One thing I forgot to tell you guys is that
we have been reading a book called “The Art of Game Design”, which it was
written by Jesse Schell. That book really helps me a lot on my print and play
project. This book comes with a set of cards that each card has a few questions
that relates to game design. Last Friday, our teacher asked us to draw one of
those cards and discuss the questions on it. What I got is called “The Lens of
Transparency” card, here are the questions that I got:
"The Lens of Transparency"
Q1: What are the players’ desires? Does the
interface let the players do what they want?
I think my game heavily rely on the quality
of the graphics on the board and the cards. The style of it is just playing
games and having fun. I think this is also normally what we desire from a board
game. My goal is just having my player laughing all the time while they are
playing. Some convincing illustrations can greatly enhance their experience of
playing. I paid most of my time making fancy graphics on my game board, the
illustration really matches the theme of the game: casual, funny and black
humor. My players get very excited when they move their chess pieces on a
colorful map.
Q2: Is the interface simple enough that
with practice, players will be able to use it without thinking?
Yes, my map looks colorful but very clear
and organized. What a player needs to do on each step has been clearly stated. They do not need to worry too much and
memorize too much to play the game. Different spots on the map have their own
unique color. Even though I have plenty
of different spots, players can understand them all easily.
Q3: Do new players find the interface
intuitive? If not, can it be made more intuitive somehow? Would allowing
players to customize the controls help or hurt?
Yes, I had one of my friends played my game
last night. That was his first time to play it. He can always know what he
should do when he lands on some special spots, because what he is supposed to
do have been clearly listed. There are some steps that have further descriptions;
I typed them on the map somewhere next to those steps. Therefore, my map is
very intuitive. Players can change my map as long as the changes do not affect
the mechanics. Players cannot change the amount of a specific spot, for
example, there are 4 “Magic Card Shop” spots on the map, and players are not
allowed to change the amount of those spot, because it could change the balance
of the game. However, they definitely can move those 4 “Magic Card Shop”
around.
Q4: Does the interface work well in all
situations or is there case (near a corner, going very fast, etc.) when it
behaves in ways that will confuse the player?
My game is preferably played by 4 players
within 1 hour. If there are only 2 players, they might leave 1 or 2 game
mechanics that they did not go through after they finish one round. However if
2 players play another round, they are slightly going to go through all
mechanics. But the map does not confuse my players in any cases.
Q5: Can players continue to use the
interface well in stressful situations, or do they start fumbling with the
controls, or missing crucial information? If so, how can this be improved?
Yes, my players will not lose themselves
even when they feel stressful. One of my friends last night was playing my
game; he was watching documentaries, doing his sketchbook and playing game with
me at the same time. He was stressful because he was doing multitasking but he
did not start fumbling with the controls or missing crucial information,
because a player’s action in each turn is similar, they just need to remember
to place a trap first, using magic if they can, then roll the die. However, he
always loses a game because my game is pretty strategic too, players need to
focus and think their movements.
Q6: Does something confuse players about
the interface? On which of the six interface arrows is it happening?
No comments:
Post a Comment