WHAT'S MINE IS YOURS: PLAY TESTING SESSION AND NOTES

   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