I had an entire 4 hours to play test 'I Do' with multiple groups to gather the notes I needed to improve and refine the game's mechanics. Each play test session gave me 20 minutes to let the players test the game and a further 5 minutes to receive feedback from the players.
As you can clearly see, the players enjoyed themselves very much when playing 'I Do', however regardless there where still criticisms by the end of the session. Note: The texts in bold are the actual play test notes. The text following each note is my response to those notes.
PLAY TEST SESSION ONE
ORIGINAL GOAL LIMITED
GAME – PLAYERS COULD BUY THE BEST ITEMS INSTANTLY AND WIN GAME.
The goal
needed to be changed completely, therefore the game’s goal now focuses around
the last team standing – this ensured that the game continued on and was
determined by chance and strategy.
PLAYERS ALWAYS WENT
CLOCKWISE INSTEAD OF ANTI-CLOCKWISE.
The game
originally asked players to move anti-clockwise, however due to confusion and
the fact that most board games ask players to move clock-wise, the game has been changed to answer criticism and help players understand the game.
PLAYERS COULD BUY THE ITEMS STRAIGHT
AWAY.
As the
game’s main goal changed, rather than a focus on collecting, the game has
switched to survival. Thus, players no longer buy items at choice; instead they
have to no matter what.
PLAYERS LIKED THE
CARD IDEA, AND ITEMS WERE THE MOST BORING PART OF GAME.
The items
had no value or identity beside the “I” or they were assigned. Therefore both
items and venues now have their own cards that players pick up. This will
answer the demand for cards whilst also fix the issue of boredom when working
with items.
PEOPLE ENJOYED LUCK
CARDS IN THE GAME.
The luck
cards in the game were a big hit, so in answer to this reaction, more luck
cards were made and opportunities to land on them were increased.
PLAYERS KNEW WHAT WAS
COMING NEXT OF WHAT COULD POSSIBLY HAPPEN.
As the game
was linear, players had an idea of exactly where they could land. As a result,
chance cards where added which moved the players back and forth – this adds
more cards (the most loved aspect of the
game) and more variety.
PLAYERS COULD PLAY
THE GAME ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT EVER HELPING TEAM MATE.
The game was
so rewarding that players never had to use teamwork. More minuses where added
into the game to promote teamwork and make it essential in order to win.
PLAYERS SPENT TOO
MUCH TIME HANDLING MONEY RATHER THAN PLAYING.
Although
explained, the currency system required a lot of calculations, therefore all
currencies and amounts where changed to denominations of 20 in order to
simplify process and shift focus to the game.
PLAY TEST SESSION TWO
PLAYERS LOSING MONEY
ON FIRST TURN.
The first six spaces were too punishing, thus more reward spaces were
added to ensure the first move the player makes is positive or exciting,
starting players off to an entertaining game.
PLAYERS FACED THE THREATS OF BEING
KNOCKED OUT OF THE GAME ON THE FIRST CYCLE.
To increase
the players starting chances, the starting budget was increased to £300 instead
of £200 – this balanced out the sense of despair and hope.
PLAYERS EARNED TOO MUCH MONEY TO FACE
ANY THREAT.
As the game progressed,
players were earning close to £2000 in total, ensuring the game would continue
on for too long and that any threat wouldn't affect the player. The only solution
was too add more double misuses and to remove one double plus in favour of a
smaller single plus space.
FIRST TWO TURNS TOO
DANGEROUS FOR PLAYERS.
Through each
game, the players were still more likely to face punishment in the first two
turns. Therefore the first 8 spaces were made even more rewarding with the
addition of more double plus spaces.
PLAYERS WERE HAVING
LONG STREAKS OF BAD LUCK.
To stop long
streaks of bad luck, the reward and punishment spaces were spread out more
evenly.
DIAMOND POINT GAVE
TOO MUCH MONEY.
Every player
crosses the diamond point at some point, thus each player was gaining the large
reward. Seeming as though the money was a certainty, reducing the amount earned
at this point was acceptable, therefore it was dropped to £200 – not too low and not too high now further mechanics had changed.
The first play test session focused on the
large issues of the game, whereas as the second session focused on the little
issues that could polish the game. However when carrying out the second play
test session I noticed these smaller issues actually gave birth to game
breaking problems. Since these two play test sessions I have rebuilt the game
from ground up taking into account the complaints as well as the positives. And
through play tests at home, the game seems to have developed far beyond what it
was. However, further play tests have to be carried out, as the game may not be
perfect.
NEXT POST: WHAT'S MINE IS YOURS: FINAL INSTRUCTIONS
