DIGC310 · Digital Media

Playtest #5



The people involved in this playtest (and links to their own game development) were: Ivan; Alex; someone whose name I’ve forgotten, but who had lovely hair; and myself.
Check out their games xo

In this playtest, I tried utilising the time board in a portrait form (as opposed to landscape), but found there was a problem bundling the cards, thus I have come to the conclusion that landscape playing boards are best suited.

Another board related issue which came up in this play test, is how easy it is to lose track of how many card ‘units’ are on field. You are allowed a total of 6 card units on field, with blue freelancer cards counting as 1, and green part time cards counting as 2.  Miscellaneous cards are autoplayed, and thus count for 0, and Full Time Job cards are only won on an empty field, but must be played on board immediately counting for 0 units.  Needless to say, it’s a little daunting, and easy to forget.  Perhaps a job unit tracker would be a good idea; with a total of 6 tokens per player, which can be placed over/removed from board units, for easy tracking. (Would love feedback or counter thoughts to this idea if anyone has any suggestions)

I asked Ivan to provide me a bit of more in depth feedback and he responded with this:

“It was hard at first to understand the rules, but once the game started gaining momentum it was easy to play on.  The time board was really good at keeping track of the jobs we have.  Getting a final job was hard because the exposure needed to gain was just waaayyyyyyyyyy too high.  Overall, the jobs are very digital media and there can be expansion packs for like marketing and art?”

Ivan touched upon a few points which really need to be addressed.  As mentioned in Playtest #4, the jobs was also an issue with exposure levels.  I have not yet had the chance to implement the changes outlined in #4, however I believe this will solved a lot of the issues.

Ivan also brought up an aspect which I hadn’t really touched upon since my class presentation: expansion packs.  I still wish to have expansion packs available so that players can add different game elements when they partake.  I was originally thinking different card backs would be a good way to differentiate these expansion packs, however after more thought and discussion with past playtesters, I’ve decided that it gives too much information away to the other players.  What I need to resolve re: expansion packs is how to identify them as separate decks without giving away information to other players, short of including a list of the cards included in each specific deck. (I’m open to suggestions if anyone has a bright idea!)

The players I had came in with a bit of uncertainty during this playtest, but left the (unfinished) game having had fun.  I think they were a bit daunted because the game is 1. long, and 2. when first coming into the game you have to wrap your head around a fair bit of sequential, technicalities.

What got this group really into it was the aspect of trading and bargaining.  This team made the playtest awesome by simply capitalising upon the concept of trading cards/cash/jobs/etc.  I currently have no hard rules on trading, but the only thing I said was off limits was trading exposure, and cards which were in hand.  Perhaps more development needs to be done re: limiting trading/bargaining aspects, but it definitely made the game more interesting for a group who were a bit reluctant at first.


One thought on “Playtest #5

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s