Devlog #14

This week we developed and started playtesting our board games. On Tuesday, we worked out the rules and how spaces and cards worked (this was also developed on Thursday). We were mainly trying to figure out how the game worked. I expressed wanting to have a game that all sorts of people can enjoy, where the instructions and rules were easy enough and the board looked fun to play. "Some players are fascinated by complex rule systems that provide a platform for performing mental gymnastics while competing with each other. Others might be just as competitive but find that complex rules detract from their enjoyment of the game. Another group is drawn to games that provide rich narrative experiences and give much importance to finely crafted mechanics. Others still are engaged by the beauty and tactile pleasures of the physical components themselves. Some players join a game night for social engagement, without really caring much about what game is being played, or whether or not they do well. Most of the time, players are involved by a combination of these (and other) game elements" (Cajella). I believe our game would be appealing to those wanting a fun night with friends, where the game doesn't matter because they are all having fun while playing it. I think that sort of aspect, where a game is fun enough that you forget troubles or a game where the mechanics are simple enough to be able to get distracted and still get back to the game with little difficulty, is probably one of the best type of games out there. On Thursday, we brought in a prototype of the game and playtested it. We discussed what worked and what didn't work. More material spaces and drawing an action card every turn proved to be a better and more interesting way to play the game, as we were having difficulty trying to initiate heists without proper materials or completely missing the heist spot. I and the others got more involved when we started using the action cards every turn rather than only on heist spots. We originally thought that only taking action cards on the heist spots would be interesting enough, but that was quickly proven wrong by our play test. "Nevertheless, every game designer I interviewed either emphasized or took for granted that a high level of player involvement during a game was a positive thing. Similarly, players expect, or at least hope for, a game to capture their attention and involve them in its systems and world" (Cajella).

We realized on Thursday that there was a lot of randomness in our game. In fact, our game relied purely on randomness of landing on a spot and hoping it'll be a spot that will give a material so there would be some interest. Despite this hiccup, we definitely nailed the uncertainty in the game, described by Geoff Engelstein in his lecture. We never knew if we rolled just enough to pass a negative space, and we never knew if we would get lucky enough to get a heist spot or material spot. "An essential part of games... is a degree of uncertainty and that if there is no uncertainty, then it is not a game... if you know exactly what the outcome is going to be, then there is no reason to play" (2:16). We never rolled the same number each turn, so we never knew if we would get lucky or not, which made it more fun and better to enjoy.

Despite the progress so far with our game, I personally felt like I was doing more of the workload compared to my group members. Before Thursday, I was drawing the board, gathering supplies (such as player pieces, a spinner, a box to hold the game, cardboard to make pop ups of heist locations, etc.), making designs for the heist spots, and sketched a design for the box to hold our game. I felt as though my group members weren't contributing enough, as one only did a rough draft of the rules, another did makeshift cards, and the final one was supposed to go material shopping but did not. Thankfully, the one that didn't go material shopping offered to paint the box and fix the spinner, which definitely helped with my workload.