphorical, as it is taken from another medium and has been redesigned and translated into an arcade game format. For this exercise, a User was observed playing the game. The User had never watched the television programme of the same name.
The game features exclusively touch-screen technology as the interface. It requires the User/Player to select strategies or answer multiple-choice questions to advance in the game. There is no joystick, mouse or other hand-held device, as no navigation is required. Obviously, it is very different to an action game or a war game. Progress is made solely by selecting icons and boxes that are displayed on screen. The opening screen features icons for Menu, Info (that is, the rules) or Start. As is standard for this type of game, it is housed in a lectern-like box at which the User stands.
It is immediately evident that the game designer seemed to assume prior knowledge (that is, that the User has watched the game on television). The rules are not simple; they are a fairly complex interaction between choosing a box (with a corresponding value), eliminating other boxes (again with their corresponding values), answering questions and – at a certain point in the game – considering a banker’s offer. At the start of the game the User can elect to read the rules (by selecting the relevant icon on screen), which flash up on screen, but the list does not stay up long enough for a beginner to read through and understand. The User I observed had to call it up several times.

In terms of visuals, the game draws substantially on the television programme, with a similar setting and featuring the same presenter, Noel Edmunds. He is seen in video image or as a still image at different points of the game. As the game is part quiz show (namely, progress has to be made by correctly answering multiple choice questions), it is also connected to a voice recording (Edmunds’ voice), which responds appropriately “correct” or “wrong” to the answers selected. The screen also features a timer – shaped like a clock, with one hand - that runs for one minute, and can knock out a player that takes too long to answer a question or select a box.

The forms of interaction implemented are therefore instructing (that is, the rules), conversing (video and voice) and icon selection (touch screen technology).

In terms of the target audience, this seems aimed at the television viewers and the lack of action and movement suggest it will be preferred by an older audience. The amount of text that has to be absorbed to play, confirms this.

The translation from TV to arcade game does not seem to have been entirely resolved. In the television version, it is the suspense (as viewers know, often wrung out by the presenter) and the audience participation that ratchets up the emotion. This constitutes a driving force in the television version. That suspense and drive is not evident in the arcade game. Of course, the size of the prize is another downer – hundreds of thousands in the television game, but only a few pounds (or game credits) for the arcade game. The player’s score is displayed, as well as those of the top players (that is, previous players), and presumably that is meant to egg on the User. But all in all, one is left with the feeling that Deal Or No Deal succeeds on television by being a game played in front of a studio audience and backed by big advertising money. The translation into arcade game does not seem to be an entire success, nor does it expand games technology.